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

[ColColt]

With the exception of No. 4, all those factors would apply to any format. Negative size still rules as for sharpness, definition-always has, always will. My Summicron lens for the Leica was sharp but compared to the larger MF negative there was just no contest.

 

[frank]

With the exception of No. 4, all those factors would apply to any format. Negative size still rules as for sharpness, definition-always has, always will. My Summicron lens for the Leica was sharp but compared to the larger MF negative there was just no contest.

New experiments at CERN may support the hypothesis of parallel universes.

You and I are in the same one, and observe the same physical and optical laws.

 

[ColColt]

Here, here!:joyful:

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Here, here!:joyful:

Nope... in a parallel universe the correct response is, "Somewhere, somewhere... at some time, at some time!!"

 

[Bill Burk]

With the exception of No. 4, all those factors would apply to any format. Negative size still rules as for sharpness, definition-always has, always will. My Summicron lens for the Leica was sharp but compared to the larger MF negative there was just no contest.

True.

Likewise, any advantage that Medium Format negative size may have over smaller formats, can be lost if any of the other factors become "out of control"...

So if you shoot MF for its detail, you need to keep those factors under control.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I'd like to see a comparison of 4x5 old school Tri-X or HP5 developed in Rodinal 1:100 vs. 135 format Adox CMS 20 II developed in Adotech developer... all other things as equal as is practicable. My interest would be in 30x40 inch prints viewed at 24 inches away. My guess is the 4x5 would still knock the snot out of 135 in overall sharpness and detail (maybe not grain though). In fact, let's give 135 the edge regarding cropping instead of 4x5 and make the prints 40x60 inches. Shadow detail and tonal range should be as closely matched as is possible too.

 

[Bill Burk]

Here's the Zeiss 10 steps to success... from post #479 of this thread...

http://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/cln_archiv/cln04_en_web.pdf

 

[markbarendt]

True.

Likewise, any advantage that Medium Format negative size may have over smaller formats, can be lost if any of the other factors become "out of control"...

So if you shoot MF for its detail, you need to keep those factors under control.

I think it would be fair to suggest that, for a given photographer, if a problem exists in one format it will exist in te rest, except that; as the camera gets heavier and bigger the use of camera support becomes more likely.

 

[Bill Burk]

I think it would be fair to suggest that, for a given photographer, if a problem exists in one format it will exist in the rest, except that; as the camera gets heavier and bigger the use of camera support becomes more likely.

I think it's worth exploring.

For me, I can put together a week's kit that weighs about the same whether it's 35mm, Medium Format or 4x5. And my problems follow me, as you suggest. But so do my successes. I enjoy the successful 4x5 negatives most, but am happy with any.

I'd guess Ralph Lambrecht found his sweet spot with Medium Format.

 

[rthollenbeck]

I'd like to see a comparison of 4x5 old school Tri-X or HP5 developed in Rodinal 1:100 vs. 135 format Adox CMS 20 II developed in Adotech developer... all other things as equal as is practicable. My interest would be in 30x40 inch prints viewed at 24 inches away. My guess is the 4x5 would still knock the snot out of 135 in overall sharpness and detail (maybe not grain though). In fact, let's give 135 the edge regarding cropping instead of 4x5 and make the prints 40x60 inches. Shadow detail and tonal range should be as closely matched as is possible too.

This comparison really can't be taken seriously.
Even with slide film, I would be surprised if the difference wasn't "in your face obvious".

 

[Bill Burk]

There's enough of a chance for 35mm to be "like 4x5" when you use high resolution film, that the difference between formats isn't "in your face obvious" when everything comes together.

Here are some examples where I would be hard-pressed to tell which is 4x5 and which is 35mm from looking at the print.

35mm High Resolution Close-Up from post #469

4x5 High Resolution Close-Up from post #475

This comparison really can't be taken seriously.
Even with slide film, I would be surprised if the difference wasn't "in your face obvious".

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

This comparison really can't be taken seriously.
Even with slide film, I would be surprised if the difference wasn't "in your face obvious".

I know.

 

[MattKing]

In the interest of making more clear what I may have made unclear in my earlier post.

I'm not contesting that modern medium format film will give you more than modern 35mm film.

What I was trying to point out is that modern film is so much better, that in many cases the size of the film won't be as much of a limiting factor to quality, and in many cases may no longer be the most important limiting factor.

Also, your memories of the results you obtained a long time ago from 35mm may now be totally out of date. Where the results from 35mm format would have been unacceptable then, they might not be now.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

In the interest of making more clear what I may have made unclear in my earlier post.

I'm not contesting that modern medium format film will give you more than modern 35mm film.

What I was trying to point out is that modern film is so much better, that in many cases the size of the film won't be as much of a limiting factor to quality, and in many cases may no longer be the most important limiting factor.

Also, your memories of the results you obtained a long time ago from 35mm may now be totally out of date. Where the results from 35mm format would have been unacceptable then, they might not be now.

I think this is an accurate observation, and I too have been very impressed with Kodak's Portra films, even at fairly large print size.

But at the same time there is the time honored principle of lasting works in photography - as long as the photograph speaks loudly to an audience it doesn't matter what camera, format, film, or whatever we used. Different formats for different types of photography may be applicable with respect to working method, where some feel the need to bring a negative as big as possible to make something they are proud of. I've seen many photography exhibitions in my relatively short life, and what hangs on the walls in museums and galleries don't seem to be dictated by what camera or format was used, it appears that it has to do with how relevant a photograph is to the art world, for whatever reason. 35mm and 20x24 cameras both produce negatives used to create prints that are in collections among museums and private collectors. Go figure.

Photographers tend to obsess over these things that in the end mean very little to how the photograph is appreciated by the surrounding society. But at the same time, if that's what makes it enjoyable - that's certainly a good thing!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

In the end, it's the form factor of the camera relative to the task that counts. So much of the pissing and moaning here has been related to something that is only really important if you're photographing resolution charts or doing scientific photography where every 1/100th of a millimeter counts. Who really cares about how many lp/mm your film/camera can resolve if what you put on it is boring? I've found a personal sweet spot with my Rolleiflex - grain is not intrusive in the image until you make enlargements bigger than I have room to make, and the rest of the camera doesn't get in the way of what I'm trying to do. BUT, if I wanted to make certain kinds of images, I'd break out the 35mm with auto-focus, or the 5x7, or even the 14x17.

 

[frank]

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. Maybe it's because I've always tried to use really good lenses in 35mm. Or maybe its because my developing and printing protocol is dependable these days. Whatever it is, I'm not seeing 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, assuming that 4x5 is really LF (looks pretty puny compared to 8x10), I'm not seeing it, and those were made w/ a 203 Kodak Ektar lens. Are people commenting on the sharpness of their large prints? Some of my 35mm negs are printed full frame to 12x18, and on a good day, w/ a tail wind and a good lens, 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. In my own work, detail is more about using fine grained film, using the right developer, and the right paper for the print. What's up?

As you can see from the original post, artistic merit is beside the point. The issue being discussed here is pure technical quality: specifically detail and sharpness. More grain is a given.

 

[frank]

Actually, there is the answer right in front of us. Increased grain is a given due to greater enlargement necessary in smaller formats to get the same size print. Once grain becomes visible as discreet points, it is no longer possible for them to render detail smaller than the enlarged grain. Hence the finer detail rendering ability/increased sharpness of larger formats.

Why the OP isn't able to see this is open to speculation. It may be in the nature of the subject matter chosen, that doesn't contain the type of fine detail mentioned above.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

As you can see from the original post, artistic merit is beside the point. The issue being discussed here is pure technical quality: specifically detail and sharpness. More grain is a given.

Cats, Frank. Oceans of cats...

I do admire your tenacity.



Ken

 

[Les Sarile]

Actually, there is the answer right in front of us. Increased grain is a given due to greater enlargement necessary in smaller formats to get the same size print. Once grain becomes visible as discreet points, it is no longer possible for them to render detail smaller than the enlarged grain. Hence the finer detail rendering ability/increased sharpness of larger formats.

Why the OP isn't able to see this is open to speculation. It may be in the nature of the subject matter chosen, that doesn't contain the type of fine detail mentioned above.

There is no denying that more film real estate can offer more detail particularly if the scene/subject matter has the detail and if the final output is sufficiently large enough.
Case in point is a Rand McNally World M Series wall map as a target taken with Kodak 100UC film in both 35mm and 6X7 medium format film taken with great care.

Full image downsized showing the film real estate of each format.

100% crop from the 35mm.

100% crop from the MF film.

BTW, the OP has already acknowledged the difference -> (there was a url link here which no longer exists) stating, "I do see differences between the different formats at the negative stage. Nothing beats holding a large neg on a light table."

No doubt that if the scene doesn't have the discernible detail, or one doesn't use good equipment, or fails to take care in the capture or producing only a very small output, that the difference may not be so obvious.

 

[Sirius Glass]

In the end, it's the form factor of the camera relative to the task that counts. So much of the pissing and moaning here has been related to something that is only really important if you're photographing resolution charts or doing scientific photography where every 1/100th of a millimeter counts. Who really cares about how many lp/mm your film/camera can resolve if what you put on it is boring? I've found a personal sweet spot with my Rolleiflex - grain is not intrusive in the image until you make enlargements bigger than I have room to make, and the rest of the camera doesn't get in the way of what I'm trying to do. BUT, if I wanted to make certain kinds of images, I'd break out the 35mm with auto-focus, or the 5x7, or even the 14x17.

Well said. Each format for its own features.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Actually, there is the answer right in front of us. Increased grain is a given due to greater enlargement necessary in smaller formats to get the same size print. Once grain becomes visible as discreet points, it is no longer possible for them to render detail smaller than the enlarged grain. Hence the finer detail rendering ability/increased sharpness of larger formats.

Why the OP isn't able to see this is open to speculation. It may be in the nature of the subject matter chosen, that doesn't contain the type of fine detail mentioned above.

Exactly the point that many including you and I have stated many ways.