How much shaper is LF compares with my Mamiya RZ?

[Brian Ellis]

Forgetting about the other advantages and disadvantages of the different formats, my experience has been that I can tell no difference, in sharpness or tonal range, in an 8x10 print between my Pentax 67 and my 4x5. At 11x14 prints I can see some slight difference on occasion, I think, but it's very slight. At 16x20, which I don't do very often, I think I can always see a difference both in "sharpness" and in tonal range. My x10 contact prints usually seem to be noticeably better in sharpness and tonal range than either 6x7 or 4x5 prints in that size but the difference isn't always that nocticeable and is less than you might think (or at least was less than I was expecting when I started with 8x10 contact prints) from reading about the beauty of contact prints. I enjoy the contact prints and they are as close as you'll get to seeing what is really on the film but they rarely knock my socks off when compared to a really good print from 6x7 or 4x5. I suspect this is attributable to the improvements in film and paper made over the last couple decades (or maybe just to my aging eyes). At first I thought maybe I just wasn't a very good contact printer. Then I saw an exhibition of photographs by Paul Caponigro that included both contact prints and enlargements. Most of the time I couldn't tell which was which without reading the catalog. I have read, but don't know since I don't have an 8x10 enlarger, that there is no noticeable difference between 8x10 and 4x5 enlargements at least until you get beyond 16x20 prints. All of this is obviously just my experience, others may differ.

[james mickelson]

And it is very hard to dodge and burn a contact print. There are many ways to a good image and image manipulation via burning and dodging are sometimes the only way to get an image you want. Unless you light the image there are very few images that don't require some manipulation. James

[Ed Messina]

I use both an RZ and a Toyo Field AII. The RZ is clearly the choice for mobile work, even hand held with prism viewfinder. On a tripod it is very clear. I use the 4x5 with T-55 Polaroid because I can get a very good scan of the large negative on my Epson photo scanner. I just ordered a Polaroid back for the RZ and I will compare the negatives soon. These are both useful tools for the digital age. The color transparencies on both of them are exceptional. Since I still use the "wet" side of my darkroom, I must say that the 120 film is a lot more convenient to develop in the Jobo while the sheet film has more power if you use the Zone system and develop the sheets individually for their N values. Have at it and see for yourself.

[Sean Billy Bob Boy yates]

"And it is very hard to dodge and burn a contact print."

It is? Since when?

[M.]

Two of the leading Large Format Gurus, Ansel Adams, and Brett Weston, in their later years decided that hauling around an 8x10 and all its baggage was becoming physically impossible for them. Rather than just downsize to 4x5 they decided that since they would have to enlarge anyhow, that they might as well go to 6x6, which they felt was virtually impossible to tell from enlarged 4x5. I'd stick with the 6x7 RZ, if I were you.