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

[Old-N-Feeble]

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

HERE

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

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.

It was an absolutely scintillating analogy.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

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

That, sir, is an untruth. This thread is still about RC aircraft, ain't it?

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

Wisdom in a few words Thomas.
Thank you !

 

[markbarendt]

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.

Interesting.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

I guess I'm really lucky. The type of photography I do doesn't really require a lot of detail, so I'm in the camp of - who gives a shit?

None of my photographs become better because of more detail and resolution.

Oops I forgot the Saint Quote !

 

[TheTrailTog]

Not quite sure I want to jump into this thread, but as a "Level 2" I know I don't know anything and I'd like to learn. Now all subjective comparisons aside, assuming for example you are using the same film in 35mm and MF, for every square inch of film both formats would have the same amount of silver grains. Let's further assume that comparable focal lengths are used so that the framing is the same and the lenses are both capable of infinite levels of resolution. If we were to compare 35mm (24x36mm) to 6x9 (56x84mm), so that aspect ratios are the same, the 6x9 negative should have over 5 times the amount of silver grains than the 35mm, which in my mind means that the 6x9 should have over 5 times the resolution. Higher resolution means more detail, which is my take away of what this whole argument is about. Using this logic, how could a smaller format ever compare to a larger format when it comes down to the amount of detail available? Of course this argument is completely ignoring whether or not we could actually perceive this difference in a final print.

 

[Bill Burk]

Xia_Ke,

The larger you go, the more resolution your film will have the capacity to hold.

But a print doesn't use all that resolution. If you look in my gallery at Little Sur and Bear Creek (my first two photographs posted here), you will see a print from 35mm and a print from 4x5 that even under a 30x microscope I cannot tell one has better detail than the other.

I figure if you have to use a 30x microscope and still can't tell the difference 35mm to 4x5, I could probably get a print from Minox and a print from 8x10 to look as good "to the naked eye".

Under a 30x microscope, I fully expect the Minox to look worse than both those examples. And I expect the 8x10 print to look better.

But to the naked eye, it might be hard to tell the difference between all four formats.

 

[Bill Burk]

p.s. I change the film with each format. As I go to smaller formats, I choose finer-grain film when I can.

 

[GaryFlorida]

Not quite sure I want to jump into this thread, but as a "Level 2" I know I don't know anything and I'd like to learn. Now all subjective comparisons aside, assuming for example you are using the same film in 35mm and MF, for every square inch of film both formats would have the same amount of silver grains. Let's further assume that comparable focal lengths are used so that the framing is the same and the lenses are both capable of infinite levels of resolution. If we were to compare 35mm (24x36mm) to 6x9 (56x84mm), so that aspect ratios are the same, the 6x9 negative should have over 5 times the amount of silver grains than the 35mm, which in my mind means that the 6x9 should have over 5 times the resolution. Higher resolution means more detail, which is my take away of what this whole argument is about. Using this logic, how could a smaller format ever compare to a larger format when it comes down to the amount of detail available? Of course this argument is completely ignoring whether or not we could actually perceive this difference in a final print.

isnt resolution measured in grains per square inch? so whether its a big piece of film or a small piece wouldnt the resolution be the same?

 

[TheTrailTog]

Hi Bill, thanks for chiming in. So basically we're discussing real world ability to perceive resolution differences in a final print at normal print sizes?

Gary, yes, the films would have the same resolution. However, using my previous example of 6x9 vs. 35mm, since the 6x9 negative has over 5 times the area it should have over 5 times the potential print resolution assuming the shots had the same framing.

(I should mention that there has been a bit of wine consumed in my house this evening...lol)

 

[rbultman]

isnt resolution measured in grains per square inch? so whether its a big piece of film or a small piece wouldnt the resolution be the same?

Assuming the exact same scene captured by the same film in 35mm and 6x9 with optics that are "similar", there are simply more grains upon which to capture the information with 6x9.

If the film is fine-grained enough and the print is "small enough", you can't tell the difference because there is more "resolution" in the films than the paper is capable of showing. In this case, the paper is the limiting factor.

Given a film with larger grain or a bigger enlargement, at some point the 35mm loses because the paper can now out-resolve the film. The 6x9 is still doing good because it still has more resolution than the paper.

None of this has anything to do with what is our is not an acceptable print. That is in the eye of the beholder.

Regards
Rob

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Burk]

Hi Bill, thanks for chiming in. So basically we're discussing real world ability to perceive resolution differences in a final print at normal print sizes?

Exactly, that's a good summary of my understanding of the discussion.

There is something special about a print from Large Format. It can hit you from across the room. You can even see it in a thumbnail view. (But from my examination of my prints, it does not seem to be resolution). Drew Wiley is not wrong when he asks "Can't you see it?"

 

[Bill Burk]

I went to a favorite spot with my Minox C (Minox 15mm f/3.5 lens) with Minopan 100 (Exp. Apr. '06) to re-take the shot that I sent out in 4x5 for the negative exchange.

All the Echium is gone! Someone came in and cut them all down! I can't re-take the picture.

 

[MattKing]

isnt resolution measured in grains per square inch? so whether its a big piece of film or a small piece wouldnt the resolution be the same?

Actually, resolution is measured in line pairs per millimetre, not grains per square inch.

And that difference is important, because it reflects one of the peculiarities of our visual capabilities as humans.

We are most visually sensitive to the edge of details, not the details themselves.

That is part of the reason why in some cases a grainier photograph will actually appear more sharp. Additional grain can give the appearance of better defined edges of details.

All of which is part of the reason that this thread is approaching 40 pages.

The way we perceive contrast, resolution and acutance isn't the same as the way we objectively measure those criteria using scientific instruments.

So any exploration of the question is going to have to consider the vagaries of perception.

Not to mention the peculiarities of different lenses and lighting conditions.

And further not to mention that the inherently shallower depth of field encountered with larger formats, along with the different design characteristics employed in lenses required to cover larger formats, yield photographs that appear different than photographs taken of the same subjects on smaller pieces of film.

People speak of the character of lenses, comment how they give results that appear three dimensional, and wax lyrically about a behavior that is so close to mysticism that in order to describe it they need to borrow a word from the Japanese language, even though they understand nothing else written or spoken in Japanese.

There are so many wonderfully murky differences that a definitive test is impossible.

What is possible is that conclusions can be reached based on very valuable and extensive sets of anecdotal evidence. Many people seem to have greater success in obtaining results that appear to them to exhibit highly desirable qualities if they use larger formats. It is the sort of evidence that can lead to conclusions about tendencies, rather than certainties, but those tendencies are very informative.

I'll repeat for the third time - I prefer the results I get when I print from larger negatives. For me, that is enough of an answer.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

What is possible is that conclusions can be reached based on very valuable and extensive sets of anecdotal evidence. Many people seem to have greater success in obtaining results that appear to them to exhibit highly desirable qualities if they use larger formats. It is the sort of evidence that can lead to conclusions about tendencies, rather than certainties, but those tendencies are very informative.

Yes, that is the almost two centuries of aggregate observations I was referring to earlier. And why it's important that any quantitative explanations must also successfully model those qualitative observations. All of those similar observations over that lengthy period of time likely did not happen by accident.

Ken

 

[georg16nik]

Xia_Ke,

The larger you go, the more resolution your film will have the capacity to hold.

But a print doesn't use all that resolution......

When printing the negative in DR using the best equipment and practices, the resolution loss on the final print is less than 10%, so paper is not such bottleneck.

when in doubt, just use a 4x5 sheet of Adox CMS 20 and print on it, then compare.

...If we were to compare 35mm (24x36mm) to 6x9 (56x84mm), so that aspect ratios are the same, the 6x9 negative should have over 5 times the amount of silver grains than the 35mm, which in my mind means that the 6x9 should have over 5 times the resolution....

Let's say the 35mm and 6x9 cameras use the same film, Agfa copex-rapid or Agfa HDP 13 (Adox CMS 20) as both films are readily available in these formats.

For your 6x9 camera the fastest prime lens (90mm or 105mm) is f/3,5 or f/4 but at wide open the corners are soft, so people usually go to f/8 or f/11. At this stop the diffraction of even the best MF lens is less than 100 lp/mm and need a very firm hand or tripod since your film is ISO 20.

For 35mm camera, lets exclude the f/1 Noctilux but say you have Summilux 50mm f/1,4, with optimal corner to center performance ~ f/2,8 to f/4.
At f/4 just about any decent prime lens for 35mm RF is limited only by diffraction and the number is ~ 400 lp/mm, as confirmed by Dr. H. Nasse, chief optical designer at Zeiss and published in Zeiss Camera Lens News over the years.
Adox CMS 20 under normal contrast is more than capable for at least 300 lp/mm.

 

[TheTrailTog]

Hi Georg,

Thank you for your input. I realize that the differences in lenses, shooting practices, etc. will have far more impact on available sharpness/detail than format size, film, etc. If we cast aside all of these potential variables though, a larger format negative should always be capable of producing a higher resolution (more detail) print. This seems to be the first part of the argument. The second part is when the difference between the format becomes perceivable in the print.

Again, my experience is limited, so truly trying to understand the arguments many are making in this thread. I have only ever printed 35mm up to 8x10, MF up to 11x14, and 4x5 I've only contact printed. Not long after I started trying LF I had to move and was never able to get around to setting a darkroom for LF. My wife and I are all settled into our new home now and I just got my new darkroom up and running a couple of weeks ago, so trying to think ahead to the future. I was going to get a MF outfit, but my wife is trying to set up her own business, so for now I'm focusing on 35mm, which is fine as I love my Nikons and I'm not sure I'd be as inclined to carry any other camera with me everywhere I go. Just trying to figure out the limitations of this system are going to be.

 

[RobC]

Actually, resolution is measured in line pairs per millimetre, not grains per square inch.

And that difference is important, because it reflects one of the peculiarities of our visual capabilities as humans.

We are most visually sensitive to the edge of details, not the details themselves.

That is part of the reason why in some cases a grainier photograph will actually appear more sharp. Additional grain can give the appearance of better defined edges of details.

All of which is part of the reason that this thread is approaching 40 pages.

The way we perceive contrast, resolution and acutance isn't the same as the way we objectively measure those criteria using scientific instruments.

So any exploration of the question is going to have to consider the vagaries of perception.

Not to mention the peculiarities of different lenses and lighting conditions.

And further not to mention that the inherently shallower depth of field encountered with larger formats, along with the different design characteristics employed in lenses required to cover larger formats, yield photographs that appear different than photographs taken of the same subjects on smaller pieces of film.

People speak of the character of lenses, comment how they give results that appear three dimensional, and wax lyrically about a behavior that is so close to mysticism that in order to describe it they need to borrow a word from the Japanese language, even though they understand nothing else written or spoken in Japanese.

There are so many wonderfully murky differences that a definitive test is impossible.

What is possible is that conclusions can be reached based on very valuable and extensive sets of anecdotal evidence. Many people seem to have greater success in obtaining results that appear to them to exhibit highly desirable qualities if they use larger formats. It is the sort of evidence that can lead to conclusions about tendencies, rather than certainties, but those tendencies are very informative.

I'll repeat for the third time - I prefer the results I get when I print from larger negatives. For me, that is enough of an answer.

Nicely put.

 

[georg16nik]

.... If we cast aside all of these potential variables though, a larger format negative should always be capable of producing a higher resolution (more detail) print. This seems to be the first part of the argument. The second part is when the difference between the format becomes perceivable in the print....

In regards to the first part of the argument: In case you don't wanna use fine grained film in 35mm, then larger formats naturally are your only option for more detail in print.

In regards to the second part of the argument: it depends if you wanna match the prints or not, when fine grained film is used for the 35mm, the differences in prints vs prints from larger format faster films are not related to lower vs higher resolution that much anymore, thou you might still be able to spot the camera lens signature, DOF, etc.

 

[markbarendt]

We are most visually sensitive to the edge of details, not the details themselves.

This makes sense and at least for me kinda explains why a larger print will show me more detail. The details are simply getting over the threshold of my perception.

 

[Bill Burk]

I have a couple prints in the wash. 11x14 from Minox. Dinkey Creek after the fire in 1981.

Is a direct comparison possible? Yes. The Minox was my spare body on this backpacking trip where I brought a 4x5.

 

[Dan Fromm]

For your 6x9 camera the fastest prime lens (90mm or 105mm) is f/3,5 or f/4 but at wide open the corners are soft, so people usually go to f/8 or f/11. At this stop the diffraction of even the best MF lens is less than 100 lp/mm and need a very firm hand or tripod since your film is ISO 20.

Hmm. 105/2.8 Mamiya for the Mamiya Press system. 105/2.8 Planar and Xenar for 6x9 Technika and other 6x9 press/technical cameras. Hmm.

The conservative convention for estimating diffraction limit given relative aperture is 1500/"f/ number". At f/8 the limit is 187 lp/mm. At f/11, 136. That's on-axis. Limiting resolution off-axis will be lower.

Have you never heard of electronic flash?

For 35mm camera, lets exclude the f/1 Noctilux but say you have Summilux 50mm f/1,4, with optimal corner to center performance ~ f/2,8 to f/4.
At f/4 just about any decent prime lens for 35mm RF is limited only by diffraction and the number is ~ 400 lp/mm, as confirmed by Dr. H. Nasse, chief optical designer at Zeiss and published in Zeiss Camera Lens News over the years.
Adox CMS 20 under normal contrast is more than capable for at least 300 lp/mm.

Attaining even 100 lp/mm on film is very difficult and aerial images can't be printed. To get an idea of how hard it is, see https://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/4424744296/sizes/o/ and https://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/4424744224/sizes/o/

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I have a couple prints in the wash. 11x14 from Minox. Dinkey Creek after the fire in 1981.

Is a direct comparison possible? Yes. The Minox was my spare body on this backpacking trip where I brought a 4x5.

Anxiously awaiting a comparison. To cut costs maybe you could print 8x10 crops from the center of 30x40 enlargements.

 

[georg16nik]

Hmm. 105/2.8 Mamiya for the Mamiya Press system. 105/2.8 Planar and Xenar for 6x9 Technika and other 6x9 press/technical cameras. Hmm.

The conservative convention for estimating diffraction limit given relative aperture is 1500/"f/ number". At f/8 the limit is 187 lp/mm. At f/11, 136. That's on-axis. Limiting resolution off-axis will be lower.

Have you never heard of electronic flash?....

Yeah, and how about Planar 2/110 FE ?
Film flatness, vibrations etc. cancels most arguments?
Back in the days when Zeiss were crazy to squeeze MF to the max on high res film, there we several in-house diagnostic tools just to figure out where their partner MF systems like Hassy, Rollei leaks.

...
Attaining even 100 lp/mm on film is very difficult and aerial images can't be printed. To get an idea of how hard it is, see https://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/4424744296/sizes/o/ and https://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/4424744224/sizes/o/

Sorry,
No mention about the fine grained films we talked about.
Since people rely on authorities, would you rather trust “Modern Photography” or Zeiss about what is talked in this thread?