My LF-prints less crisp compared to my MF

[henpe]

Dear all,

I just want to share my latest findings on the difference, if any, in quality between my MF and LF work.

During last couple of years I have almost exclusively been using my 4x5 LF camera when getting out for landscape photography and I am now approaching approx 100 exposed sheets. Its great fun using the camera and I enjoy learning how to use tilts etc for creative purposes. I print my negatives in the darkroom, most often to 9.5x12" or 12x16".

Last darkroom session, however, I decided to print some negatives from my archive that were taken with my Pentax 67ii 6x7 MF camera. I was struck by the technical quality of these prints (I guess I have forgotten about this). In terms of "crispiness" and perceived sharpness, the MF negatives is even "better" compared to the 4x5" LF negatives I have been producing lately. Interesting, I think! However, it is not that my LF prints are "blurry" and I still consider them as "sharp". It is just that they lack a certain "edge" that my MF prints do show...

My MF equipment include:
Body: Pentax 67ii
Lenses: Pentax SMC 67 55mm / Pentax SMC 67 90mm / Pentax SMC 67 200mm

My LF equipment consist of:
Camera: Wista Field 45DX (wooden field camera, 4x5").
Lenses: Schneider Symmar-S 135 / Fujinon SW 90 / Fujinon NWS 210

For both setups, I use the same tripod (Berlebach Reporter, wooden tripod), same film (FP4+ and HP5+), same developer (D76), same "approach" to exposure etc. I have made tests with my LF to verify that the ground-glass is in correct position (made an exposure on a slanted ruler to verify focus plane as seen on GC matches with exposed image)

I use a Durst Laborator 1200, with Schneider Componon-s 150mm, for printing LF. I use my LPL MX6700 with a Nikon lens for printing MF.

Altogether, I think that my equipment for both LF and MF camera work are of good quality; I am not trying to compare apples with oranges, am I?

So, I am now trying to figure out why I can observe this difference in quality (in favor to MF). Is it simply so that my LF lenses render images differently, with less micro-contrast etc? Is it flare that makes my LF negs look less crisp? Is it so that my Pentax lenses are actually very sharp and outperforms more dated (?) LF lens designs? Is it perhaps so that my wooden field camera is less sturdy and take up vibrations more easily? Is it me !? Something else?

With this post, I do not wish to start up a heated vs. debate. I am happy with both my MF and LF equipment and will keep using both. I found it interesting that my findings are somewhat contradictory to common sense and what I would have expected. I am also curious if anyone else have similar, or opposite, experiences!


Best regards
Henrik



PS: I would like to attach some images to illustrate my points, but unfortunately I do not have a decent scanner that can reproduce the subtle differences I am trying to describe.

[fotopfw]

I worked for a long time with MF (Mamiya 6x7, 6x8) and LF (4x5" / 8x10"). In color (flatbed and drumscanned) the 4x5" outperforms the MF any time in my experience. Even the old Angulon on my 1950 or so Linhof Technika is very sharp, I can not match that with the MF. The way shadows open up is better in LF than MF. If I use Ektar in 4x5", that gives me enough contrast, detail and saturation, and again, not matched by MF. I compared large prints only (40x50").

[Michael Roberts]

As suggested by fotopfw, I think the reason the MF prints look a little more crisp is that you are only enlarging to 12x16. This is only about a 6x enlargement from the 6x7. The shorter fl length lenses will have a greater depth of field, which could translate to a crisper look in an enlargement of 6x or less. So, yes, I think you are comparing oranges to apples, especially if your are comparing a photo with a 55mm MF lens to one with a 135 or longer fl LF lens.

A better comparison would be to use your 90mm or 200/210mm lenses on both formats, then compare a 6x7 crop from 4x5 to the same size MF....

[Liquid Artist]

Just a couple things to consider.
It's tough to beat the quality of your Pentax lenses plus there is a good chance you where using a faster shutter speed. So therefore less motion blur.

[alexmuir]

You could try enlarging an example of each format on the 4x5 enlarger, using the same lens, and to the same size. That would help ascertain whether or not the enlargement equipment is having an effect on quality. Your 4x5 enlarging set up should be producing quality results, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is achieving optimal quality.
Alex.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[scheinfluger_77]

Another possibility is the ground glass is slightly out of position compared to where the film plane is, with holder inserted. Shims or lack thereof behind the ground glass is where you could first start testing.

[Bob Salomon]

You could try enlarging an example of each format on the 4x5 enlarger, using the same lens, and to the same size. That would help ascertain whether or not the enlargement equipment is having an effect on quality. Your 4x5 enlarging set up should be producing quality results, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is achieving optimal quality.
Alex.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Except using the longer lens with mf will require more magnification which could be outside the optimal mag range of the lens. And the head would be much higher possibly increasing the possibility of vibrations.

[faberryman]

Perhaps the appearance of grain enhances the perception of sharpness.

[Ken Lee]

...I am not trying to compare apples with oranges, am I?

It might be helpful to rule out as many the variables as possible.

Shoot an unvarying subject from the same distance at the same time with both cameras. Use an aperture small enough to give decent depth of field but not enough to introduce diffraction. For example f/22 on the LF and f/11 on the MF.

Use plenty of light so that your shutter speed is high. Shoot at a distance and don't use any view camera movements so that you're shooting through the center of the LF lens and not running into issues of close-range performance or bellows compensation.

Choose a stationary subject which makes it easy to compare resolution. Angular light falling on a distant series of buildings is good, for example.

If possible, put an identifying card in the scene which makes it easy to tell which camera/lens was shot.

Develop both images at the same time if possible. I don't mean the same afternoon: I mean simultaneously in the same tank, tray or whatever you use.

Place a portion of both negatives in the enlarger's film carrier. Enlarge both negatives at the same time and first use the Componon. Then do the same with the Nikkor.

[Alan9940]

A couple of thoughts...

1) I'm not familiar with either of the enlargers you're using. What is the lightsource? An enlarger that beams light through a condenser lens will, generally, make prints looks "crisper" than, say, from a coldlight source or color head.

2) What is the focal length of the enlarger lens used for MF? Is it of the same quality as the Schneider 150mm used for 4x5?

3) What were the conditions under which the 4x5 negs were exposed? Wind? Camera movements?

4) What were the lighting conditions of the LF negs vs the MF negs?

You don't really have to answer...my point is that many, many variables can affect results. Here is what I'd suggest: photograph the same scene, under the same conditions, same film, similar FOV focal length lens (if you can), no movements of any kind on the LF camera, critical focus for both cameras, optimal aperture for both cameras (watch shutter speed with the LF camera because if things are moving, it will obviously affect results), process with the same film developer, then contact print on the same paper, filter, etc.

In other words, eliminate as many variables as possible and compare.