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

[Ken Nadvornick]

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

Proper credit for that actually belongs to Bill.



Ken

[Edit: Reattribution noted.]

 

[rbultman]

Proper credit for that actually belongs to Bill.



Ken

Thanks Bill, er, Ken.

Apologies, noted and corrected.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[rbultman]

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



Ken

I decided to stop digging in the other "35mm rules" thread.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[flavio81]

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.

Well said Film man. Well said.

In my case my most expensive camera is 35mm format.And some of the cheapest ones were 6x6 format.

 

[Bill Burk]

Thanks Bill, er, Ken.

Haa, You're welcome.

 

[GaryFlorida]

Regarding 35mm vs MF, if you use the same focal length lens from the same distance, how can the subject look any different on the film since it will be the same size?

 

[MattKing]

Regarding 35mm vs MF, if you use the same focal length lens from the same distance, how can the subject look any different on the film since it will be the same size?

It looks more lonely, because of all the empty space around it.

And of course, the lens designed for medium format may not perform as well over the 24mm x 36mm portion of that medium format film, because:

a) it normally has to be able to perform over a much larger area; and
b) it normally can count on the negatives it produces being larger, and therefore requiring less magnification.

Finally, the viewing system in the medium format will be showing you everything that the film sees so you, as the operator, won't be able to see that smaller portion as well.

 

[frank]

I once took a family group portrait with 5 people and 2 dogs. Used a Fuji gw670, tripod mounted, with HP5+. After the sitting, the dad asked for individual 8x10 head shots of his 2 children. All I could do was heavily crop each child from the group shot. The crops would have been maybe 1/2 of a 135 fame, maybe less. They were grainier with a less smooth tonality, but still acceptable to me and the clients. Had I taken the family portrait on 135 instead of 6x7, I wouldn't have been able to deliver. MF saved my reputation/butt.

My current, and ideal, carry around camera is a Plaubel Makina 67W with 55mm lens. It feels like a 28 equivalent on 135 format. If I needed the extra reach of a normal lens (80mm on this format) I could simply enlarge the central 135 format area of the 6x7 neg. MF gives me the option of a zoom by cropping down to 135 format size. The central portion of any lens is the sweet spot, so quality from such a print would be comparable to a native 50mm 135 format print. What I give up is lens speed, but that's why I use iso400 film.

Anyway, this is what works for me. I could not care less what others do, but when I see info posted on a forum that doesn't agree with my experience, such as the case here, I speak up.

 

[markbarendt]

That's not a new thought frank, but a good one. A great way to save film too.

Good reason to break out the 4x5 more often.

 

[frank]

John, the tall vertical picture you posted briefly where you asked what format was used, was a poor example. Not enough info in the image to tell, plus we don't know how big the print is. It could have been taken with anything from a minox to an 8x10 with a simple lens. If your photography is all like that one, then I would agree with you that format size doesn't matter for you.

Show us a normal image like a portrait. But then, since we're seeing it on a monitor and not in person, it may be less noticeable.

 

[RobC]

John, the tall vertical picture you posted briefly where you asked what format was used, was a poor example. Not enough info in the image to tell, plus we don't know how big the print is. It could have been taken with anything from a minox to an 8x10 with a simple lens. If your photography is all like that one, then I would agree with you that format size doesn't matter for you.

Show us a normal image like a portrait. But then, since we're seeing it on a monitor and not in person, it may be less noticeable.

Now that 4K monitors are here that means screen pixel densities of around 200PPI for desktop monitors. This means the differences should be clearly visible on screen from now on. But only if you have a 4K monitor and if the image pixel size uploaded to web is sufficient. Around 2400 pixels wide works quite well.

There's no excuses now. Hope you have a fast connection speed to download these big(for the web) images.

 

[frank]

I only have an ipad.

 

[RobC]

I only have an ipad.

well they use retina displays so are high pixel density too. But if the image isn't big enough it'll be too small to tell how good it is or not.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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.

And just to underscore, it is the actual size of the aperture, the opening of the lens, that determines depth of field.

That's why a 35mm lens at f/1.4 has a 25mm aperture (35 / 1.4 = 25) and has the same depth of field as a 50mm lens at f/2 (50 / 2 = 25), and so on. That's a very easy way of thinking about it. A common focal length for 8x10 is 300mm. To get a 25mm aperture you'd have to stop down to somewhere between f/11 or f/16 and find f/12, which would interestingly probably be about the maximum aperture for that lens too.

A photographer friend of mine who won a Jerome Foundation grant to go photograph people of distant ancestry to her intended to take an 8x10 camera to do it, but gave up after many tests, commenting: "You need SO much light!" Which is true. In the end she made remarkable photographs with the other camera she chose, and as usual the results were far more down to her story, the content, the poses, lighting, and such. The camera itself she decided, wasn't an important choice at all.

Small selection of the work here:
http://lenscratch.com/2014/08/amanda-hankerson-the-hankersons/

 

[markbarendt]

And just to underscore, it is the actual size of the aperture, the opening of the lens, that determines depth of field.

That's why a 35mm lens at f/1.4 has a 25mm aperture (35 / 1.4 = 25) and has the same depth of field as a 50mm lens at f/2 (50 / 2 = 25), and so on. That's a very easy way of thinking about it. A common focal length for 8x10 is 300mm. To get a 25mm aperture you'd have to stop down to somewhere between f/11 or f/16 and find f/12, which would interestingly probably be about the maximum aperture for that lens too.

A photographer friend of mine who won a Jerome Foundation grant to go photograph people of distant ancestry to her intended to take an 8x10 camera to do it, but gave up after many tests, commenting: "You need SO much light!" Which is true. In the end she made remarkable photographs with the other camera she chose, and as usual the results were far more down to her story, the content, the poses, lighting, and such. The camera itself she decided, wasn't an important choice at all.

Small selection of the work here:
http://lenscratch.com/2014/08/amanda-hankerson-the-hankersons/

Yes, telling the story trumps everything for me too. And the lighting is definitely a consideration.

One question we must ask though is, how do we want the photo to look? It's art.

For the most part, for me, with 35mm its f/2.8 and be there. On my RB its almost always wide open. Same thing with the 4x5, so f/5.6. I like short DOF, and I actually like using flash.

I'd even rather shoot 400 speed film at EI 25 or 12 than stop down and lose the effect.

My preferences are a natural fit for the RB and 4x5.

 

[removed account4]

John, the tall vertical picture you posted briefly where you asked what format was used, was a poor example. Not enough info in the image to tell, plus we don't know how big the print is. It could have been taken with anything from a minox to an 8x10 with a simple lens. If your photography is all like that one, then I would agree with you that format size doesn't matter for you.

Show us a normal image like a portrait. But then, since we're seeing it on a monitor and not in person, it may be less noticeable.

the print i uploaded was removed after your snarky remark. i'm tired of snark, and passive aggressive pot shots, sorry.

btw, i don't have a minox, but have known people who use it.

as a matter of fact, someone who is too shy to post this in this thread himself just PM'd me
and asked me to post this for him

"you can quote me on it.

"A Minox negative and an 8x10 negative produce the same amount of detail in a 20x24 silver gelatin enlargement.""

in the end, seems like the minox user is having just as much fun as the guy lugging around his 8x10 who is also having a good time.
that is the most important thing ...

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Small selection of the work here:
http://lenscratch.com/2014/08/amanda-hankerson-the-hankersons/

Oddly perhaps, the image that most resonates with me is the photo of the photo. The wood-framed picture on the wall.

That ancient group portrait style is classic and unmistakable. Every family from the 70s has at least one of those. My family has several of those. All faded, both literally and figuratively, to exactly the same degree.

Ken

 

[frank]

John, you've got to get yourself a thicker skin. We're just having a discussion. My snarky offensive remark was: "John, you know you're being a bit of a pill."


Then there is this:
"A Minox negative and an 8x10 negative produce the same amount of detail in a 20x24 silver gelatin enlargement."

I'd have to see it myself to believe this. It seems absurd.
From stranger in a strange land: "I do not grok this."

 

[flavio81]

And just to underscore, it is the actual size of the aperture, the opening of the lens, that determines depth of field.

That's why a 35mm lens at f/1.4 has a 25mm aperture (35 / 1.4 = 25) and has the same depth of field as a 50mm lens at f/2 (50 / 2 = 25), and so on. That's a very easy way of thinking about it.

Exactly this is a good rule of thumb. However, I should add that DOF is very subjective and is calculated according to a CoC which yields an "acceptably focused" image.

Since larger formats have higher resolution and sharpness, they have more potential for keeping good resolution at higher levels of enlargement. Thus, the consideration of "acceptably focused" becomes more stringent with larger formats.

Thus, even if the actual size of the aperture is the same, the DOF can be even narrower for practical considerations (i.e. hanging a 40x50cm print on the wall).

 

[removed account4]

i haven't seen his prints
so i can't attest to his observations.
maybe he'll put on the asbestos suit and fess up to his quote

with regards to thick skin -
others in this thread have thrown snarky pot shots
calling others liars and misquoting people for the convenience of making a point.
not you, but lets just say, i am not a fan.

 

[frank]

i haven't seen his prints
so i can't attest to his observations.
maybe he'll put on the asbestos suit and fess up to his quote

with regards to thick skin -
i am not the person throwing snarky pot shots
calling others liars and misquoting people for the convenience of making a point.
lets just say, i am not a fan.

In post #208 where I mention formats from Minox to 8x10, I never quoted you, so I couldn't have misquoted you.

 

[removed account4]

In post #208 where I mention formats from Minox to 8x10, I never quoted you, so I couldn't have misquoted you.

please forgive me, i made a grave mistake ...

 

[frank]

Not a grave mistake.

 

[RobC]

Since larger formats have higher resolution and sharpness, they have more potential for keeping good resolution at higher levels of enlargement. Thus, the consideration of "acceptably focused" becomes more stringent with larger formats.

This isn't correct. For same DOF shorter focal length lenses can use wider apertures (to a point) which gives higher on film resolution than longer focal length lenses can. Hence F5.6 on a 50mm using 135 format requires approx F32 on a 150mm lens using 4x5 camera which achieves lower resolution on film but requires less enlargement.

It becomes impossible to measure the difference because the real difference is about the grain magnification and not the resolution magnification.
The example above allows 135 format to be enlarged 4X to get to same as 4x5 film resolution but the grain will be 4X bigger which will make it look different but with same resolution. But this is only true if the grain was not small enough to start with. If grain was very small then the difference will be less noticeable.

Going back to my first post in topic. If technique is excellent on 135 format and highest quality lenses are used and right film and development, the 135 format can approach MF for same subject and print size. But if any of those things are not done right then the difference will be obvious.

It comes down to knowing what and why you are doing what you're doing. If you don't then MF and LF will cover a lot of missing technique in 135 format and appear better which is the case 95% of the time I rekon.

People on APUG excluded of course

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I don't know about that last paragraph, Rob. My observation has been that you really need to know what you're doing with LF, or else you don't get the benefits (except reduced graininess, which is the one indisputable advantage). On the other hand, perception is a very powerful thing.

I would agree with this. Of the four possible levels of competence (in any discipline), in LF I currently find myself planted reasonably firmly at the second level overall.

Sometimes I inadvertently fall upward into the third level for a few things. But of course, by the very nature of the definition of that level I can never know for certain. Only input from someone at the fourth level can confirm that occasional placement for me.

Which is one reason I pay close attention to discussions by those who know more than I do about things I know less about than they do.

Realistically, only future retirement is going to make possible any further significant upward movement in LF competence levels by me. Learning takes time. And practice. And patience.

And a healthy dose of humility.

Ken