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.
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.
From the article : "The image circle of a 35 mm lens is about 43 mm, while a 4 x 5 view camera has an image area of 160 mm; almost 4 times larger".
There is a little error here. Increasing the diameter with 1.4 ( square 2 ) doubles the area. Doubling the image circle gives you an image are 4 times as big. So in the case of the 35mm vs 4x5". The large format 4x5" has an image area almost 16 times as large as 35mm.
If you do not make a large enough print, you might not be able to appreciate a difference in 'detail'...the relatively poor visual acuity of the human eye would likely not see any 'detail' difference in an 8x10 (8x) photo of the same subject in two format sizes.
In projecting both 135 format and medium format slides onto a projection screen, the medium format images carry much more emotional impact to the viewing audience...past observable reactions, not merely speculation!
Ditto. You will definitely see the difference when projecting. I use very good lenses on both the 35mm and 120 projector, and the difference is definitely visible.
Ditto. You will definitely see the difference when projecting. I use very good lenses on both the 35mm and 120 projector, and the difference is definitely visible.
of course it ishuman visual acuity is actually pretty amazing.with normal eyesight you can make out a dark human hair on a white sheet of paper at a distance of 10m!That's pretty good I'd say
Just read the 1st post.I know what you mean, and have had the same issues. If you are using a high quality medium format lens you need to compair it to a tip top lens on 4x5.
The results are in and I found something thought-provoking.
We are missing the details as we focus on the big picture.
Or... We can't see the trees for the forest.
Emotionally, I wanted this statement to stand without any qualification: "A Minox negative and an 8x10 negative produce the same amount of detail in a 20x24 silver gelatin enlargement."
Of course, it is a patently false statement.
But with one qualification it becomes true.
"Just walk in closer to the subject with the Minox."
And if you also walk closer with a larger format camera, its print will again trump the print from 135 format.
In what way?
It has been a wonderful and revealing exercise to try to prove the point. I learned a lot and can't wait to share it.
I get the smaller vs. bigger negative thing. Generally, I'll make larger prints from larger negatives. Often, trying to go to a larger size (20x24+) from a smaller negative just doesn't hold up to my own scrutiny, although there are exceptions depending on equipment, film, developer.
Detail, and sharpness, aren't always my goals, though, so I find all formats (even half-frame) beneficial to what I'm trying to achieve.
What I don't get is people thinking that going to a larger format will make them better photographers. Bad composition is bad composition, whether through a half frame viewfinder or an 8x10 ground glass.
It wasn't until after I started looking at the prints that I realized there was detail I could see in the Minox shot that isn't in the 4x5 shots. Simply because it was taken from a position closer to foreground subject matter. You can see every knot in the tree to the left of the boulder./QUOTE]
Cheater!
[/B]
Nobody here thinks that. That's your projection.
It wasn't until after I started looking at the prints that I realized there was detail I could see in the Minox shot that isn't in the 4x5 shots. Simply because it was taken from a position closer to foreground subject matter. You can see every knot in the tree to the left of the boulder.
Cheater!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?