size of 35mm and medium format prints

[bonk]

I hope this question is not too ignorant, but:

With todays modern paper, what is approximately the size of the print where you can tell the difference between a print from a 35mm negative and a medium format negative?

Is there any other factor than grain/sharpness makes photographers choose medium format over 35mm?

 

[JPD]

With todays modern paper, what is approximately the size of the print where you can tell the difference between a print from a 35mm negative and a medium format negative?

The paper doesn't matter much. It's more about the film you use. With a grainy film you could see the difference already on a 9x12cm print.

Is there any other factor than grain/sharpness makes photographers choose medium format over 35mm?

Yes, the details are larger on larger negatives, so there are room for more colour/grey tones.

 

[Nick Zentena]

To flip it around a bit. To me an 11x14 print from a 6x45 looks like a 4x6 print from 35mm. Maybe better. Which considering the difference is the size of the negatives makes some sense.

 

[dancqu]

With todays modern paper, what is approximately the
size of the print where you can tell the difference between
a print from a 35mm negative and a medium format negative?

Is there any other factor than grain/sharpness makes
photographers choose medium format over 35mm?

On an 8x10 basis the area covered by a 6x4.5 or 6x6
negative is very nearly 300% greater. So 80 square
inches of print vs 240 square inches. Dan

 

[Neal]

Hello Bonk,

I seldom print smaller than 8x10, but the difference between 35mm and 6x8 is striking at that size.

Larger negatives are much easier to work with when using contrast masks and any flaws will be blown up to a lesser extent when printing.

Neal Wydra

 

[Roger Hicks]

3-5x enlargement.

 

[haris]

There is some things like ability to capture details on film, and range of tones (shades og gray) film is able to capture when compare different film sizes. Like I read in one old photography book published in my (former) country:

"Imagine you photographing landscape. Now imagine what happens with details when you try to squeeze kilometers of space on 24x35mm area. That is why landscape photographers use LF cameras".

Regards

 

[Trask]

I think part of the answer is in another couple of questions: how far away will you be when you view the photograph, and what lens was it taken with? If you expect the image to faithfully recreate what you saw through the lens or viewfinder, then (to get confusing) the angle the width of the image subtends when you are viewing it should be the same as the angle subtended by the lens. I can write more about this, but it seems to be an element of print presentation that isn't of much concern anymore.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I can write more about this, but it seems to be an element of print presentation that isn't of much concern anymore.

Yes it is, to those of us who understand what you are talking about. My '3-5x' was based solely on the closest possible examination.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[nworth]

For casual viewing, you can definitely tell the difference between 8X10 enlargements from 35mm (roughly 8X linear) and 645 (roughly 6X linear). This is true even with the best film, enlargers, and technique. With 6X7 or 6X9 negatives, the difference becomes stronger. With some scenes, the difference is less pronounced or less important, but it is there. Bad camera technique can mask the difference - blur obscures it. If you compare side by side 11X14 display prints of the same scene from 35mm and 645, the difference is shocking. 5X7 is probably the best print size for 35mm, and 5X7 prints can be awesome when properly displayed.

 

[keithwms]

I agree with most of (or all of) the above comments. Just note that if you shoot chromes or chromogenics, or if you use some of the smoother films e.g. delta, you might well go quite a bit further than with traditional b&w films.

You've probably seen a good old-fashioned 35mm slide show, right? Note that a well-exposed slide can be enlarged a lot before grain/texture plays a role. The tonality may not be so satisfying, but for some scenes especially vivid colour, it works well. Galen Rowell. I would guess that 35mm velvia or astia etc. will enlarge very well to 11x14, at least.

I guess that ilford xp2 will also allow you to go quite far. I have used it in medium format and haven't really hit a limit with it.

Traditional b&w films are another story. I dislike 35mm normally exposed hp5+ even at 8x10, whereas in 6x6cm medium format I like it out to 11x14 or so. Just depends on what role grain plays in your composition.

P.S. I went from 35mm to medium format mostly because of the greater variety of gear (e.g. mini view cameras), for a first stab at contact printing, to work with 120/220 roll film, for better wide angle performance, better crop latitude... a number of reasons. Grain and resolution were only two of many things that made me jump to MF and then LF. Enlargability was way down on my list and still is, I do very little enlargement.

 

[dancqu]

...considering the difference is the size of the
negatives makes some sense.

Thirty five millimeter is a miniature format.
The smallest of the medium formats is 6X4.5.

Any appeal the print may have what ever the
size and from what ever format it cometh is largely
dependent upon content, appropriate gradation,
and application.

All in all print size and negative size form a very lose
connection. The matter is very subjective. Dan

 

[Tom Duffy]

I generally print 5x7 from 35mm and 8x10 from 6x4.5cm. This from b&w film. Color I think you can get a decent 8x10 from a color negative.

The difference between a 35mm print and a medium format print is fairly obvious.

If you use a really fine grain modern film, 100 speed or slower, e.g., Acros, Tmax 100 or Delta 100, a tripod and a sharp lens at optimum aperture, you can come close to duplicating a handheld, medium format shot on 400 speed film. In this case you can make a very good 8x10 from 35mm.

Of course, if you have a really interesting picture, nobody cares as much about sharpness.

 

[Arvee]

Of course, if you have a really interesting picture, nobody cares as much about sharpness.

Bingo!

 

[DrPablo]

Comparing 35mm to 645 or bigger at the same enlargement size is one thing.

But the fact of the matter is that this is seldom a real scenario -- normally you're either limited to one piece of equipment, or you have two pieces of equipment of which one is the right tool for the job. While 645 and certainly 4x5 or whatever will look considerably better than 35mm at 11x14 or larger, it's also quite possible for 35mm by itself to look very good at 11x14 or 16x20.

If you have a choice in equipment, and either 35mm or MF would be appropriate for the task, you of course want to choose MF if you know in advance that you want a big enlargement. But sometimes, like for bird photography, there just really isn't a practical or good MF option. The fact that MF is better doesn't mean you shouldn't enlarge a great bird shot taken with a 600mm lens on 35mm.

 

[Daniel-OB]

I would say that differewnce between 35mm and MF is depend of the lens quality and scene, all other factors being the same.
Three lines or graphity made with R-Leica and e.g. Apo-Macro Elmarit 100 mm (Leica) will look beter than many MF prints on any paper size.

I have 16x20 print made with that lens: whole house??? and spot is visible on the aple in front of the door (Pan-F in Rodinal). It is really big deal how the lens see nuances, borders with high contrast or extremely low contrast,....

The advantage of MF comes only when (detail size on the negative) to (grain size) is not acceptable with 35mm. So again if this is not concern I would always use Leica lenses (or some Nikkors), no matter enlargement. And again, tonality and bokeh with Leica lenses are so far superior to any MF lens (even Zeiss). And grain should not be a problem, but the problem is how to insert it into creativity or picture composition. At the very end, grain is ONE OF properties of photography, property that make photography unique meduim.

Here can be inserted also and difference in viewfinder (c.100% Leica) and ???? MF which make always croping as a must, except if one accept uncontrolable details in edges of MF (I assume viewfinder of MF is not so accurate as Leica).

I saw one picture of Salgado (35mm) in one window, around 2 m heigh, just reproduction. It is used as advertising so guess quality.

www.Leica-R.com

 

[DrPablo]

The advantage of MF comes only when (detail size on the negative) to (grain size) is not acceptable with 35mm.

I think the advantage is when the detail size to enlargement factor is not acceptable with 35mm. And this is exactly why we're talking about print size as the main measure of output quality. The respective grain size of higher resolution films only make a difference if you're using lenses that can take advantage of it.

Why would you assume the viewfinder is less accurate on MF, by the way? At the very least it's easier to see and achieve critical focus.

 

[keithwms]

Daniel, this kind of touches on some other threads related ot your RZ experience, but one of the major reasons for me to shoot MF is the availability of interchangeable backs. Being able to go from one format to another, or to shoot polaroid proofs or type 55 (glorious stuff), and then go quickly from one film to another... or perhaps to a digital back... those capabilities are one of the things that most distinguishes small format from MF. Very few 35mm cameras can switch films mid roll. And very few can generate reasonable polaroid proofs.

I could care less about what this or that lens can resolve, that is primarily a small format concern. If I want to record the head of the pin from 100 meters away I know exactly how to achieve it, and I don't have to pay a lot of money to make it happen. But it simply doesn't interest me, artistically speaking. Another thing, we often hear about how wonderful the bokeh of a Leica or CZ lens is, but look, you have far more control over in-focus and OOF elements with MF and LF field/view cameras. So that is another aspect of MF/LF that hardly exists in small format (except for pricey t&s lenses with limited capabilities and a few digital rigs now used by architecture shooters). After working with a field or view camera for a while, the use of bokeh in 35mm starts to look, well, one-dimensional and obvious. (There, I have probably just offended 75% of the site, sorry for that!)

Summary: there are plenty of reasons to go to MF or LF besides grain and resolution and how big the print can go.

 

[gainer]

There is more to it than being able to tell the difference. I have seen 11x14's from 35 mm that I liked better than 11x14's from 4x5. Given the same subject and treatment of it in both cases, the larger negative will usually win. But I have never been shocked by the difference between two good photos.

 

[Daniel-OB]

Keith
all correct you said, and there are reasons why i bought my MF camera. Many times they are just not replaceable. But this thread is concern with print quality only.

www.Leica-R.com

 

[dslater]

I find it quite interesting that people have a lot to say on this subject, but no one seems willing to simply answer the OP's question:

"what is approximately the size of the print where you can tell the difference between a print from a 35mm negative and a medium format negative?"

I'd answer it myself, but I don't have any MF equipment.

 

[keithwms]

But this thread is concern with print quality only.

Is there any other factor than grain/sharpness makes photographers choose medium format over 35mm?

So obviously my comments were well within the scope established by the original post.

 

[JosBurke]

I find my 35 mm Leica R4 and even my Leica M2 with Dual Range Summicron fall way short of my Hasselblad or Mamiya 7 images--- OTH--I tend to use a tripod most of the time with the Hassy and handheld on the Mamiya 7 --so for a fair comparison at an 11x14 print from the Mamiya 7 and the same film--Delta 400--The Mamiya just blows the Leica away in every respect but then again under low light the Leica is going to do what my Mamiya can't due to lens speed given the same film for each ! Each had it's virtues and I'm not parting with my M2 but could do without the Mamiya 7--oddly enough!

 

[Roger Hicks]

I find it quite interesting that people have a lot to say on this subject, but no one seems willing to simply answer the OP's question:

"what is approximately the size of the print where you can tell the difference between a print from a 35mm negative and a medium format negative?"

I'd answer it myself, but I don't have any MF equipment.

Um.... 3x to 5x enlargement (post 6). I assumed the OP could do the sums. 3x 35mm is 72 x 108mm (postcard); 5x is 120 x 180mm (call it 5x7). Bigger than that, you can normally tell the difference if you look closely enough.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

Recently I enlarged a few RF645 FP-4 negatives developed in Rodinal, 1:75. Wow, after I saw the small 6x8 in prints, I have to ask myself why continue to use 35mm if I can get the shot with medium format.

When handholding prints, I see the difference between small and medium format at 3 to 5x enlargements. Viewing prints enlarged 8x from 35mm at viewing distance results in loss of visible details. To control tone one will perform more basic controls such as dodging and burning-in. The small format print enlarged past 8x10 rests more on content, tone and line. Images like Refugees in the Koren Camp http://masters-of-photography.com/S/salgado/salgado_covers_full.html look great without the details.

Medium format negatives are easier to print and evaluate. They produce a tonally rich, detailed, smooth/sharp look.