PDA

View Full Version : 4x5" and 8x10" - Quality Differences?



gmfotografie
10-Jan-2015, 15:10
Hi everybody, Iīm interested in quality arguments for 8x10 over 4x5 (no discussion about size, weight...)

If we do a high end drumscan on both of the negatives, is it worth to play with a 8x10?
Can we really see those differences clearly if we print the picture on e.g. a 70inch fineart paper?

I mean, a 4x5" is a big Negative. If this size is scanned by a good Drumscan-Operator it should be fine to enlarge it up to a huge size.
Do we really need a 8x10 if we donīt exceed 70" pictures (longst side)?

What is your experience?

Best Michael

angusparker
10-Jan-2015, 15:50
What film/subjects? C41 and E6 film has more resolution than traditional B&W. My guess is with a good drum scan, the 4x5 in C41 or E6 would be hard to tell from an 8x10 while the B&W would show a difference. I certainly see that in MF to 4x5 comparisons up to 16x20.

IanG
10-Jan-2015, 16:08
I use an enlarger, you'd definitely see a difference from good negatives at 70", I can see them at 16"x12". Digital scans will be no different except RIP software can give digital prints an advantage particularly at larger sizes.

Ian

koh303
10-Jan-2015, 16:18
There are two non corrospinding lines on the graph of quality:
1. The larger the negative the more detail there is
2. The larger the format the harder it is to get a sharp image (due to size and weight of camera, DOF issues etc.)

The calculations are simple and only the end user at the specific instance can answer these to see where the balance between the two lies, and when a larger or smaller format is called for.

John Kasaian
10-Jan-2015, 16:28
An 8x10 contact from an 8x10 negative just flat out looks better than an 8x10 contact from a 4x5 negative :rolleyes:

Alan Gales
10-Jan-2015, 16:45
Sometimes quality has nothing to do with sharpness. http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/31_Deluxe_Coupe/H-U-E_pg1.html (8x10 shots borrowed from Jim Galli's wonderful website.) :)

AuditorOne
10-Jan-2015, 16:48
Interestingly I find the beauty of a good 8x10 contact print to be more than worth any trouble in the increased size. I do have an 8x10 enlarger that I am restoring but at this point I love the contact prints enough that I am not in a huge rush to make them larger.

That being said I actually love a lot of my 4x5 photographs as small contact prints as well and don't always feel it necessary to enlarge them, though I can if I want.

Ken Lee
10-Jan-2015, 16:59
You might find it helpful to read these previous discussions: https://www.google.com/search?q=4x5+versus+8x10+site%3A+largeformatphotography.info&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=4x5+versus+8x10+site:largeformatphotography.info

Jim Becia
10-Jan-2015, 17:11
Michael,

I will try to stay on track with the question. I can only speak from my perspective. I went from 4x5 to 8x10 and I only use E-6 films. That being said, I can easily see the difference at 32x40 from the 4x5 and the 8x10. While I have taken my 8x10 film up to 40x50 inches, I tend to go no larger than 32x40 for my 4x5 film. I am not saying the 4x5 prints aren't sharp, they are just not as sharp as prints from 8x10 film. My film is drum scanned. Jim

Eric Leppanen
10-Jan-2015, 17:23
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/camera-test-editors-commentary/

Bottom line is, when shooting for enlargement, 8x10 can be challenging in the field due to diffraction. 8x10 produces unparalleled results when shot at f/22, but if you find yourself having to stop down to f/64 or smaller to get all subject matter in acceptable focus then 8x10 isn't worth it. It really comes down to your shooting style and choice of subjects.

In cases where I was able to shoot 8x10 at a reasonably open aperture, my subjective opinion was that I could start noticing the difference vs. 4x5 at about a 20x24" print size (E-6 film stock, drum scanned and digitally printed).

Daniel Stone
10-Jan-2015, 21:19
Split the difference, shoot 5x7 ;)

Jonathan Barlow
10-Jan-2015, 21:50
8x10 film contains 4x the "data" of 4x5 film.

8x10 contact prints look great.

angusparker
10-Jan-2015, 21:53
8x10 film contains 4x the "data" of 4x5 film.

8x10 contact prints look great.

Not necessarily given film flatness, diffraction etc etc. plus you have more challenges finding lenses and bellows that go ultra-wide or ultra-long versus 4x5.

Liquid Artist
11-Jan-2015, 00:21
Split the difference, shoot 5x7 ;)
I pretty much agree.
Although I haven't printed them yet, I recently had a 4x5 and a 5x7 B&W drum scanned.
While pixel peeping the 5x7 blows away the 4x5 with detail.
Now I hardly touch my 4x5 gear.

axs810
11-Jan-2015, 01:09
I notice a difference in quality between 4x5 and 8x10 when printing on a large scale so I finally made the decision to sell all my 4x5 gear to stick with 8x10.

I like the image quality of 8x10 when printing large and I feel like the 8x10 gives a stronger "atmospheric perspective" to landscape images. I also prefer to use 8x10 over 4x5 because 8x10 just has a totally different look compared to 4x5 for portraiture.

gmfotografie
11-Jan-2015, 01:13
thank you for your comments and for the links from tim parkin...very very interesting!

Light Guru
11-Jan-2015, 11:39
An 8x10 contact from an 8x10 negative just flat out looks better than an 8x10 contact from a 4x5 negative :rolleyes:

You cannot make. 8x10 contact print from a 4x5 negative, that would be an enlargement.

StoneNYC
11-Jan-2015, 18:38
You cannot make. 8x10 contact print from a 4x5 negative, that would be an enlargement.

That's the joke....

Being that I've shot both, I have to say, this whole "diffraction" issue seems almost like a myth to me. I'd like to know how many people actually notice diffraction issues. I'm not denying that diffraction exists but how many people have actually come across this that it actually degraded their image to an unacceptable degree? In 4x5 or larger I mean.

I've shot both, I started to notice degradation in my images with Acros100 at 16x20 print with a 4x5 negative, but something like HP5+ it's more more noticeable at smaller prints.

In converse an 8x10 HP5+ print shows no degradation or grain issues for me in 20x24.

This was with optical printing.

Although B&W printing and color scanning are different, there's of course a correlation.

So depends on your film, and your scan, but at 70" you'll notice a difference yes, but at that size, does it matter? Maybe... Maybe not?

The bigger question, is the image you made good enough that it doesn't matter? :)

Lenny Eiger
11-Jan-2015, 19:28
I've actually done this test out to 40 inches. I set up both cameras side by side, in very delicate soft light, in my garage. I included a series of different textures. I have an excellent drum scanner and am an experienced operator.

I did everything equal, using Delta 100, and Xtol. Rodenstock Sironar S lenses for both. Stopped down to f45, same exposure and development. Same scanning technique. I printed them out to 40 inches on Hahnemuhle PhotoRag 308, as close as possible, a 10 inch swath, right next to each other on the same roll.

Then I showed it to one of my photographer friends, and excellent technologist and asked him to tell me which one was which. He couldn't.

After studying it for some time, there are some differences. Both are equally sharp. Both hold their own just fine. There is plenty of optical resolution in my scanner to hold up to that size, at least.

The only place it will show up is when you "enlarge" the image past a certain amount the image starts to shred just a bit and you lose a bit of texture. A Mamiya 7 II, a 6x7, was also part of this and it was easy to see it come apart a little at the 40 inch size. (Altho' it was sharper than either of the others.) However, I will say that the 4x5 had approximately 98% of the quality of an 8x10 at that size. Very smooth.

It was only in the textural part of the test that there was any failure of any of them. If someone wants to print contrasty, or commercial, there won't be much of a difference at this size. Certainly not that any non-photographer could see.

Lenny

Kodachrome25
11-Jan-2015, 20:04
Photographers care about the big camera...
Those who view the work care about the big picture.....

The most important image quality to me is how big is the idea or vision in said picture?

Liquid Artist
11-Jan-2015, 21:15
Lenny has a point.
I've seen some 70" prints done from a 6x9 medium format negative scanned with a drum scanner and to say the least I was impressed by the sharpness.
I would have more detail and less grain with my 4x5 and even less with my 5x7, but most people would never know unless they're standing right against the print.

Bruce Watson
12-Jan-2015, 10:46
My testing shows this as well. Just about any format using just about any film, is good for 8-12x enlargement. That is, nearly all of them seem to be good for 8x, and some of them seem to be good for around 12x.

I've got a beautiful 143cm long print (height cropped to golden ratio) in my dining room. The original is 5x4 160Portra. I did my own drum scanning using an Optronics ColorGetter 3Pro.

If I'd been shooting 10x8, I probably wouldn't have that print, because I probably wouldn't have made the photograph in the first place. No one gave it good odds of being a keeper (there were four of us), and 10x8 film was expensive even then. But the reason to make photographs is because you believe in the image, yes? So I made the correct choice and burned a sheet of film. Which was much easier to do given the less then $5/sheet (including processing) cost of 5x4.

This print is the one that convinced me to stay with 5x4 and not move to 10x8. I was never going to print any bigger than that (don't have enough big wall spaces in my house :( and the print quality was excellent. It was clear looking at the print that there wasn't much to be gained quality wise from increasing film size above 5x4. But the size and weight penalty of the equipment was substantial, as was the cost of film and processing.

But clearly, many people love 10x8, a lot. Without a doubt YMMV.

Drew Wiley
12-Jan-2015, 11:02
If you're just going to scan it and then print digitally, I don't see the point, unless you're trying to print something huge. 8x10 film is way more expensive, harder
to get, and you are going to have a more difficult time with depth of field issues shooting it, plus the ergonomic issues. I certainly prefer 8x10 for optical enlargements, esp in color work where mechanical mask registration is involved. And there is of course a bit more richness to even ordinary modest black and white enlargements when using larger film. And minor flaws and dust are less apparent. I absolutely hate printing tiny 6x7 and 6x9 negs. Did some of that yesterday because the negs were exceptional, and it was the right gear for the shoot. But after awhile I switched over to sheet film negs for the session, to prevent an attack of insanity. With 35mm I don't have the same problems, cause that's a snapshooting film for me - high speed films and small prints. With something like 6x9, I'm always trying to make a 16x20 that fits in well with prints the same size made from sheet film, and it's a tough contest. 4x5 is quite a dramatic quality increase from roll film. The next step up, into 8x10, is a more subtle thing unless you are either contact printing or printing big. But there is a
somewhat different look in that the larger setup causes you to compose things differently. I love all these formats; but 8x10 is generally my favorite.

Shootar401
13-Jan-2015, 21:46
You might find it helpful to read these previous discussions: https://www.google.com/search?q=4x5+versus+8x10+site%3A+largeformatphotography.info&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=4x5+versus+8x10+site:largeformatphotography.info

Or he can just ask the question. Not everyone wants to do a search. :rolleyes:

axs810
13-Jan-2015, 22:17
opinions change and get updated as well :)

AuditorOne
14-Jan-2015, 12:27
8x10 negatives are not all about huge enlargements. I love contact printing. A light bulb, a sheet of glass and some photo paper. Such a simple process, with such beautiful results. For me, that is the point of 8x10, or anything larger. I also think that some 4x5 negatives look very good when contact printed to 5x7 or 8x10 paper. Not every photograph has to be 8 meters by 6 meters to look good. Now I am restoring a nice looking 11x14 for the same reason.

Sal Santamaura
14-Jan-2015, 12:54
Or he can just ask the question. Not everyone wants to do a search...Not wanting to perform a search does not absolve one from guilt for cluttering up the archive. This is not a chat room. Laziness is not a virtue.


opinions change and get updated as well...If so, those whose opinions have changed ought update them in existing threads where they expressed previous opinions. Redundant threads complicate searches.

Old-N-Feeble
14-Jan-2015, 14:26
Sal... Moderators on countless internet forums all have differing opinions regarding dredging up old threads. Some prefer it but others will slap you down for it. Many moderators understand member frustration of poor search features while others insist people search for endless hours to get one question even partially answered. We all have our opinions and everyone is right, especially me.:)

Sal Santamaura
14-Jan-2015, 15:07
...Moderators on countless internet forums all have differing opinions regarding dredging up old threads. Some prefer it...Apparently, judging by post #8 of this thread, a moderator on this forum prefers it. Based on previous discussions, I suspect the other moderators here do too.


...Many moderators understand member frustration of poor search features while others insist people search for endless hours to get one question even partially answered...The moderators here have, on multiple occasions, pointed out that performing a Google advanced search limited by this forum's url provides extensive, relevant results. Doing so takes seconds, not hours.


...We all have our opinions and everyone is right...There are many opinions. Some are "right." Most of them are factually incorrect.

Old-N-Feeble
14-Jan-2015, 15:31
Sal... I concede to your profound and inarguable wisdom. I beg your forgiveness for even hinting there may be a valid opinion other than yours.;)

djdister
14-Jan-2015, 16:02
You should never mess up a good opinion with the facts. Of course , that's just my opinion, not a fact. (See: recursion)

angusparker
14-Jan-2015, 18:06
Apparently, judging by post #8 of this thread, a moderator on this forum prefers it. Based on previous discussions, I suspect the other moderators here do too.

The moderators here have, on multiple occasions, pointed out that performing a Google advanced search limited by this forum's url provides extensive, relevant results. Doing so takes seconds, not hours.

There are many opinions. Some are "right." Most of them are factually incorrect.

Would be nice if the search engine on the forum worked better....

AuditorOne
14-Jan-2015, 18:14
Would be nice if the search engine on the forum worked better....

Usually it is more effective for me to type my search directly into google itself with "large format photograph" as part of the search criteria.

I actually retrieved a thread called "4x5 vs 8x10 quality". Very close to the same wording of this one.

paulr
15-Jan-2015, 08:32
The advantages and disadvantages are exactly what you'd expect with any change in format size. If you don't need to stop down for depth of field (because you're using selective focus or photographing relatively planar things), you can expect *close* to double the linear optical performance from 8x10 than from 4x5. It's not quite double, partly because it's harder to get a big piece of film to sit flat. But it's close.

If you're doing selective focus, you can expect backgrounds to go into a creamy blur at a much faster rate with 8x10. One of the prime draws of larger formats is the isolation of in/out of focus areas, and the smoothness of the blur.

If you're stopping down for depth of field, things get more complicated, and the advantages of the larger format become proportionally smaller. In extreme cases they vanish. Diffraction is not imaginary; it's measurable, observable, and easily predictable. What gets complicated is weighting the effects of diffraction against the effects of imperfect focus, which is really what we're doing when deciding how much to stop down.

The work I've been doing lately requires stopping way down to maximize depth of field. I'm using a small format dslr, with a 28mm lens typically at f16. This is roughly equivalent to f50 on 4x5, and f100 on 8x10. Diffraction at f50 and f100 is enough to completely obliterate the effect of any of the lens aberrations. You would find, all else being equal, comparable levels of detail on a print made from f50 4x5 and f100 8x10. I'm getting results in 35mm at f16 that are very close to 4x5 at f50.

StoneNYC
16-Jan-2015, 17:33
The advantages and disadvantages are exactly what you'd expect with any change in format size. If you don't need to stop down for depth of field (because you're using selective focus or photographing relatively planar things), you can expect *close* to double the linear optical performance from 8x10 than from 4x5. It's not quite double, partly because it's harder to get a big piece of film to sit flat. But it's close.

If you're doing selective focus, you can expect backgrounds to go into a creamy blur at a much faster rate with 8x10. One of the prime draws of larger formats is the isolation of in/out of focus areas, and the smoothness of the blur.

If you're stopping down for depth of field, things get more complicated, and the advantages of the larger format become proportionally smaller. In extreme cases they vanish. Diffraction is not imaginary; it's measurable, observable, and easily predictable. What gets complicated is weighting the effects of diffraction against the effects of imperfect focus, which is really what we're doing when deciding how much to stop down.

The work I've been doing lately requires stopping way down to maximize depth of field. I'm using a small format dslr, with a 28mm lens typically at f16. This is roughly equivalent to f50 on 4x5, and f100 on 8x10. Diffraction at f50 and f100 is enough to completely obliterate the effect of any of the lens aberrations. You would find, all else being equal, comparable levels of detail on a print made from f50 4x5 and f100 8x10. I'm getting results in 35mm at f16 that are very close to 4x5 at f50.

What film in the 35mm?

richardman
16-Jan-2015, 18:12
Probably a digital film made by Sony XD
'm using a small format dslr, with a 28mm lens typically at f16.

StoneNYC
16-Jan-2015, 18:32
Probably a digital film made by Sony XD

He said at the end his 35mm was getting as good results as 4x5 with the diffraction issue and I'm wondering what film, I just can't believe that, even 35mm tech pan I've used isn't as sharp as 4x5, but he's claiming diffusion renders them similar so I'm going to test it out myself to see, because I don't believe that one bit.

Kirk Gittings
16-Jan-2015, 18:35
What film in the 35mm?


I'm using a small format dslr, with a 28mm lens typically at f16.

djdister
16-Jan-2015, 18:58
The advantages and disadvantages are exactly what you'd expect with any change in format size. If you don't need to stop down for depth of field (because you're using selective focus or photographing relatively planar things), you can expect *close* to double the linear optical performance from 8x10 than from 4x5. It's not quite double, partly because it's harder to get a big piece of film to sit flat. But it's close.

If you're doing selective focus, you can expect backgrounds to go into a creamy blur at a much faster rate with 8x10. One of the prime draws of larger formats is the isolation of in/out of focus areas, and the smoothness of the blur.

If you're stopping down for depth of field, things get more complicated, and the advantages of the larger format become proportionally smaller. In extreme cases they vanish. Diffraction is not imaginary; it's measurable, observable, and easily predictable. What gets complicated is weighting the effects of diffraction against the effects of imperfect focus, which is really what we're doing when deciding how much to stop down.

The work I've been doing lately requires stopping way down to maximize depth of field. I'm using a small format dslr, with a 28mm lens typically at f16. This is roughly equivalent to f50 on 4x5, and f100 on 8x10. Diffraction at f50 and f100 is enough to completely obliterate the effect of any of the lens aberrations. You would find, all else being equal, comparable levels of detail on a print made from f50 4x5 and f100 8x10. I'm getting results in 35mm at f16 that are very close to 4x5 at f50.

I'm sorry, but you make odd, unsupported, or just plain incomprehensible statements in every paragraph above. Some folks might buy this, but I don't.

StoneNYC
16-Jan-2015, 20:30
I'm sorry, but you make odd, unsupported, or just plain incomprehensible statements in every paragraph above. Some folks might buy this, but I don't.

Ok I'm glad I'm not the only one.

Corran
16-Jan-2015, 21:06
A Nikon D800 at optimum aperture compared to 4x5 at an equivalent aperture for DOF scanned with a pretty standard scanner will produce very similar results.
I did the test and my results are HERE (http://valdostafilm.blogspot.com/2013/01/more-e6-and-direct-comparison-of-4x5.html). Note I didn't use equivalent apertures so the test is skewed towards 4x5.

You can disagree or whatever but as far as I'm concerned Paul is correct, especially with the equivalent apertures used. As I mention a drum scan might pull more information out (note I was already using a better scanner than the ubiquitous V700) but I doubt it would be really significant.

StoneNYC
16-Jan-2015, 21:48
A Nikon D800 at optimum aperture compared to 4x5 at an equivalent aperture for DOF scanned with a pretty standard scanner will produce very similar results.
I did the test and my results are HERE (http://valdostafilm.blogspot.com/2013/01/more-e6-and-direct-comparison-of-4x5.html). Note I didn't use equivalent apertures so the test is skewed towards 4x5.

You can disagree or whatever but as far as I'm concerned Paul is correct, especially with the equivalent apertures used. As I mention a drum scan might pull more information out (note I was already using a better scanner than the ubiquitous V700) but I doubt it would be really significant.

Unfortunately you're comparing apples to oranges, this is about the difference between upgrading from 4 to 5 to 8 x 10, this has nothing to do with digital, sure if you're going to compare digital to film there is going to be a difference in quality per square inch of area. The current discussion is about diffraction with smaller f-stops which you can't use digital to compare to film because you're also getting possible differences in the view of pixel edges.

If you're truly going to compare 4 x 5 to 8 x 10 and the difference between diffraction when you stop way down, you need to keep the recording medium as a constant and have a separate control (in this case I would suggest also another image taken at the same time not stopes down) all focussed at the same point etc. Can't have digital in the equation.

Corran
16-Jan-2015, 22:25
You haven't followed the conversation here, that you even participated in. Go re-read Paul's post, and then read my post. Paul is talking about a DIGITAL 35mm camera.

This has nothing to do with 4x5 vs. 8x10, but instead diffraction vs. format size. And he is right, using a 150mm at f/32 on 4x5, and then a 300mm lens at f/64 on 8x10, should technically yield identical images as well as close to the same resolution, in a perfect system.

StoneNYC
16-Jan-2015, 23:11
You haven't followed the conversation here, that you even participated in. Go re-read Paul's post, and then read my post. Paul is talking about a DIGITAL 35mm camera.

This has nothing to do with 4x5 vs. 8x10, but instead diffraction vs. format size. And he is right, using a 150mm at f/32 on 4x5, and then a 300mm lens at f/64 on 8x10, should technically yield identical images as well as close to the same resolution, in a perfect system.

Same resolution per square inch or total resolution?

And again, using digital doesn't work, you can't compare that, because the digital sensor that is used in a 35mm is a different design than a digital scan back or the 9x11 or whatever digital back that that guy created. It's like saying delta100 in 4x5 is better or the same resolution than HP5+ in 8x10.

I still think diffraction is overrated as an issue, Ansel Adams seemed to do all right at f/64 and seems pretty clear to me.

gmfotografie
17-Jan-2015, 00:05
my primary question was:

do we really need a 8x10 if we donīt exceed 70" pictures (longst side)?
i ask this question more from a point of view if we will see those differences in the picture when it is hanging in front of you.
some objective meanings.

see most of the visitors those differneces?


thank you, iīve got my answers via some posts and several pmīs ;-)

8x10 user
17-Jan-2015, 00:06
Thanks for posting this comparison.

I just want to note that macro work will favor smaller formats more then non macro work.

Also the Nikon micro lens is considered to be one of the best macro lenses for digital, while the Symmar S is not a macro lens, and is a generation behind the newest large format lenses.



A Nikon D800 at optimum aperture compared to 4x5 at an equivalent aperture for DOF scanned with a pretty standard scanner will produce very similar results.
I did the test and my results are HERE (http://valdostafilm.blogspot.com/2013/01/more-e6-and-direct-comparison-of-4x5.html). Note I didn't use equivalent apertures so the test is skewed towards 4x5.

You can disagree or whatever but as far as I'm concerned Paul is correct, especially with the equivalent apertures used. As I mention a drum scan might pull more information out (note I was already using a better scanner than the ubiquitous V700) but I doubt it would be really significant.

Corran
17-Jan-2015, 00:33
You are certainly correct re: macro.

Stone, you aren't really seeing the point. I'm not going to argue further about this here.

StoneNYC
17-Jan-2015, 00:46
Thanks for posting this comparison.

I just want to note that macro work will favor smaller formats more then non macro work.

Also the Nikon micro lens is considered to be one of the best macro lenses for digital, while the Symmar S is not a macro lens, and is a generation behind the newest large format lenses.

What's the generation after the Symmar-S in that class of lenses by Schneider? Besides the APO Symmar-S? Thinking of replacing my Super-Angulon MC with a Symmar-S MC

8x10 user
17-Jan-2015, 01:39
The Apo Symmar and Apo Symmar L are newer versions with ED glass, the L version is more environmentally friendly (lead free). The Super Symmar HM and XL are wider angle variations with some ULD elements. The Macro Symmar HM also incorporates some ULD elements. The Symmar S is a lens with "normal" coverage while the Super Angulon has a "wide" angle of coverage. The Super Angulon has since been replaced by the Super Angulon XL, and the Super Symmar XL.

Newer offerings from Rodenstock include the Apo Sironar S, and Apo Sironar W. The newer macro lens from Rodenstock is the Macro Apo Sironar. All three use ED glass, while the Apo Sironar N does not, neither does the Schneider Symmar S.

8x10 user
17-Jan-2015, 01:41
The Apo Symmar and Apo Symmar L are newer versions with ED glass, the L version is more environmentally friendly (lead free). The Super Symmar HM and XL are wider angle variations with some ULD elements. The Macro Symmar HM also incorporates some ULD elements. The Symmar S is a lens with "normal" coverage while the Super Angulon has a "wide" angle of coverage. The Super Angulon has since been replaced by the Super Angulon XL, and the Super Symmar XL.

Newer offerings from Rodenstock include the Apo Sironar S, and Apo Sironar W. The newer macro lens from Rodenstock is the Macro Apo Sironar. All three use ED glass, while the Apo Sironar N does not, neither does the Schneider Symmar S.

StoneNYC
17-Jan-2015, 07:45
The Apo Symmar and Apo Symmar L are newer versions with ED glass, the L version is more environmentally friendly (lead free). The Super Symmar HM and XL are wider angle variations with some ULD elements. The Macro Symmar HM also incorporates some ULD elements. The Symmar S is a lens with "normal" coverage while the Super Angulon has a "wide" angle of coverage. The Super Angulon has since been replaced by the Super Angulon XL, and the Super Symmar XL.

Newer offerings from Rodenstock include the Apo Sironar S, and Apo Sironar W. The newer macro lens from Rodenstock is the Macro Apo Sironar. All three use ED glass, while the Apo Sironar N does not, neither does the Schneider Symmar S.

Thanks, that was very informative, I always thought that the original Symmar was the old version and the Symmar-S was the new and the APO Symmar were just the more expensive APO versions but part of the same generation.

I always thought the Symmar HM were reported to be less sharp and that's why you don't see a lot of them while the SS XL seem to be plentiful and more popular. I'm learning things here.

The Symmar-S seem so sharp I can't seem to tell the difference between the 150 SS XL and the 150 Symmar-S MC on 4x5. I haven't done a direct test, but I just don't see any loss of quality in the 150 Symmar-S.

Thanks.

Not as big a fan of Rodenstock, always had poor images from their enlarger glass, and although their 75 Grandagon-N was sharp as heck, and little light falloff, there was just something lacking... I dunno...

So, if you had to choose a Symmar-S vs Super-Angulon on quality of sharpness alone, which would you choose?

BTW The thread is solved as far as the OP is concerned so I don't feel it's inappropriate to be able to go off topic now, hope that's ok.

Corran
17-Jan-2015, 08:15
Symmar and SA lenses are completely different designs and have nothing to do with each other. That question doesn't really make sense in that context.

If you compared (on 8x10) a Symmar-S 210mm and the SSXL, the Symmar barely covers, while the SSXL is covering a huge amount. Then the SA is a different lens yet again.

StoneNYC
17-Jan-2015, 08:20
Symmar and SA lenses are completely different designs and have nothing to do with each other. That question doesn't really make sense.

If you compared (on 8x10) a Symmar-S 210mm and the SSXL, the Symmar barely covers, while the SA is covering a huge amount.

I don't even know how to respond to that...

I'm talking image quality.... Of course you can compare...

Which is sharper was the question.. SA or Symmar-S?

Second, I said 4x5, which the SS XL and Symmar-S cover...

I also wasn't asking you. If you don't have something helpful to contribute, stop please.

Corran
17-Jan-2015, 08:24
Stone, this is a forum, we can all respond...
I think you are still missing the point. There isn't going to be an appreciable difference in most situations, especially depending on your aperture. Who is using the SSXL on 4x5? That's crazy overkill.
The point about the design differences is very relevant. Standard plasmat designs are usually sharper than wide-angle designs, so even if the SSXL is the best WA ever, it probably isn't really any different than the Symmar. Or the differences would be so minute that you couldn't tell in any real-world situation.

StoneNYC
17-Jan-2015, 08:38
Stone, this is a forum, we can all respond...
I think you are still missing the point. There isn't going to be an appreciable difference in most situations, especially depending on your aperture. Who is using the SSXL on 4x5? That's crazy overkill.
The point about the design differences is very relevant. Standard plasmat designs are usually sharper than wide-angle designs, so even if the SSXL is the best WA ever, it probably isn't really any different than the Symmar. Or the differences would be so minute that you couldn't tell in any real-world situation.

Thank you for that more educational response.

I have an 8x10 and now a 4x5 back for it, I'm not going to carry BOTH 150mm lenses just to change it when I switch backs, I don't think that makes me crazy at all.

So what about the SA vs Symmar-S

I'm asking because the FL I own in SA is similar to the Symmar-S but the Symmar-S is much lighter and smaller, so I was thinking of switching if the optical resolution of the Symmar-S were better than the SA despite having less glass.

Corran
17-Jan-2015, 08:42
I know you were asking because you had the 4x5 back. As you say, you wouldn't carry both, so the one you bring is dictated by if you are using 8x10 or not at the same time. If you are just using 4x5, you aren't going to notice any difference ever between the two, so save weight and bring the Symmar. I don't have to do a test to say that (I don't own any SSXL lenses, nor do I care to unless I found a 210SSXL for next to nothing for ULF) because it makes sense based on basic design parameters, hence my original reply.

There's also the fact that your resolution is going to be highly dependent on the whole chain of gear and the apertures used.

Jim Jones
17-Jan-2015, 08:59
What's the generation after the Symmar-S in that class of lenses by Schneider? Besides the APO Symmar-S? Thinking of replacing my Super-Angulon MC with a Symmar-S MC

It's not so much the lens, but how well the photographer uses the lens, that produces good results. Money spent on books and time spent on understanding what knowledgeable and experienced photographers tell you here is a better investment than mere equipment. Quibbling over their advice does occasionally clear up misunderstandings. Usually it is a waste of time.

StoneNYC
17-Jan-2015, 09:04
It's not so much the lens, but how well the photographer uses the lens, that produces good results. Money spent on books and time spent on understanding what knowledgeable and experienced photographers tell you here is a better investment than mere equipment. Quibbling over their advice does occasionally clear up misunderstandings. Usually it is a waste of time.

Just about saving some weight and space when hiking Jim, that's all. I have a brand new SA I got in a trade a while ago, I use it 40% of the time in 4x5, second most used lens, but it's heavy, if I can shave weight and go with the Symmar-S, so long as I don't lose quality or image circle (I think I'll gain IC actually) then it's a wise move.

Corran
17-Jan-2015, 09:12
I'm confused about what lens we are talking about now. You were talking/asking about the SSXL I thought??? It might be related but that's not a Super Angulon. The only SA that I can think of for 8x10 is the 210mm SA, which is an older lens, and I am sure the Symmar-S would be better. And then you mention gaining IC, which doesn't make sense to me either. Please be more specific, tell us the entire lens designation, including the focal lengths, that you are trying to compare.

StoneNYC
17-Jan-2015, 09:50
I'm confused about what lens we are talking about now. You were talking/asking about the SSXL I thought??? It might be related but that's not a Super Angulon. The only SA that I can think of for 8x10 is the 210mm SA, which is an older lens, and I am sure the Symmar-S would be better. And then you mention gaining IC, which doesn't make sense to me either. Please be more specific, tell us the entire lens designation, including the focal lengths, that you are trying to compare.

I'm sorry I'm not speaking correctly.

Please assume when I go hiking that I will take both my 8x10 camera and 4x5 reducing back.

Please assume that I will want to take a full line of lenses for both 4x5 and 8x10 so for me that's 90(or100), 150, 210, 300, and 450 (I don't own the 600 yet but plan to)

SO, the 90mm SA I own, the 100mm Symmar-S seems much lighter.

I was avoiding mentioning specific FL's because last time I was looking for a lens I asked and someone who wasn't even looking for a lens told me they sniped the lens I had wanted on eBay because they saw my post and it convinced them they wanted it. I didn't want to help anyone else out when I've found a lens in interested in.

That said, after further research I discovered that the 100mm Symmar-S doesn't quite cover 4x5 and is I guess meant for 2.25x3.25?

It's a shame, I really love the look of my 150mm Symmar-S and was really excited to discover they made a 100mm version.

I don't mind the 150 SS XL as its really the only lens out there that fits my needs despite the weight, but the 90 SA seems like a lot of glass for 4x5 and wanted to go down in weight while not losing the quality of the 90 SA I own which I believe is the, if not close enough to the last run 90mm SA's so it's mint.

So, essentially... False alarm... Lol.

Kodachrome25
17-Jan-2015, 10:08
Not as big a fan of Rodenstock, always had poor images from their enlarger glass, and although their 75 Grandagon-N was sharp as heck, and little light falloff, there was just something lacking... I dunno...

You would be in the minority on this one, my Apo Sironar S ( think Kerry Thalman ) and Apo Rodagons are incredible taking and enlarging lenses.

IanG
17-Jan-2015, 10:22
You would be in the minority on this one, my Apo Sironar S ( think Kerry Thalman ) and Apo Rodagons are incredible taking and enlarging lenses.

I'd agree, I have quite a few Rodenstock lenses and they are equally as good as my Schneiders, my Grandagon is definitely as good as my Supuper Angulons.

While Super Angulons are quite different to Symmar S lenses they are both capable of excellent quality images.

Ian

8x10 user
17-Jan-2015, 10:33
The Super Symmar HM should be about as sharp as the XL but with only 80 degrees of coverage. They are great for wide angle applications where as the Xl is very wide and the Angulon XL makes a good extreme wide angle lens. The 120 HM is recommend for 4x5, while the 150 covers 5x7 nicely, and the 210 is for 8x10.

The Apo Sironar S is an extremely sharp lens, perhaps the sharpest large format lens at F/16-F/45. There is nothing bad about Rodenstock glass, especially the stuff with ED glass. Schneider has more wide angle and telephoto options.

StoneNYC
17-Jan-2015, 10:37
You would be in the minority on this one, my Apo Sironar S ( think Kerry Thalman ) and Apo Rodagons are incredible taking and enlarging lenses.

I know I'm way in the minority, it's one of those "it only takes one bad apple to sour the bunch" deals.

I find the Rodenstock lineup harder to sift through for some reason, similar to how I have a hard time figuring out the Hassleblad lineup vs the Mamiya which seems so simple. RB's go to RB's RZ's go to RZ's, SA's are sharp but heavy, Symmar-S's are sharp but lighter with less image circle, SS XL's are wide IC. It seems simple.

But for some reason the Rodenstock doesn't seem to follow that, all the rodagon enlarging lenses I tried (7 in all) were poor quality, maybe the "APO" version are better, but I just stay away from the line all together because I can't figure out which is which.

In converse the EL-Nikkor line are ALL excellent and sharp, so it's easy to know that any from the line will be good, EL-Nikkor N, EL-Nikkor A or EL-Nikkor without designation or APO EL-Nikkor, all excellent quality. Easy.

It's just my fuzzy brain, I'm not saying they don't make quality lenses, I'm saying I have a hard time remembering which to stay away from except the Grandagon-N line which all I know is excellent quality but chunky, and not as much contrast as Schneider (IMO).

Kodachrome25
17-Jan-2015, 10:56
Little bit of research goes an extra long way, I have been 100% satisfied with my decisions because I took my time. And I don't let a bad apple spoil the bunch because I prefer citrus.

It also helps if you put together a realistic budget and not try to go full on bargain all the time...;-)

Old-N-Feeble
17-Jan-2015, 11:10
Stone, I know we don't always agree but I do believe I have a good idea regarding your dilemma. If I was in your shoes then I'd get a 90mm SAXL because, even though it's not specified as covering 6x10 inches (not 8x10), it will "illuminate" that size (maybe a tiny bit more) with perhaps a little degradation at the far corners. You will definitely want the CF using it that wide. This doesn't help with weight or bulk but it does provide another option regarding dual-purpose lenses.

Corran
17-Jan-2015, 11:24
John Brady used (uses?) the 90XL on 8x10, and I think he mentioned here on this forum that he composes with a foreground that he focuses very close to which mitigates the slightly small IC. Plus stopping way down. His images are amazing, look up his site and images from Florida. He used to post here but I don't think he has recently?

Anyway, I understand where our confusion came from earlier, so I hope you will understand now why I stated that the question didn't really make sense.

Old-N-Feeble
17-Jan-2015, 11:35
John Brady used (uses?) the 90XL on 8x10, and I think he mentioned here on this forum that he composes with a foreground that he focuses very close to which mitigates the slightly small IC. Plus stopping way down. His images are amazing, look up his site and images from Florida. He used to post here but I don't think he has recently?

Anyway, I understand where our confusion came from earlier, so I hope you will understand now why I stated that the question didn't really make sense.

The 90 SAXL probably illuminates 8x10 at hyperfocal distance (or focused even closer) stopped way down but I was referring to infinity focus. I'm interested in seeing John Brady's use of this lens.

Corran
17-Jan-2015, 11:42
For reference, his site is:
http://www.timeandlight.com/

Old-N-Feeble
17-Jan-2015, 12:01
Thanks, Corran. Only problem is he doesn't give any image details. BTW, I believe he shoots 4x5 in addition to 8x10.

Corran
17-Jan-2015, 12:05
If you want to do some research, find his posts here. I don't know if his images will still be on the forum but he showed several images from the 90XL on 8x10.

As a side note, you can perform a similar trick on 4x5 with a 38XL, which doesn't cover at infinity, but can closer (or just crop to a 4x4 square if you are into that).

Old-N-Feeble
17-Jan-2015, 12:14
Thanks, Corran. I located him on the forum but he has no images in the gallery. Perhaps I should search for his posts instead.

Corran
17-Jan-2015, 12:14
Yeah go through his posts, he had images hotlinked from somewhere else IIRC. But he might've removed them.

Pere Casals
18-Nov-2016, 14:02
Hi everybody, Iīm interested in quality arguments for 8x10 over 4x5 (no discussion about size, weight...)

If we do a high end drumscan on both of the negatives, is it worth to play with a 8x10?
Can we really see those differences clearly if we print the picture on e.g. a 70inch fineart paper?

I mean, a 4x5" is a big Negative. If this size is scanned by a good Drumscan-Operator it should be fine to enlarge it up to a huge size.
Do we really need a 8x10 if we donīt exceed 70" pictures (longst side)?

What is your experience?

Best Michael



In practice:

IMHO a 4x5 has way more optical information than human eyes can see, 8x10 is always overkill. Even a good MF shot can fulfill that.


Human vision (sight score 100) can see some 8 perceptual megapixels in the field of view, but most are concentrated in the center (Fovea of the retina). If we don't move the head but we move eyes exploring all we can... then the eyes we'll see some 60 MPix, this is eyes won't notice a better resolution than 60Mpix.

If a picture is bigger... then it will be viewed from more distance... so if we have to see all the picture without moving head, only eyes, then we need 60 MPix. Note that a Full HD monitor has 2 MPix and a 4K TV has 8 MPix.



But... ŋWhat happens if we see a 2m enlargement from reading distance?


We can distinguish (very good sight score people) some 7 Line pairs per mm, Lp/mm (or Lppmm). Some say that we can see more, but in any case this will be at 1:1000 contrast, but if we have some tonality in our print it is very dificult that microcontrast is displyed with more than 1:20 contrast, maximum of a print can be 1:100 or 1:115.

We can say 7 Lp/mm it's a lot.

We'll, a 4x5 print can deliver near 20000 points for every row, (https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/) in a 2m print this is 10 points per milimeter and that is less than 5 lp/mm.

Then a 2m print from a 4x5 megative, seen at reading distance, will deliver aproximately all what a good human eye can see, but if we view the 2m print from a normal distance... then of course eye won't see all detail the print has, by far, eye will see 1/5 of what's in the print.



Factors that allow (or not) 8x10 deviver more optical information:

Film: if film is not very sharp then more surface has an advantage.

Lens: A lens that covers only 4x5 do not need to correct for a larger distance from center, so it can be better corrected for the 4x5 area.

So a superb lens (Sironar-S 150) and a sharp film (TMX) will result in that 8x10 performs a bit better but not 4x better (perhaps 1.5x to 3x better in pixel count, dependig on gear).

Shot: A shot may not be sharp because multiple factors...


Art:

IMHO photographers do not shot 8x10 because resolution, they shot that because longer focals deliver a unique look (with DOF+movements), or becuase contact copy.

By 1910 optical engineers were designing Soft Focus (Universal Heliar 36cm) lenses because by then had too much resolution for portrait. But today DXO and the like still annoy people with graphs.

Drew Wiley
18-Nov-2016, 14:28
You left out the fun coefficient. That's what really counts! Then there's the exercise coefficient, and that actually saves you money since you don't need to pay for
a membership in some stinky gym. You merely need to pay for the larger film; so you won't be able to afford a gym membership anyway.

Pere Casals
18-Nov-2016, 14:36
You left out the fun coefficient. That's what really counts! Then there's the exercise coefficient, and that actually saves you money since you don't need to pay for
a membership in some stinky gym. You merely need to pay for the larger film; so you won't be able to afford a gym membership anyway.

Yes !!! :)


But it also has a drawback, some people take photos of the LF photopgrapher and the 8x10 gear... with an smartphone !!! this is beyond all bearing !!!!