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

[EdColorado]

But shooting 6x7 or LF for bragging rights? I shoot those cameras in the studio… the models, clients, and makeup artists have seen a million of 'em.

It doesn't help shooting them out in the world either. We shoot film cameras... The rest of the world thinks we're idiots...

 

[Sirius Glass]

18 Pages from a sort-of troll-ey thread.

Anyone regular on APUG knows that this sort of question generates… well, 18 pages.

Am I STILL the only one to notice that the OP only posted once and has left the building??

 

[film_man]

If you can't see the tonality and overall look difference between 35mm and something like 6x7 or 4x5 then...well ok, whatever suits you.

 

[removed account4]

Ha ha... sorry yours is so small.

Ya know I'm just playin', right?

lol ...

 

[removed account4]

If you can't see the tonality and overall look difference between 35mm and something like 6x7 or 4x5 then...well ok, whatever suits you.

hi film_man

i would guess that a lot of people can't see the subtle differnces between 35mm, 120 and 4x5 at moderate enlargement ( like 8x10 or between 8x10 and 11x14 ) ..
that said, i don't have an axe to grind i don't need to prove to anyone or show anyone how sharp my negatives or prints are
because the reason i make photographs isn't to have epic sharpness or epic tonality or any of the reasons a lot of people flock to diferent formats.
i use whatever i have handy, whether that is half frame or something larger, and i don't worry about it there are too many other things in life to worry about.
currently i am using a very large camera, not because of sharpness or the ability to enlarge to a billboard size image, or for bragging rights, but because its fun,
and i think fun trumps all ...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It's totally a matter of what we're trying to achieve. Photographers like Cartier-Bresson, Winogrand, Erwitt, etc all shot 35mm cameras. Would their photographs have been any better if they had used a Speed Graphic? Or a Rolleiflex? I don't think so.

Would the mural prints of landscape photographers such as Ansel Adams and Clyde Butcher have looked worse had they used 35mm cameras? Absolutely.

The arguments for or against larger and smaller formats will perpetuate, as long as there is a diverse group of photographers who practice studio model work, landscape work, street photography, journalism, architecture, and so on.

We can only argue what we personally believe to be best for us. That doesn't make other people's arguments less valid. Keep it simple, enjoy what you do, have some fun, and make the best art you know how to.

 

[RobC]

I went through this exercise a few years back. Visited my mom and in the backyard hang several pots of Epiphyllums - I shoot in my 35mm OM-1 with 40mm f/2 at f/11... And I shoot the exact same scene using my 4x5 with 135mm f/4.7 at f/32

In both cases I get 7 feet to infinity in focus.

Different circles of confusion apply because the 4x5 enjoys less enlargement.

But how do I get from f/11 to f/32? Doesn't shutter speed have to change.

Well, that's one way.

Or I could change to a faster film for the 4x5

Yup I screwed up and my calculations were wrong.

I'd need F22.7 on the 4x5 which would give me a CoC of 0.030. That means I could enalarge the 35mm format 4X before the CoC is same as on 4x5 film.

 

[rbultman]

Different circles of confusion apply because the 4x5 enjoys less enlargement.

I don't understand this, can you explain this please? Specifically, what do you mean by 'enjoys less enlargement'?

Thanks and regards,
Rob

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[film_man]

hi film_man
i would guess that a lot of people can't see the subtle differnces between 35mm, 120 and 4x5 at moderate enlargement ( like 8x10 or between 8x10 and 11x14 ) ..
that said, i don't have an axe to grind i don't need to prove to anyone or show anyone how sharp my negatives or prints are
because the reason i make photographs isn't to have epic sharpness or epic tonality or any of the reasons a lot of people flock to diferent formats.
i use whatever i have handy, whether that is half frame or something larger, and i don't worry about it there are too many other things in life to worry about.
currently i am using a very large camera, not because of sharpness or the ability to enlarge to a billboard size image, or for bragging rights, but because its fun,
and i think fun trumps all ...

True, fun trumps it all and if I do take a photo with my 35mm camera I won't agonise too much thinking "if only I had a larger format". I also do not take photographs to have epic sharpness or epic tonality but in the end if you can have it, why not and I don't get that "use what you've got it's better than your skills" mentality. The cameras are there to get and are cheaper than ever so in my books you can never have too much of a good thing so I'll have as many cameras as I can! I can see the difference in tonality even in small prints, so if someone can't see or doesn't care I don't see why they go about justifying by characterising those that do see it with some less than positive light.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I can see the difference in tonality even in small prints, so if someone can't see or doesn't care I don't see why they go about justifying by characterising those that do see it with some less than positive light.

 

[Bill Burk]

I don't understand this, can you explain this please? Specifically, what do you mean by 'enjoys less enlargement'?

Thanks and regards,
Rob

Sorry for the shorthand...

4x5 enjoys the advantage, for the same print size, that you need less enlargement than for a 35mm enlargement.

 

[rbultman]

Ok, so, since LF is enlarged less, it's can withstand larger circles of confusion than smaller formats. This allows a larger aperture in LF to capture the same effective DoF at the same print size relative to a smaller format? If so, this would translate into better low-light performance for LF?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Ko.Fe.]

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?

Yep, you don't get it, because you are looking at it in the limited to grain and resolution way. I don't want to waste my time here, but to me the difference between 135, MF and LF is visible on the monitor at the gallery thumbnail size. Man, it sucks to be able to see the difference not just in sharpness and grain size, to be honest

 

[removed account4]

... so if someone can't see or doesn't care I don't see why they go about justifying by characterising those that do see it with some less than positive light.

becaise i thnk it is all BS .. ?
and i honestly believe people like to justify
their expensive gear by making claims that the differences are so blatently obvious.
when in many instances they are not ...

 

[cliveh]

Ok, so, since LF is enlarged less, it's can withstand larger circles of confusion than smaller formats. This allows a larger aperture in LF to capture the same effective DoF at the same print size relative to a smaller format? If so, this would translate into better low-light performance for LF?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

I may be misreading what you say here, but one advantage small formats have over LF is DOF at the taking stage, so I don't really get this, or what you say about better low-light performance.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I may be misreading what you say here, but one advantage small formats have over LF is DOF at the taking stage, so I don't really get this, or what you say about better low-light performance.

I read that earlier and I'm a bit confused as well. But my instincts are telling me that the confusion is likely on my side, not his...

Ken

 

[removed account4]

I may be misreading what you say here, but one advantage small formats have over LF is DOF at the taking stage, so I don't really get this, or what you say about better low-light performance.

clive

http://photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/00CJNP
might help you understand ...

 

[Bill Burk]

This part is right...

Ok, so, since LF is enlarged less, it's can withstand larger circles of confusion than smaller formats.

But the rest doesn't follow...

This allows a larger aperture in LF to capture the same effective DoF at the same print size relative to a smaller format? If so, this would translate into better low-light performance for LF?

f/11 on the 40mm lens appears to have an aperture opening that measures about 3.5 - 4 mm looking from the front.

f/32 on the 135mm lens also has about the same opening size

f/32 is worse low-light performance so Large Format has to give the advantage of low-light performance to the smaller formats.

 

[film_man]

becaise i thnk it is all BS .. ?
and i honestly believe people like to justify
their expensive gear by making claims that the differences are so blatently obvious.
when in many instances they are not ...

Well the cheapest camera I own is my RB67. That is also the largest format I own. So your argument about justifying expensive gear says more about your prejudices than anything else. I will call BS as some people like to pretend they are the cool kids on the block because, in their mind, think they do what others do with lesser/cheaper/older/insert-whatever-here equipment, when they don't really. But hey, if that's what floats their boat whatevs.

Anyway, I'm not in the business of miracles so I can't make a blind person see and frankly I don't care. You shoot your small format and think you're the cool dude (TM), I shoot various formats and enjoy them all. And that's that.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

But the rest doesn't follow...

f/11 on the 40mm lens appears to have an aperture opening that measures about 3.5 - 4 mm looking from the front.

f/32 on the 135mm lens also has about the same opening size

f/32 is worse low-light performance so Large Format has to give the advantage of low-light performance to the smaller formats.

Minus your more detailed observations, this was the general direction my thinking was taking me. But I thought I might be missing something.

Ken

(Off-topic) P.S. I've been playing around with those meter inserts you sent. In normal daytime lighting the readings match my Konica-Minolta Auto Meter VF exactly. I think you've got me hooked, Bill...

 

[removed account4]

Well the cheapest camera I own is my RB67. That is also the largest format I own. So your argument about justifying expensive gear says more about your prejudices than anything else. I will call BS as some people like to pretend they are the cool kids on the block because, in their mind, think they do what others do with lesser/cheaper/older/insert-whatever-here equipment, when they don't really. But hey, if that's what floats their boat whatevs.

Anyway, I'm not in the business of miracles so I can't make a blind person see and frankly I don't care. You shoot your small format and think you're the cool dude (TM), I shoot various formats and enjoy them all. And that's that.

sounds good to me, use what you like and enjoy it. that is what I do.
( and what I have suggested this who,e thread )
it just tiring all the format bashing for whatever axe to grind reasons...

you see the difference, you don't, it really doesn't matter ...

 

[tomfrh]

This whole thread has to be a troll.

May as well be saying Porsches aren't any faster than Corollas because Porsches don't improve commute time, and that whilst no-ones denying there's a slight difference, that you need open road to reveal it.

 

[rbultman]

Clive and Ken,

I was trying to make some inferences from the response from Bill Burk to my question. I took what he said to mean that with LF, you don't need as much "actual" DoF because you don't need to enlarge as much. Smaller prints look sharper and can appear to have more DoF because the circles of confusion on small prints are smaller. An 8x10 from a 4x5 negative is a small print - not much enlargement. Perhaps this inference is wrong.

Bill - Thanks for that correction on low light performance. It was a bad inference.

Regards,
Rob

Edit: Proper attribution

 

[RobC]

This whole thread has to be a troll.

May as well be saying Porsches aren't any faster than Corollas because Porsches don't improve commute time, and that whilst no-ones denying there's a slight difference, that you need open road to reveal it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32332210

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

This whole thread has to be a troll.

May as well be saying Porsches aren't any faster than Corollas because Porsches don't improve commute time, and that whilst no-ones denying there's a slight difference, that you need open road to reveal it.

Perhaps the best thing now for this thread would be for someone to sit down and explain The First Rule Of Holes...



Ken