My LF-prints less crisp compared to my MF

[henpe]

Thank you all for your inputs, much appreciated!

Sounds like a good idea to make comparative tests in which as many variables as possible have been eliminated/harmonized between the formats. First on my list will be to enlarge the same negative into both of my enlarges, since this is the easiest and quickest test to accomplish.

I will try to update this thread as soon as I have something new to present.

Again, thanks for all input!

[Pere Casals]

I print my negatives in the darkroom, most often to 9.5x12" or 12x16".

You need a print well exceding 20" or 30" to show the superior Image Quality that LF has over MF.

A 16" print from a MF 6x7cm negative may have Image Quality exceding what human eye can see, even when viewing it with the nose on it.

the MF negatives is even "better" compared to the 4x5" LF negatives I have been producing lately.

You probably have a problem in your LF process.

Make a side by side test, shot the same framing with MF and LF, with same film. Then check the Image Quality in the negative with a x30 magnifier or in a top quality digital scan.

If you don't notice a remarkable superior IQ in the 45 sheet then you have a problem in the taking: it can be the lens, the GG to film matching or your technique.


If you have better IQ in the 45 sheet but not in the print, then obviously you have a problem in the enlarging !!


...so IMHO in a 20" print you may not notice the superior IQ of the LF process, but if your print from LF is inferior to the MF case one... then you should make a side by side test to find where your problem is.


https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/1...ra-comparison/

[ottluuk]

If you enlarge to equal print size from 6x7 and 4x5, you'll always be closer to showing the grain structure with 6x7. So the LF enlargement could appear smoother even if other parts of the workflow match very closely in terms of visual quality.

One way to bypass enlarger-related variables would be using a 6x7 roll film back on your 4x5 camera. If you can get a "crisp" print via LF lens + roll film back + 6x7 enlarger, you need to look at the LF enlarging part of your process. If not, it's likely the taking lens.

Another way would be to make a sacrificial test negative in 4x5 and print it at a known ratio on the Durst. Then carefully cut the neg to fit your 6x7 carrier and print this section on the LPL at the same enlargement ratio. Compare the prints feature by feature.

[joem]

So let me get in trouble again, first have to don my armor and get the shield ready.
Way back when i had a Pentax Spotmatic at some point i sold it and went with Topcons (super D) with lenses for each to have two types of film ready. The images from the Pentax were always sharper and contrastier regardless of film type or processing and i think that you'll find this in the end the MF just has a better lens period.
j

[Pere Casals]

If you enlarge to equal print size from 6x7 and 4x5, you'll always be closer to showing the grain structure with 6x7.

Yes, but depending on film and developer, TMX vs HP5. TMX with stock Xtol in 6x7 may show less grain than HP5+ with Rodinal in 4x5...

One way to bypass enlarger-related variables would be using a 6x7 roll film back on your 4x5 camera. If you can get a "crisp" print via LF lens + roll film back + 6x7 enlarger, you need to look at the LF enlarging part of your process. If not, it's likely the taking lens.

Another way would be to make a sacrificial test negative in 4x5 and print it at a known ratio on the Durst. Then carefully cut the neg to fit your 6x7 carrier and print this section on the LPL at the same enlargement ratio. Compare the prints feature by feature.

These are tests that can deliver important information, but we cannot do a direct comparison. MF lenses may deliver more optical performance than LF lenses, at least it's easier to make a better lens for the smaller format... but in the LF case we anyway may obtain better Image Quality (with a lower lp/mm lens) from the larger surface.

Because of that we should not compare at "the same enlargement ratio". We should frame (aprox, because of aspect ratio) the same in the MF vs LF shots, and then taking an equal crop of the scene from both negatives, and enlarging to the same final size. In that situation we'll need to use different enlarging lenses or the same in different conditions... so anyway we need understanding what we are doing.

If we compare results with the same enlargement ratio then MF has an advantage, at least in theory...

[GG12]

Its not clear if its a) the overall image that is less "crisp" or b) there is no point in the 4x5 neg which is as sharp as the MF.

To answer this.... consider shooting a tape run going from 6'-12' away from you with both setups. Focus on the same spot, and compare. If there is no place on the LF neg that is sharp, that will tell you one thing. It may be that the focus set up (GG to film back) is off, and that the focus point is shifting. Of course, this is a supplement to all the other excellent recommendations already given.

[Willie]

How is your tripod? What may be very stable with the medium format may be a touch shaky with the heavier outfit.

[fj55mike]

Perhaps the appearance of grain enhances the perception of sharpness.

I agree with this assessment, and notice it especially with HP5+ and Tri-X in medium format. They appear very sharp compared to 4x5 HP5 on the same sized papers.

[Bernice Loui]

Many factors can cause a sheet film image to be less "sharp" or "Crisp" than a medium format film image.

*Taking aperture, at apertures smaller than f32, image quality is likely to suffer.

*Camera alignment- precision- stability, any can and will affect image quality on film.

*Tripod stability or camera support stability and transmission of vibrations due to the camera support system.

*Film flatness, MF cameras often have significant mechanical designs to assure the roll film is as flat as possible.
Film holders can have significant variations in actual film flatness and alignment- registration to the view camera's ground glass.

* Problem with the view camera lens, test and verify the lens being used meets it's design specifications.

As for testing image quality, use a GOOD high quality microscope to examine the image on film. This takes out the potential problems with the optical printing process. Having used film formats from 35mm to 8x10, the sheet film images are constant and consistently better than roll film. This has held true for Hasselblad 6x6 to 6x9 Arca Swiss to 6x9 Fuji Texas Leica to Mamiya 6 & 7.. Sheet film when properly results in better overall image quality.

When the entire camera to printed image system is all proper, differences between a B&W 2x sheet film (5"x7") print compared to a 5x medium format film (6cm x 7cm) image is quite apparent. It does not require a HUGE enlargement to resolve and visualize this difference.


Bernice.

[ic-racer]

It is just that they lack a certain "edge" that my MF prints do show...

Something is not right. Seems like an issue worthwhile to explore. In my darkroom, the only way I can tolerate 6x6 anymore is to print them to the same magnification as I print 4x5in. That is make the 6x6cm prints around 2-3x magnification.