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

[Dean Taylor]

hello--

Please take moment to define different qualities of prints for both medium and large format photography. Said another way: is it true that for b & w prints the larger format will capture more light-bearing image--and, is preferred for that reason (owing solely to larger surface area of negative) than a medium format negative--or, does the MF negative have features particular to that format size (e.g., thinner emulsion) that LF does not?

I am venturing into LF--keh has a couple of basic 4 x5 cameras for around $200: an omega

4X5 OMEGA VIEW 45C LARGE FORMAT VIEW CAMERA BODY http://is.gd/liCTaQ

and a calumet

4X5 CALUMET 540 CHROME LARGE FORMAT VIEW CAMERA BODY http://is.gd/6yc7N6

Which appears to be the better value?

Thank you

Dean Taylor

[kzphoto]

The larger the capture size, the bigger your final output can become. If you like to be methodical and spend awhile planning each shot, shoot LF.

[Vics]

The old-school rule of thumb was that the farther away from the camera the subject is, the bigger the piece of film y.ou need. To capture all the fine detail in that mountain way over there (and to be able to make it hold up in a 16x20 print) you want to go the biggest you can afford.

[Roger Hicks]

Film flatness and location are normally significantly inferior with LF, so the benefits you get in sharpnessare considerably less than in direct proportion to the format size, especially at larger apertures (f/8-f/11 or bigger). Tonality is another matter.

Cheers,

R.

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by Vics

The old-school rule of thumb was that the farther away from the camera the subject is, the bigger the piece of film y.ou need. To capture all the fine detail in that mountain way over there (and to be able to make it hold up in a 16x20 print) you want to go the biggest you can afford.

Vic, I've never hear it put that way, but it's intuitively sounds correct. Would it not apply for wide-angle vs narrow-angle lenses too?

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Film flatness and location are normally significantly inferior with LF, so the benefits you get in sharpnessare considerably less than in direct proportion to the format size, especially at larger apertures (f/8-f/11 or bigger). Tonality is another matter.

Cheers,

R.

Roger, is this caused by the same size of grain in both small and large format film?

In other words the higher number of "dots" (for my lack of a better word) available in larger piece of film to record the same subject yields better transition between shades of grey which we perceive as tonality?

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by shadowfox

Roger, is this caused by the same size of grain in both small and large format film?

In other words the higher number of "dots" (for my lack of a better word) available in larger piece of film to record the same subject yields better transition between shades of grey which we perceive as tonality?

Dear Will,

I think that's as good a way of putting it as any. At least, as far I as understand it. Basically, a 3x enlargement from a well-processed, well-exposed neg should look very, very like a contact print, so that's postcard off 35mm, whole-plate off 6x7 cm, 12x16 inch off 4x5 inch. At these magnifications, sharpness shouldn't be an issue.

Cheers,

R.

[acheyj]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Film flatness and location are normally significantly inferior with LF, so the benefits you get in sharpnessare considerably less than in direct proportion to the format size, especially at larger apertures (f/8-f/11 or bigger). Tonality is another matter.

Cheers,

R.

That is the problem Roger with this obsession with this modern film stuff, the only way forward is to stick with tried and true glass plate. Film will never last its just a passing fad.

ron

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by acheyj

That is the problem Roger with this obsession with this modern film stuff, the only way forward is to stick with tried and true glass plate. Film will never last its just a passing fad.

ron

Dear Ron,

Absolutely! And these silly little formats! Everyone knows that REAL photographers shoot whole-plate, with half-plate for the financially challenged.

Cheers,

R.

[sojournerphoto]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Dear Ron,

Absolutely! And these silly little formats! Everyone knows that REAL photographers shoot whole-plate, with half-plate for the financially challenged.

Cheers,

R.

Real photographers shoot 11 by 14 wet plate on black glass or aluminium - follow the link

David is a great guy and absolutely passionate about photography. I met him in the summer and we compared his M2 with ZI, then he showed me his daarkroom van. Great guy and great commitment.

Mike

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by sojournerphoto

Real photographers shoot 11 by 14 wet plate on black glass or aluminium - follow the link

Dear Mike,

A nasty, modern format. I much prefer the 12x15 inch of my Gandolfi Universal. I should have said "at least whole plate" in my previous post.

Cheers,

R.

[MCTuomey]

Originally Posted by sojournerphoto

Real photographers shoot 11 by 14 wet plate on black glass or aluminium - follow the link

David is a great guy and absolutely passionate about photography. I met him in the summer and we compared his M2 with ZI, then he showed me his daarkroom van. Great guy and great commitment.

Mike

Thanks for the link. After reading it, whew, I feel like a complete and utter slacker. He's as dynamic as they come.

[Bob Michaels]

Originally Posted by Dean Taylor

.......................... I am venturing into LF--keh has a couple of basic 4 x5 cameras for around $200 ....................

Dean: think about how you are going to process 4x5 film. I found shooting LF to be easy, scanning & outputting it delightful, but processing the film to be a PITA.

[f16sunshine]

Originally Posted by Bob Michaels

Dean: think about how you are going to process 4x5 film. I found shooting LF to be easy, scanning & outputting it delightful, but processing the film to be a PITA.

Bob Makes an excellent point. The tank/system alone may cost you another $200 or even more (still quite inexpensive).
Worth the effort and price/space if you can get the JOBO system or at least the reel and tank to invert by hand.
I've tried the Yankee tank. It gives uneven results. To empty and fill takes an additional 30sec total which adds development time and eliminates control.
Having the JOBO again has given much more control and even results.
Unfortunately, many of us don't have a darkroom available full time making a daylight system a must have.

[healyzh]

Originally Posted by Bob Michaels

Dean: think about how you are going to process 4x5 film. I found shooting LF to be easy, scanning & outputting it delightful, but processing the film to be a PITA.

A Paterson 3-reel tank plus a MOD54 film holder make processing 4x5 sheet film a piece of cake! http://www.mod54.com/ I bought a MOD54 last year, and am very pleased with it. I'm seriously considering purchasing one or two more, along with tanks to go with them, as I'm planning to shoot a lot more 4x5 film this year.

Zane

[Bob Michaels]

Originally Posted by healyzh

A Paterson 3-reel tank plus a MOD54 film holder make processing 4x5 sheet film a piece of cake! ..................

Zane: that looks like an ingenious device. It may get me back to shooting LR again. Thanks for the recommendation.

[sykotec]

+1 to this, definitely. I think I can live with 'just one MOD54 holder, and it's nice to have the 6:6 sheet ratio between a Grafmatic and the Mod54 bit.

Originally Posted by healyzh

A Paterson 3-reel tank plus a MOD54 film holder make processing 4x5 sheet film a piece of cake! http://www.mod54.com/ I bought a MOD54 last year, and am very pleased with it. I'm seriously considering purchasing one or two more, along with tanks to go with them, as I'm planning to shoot a lot more 4x5 film this year.

Zane

[bigeye]

Originally Posted by sykotec

+1 to this, definitely. I think I can live with 'just one MOD54 holder, and it's nice to have the 6:6 sheet ratio between a Grafmatic and the Mod54 bit.

+3 for the MOD rack in a Paterson tank. I also use a Beseler Unicolor tube tank and Uniroller method, which works very well, too.

- Charlie

[benlees]

Originally Posted by healyzh

A Paterson 3-reel tank plus a MOD54 film holder make processing 4x5 sheet film a piece of cake! http://www.mod54.com/ I bought a MOD54 last year, and am very pleased with it. I'm seriously considering purchasing one or two more, along with tanks to go with them, as I'm planning to shoot a lot more 4x5 film this year.

Zane

That thing looks great. I wish I had known about that a couple of years a go. Saying that, the taco method works very well for me. And doing two at a time (one film holder equals similar exposures, for me) is ideal for a slow mover such as myself. The price is a little dear for the MOD but I may order one.

[MaxElmar]

I've found the hardest bit being keeping everything CLEAN and dust free. "Ready-loads" were the answer to this (at least in 4x5) but they seem to be no more. Roger is very right to mention "tonality." Definitely still shooting medium format for that reason. Everything that makes Tri-X great in 35mm is even better in MF.

[john_s]

For me the main reason to go from MF to LF would be camera movements for perspective and focus control.

[Calzone]

Originally Posted by john_s

For me the main reason to go from MF to LF would be camera movements for perspective and focus control.

Good point, but the Plaubel 69W offers shifts in a 120/220 camera. Now I can't live without this camera.

Cal

[Steve M.]

Dean,
neither of the cameras you linked are cameras you're going to want to carry anywhere. Keep that in mind. You'd be better off w/ a Graflex w/ a good lens. The 127 Ektar is very good and affordable. You don't get a lot of movements, but it's real sharp.

Keep in mind that in general, 35mm and medium format lenses are optimized for sharpness, while LF is more about coverage. A Leica neg is going to be very sharp, but you can't get a lot of enlargement out of it.

[Frontman]

I like LF, and I use a Graflex Super Grafic, which has a full range of movements, yet is easy to carry and set up. It has a built in rangefinder, so I can be used to take quick shots hand held if needed. The Graflex Grafmatic film back hold six sheets of film, and they keep the film quite flat.

As for processing, I use a Jobo 2500 series tank, with a reel which can hold six 4x5 negatives. I got the tank and reel on eBay for less than $50. Film is not especially cheap, but developing black and white is simple and inexpensive. Color is costly, I have to pay 4000 yen or so to develop 10 sheets of Portra at the lab.

[Austerby]

My MOD54 arrived this morning, so I've not used it in practice. I've used the taco method before but decided something a little more structured would be useful. I only have a 5x4 Harman Titan pinhole which is surprisingly sharp, though not in comparison with a Leica or Hasselblad of course, so for me it's more about tonal range and long exposures with large format than the detail.

[sojournerphoto]

More seriously, how do I process 5 by 7?

Mike