MF same as LF? Really?

[Bill_1856]

What are you shooting now? 4x5? 8x10? What film and developer are you using? Old Turner-Reichs or new MC Apo-Symmars? Please give enough information that an informed response is possible. Thank you.

[Kevin Crisp]

Fair enough. 75% of the time I shoot 5X7, the rest is 4X5. Primary film choice is Tri-X, although I've been using the Arista 125 speed film (Hp4?) lately and like it. Generally Tri-X is developed in HC110 "B." Ditto for the Arista but I also like the way it works with Rodinal 1:50. In 4X5 it is usually Tri-X but sometimes TMAX 100 in d:76 1:1. Normally I use APO Schneider lenses, but I also use a variety of older unusual glass, not all of it coated. I agree that at normal viewing distances it is arguable that an 11X14 print off a medium format negative (say TMAX 100 or Agfapan 25, or HP4) is pretty close to a 4X5 with Tri-X. But people on this format are making claims with respect to much larger prints, and I'm interested to know what material choices they have made.

[Jim Galli]

Well I still won't answer your question Kevin but will add I'm finishing up a job for Pioneer Territory here in Nevada that required 14 20X30's and I used Mamiya 6X9 and Velvia. My customer is more than pleased and the resulting prints are adequate++! Sure I could've used 4X5 but the expense which turned out to be pretty tight made much more sense with rollfilm. I shot quite a bit of film before we narrowed things down. Would 4X5 have been superior in quality? Perhaps to some other photographers, but I made the pictures for "other than." I'll add also that the transition from traditional enlarger type color prints to scans and lightjet has added some quality making the use of the smaller camera even more possible.

That said, I haven't been able to make black and white pictures with the Mamiya that are satisfying to ME. That's who I make those for. I've used Ilford FP4 and PYRO and can't live with the grain in the sky at even 16X20 even though they are quite sharp. Like you I do those pics in 4X5, 5X7, and larger.

[Gene Crumpler]

I've been chasing this holy grail for years. Load up a 6x7 camera with Tech Pan and develop in Technidol, Ethol TEC or a similar developer. I would be using a p67 and my favorite and sharpest lens, the new 55mm f4. You will get some wonderful 22x28's (largest that I make)prints. If you use tech pan in a 4x5, the results will even better!

[Gene Crumpler]

I've got some Gigibit film and developer on order. I'm interested to see what that is all about, since I have used AGFA Copex before for pictorial photography.

[Jim Galli]

OK Kevin and Gene, now you got me thinking which is always dangerous. I've got a roll of Kodak Panatomic X aerial recon 5", and I've been having a great time using it in the 5X7. In the enlarger it's nearly impossible to focus because there isn't any grain to look at. About all you can do is find some contrasty lines. The stuff goes nuts in Pyro. It's also available in 70mm. It would be kind of fun to see what it would look like with the Mamiya 2.8 Planar, or the 75 f5.6. My complaint has always been grain and tonality, not sharpness.

[Kevin Crisp]

Jim: Good point. I agree this is a grain and tonality issue. With a good MF lens things are plenty sharp. And areas of contrast hide grain, but it's the grainy sky which usually is the reality check.

[Bill_1856]

The area of a 4x5 negative is 114 cm2(95mmx120mm=), whereas a 6x7 negative is 41.1 cm2 (57mm x 72mm), for an area ratio of only 2.77 (114/41.1). That's just a little more than TWICE as large. Any major change to modern equipment or materials (TMax100 in Xtol instead of Tri-X in HC-110), or using the latest MC Zeiss or Pentax instead of a Kodak Ektar or Goerz Dagor (my favorite lens) can easily allow comparable enlargements. In addition, the increased depth of field of MF lenses may well allow for MORE visible details on the negative/print. 16x20 is a piece of cake; how much larger...?

[Brian Ellis]

I use 6x7 and 4x5. I usually can't tell the difference between prints made from the two at 11x14 but usually can at 16x20. IMHO, whenever anyone starts talking about how great a 16x20print they got from a 35 mm negative, or how great a 20x30 print they got from a medium format negative, you're looking at someone who doesn't do their own darkroom work. When you do you're own printing, and begin with say an 8x10 print then work your way up to 11x14 and 16x20 from the same negative, the loss in quality as you get larger is very clear except with 4x5 negatives (and I'm sure from 8x10 too but I never enlarge my 8x10 negatives). With 35 mm, I see the difference as soon as I go from a 6x9 inch print to an 8x10. With 6x7 I see the difference in going from 11x14 to 16x20 when making prints in those two sizes from the same negative. I'd be amazed if the person who says a 20x30 print from a medium format negative is as good as a print from a 4x5 negative has ever actually made 20x30 prints from the two negative sizes.

[Gene Crumpler]

I was cleaning up last night and had a chance to look at some samples of Tech Pan enlarged to 16 x20 from a 6x6 negative. Even with a 7x loupe, the grain in the print is hard to see. The print looks like butter.