size of 35mm and medium format prints

[Roger Hicks]

I'm not parting with my M2 but could do without the Mamiya 7--oddly enough!

Same here. The old 'one camera' fantasy is dead easy: Leica MP. Yes, I love the results I get from my MF Alpa, but if push came to shove, the MP stays and the 12 S/WA goes.

Mercifully I don't have to make that choice.

 

[David Brown]

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.

One cannot "simply answer the OP's question" because there is no simple answer.

It "depends". There are so many other variables: camera, camera lens, film, developer, development, enlarging lens, ...

 

[temujin]

in my experience, around 5x7 is the size i can tell a difference in prints made from my 35mm and medium format cameras. the difference is not very noticeable in a 4x6, very noticeable in an 8x10. however, just because an enlargement from 35mm does not have as great of sharpness and gradation, and has more pronounced grain, than a print of equal size from a mf neg- this certainly does not mean such a print has any less artistic value. it simply depends on the look you are going for. after a couple of years of shooting exclusively in medium format, i have sold my 6x7, have shelved my 6x4.5, and am using 35mm exclusively now. the look of a 35mm enlargement simply suits my artistic vision more, and sharpness and fine detail are not my biggest priorities, personally. i typically print my 35mm enlargements at 6.5x8- my prints (b&w, usually with high speed film) at this size are grainy but still relatively sharp for 35mm.

 

[dslater]

One cannot "simply answer the OP's question" because there is no simple answer.

It "depends". There are so many other variables: camera, camera lens, film, developer, development, enlarging lens, ...

Actually, when a question like this is posted, the only reasonable thing to do is assume all other variables are constant - i.e. same film, developer, development and enlarger - tripod mounted cameras, and assume both lenses are good enough that the difference between them doesn't matter.

 

[dslater]

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.

Sorry Roger,
you're right - you did answer it. When I first read your post, it wasn't clear to me that you ment a 3x to 5x enlargement for just the 35mm. I think I quickly read it and interpreted it as meaning 3x-5x enlargement for both formats which would result in different sized prints - gues that's what I get for reading these posts after midnight.

 

[Nick Zentena]

Actually, when a question like this is posted, the only reasonable thing to do is assume all other variables are constant - i.e. same film, developer, development and enlarger - tripod mounted cameras, and assume both lenses are good enough that the difference between them doesn't matter.

Which points to a problem. With MF I'll use faster grainer film and be happy. I'll almost never use a tripod with 35mm.

Mostly it's different horses for different courses but the question sort of assumes you'll use one for everything.

 

[Roger Hicks]

...guess that's what I get for reading these posts after midnight.

We all do it. Reading after midnight while drunk can get you even deeper in. (From One Who Knows).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

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

A reason to use Medium Format (MF) vs miniature format is the relationship of print size to negative shape. It relates to grain/sharpness but deserves discussion as negative shape preserves viewfinder cropping for some print sizes. The shape of the 35mm negative fits a 12.7 x 17.8cm print displayed on a 8x10 inch mat. This size looks great displayed on a table top. 6.45 negs work well with 6x8 or 8x10 inch prints as little cropping in the enlarger is required. The 8x10 print from 6.45 negs are large enough for wall mounting.

Several reasons to use MF not related to grain/sharpness are: MF negatives are easier to evaluate due to their size, negatives print easier with less adjustments/richer tonality, and a larger neg minimizes dust problems. Someone else mentioned MF ability for camera movements.

Since I print small and like simplification, the MP may become my last film camera due to its build quality, low light ability and size. On the other hand, the Rollei TLR is simple, small for MF, and tends to produce the most interesting B&W images that are rounded and (3d). At the end of the day photography is always a series of compromises.