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

[armentor1@mac.com]

ok here it is, I'm invested now, 2 years in the lf world and finally getting the hang of this crazy camera. It is really fun but I feel as though I putting a lot of extra work for a bigger negative and am not seeing enough of a return in the image quality. I'm wondering why my images don't have better tonality, gradient and sharpness. they don't look like large format images?

the gear I'm using is:
4x5 chamonix (which is an amazing tool)
210 symmar - main lens
150 caltar - recently purchased used very little


Film;
started with
arista 400 / arista dev.

Moved to:
hp5 / d76 1:1

Now on: ( I really thought this was going to do the trick )
rollei 25
rodinal 1:50

The best result I've gotten was with ektar 100 - lab processed, however, it has not been printed just scanned.
The image quality is good but I was under the impression that it was going to be a huge difference from the 6x6 format, this has not been the case. My 6x6 image look equally as strong as the 4x5.



Any advice or thoughts?

dave

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Equally strong as what? Darkroom or hybrid prints? Under a loupe? Scanned? (what scanner?)

[Frank Petronio]

Have you shot the same set-ups with both and compared?

[Jon Shiu]

Are you printing in the darkroom? Print size? Fiber or RC?

Jon

[armentor1@mac.com]

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.

[darr]

I would do a test shoot side-by-side with your MF and LF. Same film, processing, scanning and printing if possible. If they still look the same, send the film for processing to a lab (not home processed). If still not a big difference, I might scratch my head. :(

[John Kasaian]

Do you loupe your gg when focusing? What kind of grain focuser are you using? What speed are you rating the film?

[armentor1@mac.com]

yes using an 8x loupe when focusing. I don't know the brand grain focuser, I use a shared darkroom space, it is one of those blue slender tall ones. I generally rate the film by the named iso 400 = 400.

I suppose I could do a side by side comparison but was thinking that the 4x5 would easily stand out without having to do this, but perhaps it will put it into perspective.

[ic-racer]

the gear I'm using is:

None of that matters. How steady is your tripod. How are you focusing? How do you choose the aperture? Any errors in determining the EI and development time? Is the enlarger properly aligned?

[armentor1@mac.com]

tripod is steady, mostly doing portraits so the lens is generally set to f8 or wider. enlargers are aligned as others use them with no problem. possibly errors in development as I'm new to sheet film. I started with tray processing and could never really get the hang of it so i moved to the plastic bucket style where you can process 6 at a time. I'm looking at a batch of negatives now and they are consistently dense. perhaps I need to lighten up on my dev. times or drop the water temp?

[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]

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/winter.jpg

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!

[Jan Pedersen]

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

Yes, that is when the fun starts!

[SergeiR]

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.

Actually it is nearly always visible on stuff that isnt photograph of brick wall or some other traditional test target. Same as it is visible when you go from digital 35 to digital MF. As Ken correctly pointed out - if subject lacks tonal gradations - you will not see it. Specially on web size. But even on web size, if shadows and lights are played in photograph (and they should, this is what photographing is about after all) - we start to see difference. It will go away with some post processing, indeed, but not entirely.

However in 80% of cases people dont care. I do believe it there was very good comparition on that in "Edge of Darkness" between half frame film, mf film and then venturing toward LF.. Prints look almost indistinguishable, but only up to certain magnification.

Issue is that many people do expect format magically solve problems for them (not attacking OP, just observation based on some exp). Slap some famous lens on 4x5 or 8x10 and it will produce super duper 3d look and some other traditionally recognized qualities. But lenses dont do that. Nor does format. All you get with larger formats is more tonal gradations to record between points (and more details to not magnify, but for sake of argument - this is not important). Yeah, there is all that stuff about bokeh and movements. But it is in the end of the day - secondary. What primary is - more gradations means you can record more 3d-ness (as we percieve image on 2D media as 3D only when shadows are presented) when image goes from highlights to shadows. But if light isnt right - that possibility is never used.

Now, there is asian school of notan style of photography.. but this is completely different kettle of fish :) Folks from China do some amazing stuff with it.

[Ken Lee]

Now, there is asian school of notan style of photography.. but this is completely different kettle of fish :) Folks from China do some amazing stuff with it.

Could you share a link? I'd like to see some of those.

[Ken Lee]

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/l285.jpg

Here's another kind of shot that's hard to do with smaller equipment. I've tried this with 6x7 and a dedicated film scanner, but once we enlarge past 8x10, the result is mush.

Even on 4x5, it's a challenge to make it look really right: digital sharpening can help, but can also spoil the nuances.

I really prefer 5x7 or larger for "real" landscape images, where we want to appreciate the look of blades of grass and other distant detail. Many people have asked me why old photographs (early 20th century and before) look so much clearer. To them, it seems that the further back we go, the better the image quality. I explain to them that in those days they used very big cameras and made giant contact prints from glass negatives.

I guess we could stitch MF images to get this right, as long as the subject and his dog don't decide to walk into the other parts of the scene :cool:

[Andrew Tymon]

tripod is steady, mostly doing portraits so the lens is generally set to f8 or wider.Large format lenses usually have an optimum aperture of F11-F22, try stopping down a little or make multiple images of the same subject at different apertures to find the optimum apertures for the lenses you have.


I'm looking at a batch of negatives now and they are consistently dense. perhaps I need to lighten up on my dev. times or drop the water temp? It takes a while to get used to processing sheet film, I'm not sure what you mean by processing bucket style. Consistent processing will lead to an increase in quality. I lived in northern Louisiana and in summer it was hard to keep the water temp consistent ( I kept water in the refrigerator and used zip locks filled with water in the freezer to float in the water bath). Why don't you post a scan of one of your negs so we can see what 's going on.

Hope this helps

[SergeiR]

Could you share a link? I'd like to see some of those.

Sure. This is guy i remember seeing few years back. Still makes my jaw drop. Alas, he died in 2004.

http://www.photoeye.com/Gallery/forms/index.cfm?image=1&id=96098

Main thing is that this style, even though made om large format, doesnt go after blur or 3dness by using shadow transfers. Its about tones and composition.

And here is article about his teacher Chin San Long , with his photos.

http://www.dinkle.com/_english/01_about/01_about_05_business_02_01.php?ID=14

[Ken Lee]

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/l2877.jpg

It may be possible to produce a Notan-like effect using Photoshop. Here's the same photo as before, with a little "adjustment" :cool:

[SergeiR]

Ah, yes, effects in Photoshop :) it is generally possible to achive look of pictorial movements using curves and toning - somewhat true both for european and asian schools. But there is much more to it than simply look :) it is also subject choice and compositional choices. In notan your choices based on aestheticaly pleasing shapes fomed by light and dark tones.

While it is great to have bright circle within frame to hold viewers eye, in this case it is disturbed by vertical shapes in shadows and nothingness in center, where eyes are held :) ( that said i never properly studied asian ink drawing in school, so i might be off, of course)

In either case - i am just fascinated by pictoralism in general, as i have come to photography from painting, so my view is seriously biased. Doesnt mean to be final judgement or anything :)

[armentor1@mac.com]

Oh 8x10 will definitely be the next step, but first things first learn the technique.

I was also thinking about the water temp fluctuating through the process may be causing an issue. I'll try and gain more control of this .

I'm leaving town for a few days but when I get back im going to print out one of my negs at a larger size to see the effect.

I'll post a few of the scans once i get to my computer this afternoon.


Thanks for the links and ideas -
Dave

[Brian C. Miller]

ok here it is, I'm invested now, 2 years in the lf world and finally getting the hang of this crazy camera. It is really fun but I feel as though I putting a lot of extra work for a bigger negative and am not seeing enough of a return in the image quality. I'm wondering why my images don't have better tonality, gradient and sharpness. they don't look like large format images?

#1 question: are you using movements?

The reason I got started in LF was because I absolutely needed movements. The larger film size (and detail) was just a bonus. The ability to adjust the camera is very important to me.

Equipment isn't magical. It is a tool, used to achieve something. The reason to use the tool is because it gives you an advantage. This weekend I was using rear swing, front rise, and front tilt. I can't do any of that with my Pentax cameras.

If you aren't using the movements and you are only printing small, then the LF tool won't give you an advantage over the smaller format tools.


Here's another kind of shot that's hard to do with smaller equipment. I've tried this with 6x7 and a dedicated film scanner, but once we enlarge past 8x10, the result is mush.

Even on 4x5, it's a challenge to make it look really right: digital sharpening can help, but can also spoil the nuances.

You have a lot of very fine detail in the photograph. Unless Lenny did the scan (or someone equally competent with a drum scanner), I wouldn't expect the detail to be preserved. You'd need a physical enlarger. Just for grins and giggles, send the 6x7 negative out to a good printer and have it optically printed, and then see how that compares to your digital prints.

[mandoman7]

If "snap" is meant to refer to the tonal qualities, a good darkroom worker can get good prints regardless of the format. Film behavior doesn't change all that much from format to format, that's why it has the same name, hp5, or whatever :). If its about sharpness, however, there can be several contributing factors not the least of which are the lighting qualities. In certain lighting situations, you'll never get "snap".

[Dennis]

An enlarger is the big equalizer. I have done the very controlled side by side tests with my 4x5 and my Pentax 67 and I really wanted the 4x5 to be noticeably better. I matched a 210 gold dot dagor against a 105 Pentax lens and used a heavy tripod and shot a still life set up as exactly the same as possible. Shot both with Acros and processed both in Pyrocat. Then I printed both to 8x10 and took them to a meeting with a couple of large format photographers. I asked them which they thought was which and they both chose wrong.
To get that large format look you have to make a contact print. Otherwise in a smallish print you won't see an improvement from 6x6 to 4x5".
The other thing is that you have to be really careful and have really good technique to get a LF image as sharp as possible. Those movements need to be precisely right. Stopping down won't fix it.
I have also tried setting my 8x10 up on a subject outside and side by side with my Rolleiflex and the Rollei image was sharper because slight focusing error and a bit of wind.,
Dennis

[Lenny Eiger]

You ask a question, but you don't specify what you are actually asking? What is the "large format snap"? Are you talking about sharpness, contrast, something else?

I don't like Rodinal, I have just reviewed a bunch of medium format negs I developed in the stuff long ago and I wouldn't use it. That's just me, plenty of people would disagree. I might try Xtol or Pyro for best results, once again, IMO.

Also, someone mentioned that large format lenses are best at 16 or 22. As discussed in another thread, this is not really the case, this is a very small, almost imperceptible factor. Don't take my word for it, shoot a sheet at f22 and f45 and see if the f45 loses all its sharpness. If it does, get a Rodenstock, Schneider or Nikon lens and toss the other one out.

And don't use a V700 for comparing. It isn't a sensitive enough tool for a real comparison.

I'm guessing snap means contrast, and that's easily controlled. Zone system, development, etc...

If you are using a Mamiya 6x7 the lenses will be sharper than any large format lens I have seen at any aperture.

The benefit of large format negs are in their ability to render additional tonal information. Consider a telephone pole in your image that would take up 1/4 inch on a 4x5. Let's say it is one of those with a million shades of brown. That's a lot of info. However, consider the same image shot with an 8x10. That's a full inch of film to describe all those different tones. A major difference. The medium format, at 6x7, will display the same pole with 1/12 of an inch of film. That's just a sliver. all those tones will get compressed.

When you enlarge the image to 16x20, the 6x7 will not have the same amount of differentiation between tones - the 4x5 will be smoother and more rich. And so will the 8x10, etc...

Hope this helps,

Lenny

[armentor1@mac.com]

All,

Thanks for the responses, I'm going to do a few test this weekend with larger images sizes and different aperture settings - also, I'll reduce my dev. times, hopefully this will shed a little light. I think my expectations were just initially to high for the quality of a 4x5 neg vs. 6x6 (without contact printing).

All in all it is still a fun tool to use. So far I'm shooting mostly portraiture and quality aside I'm learning that the slow process of using the lf camera gives the sitter a more unique experience and in turn gives me better images.

thanks again guys -

dave 76744

[John Kasaian]

What do your negatives look like?:confused: Have you louped them on a light box? How sharp are they?

[tgtaylor]

The best way to achieve "snap" in your prints is to adjust the contrast accordingly. Here is a scan of an 8x10 print I made last night from a 6x7 Acros negative shot with a 120mm Pentax Soft Focus Lens at f5.6 with slight focus offset:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8026/7515766462_5e7344f125_z.jpg

The above was printed as a grade 3 on Oriental VCRC; Grade 2 didn't have "snap."

Thomas

Note: The negative was developer in Xtol 1:1 and the print in Dektol 1:2.

[Brian C. Miller]

... I'm going to do a few test this weekend ...

Dave, you need to get your development even. Those streaks shouldn't be there! :( You should have even exposure across the negative. That looks like it was under-exposed. Get a grey scale chart, photograph it, and try some of the zone system steps.

[azdustdevil]

I sold my Hassy and went back to 4x5 and the Hassy, as good as it is, cannot touch my Chamonix 4x5. I'm using Ektar 100, Fujichrome 50, and some stashed Agfa RSX that I froze several years ago...ASA 25!

[Roger Cole]

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

Yeah, a contact print will be big enough to display!

Ok, not the only difference, of course there will be a huge difference too if you enlarge or scan. But if you have a dedicated medium format film scanner versus a flatbed for the 8x10....well, that will make medium format take a little less of a beating from the 8x10 but it will still get its butt kicked.


An enlarger is the big equalizer. I have done the very controlled side by side tests with my 4x5 and my Pentax 67 and I really wanted the 4x5 to be noticeably better. I matched a 210 gold dot dagor against a 105 Pentax lens and used a heavy tripod and shot a still life set up as exactly the same as possible. Shot both with Acros and processed both in Pyrocat. Then I printed both to 8x10 and took them to a meeting with a couple of large format photographers. I asked them which they thought was which and they both chose wrong.
To get that large format look you have to make a contact print. Otherwise in a smallish print you won't see an improvement from 6x6 to 4x5".
The other thing is that you have to be really careful and have really good technique to get a LF image as sharp as possible. Those movements need to be precisely right. Stopping down won't fix it.
I have also tried setting my 8x10 up on a subject outside and side by side with my Rolleiflex and the Rollei image was sharper because slight focusing error and a bit of wind.,
Dennis

I'm sure that would be the case with 8x10s from Acros. Make the shot on HP5+ (since you can't get the same exact Tri-X in 4x5 and 120) and make the prints 16x20 or larger and I bet the difference is more apparent. It will probably be apparent at 11x14, especially if you look closely.


Dave, you need to get your development even. Those streaks shouldn't be there! :( You should have even exposure across the negative. That looks like it was under-exposed. Get a grey scale chart, photograph it, and try some of the zone system steps.

I thought exactly the same thing. Could the lack of difference partly just be that the 120 film is getting better, more finely tuned development?

[photobymike]

It took me awhile to get the snap in my pictures. I tried many developers and many scanning techniques. This is what i settled on - first get rid of the D76 good for making prints but not scanning. I use R09 rodinal at 1:50 ... over expose a tad this will take experimenting ... finally scan your negs on the 700 using the color neg setting and back off on your saturation, not all the way but then balance the neg for neutral or brown or what ever color you want. Then watch for your shadow detail this is where your "toe" is the longest, get the detail in your scan and hope the high lights are there for the snap..... for me skin detail is the most important ... i like the look of the old film on this pan x comes to mind.... but tmax 100 can do it... just over expose it slightly of i like .....efke film for the portraits is a good choice lots of silver but does not take over expose like tmax can. Printing;.... Epson is the only choice if you can see jon cone about some mono ink....

actually your scan does not look bad its your film developing that could use some help

76772

[armentor1@mac.com]

Yes my 120 negs are a bit more honed in. The streaks come from
my lack of experience with the tray dev. Process. I've given up on this and now use a dip method much cleaner and no scratches. They are still a little dense but that is an easy fix.

[Roger Cole]

I used deep tanks and hangers before getting the Jobo. It worked fine. Never really had a problem with it, it just takes a lot of solution (1/2 gallon) making one shot development either impractical or pretty expensive.