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

Tyndall Bruce

A
Tyndall Bruce

  • 0
  • 0
  • 15
TEXTURES

A
TEXTURES

  • 4
  • 0
  • 42
Small Craft Club

A
Small Craft Club

  • 2
  • 0
  • 43
RED FILTER

A
RED FILTER

  • 1
  • 0
  • 34
The Small Craft Club

A
The Small Craft Club

  • 3
  • 0
  • 38

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,900
Messages
2,782,737
Members
99,741
Latest member
likes_life
Recent bookmarks
0

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,314
Format
4x5 Format
I didn't see any difference between 35mm and larger formats because mostly I just shot 35mm. Then about a year ago I got an 8x10 camera. The disappointment of seeing 8x10 prints from 35mm and 8x10 on the same wall has resulted in me not running more than two rolls of 35mm in the last year. However, if you don't see the difference, then there's no difference for you.

mdarnton,

I know exactly what you mean. Exactly!

This pair of photographs cemented my determination to move up to 4x5 despite frustrations from my first foray into large format.

They were displayed in my hallway side-by-side. They were my best display-worthy photographs for many years.

The 4x5 shot of Dinkey Creek is from the same fabled trip where I brought both Minox and 4x5.

The shot from Brooks Range in Alaska was taken on 35mm. I don't know why I didn't take this on the 6x6 TLR camera I had with me on the trip. I have B&W shots taken near this part of the trip on the 6x6 that are not as interesting. I assume I ran out of black and white in the TLR while I was out near a cliff's edge. Taking the shots was thrilling at the time but the film just didn't capture the thrill. The next 6x6 shots were on Kodachrome so I assume I made a conscious decision to leave the TLR empty and shoot 35mm until we got to camp.

Every time I walked down the hall to look at them, I was left with the impression that I would have liked the Brooks Range shot to have similar detail as the Dinkey Creek shot. The Dinkey Creek shot more reflected what I wanted my future prints to look like.

So I get it. Sometimes, side-by-side, when you want to see detail. 4x5 is a better size negative to take the photographs on.

dinkey_ck.jpg

Dinkey Creek (4x5)
High Resolution Close-Up


brooks_35.jpg

Brooks Range (35mm)
High Resolution
 

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,314
Format
4x5 Format
...But something went wrong when I took the 4x5 shot. I lost my cable release earlier in the day so I found myself improvising and tugging at the shutter release with a grass lasso. The tug caused camera shake...

Re-thinking the error. No. I used a grass lasso on Russian River with my Super Ikonta because the self-timer would not function. True I had lost the cable release on the Black Diamond Mines trip, but the 4x5 camera has a working self-timer so I would have used it.

I used a piece of grass on the Pocket Instamatic 20 to jam down the flash socket to force that camera to use its slower shutter speed.

The problem with the 4x5... Must have been, I can imagine no other error... I must have not brought the front standard fully forward to the clips. That would mean the camera is focused past infinity. I should have noticed that putting the camera away. I have caught that mistake before.
 

Theo Sulphate

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
6,489
Location
Gig Harbor
Format
Multi Format
Nice to see your photos, Bill.

Hopefully you're still using your Minox as well? I'm hoping for nice results with mine.
 

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,314
Format
4x5 Format
Nice to see your photos, Bill.

Hopefully you're still using your Minox as well? I'm hoping for nice results with mine.

Thanks. I was out with it today, sure felt silly putting it on a tripod... But that's what I think it will take to get pleasing results from it.
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
bill
those minox prints beautiful !
(so do the images from the other formats )

thanks for helping show that small formats are not
as inferrior as larger format folks claim they are ...
and that smaller formats can hold their own ...

john
 
Last edited by a moderator:

xtolsniffer

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
677
Location
Yorkshire, U
Format
Multi Format
For me the answer is 'it depends'. I shoot HP5, FP4, velvia, provia and Portra 160 and 400 in both 35mm (Nikon) and 120 (RB67). If I take Portra 160 and send it off to the lab, then I see no real difference in 5"x7" prints between 35mm and 120, so the extra convenience of a smaller camera, faster lenses wins out. If I get enlargements made of transparency, then there is no real difference for 10"x8" prints I hang on the wall when viewed at normal distance. When close up there is. By 12"x16" prints the difference is very obvious even at normal viewing distances. For monochrome, it's rather different. There is something about a print made from 120 that is obvious even at 6"x4" prints, it looks like sharpness but it isn't, it's the way the tones spread into one another. I'm sure others are better at describing this than me. So when I can, it's MF for monochrome and MF for big enlargements and 35mm for standard prints up to 10"x8". Of course, sometimes grain is good, so it's 35mm again. The trouble is, it's too damn heavy to take both 35mm and MF kit out at the same time, so I have to decide what I want before I go, but I confess that more and more it's the RB67 that gets taken out, especially now that I've found a good backpack for taking it.
 

flavio81

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2014
Messages
5,069
Location
Lima, Peru
Format
Medium Format
For me the answer is 'it depends'. I shoot HP5, FP4, velvia, provia and Portra 160 and 400 in both 35mm (Nikon) and 120 (RB67). If I take Portra 160 and send it off to the lab, then I see no real difference in 5"x7" prints between 35mm and 120, so the extra convenience of a smaller camera, faster lenses wins out. If I get enlargements made of transparency, then there is no real difference for 10"x8" prints I hang on the wall when viewed at normal distance. When close up there is. By 12"x16" prints the difference is very obvious even at normal viewing distances. For monochrome, it's rather different. There is something about a print made from 120 that is obvious even at 6"x4" prints, it looks like sharpness but it isn't, it's the way the tones spread into one another. I'm sure others are better at describing this than me. So when I can, it's MF for monochrome and MF for big enlargements and 35mm for standard prints up to 10"x8". Of course, sometimes grain is good, so it's 35mm again. The trouble is, it's too damn heavy to take both 35mm and MF kit out at the same time, so I have to decide what I want before I go, but I confess that more and more it's the RB67 that gets taken out, especially now that I've found a good backpack for taking it.

Great post. Your experience is same as mine; with color negative the 35mm prints (to 8x11") are pretty good anyways, and sharp.

I salute you in bringing out the RB67. I also take it out for a long walk from time to time. There are many people who believe that the RB67 is a big beast that should only be confined to the studio, but I find it a very handholdable, easy to operate camera that wants to be taken outside.
 

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,655
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format
Great post. Your experience is same as mine; with color negative the 35mm prints (to 8x11") are pretty good anyways, and sharp.

I salute you in bringing out the RB67. I also take it out for a long walk from time to time. There are many people who believe that the RB67 is a big beast that should only be confined to the studio, but I find it a very handholdable, easy to operate camera that wants to be taken outside.

my friend has one,he loved it and I thought it was better suited as a boat anchor but he made great images with it!:smile:
 

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,314
Format
4x5 Format
I allowed this thread to lie low because I hit my monthly bandwidth limit... But the website limit is reset now so if we want to pick up where we left off...

I had hoped my examples in this thread might kick of a wandering discussion of the relative merits of trying to achieve high resolution results in everyday photography.
 

frank

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2002
Messages
4,359
Location
Canada
Format
Multi Format
Isn't the horse dead yet? For me, it's as simple as: if you wish to have a technically "high definition" look in your photo, (rendering of fine detail and rich tonality) the easiest and best way to achieve this look is with medium format film as opposed to 135 format.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,371
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
Isn't the horse dead yet? For me, it's as simple as: if you wish to have a technically "high definition" look in your photo, (rendering of fine detail and rich tonality) the easiest and best way to achieve this look is with medium format film as opposed to 135 format.

My serious [sirius] work is done in MF, 135 is for shooting on the fly lesser photographs.

Take that you dead horse!
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,708
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
This week I hope to be making prints from recent half frame 35mm negs.
Using HP5+ and Tri-X, I expect them to be wonderfully grainy and full of gorgeous texture. :smile: Attached is an example, on Tri-X. Looks nothing like medium format or large format, but I argue it has a charm of its own.
 

Attachments

  • plate_1.jpg
    plate_1.jpg
    313.5 KB · Views: 156

ColColt

Member
Joined
May 26, 2015
Messages
1,824
Location
TN
Format
Multi Format
For my eyes there's no contest. Years ago I had a Leica M3 and the 50 f/2 Summicron as well as the 90 and 35 lens. I also had(and have) several Nikons. I wanted to do studio work-portraits/bridal shoots and weddings and after attending one of Ed Pierce's Wedding seminars determined the MF was the only way to go.

I had shot portraits and weddings with the Nikons using both color and B&W but didn't like the results that much-especially when someone wanted an 11x14. I ended up trading the Leica for a Pentax 6x7 and several LS lens. I never looked back. The color and sharpness was far and away light years better than even the Leica. Even the 8x10 prints were superb and I found I could go to 16x20 prints and they looked as good or better that 35mm would with a 5x7.

Love the 35mm obviously as I have five of them but for quality enlargements a 6x7 negative is going to win out every time...larger negative, less grain, more sharpness.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,371
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
For my eyes there's no contest. Years ago I had a Leica M3 and the 50 f/2 Summicron as well as the 90 and 35 lens. I also had(and have) several Nikons. I wanted to do studio work-portraits/bridal shoots and weddings and after attending one of Ed Pierce's Wedding seminars determined the MF was the only way to go.

I had shot portraits and weddings with the Nikons using both color and B&W but didn't like the results that much-especially when someone wanted an 11x14. I ended up trading the Leica for a Pentax 6x7 and several LS lens. I never looked back. The color and sharpness was far and away light years better than even the Leica. Even the 8x10 prints were superb and I found I could go to 16x20 prints and they looked as good or better that 35mm would with a 5x7.

Love the 35mm obviously as I have five of them but for quality enlargements a 6x7 negative is going to win out every time...larger negative, less grain, more sharpness.

I have 35mm for speed and easy when I want to record. Sometimes I will enlarge a worthy 35mm negative, but for serious work I use the 6x6 negatives. 4"x5" is still for playing around and experimenting until and if I get better with it.
 

Fixcinater

Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2008
Messages
2,500
Location
San Diego, CA
Format
Medium Format
...wandering discussion of the relative merits of trying to achieve high resolution results in everyday photography.

Aren't there a limited number of steps one could take towards this end, such as:

Slower film for smaller grain for given format
Larger format for less enlargement for given print size
Tripod for less camera movement
Lenses with conservative apertures or designs given towards high res/sharpness rather than speed
Stopping down to optimum apertures for the taking lens
Developer optimized towards resolution/sharpness/acutance rather than speed

Or is this oversimplifying things? Obviously one would have to choose how large of a format is acceptable for them (or their back!) to carry every day.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,000
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
For my eyes there's no contest. Years ago I had a Leica M3 and the 50 f/2 Summicron as well as the 90 and 35 lens. I also had(and have) several Nikons. I wanted to do studio work-portraits/bridal shoots and weddings and after attending one of Ed Pierce's Wedding seminars determined the MF was the only way to go.

I had shot portraits and weddings with the Nikons using both color and B&W but didn't like the results that much-especially when someone wanted an 11x14. I ended up trading the Leica for a Pentax 6x7 and several LS lens. I never looked back. The color and sharpness was far and away light years better than even the Leica. Even the 8x10 prints were superb and I found I could go to 16x20 prints and they looked as good or better that 35mm would with a 5x7.

Love the 35mm obviously as I have five of them but for quality enlargements a 6x7 negative is going to win out every time...larger negative, less grain, more sharpness.

I expect that the difference in quality you observed "years ago" when you changed formats would be similar to the difference in quality arising because of the improvements in films.

The modern colour negative films are spectacularly better than thd films of even 30 years ago.
 

Old-N-Feeble

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
6,805
Location
South Texas
Format
Multi Format
Shhh... Please stop trying to be logical. You're fanning the flames again.:tongue:

Aren't there a limited number of steps one could take towards this end, such as:

Slower film for smaller grain for given format
Larger format for less enlargement for given print size
Tripod for less camera movement
Lenses with conservative apertures or designs given towards high res/sharpness rather than speed
Stopping down to optimum apertures for the taking lens
Developer optimized towards resolution/sharpness/acutance rather than speed

Or is this oversimplifying things? Obviously one would have to choose how large of a format is acceptable for them (or their back!) to carry every day.
 

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,314
Format
4x5 Format
Aren't there a limited number of steps one could take towards this end, such as:

Slower film for smaller grain for given format
Larger format for less enlargement for given print size
Tripod for less camera movement
Lenses with conservative apertures or designs given towards high res/sharpness rather than speed
Stopping down to optimum apertures for the taking lens
Developer optimized towards resolution/sharpness/acutance rather than speed

Or is this oversimplifying things? Obviously one would have to choose how large of a format is acceptable for them (or their back!) to carry every day.

I think the list could be fairly short... of thing that destroy critical definition in a print.

Your list is a start because these things all count.

I know of two good lists. One in An Introduction to the Science of Photography, Katherine Chamberlain, 1951 and the other is in Zeiss newsletters (RobC... I can't locate the post where you shared this, can you help me pinpoint the Zeiss list of 10 things you must do for critical resolution?).

Once you get the list... You can decide which things to try to do (or deliberately and defiantly NOT do) in your day to day photography.
 

ColColt

Member
Joined
May 26, 2015
Messages
1,824
Location
TN
Format
Multi Format
The modern colour negative films are spectacularly better than thd films of even 30 years ago.

I haven't shot color negative 35mm film in about 15 years and that may be true but, either way one looks at it 35mm will never surpass 6x6 or 6x7 in quality and sharpness. I've shot them all, developed negatives for them and made enlargements for all. I've always loved the cameras for 35mm but they just can't surpass the larger negative.

I've recently bought some Portra 160 for the F2A mostly and can't imagine it being any better than it was back in the mid 90's.
 

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,314
Format
4x5 Format
Here's the list from An Introduction to the Science of Photography, Katherine Chamberlain, 1951

Factors influencing critical definition

1. Steadiness of camera during exposure
2. Accuracy of camera focus
3. Lighting of subject
4. Size of film
5. Resolving power of film and lens
6. Quality of lens
7. Stop a. For maximum depth of field b. For maximum resolving power
8. Contrast obtained during development
9. Cleanliness of lens surfaces
10. Stray light
11. Atmospheric haze
12. Enlarger a. Optics b. Negative carrier c. Accuracy of focus d. Steadiness
13. Character of the film and processing
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom