Fine grain 35mm isn't equal to large format?

[conrad_hoffman]

I thought this might be an interesting offshoot of another post.

Todays films are really good in the grain department. I was amazed at

what the new Tri-X can do, especially if processed in an appropriate

developer. Naturally, slower films are even better. So, on a tripod,

at optimum aperture, with perfect focus, what do the differences

between 35mm and large format come down to? For me, it's really the

ability to reproduce very slightly different tones or densities. This

is usually tied to small areas, but I think it applies to large areas

as well. Obviously, the image from either format will go from black

to white, so the range is the same, but the larger format seems to

have a larger palette. Since both reproduction curves are continuous,

IOW, there are no tones missing from either image, I don't really

understand this. Has anyone here taken the trouble to shoot the same

subject in 35mm and 4x5, then compare the results? Related question-

do you think anybody but photographers notices the difference anymore?

[pat_wilson1]

I think that a non-photographer would notice the difference between a 4x5 shot and a 35mm shot, even printed as small as 8x10. A lot of time you can look at two things and say, "I like this one better," without knowing why, and I would like to think that this would be the case with 4x5 over 35mm.

 

As far as the tones go, both films are (kind of almost mostly) the same emultion so they should capture the same pallet, however the resolution of 4x5 means more film area can be devoted to each area of the photograph, meaning more grain can go to each tone so you will get a more subtile transition. Development is also much more specalized and more care is taken in developing 4x5 than 35mm. Since development plays such a big part in a negative, I think that it is almost a given that more care in development will yield a better negative.

[peter_witkop]

It's all about the degree of enlargement. At the same enlargement, their tonalities will be the same, but with a 4x5 negative, you'll have an 8x10, with 35mm you'll be looking at a little bigger than wallet size. The tonality differance happen because you're spacing the grains of silver farther appart, similar thing happens when you look at a print from a fine grained film like pan-f (iso 50) next to one from hp5 (iso 400), the pan-f print will have nicer tonality. For me though, the differances between LF and 35 are more than tonality. With a fine grained film, exposed correctly with good teqnique and properly processed, most parts of an image show no visible grain, but there are always places with smooth, subtle gradations that show grain, that bothers me. When you enlarge 35 to 8x10 (about as far as I ever go with it), and compare those prints to 8x10, 11x14 or larger prints from LF negs, the prints from the bigger negs just seem sharper, and have a much better feeling of texture, and even bigger than 11x14 there just isn't any grain, anywere, even in the smooth subtle gradations like sky areas or running water. I think non photographers do notice the differance (note: I shoot 4x5 because _I_ see the differance), it never fails whenever I show a set of prints from 4x5 negs to non photographers they always comment on the texture and detail, I don't get that comment about 35mm work. That's my point of view of it all anyway :o)

 

Peter

[johnmarkpainter]

Conrad,

 

Just lay a 35mm Neg on a table and draw a 4x5 outline around it. THAT is the difference

(really).

 

I just shot a building for an Architectural Firm on Digital (Nikon), 35 (Nikon), 120

(Hasselblad) and 4x5 (Schneider). I used the same Film (Fuji NPS) in all cameras.

 

An 8x10 CLEARLY shows the differences. The jump between 35 & 120 in this case was not

as obvoius as the jump to 4x5. Everybody could see it (not just me).

 

What was funny was that we saw the 4x5 last after everybody liked the other formats. I

just got back an 11x14 of the 4x5 and it is even more impressive.

 

I am in NO WAY opposed to the 35mm format or anything. It all depends on what you

need. But I think it is a waste of time trying to squeeze out every bit of fidelity you can get

with special developers and treating a 35mm like it was a large format camera.

 

35 is meant to be a portable format that can look really good. I do large prints from 35 all

the time and I really like them. But if you are looking for Hi-Fi, just get a Medium Format

camera.

 

If you are talking about Landscape photography, a lot of the Fidelity you are seeing in LF

shots is being added to greatly by the Camera movements. By adjusting the Plane of

Focus in the camera you are getting True Focus as oppsed to just stopping a lens down.

 

jmp

[bruce watson]

Bottom line is, you can't beat more area. If you really want "the ability to reproduce very slightly different tones" more area is the answer. By spreading out the tones over a larger area, you enlarge and thus smooth out the transitions.. That's why the larger formats seem to have a larger palette.

 

I came at 4x5 from 35mm. The 15x increase in film area is just amazing. The quality increase is phenominal. But you aren't going to shoot sports with it ;-)

 

And yes, just about anyone can notice the difference.

[markci]

<i>Since both reproduction curves are continuous, IOW, there are no tones missing from either image, I don't really understand this</I>

<p>

Start with a flawed premise and you'll reached a flawed conclusion. There's nothing continuous about grain.

[johnmarkpainter]

One other thing......

 

In the past I have only ever used Large Format in a Lo-Fi way. Funky old

cameras...Polaroid P/N (the kind that gives you a negative).

 

Even with those old uncoated lenses with soft images it still looks like Big Film. It isn't just

about sharpness or Resolution. It is "spacious".

 

jmp

[conrad_hoffman]

We're getting closer, but still repeating some rather subjective statements- not that I disagree with them. Mark begins to address an issue I hoped would come up- the discontinuousness of grain. I can make what is essentially a grainless 8x10 from 35mm. Pick any tone you want, there is no visible grain. How is the tonal reproduction different in my grainless 35mm blowup, compared to 4x5? I'll go out on a limb and say I suspect the tonal qualities of even a fast film in 4x5, where grain is visible, are better than my grainless 35mm shot.

[r._odinal]

From all the prints I've ever seen (not as many as some people, but quite a few) in various formats, it's quite clear to me that large format beats 35mm, medium format, and any digital. The large negative size combined with the great film emulsions of today are capable of beatiful tonal reproduction, high-resolution and acutance, fine and beautiful grain, etc. A well-made print from a 4x5 negative is pretty easy to distinguish from a 35mm shot. Not to mention a contact printed 8x10 negative. The large format images just look more "real", have more depth, are sharper... there's a certain "je ne sais quois".

 

It's too bad that it's such a pain to haul all that equipment around. :-)

[patrick_gainer]

I have 35 mm, 120, 4X5 and 5X7 cameras. My problem is I no longer have the legs to carry the large cameras.

 

I set up the 5X7 near my back door and shot the scene I use in developer tests. I see that there are things about the 5X7 that do not scale down to 35. One of these things is adjacency effect. The adjacency effect for a given film-developer pair is the same for both, which mekes it less apparent in the 5X7, even though the edges are sharp in both formats. The result is a smoother sharpness in the large format. That's the only way I can think of to describe it. I think this is one of the differences you see but cannot put your finger on.

[kelly_flanigan1]

One half size scanned image of a 4x5 film pack negative.<BR><BR>

 

<IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-467.jpg><BR><BR><BR>

 

Detail of the 4x5 film pack negative; enlarged so the print would be roughly 30x40 inches.

This scan was with a Epson 2450 flatbed; which does not pull the full detail from the negative.<BR><BR>

<IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-379.jpg>

[Troll]

I've tried it -- 35mm TechPan/Technidol (50mm DR Summicron @f:5.6) is absolutely as good in acutance and grain as 8x10 HP4/HC-110 (14" Commercial Ektar @f:22). I've never been able to lick the TP latitude problem, though.

[jay_de_fehr]

One important difference that hasn't been mentioned is local contrast vs overall contrast. The individual grains of reduced silver and the spaces between them that constitute the overall contrast in a 35mm negative translate to the local contrast of a 4x5 negative, in which the overall contrast is made up of the differences in density of larger areas with finer gradation. As our digital imaging friends might say, there is more information depth to a larger negative to be revealed by enlargement. If the negatives are not enlarged, then most of the "extra" information in the larger negative goes unseen, but upon enlargement the differences in formats become apparent.

[Troll]

The point in shooting 8x10 is to be able to contact print it.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here is a cropped section; shown so the 4x5 film pack negative would be 10x 13 feet ...<BR><BR> (122.361x156.583 inches at 72 pixels/inch.) 94.7Meg file. The epson flatbed scanner at 2400 dpi/ppi leaves out some detail in the eye area; that can be clearly seen in a direct GIANT photo enlargement. But for practical purposes; a common flatbed and a giant negative gets most of the info needed to make decent prints.<BR><BR><IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-468.jpg>

[jorge_oliveira2]

What about lens resolution - both taking and enlarging?

 

The bigger the enlargement, less LPM there will be in the final print. Contact prints take the enlarging LPM fully away.

[garrylewis747]

>Has anyone here taken the trouble to shoot the same subject in 35mm >and 4x5, then compare the results? Related question- do you think >anybody but photographers notices the difference anymore.

 

If you go searching the libraries, you'll find this was done in the early 70's when "Modern Photography" was still published. They took a film and shot it with every available format then in existence up to 4x5( 35mm, 645, 6x6, 6x7, and 4x5). Their conclusions were that all were equal up to a 4x5 print size. That differences would start to show above that enlargement. That a 4x enlargement could equal a 4x enlagement of a 4x5 negitive grain wise. The edge was alway tonality for the larger negatives.

Yhe best advice was from Bill Pierce. "A excellent big man will alway beat an excelent small man in an equal fight. But an excellent small man will always beat a bad big man."

[robert_davis2]

I use the same film [at least for the moment] in 35mm,120 and 4x5. Agfa APX 100. In 35mm I have no problem finding the grain using my focusser. With 120 it can be an issue. With 4x5 I don't even try anymore. I can't focus on the grain.

 

The best way for me to describe the difference between big film and smaller pieces is talk about a fence. Look at a wooden fence. If the boards are real close together it looks almost like one piece of wood. That's LF. Now insert a gap between those boards. Still the same boards but you've got spaces. That's 120. Then widen those gaps even more. Now the gaps are almost the same size the boards are. That's 35mm. The more you enlarge the greater those gaps get. The bigger they get the less the fence stops.

 

BTW normal people can tell an 8x10 made from a 4x5 and one made from 35mm. It's a richness.

[johnmarkpainter]

Conrad,

 

This is just on a Portfolio on the Web, but it gives a good example of what LF looks

like....I was just readin gon another thread and this Photo came up. And this is on TriX:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=2266488

 

jmp

[kelly_flanigan1]

Panatomic-X sheet film was available in the 1950's; it had two notches; widely spaced as the code. Resolving power was listed as 100 lines/mm; Graininess as Very fine grain

[discpad]

Conrad,

 

Another issue is lens aperture and DOF, which affects composition: Take a look at David Burnett's Speed Graphic photos from the 9/11 hearings:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007uRC&unified_p=1

 

http://www.davidburnett.com/portfolio.html

 

Then follow the links...

[nicholas_t.]

Conrad, your question/post is an interesting one. I reread an article in "Darkroom" mag by William Helsel (Vol 7 #1, Jan/Feb 85) and he asks that exact question.<p>

To cut a long story short he concludes that it is possible to emulate 4x5 TriX with 35mm Tech pan or better with Agfapan 25 if one exposes and treats the 35mmn neg as one would a 4x5. Heavy tripod, cable release, and using the best quality lens (OEM F2 50mm should do it). However, upon closer inspection he does admit the 4x5 for having <i>creamier</i> highlights and <i>slightly better sharpness in fine detail</i>...

[elek_ludvigh]

Hi All,

This isn't an answer, but it seems to possibly be a relevant question related to getting at an answer. Why is it (unless it is my own overactive imagination) that the tiny 3X4 full frame screen image of Kelly Flanagan's beauty in his post above looks like it was shot on large format? Doesn't that dinky sized, low information, 72 DPI image on your screen have something in its range of tones that you rarely, if ever, see in even top notch 35MM?

 

I have for many years worked to get the tonality in 35 MM that I get in 4X5 and have not really come close, even if print sizes in both formats are limited to 8X10. I strongly agree with Conrad that grain is not the issue, there is something more going on, and I think probably something even more than the relevant and excellent comments regarding sharpness and micro-contrast which have been made.

 

The human eye-brain-perceptual system is incredably complex and I woould just about bet that the wholistic perception of a print is in some way more than simply the sum of resolution, micro and macro contrast, etc. I am convinced that what we are working on here is analogous to Hi Fidelity music reproduction where amplifiers and speakers which "measure perfectly" may sound much less like live music than others which measure less well but sound more real because are doing something better which has not currently been identified. On the other hand, there is some support that the perception of reproduced music as real can be strongly influenced by listener biases about the reproduction components, so maybe my perception of Kelly's photo and other 4X5 shots on my monitor is because I identify it as being 4X5... How about your perceptions of it?

 

One last idea. It might be interesting to try to "backward engineer" a print from a 4X5 negative to see what has to be done to make it look just like a 35MM one. Perhaps some industrious soul could try that and give us more food for thought.

 

Jay

[robert_davis2]

" if one exposes and treats the 35mmn neg as one would a 4x5. Heavy tripod, cable release, and using the best quality lens"

 

My tripod is a velbon. Heavy but I bet many here would sniff at it. My lenses range from budget Scheinders to process lenses. The process lenses don't have shutters so I use a hat for a shutter. You think that's bad? Some people shoot 4x5 handheld. Others use lenses that could be considered biohazards they're so bad.

 

The only thing that those things do is slow you down. The thing that LF has is size. Sheer size.

[lex_jenkins]

My observations agree with the magazine article Garry cited. At 4x5, it can be very difficult to tell the difference between a well executed enlargement from an excellent 35mm negative and a contact print from a 4x5. I've had several chances to observe this in local museums and galleries, including some of Eliot Porter's photos (he occasionally used 35mm, particularly during a tour of China). I could hardly tell the difference between his 4x5 dye transfer prints and similar sized prints from 35mm. (What I did notice is that in some of his 35mm work he apparently would forego the use of a tripod - some slight blurring from camera motion was evident.)

 

But it does indeed become very difficult for 35mm to keep up with large format at 8x10. Even if grain is low and apparent sharpness is high, subtleties in tonality and local contrast can't quite match a print from 4x5 or contact print from 8x10.

 

However I think it also depends on subject matter. If the subject is of a limited tonal range, lighted just right, exposed, processed and printed perfectly, an 8x10 from 35mm might challenge some folks in distinguishing that print from an 8x10 contact print. Those would be pretty rare occasions, unless one deliberately sought out only such subject matter.

 

Still, if I was really serious about making fine art b&w photographs and assuming I could afford the space and budget for 8x10 work, absolutely, that's what I'd use.