medium format, large format: is 'more' necessarily more...?

<p>hello P.n--<br>

<br />Please take moment to define different qualities of prints for both medium and large format photography. Said another way: is it true that for b & w prints the larger format will capture more light-bearing image--and, is preferred for that reason (owing solely to larger surface area of negative) than a medium format negative--or, does the MF negative have features particular to that format size (e.g., thinner emulsion) that LF does not?<br>

<br />I am venturing into LF--keh has a couple of basic 4 x5 cameras for around $200: an omega<br />4X5 OMEGA VIEW 45C LARGE FORMAT VIEW CAMERA BODY http://is.gd/liCTaQ<br />and a calumet <br />4X5 CALUMET 540 CHROME LARGE FORMAT VIEW CAMERA BODY http://is.gd/6yc7N6<br>

uses: b & w--portrait, found objects, etc.<br>

<br />Which appears to be the 'better' value (assuming this can be quantified w/unknown variables)? Is there another LF camera a student might consider?<br>

<br />Thank you<br>

<br />Dean Taylor</p>

I just bought a used Toyo field camera. I am a beginner with LF.

 

I have a CX but it has not gone outside since I bought it. Too inconvenient to pack and carry.

 

I was looking hard at the Linhof field cameras for a while. They are more than the ones in your links though, even those

with problems.

 

Bonuses for LF that you don't normally think of...

The lenses are cheaper, and not constrained to a make or model. The shorter lenses are all macro lenses with the right

bellows extension; a good used macro for my MF is like $1800 or so for example.

 

Those are both good prices.

 

I am pretty sure that the film is cut from the same stock regardless of format size. But I could be wrong, why does the

Massive Dev Chart have different developing schemes based on format, I dunno?

<p>" The shorter lenses are all macro lenses with the right bellows extension;"<br>

Not really. View camera lenses, like lenses for all other formats are optimized for a particular range of magnification and if you use them within that range and at the optimal apertures for that specific lens you will get the quality that the lens was designed for. If you use it outside those parameters your image quality will degrade.<br>

So, for instance, a Rodenstock 180mm Apo Sironar S is optimized for an image ratio of 1:10 and will deliver outstanding results between about 1:5 to infinity. The older 180mm Apo Sironar N was optimized for 1:20 and performs best at 1:10 to infinity.<br>

However the 180mm Apo Macro Sironar is optimized for 1:5 to 2:1 and no lens will equal its performance within that range with macro photography of 3 dimensional objects. Similarly an Apo Ronar process lens (there was no 180mm) will be unequaled for 1:1 shooting of flat objects at its design aperture of f22.<br>

So what your statement actually meant that thanks to the double or triple extension bellows built into viewcameras shorter focal length view camera lenses can be used for close-up and even some macro work. But not at the quality level of a true large format macro lens.</p>

Bob,

 

Comparing a LF standard lens "macro" negative versus a MF macro negative what do you get? Negative to negative.

<p>4x5 or 8x10 negatives make excellent contact prints for maximum detail.<br>

Best regards,<br>

/Clay</p>

180mm Apo Macro Sironar is $1900 new at BH is still in the ball park of a used Rollei 120 Makro PQS.

 

So the lenses are still cheaper in LF, comparatively speaking.

 

I doubt the OP is interested in that lens, considering that he's looking at $200 used cameras and is a student.

 

But I might. It would definitely make me question buying the used Rollei lens.

Contact prints (good though they are made from 4x5 or 8x10 negatives) still hide lots of detail.

<p>Richard,<br>

It will deliver greater resolution, within the optimization range, better color, less distortion, etc. You could also use the more popular 120 Apo Macro Sironar. It has the same optimization just needs less bellows. It also covers 1:1 with movements on 5x7. And costs less again.</p>

<p>Q.G.-could you explain your comment on contact prints more fully, english is my first language and it makes no sense to me at all. I make 8x10 contact prints and the detail I find extraordinary, any degree of enlargment seems to lose 'something' in comparison. Tonality is also better in my opinion, unmatchable in fact, which is the main reason I contact print.<br />Regarding the original post, I believe that medium format film is thinner than sheet film which helps it to fight above it's weight in terms of resolution, which also explains why the dev times can be different between formats.<br>

Also bear in mind that large format film rarely sits as flat as medium format which impacts on sharpness, also bear in mind that the entire shooting experience is completely different between formats, not a small issue.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I make 8x10 contact prints and the detail I find extraordinary, any degree of enlargment seems to lose 'something' in comparison.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mark,</p>

<p>I believe Q.G.'s comment was meant to reflect the fact that the resolving power of photographic paper<br>

is much lower than the resolving power of film, so if you make a contact print from 8x10 (which I do also),<br>

you will lose much of the fine detail that exists in the negative.</p>

<p>This makes sense since all modern films are designed to capture as much information as possible, with<br>

the intention of enlarging the image.</p>

<p>For example, if the paper can resolve 25 lp/mm and the film can resolve 100 lp/mm, you would need to<br>

enlarge the film image by 4x to accurately reproduce all of the detail that exists in the negative.</p>

<p>If your enlargements are deficient, I suggest you buy a better quality enlarging lens.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

<p> </p>

Yes indeed.<br>If contact printing delivers the best you can get out of a 4x5" or 8x10" negative, you're really doing something wrong.<br>And it's not just that paper may not resolve as much as there is in the negative, but there's lots more in the negative than what you can see at this level (i.e. 1) of magnification (whether the paper resolves everything or not).<br>Just have a look at your negatives through a loupe and you will easily see that there's lots more to see than what you can ever hope to see in a contact print.

<p>I just got into large format. I like large prints 16x20 and a little bigger. My medium format color 16x20's from my Mamiya 711 aren't bad, but I am thinking that the tonality from 4x5 might be better. I have seen some nice executed 4x5's in galleries and it appears the tonality in large prints might be the ticket. That is why I have just dived into large format so maybe this greater tonality is pertinent to your post. I just don't get "small" contact prints (up to 8x10) with large format. I suspect if I made them myself in a dark room I would appreciate them a lot more, but I have never done that. I am in awe of all of you that do that. Well executed larger prints from large format really let you see detail and you can sort of walk into them. So I guess for tonality in larger prints (with large format) more is necessarily more.</p>

<p>Leigh, my enlarging lenses are the best money can buy, and my enlargment crisp, so no problem there. But I have great problems expressing in words what is so magical about contact prints, they really do have a quality that is not in enlargements, otherwise why would you and I both bother? Maybe it's as much about the tonality as the detail.<br />However I dispute your point about paper resolution. I am well aware it is lower than film resolution but it is still higher than the eye can discern, which is all that matters, if the paper resolved 100 lp/mm you would not be able to see more detail than if it resolved 25 lp/mm, from what I've read the eye cannot resolve more than 10 lp/mm at normal reading distance, so maybe if I enlarged my 8x10 neg to 16x20 I would see more detail, I suppose that's what you're saying. Still as Michael Johnston said regarding that silly comparison between an 80Mp back and 8x10 film-'I've never looked at an 8x10 contact print and felt the need for more detail', surely that's the point, the rest is just being pedantic.<br>

I still prefer an 8x10 contact print to and 8x10 off a 4x5 or medium format negative, which is what I really care about. Must be a tonality thing if it's not the detail.</p>

<p>I print 8x10 contacts because I don't have an 8x10 enlarger. If I want enlargements I send the 8x10s to the local pro lab.</p>

<p>I enlarge my 4x5s up to 16x20 max, but more typically 11x14.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

<p>As far as "what is the better value" both formats are expensive. Once you figure equipment, film, travel, developing, and printing it gets a bit overwhelming. Not trying to be negative, just being real. I pace myself. You have to kind of be in it for the long haul.</p>

<p>Jim, I would agree it requires a commitment, but compared to what I spent over the last five years on gear for digital in terms of upgrading cameras,computers, printers, etc I reckon I've spent far less on large format including film and building a darkroom, digital has pushed darkroom gear down to silly cheap.</p>

<i>'I've never looked at an 8x10 contact print and felt the need for more detail', surely that's the point, the rest is just being pedantic."</i><br><br>I respectfully disagree, Mark.<br><br>The "rest" is why Clay's <i>"maximum detail"</i> is not correct.<br><br>And, more importantly, what's more pedantic than trying to use all the detail a cumbersome 8x10" camera will record is insisting in using a cumbersome 8x10" camera where a (in comparison) small and lightweight 6x4.5 cm camera would do as well?<br>Sure looks like only wanting to be seen using a Big Camera. ;-) I sure can't see how you can possibly care about what that thing can deliver if you are content with contacts.<br><br>(I know, you feel you lose some type of magic as soon as you project the negative. I still think that if so, you must be doing something wrong. Many, many people make contacts. They call them proofs, or something similar. And despite having 'proofed' the big negatives, they are often surprised when enlarging the thingies.)

<p>Q.G.-Leigh at least has made 8x10 contact prints, have you? Or are you talking theoretically? Have you ever seen a well made 8x10 contact print?<br>

I first saw these at an Edward Weston exhibition and they blew me away. Are you saying that photographers such as Weston, Nicholas Nixon, Stephen Shore, etc,etc. don't know what they were doing and you are much more clever?<br>

To suggest that contacts are only use for proofs is utter garbage and denies 100 years of history.<br>

For 35mm and 120 they are proofs, but for 8x10 , 11x14, 7x17, 8x20 etc until digital, contact prints were the only option and an art form in themselves. I personally have been finalist in some major art prizes and would not have done so if they were glorified proofs. Again I have to ask are you talking theoretically or do you work in large format. I have for over 30 years and while contact printing 8x10 negs is only a small part of what I do, any I show to other photographers, many of them pros amd master printers, they are blown away. Please do not generalise so.</p>

<p>My suggestion is that you expand your interpretation of image quality to embrace more than resolution - and place the concept of image control at or above the same level. </p>

<p>The capacity of a decent large format camera to provide various adjustments of off axis lens and film back movements, both lateral and rotational - combined with the sheer size of the negative and how this can translate in printing, added to the capacity to treat each negative individually in processing...opens up an immense range of expressive/interpretive possibilities in the hands of a thoughtful practitioner. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>As a postscript...its all about having the right tools at the right time. I recently produced a 14X19 print from a 35mm negative, which I took in Zurich last spring with a Leica M-6 and 28mm lens with TMY film. The scene was late in the day, narrow alley with cobblestone street, woman coming towards me with low sun behind...creating long shadows and just the right degree of specularity from the cobblestones. Had to react quickly to this and wanted (and got) all in focus. I could not have done this, at least with this amount of depth (and impression of sharpness), with medium format, and with large format only if I'd either set everything up or had had amazing foresight! The large print works perfectly, despite and because of the "tiny" negative, with the impression of sharpness augmented by the great amount of texture raised by the high contrast of the scene - so much so that the size of the negative in this case is practically a moot point, except that it allowed me to create the image in the first place!</p>

<p>I guess the message in this is to never assume that bigger is always better!</p>

<p>hello all--</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone for taking the time to share their expertise here...</p>

<p>John Layton--we'd love to see the photo you've alluded to--any chance that it might be posted somewhere?<br /> At any rate--and, not to throw a wet blanket on this dynamic thread topic--I have looked into lens boards for the Calumet (not cost prohibitive at all...) and all that remains for me to begin exploring 4X5 is the matter of the lens. Here is my (clumsy) question:</p>

<p>As it would seem to be the case that a lens for this 4X5 may run upwards of four hundred dollars (or more) have any of you encountered a photographer who has made a go of--for lack of a better term--gerryrigging a lens/shutter front from an inexpensive camera (garage sale, ebay, etc.) to the Calumet lens board? Or, is it more likely than not that by attempting same I would be throwing away fifty or so bucks? Or--and, if that is somehow feasible (and not to press the issue) is it within the realm of practical possibility that I might purchase a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D (about a hundred bucks) and attach it to the lens board?</p>

<p>I dare pose these tedious/tacky suggestions as temporary remedies to a temporary scarcity of funds--i.e., until I can manage the proper Calumet lens from keh, and, in order to get started loading b & w 4X5 film in the Calumet and, off I go! Just the mathematical possibilities kindle excitement: 4X5 = 20 sq inches of negative--a HUGE canvas for me to fill (pardon the metaphor: I also paint murals w/acrylics)!</p>

<p>Thanks again!<br /> Dean</p>

<p>There are plenty of inexpensive lenses available second hand. Most of them will be several decades old, but if the shutter is good, an old lens can produce superb results. Technique is usually the limiting factor. Why not start with a 135mm from an old Speed Graphic?</p>

Mark,<br><br>What's this nonsense? If someone points out that you do not like, that must be because they do not know what they are talking about?<br>Really...<br><br>If you do not manage to get an 4x5" or 8x10" printed well, except as a contact, you have not been doing things well. And (!) you are wasting a perfectly good medium, reducing it to what the topic of this thread is about: the quality level of MF (rather smallish MF, in fact. Why, even 35 mm format enlarged to 4x5" can equal the level of detail in a 4x5" contact.)<br><br>And yes: i <i>know</i> that. ;-)<br><br>And it's true, no matter what your trophy cabinet may or not contain. Are you sure you couldn't have managed the same with a MF camera?<br>So to the OP: if you would go the contact print route, spare yourself the trouble and get a Bronica ETRSi, or similar camera.

<p>QG, I think there are many benefits to the contact print that you're glossing over. There's the ease of reproduction, although I admit that's only important if you're making a large print run over a period of time. There's also a slightly different look to contact prints that some people prefer. Finally, there are some alternative photographic processes that just work better with contact prints. It doesn't sound like any of this applies to the OP, but it's enough that I wouldn't just flat-out dismiss contact printing as lazy, or something that only a newbie would do.</p>

<p>To the OP: a larger negative is potentially better, but also carries some drawbacks. A louder stereo system or a more powerful car engine is also potentially better, but there are always other considerations. The biggest appeal (to me) of 4x5 is the detail, but those cameras also seem to render 'time', either because of the design or because of the generally longer exposures. It looks different, and you like it or you don't.</p>

<p>Negative quality is vastly improved over older recipies. These days, you can get the sharpness of an old 8x10 with 4x5. I would actually say that 4x5 is all the resolution 99.9% of people need; if you want to explore contact printing, have a bigger negative made from your 4x5s. Since QG astutely pointed out that the paper doesn't resolve as much as the negative, you're really not going to lose much making a contact print from an enlarged negative.</p>

<p>If you're making huge prints (over 16x20), or want to do contacts, you really do need the 4x5. Otherwise, I find that with good shooting and printing technique the medium format (especially 6x7) is more than sufficient. There's the argument of lesser tonal range, but I think that's debatable at that size, and again comes down to developing and printing technique.</p>

<i>"QG, I think there are many benefits to the contact print that you're glossing over"</i><br><br>I am indeed, Zack.<br>I'm mainly talking about what Clay threw in the mix of opinions, i.e. the "maximum detail" thing. The detail in the negative will, quite simply, not show itself in contacts.<br><br>But since the thread has gone this way it must be said that the fact that it's possible to make contacts you can like does not mean that enlarging your negs can produce absolutely great results. Not second to contacts in any way. In fact even better in some ways.<br>I'm not saying, Mark, that people who can make great contacts do not know what they are doing. I am indeed saying that people who think that you cannot make (even better) enlargements of the same negatives do not know what they are doing.