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

pdeeh · Apr 24, 2015

And what if you are using your lf negatives to make, say, contacts with salted paper, or even cyanos on a heavily textured paper ... Are you then "wasting" all that fine grain and resolution?
Or maybe it's that you just prefer the process, or have some particular conceptual aesthetic in mind, or ... Whatever ...
People sometimes simply use different formats for unknowable reasons.
If you limit the discussion to grain or resolution you can only look at difference from a single (limited) perspective

RobC · 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.

Oh yeah?

Can you tell me where I can get the following in 120 and 4x5 format?

http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX_Films/ADOX_Films/ADOX_CMS_Films.html

markbarendt · Apr 24, 2015

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

My further edit:

momus said:
I seldom see it!

and

momus said:
I still say, based on what I see around the house

momus's standard is fine for momus. He's the judge in his house.

Old-N-Feeble · Apr 24, 2015

ciniframe said:
Ah come on, give them a break, that shot was only off by a factor of three. And for our next trick we'll vaporize the pacific ocean.

...and create one BIG damn hole in what our best scientific minds 'know' is true until proven otherwise in often-times "Oh... CRAP!!" moments of lessons learned.

IMHO, it's been proven countless times that a four-fold increase in film area, other factors identical, allows for much larger prints while maintaining similar quality at the SAME viewing distance. So... 8x10 inch prints with 135 film will look roughly as good as 16x20 inch prints from 6x7cm and 30x40 inch prints from 4x5. And this is at the same 24 inch viewing distance. This assumes great care is taken in all areas of the processes. Again, this is my personal opinion formed and set by many years of experience. I've been wrong many times about many things... but not this.

The above stated, I do hope I don't have a big hole blown into what I 'think' I know.

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 24, 2015

Dinesh said:
Everything?

Almost.

RPC · Apr 24, 2015

RobC said:
Oh yeah?

Can you tell me where I can get the following in 120 and 4x5 format?

http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX_Films/ADOX_Films/ADOX_CMS_Films.html

Not sure what you getting at. If you are referring to the quote "detail is about using fine grained film" those were the OP's words not mine.

My post was generalizing, not taking any particular film into account.

RobC · Apr 24, 2015

RPC said:
Not sure what you getting at. If you are referring to the quote "detail is about using fine grained film" those were the OP's words not mine.

My post was generalizing, not taking any particular film into account.

The point is that there are options open to the 135 format photographer to achieve very large prints of very high quality which are not open to the 120 or 4x5 photographer. i.e. different films.

So once we forget the apples to apples comparison we can achieve things that larger formats can only achieve by virtue of being larger format.

RobC said:
I think that if you have excellent technique, the right film and development, high quality lenses, then its possible to produce very high quality prints from 35mm which approach what MF can do at same size print providing the print is not too big.

I'm sceptical about the 2.5M corner to corner claim but at a quarter of that print area we still have a large gallery sized print from 135 format using this particular Adox film.

Bill Burk · Apr 24, 2015

Drew Wiley,

As the two people on this forum most likely to already have photographs of Bigfoot in our negatives, I think we should come to an agreement.

I know 4x5 on 11x14 gives a look that is creamy and pure. Details are real, not artifacts of the grain.

From 6x9 on 11x14, the look is nearly as detailed, forests still stand out as individual trees.

With 35mm on 11x14 there is visible grain, but it doesn't destroy the image, and in many cases enhances the appearance of natural objects like rocks and grass.

I think there are other things we can agree on but thought I'd start there.

frank · Apr 24, 2015

pdeeh said:
And what if you are using your lf negatives to make, say, contacts with salted paper, or even cyanos on a heavily textured paper ... Are you then "wasting" all that fine grain and resolution?
Or maybe it's that you just prefer the process, or have some particular conceptual aesthetic in mind, or ... Whatever ...
People sometimes simply use different formats for unknowable reasons.
If you limit the discussion to grain or resolution you can only look at difference from a single (limited) perspective

Valid point, but not the topic/issue on this thread.

frank · Apr 24, 2015

markbarendt said:
My further edit:

and

momus's standard is fine for momus. He's the judge in his house.

Sure. But since he started a thread on this topic, isn't it natural to assume he is inviting discussion?

georg16nik · Apr 24, 2015

RobC said:
Oh yeah?

Can you tell me where I can get the following in 120 and 4x5 format?

http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX_Films/ADOX_Films/ADOX_CMS_Films.html

http://www.fotoimpex.de/shopen/films/adox-cms-20-13536-35mm-36-exposure.html
http://www.fotoimpex.de/shopen/films/adox-cms-20-120-medium-format-film.html
http://www.fotoimpex.de/shopen/films/adox-cms-20-ii-102x127-cm-4x5-inch-50-sheets.html

You might need chemo as well http://www.fotoimpex.de/shopen/chemistry/adox-adotech-ii-100ml-to-develop-6-adox-cms-20-filme.html

miha · Apr 24, 2015

RobC said:
Oh yeah?

Can you tell me where I can get the following in 120 and 4x5 format?

http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX_Films/ADOX_Films/ADOX_CMS_Films.html

Rob, CMS 20 is available in 120 and 4x5 as well.

Ken Nadvornick · Apr 24, 2015

Old-N-Feeble said:
...and create one BIG damn hole in what our best scientific minds 'know' is true until proven otherwise in often-times "Oh... CRAP!!" moments of lessons learned.

It was called "Tickling the dragon's tail..."

Given the above hair-raising true story, any experimental data obtained by Bill from a Minox negative will be pretty tame by comparison.

Ken

RobC · Apr 24, 2015

That's blown my theory then. I didn't think it was as their website doesn't show it. Mind you, finding a 4x5 lens that can do F2.8 may be problematic and I don't fancy the exposure times at a 4x5 lens sweet spot which is around F22 for 150mm lens.

AND

if it's grain free in 36inch wide print from 135 format then the argument isn't worth arguing about even if larger format can eventually out perform 135 format.

frank · Apr 24, 2015

RobC said:
That's blown my theory then. I didn't think it was as their website doesn't show it. Mind you, finding a 4x5 lens that can do F2.8 may be problematic and I don't fancy the exposure times at a 4x5 lens sweet spot which is around F22 for 150mm lens.

We've already agreed that for certain applications, certain cameras and formats are preferable. Again, that's beside the point.

You guys are almost as hard to keep on track as a roomful of kindergarten students.

markbarendt · Apr 24, 2015

frank said:
Sure. But since he started a thread on this topic, isn't it natural to assume he is inviting discussion?

Sure, but he added plenty of personal caveats. Every personal caveat comes with a trade off, like his paper choice.

I don't care how sharp or big a negative gets if it's printed small, on a fuzzy fiber based paper, the end result might not look all that sharp.

pdeeh · Apr 24, 2015

frank said:
You guys are almost as hard to keep on track as a roomful of kindergarten students.)

But you don't own the thread, and it isn't your task to keep it on the track that you think it should be on.

Threads are live discursive things, and they get a life of their own, and a good thing too

frank · Apr 24, 2015

pdeeh said:
But you don't own the thread, and it isn't your task to keep it on the track that you think it should be on. Threads are live discursive things, and they get a life of their own, and a good thing too

Okay then. So, what's a good type of safelight to use in my darkroom? What are you guys using?

RobC · Apr 24, 2015

frank said:
We've already agreed that for certain applications, certain cameras and formats are preferable. Again, that's beside the point.

You guys are almost as hard to keep on track as a roomful of kindergarten students.

Wasn't me who brought Bambi into the conversation

frank · Apr 24, 2015

What is interesting is that the OP has not participated (causing others to make assumptions on his behalf).
It's kind of like: I'm going to post something contentious and then just sit back and enjoy the melee.

markbarendt · Apr 24, 2015

He posted twice 1 & 62.

RPC · Apr 24, 2015

As I alluded to in one of my earlier posts, if you had a film with fine enough grain, I don't believe you would see any difference between formats except for lens characteristics. But, even if such films exist that doesn't mean those films would have other desirable characteristics to the user. So they wouldn't be of much use to those people. It is the general principle that larger formats, due to the larger image size, have better detail and tonality due to finer grain than smaller formats for a given print size, is what the OP and others, needs to understand. Many photographers now and in the past have and do benefit from this, by getting good detail from any film type.

DREW WILEY · Apr 24, 2015

Posting an absurd postulate to begin with just invites a poke in the eye. But on a legit note, this is sometimes a valid kind of beginner query.
I get a kick out of preceding threads, like, "If you can't see grain in a 36 inch print from 35mm film, why does it matter"? It might matter because that either means your enlarger is badly out of focus or you should visit an eye doctor fast! Or maybe you just can't make out grain
because everything is sheer mush. That's what taggers with spray paint are good at. I prefer things in focus.

RPC · Apr 24, 2015

I think you are all correct. It is as if the OP was constructed for the purpose of stirring the pot.

Bill Burk · Apr 24, 2015

DREW WILEY said:
I prefer things in focus.

True...

You just reminded me of an advantage of 4x5 on 11x14. Since you can't see the grain anyway... You can't see the mush from an out-of-alignment enlarger... It just looks like part of the image is out of focus.

You can't pull that stunt with 35mm enlargements. The grain going soft and sharp is distracting.

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

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency