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.
Here, here!:joyful:
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.
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'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".
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".
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Also, your memories of the results you obtained a long time ago from 35mm may now be totally out of date.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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?