Tonality in MF vs 35mm

Roger, it is interesting you find tonality improve at about 8x magnification. So the space between 13x18 and 20x30cm (for small format) is a sort of dead zone?
 
varjag said:
Roger, it is interesting you find tonality improve at about 8x magnification. So the space between 13x18 and 20x30cm (for small format) is a sort of dead zone?
Click to expand...
That is my belief and experience. You can stretch it either way (very fine or very coarse grain film or development) but broadly, yes. With most 35mm films, I find either 10x15cm or 30x45cm to be entirely acceptable (4x6 inch or 12x18 inch for the unmetricated). How far up or down you can go from those limits is a question of film, development, exposure, subject matter and personal preference.

Then again, I am convinced that ultra-fine detail is important too. Sharpness and tonality are not fully quantifiable.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Roger, now that's interesting. I just figured there was a gradual decrease in qulaity as enlargement increased, but you're saying there are 2 "sweet spots"?
 
FrankS said:
Roger, now that's interesting. I just figured there was a gradual decrease in qulaity as enlargement increased, but you're saying there are 2 "sweet spots"?
Click to expand...
Dear Frank,

That's my belief & experience. Not for all shots of all subjects: some 'fall apart' at 4-6x and never come back. I'd be interested in others' experience/ experiments in the same realm. But I really believe that most people either over- or under-enlarge.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger, I can accept that as a possibiity. Can you explain the different aspects which come into play to make it so? If this is so, there needs to be one aspect that lends strength to smaller enlargements (4x6) which drops off with increasing enlargement, and a second aspect that comes into play with the larger size. It is this second aspect that I most wonder about.
This is interesting to me because I typically make 8x10 prints of 35mm negs and 11x14 or 16x20 prints of MF negs. In both cases, this is outside of the proposed optimum enlargements.

(never too old to learn)
 
Which is which?

Which is which?

One taken with a 35mm Leica and Leica lens. The other taken with a Fuji GA645zi.

/T
 

Attachments

  • GWB 1.jpg
    GWB 1.jpg
    149.9 KB · Views: 0
  • GWB 2.jpg
    GWB 2.jpg
    154.8 KB · Views: 0
T - too difficult for me to pick here, especially in colour (my colour shots don't display the same effect, or maybe my eyesight just can't detect it), and with what appears to be different lighting and different viewpoints.

Thanks to all who contributed here, I've learned a lot.

Roger - I assume you are are talking about traditional wet printing. Do you see the same differences for images from scanned negatives, and would the scanning resolution also make a difference?
 
ChrisN said:
And taking this comparison to a logical extreme, we might see an even greater difference if we go to large format.
Click to expand...

Yup. Going up in format will make the greatest impact on technical quality than any other factor.
 
clarence said:
I have to agree with Finder. I think that 'tonality' tends to be used when we're actually refering to how smooth tones seem to grade. The number of shades is the same between MF and 35mm, it's just that because of the seemingly finer grain, it looks like there's a wider range (i.e. more shades) of tones.

Clarence
Click to expand...

I agree with what Clarence has said here. The important thing is the end result, so whatever it is that we seem to be seeing in MF prints, it looks better than 35mm prints.
 
Finder said:
Yup. Going up in format will make the greatest impact on technical quality than any other factor.
Click to expand...
Most but not all aspects of technical quality -- not necessarily including d-o-f in 'deep field' shots, for examle.

And of course what lets most photographers down is not technical quality: it's lack of vision...

I worry less and less about what camera I use, and over the decades I have accumulated a lot of formats from sub-min to 12x15 inch. For me, a Leica stands less between me and the subject than any other camera. Partly practice, sure -- but I've had a lot of practice with other formats too.

Cheers,

R.
 
Finder describe it correctly.

Artistically, no doubt we'll perceive greater range of tones due to more details recorded on the bigger film area.

For instance, the number on a watch may be recorded as a dark outline on 35mm, but an MF shot of the same subject may record the greyish bevel along with the dark outline, revealing that the number is actually raised from the watch face.

But chemically and physically, the same range of tones is recorded in both 35mm and MF format or even LF. It has to be, unless the MF and LF films are made from a different emulsion formula.

In short, bigger is indeed better :)
 
FrankS said:
Anone?

Roger, please don't abandon this one.
Click to expand...

I have never experienced an enlargement sweet spot. At least not up to 20x24. Since there is no aliasing in a chemical system, I am not sure why there would be a sweet spot.

I have found you need to be careful of flare in the setup. As you increase enlargement size, flare seems to increase. I have found the color of the walls surrounding the enlarger impacts that.
 
FrankS said:
Anone?

Roger, please don't abandon this one.
Click to expand...
Dear Frank,

Sorry, I've been busy. I'm doing resolution and speed comparisons on old and new TMY, and yesterday I got three of the new Summarits -- 35, 50 and 90 but not 75. I'm also trying the new 28/2 Zeiss Nikon-fit on both digi and film.

The enlargement thing is not exactly a 'sweet spot'.

As I say, you can get contact print tonality with small enough enlargements. Exactly where you lose this will depend on the film, dev and subject.

The half-tone effect clearly has some effect on tonality. There is plenty of room for disputing how much, but I know of no other logical explanation of why tonality deteriorates quite sharply at 2-6x (typically 3-5x).

My own belief, based on many years of printing and looking at others' prints, is that once the degree of enlargement is enough that the half-tone effect is visible just about everywhere -- between 4x and 10x, but typically above about 8x -- the tonality improves again. This is one reason, I believe, why Delta 3200 can give such sweet tonality in quite small prints: the half-tone effect comes in quicker at all densities with such big grain.

But there is so much that is not quantifiable, especially 'sparkle', that I hesitate to make too much of this. 'Sparkle' has been found by Ilford and Zeiss to correspond to VERY high MTF figures at quite low frequencies. Ilford, as far as I recall, reckons it at 30 cycles or so; Zeiss, as 200-400 cycles across the whole image diagonal.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom