Does the same scene look different in 4x5 and 8x10?

I asked this in the context of another thread

I may not be explaining this the best way (that's why I take pictures...)

I'm not sure if it's entirely an perception/optical illusion, or whether there is some math behind this, but:

When someone says "I'm thinking of moving up to 8x10 and schlepping that around the countryside because I like the idea of a big neg" people on here often say "why bother with 8x10 unless you really want to do contact prints, just use 4x5 if you are going to enlarge" or words to that effect

Apart from the differences if you are going to print big - 4 or 6 feet wide - which is another issue - I feel there is a real difference in look or perception between the same scene taken with an equivalent lens in the two formats.

That is, suppose you photograph the same landscape scene in 4x5 with a 125mm lens and in 8x10 with a 250mm lens.

Pretty close equivalents. But to my eye the scenes are rendered differently.

I know I always get a little lost with the math and different DoF from one format to another and technically how the difference between a 125mm on 4x5 and a 210mm on 8x10 pans out. But even using movements to bring everything into focus from front to back in both photographs, to my eye there is a different perception of the space in the two images.

Maybe it's an optical illusion? Maybe there is some math behind it? But my personal feeling is that photographing the same space using the two different formats (with equivalent lenses) gives two differing perceptions of that same space.

Or am I completely wrong, and grain aside, if you took the two identical photographs with the two formats from the same spot using lenses that were equivelent in angle of view, blew them both up to say 20x24, visually, perceptually, they wouldn't look any different?

Hi Tim,

Most of us that move to a larger negative do so in order to use contact printing. Azo printing would be a good example. There is also the added benefit of a larger viewing area while composing. I just made the jump to 11"x14" for many reasons. I will still shoot 8"x10" as well.

There are many reasons to move to a larger format. The contact print for me is the ultimate in artistic creation. Keep in mind that the camera is another tool in the art of photography. Not all shots that are taken on a 4"x5" would be taken on an 8"x10". The larger the format in general the more time one takes to compose the image. I enjoy the pace of the larger camera.

The other item to consider is the enlarging process. For the average photographer that does not have a large darkroom the enlarger may not be an option. As far as comparing two enlargments side by side that is an entirely different pickle. You could have 10 different people look at two enlargments from an 8"x10" and a 4"x5" negative. I am sure that you would have 10 different opinions. For me the difference is worth the larger size. Is the contact print better then an enlargement? Hard to say. I would just keep in mind that the contact print has a much different "feel". The only way to experience that is to see one face to face.

I too posted a question regarding the use of ultra large foramt cameras. That was when I was considering the 11"x14". Most of the responses were that the 11"x14" contact print was no different then the 11"x14" enlargment from a 4"x5" negative. I say that the results of the contact print are what drives me to get the shot. In the end it is a personal taste. I say view a few contact prints and see what you think. I would be glad to send a few if you like.

Bruce

Well, to me since the perspective does not change if it is done from the same point of view, then there will be no difference in the final print, and that's irrespective of the lens used (except cropping would be needed so the same area of view is represented in the final print). This is of course to say, that the lens used does not introduce geometrical distortions of its own. So, aside a possible difference in the quality of the final print, I don't see how a "difference" could be perceived.

I've not done anything above 4x5, but it could be that since you're looking at the ground galss on 8x10 from about the same short distance as you would with a 4x5, it might provide some illusion to what you're seeing.

I think that there are many ways to look at this. From a technical perspective, there will be many minute differences which, when put together, can be significant. For example, the lens quality will be slightly different (esp. with color), the precise alignment of the film backs may differ. The needed exposure time increase for 8x10 will also cause differences, as will enlargeability. And there are surely others.

In the end, stick with what looks and works best for you for any given situation. I always seem to think that most of my images would never have worked had I used a different film/set-up. Maybe subconsciously, I am aware of the end result and use that to my advantage. As with everything in photography, where there is a benefit, there is always an almost equal detriment to go along with it (cost, bulk etc.).

"Most of us that move to a larger negative do so in order to use contact printing. Azo printing would be a good example. There is also the added benefit of a larger viewing area while composing. I just made the jump to 11"x14" for many reasons. I will still shoot 8"x10" as well.

I say that the results of the contact print are what drives me to get the shot. In the end it is a personal taste. I say view a few contact prints and see what you think. I would be glad to send a few if you like."

No no no...! :-) that's not what I was asking (I shoot 8x10 as well as 4x5 and have shot 11x14 - and I have contact printed B&W. Also, many of us shoot in colour - which we don't usually contact print... but we still use 8x10).

This question oroginally came up in the context of Jim Cookes 8x10 work Re-Placing Arcadia.

Perhaps I can put it like this. I don't think his landscape images, printed to 16x20 would look the same (nothing to do with grain) if he had shot them on 4x5, using equivalent focal length lenses.

Does that make sense?

That is - I don't think he could have got the same feel and perception of that same scene if he used 4x5 rather than 8x10.

Witold has what I'm asking I think:

"Well, to me since the perspective does not change if it is done from the same point of view, then there will be no difference in the final print, and that's irrespective of the lens used (except cropping would be needed so the same area of view is represented in the final print). This is of course to say, that the lens used does not introduce geometrical distortions of its own. So, aside a possible difference in the quality of the final print, I don't see how a "difference" could be perceived."

So you are saying there is no geometric or mathematical distortion if you view the scene from the same position using a 125mm and a 250mm lens? That the sense I have about this is basically optical illusion?

I feel I work differently with the two formats, so it's not so easy to compare, even setting aside the issue of contact printing.

I look at the groundglass differently when it's larger, though I'm not sure I can exactly say how. I can see different things. Maybe I feel more like a painter working 1:1, knowing that the print will be the same size as the image on the glass.

I usually choose 4x5" when I want to work more quickly, but that's more a function of the design of the camera (Tech V vs. Gowland monorail) than the format.

I prefer the look of classic lenses on 8x10", but I don't think they hold up well to enlargement, so my 4x5" lenses are more modern designs. In shots with short DOF, this affects the way the figure separates from the ground and the texture of the out-of-focus area. If I used lenses of the same design and analogous focal length on the two formats, I suspect they would still produce different results, since the appearance of the out-of-focus area is related to absolute aperture size.

But say you take out the short DOF issue and shoot for maximum DOF. I still think you would see a difference in texture. A 2x enlargement looks different from a 4x enlargement to me.

Yes Tim,

That's what I'm saying. A "line-of-perspective" projected from the same point will be identical for any lens. The difference is that a wider lens will allow one to view more from the same spot. That's why I added the cropping issue if one is to compare same kind of apples.

Going back to the quality issue, it may indeed make a hell of a difference and persuade someone to think otherwise. Given your question however, we should overlook that part.

When one uses a shorter lens, 125 vs. 250, objects in the foreground will appear larger in relation to the background objects and this altered relationship won't change with subsequent enlargement. The two pictures will look different when viewed from the same distance. You will probably have to view the enlarged photograph from a closer distance to get the same perspective.

Mathematically, they are identical.

All things being equal (ie. you get identical camera alignment, the lenses have identical distortions, etc.), if you print 16x20 from each of 4x5 and 8x10 and overlay the prints, every point will register.

However, if you throw the 4x5 and 8x10 trannies on a light table, side by side, things will look different, due to the differences in scale.

If you can place the 8x10 trannie on a light box at twice the distance from your eye as the 4x5, and cover one eye to eliminate parallax, they will again appear identical.

To me, the difference is more behind the ground glass experience than say comparing the final prints of equal size made from different negs of equivalent focal lengths. And I don't mean the enlarging vs contact printing issue. I find 8x10 to be the perfect size because you can take in all of the scene at once and see fine details at average viewing distance of 10 inches or so behind the GG. With 4x5, I seem to have to get closer and try harder to resolve fine details. Beyond 8x10, you have to move back to take it all in and the intimate details get slightly lost. It's like reading a book, imagine how uncomfortable it would be to read a half size text reduced proportionally with the size of an average book. I think it has something to do with the way our eyes work, the spacing between them and the distance from the pupil(iris) to retina(film plane).

Jerald,

I think you've misunderstood the scenario. We're shooting from the SAME point or SAME distance from whatever subject it is we're concerned with.

An object will ONLY appear larger against background if you move in CLOSER with your camera to cover the same view with a wider lens. And this WILL change perspective which cannot be later altered by enlargment. However, a shot from SAME point. regardless of lens used, will produce exactly same persepctive. I added enlargment and/or cropping, because a wider lens from identical point will show more in the straight image than a longer lens will. So it needs to be cropped in order to see the same up to the margins. Cropping alone would make the final image smaller, so it will then have to be enlarged, and then compared side by side, to see the identical perspective they've produced.

Tim,

I think you have the answer you are looking for but I wish to point out there is a distinction between a perceptual “illusion” and an optical one. Optics is a science and as such abstract. Optically there is no difference in the ray diagram for the two proposed images. However they are not, NOT the same photograph. If you perceive a difference and it is a consistent difference then it is an important difference. IF you have images of this sort to test with, have someone shuffle the images and test you to see if your perceptions are consistently correct as to which is which. You might save yourself a bunch of film and effort or you may be a convert as I am to the larger format.

Cheers,

Witold, I refer you to AA's book Camera and Lens pgs 152-157. He photographed the same scene of a fountain and custom house at identical positions with different focal length lenses. The perspectives are entirely different. We are not talking about an individual object but a scene in which near and far objects will change in their relative sizes when photographed with different focal length lenses all taken from the same point.Tim is right, the same scene will look different.

Witold, I think you are right. Pictures 80a thru 80d were made from different camera locations. 78 and 79 were from the same position and I thought that 80a thru 80d were also from the same locations - but they weren't. I stand corrected.

Tim: I know what you're talking about. When I bought my first 8x10 lenses, after shooting 4x5 for ten years +, I went for the 2x equivalents to my favorite 4x5 focal lengths. To my surprise, they didn't render the same feel as the 4x5 lenses. I'm finding that in general--if this makes any sense--8x10 lenses don't seem to vary as dramatically at either end of the spectrum. For example, a 75mm lens in 4x5 is pretty wide, but my 150mm XL on 8x10 seems not nearly as sweeping. On the long end, a 450mm or 600mm on 8x10 does not seem to compress like the equivalent--say 240mm or 300mm--on the smaller camera. I haven't tried printing to the same scale from similar 4x5 and 8x10 chromes, so I can't prove it!

As to the "all lenses produce the same perspective" idea, all I can say is that I routinely use a wide variety of 4x5 lenses not just because I'm too lazy to walk forward or back, but because they produce a wide variety of different feels or "tensions" between elements in the frame. Crazy? Maybe I'm wrong, but maybe the example is wrong--the thing is, you wouldn't shoot the same subject from the same distance with different lenses; you'd move the camera. And that's where the lenses begin to produce different effects, no?

Nice thread, thanks...

Tim,

I feel that you are correct about the way in which 8x10 renders a scene differently to a 4x5 camera with a lens of equivalent angle of view. I believe that it has to do with the compression of space that is a property of all longer lenses. The background seems to get pulled forward lending the image a greater sense of solidity (for want of a better term). I find a similar difference between the step up from 35mm to medium format. An image of the same scene from a 50mm lens in 35mm then an 80mm lens in MF look different, the medium format image having more "solidity". .

Assuming away all the simpler complicating factors - different lenses, renderings, grain etc - I can think of one difference. Think of it this way - imagine a picture taken with a 90mm lens on 4x5. View a print from this negative from your normal viewing distance and you have the typical wide angle look. Stick your nose close to the print, 90mm away and the wide angle look vanishes - I forget the term Rudolph Kingslake uses - I think it is center of perspective. Same situation behind the ground glass - if you look at the 4x5 GG from the same distance that you view the 8x10 GG, lenses of identical angle of view will produce images on the GG that seem subtly different. And I'm sure that influences the way we compose images - therefore, images composed on 8x10 with the equivalent focal length have a somewhat different 'feel' from the same images composed on 4x5. Other than that, I can't think of any mathematical or optical reason to see a difference - in other words, if we scale the entire system up exactly twice, including the distance behind the GG where we place or eye, I doubt you will find a difference. Pure speculation, of course. Cheers, DJ

"I feel there is a real difference....I know I always get a little lost with the math...Or am I completely wrong...?"



With all due respect, yes.

Scott,

I agree entirely that we use different focal lengths to get what we desire. And as we change lenses, we also change our shooting position.

That being said, in order to compare apples to apples, we can't talk different focal length, then adjust our shooting spot, and then say we're getting a different look. Of course we will. The same-perspective-for-any-lens idea remains as an undisputable fact, as long as the same shooting position is retained.

As to the difference from format to format, please guys keep in mind that a 50 mm for 35 is NOT the same as an 80 for a 6x6, and this minor difference may lead you to adjust your shooting position just enough to affect the outcome.

I'm not advocating that math should be part of compositional aspects of any medium. Just like with film testing etc., it's not pretty but still quite effective.

We always strive for that unique look and only our own vision can lead us to that.

A 135mm lens will produce the IDENTICAL "angle of view" on a 4X5 sheet as a 270mm will on an 8X10 sheet. If you took the two pics, one with 4X5/135 and the other with 8X10/270, and enlarged the 4X5 pic to 8X10 and layed it next to the 8X10 contact print made with the 270 the scene would be identical. But the 810 might be better quality. :>))

This is beginning to look like numerous "how does the 1.6x cropping factor change the perspective on my Canon DSLR" threads.

Well, as many have pointed: it does not.

(Let's forget resolution, and depth of field for now.)

The size of the negative and the focal length _only affects cropping_ - nothing more. No "spatial or telecompression", no change in perspective or anything else. This is exactly what Adams also tries to explain in The Camera. Unfortunately I don't have the book with me now, but Jerald, if you read the text carefully and observe the pictures, you should get it. Íf I recall right, he got two sets of pictures: two where the position is the same and focal length changes and two where the camera position also changes. The first two pictures (same position) are identical, only the cropping is different. The one taken with wider lens could be cropped and printed to look exactly like the one taken with longer lens. This is not possible if camera, and thus perspective, changes.

You can allways make the same, identical, print of a certain subject using a shorter lens, larger negative, and cropping when printing. There will be no difference at all. (If the resolution would be infinite...). So basically all we need is a 1mm lens with infinite resolution ;-)

This is not a rule of thumb, but a rule: perspective changes if, and only if the distance between the camera and the subject changes.

While the angles of view might be identical when using a 135mm lens on 4x5 and a 270mm lens on 8x10, there's still the matter of depth of field, as Tim pointed out in his original comments.

You'll need to stop down the 270mm lens two additional stops to match the DOF of the 135mm lens, something which may or may not make a perceptible difference when comparing the two images. And once you've done that, there's the difference in diffraction effects to consider, not to mention subtle differences in lens quality (and design), exposure, etc.

In my (very limited) experience, images shot on 8x10 do indeed look different than images shot on 4x5. Whether these differences are significant or not is something that will vary from person to person, depending upon their individual tastes and preferences, and visual acuity.

FWIW, in my case they're significant enough that I'm this >< close to selling all of my medium-format and 4x5 gear, and committing myself exclusively to shooting 8x10 despite the additional costs (in terms of time, money, and effort) that go along with it.

Tim- For my money, I think it's about resolution. It's the same effect that Tech Pan has over standard films. This is what I mean; If you do all the things you mentioned in order to objectify the test, (equivalent lens lengths and all that), if the texture on that far off tree bark has .001mm in which to resolve itself on a 4x5 neg., and I just picked some wild number out of my head, so don't all the mathmeticians jump on me, but 4 times that area in which to do the same resolution on an 8x10, I sure think the film and resulting print looks and 'feels' diferent. I don't think it has anything to do with angle of view or distortion or anything like that, I think it's image capture capability. And I think sometimes we describe 'feel' by things we can't even really 'see' ourselves. I give a talk in my area to libraries and museums about the team of Darius and Tabitha Kinsey , who worked in the woods in my area at the turn of the century. And I've printed from his original 11x14 negs, in contact, and that experience is what makes me think it's all about resolution. They are glorious and I can't for the life of me make a 11x14 image from a 4x5 neg look like an 11x14 neg. Does this make sense?

Thanks for all the replies - it is as I suspected - not so much an optical/mathematical difference as an optical (perceptual) illusion (I'm going to stick with optical illusion - it's common parlance - those two wiggly lines - is it a vase or two faces...).

"A 135mm lens will produce the IDENTICAL "angle of view" on a 4X5 sheet as a 270mm will on an 8X10 sheet. If you took the two pics, one with 4X5/135 and the other with 8X10/270, and enlarged the 4X5 pic to 8X10 and layed it next to the 8X10 contact print made with the 270 the scene would be identical. But the 810 might be better quality. :>))"

Jim (and Severi), I am therefore assuming that there is no difference in "compression" of the view - i.e. what you might call telephoto effect - from one to the other?

"I feel that you are correct about the way in which 8x10 renders a scene differently to a 4x5 camera with a lens of equivalent angle of view. I believe that it has to do with the compression of space that is a property of all longer lenses. The background seems to get pulled forward lending the image a greater sense of solidity (for want of a better term)."

this is indeed part of the effect I was talking about - I think it probably comes more from some of the other things people have mentioned, that can perhaps all add together to make the same scene look subtly (and sometimes very) different from 4x5 to 8x10 (and it's something I can see often enough to make photographing with 8x10 worth the extra effort). Among others these would be:

the subtle difference between a 2 or 3 times enlargement from 8x10 and a 4 or 6 times one in 4x5 to get the same size print.

the potential differences between the type and quality of lenses often used between the two formats

the way the scene itself is viewed and chosen by the photographer because of the different relationship to the ground glass - 4x5 small, peering in close etc. Whereas 8x10 is certainly more comfortable and "natural" (and yes, probably more so than 11x14 in a way) - TV/Monitor screen like - under the darkcloth it is very easy to view the whole overall scene from a comfortable distance - when I think about it, I do compose quite differently from 4x5 to 8x10 - in good part because of this.

i think this also ties into the effect someone mentioned of an 8x10 lens just not seeming as wide as a 4x5 lens. On 4x5, 90mm often seems plenty wide for me - oft times too wide. My 75mm lens usually seems far too wide unless I'm in some cramped interior. But on 8x10 my 159mm lens (say an 80mm equivalent) rarely seems too wide and is often not wide enough. And a 210mm lens doesn't feel too wide at all - even though the proportions of the two formats are identical.

add in the obvious things - like often a smaller aperture and longer exposure in 8x10 and for me they often add up to enough of a difference in the final image (and hopefully, as far as I am concerned a difference that is more interesting...) that it's worth photo ring with 8x10 in many circumstances.

My interest in starting this thread (answered I think...) was - is this difference due to a simple mathematical difference between format size and the different lenses used or was it something more subtle, harder to pinpoint and perceptual.

Interestingly, it seems to be the latter - which of course makes it more fun and a greater challenge, because you can't figure it out just by buying a calculator from Rodenstock or The View Camera Store - it's much more down to intuition and fine tuning all these subtle little differences and perceptions to make an interesting image that draws on these differences and ambiguities.

There is, indeed, no "compression" (the way Matthew, for example, described) involved with different focal lengths or film sizes. It is _all_ about field of view -> cropping. The background will not get "pulled forward" when using larger negative or different focal length. This would mean non-linear light path from subject to lens and it happens only near black holes...

I think one of the biggest differences in "feel" comes when looking at the ground glass. There is a big difference in perceiving the scene when looking at 5" wide ground glass compared to 10" wide - when they cover the exact same field of view. The same effect can be seen when looking final prints either too close or too far away.

I think there are a few factors that generate a genuine difference. First, an 8x10 neg has four times the area of a 4x5. All other factors being equal, the non-image noise will be 1/4th as great (grain, dust spots, processing anomalies, etc. The depth of focus is greater with longer focal length lenses and so may contribute to the image. Likewise, the resolution of the optical system is related to the area of the image formed; the same 4x factor applies. A contact print from a larger negative will not suffer from local contrast degredation caused by an enlarger's optical system. Finally, and this is purely opinion on my part, the way the depth of field falls off on a longer focal length lens meets the expectation of the human vision system better than does a shorter lens.

This discussion has got me thinking I should perform a simple test. I'll make a series of photographs using my Nikon, Rollie, 6x9 back, 4x5, and 8x10 using the same film. I'll make a baseline contact print from the 8x10 and then enlarge the other negs to match the contact exactly for size and tonality. Then I'll round up some people to pass judgement on the results. It would be fun if others on this forum would try the same thing. We could compare results and perhaps learn a few things along the way.

There is a mathematical subtlety to this question that everyone has so far missed. The assertion has repeatedly been made that a 4x5 camera with its normal lens set at exactly the same position as an 8x10 camera with its normal lens will lead to exactly the same perspective, and I would not argue with this. However, the assumption that the two different format cameras will be colocated is incorrect if you want to fill the frame of each with the same subject. Say you want to fill the frame of each camera with a tree. The image magnification for the 8x10 is twice that of the 4x5, because the image is twice as big. The distance between the center of the lens and the tree, u, is related to the magnification, M, by the simple relation, u = (1+M)F/M, where F is the lens focal length. Using this relation one can show that the distance of the 8x10 camera (more precisely the center of the lens) from the tree is exactly a distance of F further from the tree than is the 4x5 camera. For an 8x10, this is about a foot. For objects on a distant horizon, this will obviously not be perceptible, but many picture scenes have significant objects in the foreground, and camera placement a foot further away will give the impression that the scene was shot with a longer focal length lens as compared with the 4x5 image. The 4x5 image, enlarged to 8x10, will not be a perfect overlay with the 8x10.

Martin, You're saying the "nodal point" of both lenses would be in the same place but the 8X10 image would "land" further away? Right?

Jim:

No. It's the nodal point that lies at different distances from the subject for the two camera formats. In the formula u is defined as the distances from the nodal point. If the cameras are placed so that the nodal points coincide, then the perspective will be the same but tree will slightly magnified in the 8x10 compared with the 4x5 image. In that case the 4x5, when enlarged to 8x10 will again not exactly overlay the 8x10, even though the perspective is the same because the field of view of the 8x10 image will be slightly smaller.

CORRECTION: In my first post, I said "Using this relation one can show that the distance of the 8x10 camera (more precisely the center of the lens) from the tree is exactly a distance of F further from the tree than is the 4x5 camera. For an 8x10, this is about a foot." The first sentence is correct but ambiguous. The F referred to here is the focal length of the 4x5 lens NOT the 8x10 lens. The second sentence is correct also, but the implication is that the 8x10 camera is a foot farther away from the tree than the 4x5. This is incorrect. The 8x10 camera is a HALF foot farther from the tree than the 4x5 when the tree fills the frame of both. The perception of the effect will vary with the distribution of subject distances in the scene, but, in principle, one can never take exactly the same FULL-FRAME image with two different formats. Of course, the depth-of-fields of the two normal lenses will differ too as pointed out by Jeffrey. This is true even allowing twice the circle of confusion for the 8x10 because it suffers half the enlargement.