Why don't my 4x5 images have that large format snap?

[rdenney]

I've printed these in the darkroom at 8x10 size using fiber paper Ilford warm. I've also scanned them in using a v700, however, I've yet to make any 4x5 digital prints. Never looked at them under a loop.

8x10 prints may not be big enough for the difference to really pop out at you. That's a 4 or 5x enlargement of roll film--not yet beyond the easy range. Comparing 4x with 4x5 to 8x with roll film might make the differences a lot more apparent. That means a 16x20 print size.

For me, the real difference up to that size is the image management control that a view camera provides. At 16x20 and larger, the format difference really starts to become apparent.

Rick "whose rollfilm work looks pretty good, too" Denney

[Bill Burk]

Here's the way I look at it.

I print all B&W formats at 11x14 on FB. My best 35mm compares favorably to 4x5, but that's because I try to make 35mm look like 4x5... One 6x9 shot I had at my desk for a while, I swear I cannot tell isn't 4x5 except the aspect ratio gives it away.

What I've been finding is that everything has to come together, but when it does 35mm can give a very satisfying (if a little soft) print. But everything has to fall in place. My selections stand out as a few printable negs on a roll.

6x9 also is hit-or-miss but hits more often than 35mm...

But 4x5, if I havent made an obvious flub, almost always makes for a very nice print. I have to make my selections from many worthy candidates.

[Ken Lee]

Subjects with raking light, lots of edges and depth cues can look great even with equipment of modest size. Grain and noise get masked. Blur is diminished by the subject itself.

A better way to see the difference is to shoot a scene under flat light with distant fine details and smooth tones. Compare 16x20 prints: even 11x14 will be revealing.

[Roger Cole]

I've printed these in the darkroom at 8x10 size using fiber paper Ilford warm. I've also scanned them in using a v700, however, I've yet to make any 4x5 digital prints. Never looked at them under a loop.

Rick pretty much took the words out of my mouth:

8x10 prints may not be big enough for the difference to really pop out at you. That's a 4 or 5x enlargement of roll film--not yet beyond the easy range. Comparing 4x with 4x5 to 8x with roll film might make the differences a lot more apparent. That means a 16x20 print size.

For me, the real difference up to that size is the image management control that a view camera provides. At 16x20 and larger, the format difference really starts to become apparent.

Rick "whose rollfilm work looks pretty good, too" Denney

An excellent roll film negative will produce an 11x14 that, for me anyway, is close enough to 4x5 so as to make no real difference. The difference really starts to come through at 16x20, though.

Plus, and Bill gets into this, the big negative makes getting a superb 11x14 easier. For a really great "rivals 4x5" 11x14 print from roll film I need to shoot it as if I were shooting 4x5 (tripod, careful metering etc.) and shoot it on medium or slow speed film. With 4x5 I can shoot it on 400 film, expose generously for gobs of shadow detail and not worry about gaining grain from overexposure and still produce a print as good as, or better than, that from 6x6 or 6x7 very carefully metered on medium speed or slow film.

Here's the way I look at it.

I print all B&W formats at 11x14 on FB. My best 35mm compares favorably to 4x5, but that's because I try to make 35mm look like 4x5... One 6x9 shot I had at my desk for a while, I swear I cannot tell isn't 4x5 except the aspect ratio gives it away.

What I've been finding is that everything has to come together, but when it does 35mm can give a very satisfying (if a little soft) print. But everything has to fall in place. My selections stand out as a few printable negs on a roll.

6x9 also is hit-or-miss but hits more often than 35mm...

But 4x5, if I havent made an obvious flub, almost always makes for a very nice print. I have to make my selections from many worthy candidates.

Exactly. Everything has to come together, but in 4x5 that happens more easily.

Really, if print quality is your reason for shooting large format, and you don't crop very much, you aren't going to see much if any difference at 8x10. Go bigger and it will become apparent.

[cowanw]

Or enlarge 1/4 of your negative size and print 8x10 for both formats.

[Jay DeFehr]

Dave,

I suspect the "problem" is that your MF images are just very good. I too was underwhelmed by my move to 4x5, and I too was printing at 8x10. Since I moved to 4x5 out of curiosity and not as the The short version is that you need to print bigger to see the differences, as Rick and others have suggested. If you don't want to print bigger, you might reconsider your need for 4x5. I'm not opposed to overkill, personally -- I regularly make very modest enlargements. I'm currently printing a project from 6x7 negatives at about 3X.

[armentor1@mac.com]

ok this makes a lot of sense and is an easy fix. I'll order some 16x20 paper tonight and give it a shot.
thanks guys -
dave

[Brian Ellis]

Until you get above about 16x20 prints you shouldn't expect to see any significant difference between your 6x6 and 4x5 systems assuming equipment of comparable quality and methodology of photographing and printing. At that and smaller print sizes the benefits of LF are in the movements and ability to process each sheet individually (plus of course just the pleasure of using a LF camera), not in detail and tonal gradations. At least that was true of my 6x7 vs 4x5 systems.

[Jody_S]

I think this thread illustrates a lot of the mythos surrounding 'large format' photography. If you're not enlarging to 16x20 or using vintage soft focus lenses or (....), you could just as well take your shots with a consumer-level Nikon or Canon dSLR, and you won't be able to tell one from the other. That's why so many members of this forum are using soft-focus lenses and doing carbon prints or platinum/palladium etc (the previous phrase was not meant to be taken seriously by anyone here doing Carbon or Pt/Pd prints! It's just a figure of speech!)

Why do large format? Partly the process, partly the freedom of having absolute control of every aspect of the process, from lens/format/film/development/print/scan vs. taking a dSLR snapshot and having a programmer who worked 10 years ago in Japan decide what your shot should look like. But with that freedom comes great responsibility (har!); if you're going to take that much control into your hands over the process, you'd better have a vision that is well-served by that degree of involvement. Mere technical mastery of the process won't be enough to set your shots apart from whatever crap you find on Facebook or whatever the kids are using now.

[Frank Petronio]

Of course if you get an 8x10 you will see a difference over medium format!