Spoiled by LF vs 35mm

[wally_hess]

OK, I'm spoiled.

After doing large format for about a year now, I have gotten spoiled

by the sharpness of the prints - 8x10, 11x14, that I do, as compared

to 35mm pictures.

I know it's not a fair comparison, but yesterday evening I developed

some 35mm film I had taken at a time when I was out of my favorite

4x5 film and just HAD to take pictures.

I applied all of the skills in metering, zone placement of values,

careful development to maximize the highlights, etc. and the results

were..... CRAP!

I dont mean the negatives or the subjects. I mean when I printed the

best of them on 8x10, I immedialely felt a let down because I was

missing the detail I always find on the 4x5 shots. I guess I have

gotten so used to the tonality and detail that I now simply expect

it, and was disappointed with the 35 mm stuff.

I plan to shoot 6x7 MF this weekend and hope for better results!

[david_tolcher]

Wally, interesting observation and opposite to my recent experiences. I have been putting delta 400 through my old Nikon F3 and 35mm F1.4 / 105mm F1.8 outfit and am really pleased with the results. They are different subjects but the sharp grain giving great texture on a fibre based paper up to I guess 14X10 is just lovely. I have been blasting away on automatic, near wide open and it has been a joy. Here is an example

 

Dave

 

http://www.btinternet.com/~davidjt/

[scott_walton2]

I know the feeling! I haven't taken my 35mm stuff out for years except for

recently when I was shooting some snaps of my son's Little League games...

his first year so I thought I wanted to document. Although it was nice and

LIGHT and all that, I don't really plan to enlarge them so I won't have to go to

therapy... on this one at least... :)

[jose_angel]

Wally, I feel the same as you! Now when I need a hand portable camera I don't want to take my 35mm staff ! (Nikon AiS with a very loved F3).

 

I think also in a MF to use for snapshots! (Perhaps a little 6x9 could be enough...)

[david_goldfarb]

Every tool has its place. I only use 35mm for B&W if I want a grainy effect or as a kind of sketch medium, but I still use it all the time if I need a long telephoto lens or 35mm slides.

[Troll]

Sounds like you need to work on your 35mm technique.

[nick_morris]

Wally, I recently suffered the same experience. I started using an 8x10 last summer, and even 4x5 was no longer "acceptable", never mind 35mm. Even though I have an old Rollei twin lens, I thought what I really needed was 6-7, so I bought a Koni-Omega 200 as the compromise for big neg/portability. Big neg and portable, but not as good quality as 4x5 (forget 8x10!!!), and not as portable as 35mm. So, I'm enjoying 35mm again for what it is best suited.

But I am also trying to utilize the larger formats for less formal scenes; street scenes and some event-documentary type picture making. Anyway, that was my experience, if it is of any help to you.

[gary_meader]

Wally- I understand what you're going through, but will add a

twist. A few years ago, after using 4x5 exclusively for about 10

years, my wife and I photographed children reading in a variety of

settings for a book publisher. You know, kids reading at school,

kids reading outside, kids reading ad infinitum. Anyway, we did

this for about a year, and when I got the urge and time to make

some of my own work again, I found some of my skills had

diminished. Really. The ease of 35 had taken the edge off of

my seeing ability or something. And I had to work quite

deliberately to regain that edge. Don't know if that a normal thing

or not, just thought you'd like to know that even if 35 doesn't live

up to other formats visually, its siren song of ease of use is very

persuasive. My 2¢

[john_cook1]

I used to have the same problem. It occured in the print darkroom. The prints would look absolutely gorgeous in the fixer under safelight. But the minute I flicked on the white inspection light, my heart would sink, seeing all the grain and flaws.

 

My first thought was to set up a print gallery illuminated only by safelight. But then I was afraid my wife would insist on identical lighting for our dining table and bedroom.

 

The solution for me was to develop my fast 35mm film in Rodinal 1:100 and celebrate the inevitable grain as a SFX.

[david_goldfarb]

Hey, Bill, I didn't say I couldn't get "better" results from 35mm, but I'm just not interested in doing so. If I want fine grain and smooth tonality, it's much easier to use a bigger camera, and the results will be much better. If I want gritty, it's much easier to do that with 35mm Tri-X in Dektol.

[wally_hess1]

To Bill Mitchell

 

You may be right about my 35mm technique. It's rusty, but I did use a tripod for every shot. If there is a problem it would be in focusing, as my 48 yr old eyes can't easily discriminate the focus field in the tiny view finder and be sure everything is in focus. I think part of the LF appeal is that I can focus better on the large ground glass, and use a magnifier to check

I think this applies to the 6x7 as well since the RB67 has a tiny pop-up magnifier to help me view the ground glass.

[__jon__]

>Sounds like you need to work on your 35mm technique.

 

Sounds like another useless, one line, Bill Mitchell response.

 

Wally,

 

What I discovered when I went out and shot some 35mm Tri-X yesterday was

that I found it irritating that I couldn't control the processing of each frame... The film came out fine (and even a keeper or two), but 4x5 sure has changed they way I think about processing.

[syd]

Don't mean to speak out of turn here but being an RB67 Pro-S shooter most of the time I thought I might be able to share something regarding 35mm. I have recently gotten frustrated with the 127mm C because I shoot allot of Landscapes and it's the only lens I currently have for the RB. Anyhoo I went back to shooting 35mm with my old Contax 139Q using a trusty Yashica 24mm ML a few weeks back, and I have been blown away by the results to be honest. Sure, I haven't been enlarging these from tranny but under the 5.5 loupe they look pretty darn good to me. I was just really impressed with the strength of the format and can understand why National Geo shoots so much 35mm. In the right hands it's a powerful medium and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't still have it's uses and place within a professional shooters armoury.

 

0.2 c; best to all, Simon

[armin_seeholzer]

Hi Wally

 

I'm only one year younger but I see it different and get results with my F5 and the sharpest lenses from Nikon and an APO as enlarging lens for my 35mm and many people asked is it MF, when they saw my 30x40cm prints?

It is more important to work with the best materials in 35mm then in MF or LF! Because of the enlarging factor!

So don't take bottles as enlarging lenses!

Have fun with all your cameras maybe your 35 mm need a service!

Good light!

[graphicjoe]

Gee,

 

I�m amazed at the excellence of the images that I can get with my Leica. When I optimize every aspect of the work the results are surprising. Optimizing refers to using a tripod, using an aperture of around f 5.6 or f 4, fine grain film, scrupulously clean optics, careful processing, the best enlarging technique, etc.

 

It�s not the same as 4 X 5, but it�s pretty good. In fact, I suspect that a lot folks could look at a carefully produced 11 X 14 print and not see much difference between it an similar images from a larger format camera. This is especially true in cases where the smaller camera�s advantages come into play. The advantages obtained by using large cameras are not proportionate to the increase in size. The depth of field of the smaller camera can sometimes make possible pictures that could not be made with a large format camera.

 

Cheers,

 

Joe Stephenson

[jay_de_fehr]

It seems that every time someone posts a comment about the differences in image quality between LF and smaller format, some shooters of said smaller format take offense and make all kinds of claims and accusations like, "sounds like your technique needs work", or "No one can tell my enlargements from contact prints", or some other such nonsense. Why is it so hard to accept the mathematics of film area and enlargement factor? All things being equal, more film area and/or less enlargement = higher quality image. That says nothing about technique, convenience, or most importantly, content, just that the same image made with a larger and smaller format, and/or enlarged to a greater or lesser degree will display differences in image quality, and that those differences will favor the larger format/lesser enlargement. Don't take it personally, but 2+2 doesn't make 5.

[david_goldfarb]

Oh, Bill shoots 4x5" too. He's just like that.

[graphicjoe]

Jay,

 

I�m not clear, after reading the posts in this thread, who you feel �took offense.� One might argue that one of the posts was not very helpful, but offense? I don�t see it.

 

One might just as well ask why you cannot accept the observations of other photographers about their experience. Do you not credit the comments that were made by myself, Armin, and Simon? Do you ever work in 35 mm, taking the steps necessary to achieve maximum quality? None of us claimed that 35 mm is equal to larger formats, only that the quality that can be achieved is amazing.

 

To my eye the quality that can be achieved in 35 mm is amazing. Not equal to larger formats, not better than larger formats, but all the same, amazing. The image quality achieved on a 20 square inch negative is often better than that can be realized on a 1.5 square inch negative, but it�s not 13 times better.

 

Each format has its place. There are times when an image can be made with a 35 mm camera when a large format camera could not even make an image.

 

Cheers,

 

Joe Stephenson

[wally_hess]

I did some more testing yesterday and today with the 35mm, using a tripod and the various lenses on 2 different camera bodies, using two different enlargers, 2 different lenses with the same poor results (comparatively speaking). I believe that the poor quality I have been experiencing is due to my aging eyes and inability to focus properly. I reluctantly will have to give up my favorite manual 35mm camera and purchase a new 35mm autofocus auto everything for those shots only 35mm can make and use the 4x5 and 8x10 for the rest. Getting old is a bitch!

[wally_hess]

Sorry, one more thing. I know this is a large format group, but can anyone recommend a new-fangled 35mm autofocus camera in the less than $500 range? I really only plan to shoot black and white "people shots" and leave the landscapes for LF.

 

Due to my failing eyesight problem, would a SLR or range finder be easier to focus?

Thanks to all who responded

[syd]

Addendum,

I should have added, thanks to Wally for reminding me, that I always use a tripod for every shot I take, plus a cable release and when and where I can I always lock up the mirror. This stands for 35mm, 6x7 and LF should I be shooting any of these formats and perhaps my own personal results reflect my work ethic as much as the superb quality of the slower asa films on the market these days.

 

Best to all, Simon

[jay_de_fehr]

Joe, I'm glad you're not offended, but I stand by my statement that the math doesn't lie. A 20 square inch neg. IS 13xbetter than a 1.5 square inch negative, all things being equal. The dof advantages of the smaller formats is something of a red herring as well, as camera movements largely displace those. In the practice of black and white photography there are few issues that are truly black and white, but the relationship between film area/enlargement and image quality is one exception. In the end, your experiences are your own, but they don't change the facts.

Sincerely,

J. De Fehr

[Troll]

Sorry, Jay, but your premise is flawed. "All other things being equal" is never the case, and certainly doesn't apply to the incredible variety of photographic processes.

[wally_hess]

Here's another follow up to my testing. I wanted to remove the enlarging process from the equation and so examined some of the negatives under a microscope at 40X and compared them to similar images from a 4x5 negative.

What struck me immediately was that the 35mm negatives DID have fine detail, except it was obscured by the relative grain size. I then noticed the tiny process bubbles in the film substrate itself, (checked the space between frames) looking very much like grain. So in addition to having grain it also has tiny voids or bubble embedded into the film iteself (It makes sense, just never thought about it)that add to the fuzziness of the image.

 

All added up, the effects combine to degrade the final print image: 48yr old eyes + 25yr old lens + film grain + film bubbles + 8X magnification + film curl + enlarger lens imperfections + optical misalignment + paper curl. It's amazing that anything recognizable come out.

[jay_de_fehr]

O.K. Bill, let me simplify it for you. Bigger film and or smaller degree of enlargement = greater image quality."All things being equal" is a convention to avoid all of the myriad of irrelevant variables from a specific point, but you know that don't you? Complicate it as much as you like, but those are the facts. If this premise is flawed, I'd like to know how. If you argue that one should reasonably expect the same detail and tonality from 35mm negs as one does with 4x5 negs, I'd be interested to see your argument. If you just want to go on making pronouncements like "your 35mm technique needs work" or "your premise is flawed", there are far more interesting people with whom to correspond.