MF(6X7cm) vs LF(4X5") in 11"x14"

[tony_black1]

I use RZ 67 and want to try LF 4x5 to see the difference.

 

My question is, lets say I shoot the same scene with both cameras.

And I enlarge the pic to 11"x14" size. Will I see the difference?

Considering same focal lenghts and etc.

 

And if yes, the only difference is the resolution? or there are some

other things which you cant exactly explain when you see a 4x5 shot?

[rob_skeoch2]

Yes, of course you'll see the difference. There's just more detail, more info in the shadows,

more of all the great things and less grain. And if you shoot 8x10 and make a 11x14 you'll

be shocked at the jump in quality again.

-Rob Skeoch

[kipling]

you'll definitely see a difference, less grain and more detail. but, there are a lot of variables at play, like what lens is used on the 4x5 and what filmholder. DOF is extreemely shallow on a 4x5 and film flatness can be an issue if you're not carefull. the film being used will also play a roll, you'll notice less of a difference with very fine grained chromes at that print size.

[tony_black1]

Is DOF always shallow with 4x5 cameras? and why? what about if I want a clear dof?

[Troll]

The image size of an RZ67 negative is actually about 56x70mm, while 4x5 is 95x120mm. The 4x5 requires 2.8X enlargement to go to 11x14 (with margins it's more like 10.5x13"), while the 6x7 requires 4.5X. If you're using a current, top-of-the-line lens for your 4x5 you won't notice any difference at these magnifications. If you're using an older lens, the 6x7 may actually appear sharper. I think that you'd have to go well over 16x20 to begin seeing difference in favor of the 4x5.

[michael_veit]

I gotta agree with Bill. I'd be surprised if you noticed any difference.

[tony_black1]

here we go. there are 2 guys saying you definitely see the difference and another two says no you wont. and even 6x7 will be sharper if i use a old model 4x5 lens.

 

anybody has a sample image? or any website comparing it visually?

[kipling]

tony, i said it depends on several factors. all things being equal and using say tri-x at 320, i

see a difference. with slide film at that print size i doubt you'll notice it. <p>

the one place where i garantie you'll see absolutely no difference is when looking at 100dpi

web compressed pics on a computer screen.

[michael_briggs2]

<p><i>Is DOF always shallow with 4x5 cameras? and why?</i></p>

 

<p>DOF doesn't have to be shallow with 4x5 cameras, all you have to do is stop down. (And you don't get more diffraction for a same size print because you enlarge the film less.) In this era most 4x5 photographers are using tripods, so the practical difference between 4x5 and smaller cameras is exposure time, not the photographer being forced to have smaller DOF. (The photographer can have small DOF if they choose.) Asssuming that you want the same size print, and the same view of the scence, you can get the same DOF with a 4x5 camera, as you get with your 6x7 camera, by stopping down 2 stops.</p>

 

<p>Why? It's what the equations say. For the same size print, the taking lens focal length is longer, since more of the enlargement is done at taking time rather than enlargement time. I don't know of an answer that makes it obvious.</p>

 

<p>Some other advantages of 4x5 are the larger ground glass to see and compose the photograph, and the ability to use camera movements. For example front rise to photograph buildings or other subjects without converging verticals, or front tilt to tilt the plane of best focus so that both a near and far object are simultaneously in focus.</p>

[leonard_evens]

I did 6 x 7 using a Horseman Technical Camera for many years. I now do 4 x 5. I've made 11 x 14 prints with both. You should see a difference, but you would have to look very closely. It depends quite a lot on the specific print. In many cases, you wouldn't be able to see any difference.

 

If you assume the same angle of view and the same size final print, viewed the same way, then to get the same DOF with 4 x 5 as with 6 x 7, you would have to stop down an additional two stops. (But you can also stop down an additional two stops without diffraction becoming an issue.) As a result you will have to shoot at slower speeds or sacrifice depth of field. On the other hand, the use of tilt or swing with a view camera may allow you to choose better what is in focus. So it is wise to keep that in mind when comparing medium format without movements to a view camera.

[leonard_evens]

Samples?

 

See www.math.northwestern.edu/~len/photos/pages/e2450.html

 

I don't know if that will answer your question, but it does have some scans from 6 x 7 and also one scan from 4 x 5, including blow-ups of small sections of the full scan. Those scans were done with an Epson 2450, which somewhat limits the resolution. Newer scanners like the Epson 4990 (or even my 3200) do somewhat better. Of course, if you use an enlarger, you don't have to worry about the scanner.

[kipling]

<i>Is DOF always shallow with 4x5 cameras? and why?</i> <p>

no. but, generaly you use larger focal lenth lenses with larger formats, this gives you

shallower dof. you can stop down the apeture or use scheimflug movements to get the

appearance of more dof (goggle scheimflug for detailed info).

[Troll]

The best answer tht I can give is to point out that in their old age, both Ansel Adams and Brett Weston (two of the world's greatest printers), both switched from 8x10 cameras to 6x6. They usually printed at least 16x20, and would not have made the change if it involved a loss of quality. The difference between 6x7 and 4x5 is not so much a technical one, as a philosophical shift.

[keith_laban]

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p>Grain on an 11"x14" using medium format? Good Lord, what films are you guys using?

[michael_briggs2]

The difference in resolution etc. is mostly explained by enlargement factor. An easy experiment that will show most of the effect is to make two enlargements from one of your 6x7 cm negatives: one x2.8, the other x4.7. Of course you have to ignore the different print sizes, but look and see if you see any differences in resolution, sharpness, graininess that matter to you. (For a real 4x5 camera, the comparison would also depend on which lens was used.)

[john_layton]

Depends on the scene. If there is one dominant object plane - as is often the case in a

landscape - you can often accomodate this with the swings and/or tilts offered by the view

camera - to the point where your apparent depth of field will exceed that which you can

realize with your RZ.

 

If there are several object planes, one can often, through a judicious use of a combination

of movements and choice of aperture - arrive at a more than acceptable compromise,

which will still give a more "pleasing" result than one could hope for with medium format.

 

Keep in mind that the comparison of medium to large format would only be truly valid if

each camera in question had identical capabilities in terms of other features (such as

movements) which you may or may not find important - besides just the differences in

film size.

 

The province of large format rests every bit as much in its flexibility of movements as it

does with the size of the film. Try it - you'll get hooked and will never look back! Cheers.

[christopher perez]

I shoot B&W and use Kodak's TMax100. I use both Mamiya 6x7 (RZ and "7") as well as 4x5 (Ikeda Anba, Linhof Technika).

 

If I can use a tripod, the 6x7 images enlarged to 11x14 are difficult to tell the difference from 4x5 images enlarged to that size. When I take a 10x loupe to the enlarged prints, yes, I can see a slight but verifiable difference between the two formats.

 

What I gain by going to 4x5 is image control. And, when compared to the RZ, a lighter kit to carry (9.9 pounds for RZ, 65LA, 110Z, 180WN vs <5 pounds for Anba, 90Angulon, 150Germinar-W, 200Nikkor, Readyload holder, etc.)

 

I've recently learned a very important lesson: It's not the equipment I own that gets a great image. It's the opportunity.

[jim_rhoades]

As much as I love L/F it's a tough question. I shoot a lot of 6x6, 6x7 and 6x12. In 6x6 the Hasselblad holds the film flatter and with tighter lens to film plane tolerance than any L/F camera with filmholder made. Same with the 6x7 and 6x12. In L/F I always use Tri-X. In M/F it's T-Max 100 or Pan F. Sometimes Tri-X but with a 6x7 negative at 11x14 it's damn hard to tell which is which. Yeah with a 10X loupe the 4x5 wins. The question is how large are you going to go? 6x6 on a tripod, mirror up, Pan F, Perceptol, at 16x20 kicks ass. You can use slower film because of the DOF advantage with M/F. Having said all that there is a smoothness of tone that the larger negative gives that makes it easy to enlarge. I would rather enlarge my 4x5 than M/F negatives. More and more I'm saving the 5x7 and 8x10 for Pt/Pd printing and M/F for silver enlarging. Once again how large? 20x24 goes to the 4x5. 11x14 it's M/F. YMMV, given film choice for format.

[troyammons]

just my opinions and rambling so....

 

I had this same question a while back, but not for something so small as an 11x14 print.

 

I did a comparison and in short, at 11x14, i doubt you would see a visible difference at a normal viewing distance and IMO it depends also if its drum scanned, Epson scanned, resized, digital printed or wet printed for big enlargements.

 

In the test I shot E100G in a 4x5 Sinar with a sharp lens, against a Mamiya 7. Personally I did not think the RZ/RB lenses were that great, at least not as sharp as a M7.

 

I drum scanned each, and to tell you the truth, all the detail was there in the M7 shots, but the 4x5 shots were so much cleaner at a large size, and I guess thats my opinion. You get more clean detail with 4x5 but at some point its a wash and not worth it.

 

With 11x14, I dont think it really matters with something like E100G, but if you were going big, like 40x50 which would be 10x for 4x5 or 18x for 6x7, that would make a big difference.

 

I do think 4x5 would work better with 400 film at around a 5x enlargement.

 

For an 11x14 print at 300 dpi you would need a 850 dpi scan for 4x5 or a 1500 dpi scan from 6x7. Although a 850 dpi scan is great, nice and clean, it is way below the resolving power of E100g. I find that a 2000 dpi drum scan of E100G is so clean it is ready to print, so in this case, just for resolution, IMO 4x5 is an overkill for, 11x14 with a clean scanning film.

 

That said an Epson scan at 800 dpi is super clean so if you intend to scan 4x5 with an Epson 4990, I think it might pay to go with 4x5. In that case 6x7 would have more fuzzy detail.

 

Also the other things you mentioned. Besides film area, LF is mostly about movements. I guess one downside for LF is the shallow DOF, but most people are on a tripod with LF anyway so you just need to stop down more.

 

My opinion is that no matter if MF or LF, a 2000-2500 dpi drum scan is the wash point and I rarely scan over that. At 2000 dpi that would buy you almost a 9.8x native enlargement on a lightjet at 204 dpi for either format. An Epson scan is a lot more mushy and after comparing those to drum scans its like dropping a format, like from 4x5 to 6x7.

 

Here is a comparison of what I mentioned above, 4x5 and 6x7 resized to 11x14 at 300 dpi. Actually the 6x7 has a tiny bit of lens advantage.

 

The crops are a 2000 dpi 4x5 drum scan and a 4000 dpi M7 6x7 drum scan (over scanned) and resized to the sinar native scan frame size.

 

Ignore the contrast and look at the edges and noise/grain. It was partly overcast in one of the shots but you will get the idea if you zoom in and look around.

 

http://www.pbase.com/tammons/mf_vs_4x5

[ken_lee11]

One thing to keep in mind is cropping. It's not always possible to have a prime lens in the exact focal length for the subject. Sometimes, we discover a better composition after bringing home the image. Once you start cropping that MF negative down, you are running up against a limit. With 4x5, you have a little more wiggle room to start with.

 

If the subject is architectural or table-top, then some kind of View camera will deliver the goods, due to view camera adjustments. That aside, you have to find the sweet spot where portability, image quality, and affordability converge to your satisfaction.

 

In their later years, Adams and Weston might have needed lighter equipment, so their use of MF gear may have been born out of necessity. It's certainly a bit harder to shoot roll-film and and practice development by inspection, or even simple Zone System controls.

 

The best thing for you to do, is find someone in your area who can show you the prints, side by side. Otherwise, it's just an exercise of the imagination.

[tony_black1]

it looks like there is not much difference in 11"x14" size. i dont think its worthed for all that hassle to change the format.(for 11x14prints of course) .

 

in which size 4x5lf will show its size advantages? 16"x20"?

[noah]

Tony--This is a somewhat strange question, and your last post makes it even more so. If

you're worried at all about the "hassle" of shooting large format, then you would probably

be happier sticking with medium format. I shoot 10x8 film, and it is sometimes a MAJOR

pain in the butt. But I love the slow and methodical process of working with the camera.

Do I love carrying the heavy tripod and huge film holders? Not really. But once I set the

thing up and take a look through the big groundglass, I remember why I go to the trouble

to shoot 10x8. And when I see the negatives and large prints, I am reminded again.

 

I shot quite a bit of 5x4 in college, as well as some 6x6cm with a hasselblad. When

comparing prints at that size, there is certainly a difference. Granted, some of the

differences could be lessened by good drum scans and careful handling and printing, but

with my own work, especially for black and white, I can see a difference, mostly in tonality.

the images also look different because of the depth of field issues discussed above. I know

6x6 is smaller than 6x7, but my 6x6 prints were printed square on the paper, so the

enlargement factor would be the same. The difference at that size is minimal, but I think

you can tell the difference. The difference at that size is less about resolution and more

about tonal range. Of course with 5x4 film, you'd still be in good shape if you all of a

sudden decide you want a 50x40in. print.

 

The difference at small print sizes will be very slight though, and could be minimized even

further by good film choices, etc. So it comes down to using the tool that is right for the

job. If your work requires speed or agility, MF is a hands-down winner. If you like to take

time to set up a photograph and view it on a large groundglass, give LF a try to see if it's

for you. Photography is an art, and while some say the camera isn't important, I do believe

that the process of making photgraphs IS important. If you want the absolute maximum in

sharpness and detail at the expense of some convenience, then a view camera is the right

tool. If you like to work quickly and with a smaller camera, be happy with your RZ.

[eric_leppanen]

For another opinion pertaining to drum scanned and digitally printed chrome film, here are general enlargement guidelines from West Coast Imaging:

 

http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/articles/formatsize.html

 

I am pickier in that I think 6x7 starts running out of gas at print sizes larger than 16x20 (at 16x20, apparent resolution is comparable but LF tonality is superior; beyond 16x20, LF is superior all around), and 4x5 larger than 24x30. I don't think you will see any difference between 6x7 and 4x5 at an 11x14 print size.

 

With analog B&W printing, you will probably see improved tonality between 6x7 and 4x5 when enlarging to 11x14. But the difference is subtle and many casual observers won't notice the difference.

 

IMHO, incremental LF image quality kicks in with print sizes of 16x20 and larger. Of course, LF also has advantages other than sheer resolution (perspective control, ability to custom process individual sheets of film, etc.) that will benefit any print size.

[troyammons]

Again my opinions so.....

 

A 4x5 might be an advantage at 11x14 with grainy film especially hard to scan film like some 400 B+W.

 

For Drum/film scanners and super clean scanning film like E100G, I feel that around 2000 dpi is the clean limit of scanning most of the time. 90% of the time going beyond that resolves very little more detail but it does resolve more grain. At 2000 dpi a wet scan is so clean you can almost send it straight to the printer.

 

I rarely drumscan a 4x5 more than 2000 dpi.

 

A 6x7 just depends. You might want to scan it higher, to do a bigger enlargement, but unless its super sharp like a Mamiya 7 it probably wont resolve much more detail.

 

For a scanner like the Epson 4990, like I said above, its like dropping a format. For me 800 dpi is about it. Maybe 1200 dpi at times on a super sharp negative.

 

From there you can figure it out. If you print at 204 dpi or 304 dpi on a lightjet. Just for argument, say you print on a lightjet at 204 dpi and with a sharp lens would be somewhere somewhere around 4 lp/mm in print and roughly viewable from 20".

 

300 dpi would be 6 lp/mm. Not quite critically sharp but getting there. 8lp/mm in print is considered critically sharp.

 

At any rate 204 dpi would work out to about a 9.8x, so that would yeild a 22" x 25" lightjet print at 204 dpi from a 6x7 slide.

If you wanted to print at 304 dpi or 6 lp/mm that would be 15" x 17"

 

To me thats the break point going from 6x7 to 4x5 unless you need movements. That is considering you have lenses of equal quality and good technique. That would be something like a G-Claron or other super sharp LF lens.

 

If you are going to scan on an Epson at 1200 dpi, (but it would take more sharpening) Your breakpoint for 6x7 would be around 12" x 14" on a lightjet at 204 dpi.

 

Its kindof a mixed bag. Personally I think you have to look at it all, cameras, scanners, film lenses, as a system etc etc. If you have a Mamiya 7 that is resolving 50 lp/mm it makes no sense to me to scan it with a 25 lp/mm Epson scanner.

 

I think in general terms if you are not going to enlarge huge and dont need movements, a sharp MF camera is a whole lot easier to use but definatly not as fun.