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

Bill Burk · Apr 18, 2015

momus said:
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.

There are times when I can tell, and there are times I can't tell. When I look at my dry prints from 4x5, I get a much different feeling than I get when I look at prints from other formats.

I would say in the pursuit of straight (Group f.64) photography, a larger negative is best for static subjects like landscapes. Hand cameras are generally better suited to capturing life (this thought is an old one sort of taken from Ansel Adams - Making a Photograph).

For my own work, I like to challenge that traditional assignment, and I like to use 4x5 for everything. I also like to work in smaller formats. Sometimes when I look at a print from 35mm, I "wish" it had been done in 4x5. As I look over my past vintage work, I wish I had more 4x5 negatives to print.

If you are certain that you will not feel remorse for not shooting 4x5, you can shoot smaller formats. I almost think that's the only reason I would say you have to shoot large format... if you think you will demand that large format quality in the future.

Nathan King · Apr 18, 2015

It's about the image

I don't even understand all of this discussion. I've never had a poor image improved by increasing film area or a great image destroyed by using 35mm.

Bill Burk · Apr 18, 2015

PDH said:
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."

The only time I slap myself on the side of my head is when I have the Star-D tripod strapped to the side of my pack, as I walk back to it after shooting a roll without it.

Kawaiithulhu · Apr 18, 2015

Graflex Press Camera: best of both worlds, 4x5 static landscapes and capturing life.
Problem solved

frank · Apr 18, 2015

Nathan King said:
I don't even understand all of this discussion. I've never had a poor image improved by increasing film area or a great image destroyed by using 35mm.

Well thats a textbook example of a strawman argument. If an image is poor then it is a poor image regardless of format. If an image is great then it is great, regardless of format.

Sirius Glass · Apr 18, 2015

Kawaiithulhu said:
Graflex Press Camera: best of both worlds, 4x5 static landscapes and capturing life.
Problem solved

+1

RalphLambrecht · Apr 18, 2015

frank said:
Well thats a textbook example of a strawman argument. If an image is poor then it is a poor image regardless of format. If an image is great then it is great, regardless of format.

I think, the conversation is about technical image quality where image format definitely makes a difference;aesthetically it doesn't but at that point it's too late to change negative format anyway.technically the larger negformat has the advantage over smaller formats because it requires less enlargement,which reduces resolution, detail and tonality.it's hard to argue otherwise unless you are talking'good enough' for a given print size and viewing distance

Nathan King · Apr 18, 2015

frank said:
Well thats a textbook example of a strawman argument. If an image is poor then it is a poor image regardless of format. If an image is great then it is great, regardless of format.

Fair enough. I guess my point is, how large do most of us print on a regular basis? How much wall space do you have? I have only printed larger than 11x14 once and was taken aback at the amount of space required for processing. I realize Mr. Lambrecht and professional fine art photographers often print large for exhibitions, but is the average hobbyist? Perhaps I'm a statistical outlier and everybody prints big? With modern emulsions I'd say the average Joe analog photographer would be hard pressed to enlarge beyond what a good 6x4.5 negative is capable of delivering, and a 35mm frame would probably suffice 85% of the time.

markbarendt · Apr 18, 2015

Nathan King said:
Fair enough. I guess my point is, how large do most of us print on a regular basis? How much wall space do you have? I have only printed larger than 11x14 once and was taken aback at the amount of space required for processing. I realize Mr. Lambrecht and professional fine art photographers often print large for exhibitions, but is the average hobbyist? Perhaps I'm a statistical outlier and everybody prints big? With modern emulsions I'd say the average Joe analog photographer would be hard pressed to enlarge beyond what a good 6x4.5 negative is capable of delivering, and a 35mm frame would probably suffice 85% of the time.

I have on occasion consider getting an 8 x 10 camera so that I could skip the enlarger and just print directly in the bathroom.

Bill Burk · Apr 18, 2015

Kawaiithulhu said:
Graflex Press Camera: best of both worlds, 4x5 static landscapes and capturing life.
Problem solved

Hi Kawaiithulhu!

Did you ever get your vintage kit put together... last time I recall you were still looking for a good light meter...

Sirius Glass · Apr 18, 2015

Has anyone other than me noticed that the OP posted exactly once and has left the thread? The OP started a thread that he/she has no interest in following.

Old-N-Feeble · Apr 18, 2015

My preference is extremely fine grain and ultimate detail. If we're willing to give up a tiny bit of quality and forego contact printing in exchange for having a camera system most of us can actually carry and afford to shoot with then the following may, or may not, put things into perspective.

If we crop all formats to 1:1.25 ratio and if we're only considering grain size...

135 = 8x10
6x4.5cm = 16x20
6x7cm = 20x24
4x5" = 30x40

Those are just my personal limits but will certainly fudge larger especially with the larger formats.

Bill Burk · Apr 18, 2015

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

My take is that it's NOT a strawman argument. Minox is as beautiful as the larger formats and each has its place.

I wish I had a Large Format view of Shadow Lake, but this is what I have. Farther up the trail I used 35mm (I'll have to look, but likely Kodachrome) and have a nice intimate scene with sage blossoms and aspen. Then of course at Thousand Island Lakes I have a 35mm black and white which resembles Ansel Adams' shot of the lake.

I also have audiotape recordings from that trip.

My favorite line from the tape was my buddy asking me "what did you triangulate on, that tree?" It remains an indelible memory and part of my psyche because I knew exactly where I was when I met up with them although another hiker on the same trail was totally confused because the weather obscured landmarks.

My secret: The Thommens altimeter... All I had to do was cross-reference the altitude to the trail on the map.

Bill Burk · Apr 18, 2015

My "problem" is that I think all photography is beautiful.

The only critique I give is whose lead I follow.

MattKing · Apr 19, 2015

All I know is that I prefer printing from larger negatives (6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7) over printing from smaller negatives.

Even though I am often happy with the results I obtain with 35mm.

Some of that preference may indeed be due to the different uses I tend to put my 35mm cameras to, and the differe t film choices I sometimes make as a result.

But I expect it also has something to do with the approach I take - I am much more likely to visualize a larger print when I am using the larger cameras then when I am using 35mm, and I am therefore more likely to make technical choices (tripod, slower shutter speed, light modification, filters, etc.) with those cameras.

Not always, but certainly more often.

gone · Apr 19, 2015

I have a Star D tripod too Bill. Love it! Don't like carrying it or any tripod though, which is why I shoot mostly 35mm. If you're an out-and-about shooter, it's impossible to take candids and grab shots w/ a 4x5. Even a 120 format camera is pushing your luck. Well, you can take one shot. Then what? Tell the subject to hold tight, I need to get this thing wound on to the next frame?

From the responses I see here, and thanks everyone very much, it looks like it's more of a variable/personal thing. I do see differences between the different formats at the negative stage. Nothing beats holding a large neg on a light table. But on a fiber print, that's where I don't see much difference between the formats at "reasonable" print sizes. Years ago I read somewhere that 35mm lenses were designed for sharpness, whereas when you get to the larger formats it's more about coverage. Even a 3 element MF or LF lens is going to give you adequate sharpness.

I still say, based on what I see around the house here, that there is not enough of a difference in sharpness to go to anything larger than 35mm if you're not making very big prints. This is based on customary viewing distances in a gallery or a home, not sticking my nose up to the print or holding it in my hand to look at it. On a landscape? I might go to a larger format, especially if there are a lot of clouds and sky in the photo. But that's for grain issues, not sharpness. So I still tend to think it's more about "correct" film selection and correct exposure and development. This is based on making multiple exposures of the same shot w/ the same film and camera when trying to see what the "best" exposure might be for that film. The negs that are improperly exposed are not sharp, the ones that are exposed correctly look completely different. It would be easy to assume that they came from a different camera or film. If I needed a LARGE print of a landscape, then sure, LF. But since no one has ever shown any interest in buying something like that from me, and since I would much prefer making a painting or a conventional art print for something like that (horses for courses), it's not on the table.

You know what I think is really going on? People are scanning their negs and saying, wow, look at that. What a difference! Well, film scanners will actually accentuate grain. Once it's printed, it's a different story.

markbarendt · Apr 19, 2015

momus said:
Sure, a larger neg will give a less grainier appearance because the film grains are, I assume, smaller.

Actually the film grains resolution are the same, per square inch; FP4, is FP4, is FP4, regardless of format. What changes is (assuming cameras that are shooting the same angle of view) that the subject matter is bigger in relationship to the grain.

momus said:
I still say, based on what I see around the house here, ...

In the end that is all that matters for any of us.

RalphLambrecht · Apr 19, 2015

Michael R 1974 said:
Leaving art out of it and speaking of technical print quality, if you are willing to work and be meticulous, and assuming you don't need gigantic prints, 35mm can be taken further than many people think. This has been my experience, at least. Sheet film also requires skill and meticulous care if the benefits are to be had. This is where many people go wrong. They assume switching to larger formats will "automatically" lead to higher print quality.

and that for good reason.It's a lot easier to get high technical print quality from a larger negative with contact printing being the ultimate and MF being hard to beat..If I hsd to start over I'd start with MF just as the generation before me did.

markbarendt · Apr 19, 2015

Leaving art out of photography, is a bit like leaving humor out of a joke.

Sure, in scientific research one might want leave art out of the photographic equation, but with regard to the grand majority of photography (and yes, IMO this includes journalism), emotion is the goal and driver and basic reason for photography.

Every photographic tool brings something distinct to the result. We each choose the tools that get the results we expect. For example my Holga brings a beautiful visual character to certain types of shots. A character that it would take extra work to duplicate using a different camera. It just happens to be the easiest way for me to get that specific visual result on the days that that matters to me.

If we are going to leave art out of the photographic question then why would we even need B&W film?

markbarendt · Apr 19, 2015

Michael R 1974 said:
I don't think there is very much differentiating film formats from an artistic/creative perspective.

In that sense there is also little differentiating TX from HP5 or FP4 from TMax 100 or from Nikon to Leica. And I agree.

frank · Apr 19, 2015

Not everyone "gets" everything. It is what it is, but perception is reality.

benjiboy · Apr 19, 2015

If the O.P can't tell the difference between 35mm and medium format he's not doing it right.

RPC · Apr 19, 2015

benjiboy said:
If the O.P can't tell the difference between 35mm and medium format he's not doing it right.

+1

Or, perhaps needs his eyes checked. Being serious, not facetious.

leicarfcam · Apr 19, 2015

I think the biggest advantage between 35mm and MF/LF is smoother tonality and less grain with MF/LF. While 35mm is one of the best formats, it simply falls short when compared..

frank · Apr 19, 2015

benjiboy said:
If the O.P can't tell the difference between 35mm and medium format he's not doing it right.

Also +1

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

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency