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.
Bookmarks