I just don't get the 35mm vs bigger format thing.

Ken Nadvornick · Apr 24, 2015

I would gently caution everyone to try to stick to the issue at hand, and not allow themselves to be manipulated off center line without realizing it. There is a lot of self-serving obfuscation going on. Sometimes it's hard to see through it because it tries to take advantage of the better side of our natures. We don't want to believe what we see because it's so far from what we might do ourselves. But it's important to see with clarity.

Try to listen carefully to what is being said. Then ask yourself why it is being said. Then if you sense the disconnect, step gingerly back onto center line and just keep moving forward.

I anxiously await Bill's good faith attempt at comparison. For me it's not a personally vested competition. I have no prejudices regarding possible outcomes. All possible outcomes may be valid. It's only the furtherance of knowledge on this issue that I'm after.

All of the other remaining personality disorders can, well, just go kick the dogs. Just not MY dog...

Ken

Ken Nadvornick · Apr 24, 2015

Bill Burk said:
In terms of really sharp Minox negs, I don't have that many because I regarded it as a toy and was usually careless taking pictures.

Then that could be an additional complicating variable. It might work against the smaller format unless the larger format was made equally carelessly.

Not to dump more work on your shoulders, but if what you say is true, perhaps a new baseline Minox negative should be made just for the purposes of this comparison exercise? Just to increase the credibility of the results?

Ken

removed account4 · Apr 24, 2015

i was going to write a long response to your post film_man
but i won't.

i will just say i do not have a bias against equipment, technique &c
but i do have a bias against people spreading BS as the truth and
if i see nonsense i will speak up.
not only in this thread there have been lots of claims spread as the gospel
on the interweb so i spoke up and will continue.

a short list:

you can't use print developer as film developer
expired film should never be used
coffee sucks as a film developer
you can use baking soda as a fixer
sprint film and paper developer are exactly the same formula
you can't expose tmy-2 at iso800 and expose normally ( as kodak states )
the bigger thecamera the better the photographer
the more expensive the gear the more competant the photographer
you shouldn't crop
modern electronic cameras are crap
there ARE magic bullets
lomo / lo fi cameras are terrible
people who use low tech equipment are posers and losers

the list is long ... and i am getting tired of typing

the most recent claims that 35mm can't be enlarged to 8x10 ...

if someone can't enlarge a fine grained film processed in a fine grained devloper
and have it look OK like a tight nice contrast fine grained print, maybe THEY should
get a tripod and work on technique if that is what they are looking for
it will be a lot cheaper than buying new gear that friends, family, peers and internet
sales people sell as the "perfect camera".

film_man · Apr 24, 2015

jnanian said:
i was going to write a long response to your post film_man
but i won't.

+ a lot of stuff....

Well if anyone said all these things on your short list (I must admit I haven't read all 30 pages of this thread) then I will most certainly agree with you. However I will say that I do see a difference between a 8x10 print from 120 and from 35mm. Not that one is better than the other, just different.

film_man · Apr 24, 2015

markbarendt said:
This basis of this thread is an argument about what the definition of "good enough" is.

What you are missing is that the advantages, of any format or tool, aren't necessarily obvious, nor cheap, nor important, nor meaningful, to any other given person.

"Good enough" is a purely personal decision.

Maybe that is the problem. People try to figure out "good enough" whereas I just see different looks, which is probably why I'm a bit out of tune with this debate.

There is the 35mm look, the 645 look, the square, the 6x7, the large format look. The only comparison that says this is better than the other is the one involving a brick wall/test chart and a microscope. I don't like shooting brick walls, I don't have a test chart and I certainly don't own a microscope. Denying there is a difference between different formats is just silly, in my books. Saying one is better than other is just as silly, in my books. Talking about lines per mm or microscopes or circles of confusion is just beyond my interests when it comes to photography.

Les Sarile · Apr 24, 2015

film_man said:
Maybe that is the problem. People try to figure out "good enough" whereas I just see different looks, which is probably why I'm a bit out of tune with this debate.

There is the 35mm look, the 645 look, the square, the 6x7, the large format look. The only comparison that says this is better than the other is the one involving a brick wall/test chart and a microscope. I don't like shooting brick walls, I don't have a test chart and I certainly don't own a microscope. Denying there is a difference between different formats is just silly, in my books. Saying one is better than other is just as silly, in my books. Talking about lines per mm or microscopes or circles of confusion is just beyond my interests when it comes to photography.

Technical, aesthetics and interests plays a part.
Would Eddie Adam's image of the Vietnamese who was shot in the head be improved had he used a large format?
Would any one of Ansel Adam's famous large format images have been devalued had he used a miniature format?
Would Andy Warhol's soup can be any different be any different in any other format?

frank · Apr 24, 2015

jnanian said:
i was going to write a long response to your post film_man
but i won't.

i will just say i do not have a bias against equipment, technique &c
but i do have a bias against people spreading BS as the truth and
if i see nonsense i will speak up.
not only in this thread there have been lots of claims spread as the gospel
on the interweb so i spoke up and will continue.

a short list:

you can't use print developer as film developer
expired film should never be used
coffee sucks as a film developer
you can use baking soda as a fixer
sprint film and paper developer are exactly the same formula
you can't expose tmy-2 at iso800 and expose normally ( as kodak states )
the bigger thecamera the better the photographer
the more expensive the gear the more competant the photographer
you shouldn't crop
modern electronic cameras are crap
there ARE magic bullets
lomo / lo fi cameras are terrible
people who use low tech equipment are posers and losers

the list is long ... and i am getting tired of typing

the most recent claims that 35mm can't be enlarged to 8x10 ...

if someone can't enlarge a fine grained film processed in a fine grained devloper
and have it look OK like a tight nice contrast fine grained print, maybe THEY should
get a tripod and work on technique if that is what they are looking for
it will be a lot cheaper than buying new gear that friends, family, peers and internet
sales people sell as the "perfect camera".

Hi John, let's try not to muddy the waters with other issues and let's be clear about the one under discussion, which is: there is no discern able difference in prints (normal size range of 8x10, 11x14, 16x20) made with 135, 120, 4x5, and 8x10.

analoguey · Apr 24, 2015

So what's the conclusion,

A) small format's all crap so the Leica/Bessa, Nikon F are all gonna be given away for the price of shipping?

Or

B) the Mamiya 7s, Fuji/Bessa 6x7s the Linhofs, Sinars, Xxl Schneiders etc are crap and gonna be given away for price of shipping?

[emoji56] [emoji12]

NJH · Apr 24, 2015

Well if a cropped to rectangle from 6x6 was good enough for Ansel in his later career than a 645 should surely be good enough with all the advances we have had in film technology.

frank · Apr 24, 2015

analoguey said:
So what's the conclusion,

A) small format's all crap so the Leica/Bessa, Nikon F are all gonna be given away for the price of shipping?

Or

B) the Mamiya 7s, Fuji/Bessa 6x7s the Linhofs, Sinars, Xxl Schneiders etc are crap and gonna be given away for price of shipping?

[emoji56] [emoji12]

Hyperbole is not helpful. The issue is whether or not there is a discernable difference in normal size enlargements between 135, 120, and sheet film formats, all other factors being equal, and not stacked in favour of one format, and discounting aesthetics.

RobC · Apr 24, 2015

300+ posts indicates people are interested enough to argue about it. 300+ posts also indicates that there is a lot of dis-agreement about it which usually indicates a lack of understanding about the topic by a significant number of people.
The less people understand the more debate there is. Look at the zone system for example, if it wasn't difficult for people to grasp they wouldn't debate it.

p.s. how did minox creep into the discussion and what's it going to prove to anyone except the person who does the test/comparison. 135 vs 120 format test would be much more useful to the discussion at hand.

frank · Apr 24, 2015

NJH said:
Well if a cropped to rectangle from 6x6 was good enough for Ansel in his later career than a 645 should surely be good enough with all the advances we have had in film technology.

Again, "good enough" is not the criterion being discussed here.

analoguey · Apr 24, 2015

frank said:
Hyperbole is not helpful. The issue is whether or not there is a discernable difference in normal size enlargements between 135, 120, and sheet film formats, all other factors being equal, and not stacked in favour of one format, and discounting aesthetics.

Hey... If ppl feel either scenario a or b applied... I'd be lining up for the goods, not argue with them.[emoji12] I was just checking if a conclusion was reached! [emoji48]

Dinesh · Apr 24, 2015

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I do everything in the darkroom.

Everything?

frank · Apr 24, 2015

analoguey said:
Hey... If ppl feel either scenario a or b applied... I'd be lining up for the goods, not argue with them.[emoji12] I was just checking if a conclusion was reached! [emoji48]

Neither of your scenarios is applicable.

Bill Burk · Apr 24, 2015

RobC said:
p.s. how did minox creep into the discussion and what's it going to prove to anyone except the person who does the test/comparison. 135 vs 120 format test would be much more useful to the discussion at hand.

It crept in due to an accidental misquote. Probably because I provided an example shot from Minox.

So rather than let it drop for lack of ownership, I decided to make it mine. We can look back on later and either laugh or say I was right.

I am hoping we get a little laugh with a bit of clarity on the limit.

removed account4 · Apr 24, 2015

film_man said:
Well if anyone said all these things on your short list (I must admit I haven't read all 30 pages of this thread) then I will most certainly agree with you. However I will say that I do see a difference between a 8x10 print from 120 and from 35mm. Not that one is better than the other, just different.

film_man

people haven't said all those things in THIS thread
but over the years i have been here on apug .
it is great you can see the differences.

Ken Nadvornick · Apr 24, 2015

frank said:
Hi John, let's try not to muddy the waters with other issues and let's be clear about the one under discussion, which is: there is no discern able difference in prints (normal size range of 8x10, 11x14, 16x20) made with 135, 120, 4x5, and 8x10.

Frank, I greatly admire your ability, standing as you are in the midst of a vast herd of goofy cats, to stand your ground on that center line. No matter how obfuscated others try so hard to make it out to be.

I also greatly admire your ability to not take the bait.

Commendable indeed...

Ken

removed account4 · Apr 24, 2015

frank said:
Hi John, let's try not to muddy the waters with other issues and let's be clear about the one under discussion, which is: there is no discern able difference in prints (normal size range of 8x10, 11x14, 16x20) made with 135, 120, 4x5, and 8x10.

please read what i said, a few posts ago, a few pages ago, even 20 pages ago ... it wasn't that.
not sure why people keep changing what i said. enlarging to 8x10 isn't out of the ordinary, maybe to some it is ?

the post, and list of BS was a direct response to film_man's statements about me.
if you read the last paragraph in the post you quoted it deals precisely with the topics at hand.

film_man · Apr 24, 2015

Les Sarile said:
Technical, aesthetics and interests plays a part.
Would Eddie Adam's image of the Vietnamese who was shot in the head be improved had he used a large format?
Would any one of Ansel Adam's famous large format images have been devalued had he used a miniature format?
Would Andy Warhol's soup can be any different be any different in any other format?

I don't know, you tell me. Would the dead guy's death be improved by using a shotgun vs the handgun used? Same result, different splatter pattern and visual effect when it comes to what's left of his head.

DREW WILEY · Apr 24, 2015

Do people here need glasses or something. Anyone who thinks a even a 16x20 inch print made from 35mm resembles one made from large format film has got something seriously wrong either with their eyes or with their head. What is "better" is a different question of style and
esthetics. But when it comes to tonality, detail, overall richness, Godzilla has just one answer to Bambi: "STOMP"! Or borrowing from the
gun analogy just preceding, you might hunt canaries with a BB gun; but it's probably not the best choice for rhinos or water buffalo.

frank · Apr 24, 2015

Okay, let's take the 16x20 print size and the 8x10 film format off the table, although the 12x18 prints mentioned by the OP is pretty close.

frank · Apr 24, 2015

Here is the OP's first post, edited to highlight the salient facts:

momus said:
I am forever seeing remarks about how much more detail there is in a MF negative compared to 35mm. Funny thing is, I seldom see it!

Yes, the Leica negs are a little grainier than the ones from the Rolleiflex, but that's part of the bargain.

Even when I look at shots from my brief foray into LF, 4x5 I'm not seeing it.

Some of my 35mm negs are printed full frame to 12x18, you can get a good print that size from 35mm, w/ the understanding that there will be more grain.

I REALLY don't see much difference between 120 and 4x5.

detail is more about using fine grained film

RPC · Apr 24, 2015

"detail is more about using fine grained film"

Well, if you use larger formats, finer grain is an automatic with a given print size. And with the finer grain comes better detail and tonal qualities. The smaller grain is enough to override any differences in lens characteristics between the formats.

frank · Apr 24, 2015

RPC said:
"detail is more about using fine grained film"

Well, if you use larger formats, finer grain is an automatic with a given print size. And with the finer grain comes better detail and tonal qualities. The smaller grain is enough to override any differences is lens characteristics between the formats.

This is my understanding as well.

I just don't get the 35mm vs bigger format thing.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency