MF same as LF? Really?

[kcrisp]

I've seen a series of declarations here that MF results are essentially the same as LF results up to print sizes of 16X20, 20X24, and most recently 20X30. I'm not being critical, but this just doesn't agree with my experience. I think I can tell the difference in an 11X14. If you're one of those advocates of this equivalence, tell me briefly what film/developer combination you think gets you there and I'll try it/them. Thanks.

[paul_owen]

I've always found it hard to believe that some claim MF can equal

or better LF. I think everyone agrees that generally some MF

lenses are shrper than LF lenses - and some people obviously

equate this to an ability to make beter quality images. However,

in my experience this doesn't mean that MF can match LF. MF

lenses don't have the same degree of coverage as LF lenses

and I for one CAN tell the difference between the MF and LF

shots that I take! LF prints are far superior when it comes to

overall quality. BTW, I regularly judge photographic society/club

competitions here in the UK and it is clear in most cases, which

entries have been taken with which format.

[brian yarvin]

Good Grief! What ever happened to that great feeling of looking at an

image under the focusing cloth? What is that the equivalent to?

 

<p>

 

What is the equivalent of the creative growth I experienced from

taking extra time to study my images?

 

<p>

 

There is no equivalent...Nothing matches anything!

 

<p>

 

Some film and developer combinations will give you "better" results

than others (but who knows what you're looking for besides you?) but I

always wind up choosing the format that looks like it will yeild the

most creative result - that could be a Holga, a veiw camera, or an

OM1, but there's no way that one can be the equivalent of another.

 

<p>

 

 

Great results can be had in any format, but I don't choose one because

I want to be better than somebody else, I choose what I choose because

I want to be the best I can be.

[audidudi]

As one who owns both medium-format and 4x5 view cameras, I have made

this comparison a few times.

 

<p>

 

It's been my experience that when the images are scanned and printed

digitally, the difference in quality (using Provia 100F) is neglible

up to maybe 16x24 (16x20 for 4x5) and certainly 12x18 (12x15). This

may not hold true for other films and/or printing processes but IMO,

it does hold true for images printed with Epson inkjet printers.

 

<p>

 

Although shooting rollfilm does limit my option to have large prints

made in the future, I've found the cost savings and ease of use more

than make up for this. YMMV, of course...

[george_huczek]

I think it is fair to say that MF can come close to matching 4x5

quality, but when you compare it to 8x10, the difference becomes more

apparent.

[jeff_buckels]

Gimme a break. A 2.25 negative englarged to 8x10 is grainier than an

8x10 contact print. It's the same film. The difference in size makes

for a different degree of grain given an equivalent print size. -jb

[jim_galli4]

If someone wants to strictly play armchair numbers games, there are a

very few MF lenses that can surpass the resolution that large format

lenses routinely achieve. Mamiya 7 rangefinders, and likely some

fujinon MF lenses come to mind. However out in the real world those

small gains are almost always compromised for depth of field. At f22

the gains are equalized by diffraction. Then it's a simple matter of

pluses in the LF column gained by perspective control and a negative

4X larger. There's no rocket science needed to figure out why the LF

negs can hold together past the 16X20 print sizes. There's a lot of

ignorance too. People will pay the big bucks for lenses that can

resolve 95 lines at f11, then fill the freezer with Tri-X and D76 and

couldn't get 55 lines on the neg because of grain size. OTOH if

someone needs a 3X4" magazine picture the camera I'm going to grab has

a 5 letter name that starts and ends with N. Think right tool for the

job, not mine's bigger than yours.

[steve_feldman]

In my humble opinion . . .

 

<p>

 

Only the same is the same.

 

<p>

 

Everything else is different.

[edsel_adams]

I think that in recent years,with advances in emulsions &

optics,the gap has certainly narrowed.A 6x7 or 6x9 camera can now

produce results that a few years ago would have required 4x5 negs!The

next issue is that of enlarging 4x5 negs,unless the enlarger & lens

are top quality,MF could have an edge here.

[steve_gangi2]

Of course film emulsions have improved and that's good. But, those

improvements also affected the film used in larger cameras - not just

medium format cameras. So, we are back to square one. There is no

equivalence and there was never intended to be any. Each is a tool

for a certain job. Any film/chemical used in one format can just as

easily be used in a larger format. Grain is grain. In a 4x5 print

you won't see a difference. In a 16x20 print you will.

[jonathan brewer]

Jim.....I read your thread without my glasses, but I'm glad to

see that you love Contax.

[david_grandy5]

I think that the depth of detail that you get when you increase neg

size is what it's all about. The grain in ISO 100 colour films used

in a large MF (6x7) format are superb. But you still see the

nuances of detail in a 4x5 or 8x10 image that MF doesn't and never

will have.

[roger_urban3]

This sort of thread comes up periodically. I remember the first time

I read a post from someone with rave reviews about a Minox picture

that was sharper than LF, complete with all the math number

crunching, etc. There's always a way to emphasize some factors and de-

emphasize others those that don't support your argument.

 

<p>

 

If we backfill the claims that mf is equal or better than LF, then

why sotp there? Why not make the analogy 35mm vs MF?

 

<p>

 

I use everything from 35mm to LF, including Technical Pan, Velvia,

etc. Provided the subject is the same, nothing comes close to the

impact that LF has on the viewer. Just use the right tool for the

job, like 35mm for quick action sports, LF for landscape, MF for

portrait, etc. Of course you can always use a format for something a

different format is better suited for.

 

<p>

 

An 8x10 from a 4x5 will be so sharp you'll have to protect your eyes.

It's statement that 'MF equals it' couldn't be uttered if pictures of

the same subject matter on the same type of film were placed side by

side.

 

<p>

 

A 4x6" print from a 35mm looks inferior to a 4x6" print from a MF

6.45, and is expecially obvious when the two are placed next to

eachother.

[chris_jordan3]

In my experience, the people arguing that MF is as sharp as LF are

always the people using MF...

[dan_fromm1]

Um, er, ah surely it depends a little on what you mean by MF and what

you mean by LF. Coupla years ago one of my pals stepped up from 25 mm

to 6x4.5, or as we americans say, 2 1/4 x 2 3/4. Got himself a very

nice Pentax 645 that does nearly everything for him. Slowed down,

started thinking.

 

<p>

 

When he came by last spring, I showed him some 6x9, sorry, 2 1/4 x 3

1/4, EPP slides I shot with a 2x3 Speed Graphic and 101 Ektar. He's

still stewing. If he doesn't abandon film for digital, a real

possibility, I think he'll go 4x5.

[jonathan brewer]

There are some pencil sketches in museums by masters that are

forever, timeless, and there'll be subject matter produced with

expensive brushes, 35mm, MF, and LF that may make it to the top but it

won't be because of what gear produced the sharpest 20x24 print.

 

<p>

 

Pencils, crayons, brushes, Holgas, Polaroid SX-70, Nikon, MF, LF,

whatever the tool of choice, none of this makes the final difference.

The idea is the final equalizer. Whoever comes up with the best idea

transcends his gear.

 

<p>

 

I've got an old lens that I use on one of my 35mm cameras that's

plenty soft compared to what's being sold today, but it's nice on head

shots, if that's the look that I'm after.

 

<p>

 

There are just so many other considerations, processes, effects,

that are just as important as the difference between the gear.

[pete_andrews]

I shoot both MF and 5x4, and with T-max100 film the grain is near

enough invisible in either format. In nearly every case where I've

shot the same subject on both formats, my MF prints are actually

sharper. I can think of several reasons for this:<p>Primarily, MF

cameras are made to a MUCH higher standard of precision than any LF

camera, and they hold the film flatter.<br>Secondly, no two 5x4 makers

can agree what the register of a 5x4 camera ought to be. Should it be

5.5mm, 5mm, 4.8, 4.75? (The maker's attitude seems to be - Huh?, we

don't know. We only make 'em. We don't have to use the darn

things.) And in addition, most filmholders don't actually lie very

flat against the camera back. Consider that it takes just a 0.2 mm

error in film plane (the thickness of a sheet of film) to give a one

metre discrepancy in focus at 10 metres with a 150mm lens. With a 90

mm lens the error is 3 metres in 10!<p>Then the exposure time with LF

is almost invariably longer that its MF equivalent, leading to subject

movement, no matter how slight, which takes the edge off

sharpness.<br>Now add the effect of diffraction at the small apertures

necessary with LF, and it's very easy to see why MF usually comes out

on top in terms of sharpness.<p>What MF can't offer is a full range of

camera movements, and that's where LF wins out.<br>I can honestly see

no other advantage that LF gives these days.

[audidudi]

Pete, there are several MF view cameras that DO offer "the full range

of camera movements" -- my Toyo 23G is a scaled-down version of their

45G and has every movement available that it does -- and if you use a

good quality back (in my experience, the Toyo backs are the best) and

choose your lenses carefully, the resulting images will be comparable

(not identical, mind you, but comparable) to those shot with a typical

MF rangefinder or SLR.

[daniel_luu_van_lang]

I shoot both MF and LF,IMHO, they are differents tools, it depends on

what kind of photo you plan to shoot, and LF is not better than MF. I

think sharpness is not all, when I look to a photo from a reasonable

distance, I don't care about sharpness; The subject itself seems more

important, then many other things like contrast, light, shades

....Anyway, since there is more silver to record each detail on a LF

neg, it's obvious that you will get more informations on it. That means

more nuances in the shades, more velvety in the textures, and many

other things more!

At the end, OK! you're right, MF can't match LF

[kcrisp]

I did not intend the question to be rhetorical. If someone really

thinks (I only shoot B&W) that there is a film/develper combination

that is capable of making a print in 16X20 or larger which is, for

all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from a 4X5 or larger in

normal viewing conditions, tell me what to try and I will try it.

There are now 17 responses, none of which answer that question.

Everyone who thinks this isn't possible...well...my experience kind

of agrees with that but there have been so many people declaring

otherwise I wanted to ask a serious question without merely providing

a platform for a rerun of the debate.

[wilhelmn]

What are you shooting now? 4x5? 8x10? What film and developer are

you using? Old Turner-Reichs or new MC Apo-Symmars? Please give

enough information that an informed response is possible. Thank

you.

[kcrisp]

Fair enough. 75% of the time I shoot 5X7, the rest is 4X5. Primary

film choice is Tri-X, although I've been using the Arista 125 speed

film (Hp4?) lately and like it. Generally Tri-X is developed in

HC110 "B." Ditto for the Arista but I also like the way it works

with Rodinal 1:50. In 4X5 it is usually Tri-X but sometimes TMAX 100

in d:76 1:1. Normally I use APO Schneider lenses, but I also use a

variety of older unusual glass, not all of it coated. I agree that

at normal viewing distances it is arguable that an 11X14 print off a

medium format negative (say TMAX 100 or Agfapan 25, or HP4) is pretty

close to a 4X5 with Tri-X. But people on this format are making

claims with respect to much larger prints, and I'm interested to know

what material choices they have made.

[jim_galli4]

Well I still won't answer your question Kevin but will add I'm

finishing up a job for Pioneer Territory here in Nevada that required

14 20X30's and I used Mamiya 6X9 and Velvia. My customer is more than

pleased and the resulting prints are adequate++! Sure I could've used

4X5 but the expense which turned out to be pretty tight made much more

sense with rollfilm. I shot quite a bit of film before we narrowed

things down. Would 4X5 have been superior in quality? Perhaps to

some other photographers, but I made the pictures for "other than."

I'll add also that the transition from traditional enlarger type color

prints to scans and lightjet has added some quality making the use of

the smaller camera even more possible.

 

<p>

 

That said, I haven't been able to make black and white pictures with

the Mamiya that are satisfying to ME. That's who I make those for.

I've used Ilford FP4 and PYRO and can't live with the grain in the sky

at even 16X20 even though they are quite sharp. Like you I do those

pics in 4X5, 5X7, and larger.

[gene_crumpler8]

I've been chasing this holy grail for years. Load up a 6x7 camera with

Tech Pan and develop in Technidol, Ethol TEC or a similar developer. I

would be using a p67 and my favorite and sharpest lens, the new 55mm

f4. You will get some wonderful 22x28's (largest that I make)prints.

If you use tech pan in a 4x5, the results will even better!

[gene_crumpler8]

I've got some Gigibit film and developer on order. I'm interested to

see what that is all about, since I have used AGFA Copex before for

pictorial photography.