If LF looks so great on web, why can't it be done with 35mm or a DSLR?

[marshallarts]

I tried to sum it up in the title. An ignorant question at first glance, but hear me out. I've only dabbled in LF with my Graflex, but I absolutely love the images. The crispness and falloff towards out of focus is what really strikes me. I've been trying to find equivalent techniques with 35mm to achieve the same look but it just can't bring that LF look to the table.

I can see how a contact print from a 4x5 would be something of unparalleled resolution in comparison to an enlarged 35mm print, but what confounds me is how come a low res scan of such a print yield that same effect vs the 35mm scan. That is obvious but wouldn't that knock down the resolution theory as to what give LF that feel?

I've never been much of a printer or scanner so this very well could be a simple answer. Is there something else I'm not taking into account? I'm tempted to get very detailed into my question but feel it would sidetrack from this broader question of what makes LF a magical format.

[Ken Lee]

Can you show us some example images which illustrate the look you're referring to ? Otherwise it's just speculation on our part.

4x5 is at the small end of Large Format: try looking at an 8x10 or 11x14 contact print - or larger - to see how lovely a photograph can be.

Large Format represents the latest in 19th century technology: not only resolution, but exquisite tonal separation and smoothness. Once you enlarge past 2 or 3 times, these tend to diminish. Nowadays, people prefer large sensors for the same reason. To quote Ken Rockwell: "This $300 used 4 x 5 is sharper than a new $3000 Hasselblad and worlds beyond a $5000 Leica, Contax, Canon or Nikon.".

Another term for it is over-sampling.

If you make a 3x enlargement with 35mm, you can get the same basic image quality - but a rather small print. Small cameras are ideal for certain applications, but they are not the Summum Bonum of image quality. Speed and convenience perhaps, but not image quality.

There is also the issue of focal length and depth of field or blur: while a normal lens on 35mm is 50mm, it's 150mm on 4x5, and 300mm on 8x10. A 400mm lens at f/16 has the same depth of field as a 200mm lens at f/8, and a 100mm lens at f/2. If you want to make a portrait with a blurred background, it's very easy with Large Format. With formats like 35mm or smaller, it can be a challenge.

Then there's perspective control and view camera movements which allow you to get virtually unlimited depth of field...

These issues had already been figured out in the 1800s.

Speaking of the 19th century, here's a site that shows many nice portable Large Format cameras going back to that time, made in the USA. There were many others made elsewhere too. Here's a page that shows some forum members with their cameras. And finally, here's a page that shows some LF cameras which people have built themselves.

[Greg Lockrey]

Yeah.... a low res scan is a low res scan. It doesn't matter if it's from a scanner or a camera......

[cjbroadbent]

I've wasted a good deal of time shooting the same subject in multiple formats. At print level or on the printed page there is no contest. It is due to what Jim Galli calls "peaches and cream" (see his posts and Ken Lee's 5x7s).
The recognizable edge that large format has at web level is clearly due to the gentle way it drops focus. You can try with a Summilux or whatever wide open, but the focus transition never matches up to a big old piece of glass. I don't think resolution has much to do with it.

[marshallarts]

Thank you so much for your responses. Ken, I appreciate your lengthy response. My question was intentionally vague and broad because of the number of variables involved. Though I'm not as experienced with LF I have a firm understanding with the smaller formats and principles of photography and optics.

cjbroadbent, I think you honed into my question addressing the focus drop off. I can achieve a similar DoF (within limits) shooting wide open on a FF 35mm camera but even then the transition isn't the same as with LF. This has been what I've been struggling with. Trying to achieve that focus transition.

But as you said resolution doesn't seem to be the issue here since at the web level it's effectively low res.

Any other thoughts?

[Sirius Glass]

I have had printed 24"x36" C-41 prints from mulitple 35mm negatives. The right exposure ... et al and it looks great. Yes, from six inches I can see grain in some places.

However for serious [sirius] work I use the Hasselblad 6x6.

When I have become more consistant with 4"x5", that will be come the camera of choice for stationary or slow moving subjects. I just have to become "one" with each of the LF cameras.

Steve

[jnantz]

you can do the same thing with 35mm or mf
you just need a 35mm or mf roll film back
and put it on the back of your 4x5 camera.
i used to have a 35mm recommar kodachrome back
that i used for this exact purpose - and i used it for a while
with brass lenses and a graflex slr/ speed graphic ...

you can also do lf looking things with a holga+35mm
adapter ... none of these things cost much ...

good luck !
john

[Ken Lee]

Some lenses have more exaggerated dropoff than others. This will be true in the 35mm realm too. Lenses with fewer elements will generally give very pleasing results in this regard. For example, the 3-element Apotar in my 6x9 Agfa folder, gives lovely blur rendition. Tessars are 4 elements. I love their blur rendition. Heliars have 5 elements, and are designed to give exaggerated blur at wide apertures. These lenses are available for 35mm cameras.

The longer the lens, the greater the blur. If you shoot a 300mm lens at f/8 on a 35mm camera, it will have the same blur as when shot at f/8 on 8x10. The only difference will be that on a 35mm camera, it will have a very narrow field of view because of the small size of the film.

To get equivalent blur on a small film, you need a fast lens. 300mm at f/4.5 = 150mm at f/2 = 75mm at f/1 = 50mm at f/0.75 There aren't many lenses that wide for 35mm or medium format, are there ? There are lots of 300mm lenses for Large Format which open to f/4.5. You can purchase one for less than the cost of an entry level DSLR.

Very few people shoot sporting events with an 8x10 view camera. Why should we expect a 35mm landscape photograph to compete with an 8x10 ?

"When asked what camera I use, I reply 'The heaviest one I can carry'." - Ansel Adams

[marshallarts]

Some lenses have more exaggerated dropoff than others. This will be true in the 35mm realm too. Lenses with fewer elements will generally give very pleasing results in this regard. For example, the 3-element Apotar in my 6x9 Agfa folder, gives lovely blur rendition. Tessars are 4 elements. I love their blur rendition. Heliars have 5 elements, and are designed to give exaggerated blur at wide apertures. These lenses are available for 35mm cameras.

Great info! I wasn't aware of that.

It's hard to not think my question was a novice one. But I have a very solid understanding of DoF and formats. (It's hard to avoid going to these obvious answers). The fastest lenses I have are my 50mm f/1.4 on a 5DmkII and a 25mm f/0.9 on my 4/3rds camera (with a 2x crop factor). They have the same equivalent focal length but the 50mm f/1.4 offers shallower DoF on my full frame 35mm DSLR.

Doing the best estimate I can with a DoF calculator and equivalent FoV, wide open the closest match for 4x5 would be a 180mm f/5.6. I would think it would be possible, but it still doesn't look the same.

Ken, your explanation about lens elements may be the missing link. I would love to learn more about this. If you have any additional info or suggestions for web pages, I'd love to know.

Also.... I intentionally started this thread asking "why" and not "how" to avoid the obvious retort, "shoot LF if you want a LF look". I'm interested in the theory of understanding why.

[Oren Grad]

DoF formulas and tables depend on certain simplifying assumptions about optics. One complication that is not accounted for is that the subjective appearance of focus depth depends on the way the lens renders the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus. To oversimplify a bit, the smoother the transition, the greater the apparent DoF, even for lenses with the same FL set to the same aperture.

Also, beware of comparing subtle aspects of optical character between film or analog prints on the one hand and digital files (original capture or scan) on the other. Post-processing of digital files - especially sharpening algorithms - can mess up OOF transitions.