Large format, small print?

[ic-racer]

My life became much simpler when I started trying to enlarging everything to roughly the same magnification ratio. Now 'image quality' is rarely an issue between the various formats that I use.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

There is a very, very big difference between a print produced from 35mm and one produced from anything upwards of that, be it medium format or large format. The postage-stamp sized 35mm has definite limits to the amount of detail that can be recorded, and what can appear clear as the size is increased. True, excellent results are achievable up to poster size in negative film (but not really transparency), but it is still a tiny format with definite limits.

What irks me though is how people invest thousands in a large format kit but never print beyond 8x10 (I know of a few that only print postcard-sized prints!), when the format itself easily accommodates mural sized prints — the stuff to really make a statement in whatever genre you master. For all intents and purposes they may as well stick with 35mm.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Does anyone else notice a difference between LF printed to 8x10, vs MF or 35mm? Sometimes I think I'm wasting my time printing 4x5 negs to 8x10 but I think they look better. I mean, 35mm enlarged to 8x10 will give very high quality results, even with a 400 speed film like HP5+ or Tri-X, but the LF 8x10's seem to have a bit of "magic" to them. I think I notice a difference when comparing it to MF enlargements also. I'm not sure if I'm imagining it because of all the effort it takes to shoot and process LF though. Does anyone else notice a difference at 8x10 between the formats or am I crazy?

With an 8x10 print size, the difference in quality between using a 35mm negative and a 4x5 negative is huge!! I can see it without my glasses!

I generally don't print 35mm larger than 5x7~ due to the quality issues. To get a good 10x15 out of 35 is possible, but you need a tripod, fine grain film, careful focussing, mirror lockup, impeccable enlarging technique, and it's far easier to grab the Rollei or the 4x5 and the results are always far better.

But when I want a really good 8x10, I make a contact print.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

What irks me though is how people invest thousands in a large format kit but never print beyond 8x10 (I know of a few that only print postcard-sized prints!), when the format itself easily accommodates mural sized prints — the stuff to really make a statement in whatever genre you master. For all intents and purposes they may as well stick with 35mm.

Just because you COULD print big doesn't mean that you SHOULD... There are numerous reasons one might choose to shoot big and print small... Once could have a preference for using and composing on a view camera ground glass and seeing the image much larger than you would through a view finder... using movements to alter perspective and/or relationships in a scene... controlling individual development for each sheet... the slow methodical process... preferring the act of contact printing to enlarging or the desire to use various alt processes... having the option to print larger if you decide to at a later date... I could go on and on...

Besides, why would anyone else's personal choices about such things "irk" you?

 

[Maris]

I used to wonder about the relative merits of different large format systems. 8x10 is my regular format but I occasionally use 4x5 and rollfilm cameras. My practical testing shows:

Up to 8x10 final size rollfilm and 4x5 can deliver remarkably sharp results but the 4x5 is superior. But it takes a direct side-by-side to comparison to make this convincing. In practice well used rollfilm, on subjects that do not require camera movements, gives away very little to 4x5.

Photographs made by contact exposure with 4x5 and 8x10 negatives are of equivalent technical quality, just different (er, obviously) sizes. The 4x5 is too small for most subjects and the 8x10 is the minimum to deliver a sense of "presence".

An 8x10 enlargement from a 4x5 negative is awfully good but an 8x10 contact beats it visibly. In practice it is a comparison few photographers get to make. Either photograph is so good it could make the average digi-grapher's eyes fall out.

An 8x10 "enlargement" from an 8x10 negative made with a first class enlarger (Durst 184 for me) is not as good as the same photograph made by contact. The photograph made by projection shows fine white lines thinner than they should be and fine black lines thicker than expected. All this happens at the barely visible micro scale and is caused by image flare inevitable in even the best enlarger+lens combinations. Again this is a sharpness comparison only tech heads tend to make. The casual viewer without comparison photographs at hand sees none of this.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Agree. It seems strange to say the only reason to use bigger film is to make bigger prints.

In the end, looking at photographs that make it into museums, the camera format has very little to do with it.
The best camera for the job is the one that gets the job done. If that's 35mm or 11x14, who gives a shit?! It's the photograph itself that matters, and to experience what the photographer saw to begin with.
Because we are here, on a web site, arguing fine points about camera format just proves why we are here arguing about camera formats.
Does anybody seriously go into museums, looking at photographs, thinking 'They ought to have used a 5x7 camera here, because this 20x24 is not optimal printed from a medium format negative'? Pardon me, but that would be pretty damned stupid.
Just use the camera you gel with, make good photographs, and get over the camera format thing! Oh, and maybe have some fun too...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Precisely, Michael. I agree with you 100%.

 

[Bill Burk]

What irks me though is how people invest thousands in a large format kit but never print beyond 8x10... For all intents and purposes they may as well stick with 35mm.

Haaaa, I must drive you insane. I'm guilty as charged, haven't printed bigger than 11x14 in 25 years.

I suppose it would make things worse if I propped up my small prints as proof there is no reason to shoot 4x5 because 35mm looks just as good. But I won't say that. I see a difference.

ROL, I like your example, it shows the different looks. I get that difference in what I see in my own prints.

Thomas, because you encouraged me to shoot small formats I have recent prints from a variety of formats. So I can say each has its look, and each is beautiful in its own right. An individual photographer really should decide for themself what to shoot. Our discussions here should guide the way, and not mislead.

When I go to a museum, I AM aware of the format. I expect 8x10 contact prints from a Weston, and Minox from Warhol. Who they were and what they shot matters to me. But that's not the same as saying what they shot is important. My imagination is captured by the photographer's relationship to their chosen format.

 

[Bill Burk]

In the end, looking at photographs that make it into museums, the camera format has very little to do with it...

I agree that the camera format has very little bearing on how meaningful a photographer's work is. But each photographer who makes meaningful work chooses a camera format.

There has to be a way to say that an a contact print from 8x10 negative looks better than an 8x10 print from a 4x5 negative... without implying that the contact print from an 8x10 negative is a better photograph.

Given the choice between photograph and no photograph, I would always choose the one that exists. And that can make 35mm the best choice.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I agree that the camera format has very little bearing on how meaningful a photographer's work is. But each photographer who makes meaningful work chooses a camera format.

There has to be a way to say that an a contact print from 8x10 negative looks better than an 8x10 print from a 4x5 negative... without implying that the contact print from an 8x10 negative is a better photograph.

Given the choice between photograph and no photograph, I would always choose the one that exists. And that can make 35mm the best choice.

Bill, you're free to say whatever you want and I will respect your opinion, but to me there simply is no best. Only what works and feels natural to use. If that's 35mm, then that works. The end.

To use camera format as some sort of barometer for the quality of a photograph is, to me, completely irrelevant.
You shoot the camera you like to shoot. Then you make the prints as big as they need to be.

Who decides what is good anyway? Or do we have to abide by some kind of popular norm?

 

[Bill Burk]

If I still sound like I'm advocating large format as "the best" then I must be using the wrong word when I say "a contact print from 8x10 looks better". Because by better, I am only describing one dimension of quality. There are so many aspects of a great photograph and resolution is only one of them. It's a "nice to have" - not a "necessary" or even "important" aspect. It happens to be one that I like. But I also like photographs which show their strengths elsewhere.

I like your phrase "what works and feels natural to use" because that implies the photographer's choice.

 

[cliveh]

A 10" X 8" contact or print will show wonderful detail, but if the content is boring or rubbish, it can never compete with a 35mm print of great composition, context and timing.

 

[Bill Burk]

cliveh,

Composition, Context and Timing, absolutely.

I don't know if I've ever seen ANY print I would call boring or rubbish. Guess if I were a teacher and had some students who were forced into the class or only wanted an easy grade. Maybe then I'd see some bad prints.

I'm fortunate to only see good work, for instance I participated in a couple of LFF print exchanges. The prints I received were a mix of 8x10 and 11x14 prints, some fiber, some RC, some contact, some enlargement, even some inkjet (which is permitted by LFF). My favorites happen to be enlargements on fiber paper. But the contact prints ARE beautiful, and I am happy to have them.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

If I still sound like I'm advocating large format as "the best" then I must be using the wrong word when I say "a contact print from 8x10 looks better". Because by better, I am only describing one dimension of quality. There are so many aspects of a great photograph and resolution is only one of them. It's a "nice to have" - not a "necessary" or even "important" aspect. It happens to be one that I like. But I also like photographs which show their strengths elsewhere.

I like your phrase "what works and feels natural to use" because that implies the photographer's choice.

I think we generally agree, Bill, and I do understand where you're coming from. Except I am opposite of you when it comes to resolution and sharpness. I don't think it improves a photograph; it is nod a 'nice to have' in my world. In fact I'm almost entirely neutral to it, to the point where it doesn't really register.

At the same time, I appreciate a really well printed photograph, and in my darkroom I always strive for making the very best print that I can make. But that never has anything to do with resolution. Ever.
It's all about mood, and how the print makes me feel, if it conveys what I intended to be felt or not. Therefore 90% of my emphasis when I print is about applying tone and to strengthen the composition with the print values. Am I able to bring to the viewer what I wanted to bring when I exposed the film? The other 10% is design - does it look good or not?

This is part why I love pinhole and Holga cameras. The way they can accentuate mood by removing sharpness and technical quality is something that is extremely appealing to me. I've been working with a Zero Image 2000 a fair amount, which is a little pinhole camera for 120 6x6 format film. When I used films like TMax 100 or Acros, the lack of grain in a 14" square print makes the print a bit sleepy. With some grain added from HP5+ for example, I get a print quality that I enjoy more, because the film itself adds some interesting texture and life to the shot that to me looks a lot better. The grain adds to the mood.

The same is true for me if I use cameras that are inherently sharp, but not to the same degree.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I understand there are some people who appreciate completely grain free prints, with endless detail and baby skin smooth tonal transitions from one gray tone to another. I am not one of those people.

 

[Bill Burk]

I know every time I listen to you Thomas, I come out ahead.

I came down the road to sharpness through landscapes, and I've told the story of the 35mm shot with dots for Dall Sheep near the meeting of Koyukuk River and Alinement Creek... side-by-side with Dinky Creek in 4x5 where you could recognize people a quarter mile away... which led me to prefer 4x5.

Does correct focus, or unintentional camera motion blur matter much to you? I know Holga and pinhole throws out the whole question of focus. And I love motion blur of the subject, like a branch I can tell swayed in the wind. But when a camera isn't focused correctly or if the camera moved, that starts to bother me. I remember a photography teacher's nagging about camera blur. Don't drink coffee she said, it gives you the shakes. And my internal response to that tape has always been "I'll use a tripod".

I also have a vintage print from 35mm which is from a trip that cemented my enjoyment of black and white photography. A shot of a fairy ring encrusted with a light dust of snow which has the right mood, composition, light, weather... but it bugs me that it has either a focus or motion blur error. So I've been forever driven to "remember to use that tripod"...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Hi Bill,

I think we should listen to everybody, and then make up our own minds about what truly matters to us and what doesn't.

If I take my 5x7 camera out to photograph, I usually don't come back with the pictures I want. If I take the Pentax or Leica 35mm cameras out, I usually get what I want. Go figure. The Hasselblad is even better that way, because I almost always get what I want with it. It's like an extension of my mind. So I live with 35mm and 120 negatives, and I'm as happy as I've ever been photographically.
Anybody wants to buy a decent Century #2 5x7 camera? I'll make you a good deal!

Sharpness in focus - it depends on the picture. Some pictures are fleeting moments where motion blur adds to the composition. To give the impression of speed or extreme wind is difficult without blurring something, for example.
My thinking relates more to the sharpness one gets from the format or camera, though. If you like shooting with 35mm, then shoot with 35mm, and just accept (or even like) that you will live with a smaller negative from which you make your prints. That there is a 'deficiency' compared to a 4x5 negative is irrelevant. Just make your prints to what size you need them and live happily ever after. If you like shooting with 8x10 cameras, and you get the results you want, just go do it.

But then there's another dimension. We should always, to the utmost of our ability, do what we can to support our ideas and what we want to show. Focus is an important and dynamic factor, and a way to emphasize subject matter. Depth of field is another. If you work with view cameras, perspective is a third. Etc. Some pictures I think work better if the subject matter is in focus from near to infinity. Other subject matter might need less.

I use a tripod often, but not for spontaneous stuff usually. It's too damned difficult to capture those fleeting moments when I'm on a tripod. Need to react within a split second usually to get those little glimpses that I love so much. Attached is a picture of a young woman having a drink at a local bar. She was outside for 30 seconds, and only turned so I could see her profile for about two seconds. I had spotted her early on, just looking at her wonderful attire, and how she carried herself.
That's hand held with a 50mm lens, f/2 and 1/30th s. I relied on the slight backlighting to get her hand and the glass, and the profile of her face in focus.
The second attachment is also 35mm, but on a tripod for about 30 seconds at f/5.6 and a 50 lens, if I remember correctly. Same kind of camera, 400 speed Kodak, totally different approach. Both equally satisfying to me.

Just make good art, something you're proud of. And have fun.

 

[removed account4]

A 10" X 8" contact or print will show wonderful detail, but if the content is boring or rubbish, it can never compete with a 35mm print of great composition, context and timing.

hi clive

i couldn 't agree with you more -
you can replace 10x8 by 30x40 tintypes !

i think it is wonderful that so many people use so many different formats
it keeps life interesting, but in the end it isn't always about resolution and minute details
instead it is about something else

 

[Bill Burk]

Thanks for chiming in jnanian,

I was hoping you would add your take, since your style is about something else... certainly your work is exempt from criticism under this banner, because you work with freedom and experimentation all the time.

When the camera blur is part of the mood, or part of the reason the photograph was possible AT ALL then it's important, and belongs.

But when I intend the photograph to be sharp, and the negative is unsharp... THEN I am self-critical. I went back to look at the vintage prints. The Dall Sheep example is worse than I imagined! There's no sheep!

 

[removed account4]

Thanks for chiming in jnanian,

I was hoping you would add your take, since your style is about something else... certainly your work is exempt from criticism under this banner, because you work with freedom and experimentation all the time.

When the camera blur is part of the mood, or part of the reason the photograph was possible AT ALL then it's important, and belongs.

But when I intend the photograph to be sharp, and the negative is unsharp... THEN I am self-critical. I went back to look at the vintage prints. The Dall Sheep example is worse than I imagined! There's no sheep!

that's the beauty of photography,
it can be blury or grainy or sharp and clinical ... from a minox or from a mammoth plate
as wollensak use to put on their lens caps " let the user be the judge "
someone else may thing your eye bleedingly sharp image is pure rubbish but if you like it,
that's the rub ... i am sure there are more than a few people that think
most everything soft and dreamy is crap, but if the maker likes it --

 

[Bill Burk]

Here's the shot that convinced me of my NEED to shoot 4x5...

It IS a little unsharp, and I would have intended it to be sharp. Not that easy for me to go back, though literally just a quick bush pilot's trip past Bettles Field, Alaska and from Summit Lake, a short walk to this point.

Koyukuk Valley at Alinement Creek​

 

[Roger Cole]

Don't drink coffee she said, it gives you the shakes. And my internal response to that tape has always been "I'll use a tripod".

Obviously she never saw how "unstable" some of us are before our second strong cup.

 

[dorff]

I also have a vintage print from 35mm which is from a trip that cemented my enjoyment of black and white photography. A shot of a fairy ring encrusted with a light dust of snow which has the right mood, composition, light, weather... but it bugs me that it has either a focus or motion blur error. So I've been forever driven to "remember to use that tripod"...

I can sympathise with this. I cannot look with anything but nostalgic enjoyment at the first pictures I took many years ago. They aren't sharp enough, mostly badly exposed, badly composed etc. You can fault them on any number of technical issues. What they have in common with my recent photographs is that they show something that I found interesting, important or beautiful. Something that the man (or boy) behind the camera wanted to look at again or show to someone else. We often end up making photographs for the photographs' sake. I think that is wrong. We should make photographs for all the other reasons - for the sake of WHAT we photograph, for ourselves and the other people looking at our work etc. So that fairy ring of yours was important in one way or another, and the fact that it spoke to your inner being at that moment when you made the (imperfect) photograph contributed to the photographer that you have become. Forgive it its imperfections.

 

[Arcturus]

The more I print 8x10's made from 4x5 negatives the more of a difference I see between 66/645 printed to 8x10. It isn't about sharpness or anything like that, it just has a look that appeals to me. The prints from 4x5 have a very real look to them, like looking through a window, much more so than the 6x6 negatives cropped to 8x10. I think so anyway...

 

[Bill Burk]

So that fairy ring of yours was important in one way or another...

The picture would help illustrate the story...

Fairy Ring near Saddlerock Lake

I looked at the negatives from Alaska, and I think what makes me uncomfortable about that particular shot is that I could have shot Black and White in the TLR but shot Kodachrome instead. Unless I misplaced them, I apparently didn't shoot any 120 Black and White on the whole trip. That slightly unsharp shot is about the best from a roll with few negatives worth printing.

The Fairy Ring, on the other hand, is a friendly shot. Flawed. But as you guessed, one that sums up who I was at the time. It's in the company of numerous good and better executed shots, which get compliments. It's easier to forgive.

 

[Bill Burk]

The more I print 8x10's made from 4x5 negatives the more of a difference I see between 66/645 printed to 8x10. It isn't about sharpness or anything like that, it just has a look that appeals to me. The prints from 4x5 have a very real look to them, like looking through a window, much more so than the 6x6 negatives cropped to 8x10. I think so anyway...

Interesting you point that out because I see less difference from MF. I have one 6x9cm printed to 11x14in where I feel like I can see branches on the trees at the skyline, which is one of the looks that appeals to me, that I get from 4x5in... Which is to say that 6x9cm approaches 4x5in in that respect.