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

[q.g._de_bakker]

[shucks....]<br><br><i>" the fact that it's possible to make contacts you can like does not mean that enlarging your negs can"</i> <b>not</b> <i>"produce absolutely great results"</i>.<br><br>Without the double negative: you can create absolutey excellent enlargements, that really deliver the wealth of quality LF has to offer, whether you can produce good contacts (that only hint at the wealth of quality LF has to offer) or not.

[jim_jones3]

<p>Dean -- As Gareth noted above, lenses from older 4x5 cameras can often produce fine images on the two cameras you mentioned in your first post. However, they do have limitations. Usually they do not have enough coverage to make full use of front movements on a view camera. They may have inferior or no coating. Old shutters may need work. Lenses from flea market and garage sale cameras rarely have enough coverage for 4x5. A digital 50mm lens can only be used when mounted backwards on a 4x5 camera for microphotography. For this application, an older Micro-Nikkor or other dedicated macro lens would be better. Even an enlarging lens (often inexpensive, with darkrooms being disgarded) might work. These enlarger and small camera lenses have no shutter, which limits their usefulness. <br>

Most of my 4x5 lenses are decades old. They can do now what they did when new, and great photographers were making great photos with them then. They are also relatively inexpensive. Search this and other forums for practical information. Time invested on the internet saves money invested in lenses. There are many books on large format photography that can help one choose and use equipment.</p>

[clay2]

<p>Great responses folks, thanks.<br>

I didn't mean to start this big a discussion. Q.G. is correct that enlarging a large <br>

format negative will show more detail. (that blurry spot turned out to be a helicopter <br>

in the distance.) I just meant that a large contact has more detail than an enlarged <br>

smaller format. Print whatever way pleases YOU.<br>

Best regards,<br>

/Clay</p>

 

[cjbroadbent]

<p>A couple of points:<br>

Life is simpler with a field camera than it is with a monorail. Tilts and shifts are best kept to a minimum.<br>

Bigger starts to be better from 5x7 up. Digital can match 4x5. But the real 'peaches and cream' comes with 8x10.<br>

One old camera, one old lens, two film holders, a headless video tripod, a single tray, and a printing frame.</p>

 

[cjbroadbent]

<p>A couple of points:<br>

Life is simpler with a field camera than it is with a monorail. Tilts and shifts are best kept to a minimum.<br>

Bigger starts to be better from 5x7 up. Digital can match 4x5. But the real 'peaches and cream' comes with 8x10.<br>

One old camera, one old lens, two film holders, a headless video tripod, a single tray, and a printing frame.</p>

 

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>Dean, It is wise to consider lens use and diffraction between the two system you are considering (4x5 and say 6x7). Small stops are used quite frequently on LF cameras. If you intend to use f/64 on a 4x5, realize that this will limit your resolution. One of the diffraction formulas is 1380/f# ---- 1380/64 = 21.5 LP/mm as a maximum you will attain at that stop. A 6x7 at f/32 will yield a maximum LP/mm of 43. When you compare the size of the film, it is easy to see how you could both negate the advantage of the larger film size and optimize the smaller format depending on how far you stop down. A 4x5 has an advantage over 6x7 if used with diffraction limitations in mind.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Steve makes a good point. Ansel said 'screw diffraction' (not an exact quote), and I generally agree. Getting the DOF you want is usually more important than absolute, clinical sharpness. But if you're selecting a system based almost entirely on resolution, then it's a very important factor to consider.</p>

[leighb]

<p>Diffraction is a grossly over-hyped and generally inconsequential aberration when considering real photos.</p>

<p>The "diffraction formula" given by Steve above is ridiculously simplified.</p>

<p>Quoting from the Wikipedia page on the Fraunhofer Diffraction Equation:<br /> "It is not a straightforward matter to calculate the displacement given by the sum of the secondary wavelets, each of which has its own amplitude and phase, since this involves addition of many waves of varying phase and amplitude. When two waves are added together, the total displacement depends on both the <a title="Amplitude" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplitude">amplitude</a> and the <a title="Phase (waves)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_%28waves%29">phase</a> of the individual waves: two waves of equal <a title="Amplitude" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplitude">amplitude</a> which are in phase give a displacement whose amplitude is double the individual wave amplitudes, while two waves which are in opposite phases give a zero displacement. Generally, a two-dimensional integral over complex variables has to be solved and <strong>in many cases, an analytic solution is not available</strong>."</p>

<p>If a general analytic solution is unavailable at the calculus level, it is certainly not available by simple division.</p>

<p>The effects of diffraction depend on the area and circumference of the aperture, and are less<br /> with longer focal lengths (i.e. larger aperture for a given f#) as are commonly found on LF cameras.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

<p>Ref: Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_diffraction</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Not so, Leigh.<br>Diffraction may appear difficult to get a mathematical grip on by some. But it nevertheless is very real. You really (as in: you will see it) halve the resolution about every two stops you stop a lens down. There's nothing ridiculous about it.<br><br>Yes, one could say "screw it!". But it doesn't care, and in turn screws us at such a rate that it's not only the photographer who's anal about critical sharpness who will notice that you can't ignore it or laugh it away (though, obviously, the photographer who doesn't care will not care. ;-) )<br><br>That's why the f/64 club was such a funny proposal. They cared for critical sharpness, because it would convey a realism not found in the pictorial style. So far so good.<br>Yet by believing that maximum DoF would create maximum reality, they sacrificied (apparently unwittingly) the very thing they were hoping would oppose and eventually finish off that old-fashioned style.

[rob_hale1]

<p>Hi Guys,<br /><br />Umm, contact prints. I have yet to meet some who has not been impressed by well made contact prints 4 x 5, 5 x 7, 8 x 10, 11 x 14 above this size the camera lenses “seem” to loose a little something, still very impressive.<br />Part of the answer can be found in the research done by Ctein and can read in his book “Post exposure” second edition Focal Press ISBN 0-240-80437-6, if you have not read this book perhaps you should.<br>

<br />Also remember a lot of papers have at least 60 lpm resolving power, so when you put another lenses in process chain, in an enlarger – no matter how good the lenses “you will loose print quality”.<br /><br />Humm, the enlarger can be considered to be a device of convince that allows photographers to carry small cameras by sacrificing the print quality. It made mass photography commercially viable thus allowing “every one” to make pictures and so creating an enormous demand for film, chemistry, cameras and lenses, labs to process film, a demand for papers and associated chemistry, toners etc and for printing. <strong>Thankfully</strong>, so, we, you and I now have the options to print stunning contact prints up to 11 x 14 and some pretty impressive stuff up what is 20 x 24 ? and also print from small handy cameras up to a commercially acceptable standard. <br /><br />Regards<br /><br />Rob</p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>Just to clarify things; Spherical, coma, astigmatism, curvature of field, distortion, lateral chromatic, longitudinal chromatic (and combinations of these i.e. spherochromatism) are aberrations. Diffraction is not. </p>

[leighb]

<p>It all depends on your definition of aberration.</p>

<p>To my mind, anything that distorts the image on the film is an aberration.</p>

<p>You can use a different definition if you wish.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Hey guys, Steve's formula is pretty good. I learned 1600/f as the diffraction limit in lp/mm. The difference is probably which wavelength for light you assume.</p>

<p>Bob Atkins has a <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/diffraction.html">pretty good page about diffraction and format size</a>. Like Steve, he talks about diffraction as different from lens aberration. With one set of reasonable assumptions, he suggests f/22 as the limiting aperture for 35mm and f/180 as the limiting aperture for 8x10. For a somewhat smaller circle of confusion and sharper print, you would open a stop or more from these. </p>

<p> </p>

[Uhooru]

<p>essentially, things being equal, size counts when it comes to negatives. The possibilities inherent in a LF negative when properly shot and developed is well beyond the capacities of MF. Not that MF is bad by any means. When I was in school, I rented a calumet simple 4x5 and I didn't like it. It didn't have gears for any of the adjustments meaning when you had to tilt and shift you had to press the loupe against the glass with your eye socket while you used one hand to unscrew the adjustment, then adjust and use the left hand to hold the adjustment steady while you tightened the screw. If you can, look around for one of the Toyos that have geared knobs, life be very much easier. But other than that, I don't know very much about what camera's are good for a beginner and what lenses etc.</p>

[richardsperry]

Dean,

 

Research the Caltar line of lenses. They are private labeled versions of the German lenses.

 

You can probably get a good user 150 or 210 lens in the $200 range.

[zack_zoll]

<p>Barry, bigger is always theoretically better. But depending on what reading Dean has been doing, it may not be that much better. Take, for instance, the new Portra versus older designs, like VPS. The new Portra has a broader tonal range, and finer grain. I don't have enough old VPS in my freezer to do a proper test (and frankly wouldn't waste it if I did), but I would be very surprised if a smaller format Portra (say 4x5) didn't produce the same results as a larger format (5x7, or even 8x10) VPS negative - especially if scanned. Ditto for Acros and TXP, etc.</p>

<p>There are two reasons this is important - it's not just a thought experiment. The first one is that a lot of Dean's reading is probably going to have been written some time ago - certainly well before the most recent colour films came out. His instructors probably also grew up using those older films, and are likely to tell him the same thing: that an 8x10, at almost any size, beats a 4x5. And twenty years ago, it did.</p>

<p>The other reason is more pragmatic. Older readings may suggest other formats like 5x7, which really aren't usable these days. I don't believe there is currently a single manufacturer of colour 5x7 sheet film; you'd need to buy 8x10 and cut it down. In total darkness. The same goes for any sheet films sized under 4x5 - no colour option, and very few black and white options.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Dean. Years ago I took the same image with Velvia 50 film on three different formats with lenses approximating the same view. The difference from 35mm to 6x6 was awesome, but the difference from 6x6 to 4x5 was staggering. Not only in resolution of detail but in depth of colour, and contrast, likely due to the thicker emulsion and possibly better lenses.</p>

<p>I attempted ultrawideangle landscape/architectural 4x5 photography and I can tell you from experience that trying to do this with a low budget is not a good idea. In my particular situation I needed accurate shutters, which I did not have, and a more capable camera, which I did not have. I highly recommend in budgeting for lenses with excellent shutters or spending the money for a CLA from the start. Also give some thought as to what you will be photographing and chose the most appropriate camera you can afford. There is a lot of info on the internet.</p>

<p>A year ago I considered upgrading both but chose a different path for a couple of reasons. 4x5 film, and any pro film in any format for that matter, is hard to find in my big city. Though, I am sure I could have mail ordered from somewhere. However, finding labs for processing in my area (within 1.25 hour drive) that were open when I could get there was also proving to be a challenge. Be sure to check for both in your area. For the type of 4x5 photography I wanted to do, which was ultrawideangle landscape/architecture, not only did I need to upgrade my equipment but I needed to dedicate much more time and effort to the procedure, and shoot on a regular basis to ensure that I was using loaded film at it's best. I did not even have a comfortable situation for loading film in absolute dark on a regular basis, so make sure you have a solution for this too.</p>

<p>Results from 4x5 are amazing but I can not stress enough the dedication required to each individual image. 4x5 photography requires absolute patience, and mental focus. I would love to get into 4x5 again when I retire, and can dedicate the time involved, but I suspect film/processing will be virtually gone by then. </p>

<p>For most of the Ansel Adams images that I have seen f64, even f32, would not have been a requirement. For the images I am interested in creating everything from a few inches from the camera to infinity must be in focus so for me f32 was the minimum and preferably f45 and f64. Diffraction was of secondary interest to me. With high resolution, high contast film, that I prefer this means very long exposure times in the early and late hours of the day, going beyond the speeds of LF shutters. If this is of interest to you a good stop-watch will be your best friend. For mid-day shots the speeds of the shutter are fine, but again they must be accurate.</p>

<p>My apologies if I seem to put a negative spin on 4x5, this is not my intent, I just want to provide some realistic insight. The resulting images can be extremely rewarding. Have fun with it.</p>

[paulie_smith1]

<p>There are many good reasons Arizona Highways magazine requested 4x5 chromes for so many years.<br>

Just as with auto racing 'you can't beat cubic inches'... with photography 'you can't beat square inches'.<br>

Bigger is better when it comes to ultimate quality in a print. A 12x20 contact print is something to see. A 20x24 even more so.<br>

But, with many it won't matter as the photos are often exercises in copy work of scenic viewpoints rather than fine and original photography.<br>

If the final image is excellent it does not matter what the format, film or camera brand is. But don't let excuses get in the way of technical excellence. Nothing is gained by poor quality and technique and it often overshadows fine vision.<br>

Large format has advantages and a well printed contact print has more to offer than most enlargments can produce.<br>

So, I refer you to some luddites: <a href="http://www.michaelandpaula.com">http://www.michaelandpaula.com</a> who produce excellent work. Take a look at Paula's book HIGH PLAINS FARM. (you can get it used from Amazon for under $20. You will see what contact prints can be like. Even more impressive when you see the original prints. Then you can move up to Michaels 8x20 prints.</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_south]

My two cents: MF is faster, easier to use, and when using flash afar least, hand holdable. Film comes in a roll, so you

can shot one exposure after another for a while.

 

LF has movements built in for any lens. Also, any lens can be used for macro photography (limited by bellows

extension). But the process of setting up a shot is slower and tripod use is almost always necessary. Film comes in

sheets that you have to individually load and unload and carry around in heavy, bulky holders.

[q.g._de_bakker]

So how about using roll film (and most of the MF formats - some oversized, which you can't get anywhere else) in, or rather: behind a LF camera?<br>Though i indeed feel stupid using an LF camera to expose a 6x6 or 6x7 cm bit of film (i don't even dare to switch the magazine to 6x4.5 format), you do get the full range of movements, the slower work, and also the convenience of processing (and scanning) roll film.<br><br>And as long as there are no (affordable) scanners that can scan 4x5" (or larger) as well as the (already expensive) roll film scanners will scan roll film, i don't think you're giving up anything putting MF behind a LF camera.<br>Assumed, of course, that you need the images in digital form.<br><br>One note about macro: though, with long enough bellows, you can focus every lens you put on a LF camera pretty close, that does not mean that you can use any lens you put on a LF camera for macro. Some lenses are just not good enough, others (usually ones made with this specific application in mind) excell in it.