The LF look

[Noeyedear]

I have just been browsing the web looking at pictures on various sites. The web should be a great leveler right, limited colours, limited resolution and limited size of image, so why do LF look different to the hundreds of small format images, it's not a perspective thing is it, we all know lenses do not alter perspective.
So do I imagine there is a difference or is it a tangible measurable difference. A 150mm on a 5x4 should look the same-ish as a 50mm on a 35mm right? especially on the web.
I bet someone here has shot small format next to LF to see, is it me wanting there to be a difference or does it really look and feel more classy side by side, like for like.

Kevin.

[Dave Jeffery]

I have just been browsing the web looking at pictures on various sites. The web should be a great leveler right

Most pictures posted on the web are not high quality, and even if they were, most monitors would not display them well.

[Noeyedear]

I have just been browsing the web looking at pictures on various sites. The web should be a great leveler right

Most pictures posted on the web are not high quality, and even if they were, most monitors would not display them well.

That's what I said. So am I imagining that LF still looks better.
I'm not looking at rubbish shot in small format, the subjects and composition are often similar to images posted on this site. The LF to me has a feel I can't describe, I am trying to figure out where that look comes from or is it my imagination.

Kevin.

[Ed Richards]

I have shot the same subjects, with the same care, with a D700 and with 4x5, with the results in black and white. While the look is not the same (I do not do faux grain), if the dynamic range is manageable, the digital images are every bit as good and look as good on the screen and in print, within their resolution range. It is clear to me that, movements aside, if you are doing books or the WWW, i.e., not doing prints bigger than say, 10x12, standard digital is absolutely as good as LF on tone and everything. Black and white film handles extreme contrast better, and fails more gracefully when it runs out of range. But with a scene with static content, I can just do two digital exposures and get the same effect.

And yes, since I do not seem to be making any big prints, I constantly question why I am still doing 4x5. But I do use movements a lot, and there is the therapy component.:-)

[Ivan J. Eberle]

One reason for the difference in look is that the term "focal length equivalent" between formats is a misnomer; the lenses are longer for large format. Hence the foreshortening effect is present to a large degree in many LF images. This flatters a great many subjects, from portraits to distant mountain scenery.

[BetterSense]

A larger camera will look different than a smaller one. It's just physics; you might expect a camera and an identical 1/2 scale copy to take images that look exactly the same but it doesn't happen, because light actually has a "size". So large format will have a unique look completely apart from issues of resolution or grain or tone.

[Ken Lee]

"the term "focal length equivalent" between formats is a misnomer; the lenses are longer for large format. Hence the foreshortening effect is present to a large degree in many LF images. This flatters a great many subjects, from portraits to distant mountain scenery."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have read that foreshortening is a result of the distance from subject to lens.

From a mile away, the distance between the tip of someone's nose, and the rest of their face, is relatively small, while from 6 inches, the distance is quite pronounced.

Let's say we make a portrait, using a 100mm lens on 35mm film on a tripod. Never moving the tripod or the subject, and keeping the same magnification, we use a 160mm lens on 6x6, a 300mm lens on 4x5, and a 600mm lens on 8x10. In each case, the foreshortening will be the same, because the distance has not changed.

Another way of stating this, is that for a given format, lenses of "portrait" focal length, are longer than "normal" lenses for the same format, and allow us to shoot from a slight distance away. It's the distance that introduces a mild and flattering amount of foreshortening.

[Marko]

I have just been browsing the web looking at pictures on various sites. The web should be a great leveler right, limited colours, limited resolution and limited size of image, so why do LF look different to the hundreds of small format images, it's not a perspective thing is it, we all know lenses do not alter perspective.
So do I imagine there is a difference or is it a tangible measurable difference. A 150mm on a 5x4 should look the same-ish as a 50mm on a 35mm right? especially on the web.
I bet someone here has shot small format next to LF to see, is it me wanting there to be a difference or does it really look and feel more classy side by side, like for like.

Kevin.

Could it possibly be the photographer?

Did you compare LF vs. small(er) format images done by the same photographer? Someone equally skilled and qualified with both like Ed or Kirk here?

We all know that the piano doesn't produce good or bad music by itself, don't we?

[Ed Richards]

Diffraction and DOF interact and can change the look of the image. This is not an issue for most pictures, but an 8x10 portait taken with a 360mm 5.6 lens wide open is going to hard to duplicate with a 35mm because you are going to need about a 60mm f0.5.

[Steve Gledhill]

A larger camera will look different than a smaller one. It's just physics; you might expect a camera and an identical 1/2 scale copy to take images that look exactly the same but it doesn't happen, because light actually has a "size". So large format will have a unique look completely apart from issues of resolution or grain or tone.

BetterSense,
Please explain to me - just a physicist - what is this "size" thing that light actually possesses that gives large format its unique look.

And separately; I do believe the question asked by Kevin is interesting. I suspect individually that at web image sizes you really can't tell the difference technically - but as a "class" of images, large format have more of the organised, planned, deliberate look about them which may make them possibly identifiable as being large format. But before anyone flies off the handle about that, I am making a generalisation that make not stand up well to scrutiny for many individual images