Format Sizes...I'm going absolutely Crazy...HELP!!!!

[Pete Roody]

Joni Mithchell had a great lyric:

"Don't Think ... Just Dance"

For you, I would change it to:

"Don't Think... Just Shoot"

[Gene McCluney]

In audio equipment you spend hours, days, weeks and months arriving at a "system" that meets your desires, then your work is basically done. The hard part is done. You just listen to music then.

In photography the "hard part" is only beginning when you acquire the equipment. You will now work to get your skill built up in using the equipment. It is better if you don't have too many choices when you are learning, as they can complicate and confuse things. Start simple, and shoot lots of film. Make lots of prints. Share the images here or at APUG and get feedback.

[Henry Ambrose]

I have to admit that at times it looks like to me that you are in the camera business from all your transactions here.

So I suggest that you take as presented what Frank wrote and then what Gene wrote. Get rid of all the extra stuff. Keep a camera and a couple of lenses.

Then do this:

Promise yourself to not buy anything else until you've made 12 really good pictures. That'll keep you busy for a while. That's your new goal.

Or just admit you're a camera collector/buyer/accumulator.

[sanking]

Ok...so it's 2:06am and no, I do not party (heck, I'm still young and uhh...)...well, I do not party and really, all night, all day, many weeks now, I have run through puzzles and mazes (sp), and traps, and failures, and CONFUSION! I now officially know I am crazy, but not in a bad way, grant everyone here on this forum that are all so extremely friendly and helpful.

Audioexcels,

Forget the advice on cameras and quite listening to so much music. You need to get a copy of the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius and concentrate on first principles, in this case what it is you really want to do. As MA wote to himself, "Always make a definition nor sketch of what presents itself to your mind, so you can see it stripped bare to its essential nature and identify it clearly, in whole and in all its parts . . ."


Sandy King

[bglick]

> So you're looking at typically f/22 in 4x5" versus f/32 in 5x7" and if you do the math the resolution will be the same due to diffraction. So there is no resolution benefit to 5x7".


I see this mistake perpetuated over and over.... your statement is incorrect. You would have been correct, if you stated the lens aerial resolution is reduced proportional to the jump up in format size, (assuming same DOF), as diffraction is a function of f stop, 1500/f. However, apt. diffraction is only one of two components that determines what gets resolved to film. The great leveler is 1/R, a well documented and quite accurate formula.

1(1/rl +1rf)

rl = lens aerial resolution in lp/mm

rf = film MTF in lp/mm at a given contrast ratio.

Using your example.... Velvia at 60 lp/mm

4x5

1500/22 = 68 lp/mm at the point of exact focus

1/(1/68 + 1/60) = 32 lp/mm resolved to film.


5x7

26 lp/mm resolved to film, at the point of exact focus.


8x10 (f45)

21 lp/mm resolved to film, at the point of exact focus.


For simplicity, lets compare 4x5 and 810. you must enlarge 4x5 2x to match 8x10, so 32 lp/mm / 2 = 16 lp/mm.... vs. 21 lp/mm for 810, 21/16 = 1.3x added resolution recorded for doubling format.

Granted it's not 2x, but its not equal either. However, this example assumes you are forced to stop down the larger format to equal the DOF. For infinity shots, and shooting flat subjects, this is not the case, and you "can" get the full 2x added resolution as you can shoot both at the same f stop. (all else being equal)


As for Mr. Audio.... I share your concerns....but like others have warned you... the "gear" issue is a very slippery slope that has sunk many people when it comes to LF photography. I think gear heads are naturally attracted to this medium. So be careful, cause often, there is no end to this struggle.


It seems from what you offer, 4x5 and 6x17 is a nice choice, I can't imagine you ever regretting it. But to this end, I would suggest Canhams 6x17 back on a view camera that supports one, such as Walkers and Keiths MCQ (maybe others?). The versatility of using the same lenses for both formats is quite a powerful combination packed in a reasonable sized package. Both mentioned 5x7's are small enough whereas if you wanted to shoot 4x5 with a reducing back, you are only paying a small size penalty for the 6x17 feature, and no need to carry extra lenses.....not so bad.

I also agree with a previous poster.... 4x5 is not only an optimal size due to apt. diffraction, but it also allows for greater movements, which really is what sets apart a view camera from a box camera.

[cotdt]

bglick, the resolution advantage of 5x7 and 8x10 still seems pretty minor under your calculations. But that 62 lp/mm figure for Velvia is actually based already using a lens. The actual resolution of Velvia as measured by Fuji is higher, is 160 lp/mm at 1:1000 contrast and 80 lp/mm at 1.6:1 contrast. Independant tests say 82 lp/mm for Velvia, so I would use that figure. In that case, the resolution advantage of 5x7 is even smaller. With 4x5 you can use movements. With my 90mm lens I often use only f/11 and get the entire landscape in perfect focus, even with a big nearby rock in the foreground. I won't be able to use movements at all with a 5x7. In fact, even without movements my lens would probably vignett on a 5x7.

[audioexcels]

4X5=very nice. I like it, but I have a very difficult time working with it vs. the larger sizes. For a flatbed (non-professional)=12X15" prints (maximum)...I can do this with a digital camera.

5X7=Love the ratio, and can see through the GG far differently than the tiny looking 4X5 glass. It has nearly 2X as much information on the film and can do 15X21" prints (much more substantial size than what a 4X5 can do). Consumer flatbed talking only regarding enlargement sizes here.

6X8=A nice aspect ratio to my eyes and can do 18X24" (again, quite a difference from 5X7 and a major difference from 4X5).

7X11=Very nice aspect ratio. Not sure if one can put this size film onto a flatbed?...but it would be a 21X33" print...a very substantial sized print vs. the 4X5 and really, any of the other formats.

And so on....

I have viewed a 4X5 polaroid many times over and there is something 3-dimenional that I cannot achieve with any other format, period. I do not know how to explain it. Even looking at the scans of the 35mm TechPan, you can see the flatness/2-d look of 35mm vs. even medium format film. MF film can have much more of the 3-D look that LF has, IMHO, but not quite the same. Maybe it is just my own eyes that sees this? Resolution wise, I agree about how difficult it is seeing resolution of say, a landscape shot with polaroid or contact 4X5 and even 5X7 film. But what strikes me more is the "effect" of dimensionality. Of course with enlarging the film, the resolution becomes a factor, as does the granularity of the film. One can even argue that you can see the difference even with a drum scan between 4X5 enlarged 2-3X vs. 5X7 or better yet, 8X10.

The reasons for my interest in the smaller formats from 4X5-5X7 is strictly for compactness and that my feeling is that 5X7 with almost 2X the surface area will demolish the 4X5 in a larger print size. It also provides the better aspect ratio, though 5X8 would be one I'd consider to be best over 5X7. It makes shooting E6 with 4X5 cheap, and shooting all b/w in 5X7 cheap too using aerial roll film.

The reasons for my interest in the larger sizes is for contact use "and" being able to take advantage of the medicore scanning capabilities of the consumer flatbeds to still get a nice sharp, a relatively large print.


I do agree with everyone that I need to figure out what specifically I want to shoot with and leave it at that. But that's the entire point of this thread. What one do I start with? I have seen enough 4X5 that I don't care to have that be the one I will use. It will be a minimum of 5X7 and possibly larger, especially given I have the ability to use multiple larger backs with the Arca.

Is it my eyes only that sees the beauty of a basically see-through kind of transparency/3-dimensionality with the contact print or am I dellusional?

I want to show a webshot. I know, I know...webshots...what can they ever say...well, this one is of the person's photo album and to me, that's much different than a scan/file/etc. and it shows this 3-D look I have seen in my own shooting experience and which I cannot replicate with any other format, though I need to shoot some MF to see how far that can go with the 3-D look.


http://flickr.com/photos/laurensimonutti/272758986/

The hair shot on the left literally looks like real hair cut and placed under glass or something.

Her portfolio for those interested, though I don't think her scanner is very good and/or she doesn't try too hard to scan them in well:

http://flickr.com/photos/laurensimonutti/



Older Shot:


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1333/...c699078229.jpg




In sum, yet another long post, but...

1) I do like the concept of 5X7/8 with 4X5 reduction back. I also like the concept of 6X8 with 4X5 reduction back, though even with 6X8 (6.5X8.5 GG), it's much larger than 5X7.

2) I care much more about 3-dimensionality than resolution. So a scan to nice paper as my contact or darkroom contact is a definite.

3) At the same time, I do love the resolution, and do not feel 4X5 can give it like 5X7 or larger sizes. I'm sure many would argue against this, but this is my own opinion.

Given I only have the finances to have a consumer flatbed, 4X5 won't cut it if my goal is to keep the size down to 11X14. I will definitely need a larger than 4X5 size or I would have shot 4X5 much more and would have never stopped. It took me a short time to realize 4X5 is nice, but not good enough for me. However, for color, I can shoot 4X5 on the cheap and even cut down 8X10 on the cheap, and have fantastic looking 12X15/16's from 4X5 or if using color with 5X7/8, even larger prints that will look excellent.


For the record, I am an not a collector or seller or whatever...yes, I do buy/sell things a lot and not for the sake of business as I often lose money, but sometimes make money. In the end, I think I come out even with this part which is all I can ask for. I have none of my equipment on display and always keep it in the nice spare bedroom so it stays fresh. I do and do not understand the people with tons of equipment. I'm a minimalist in spite I continue to buy things on theory and mind based considerations of the format I will settle on. That's the only reason why I have this equipment in the for sale section...it's all in the air/theoretical stuff, though I must say the equipment, particularly the lenses, have all been so beautiful that I have collected and I truly wish I could keep them.

Cheers All!

[bglick]

> But that 62 lp/mm figure for Velvia is actually based already using a lens.

What else matters?


> The actual resolution of Velvia as measured by Fuji is higher, is 160 lp/mm at 1:1000 contrast and 80 lp/mm at 1.6:1 contrast.

I used 60 lp/mm to be conservative, as many nature scenes have very low contrast, such as green foliage, brown trees, mountains, etc. However, this is not relevant, as the relationship between the numbers don't change much.



> Independant tests say 82 lp/mm for Velvia, so I would use that figure.

you can use any film MTF value you want, 1/R will level it out, and still produce a very similar 1.3x factor, that was my point, you do gain resolution when you jump up in format size....even when you continue to stop down to provide equal DOF.



> In fact, even without movements my lens would probably vignett on a 5x7.


You just have the wrong lenses :-)... I certainly won't argue the many advantages of 4x5... but all my lenses cover 5x7 with plenty of movements...but thats because I geared up for larger formats. If I was only going to shoot 4x5, I would have bought smaller lenses as all that added coverage is a waste in both resolution and lens size/weight.

[audioexcels]

As for 4X5 and movements, how do you use a lens with extreme movements without flare occuring due to the shorter bellows? I was always curious about this question=short bellows or is it "larger" bellows that helps with lens flare? In other words, take a 5X7 cam and an 8X10 cam...5X7 has say, a 9X9 square for cutout. 8X10 has say, 13X13 for cutout...so the bellows width and height are very large compared to the 4X5 bellows.

Is flare only something to do with bellows "length" or also to do with the height/width relationship.

Totally off-topic question related to this thread, but we are already going off-topic with resolution discussions.

BTW...with audio, it's neverending for most, and for some, you get to the point where there may exist a "different" sound (panel speaker vs. point source/box vs. point source dipole vs. horns vs...and you get the idea of how many different speakers one can have)...but you find a speaker that has the best compromise of them all unless you can afford multiple rooms with multiple speaker types.

[audioexcels]

bglick, the resolution advantage of 5x7 and 8x10 still seems pretty minor under your calculations. But that 62 lp/mm figure for Velvia is actually based already using a lens. The actual resolution of Velvia as measured by Fuji is higher, is 160 lp/mm at 1:1000 contrast and 80 lp/mm at 1.6:1 contrast. Independant tests say 82 lp/mm for Velvia, so I would use that figure. In that case, the resolution advantage of 5x7 is even smaller. With 4x5 you can use movements. With my 90mm lens I often use only f/11 and get the entire landscape in perfect focus, even with a big nearby rock in the foreground. I won't be able to use movements at all with a 5x7. In fact, even without movements my lens would probably vignett on a 5x7.

A 110XL and Nikkor 120/8 can cover 8X10...that's 110mm's of extra IC on a 5X7. Think that's enough for 5X7 and using Velvia (they do have Velvia in 8X10 that can be cut to 5X7 or any size smaller than 8X10)? "Any" 90 aside from the 90XL on 45 will only give you a maximum of 78mm's of IC (the F4/4.5/5.6 lenses), far less than 110mm's of IC on 57.