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

[nathantw]

It appears I'm really, really late to this thread (99 messages late). However, that said, I remember when I was doing 4x5 I didn't see a difference either. Everyone said it was grain free and that the tonal range was incredible. Well, I didn't see it when I printed the 4x5 b/w negatives. They still had grain and the tonal range looked the same as what I expected. Well, years later, after printing hundreds of 35mm prints in the darkroom I purchased a 6x6 camera. I dragged the motorized heavyweight camera up steep hills and down hiking trails. I printed one of the scenic photos and I immediately saw the sharpness, tonal range, and small grain that was expected with a larger format than 35mm. It was definitely a difference. That said I think the problem I had with 4x5 was that I didn't process the film properly and my technique wasn't that great. Years later when I printed the medium format negative I had the skills to actually make and see the differences between formats.

So, the OP couldn't see a difference. I think if he/she printed the negative using an optical photo enlarger they'd see the difference especially when printed properly.

 

[leicarfcam]

why would it be hard to understand that it might be hard to see the difference between a 35mm, 120 and 4x5 ?

It's not difficult at all. Larger negatives will have much smoother tonality and far less grain but that is IF you developed the negatives properly.

i have told this story before, but i used to contact a guy who used to do all the film and chemistry tests for photo lab index --
he enlarged 8mm film to 16x20 and had it on display at some sort of party people from the index were having
or whatever ... ansel adams was there looking at the print and thought it was made with a large format camera....
jerry laughed from what i remember showed him the film ... it was smaller than 110 film ...
claims that there is some sort of innate difference between all these formats is a moot point for me .. again, for me at least, they all
pretty much take the same photographs, the film looks the same and they enlarge the same ...

I doubt this is a true story your friend told.

Film no matter the format is designed to capture a latent image. When you take a 110, 35mm, and MF/LF negative and enlarge the projected image onto the paper 8x10 and beyond you are obviously going to get a better image with the larger format..

i am sure if i took 3 different photographs
1 with a 4x5 camera, 1 with a roll back in a 4x5 camera and one with a 35mm camera and enlarged them all to 8x10 or 11x14 they would be pretty much the same ...

With nearly 50 years of experience I can assure you this is not the case..

its just a matter of convenience what camera i pick up, or what kind of fun i hope to have ...

I can agree with this..

 

[Sirius Glass]

why would it be hard to understand that it might be hard to see the difference between a 35mm, 120 and 4x5 ?

i have told this story before, but i used to contact a guy who used to do all the film and chemistry tests for photo lab index --
he enlarged 8mm film to 16x20 and had it on display at some sort of party people from the index were having
or whatever ... ansel adams was there looking at the print and thought it was made with a large format camera....
jerry laughed from what i remember showed him the film ... it was smaller than 110 film ...
claims that there is some sort of innate difference between all these formats is a moot point for me .. again, for me at least, they all
pretty much take the same photographs, the film looks the same and they enlarge the same ... i am sure if i took 3 different photographs 1 with a 4x5 camera, 1 with a roll back in a 4x5 camera and one with a 35mm camera and enlarged them all to 8x10 or 11x14 they would be pretty much the same ...

Apocryphal is the word that comes to mind when reading this.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

The contact prints from my Minox are just as sharp as my 4x5 contacts.

 

[Bill Burk]

I shoot 35mm, 6x9 and 4x5, and I always print 11x14. So I regularly see acceptable silver gelatin prints from each format in a way that... if there was a significant difference... I should be able to explain it.

I've tried to demonstrate the difference between formats, and have been unsuccessful... at demonstrating a difference.

That exercise left me free... to shoot all the formats. Because I am confident that I can make equally acceptable prints from each.

I do prefer greater landscape shots from 4x5. I also favor family portraits on 4x5, and photographs where I am trying to capture a place or time. But for everything else, I will shoot what I have in my pack.

 

[removed account4]

Sorry to hear that. You're missing out!

why am i missing out?
i think you might be missing the point ?

i have been shooting large format since 1988, and smaller formats since 1970
i do work for archives and some of my work is in the LOC. the problem is
blanket statements that larger formats are inherently better, &c, its not necessarily true.


but to each their own.

 

[Bill Burk]

The contact prints from my Minox are just as sharp as my 4x5 contacts.

I can tell my Minox (enlargements) shots are a bit grainy compared to 4x5.

 

[Bill Burk]

why am i missing out?
i think you might be missing the point ?

i have been shooting large format since 1988, and smaller formats since 1970
i do work for archives and some of my work is in the LOC. the problem is
blanket statements that larger formats are inherently better, &c, its not necessarily true.


but to each their own.

I think RPC would enjoy your HABS/HAER shots... maybe RPC is not aware that you know what it looks like.

 

[RPC]

why am i missing out?
i think you might be missing the point ?

i have been shooting large format since 1988, and smaller formats since 1970
i do work for archives and some of my work is in the LOC. the problem is
blanket statements that larger formats are inherently better, &c, its not necessarily true.


but to each their own.

If you are not seeing any difference, then you are not seeing the superiority of the larger formats, and are missing out on it. It is definitely there, appreciated by all the photographers today, and in the past, who chose the larger formats because of it.

 

[removed account4]

It's not difficult at all. Larger negatives will have much smoother tonality and far less grain but that is IF you developed the negatives properly.



I doubt this is a true story your friend told.

Film no matter the format is designed to capture a latent image. When you take a 110, 35mm, and MF/LF negative and enlarge the projected image onto the paper 8x10 and beyond you are obviously going to get a better image with the larger format..



With nearly 50 years of experience I can assure you this is not the case..



I can agree with this..

sorry

jerry katz had no reason to lie to me. the conversation i had with him revolved around monobath developers he invented . we were going to work on a project together
and write an articile for VC magazine about using ansco130 as a film developer, something i have done now for more than 15 yeras probably near to 20 ...
unfortunately, the publisher of VC magazine refused to allow me to mention where to get glycin becasue he was having a dispute with the photographer's formulary ..
and then jerry's untimlely death didn't help ... but he had no reason to lie to me about the developers he made or prints he made or his background.
if you are familiar with morgan/morgan's photo lab index his reputation speaks for itself. sorry you don't believe his claims, i guess it is your loss, not mine ( or his )

unless you are talking massive enlargements on old grain structure films ... tabular grain films yield a tight grain structure and without jerry katz's special monobath developer
it isn't hard to enlarge a negative whose format is not easily discerned. as i said, i am sure i can expose 3 different formats, same film, same field of view and the viewer wouldn't be
able to tell what format i used. ...

maybe before the mid 80s when tabular grained films didn't exist, and one HAD to use pan-x or slower films and some sub atomic developer to get fine grain ...
but post 80s one can easily enlarge 35mm without issue. besides small format lenses are sharp as nails.
with regards to a 8x10 or larger print, i regularly enlarge 35mm to at least 11x14, and i have some 16x20 35mm enlargments on my wall that might have people question what format was used ...
a friend here on apug regulary has his 35mm enlarged to something like 32x40 ... and the point is that this isn't 1970 when one needed large format to get an image to look a certain way ...
some might even say it is a waste of effort to shoot LF or MF because 35mm is so good

not sure what your 50 years of experience has to do with it, but since you are making it a pissing contest ?
i have 46 years experience, if i have to put a number on it, and i've worked professoinally for about 30 years ...
it doesn't matter to me what format you or anyone else uses and suggesting one HAS to see a difference between formats, for an 8x10 print is kind of strange.

 

[gzinsel]

I can see the difference between, my negatives shot with my Canon P, my fuji gw690III, and my kodak (4x5) and my fujinon L 420 (8x10). The difference is as clear as day. Now between the 6x9 and 4x5 not so much. you have to look real close and hold side by side, . . . . true, true. But 35mm print on a 8x10( 6"x9") or there abouts looks not so good against the 8x10, just sayin.

 

[Bill Burk]

If you are not seeing any difference, then you are not seeing the superiority of the larger formats, and are missing out on it. It is definitely there, appreciated by all the photographers today, and in the past, who chose the larger formats because of it.

If I could help you make the point I would. Yes I think 4x5 is superior, but when I go to prove it, I come up with a fair comparison: 35mm Panatomic-X up against 4x5 TMY-2 - 4x5 on the left... My assessment is that the detail is comparable.

 

[frank]

Really? Are you serious? If there's no difference in detail and sharpness between 135 and larger formats, then why would anyone bother with larger cameras? Is it all just for show? Do my eyes lie to me?

Sure, tabular grain film is an improvement, but larger formats also gain from that film improvement.

Like I said, the laws of optics and physics in my universe stipulate that tonality and fine detail deteriorate proportionately to the degree of enlargement. Larger formats require less enlargement and therefore resolve finer detail and result in better tonality.

Certainly, with modern film, the 135 format does a good enough job in most cases, but larger formats will do better at identical print sizes. That's how my universe works.

 

[removed account4]

I think RPC would enjoy your HABS/HAER shots... maybe RPC is not aware that you know what it looks like.

maybe ...
it seems thought he is taking me for a joker who doesn't know how to process film LOL

If you are not seeing any difference, then you are not seeing the superiority of the larger formats, and are missing out on it. It is definitely there, appreciated by all the photographers today, and in the past, who chose the larger formats because of it.

pre tab grained film there was a difference, post mid 1980s, it really put smaller format cameras on a closer playing field.
with regards to "photographers today and the past ... " ( yadda yadda yadda )
photographers in the past ( pre 1900 / 1890s ) used LF because there was nothing else ... portrait photographers used LF until 2nd half of the 20th century becasue
of the ability to retouch the negative with lead, architectureal and commercial ( tabletop ) photographers and portrait photographers used LF because
of the user's ability to change image perspective &c, press photographers, well contact prints looked good that size in print, and today, many people use LF
sorry to say it, but ... for bragging rights, sometimes it has nothing to do with how glorious the negative might be but to do something they like, and feel part of a tradition ...

i have said a few times in this thread that if processed correctly it isn't hard to make a 35mm negative using modern films print like a 4x5 negative
others have said the same thing ... if someone knows what they are doing it really isn't hard to have tack sharp beautiful 35mm negatives ...
i don't think i am missing the superiority of large format at all ( i have been using LF since 1988 )
i think a lot of the people responding to this thread fail to see the superiority of SMALL format cameras, and good technique.
not really sure why that is hard to agree to? maybe a lot of people have a lot of $$ tied up into LF and MF equipment and beleived what
friends, sales people, blogs and people admire told them. granted some of it might be true, but some of it is hype, and as CHUCK-D sang "don't believe the hype "

do what you want, it doesn't really matter to me what format someone uses, if he can't see any difference, fine with me, but
not sure how one can claim others are doing things all wrong ... if their 35mm film is tack sharp and enlarges to 16x20 without issue ...

 

[frank]

I'm using Tri-X or HP5+ in all formats so I guess the difference between formats is more obvious to me. If modern film improved print detail and tonality in 135 format, it did the same to larger formats. And there is still the physics of degree of enlargement to contend with.

 

[RPC]

If I could help you make the point I would. Yes I think 4x5 is superior, but when I go to prove it, I come up with a fair comparison: 35mm Panatomic-X up against 4x5 TMY-2 - 4x5 on the left... My assessment is that the detail is comparable.

This tells me nothing. The OP was about formats, not films. Shouldn't you compare with the same film for a fair test? What about other factors--lenses, focus, vibration, development. Don't know what I am really even looking at. I have seen real world examples time and time again supporting what I say.

 

[removed account4]

Really? Are you serious? If there's no difference in detail and sharpness between 135 and larger formats, then why would anyone bother with larger cameras? Is it all just for show? Do my eyes lie to me?

Sure, tabular grain film is an improvement, but larger formats also gain from that film improvement.

Like I said, the laws of optics and physics in my universe stipulate that tonality and fine detail deteriorate proportionately to the degree of enlargement. Larger formats require less enlargement and therefore resolve finer detail and result in better tonality.

Certainly, with modern film, the 135 format does a good enough job in most cases, but larger formats will do better at identical print sizes. That's how my universe works.

sounds good to me frank.
its all about having a good time.

my universe is the same as yours, as far as i know.
i don't know why people use LF cameras, it might be
all a big joke on them ( and me ).

i can tell you why i use a LF camera ... it has nothing to do with
sharpness or details or any that stuff ... i like exposing paper negatives
and glass plates and while it is not hard making 35mm paper and glass plates
it is easier for ME to use 4x5 and bigger.
i also use LF becasue when i do HABS/HAER documentation
the smallest format they accept is 4x5 because they want 4x5 contact prints ... and some states
don't want 4x5 anymore, i HAVE done 35mm negatives and 5x7 enlargements.

seems the state governments can't see much of a differnce either

 

[Bill Burk]

This tells me nothing. The OP was about formats, not films. Shouldn't you compare with the same film for a fair test? What about other factors--lenses, focus, vibration, development. Don't know what I am really even looking at. I have seen real world examples time and time again supporting what I say.

What you see here is the very best of my 35mm pitted against the very best of my 4x5. They are, to me, identical. I prefer the 4x5 for many reasons that are more emotional than demonstrable. Yes it's a fine-grain film in 35mm up against a fast film in 4x5. But that is how I operate.

I first introduced this image in a thread, 35mm enlarging - who is passionate about it?. In that thread, and in many other discussions, Thomas Bertilsson convinced me that 35mm is a valuable and viable format for photographic expression.

He didn't change my mind. But he did expand it. As I've said, I prefer 4x5 and I wish I'd used 4x5 more often in my youth, because most of my vintage photography is 35mm and I enjoy printing 4x5 most of all now. But Thomas Bertilsson convinced me it hasn't all been wasted time.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

All I can say in response to this, is that our realities are markedly different. Perhaps we exist in parallel universes where the laws of optics and physics are different. That's my best guess.

Try not to allow yourself to be drawn too far off center line and into the weeds, Frank. Nothing has changed. The sun continues to rise in the east and set in the west. This fact is easily verified by simply looking at it with your own eyes.



Ken

 

[removed account4]

What you see here is the very best of my 35mm pitted against the very best of my 4x5. They are, to me, identical. I prefer the 4x5 for many reasons that are more emotional than demonstrable. Yes it's a fine-grain film in 35mm up against a fast film in 4x5. But that is how I operate.

I first introduced this image in a thread, 35mm enlarging - who is passionate about it?. In that thread, and in many other discussions, Thomas Bertilsson convinced me that 35mm is a valuable and viable format for photographic expression.

He didn't change my mind. But he did expand it. As I've said, I prefer 4x5 and I wish I'd used 4x5 more often in my youth, because most of my vintage photography is 35mm and I enjoy printing 4x5 most of all now. But Thomas Bertilsson convinced me it hasn't all been wasted time.

thank you bill,
as you know, i agree with you wholeheartedly ...

and all i can say is don't allow yourself to be dragged too far into the weeds
all you need to do is look at your own work with your own eyes and you will see
the differences ( or lack of them )

 

[Nodda Duma]

All I can say in response to this, is that our realities are markedly different. Perhaps we exist in parallel universes where the laws of optics and physics are different. That's my best guess.

It's the film itself which creates the difference. Take it from a lens designer: The optics and physics say there isn't a difference...not when you enlarge the smaller format to compare prints of the same size, and can remove film grain from the equation.

Film grain drove format sizes historically. As film got better and supported enlargements, the formats got smaller.

 

[MattKing]

Try not to allow yourself to be drawn too far off center line and into the weeds, Frank. Nothing has changed. The sun continues to rise in the east and set in the west. This fact is easily verified by simply looking at it with your own eyes.



Ken

The sun rising and setting truism may be much harder to verify if one is performing the "TLR camera above the head" test referred to earlier in the thread.

There have been lots of references already in this thread to the role that film plays in the question. I think, however, that it needs to be emphasized that the improvements in modern films make a fundamental difference in the technical quality obtainable from 35mm and other smallish formats.

One is much less likely now to have to contend with technical limitations due to the small size of the 35mm negative.

I still prefer printing though from larger negatives.

 

[Bill Burk]

RPC,

I don't mean to contradict your assertion that, all things being equal the larger film format provides better detail.

As I have said, I know this is technically true. How to demonstrate the difference is what has proved difficult for me.

I suppose if you were to look through portfolio after portfolio of prints from 35mm, and then come upon a book where the originals were 4x5, all of a sudden your eyes would drink in the detail.

One day, long ago, a friend of my stepfather came by with a few packs of color prints from his vacation. I was astounded by the detail. I can't remember the camera he shot but I think it was a current 6x7 rangefinder of the early 1980's. That was one of the times I recall thinking "I have to shoot larger format".

Another time, I made reproduction prints from my in-law's wedding photographs. The originals were 4x5 and my copy negative was 35mm Panatomic-X. I recall how disappointed I was that my copy prints didn't come close to capturing the original detail.

And at a marketing seminar, I heard William Neill talk about how "all things being equal" the photographer who brings 4x5 to the light box is going to win. His 4x5 chromes are beautiful to see. I knew if I was going to continue the path to being a nature photographer, I would need to step up to 4x5.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

"All other things being equal" is not a throw-away phrase. It means, quite literally, isolating a single common variable for comparison by removing all other variables in the systems. And removing variables means converting them into equal constants.

Not close enough constants. Not pixie dust constants. Truly equal constants that factor entirely out of the comparison to be made. Miss equalizing even one other variable and the resulting comparison becomes compromised.

All other things being equal, the volume of raw data—abstracted information—that can be stored by a medium is a function of the size and the density of that medium. A 16GB flash drive can hold that many bytes of raw data. Double the size by adding a second identical drive and you double the volume. Double the density by replacing with a single 32GB drive and you also double the volume.

All other things being equal, a (nominal) 16x20 inch negative has ~12,289 times the surface area, and thus data storage volume, of a 3.5x4.8 millimeter (8mm MP frame) negative.

This is a physical property that can't be dismissed with the wave of a hand, backed only by an assertion that "Hey! I'm an artist, so the rules don't apply to me." They do apply. To all of us. In the words of a well-known Cosmos host, they apply "Whether you want to believe they do, or not."

So I have real problems with an assertion that states enlargements from 8mm motion picture and 16x20 inch (or any other size) large format negatives are indistinguishable. They could only be indistinguishable if the negatives that produced them contained the exact same information. And all other things being equal, they simply cannot.

The sun rises where it does not as a convenience to any one of us. It rises as a consequence of the unbending rules of celestial mechanics, those rules being far above our poor power to add or detract.*

Ken

* Except, of course, for the use case of holding a TLR above one's head...

 

[removed account4]

I'm using Tri-X or HP5+ in all formats so I guess the difference between formats is more obvious to me. If modern film improved print detail and tonality in 135 format, it did the same to larger formats. And there is still the physics of degree of enlargement to contend with.

yes, it would be dead obvious using tri x and hp5+ seeing they are the grainiest films available.
what i have suggested about the differences between formats, for me, was true using low / no grained films
tabular grained films, like tmy+tmx, pan-x and tech pan. but then again at a good "viewing distance"
35mm pinhole images shot on 3200 film can be enlarged to 32x40 ... and look perfect.
its all about what you want, what you like and what you do ...