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

RobC · Apr 26, 2015

as I pointed out earlier in topic, resolution obtainable depends on lighting contrast ratio.

If you don't know what that was when you exposed your minox negative and if you didn't have white, black lines in the subject at the correct size when reproduced in the neg, then you have no idea what yuour starting resolution from your minox negative is. So any discussion of of what resolution you can achive is meaningless. The only thing you can proove is that for the same subject taken at the same time on two different formats cameras, that the obtainable prints are similar. But if your resolution on film was only 60lp/mm then you can't expect to enlarge that past 7X or 8X before it starts to break down. But you don't know what it was if I'm not mistaken.

Bill Burk · Apr 26, 2015

You will be able to see how small a thing you can make out in the photograph and by scale, you can figure out how much film that thing covered.

mdarnton · Apr 26, 2015

I didn't see any difference between 35mm and larger formats because mostly I just shot 35mm. Then about a year ago I got an 8x10 camera. The disappointment of seeing 8x10 prints from 35mm and 8x10 on the same wall has resulted in me not running more than two rolls of 35mm in the last year. However, if you don't see the difference, then there's no difference for you.

Les Sarile · Apr 26, 2015

Examples of the same film type (Kodak 100UC) shot on medium format 6X7 and 35mm using the world map as a target and scanned at 4000dpi. This shows potentially how much difference in detail can be achieved under the ideal conditions - optimized for each setup, tripod, controlled lighting, same target with clearly distinguishable detail. I can just about duplicate the detail of the map using medium format film but clearly not with 35mm of the same film printed large enough.

This is the whole map as taken with both media superimposed just to show the film area difference. The original medium format scan comes out to over 10000 X 8000 pixel file downsized to 1600 X 1200.

Medium format crop of area.

35mm crop of area.

frank · Apr 26, 2015

Thank you for that, Les. This jives with my experience.

Ken Nadvornick · Apr 26, 2015

frank said:
Thank you for that, Les. This jives with my experience.

And mine as well.

Ken

RPC · Apr 26, 2015

Mine too.

Theo Sulphate · Apr 26, 2015

Theo Sulphate said:
As for resolution ... there is a highway following the river and in the most distant part I can see individual cars. Looking at a map, I see those cars are 4.6 miles away (straight line distance).

Rechecked it: the cars are only 3.5 miles away. Even so, that's amazing - and this is just what I can see on the print. I haven't looked at the negative in 16 years.

Anyway, what makes this photo good isn't the resolution, but the subject, the composition, tonal range, and contrast.

georg16nik · Apr 27, 2015

Thanks, but Kodak 100UC is not a fine grained film; let alone that looking at scanned negatives from cameras, lenses, etc,.. we might only guess about, ask for criminologist.

How does that fit within OP post context, especially “In my own work, detail is more about using fine grained film, using the right developer, and the right paper for the print.”?

Les Sarile said:
Examples of the same film type (Kodak 100UC) shot on medium format 6X7 and 35mm using the world map as a target and scanned at 4000dpi....

RobC · Apr 27, 2015

georg16nik said:
Thanks, but Kodak 100UC is not a fine grained film; let alone that looking at scanned negatives from cameras, lenses, etc,.. we might only guess about, ask for criminologist.

How does that fit within OP post context, especially In my own work, detail is more about using fine grained film, using the right developer, and the right paper for the print.?

Agreed.

The test needs to print to paper in the darkroom two images which show same area of subject at same size on paper and then scan print with highend flatbed scanner. something like a Creo or such. Then we can actaully make a comparative judgement.

And we need to know lens focal lengths, aperture and distance.

Scanning is a destructive process and scanning at an intermediate stage proves nothing except the maybe the partial performance of the scanner.

Les Sarile · Apr 27, 2015

georg16nik said:
Thanks, but Kodak 100UC is not a fine grained film; let alone that looking at scanned negatives from cameras, lenses, etc,.. we might only guess about, ask for criminologist.

Fine grain is a relative measure and in this case was applied equally on both the 35mm and medium format film used. The point being is that larger film applies more grain to better define details. However, Kodak itself states, "Exceptional sharpness to record detail and extremely fine grain for enlargement. See -> KODAK Publication No. E103NF

How does that fit within OP post context, especially In my own work, detail is more about using fine grained film, using the right developer, and the right paper for the print.?

To be sure, the original post states, "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! We're talking about my own negs and photos here, not what I see on a monitor screen."

If you are critically evaluating a frame of film, you need appropriate tools. Myself, I use a 40X Carson MV-820 40X microscope to critically evaluate my film. It is also an 8X loupe for casual review.

In the ((there was a url link here which no longer exists)) he does qualify his previous statements:

He does have a tripod but prefers not to use it.
He does see differences between the different formats at the negative stage adding that, "Nothing beats holding a large neg on a light table."
He further qualifies his initial statements stating fiber prints, reasonable size, reasonable viewing distance

Les Sarile · Apr 27, 2015

RobC said:
Agreed.

The test needs to print to paper in the darkroom two images which show same area of subject at same size on paper and then scan print with highend flatbed scanner. something like a Creo or such. Then we can actaully make a comparative judgement.

And we need to know lens focal lengths, aperture and distance.

Scanning is a destructive process and scanning at an intermediate stage proves nothing except the maybe the partial performance of the scanner.

If you don't want a scanner in the process, we can go with a microscope. But of course we still have to be able to post the results for review.

However, regardless of what the process is used, as long as it is applied equally to both sides.

The test I conducted is very simple. Use a target that has sufficient detail to be able to show the difference is very important. Control the lighting, critical focus, optimal camera setting for each, numerous shots at various settings to ensure optimal capture on the frame of film. Verify optically.

In anycase, in the ((there was a url link here which no longer exists)) he does state seeing differences between the different formats at the negative stage adding that, "Nothing beats holding a large neg on a light table."

georg16nik · Apr 27, 2015

Thanks, Les. I got your point about larger film, grain and details.

My experience in 35mm and MF (6x6, 6x9) using fine grain films like Agfa copex-rapid, Adox CMS 20, Kodak Tech pan, ATP, Rollei retro 80S etc., is closer to Zeiss point of view on the subject, so I am still curious if anyone else beside me and a few other members on APUG had the same experience.

35mm vs MF, LF in regards to color films is beyond my interest.

frank · Apr 27, 2015

I offer a couple of Sherlock-esque deductions:

If the OP can't see a difference in detail between 135 and 120 format made prints, and I can, then either his 135 prints are better than mine, or his 120 prints are worse than mine.

Then, the OP stated that he can see better detail in a 120 negative than in a 135 neg, so it follows that the degradation (to no better than 135 quality) of his 120 prints, occurs at the printing stage.

Les Sarile · Apr 27, 2015

georg16nik said:
Thanks, Les. I got your point about larger film, grain and details.

My experience in 35mm and MF (6x6, 6x9) using fine grain films like Agfa copex-rapid, Adox CMS 20, Kodak Tech pan, ATP, Rollei retro 80S etc., is closer to Zeiss point of view on the subject, so I am still curious if anyone else beside me and a few other members on APUG had the same experience.

35mm vs MF, LF in regards to color films is beyond my interest.

I actually shot the wall map using 35mm Kodak Techpan @ISO25 and processed it in Technidol and the result is practically as detailed as the medium format Kodak 100UC. I still have a few rolls as well as some Technidol packages left although I've been meaning to try out the others too.

georg16nik · Apr 27, 2015

Quite possible.
Enlarger alignment, glassless negative carrier are some of the usual suspects.
I've seen people invest too much in their camera lenses, while leaving the enlarger with the crappiest lenses.

frank said:
...Then, the OP stated that he can see better detail in a 120 negative than in a 135 neg, so it follows that the degradation (to no better than 135 quality) of his 120 prints, occurs at the printing stage.

Nodda Duma · Apr 27, 2015

georg16nik said:
Thanks, Les. I got your point about larger film, grain and details.

My experience in 35mm and MF (6x6, 6x9) using fine grain films like Agfa copex-rapid, Adox CMS 20, Kodak Tech pan, ATP, Rollei retro 80S etc., is closer to Zeiss point of view on the subject, so I am still curious if anyone else beside me and a few other members on APUG had the same experience.

35mm vs MF, LF in regards to color films is beyond my interest.

The differences are in the MTF of the film.

For Kodak 100UC, the MTF is down to 50% at ~60 cyc/mm for the green layer, 70 cyc/mm for the blue layer, and 50% for the Red layer at 40 cyc/mm.

For Tech Pan (for example), when developed in Technidol, the MTF is down to 50% at ~100 cyc/mm.

Kodak T-Max 100 has 50% MTF at ~125 cyc/mm developed in D-76.

Those are straight out of Kodak's datasheet so you can check out the test conditions, caveats, developer, etc.

The datasheets for the other films you mentioned don't provide MTF data so it's hard to say what they do. But many of us are familiar with Tech Pan so that's probably a fair example.

So in one case the film could very well be the limit for the overall resolution of the 35mm camera as a whole system, while in the other case the optics might limit resolution. If the resolution of the film itself isn't the limiter, then it is indeed possible that the enlargement from the 35mm negative could be comparable in quality to a larger format print. More things have to go right for that to happen, yes, but the possibility does exist.

-Jason

edit: geek out / technical note: I say cycles per millimeter (cyc/mm) because that is the appropriate unit of measure when considering MTF (Modulation Transfer Function), which is based upon a pattern of sinusoidally changing density between light and dark regions (that's a mouthful...see http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF1A.html ). This is the analog of, and roughly equivalent to, line pairs per mm (lp/mm). Lp/mm is the proper unit of measure when discussing CTF (Contrast Transfer Function), which is based upon alternating white and black bars. Even I tend to use them interchangeably, but usually you're OK because they are roughly equivalent... especially at lower resolution #'s.

RobC · Apr 27, 2015

Just to throw a curve ball into the equation, why do lens manufacturers use only 5,10,20 and 40 cycles/lp/mm in their MTF charts ?

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 27, 2015

There was a test done in the 1980s (?) in Gothenburg, Sweden, where 35mm, 6x6, and 4x5 were compared. The link has vanished from the Internet, and I wish I could find it again. Leica, Hasselblad, and Schneider lens on 4x5. They used a microscope to compare the results.

Their conclusion was the same as yours, that the film constitutes the limitation in 35mm sometimes, and that will be compared to lens limitations in 6x6 and 4x5.
When they used Tri-X film, 35mm was clearly inferior, resolution wise. But with TMax 100, the resolution was comparable due to the limitations mentioned above.

This was purely with respect to resolution, however, and things like tonality were not taken into account at all.

For what it's worth, anyway.

Nodda Duma said:
The differences are in the MTF of the film.

For Kodak 100UC, the MTF is down to 50% at ~60 cyc/mm for the green layer, 70 cyc/mm for the blue layer, and 50% for the Red layer at 40 cyc/mm.

For Tech Pan (for example), when developed in Technidol, the MTF is down to 50% at ~100 cyc/mm.

Kodak T-Max 100 has 50% MTF at ~125 cyc/mm developed in D-76.

Those are straight out of Kodak's datasheet so you can check out the test conditions, caveats, developer, etc.

The datasheets for the other films you mentioned don't provide MTF data so it's hard to say what they do. But many of us are familiar with Tech Pan so that's probably a fair example.

So in one case the film could very well be the limit for the overall resolution of the 35mm camera as a whole system, while in the other case the optics might limit resolution. If the resolution of the film itself isn't the limiter, then it is indeed possible that the enlargement from the 35mm negative could be comparable in quality to a larger format print. More things have to go right for that to happen, yes, but the possibility does exist.

-Jason

edit: geek out / technical note: I say cycles per millimeter (cyc/mm) because that is the appropriate unit of measure when considering MTF (Modulation Transfer Function), which is based upon a pattern of sinusoidally changing density between light and dark regions (that's a mouthful...see http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF1A.html ). This is the analog of, and roughly equivalent to, line pairs per mm (lp/mm). Lp/mm is the proper unit of measure when discussing CTF (Contrast Transfer Function), which is based upon alternating white and black bars. Even I tend to use them interchangeably, but usually you're OK because they are roughly equivalent... especially at lower resolution #'s.

flavio81 · Apr 27, 2015

Good post Nodda Duma, and basically states my view on the subject: The key is film, and for common-use film (like HP5, FP4 or even Delta 100), the advantage is there for bigger formats. As I wrote before somewhere, for 8x10" enlargements, with Delta 100 in 35mm, i get really high quality, near or to what i'd get with 6x4.5 or 6x6 with HP5; but when I use Delta 100 (or Acros 100) in 6x7, it gets to another level; and it's not really because of increased resolution (because at 8x10" the resolution is already good enough in 35mm), but because of increased edge definition and better tonality, which gives a "depth" or "3D" effect to the print.

Of course, with film like Adox CMS 20, the advantage might become much smaller, perhaps "no advantage" from a subjective point of view (?); but i choose to enjoy the convenience of traditional film which does not require very exacting exposure and processing, and the large film area which makes it resilient to scratches and dust, etc.

flavio81 · Apr 27, 2015

Thomas Bertilsson said:
There was a test done in the 1980s (?) in Gothenburg, Sweden, where 35mm, 6x6, and 4x5 were compared. The link has vanished from the Internet, and I wish I could find it again. Leica, Hasselblad, and Schneider lens on 4x5. They used a microscope to compare the results.

You asked for it, you got it; here it is:

http://www.photodo.com/topic_138.html

And yes, they did not consider tonality, and from the look of the white and grey areas in the negative, i'd say tonality will still be better with the larger formats.

However it sort of proves my previous point -- It depends on the film used (asuming perfect technique and well-aligned equipment).

Nodda Duma · Apr 27, 2015

Here's an interesting discussion written by Tim Vitale (I'm not familiar with the name) about this topic that I just happened to run across....primarily focused (groan) on film resolution but also touching on all the components of an imaging system which affect the final resolution seen in a negative.

It's interesting because it goes into quite a bit of technical detail about how film works in regards to sharpness and granularity, and also compares resolution values for a number of specific films and categories of lenses. It really gets interesting for our discussion starting at page 10 or 11 and going thru to page 16 or so.

http://cool.conservation-us.org/coo...itale/2007-04-vitale-filmgrain_resolution.pdf

It was written up a few years ago so you may find yourself sadly reminiscing about some of the films mentioned.

Alan Gales · Apr 27, 2015

georg16nik said:
Quite possible.
Enlarger alignment, glassless negative carrier are some of the usual suspects.
I've seen people invest too much in their camera lenses, while leaving the enlarger with the crappiest lenses.

I agree.

It's best to tie the enlarger into a wall too if you can.

After handling the enlarger it needs to sit a few seconds to let the vibrations settle down before exposing the paper. A lot of newbies are in too big of a hurry and need to slow down and enjoy the process.

Here is a great book if anyone is interested. I bought a used copy on Ebay for a lot less money. The end of the book has a lot of information about setting up and using enlargers.
http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Darkness-High-Definition-Monochrome-Photograph/dp/0817438157

Sirius Glass · Apr 27, 2015

georg16nik said:
Thanks, but Kodak 100UC is not a fine grained film; let alone that looking at scanned negatives from cameras, lenses, etc,.. we might only guess about, ask for criminologist.

How does that fit within OP post context, especially “In my own work, detail is more about using fine grained film, using the right developer, and the right paper for the print.”?

I disagree. I found the UC 400 and UC 100 are fine grained and scan well. They are basically Portra films with enhanced color.

Bill Burk · Apr 28, 2015

None of my prints needed the enlarger tied to the wall. My darkroom is on concrete though, so maybe that's why I don't worry about vibration.

So far 4x5 is winning.

I have a print in the fix now, from 4x5, where you can count every tree in the forest. Literally. This is because the 1981 Dinkey Creek fire turned all the trees into black charred sticks. It is like having the lights turned on while you are at Disneyland in Peter Pan's Flight.

It would be scary and depressing, but when I think that this area is like a "lightning rod" it is not as painful for me to see. Historically, even without people, Dinkey Creek gets more forest fires than average.

I also printed from 4x5 the twin shot of one in my gallery: "Oak and Mistletoe, Black Diamond Mines" that was shot on a Pocket Instamatic 20. The 4x5 negative has unsharpness that destroys its resolution so in this case the expired 110 Verichrome Pan beats the fresh 4x5 TMY-2.

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

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency