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

[JackRosa]

Format Makes a Difference

A boring shot is a boring shot, regardless of the format (size);
A poorly-processed negative is a poorly-processed negative regardless;
. . . . But, if the image is a good image and the negative is properly processed ....

I just don't see how someone could not tell the difference between a 35mm and a MF or 4x5 negative. And, I can report that all these are left FAR behind (including the 4x5) when one enlarges an 8x10 negative - regardless of what that enlargement is!

In addition to the far-superior quality, working with an 8x10 negative when one is dodging via Mylar masks (with pencil shading), or dodging using red dye, or making an unsharp mask (and later manipulating this mask),or making an SCIM, or fog mask, or whatever ...

There is something to be said about the larger formats!

Just my 2 cents (OK, my 4 cents)

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

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

Or he's not printing larger than 5x7.

 

[RPC]

I can clearly see the difference even with 5x7. Not as great as the larger sizes, but it is there.

 

[markbarendt]

Or he's not printing larger than 5x7.

Could be printing on velvet or cow hide or matte FB paper too.

 

[cliveh]

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..

Saying it simply falls short suggests it is inferior to MF or LF. It is just different and can exhibit equal or more/less aesthetic value dependant on the image.

 

[markbarendt]

Saying it simply falls short suggests it is inferior to MF or LF. It is just different and can exhibit equal or more/less aesthetic value dependant on the image.

That's right.

 

[RPC]

The OP was not about aesthetic or artistic differences between formats but detail differences.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

The OP was not about aesthetic or artistic differences between formats but detail differences.

Right... the OP specifically cites 'detail' and 'sharpness'.

 

[cliveh]

The OP was not about aesthetic or artistic differences between formats but detail differences.

But I wasn't quoting the OP, but a reply in this thread.

 

[Bill Burk]

I'm reading An Introduction to the Science of Photography, by Katherine Chamberlain, SC.D. professor of physics, Wayne University.

A relevant chapter is her discussion of "Factors that Influence the Critical Definition of the Photographic Image" in which she lists and discusses thirteen factors (which are all pretty obvious)...

Under "Size of Film" she says (after saying larger film would have the advantage other things being equal)...

..."other things are rarely equal and an advantage often exists in favor of the miniature camera because of the exceptional images produced by its fine lenses"...

"The author suspects, however, that a competition between a fine camera taking 2 1/4 in. square and an equally good miniature whose negatives are 1 by 1 1/2 in. would be won by the former as it has the advantage of a working area more than three times as large. This is, however, by no means certain if depth of field and a large aperture are both significant factors."

I figure this passage supports OP, that a film sizes' obvious advantage tends to be negated by the smaller format's better lenses.

 

[cliveh]

I'm reading An Introduction to the Science of Photography, by Katherine Chamberlain, SC.D. professor of physics, Wayne University.

A relevant chapter is her discussion of "Factors that Influence the Critical Definition of the Photographic Image" in which she lists and discusses thirteen factors (which are all pretty obvious)...

Under "Size of Film" she says (after saying larger film would have the advantage other things being equal)...

..."other things are rarely equal and an advantage often exists in favor of the miniature camera because of the exceptional images produced by its fine lenses"...

"The author suspects, however, that a competition between a fine camera taking 2 1/4 in. square and an equally good miniature whose negatives are 1 by 1 1/2 in. would be won by the former as it has the advantage of a working area more than three times as large. This is, however, by no means certain if depth of field and a large aperture are both significant factors."

I figure this passage supports OP, that a film sizes' obvious advantage tends to be negated by the smaller format's better lenses.

But Bill, it's not just about that, as it is also about flexibility of movement. Just try and photograph racing cars with a TLR.

 

[frank]

But Bill, it's not just about that, as it is also about flexibility of movement. Just try and photograph racing cars with a TLR.

But stacking a test in favour of one camera or another is unfair. The OP simply said that he couldn't tell the difference in terms of detail and sharpness between 135 and larger formats. In order to compare, one should create ideal conditions, not conditions favoring one camera type over another.

Imagine as part of the test, it is deemed that the camera must be held above the photographers's head. 120 TLR wins.

 

[RPC]

But I wasn't quoting the OP, but a reply in this thread.

Wasn't necessarily referring to just your post; it has been said frequently in this thread that overall artistic or aesthetic values as are important or more important than detail in the image. That may be true, but that is not what the OP was about.

 

[cliveh]

But stacking a test in favour of one camera or another is unfair. The OP simply said that he couldn't tell the difference in terms of detail and sharpness between 135 and larger formats. In order to compare, one should create ideal conditions, not conditions favoring one camera type over another.

Imagine as part of the test, it is deemed that the camera must be held above the photographers's head. 120 TLR wins.

Point taken, you are quite correct.

 

[Arklatexian]

+1

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

I think, as I have mentioned before, we, in these forums don't pay enough attention to problems with our eyes as I found out after having cataract surgery. In a matter of months, negatives made years ago, put in my enlargers, became sharper both to the grain focuser and as final prints. As APUG darkroom photographers, our eyes are part of the optical systems we use whether Minox, 35mm, MF or LF......Regards

 

[removed account4]

But Bill, it's not just about that, as it is also about flexibility of movement. Just try and photograph racing cars with a TLR.

henri lartrigue had no problem photographing automobile races, with his large format camera

 

[frank]

Thanks Clive.

Without even making a value judgement on the esthetics of different formats, not to be able to see a (neutral) difference, is troubling.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

henri lartrigue had no problem photographing automobile races, with his large format camera

And I believe the race cars of that time period topped at what... 30MPH? Sorry, John... but had mention that fact.

 

[markbarendt]

Thanks Clive.

Without even making a value judgement on the esthetics of different formats, not to be able to see a (neutral) difference, is troubling.

Maybe he has a stash of PanAtomic X in 35mm

 

[removed account4]

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 ...

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

 

[removed account4]

And I believe the race cars of that time period topped at what... 30MPH? Sorry, John... but had mention that fact.

LOL maybe
but just the same plenty of press photographers had no trouble doing "action shots" with their cameras ...

 

[frank]

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 ...

....

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.

 

[markbarendt]

And I believe the race cars of that time period topped at what... 30MPH? Sorry, John... but had mention that fact.

The gent I bought my RB from used to shoot stock car races using a grafmatic back on a 4x5 in the 70's. He talked about how he could shoot all the sheets in one holder in a 10 second pit stop.

He'd shoot the rest of the race too. They did a bit better than 30mph in the 70's.

 

[leicarfcam]

Saying it simply falls short suggests it is inferior to MF or LF. It is just different and can exhibit equal or more/less aesthetic value dependant on the image.

How so?? I'm simply pointing out the fact that 35mm has its limitations. It does well within though..

Anybody who knows anything about photography knows that MF and LF is superior to 35mm. 35mm has its place and works well within its purpose but the larger format will outperform it.

I use 35mm for many things and love what I get but when it comes to poster sized enlargements of which I do a lot, it just cannot compete..so out comes the larger format..

 

[RPC]

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 ...

Sorry to hear that. You're missing out!