6x7 vs 4x5 Enlargements

I'm thinking about purchasing a 4x5 field camera to enhance the tonal gradations (mainly) of my black and white enlargements. I was wondering at what size print any medium format printers really begin to see the advantage of 4x5 inch negatives over 6x7cm?

I suspect it depends a lot on your darkroom techniques, what films and developers you use, what subjects you photograph and what sort of "look" you are aiming for. Rent a 4x5 for a weekend and shoot it side by side with your 6x7. Only you can tell. I am in a similar situation, using 6x6 and 6x9 and every once in a while get "bitten by the large format bug". But then I look at my 16x20 and 20x24 prints, and find that grain and tonality are fine - now if only I could "up-format" my compositional skills...

The difference between enlargements from 4x5" and 6x7cm is almost impossible to see in prints smaller than 16x20", and it takes a very careful look to see it in a 16x20". My experience of printing is limited to Ilfochrome prints from Fuji Provia and Velvia.

The main reason why I use Large format is not the tonal gradations, but the ability to tilt and shift with all lenses.

Think twice before you rush off to buy a large format camera.

I can spot the differences at 11x14, but they are pretty subtle. Even at 16x20 a 6x7 negative will hang together quite well. Larger than that and the 4x5 wins every time. Aside from the lens movements mentioned previously, 4x5 is excellent for controlling contrast through film development. Say you're at Yosemite and see the wind blowing Horsetail Falls back over El Capitan. The light is good, but a bit harsh. No problem. Overexpose the film one stop and pull the development. With your 6x7 camera you'll need to shoot an entire roll of film the same way to gain that control. With the 4x5 you can process each sheet according to your exposure notes.

 

<p>

 

Does this sound like I'm trying to justify the 4x5 purchase I made last week?

I'm probably too close to my own work to judge (and would rather carry

less weight), but my wife consistently identifies the 8x10 work prints

which come from 4x5 negatives rather than the various sizes of medium

format. I start to notice the difference at 11x14

I almost always notice a difference between medium and large format prints, whether in color or black and white. I simply cannot afford to shoot large format -- or put another way, I'm just not a good enough photographer to shoot in large format, where every shot is going to cost me at least $5 a pop. <p>For my budget and tastes (and ability), medium format is a great compromise, offering smoother tonal rendition and greater detail than 35mm, with film and processing that is still reasonably affordable. <p>If you have your own darkroom capability and can afford the supplies, by all means treat yourself to the large format experience. You can always fall back to other formats if you tire of LF, but you'll never know what you missed if you don't go for it at least once in your life. <p>One final thought: the EQUIPMENT involved with large format can be no more expensive than (and sometimes actually less than) medium format gear. It's the film and processing costs that keep LF out of my reach -- that and the meticulous skills one must develop to insure a perfect chrome, negative and/or print.

Remember you can get a view camera and a roll film back. You'll get the advantage of camera movements, which help with prints of all sizes, and you're spared the expense and challenge of sheet film.