Large format vs. medium format

[David A. Goldfarb]

The MF and 35mm negatives have a lot more "punch" / contrast to them.

I don't use a lens shade ..... but most of the images have been taken towards dusk (ie, little natural light), so I don't see that a lens shade would make much of a difference in those circumstances?

Yes, this is why you should use a lens shade. The purpose of a lens shade is not only to keep direct light from falling on the front element. A properly adjusted compendium shade also reduces the image circle to what is necessary for making the image at hand by cutting off any non-image light, which will reflect inside the lens and inside the camera and reduce contrast. Modern MF and 35mm lenses usually have no excess image circle and use internal baffles to minimize non-image light, even if you don't use a lens shade (which you still should do).

The 110 SS-XL has massive excess coverage for 4x5" (it covers 8x10"), so there is a huge amount of non-image light bouncing around your lens and the camera reducing contrast, if you don't use a shade.

[Frank Petronio]

Those are long exposures to be judging critical sharpness by, even with good technique and gear you are still going to get some subtle movement.

Do a test at 1/30th f/22 in the daytime.

Remember most LF lenses, especially the 110 XL, have their front element "out there" right at the front of the barrel, unlike most smaller format lenses which have some recess (ie mini-shading).

[Walter Calahan]

My college professor always warned us that medium format would appear sharper than LF. He said it was a combination of things, but mostly the thickness of the film base. Then went on to say that LF ends up appearing sharper in a final print because the magnification of the negative is lower when a medium format negative is enlarged to the same size.

So what you are seeing on the light table is very well know, just a surprise to you. In the end, your LF negatives will enlarge better than your medium format film.

[willwilson]

I agree with the other posters about a lens shade. It is an **essential** large format tool. I also agree that LF negs will not always have the apparent sharpness of a medium format neg, but who cares its all in the print.

Also keep in mind that with LF you have the ability of movements. This often allows you to surpass the smaller formats in sharpness, depending on the scene.

I would definitely test your gear for alignment problems. The only large format camera I have ever owned that was in perfect alignment is my new Chamonix. Both metal and wooden cameras can have alignment problems.

[Ed Richards]

I am less obsessed with a lens hood, but f16 is not the sharpest stop for some lenses, and all of them are going to be suffering from diffraction at f45. But that said, 120 is going to be a lot sharper in any but perfect conditions for LF. As Frank said, try this on a bright, high contrast day with a faster shutter speed.

You need to think about developing - 120 film is not the same as 4x5, so you may be getting different results. You also need to make sure you are not over exposing the 4x5.

Are you scanning or doing darkroom prints? With a good scanner like the Nikon 9000, you can probably get as good scanned quality from MF as with LF scanned on a consumer scanner. (Drum scans will wipe that out.) With wet prints, the bigger negative will make a much better print even if it is not as sharp per square inch. OTOH, unless you are using movements, the advantages of 4x5 over MF are probably not worth the trouble, and if you do not do big prints and do not use movements, there is no reason other than occupational therapy to use LF.

[Kuzano]

If you are shooting exposures that long, use extra weight under the center post of your tripod. I've seen various methods offered, but the one that appeals is a net shopping bag filled with rocks at the site.

It's been a long time, but I read some very interesting articles on the magnitude of improvement to be gained by extra weight under the tripod center post. If you shoot 30 seconds and a mild breeze is blowing you have a potential problem that the extra anchoring will reduce.

I agree with the other posts that state running your tests with faster shutter speeds, and encourage you to consider the "extra weight trick"

The reports I read some time ago were aimed at showing the difference on medium format "mirror slap" moving the camera and the results were pretty astonishing by adding weight under the tripod.

[Bill_1856]

It's the final print that counts.
My most beautiful B&W prints have been made with a 105mm Ektar (Heliar type), but the negatives look like mush.

[John Alexander Dow]

I'd expect 35mm negatives to appear even "better" again. Lenses for smaller formats can be designed and built with higher contrast, resolution, etc. But like one or two people have said the advantages of larger formats are in the prints - compare 20x24 prints from 35mm, medium format, 4x5, 10x8 an finally a 20x24 contact print(!) and you will get the idea.....

[Brian Ellis]

What the negatives look like is really unimportant unless you only look at negatives and don't make prints from them. I spent many years making b&w prints from 6x7 negatives and 4x5 negatives using a variety of different lenses. With 11x14 and smaller prints there was no noticeable difference between them in terms of detail, "sharpness," or anything else from any viewing distance short of using a loupe. With 16x20 prints I could find a difference when I looked for it but the 16x20 prints from 6x7 negatives would have been perfectly adequate for many people when viewed from a normal viewing distance. I never made a darkroom print larger than 16x20 but based on my observations with 16x20 prints, I believe that all other things being more or less equal, only with prints 20x24 or larger would you see a real obvious difference between the two formats at normal viewing distances. That's with b&w, I never made darkroom color prints from 4x5.

[Jon Warwick]

Thanks for all the advice above.

As I say, the 5x4 negatives are not really soft, given the detail (resolution) does seem to be there, albeit lacking that "punch" that I observe from the 120 and 35mm negatives. For all the images I've taken, I'm focusing on more distant objects (ie, at least 100 yards away).

Also, the 5x4 negatives in general look pretty "light grey" across their frame.... ie, they're not as apparently contrasty as I've gotten from 120 and 35mm formats. Indeed -- when I look directly at the 120 or 35mm negatives on a light-box, I see STRONG elements of dark tones vs. lighter tones .... the negatives from these smaller formats looks really "rich". But the 5x4s look weak in terms of tone / contrast, almost a bit washed out and "light-grey" everywhere .... not "rich" in terms of dark vs. light tones, that's for sure.

Hence, whilst I'm certainly going to make sure that everything is aligned, I'm thinking the problem could be more to do with the contrast issue that several people have recommended above. I'm a bit surprised it'd make so much difference to not use a lens hood, but theoretically it kind of makes sense due to the large glass element on the Super Symmar XL 110.

If a lens hood really could make a difference here for the Super Symmar 110 XL, I will endeavour to get one. Any recommendations on what to get (ie, brand, type, etc)??

Thanks again.