Prime lens quality and 12" x 16" enlargements.

chorleyjeff · Aug 5, 2006

Using a prime lens on 35mm and taking all the care normally associated with MF eg use tripod etc, would most people be able to differentiate an enlargement to 12" x 16" from say Delta 100 on 35mm and 4.5cm x 6cm negatives? And would a 35mm Delta 100 negative produce as good a result as MF on Delta 400? I assume that an expert could see a difference but would a viewer in a gallery be able to differentiate when the prints were mounted behind glass?
If anyone has practical experience around this question your advice would be appreciated because I am in a dilema whether to invest in primes for my 35mm or expand my MF kit.
PS at the moment I have a 75mm Bronica PE lens and I would get Minolta primes.
Thanks

Jeff

Markok765 · Aug 5, 2006

You have to remember the quality of the enlarger lenses, or use the 80 or 90mm and, push the enlarger up more,

chorleyjeff · Aug 5, 2006

Thanks
Assume 50mm and 75mm 6 element enlarging lenses.
Jeff

Markok765 · Aug 5, 2006

They still could be diffrent, BTW, there is no 75mm enlarging lens, but it still would be differnt, even from the same makers.the 800 would have to cover 6x6 so would be diffrent than the 50mm which has to cover a smaller format

Amund · Aug 5, 2006

Markok765 said:
You have to remember the quality of the enlarger lenses, or use the 80 or 90mm and, push the enlarger up more,

Marko, your answer isn`t even remotely relevant to his question....

I`d take 645 Tri-X negs over 35mm Delta 100 any day. A 12x16 from 645 is enlarged three times less than the 35mm neg, and finer grain can`t make up for that IMO....

Ole · Aug 5, 2006

chorleyjeff said:
PS at the moment I have a 75mm Bronica PE lens and I would get Minolta primes.

The 75mm Zenzanon PE lens is wonderfully sharp, and only very few prime lenses for 35mm can produce better resolution on film even in perfect conditions. Then taking the enlargement factor into account, the only way you can get a sharper 12x16" print is by using an even bigger film. Say a 12x16" camera...

Amund · Aug 5, 2006

I`ll second the sharpness of the 75mm PE. It`S very sharp.
I recently had a Hasselblad with the 80mm Planar C T*, and the PE is at least as sharp, if not even sharper...

Roger Hicks · Aug 5, 2006

Dear Jeff,

Yes, I think most photographers would be able to see the difference and tell you what it was, while most non-photographers would see the difference and not be able to tell you.

My personal view is that 12x16 is over-enlarged from 645 (7x), never mind 35mm (12.5x); I'd want at least 6x7cm (5.6x), even with Delta 100, and possibly 4x5 inch (a bit over 3x).

Then again, I like small prints.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

Dave Miller · Aug 5, 2006

You would be able to tell the difference, and certainly by direct comparision. Developer choice could make as much difference as that between 35mm, and 4.5 x 6. I doubt that your average punter would have a clue what they were taken with, or printed on. Gallery people are generally more interested in who took it rather than print quality.

Roger Hicks · Aug 5, 2006

Dave Miller said:
Gallery people are generally more interested in who took it rather than print quality.

Amen

R.

chorleyjeff · Aug 5, 2006

Markok765 said:
They still could be diffrent, BTW, there is no 75mm enlarging lens, but it still would be differnt, even from the same makers.the 800 would have to cover 6x6 so would be diffrent than the 50mm which has to cover a smaller format

I'm corrected.
I have a 6 element 80mm Schneider and a 4 element 50mm Nikon but for sake of comparison assume equal quality lens.
Jeff

chorleyjeff · Aug 5, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
Dear Jeff,

Yes, I think most photographers would be able to see the difference and tell you what it was, while most non-photographers would see the difference and not be able to tell you.

My personal view is that 12x16 is over-enlarged from 645 (7x), never mind 35mm (12.5x); I'd want at least 6x7cm (5.6x), even with Delta 100, and possibly 4x5 inch (a bit over 3x).

Then again, I like small prints.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

Thanks Roger
I've read your books and I know you could tell at a glance. It's the second half of your first sentence that gives me food for thought.
Cheers
Jeff

chorleyjeff · Aug 5, 2006

Dave Miller said:
You would be able to tell the difference, and certainly by direct comparision. Developer choice could make as much difference as that between 35mm, and 4.5 x 6. I doubt that your average punter would have a clue what they were taken with, or printed on. Gallery people are generally more interested in who took it rather than print quality.

Thanks Dave
I put some 12" x 16" mono prints in frames behind glass in pub/restaurant gallery last month. They were from MF negs and in the not very good light I felt the quality didn't show, and other venues I can use for display eg library, visitor centre also don't have good light. Of course in a good quality venue quality (or not) of printing would be easier to see but I'm a long way from using that sort of display area.
Cheers
Jeff

Lee L · Aug 5, 2006

Markok765 said:
... BTW, there is no 75mm enlarging lens ...

Marko,

It doesn't help people (or your credibility) for you to give out misinformation. I have two 75mm f:4.5 enlarging lenses, one made in Japan for Omega (Omicron-EL), and another from Isco in Germany. This wasn't too uncommon a focal length for 6x6 enlargers at one time.

Lee

df cardwell · Aug 5, 2006

A 12 x 16 image from Delta 400 or 100 ( or Kodak T Max films )
is well within the reach of a competent photographer. It isn't THAT hard, and lots of folks can do it.

Can you tell the difference between prints made in MF and 35, side by side ? Well, sure. Does that make the 35mm image inferior ? Of course not. Does that make MF superior ? No.

Here's the unspoken reality: you can make superb images from 35 in conditions that are impossible to make ANY image from MF.

When and where you make pictures is the real question.
Sunny days on a tripod, MF.
Handheld at twilight, 35mm.
In between, that's up to you.

Conventional thinking is usually misleading.

Every morning, I make a couple pictures in a wooded glen
a couple miles from my home. I use a 35mm camera and 400 film.

All wrong, according to those who preach only viewcameras are correct
for nature pictures.

Every morning, I catch fleeting sunlight in the forest
when I stop my bicycle for a moment
to soak up the splendid moment
before resuming my 30 mile ride.

I shoot at 1/30 @ f/1.4.
With a 645 camera, that's 1/8 @ f/2.8,
which is impossible without a tripod.

Lazy me, I pack the 35.

It's all up to you.

good luck.

Dave Miller · Aug 5, 2006

I must gently disagree with Roger over the question of degree of enlargement, whilst excepting that it is a very personal call. I am not generally a lover of visible grain, or poor definition in a print, although I accept that occasionally it can add to an image. I have, within my own small collection, prints ranging from 5 x 4 and 10 x 8 contacts through to 16 x 12 printed made from 35mm, and do not feel that any of them could be described as oversized. Remember that a larger print is intended for a greater viewing distance, and it’s only us fanatics that rub nose-grease on them. Content, must always be given greater weight than technique, the latter being easily learnt, but putting passion into a picture is a precious gift few of us possess, certainly not I.

However, in many ways your question is irrelevant since you should be trying to satisfy yourself and not the gallery visitors. I rather get the impression that you want us to provide the excuse for you to embark on the purchase of MF goodies, but that must come from within.

Roger Hicks · Aug 5, 2006

Dave Miller said:
I must gently disagree with Roger over the question of degree of enlargement, whilst excepting that it is a very personal call.

My real problem is with the half-tone effect. Up to 3-5x (depending on film, dev, etc) you can get that lovely liquid tonality that is reminiscent of a contact print. Then tonality generally collapses between 4x and 8x, because you can see the grain in some tones and not others -- and when I say 'see', I don't necessarily mean you're even conscious of it, just that the tonality changes. Blow it up still more and the tonality improves again at something between 6x and 10x, when the grain is everywhere. To me, tonality overrides just about everything: grain, sharpness and (above all) bokeh, which I notice only when it's REALLY bad.

But as you say, it's a very personal matter, and in any case, it's like the theoretical question on another thread about optimum apertures. Use 'em if you can; stick to your prejudices/preconceptions wherever possible; but if you can get a better picture another way (or if this is the only way to get a picture), throw all that to the wind.

Cheers,

Roger

Click to expand...

Nick Zentena · Aug 5, 2006

To me an 11x14 from 6x4.5 looks like a 5x7 from 35mm. I'm not sure about doing things the MF way. Fuji makes an autofocus little 645 that must be closer to a point and shoot then to some of the big 35mm when it comes to technique.

But everything has it's place. Use what works for you and ignore us -)

ricksplace · Aug 5, 2006

I thought for a minute I was going insane. I answered this thread already today, and it doesn't show up. The same thread appears on 35mm forum and medium format forum too. I answered the thread on 35mm forum.

1. size matters. always.

2. When in doubt, see point #1.

Rick

naturephoto1 · Aug 5, 2006

ricksplace said:
I thought for a minute I was going insane. I answered this thread already today, and it doesn't show up. The same thread appears on 35mm forum and medium format forum too. I answered the thread on 35mm forum.

1. size matters. always.

2. When in doubt, see point #1.

Rick

Rick,

You can't find it because Jeff is running the same thread in 2 different threads, in the medium format and the 35mm forums. It has gotten a bit confusing with people participating in one or the other.

Here is the other thread:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Rich

ricksplace · Aug 5, 2006

Lee L said:
Marko,

It doesn't help people (or your credibility) for you to give out misinformation. I have two 75mm f:4.5 enlarging lenses, one made in Japan for Omega (Omicron-EL), and another from Isco in Germany. This wasn't too uncommon a focal length for 6x6 enlargers at one time.

Lee

I agree, Lee.

I have a 75mm/4.5 Ektar that is a five element design and every bit as sharp as my six element 80mm/5.6 Componon.

Nick Zentena · Aug 5, 2006

And Rodenstock makes a 75mm APO lens. I guess thier top of the line MF lens.

ricksplace · Aug 5, 2006

naturephoto1 said:
Rick,

You can't find it because Jeff is running the same thread in 2 different threads, the medium format and the 35mm forums. It has gotten a bit confusing with people participating in one or the other.

Here is the other thread:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Rich

Thanks Rich.
Took a little searching but I found it. Thought I was having an almost senior moment. (sounds better than a flashback...)

naturephoto1 · Aug 5, 2006

Nick Zentena said:
And Rodenstock makes a 75mm APO lens. I guess thier top of the line MF lens.

Nick,

Unless things have changed Rodenstock offers the 75mm f4.5 Rogonar S for 6X6 lens for enlarging. If you are referring to the 75mm f4.0 Apo Rodagon D 1X and the 75mm f4.5 Apo Rodagon D 2X these are duplicating lenses intended for .8-1.2X for 6X6 and 1.2-2.5X for 6X7 cameras. I have the 2 75mm Apo Rodagon D lenses for usage for close-up/macro work for use on 35mm and 4X5.

Rich

Nick Zentena · Aug 5, 2006

All I know is the US rep for Rodenstock jumped on me for saying all the top of the line MF lenses are 80mm. He was talking about the N not the D model of the lens. But this was a few years back.

Prime lens quality and 12" x 16" enlargements.

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency