PDA

View Full Version : Is there any difference between 4x5



BigSteveG
9-Apr-2008, 10:30
and 2 1/4 image quality in prints smaller than 11x14?

Mark Woods
9-Apr-2008, 10:40
I've made some beautiful prints with the 2 1/4 square negs. But the larger the neg the more impressive the detail in the print. Last Saturday I made a 11x14 print from an 8x10 neg and there was no grain and incredible detail. As someone said, Big Negs Rock! ;-)

David A. Goldfarb
9-Apr-2008, 10:50
Yes. MF can make very impressive prints and sometimes might appear in isolation to be as good as 4x5" or even larger, but if you made two negatives of the same scene as close as you could to each other with the most important variable being format size, and printed them to the same size, you would see a difference.

lenser
9-Apr-2008, 10:54
Steve,

As a former portrait photographer, I've had many super large (24x30/30x40) prints made from Hasse and RB67 negatives. As long as I focused well, they were wonderful.

Having said that, there is no question that a larger neg produces finer detail in the same size enlargements. This is established and without question.

In the sizes you're talking about, you likely won't see much difference, especially with finer grained films. By the time you get to a 16x20, you will almost certainly start to see divergences in detail and grain since you are enlarging basically twice more for the smaller neg to get to the same image size.

Tim

Vaughn
9-Apr-2008, 10:58
Definitely yes.

More room to record information means smoother changes in tonality on the neg and in the print.

Vaughn

Neal Shields
9-Apr-2008, 11:00
The best explaination that I have seen of this is in "Post Exposure" by Ctien.

He goes into why the eye can precieve differences in line detail beyond the theroetical limits of the retina. He also goes into the different between acceptable sharpness and perfect sharpness.

He defines acceptable sharpness as what appears complete sharp when view alone.
Perfect sharpness is when in side by side compairisons you can't tell the difference.

He places this "perfect sharpness" limit at about 30lp/mm.

Having said all that, you didn't say if you were doing wet darkroom prints or comercial prints.

Most comercial prints are limited to 300 dpi so I wouldn't expect to see much or any difference between medium format and 4x5 there as the limiting factor is going to be the printiing process not the negative size.

BigSteveG
9-Apr-2008, 11:08
The ability to make contact prints is very appealing. Although, I'm thinking that wouldn't leave much room for manipulation of the image? since the process is just to sandwich the neg and expose to light?

Ken Lee
9-Apr-2008, 11:09
The only way to know for sure, is to compare for yourself. What others might consider a match, you might perceive as a radical difference - and vice versa. Whatever differences there are, will depend on the particulars of each setup, and will be influenced by many other choices.

Remember that as formats change, so do the lenses. A 150mm portrait lens on Medium Format, is only a normal lens on 4x5. Given an otherwise identical image, to get the same depth of field with a 240mm lens on 4x5, you will need to stop down almost 2 more stops, which means you will need to shoot at almost 4x slower shutter speed, or bump up the lighting by 2 stops. Do you care ?

Also, remember that you can't just blast away with sheet film, the way you can with roll film. It takes a while to manage the film holders and cock the shutter each time (unless you use a self-cocking shutter, but those are not the norm on modern Large Format lenses). So capturing the right expression, may require a different approach. Does that matter ?

Then there is the issue of portability. Each 4x5 film holder is around the size and weight of a 5-pack of roll film. There is no hand-held, unless you use a Speed Graphic or other similar camera. Is that important ?

So it's not just a question of sharpness or smoothness. All these other factors come along for the ride, whether you invited them or not.

Vaughn
9-Apr-2008, 11:11
Steve...there are ways to manipulate the image when contact printing...burning and dodging as with enlarging, and the use of masks, for example.

Vaughn

BigSteveG
9-Apr-2008, 11:11
Neal, I'm using my own wet darkroom. Since I'm set up for 4x5 negs, my 5x7 work would be limited to contact prints. I'm thinking of using the 4x5 for lansdcapes/scenics and the 5x7 contact prints for portraits.

Kevin Crisp
9-Apr-2008, 11:16
I think it depends on the film and the processing. With Tri-X an 8X10 off a 4X5 negative looks better than one off a 2 1/4" negative. (And if you are shooting a square negative, then you aren't using all of it if you are printing rectangular prints.) This is not to say the MF negative doesn't make a very nice print, much better than 35mm. With TMAX 100 I think you can make an 11X14 off a medium format negative (like a 6X9) and fool a lot of the people most of the time. This assumes you are using a first rate MF lens. Side by side some people could probably guess which was which, but I'm not sure that exercise really relates to much of anything. If you move up to 16X20 prints then I think the difference is apparent. Such judgments are very subjective, you might want to just try it and see what you think.

BigSteveG
9-Apr-2008, 11:44
I guess it really it a matter of trial and error....and weighing the various logistical issues along. Geeez...35mm was easy in comparison. But LF has quite an allure as well.

Rafael Garcia
9-Apr-2008, 17:33
Neal, I'm using my own wet darkroom. Since I'm set up for 4x5 negs, my 5x7 work would be limited to contact prints. I'm thinking of using the 4x5 for lansdcapes/scenics and the 5x7 contact prints for portraits.

The change is not that difficult, except for the enlarger. I was doing about the same, and built myself a 5x7 enlarger which was adequate, if slow to operate. Then I lucked out and found an Elwood 5x7 enlarger very cheap... the rest is history. Hold to your plan, which is a good one, but keep an eye out in eBay and other sites for that old 5x7 enlarger no one bids on. They are there, waiting for you.

Brian Vuillemenot
9-Apr-2008, 20:40
And, of course, let's not forget the camera movements in LF. A little front tilt and/or rise open up a whole realm of new possibilities!

Ron Marshall
9-Apr-2008, 21:40
4x5 negs also have more crop latitude than 2 1/4.

Rafael Garcia
10-Apr-2008, 05:30
As long as we're listing the differences: you can individually process sheet film to account for your exposure and "visualization". With MF to have to process the entire roll. With LF you can use your bad negatives as drink coasters, not possible with MF rolls.

Brian Ellis
10-Apr-2008, 07:09
I don't know about 645 or 6x6 but I used 6x7 and 4x5 side by side for many years. I would defy anyone to look at a series of prints smaller than 11x14 (or even 11x14) made with negatives from both formats and be able to consistantly tell which was which. Maybe with smaller medium formats or using a loupe it could be done but not normal viewing of prints from 6x7. I ran random tests like this off and on quite a lot and 16x20 was always the cut-off point at which 4x5 made a noticeable difference with my equipment and materials.

Joseph O'Neil
10-Apr-2008, 09:58
While I still own my Mamiya and a fridge full of 120 film, I seldom use it anymore. Movements on my 4x5 are one of the biggest advantages for me.

Being able to develop one sheet at a time as opposed to a whole rollo, and sometimes the fact i do a big enlargement fro just half of my 4x5 negative all count in favour too.

Regardless of grain, I personally find I am able to get better tonality from a 4x5 negative than a 120. Your mileage may vary, and I suspect this is due to several factors, not just one.

Last point - using a 4x5 looks a lot more cool than a MF camera out in the public. :D :D :D

Ed Richards
10-Apr-2008, 10:19
I think that a properly made negative from a Mamiya 7, scanned with a Nikon 9000, is going to be as good as a 4x5 scanned with a consumer scanner. (Drum scan, and all bets are off.) What keeps me from going that route (or digital) is the realization that I use movements on almost every picture I take.

sanking
10-Apr-2008, 10:24
I don't know about 645 or 6x6 but I used 6x7 and 4x5 side by side for many years. I would defy anyone to look at a series of prints smaller than 11x14 (or even 11x14) made with negatives from both formats and be able to consistantly tell which was which. Maybe with smaller medium formats or using a loupe it could be done but not normal viewing of prints from 6x7. I ran random tests like this off and on quite a lot and 16x20 was always the cut-off point at which 4x5 made a noticeable difference with my equipment and materials.

There are many factors involved in this type of comparison, but in general I agree with Brian in so far as the comparison involves 6X7cm or 6X9cm format compared to 4X5. I really doubt that many people can consistently tell the difference in a 11X14 or smaller print at normal viewing distance. In fact, I believe that comparison would hold up to 16X20 if you were to compare results with an ASA film of 100 in MF and 400 in 4X5.

I would add that if you are scanning to print digitally rather than printing directly in the darkroom via enlargement some of the arguments in favor of the 4X5 view camera are no longer relevant. The need for zone and BTZS type controls do not apply in this circumstance. Perspective controls are still important, but not decisive since a very wide range of corrections can be done in photoshop with scans of MF negatives. Unlike digital files from DSLR cameras, which tend to fall apart rather quickly when perspective controlas are applied, the very large mp content of MF files hold up very well to extensive perspective control.

Sandy King

BigSteveG
10-Apr-2008, 10:49
Yes, I'm starting to feel the control offered by sheet film is really the biggest advantadge in LF. You can really change the variable fom image to image. I will scan just to put images online, but another attraction for me is the darroom work.

SIDE QUESTION: When testing for development times, are seperate tests usually done for RC v Fiber?

Rafael Garcia
10-Apr-2008, 12:27
I test for every brand and type of paper.

cyrus
10-Apr-2008, 14:27
I am personally of the opinion that the max print size should be

5x7 for 35mm
11x14 for MF
16x20 for 4x5

Mick Fagan
11-Apr-2008, 03:02
One of the more interesting things about LF is the way the picture is focused. With virtually all other systems, the optics in the lens itself are moved relative to each other. With LF systems (generally) the lens optics are set at their optimal configuration at the factory and you focus by moving the lens back and forth.

With this system of focusing you will see a definite LF feature with a near object in focus with the background out of focus. What you see in these prints is an almost 3D effect surrounding the in focus object, this I believe is one of the most striking features possible in LF.

Brian Ellis has a good point with the slight differences between the 120 formats and 4x5; there is one quite easy way to note the format when viewing prints, depth of field!

The longer the focal length, the shorter the depth of field! Take a Hasselblad with a standard lens of 75/80 mm and a 4x5 with a 150/180. There is not too much of a problem figuring out what kind of format shot what, if you look for the clues of depth of field and the slight 3D effect, often apparent in LF pictures.

I have actually sat through a lecture with a controlled set of pictures taken side by side with a 35mm and a 645, both fitted with a standard lens. The printing was done to ensure each 12x16” print from each format, was identical or was as close as it was possible to be identical. At the end of the lecture the 45 strong audience was given a scorecard and told to carefully check each print and note which one was done with which format.

There were ten prints from each format, twenty in all. Only one person got every print correct, he was a professional printer with his own business. When asked how he did it his reply was, “simple I just looked for depth of field”. I myself got about 50% correct, but I have to admit I was virtually guessing. Once I heard how he did it, I went back and checked, he was correct; it was easy to do it looking for that depth of field clue.

That was about 25 years ago, been looking at depth of field ever since!

Mick.

BigSteveG
11-Apr-2008, 11:36
Mick,
That was a very nice explanation.

Mark Woods
11-Apr-2008, 11:48
With virtually all other systems, the optics in the lens itself are moved relative to each other. With LF systems (generally) the lens optics are set at their optimal configuration at the factory and you focus by moving the lens back and forth.

Umm, not actually. With zoom lenses the optical groups move in relationship to each other (usually 3 different groups in a simple zoom). On fixed focus, or prime lenses, the lens groups remain fixed relative to each other and focused with a helical gear in the lens barrel. This is virtually identical to the focusing we do in large format. The only difference with the still system is the flange focal distance is constant, and if the lens is correctly collimated, the witness marks indicating distance are accurate. This is true for all prime lenses except the most expensive. The prime lenses that have elements that move in relation to each other do that to avoid an image shift when focusing closer (called "breathing" in film terminology). A set of those lenses are same price as many houses.

audioexcels
11-Apr-2008, 23:21
I've made some beautiful prints with the 2 1/4 square negs. But the larger the neg the more impressive the detail in the print. Last Saturday I made a 11x14 print from an 8x10 neg and there was no grain and incredible detail. As someone said, Big Negs Rock! ;-)

What "precisely" do you see in the 11X14 print from the 810 negative that does it for you over "any" (4X5 and smaller sized piece of film)? I know most would argue they cannot see the difference, but curious if you and/or others can.

Was this neg as in b/w or color neg?

audioexcels
11-Apr-2008, 23:25
Neal, I'm using my own wet darkroom. Since I'm set up for 4x5 negs, my 5x7 work would be limited to contact prints. I'm thinking of using the 4x5 for lansdcapes/scenics and the 5x7 contact prints for portraits.

http://flickr.com/photos/laurensimonutti/

I have posted this person's work, and not to say other's work is not equally nice in their own way, this woman's work is a real inspiration to me and should be for anyone that does contact prints and likes to get high with all the chemicals;):):)

audioexcels
11-Apr-2008, 23:43
I am personally of the opinion that the max print size should be

5x7 for 35mm
11x14 for MF
16x20 for 4x5

What about for digital?:)

People with doctrates (sp) in photography "boast" about their gallery prints of 24X30" with a Nikon D300:rolleyes:

Actually, they boast so much that they take a photo from the camera that just so happens to contain the framed document of his credible success, for people to see the full rez file.

Mick Fagan
12-Apr-2008, 06:28
Mark Woods,
Points taken regarding your description of lens technology. However I came to this viewpoint with personal knowledge and many years of working with a range of Nikkor camera lens.

My Nikkor lens set that have floating elements for close range correction, are the 18 3.5 / 24 2.8 / 28 2.8 / 55 micro 2.8 / 84 1.4 and yes, these were very expensive when I purchased them in the late seventies, through to the very early eighties.

The longer focal lengths that I have (except one) are all ED glass (Extra low Dispersion glass), they are interesting because they all focus past infinity, allowing for barrel and glass expansion problems sometimes occurring in extreme heat. I have used these optics in conditions where I wore gloves, as the barrels were too hot to hold with bare skin. These were 180 2.8 / 300 4.5.

The exception longer focal length lens without ED, is my 105 2.5 lens. This lens is the best optical performer of them all; it gives me results quite similar to LF optics focused with a set of bellows. So after some rumination on my part regarding your posting, I agree basically with your post.

That said, I assume you have some technical knowledge of optics, are you able to answer as to how fixed LF optics, focused with bellows, often render close focused objects in a 3D look?

Mick.

Mark Woods
12-Apr-2008, 12:32
The 11x14 from the 8x10 has virtually no grain and the transitions from light to dark are significantly smoother. I went to a couple of 11x14 framed images I have from 4x5 to double check myself, and looked at the 11x14 work print I have pinned up in my kitchen. There is a difference to my eye.

Regarding 3D and a single lens, there is no 3D, there is only the illusion. The illusion is based to some extent on expectations (& compositions) and resolution of the image. 3D for humans doesn't really exist much beyond 10-12 feet (3 to 4 meters). We know it's 3D since we live in a 3 dimensional world, but stand back and estimate the distance between two objects you're not familiar with that are beyond the 10-12 feet, and you will most likely find you want to move your head side to side to triangulate the distance. BTW, except for holograms there is no true 3D, only stereoscopic image capture. If it were true 3D, and you moved your head to one side or the other, the relationship between two objects would change. This doesn't happen.

Kind Regards,