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

[gone]

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?

 

[summicron1]

when i compare negatives from my rollei to those of my leica I can definitely see it. Not in more detail, per se, but in more information in that detail -- the tones are smoother, the feeling of more detail and more sharpness is more pronounced.

The human eye/brain is an amazing compensator for things -- it adjusts for color, it fills in detail where it is lacking. When you are looking at a MF or LF negative it has less work to do to make you see the image. So medium format is a treat for your viewing system.

 

[Rick A]

The only way to really see the difference, is to shoot the same scene with different formats, using same angle of view, and similar aspect lenses. Then you realize that the only difference is the size of the negative, and that it's easier to see what's on the larger negative, and when enlarging, finer grain for same size enlargements from larger negative. The difference between a 35mm negative and a 4x5, enlarge to 8x10, the 35mm is enlarged 8x while the 4x5 only 2x. This is somewhat misleading, seeing as the 4x5 has 16 times the area of the 35mm. So, it takes 64 (35mm) negatives to fill an 8x10 (80 sq. in.)contact print, while only 4-4x5 negatives to do the same.

 

[RPC]

I see not only better sharpness from my Mamiya TLR MF photos than my Olympus 35mm but also much smoother tonality, as you would expect from a larger negative. To see differences in sharpness and detail it is important to focus carefully and make sure there is no vibration of the camera at the time of the shot. Good enlarging lenses for each format are also a must. I see less difference between my 4x5 and MF than I do MF and 35mm, but it is there.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I love 35mm but see a huge difference even in my 645 negs of my Fuji GA645i let alone my 6x6 in my Rolleiflexes. Sometimes a 35mm seems to come close in terms of smooth tonality but not usually.

 

[frank]

I suspect that if the OP can't see a difference between prints made with 35mm and 120 film, there is a problem with his 120 camera/lens/processing/enlarging.

My experience is that even with a 5x7 print, there is a difference, and that difference only becomes more apparent with increased enlargement.

 

[Kawaiithulhu]

Perhaps your tripod/head weren't up to the task of holding a 4x5 camera steady, it's a difficult thing when the camera is spread out 18 inches and has a heavy lens way out there applying torque on a 6 inch fulcrum. Especially if you raise the center post. And there's a breeze pushing on the bellows. And vibration takes longer to damp after pulling the slide.

Scanning 4x5 is much harder than 35mm, film flexes, flatbeds are a compromise, etc... Plus file sizes. If you take a nice, 2.8k scan of 35mm at good bit depth you get over 50Meg each. If you take the same on 4x5 you're looking at over 700Meg. Were you comparing a 50meg scan versus the equivalent 700meg scan, or was the 4x5 scanned at a way lower resolution?

If comparing negatives directly did you use a 2x loupe to view the 4x5 and an 8x loupe on the 35mm, to mimic how much more the 35mm needs to be enlarged to match a 4x5 when printed? Or did you use the same magnification and unwittingly make your observation worthless

 

[Jerevan]

I am not so sure the difference is big enough (for me) between 35 mm and 120 on an 8x10 or 11x14 paper (largest size I print, very occasionally). If the image is interesting enough, I rarely think: "oh that should have been miles better in the X format".

But yes, there is a difference - but if it is enough of difference - that's different from person to person.

 

[Les Sarile]

Technically speaking, the amount of actual detail captured increases proportionally with larger size films - relatively speaking. This translate into proportionally larger print size. In a perfect world, this takes into consideration that same quality lenses, technique, aspect ratio and other factors are accounted for during the capture and generation of final results. And of course the scene itself has to have the detail enough to show the difference. Of course we don't live in a perfect world and there are many factors that can affect the capture and final result.

If the results you are getting good enough for you - or your client, then you are good to go.

 

[markbarendt]

What's up?

Your expectations are probably "what's up". The difference in your standard vs everybody elses. For example you discount granularity, others don't. Surely your style is different than mine/others. Personally in 35mm there are times that I see the granularity competing with the small details I hoped to see more clearly.

The other thing that's normally up with this is the limits we have on comparing apple to apples. For example, my favorite camera is my RB67 with waist level finder, I have an F5 I can use the same way, but the way I see the scene is different, so the way I shoot a scene is different, so the resulting negatives aren't even comparable in a technical sense.

 

[RobC]

I think that if you have excellent technique, the right film and development, high quality lenses, then its possible to produce very high quality prints from 35mm which approach what MF can do at same size print providing the print is not too big.

But if you have sloppy technique etc then MF and larger will help cover it up.

 

[removed account4]

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?

hi momus

you are right, there really isn't that much of a difference. ( added later to avoid more confusion: there are some ) people who like to impress others so they talk the talk
sharpness and lack of grain and massive details are usually on the top of their list of reasons. ( again, added later: often times they themselves can't
tell if an mf or lf negative is that much different than the lowly 35mm film they used before ...)
if it makes them happy, all the more power to them !

years ago when i was photographing for a newspaper i was sent to a cable tv company because they were pushing hard for digital tv ..
the guy had like 15 tv's large screen set up some were digital, some not and he kept saying " can't you see the difference, these digital
tv signals are just great ... i coudln't see the difference if my life depended on it ...

if it makes someone happy to spend 150$ / month to watch re-runs of the andy griffith show that is fine by me !

 

[RPC]

But if you have sloppy technique etc then MF and larger will help cover it up.

I think if you are sloppy then you probably won't see much of a difference. If you are dilligent with each, the differences will be seen.

 

[wiltw]

If you do not make a large enough print, you might not be able to appreciate a difference in 'detail'...the relatively poor visual acuity of the human eye would likely not see any 'detail' difference in an 8x10 (8x) photo of the same subject in two format sizes.
In projecting both 135 format and medium format slides onto a projection screen, the medium format images carry much more emotional impact to the viewing audience...past observable reactions, not merely speculation!

 

[Ian C]

In several respects the comparison between a 35mm camera and a 6 x 6cm TLR is sort of an apples-to-oranges comparison.

If it’s your intention to make a large print, say 16” x 20”, then it might be useful to equalize the factors as much as practical to get some insight as to how these cameras will record the same scene and render identical prints. For example, the same film should be chosen to make a reasonable comparison.

The square format has a built-in constraint. We have to frame more than we want in order to record all that’s needed for a 5:4 aspect ratio print. With the Rolleiflex we’re limited to a 75mm lens in most models.

You might first ask: “What is the largest 5:4 rectangle this camera can record at the chosen subject distance?” Consider using a 10-meter subject distance (subject to lens). Then the field of view is 7410mm x 7410mm, so the largest 5:4 rectangle it contains is 7410mm x 5928mm. When we take the shot this rectangular field is recorded onto a 56mm x 44.8mm rectangle on 120 film.

Thus the visual information we want on our final 5:4 print is initially compressed about 17,509 times onto film (in terms of area).

With the 35mm camera the aspect ratio is closer to that of the final print. To maximize the resolution we can select a lens that allows us to record most of the minor dimension of the subject rectangle onto the 24mm format dimension. For a 10-meter subject distance the focal length that comes the closest is 40.3mm. That’s not a common focal length for most 35mm cameras. We can compromise by using a 50mm lens and moving somewhat farther back so that the subject-to-lens distance is 12.4 meters.

Now the 5928mm field dimension is recorded onto the 24mm dimension of the film and the long dimension of the scene is recorded onto 30mm of the format length. In this case the 5:4 part of the area of the scene we want printed is compressed 61,009 times onto film.

This is the part of the photography-to-print cycle that is often overlooked. It affects the resolution of the final print in addition to negative-to-print magnification in enlarging.

As recorded on film this 35mm image must be magnified somewhat more than 17X to make the 16” x 20” print, while the 6 x 6cm image has to be magnified a bit over 9x.

It is the combination of the field-to-film compression plus the magnification in enlarging that accounts for the differences in resolution that we see in big enlargements—not simply the magnification of enlarging.

Fine-grain films and fine lenses can record scenes that enlarge well. Even 35mm negatives can reach 16” x 20” print sizes or larger that satisfy most viewers. But if sufficiently large prints of the same size are compared, at some point the print from the larger negative will be judged superior by most viewers, assuming lenses of equal quality.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Not much difference on a 4x5" print 135 vs. 4x5" film. On the other hand a 40x50" print.....

 

[Les Sarile]

Lest we forget, there is also that matter of cropping. Just to make it obvious, below is an illustration of the different formats and the potential cropping allowed by larger formats - relatively speaking.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You are missing the points that the view finder is larger and clearer as well as the larger negatives are easier to handle and smoother tonality. The additional detail comes into play when a portion of the negative is enlarge. I have a single frame [also called half frame] 35mm camera. As long as I do not enlarge greater than 4"x5" the prints are passable. Beyond that the grain and softness dominate.

I invite you to come to Los Angeles and spend a few days in the darkroom so that I can demonstrate the differences to you.

 

[frank]

I have 2 photos taken with MF, one of a clown and one of a pretty girl, on my website under the people category. I printed both as 8x10. The fine detail in each is astounding. It sort of shows on a computer screen too. No way to get this on a 35mm neg.

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

 

[Nodda Duma]

Optically speaking, aberrations scale directly with focal length and/or aperture (depending on how you look at it). For example, scaling up the design for a 50mm f/2 focal length lens to 250mm f/2 focal length lens will increase the aberrations, blur size, etc. all by exactly 5x.

Take a picture with both lenses on different negatives, say 35mm format and film 5x bigger (so the FOV is the same). Develop them both and make a print from each. Not too big, so for the moment let's ignore the effect from film grain (or say we make a print of a size so you can't see the grain).

The easiest way might be to enlarge the smaller negative 5x and make a contact print from the larger negative. When you do this, you've enlarged the blur size / aberrations captured on the negative from the smaller optic by 5x.

If you then carefully examine or analyze the prints, you'll find that the prints will look exactly the same from an aberration/blur/MTF point of view.


From a practical point of view, a medium or large format lens will have larger aberrations compared to a 35mm format lenses directly proportional to the ratio of the focal length, assuming the designs and f/#s are the same. (for example when comparing an f/6 Cooke triplet for 35mm to an f/6 Cooke triplet for large format...same FOV on their respective negatives). Some of you who shoot different formats could carefully carry this experiment out to see for yourself, if you use lenses of similar or same designs.


In the end, the real differentiator in the formats is limitations imposed by the film grain.

 

[cliveh]

A 35mm with good lens and good process technique is pretty good for many purposes, but MF and LF yield far more detail. I think 5 X 4 is something like 13 times the size of 35mm, so if you have a million grains in your 35mm neg, you may have 13 million recording the same image at 5 X 4. I am a 35mm man, but I can see a vast difference in detail as you move to larger formats, if that is what you want?

 

[Les Sarile]

Develop them both and make a print from each.

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.

 

[M Carter]

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.

 

[removed account4]

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

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 !

 

[pdeeh]

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 ...