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

Nodda Duma · Apr 18, 2015

Les Sarile said:
Just to be sure, different types of papers have different resolutions. Generally speaking, highly textured paper will print far less detail then glossy of the same size.

Very true. What I wanted to make clear is to keep everything the same except scaling the lens and then compensating by making prints of the same size and you'll see that aberrations scale with the lens.

The real differences in formats fundamentally occur with the film (scaling of the grain with enlargements).

removed account4 · Apr 18, 2015

pdeeh said:
There's a difference between "people do that" and "all people do that" ... I doubt mr nanian is claiming the latter, only the former ... although there's no telling, he does dunk his fillum in strange things after all ...

you right on all counts, strange things indeed.

frank · Apr 18, 2015

jnanian said:
you right on all counts, strange things indeed.

I see you've edited your post, adding in qualifiers. It initially read that there was so little difference between formats that larger was just for show. That's what was preposterous.

Of course some people are just posers.

Old-N-Feeble · Apr 18, 2015

If only lens sharpness matters then I'll buy a Minox and print 40"x50" from that. I'm sure the prints will look fabulous from 12" and beyond.

markbarendt · Apr 18, 2015

M Carter said:
At 11x14 and 16x20, I see the difference in spades.

I've got a shot I've been dialing in, done with an RB and 180mm, HP5+. There's some tattered gauze in the main focus of the composition. The detail the big neg held still startles me - every individual thread of the weave is there. And it even holds up reasonably as a brushed bromoil.

Same film at 35mm - you're talking details that are too close to the grain size to hold up well.

I'd think if that isn't apparent to someone using similar equipment, either the process has some problems or they're printing very small.

This holds for me too.

I still say but the real difference in the acceptability of the result from a given format is rooted in our individual standards. It's a variable, not a given.

Sirius Glass · Apr 18, 2015

frank said:
To say that people only use formats larger than 135 for bragging rights and because of how professional it makes them look, is preposterous.

Well said.

Sirius Glass · Apr 18, 2015

jnanian said:
its not preposterous, some people do just that ... for others it is just "bling" ...
if it makes them happy, why not ... they are the folks feeding the beast, and if they can afford the film & processing, more power to them !

Most people do things for logical reasons. The rest are not worth considering. Criticizing all for a few is folly and it not really worthy nor honest to blame all with the acts of a few.

weasel · Apr 18, 2015

I dont think it is all that simple. I have been shooting film since the 60's, and have been of the mind that bigger is always better. A few years ago I had something of an epiphany, when I came into both a pentax 67 and 645 at the same time. I did a series of tests, shooting the same subject at the same time and place, same film, processing, and then printed as big as i could go on my omega d2. I was dumfounded to find that the 645 images were sharper, and no difference was to be seen with tonality. So there are lots of other factors that have to be considered- lens quality, film quality, the ability of the body to hold the film truly flat, all those sorts of things. Film size may not always be the limiting factor in image quality. When I bought a contax g2 I was really pissed that the negs were no better than what I was able to get with my zorki; then I realized the film I was using was the limiting factor, and when I changed film and processing, I was abe to take advantage of the really superb lenses to g2 has. Its not as simple as assuming a smaller negative will not be as good as a bigger one.

frank · Apr 18, 2015

"Its not as simple as assuming a smaller negative will not be as good as a bigger one."

ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, then yes, it is that simple.

In auto terms: You can't beat cubic inches.

Aside from greater convenience and smaller size, and the probability of faster lenses, the only advantage to smaller format is greater DOF.

For me, 120 film cameras are the best compromise between convenience/speed of use, and technical image quality.

For some applications, 35mm wins. (Sports, wildlife, for example)

cliveh · Apr 18, 2015

frank said:
"Its not as simple as assuming a smaller negative will not be as good as a bigger one."

ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, then yes, it is that simple.

In auto terms: You can't beat cubic inches.

Aside from greater convenience and smaller size, and the probability of faster lenses, the only advantage to smaller format is greater DOF.

And versatility.

removed account4 · Apr 18, 2015

frank said:
I see you've edited your post, adding in qualifiers. It initially read that there was so little difference between formats that larger was just for show. That's what was preposterous.

Of course some people are just posers.

i didn't realize what i posted was ambiguous, sorry about that ...
i never say never or always, or i try not to ...
and sometimes there really is no difference between formats but that is a different kettle of fish.

narsuitus · Apr 18, 2015

Many years ago, I shot 35mm film for a newspaper and 120-film for a wedding studio.

A Nikon 35mm photographer, who knew that I also shot with Nikons, asked to see my work. I showed him a portfolio of 16x20 inch black & white photos from my darkroom. I was shocked when he said, "I see you also shoot medium format" because at the time, I too could see little difference between 35mm and 120 images.

weasel · Apr 18, 2015

all else being equal is the key-how often does that happen?

frank · Apr 18, 2015

weasel said:
all else being equal is the key-how often does that happen?

Well, if we're trying to compare 2 things, it's the only fair way to do it.

Consider comparing a print made with an expired 3200iso 120 neg taken with a handheld camera at 1/15sec, underexposed and mis-focused, processed in exhausted chemistry, and jumping up and down in front of a shaky enlarger with a cloudy lens during print exposure, then processed in exhausted chemicals in a light leaky darkroom; to a print made properly with a sturdy tripod mounted camera at 1/1000sec ...

You get the picture, I'm sure.

Jim Jones · Apr 18, 2015

frank said:
"Its not as simple as assuming a smaller negative will not be as good as a bigger one."

ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, then yes, it is that simple.

In auto terms: You can't beat cubic inches.

Aside from greater convenience and smaller size, and the probability of faster lenses, the only advantage to smaller format is greater DOF.

For me, 120 film cameras are the best compromise between convenience/speed of use, and technical image quality.

For some applications, 35mm wins. (Sports, wildlife, for example)

Prints made of the same subject at the same magnification and the aperture that gives the same entrance pupil have identical DOF! The larger format lenses must be stopped down to a higher f/number to maintain that same entrance pupil. This is often a handicap. However, the larger format has the advantage of obviously better image quality in large prints.

I wouldn't want to use anything larger than 35mm for wildlife and sports. 120 film suffices for some more critical uses. Sheet film and an appropriate camera are far better for some other applications. Perhaps the most important consideration is the photographer's (or client's) expectations.

Bill Burk · Apr 18, 2015

Old-N-Feeble said:
If only lens sharpness matters then I'll buy a Minox and print 40"x50" from that. I'm sure the prints will look fabulous from 12" and beyond.

I bring a Minox as backup for my 4x5, sure would hate to miss a shot because my main camera had some issue...

frank · Apr 18, 2015

Bill Burk said:
I bring a Minox as backup for my 4x5, sure would hate to miss a shot because my main camera had some issue...

So, have you ever compared prints made from each? What's your take on this?

RobC · Apr 18, 2015

its all subjective. Sometimes a gritty looking image is what you want. Grain isn't bad, its what gives a print character. If you don't want grain get a digital camera and use smart blur.

frank · Apr 18, 2015

RobC said:
its all subjective. Sometimes a gritty looking image is what you want. Grain isn't bad, its what gives a print character. If you don't want grain get a digital camera and use smart blur.

Ooouch! Low blow!

RobC · Apr 18, 2015

frank said:
Ooouch! Low blow!

It's a moot point. On the one hand the bigger formats are claimed to give grain free prints and on the other hand digital is put down as being no good because its too clinical looking due to no grain and smoothing effect that interpolation causes. As a result they have filter/plugin effects to put grain back in.

personally I think the grain structure adds a lot to a prints character. Having said that, the prints from my 5x4 negatives do look beautiful when I occasionally got it right..

ScottPhoto.co · Apr 18, 2015

I really can't address 35mm as I have really just begun exploring this format, but in all honesty as I have been shooting medium and large format I wondered this often myself. Well, I did up until a couple of weeks ago when I was printing a series of portraits at 14x16 that were made on a variety of cameras and formats including 6x6 (Hasselblad), 6x7 (Pentax 67 and RB67), 4x5 and 8x10 (Deardorff and 12" Dagor). For the past few years I have only seen these on screen and at smaller print size and I was questioning the extra work and expense of LF as the difference wasn't readily apparent. After printing this series of about 20 images and looking at them for a week or so I noticed a distinct difference between some them in terms of clarity, transitions and smoothness. On looking closer I noticed that all of the stand outs were done on LF. That was a bit of a revelation to me. The MF files were no less as "good" as a portrait, they were just different.

I think each format has its own signature and that is the beauty of using film based cameras. Every little variation adds something unique, and I love that.

My goal in using all of the different formats is to have in mind exactly what "signature" or final outcome that I want for each image that I make and these a part of my personal process.

All you need to do is determine if these things are important to your vision. If so, then it's worth the work and expense. If not then it's simply a matter of preference. No right. No wrong.

Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

markbarendt · Apr 18, 2015

Bill Burk said:
I bring a Minox as backup for my 4x5, sure would hate to miss a shot because my main camera had some issue...

markbarendt · Apr 18, 2015

ScottPhoto.co said:
The MF files were no less as "good" as a portrait, they were just different. [/url]

Yep.

And it's not just the film that imparts the differences, each lens imparts it's own signature.

frank · Apr 18, 2015

While printing a MF negative, how many times has any one of us slapped the side of our head and said: "Man, I wish I had taken this with 135 format instead!"

Well, maybe if the MF neg didn't turn out because your MF camera lacked the auto features that your 135 camera more likely has.

Paul Howell · Apr 18, 2015

frank said:
While printing a MF negative, how many times has any one of us slapped the side of our head and said: "Man, I wish I had taken this with 135 format instead!"

Well, maybe if the MF neg didn't turn out because your MF camera lacked the auto features that your 135 camera more likely has.

There have been times that after lugging my Mamyia Universal up a mountain I slapped myself on the side of my head and "Man I wished I had packed my 135 format instead."

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

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency