David Goldfarb
Well-known
It might also be that viewing distance isn't in practice as continuous as it would seem. I suspect there's a certain relatively fixed distance that most people use to read a book, the newspaper, their computer screen, or look at a photograph smaller than 8x10", and maybe there's a kind of "museum distance" for large things we view on the wall, and though we might occasionally look closely at a large object, in practice a large work pushes us back to be able to see the whole thing.
raid
Dad Photographer
Not to hijack this thread, but does a digital file of the same size have the same details if scanned form a MF vs. 35mm negative?
raid
Dad Photographer
Did my question kill this thread? I hope not!
David Goldfarb
Well-known
I think there are a lot of variables there, Raid, but all things being equal, say you made a good sized (let's say around 20x24) LightJet/Lambda/Chromira print from a 35mm slide and a 6x9cm slide of the same scene, you would be able to tell the difference. I think there is an article on this subject on the West Coast Imaging website, making a case for 4x5", even when the final file size will be the same as a file from a smaller format.
raid
Dad Photographer
David,
Thanks! I suspected that this was not a trivial question with a trivial answer. You would think that once you transfer the image to a digital file, if you keep the file size equal, say 10 MB, then 10 MB=10 MB of information, whether the file comes from a 4x5 or a 35mm image.
Greetings,
Thanks! I suspected that this was not a trivial question with a trivial answer. You would think that once you transfer the image to a digital file, if you keep the file size equal, say 10 MB, then 10 MB=10 MB of information, whether the file comes from a 4x5 or a 35mm image.
Greetings,
Finder
Veteran
Roger, yes there are changes when you enlarge. As David pointed out, when printing we are not adhering to strict viewing distance criteria. So we are actually viewing prints unequally - if you get my meaning. So this gives the impression that granularity is increasing. It also makes other factors such as sharpness, focus, and depth of field more obvious, especially the errors. So what I casually see on my contacts, can seem quite different in my print.
I also see a loss of contrast in my enlargements - not too bad for b&w because it is so easy to correct, but more pronounced in color. The cause is simply flare - the higher the enlarger head goes, the more flare. This is the great advantage of contact printing, it is the closest you can get to a system without flare.
So I think with the perceived loss of sharpness and increase in granularity (when viewing distance is fixed) as well as changes in contrast that come from enlargements, there is an idea of a loss of quality. Sharpness is easy, just step back. Contrast can also be fixed.
So I guess my question is, how can the information in the film be lost or altered in printing? In an absolute sense, there cannot be a loss. Granularity is transfered in a contact. So to me, the loss must be in the way we perceive it. In my darkroom, I have my nose to the paper; in an exhibition, I am at a healthy distance. Does that mean S. Salgado has fairies printing for him? No, he has aliens projecting mind rays to keep you away from the print. Figuratively speaking.
I also see a loss of contrast in my enlargements - not too bad for b&w because it is so easy to correct, but more pronounced in color. The cause is simply flare - the higher the enlarger head goes, the more flare. This is the great advantage of contact printing, it is the closest you can get to a system without flare.
So I think with the perceived loss of sharpness and increase in granularity (when viewing distance is fixed) as well as changes in contrast that come from enlargements, there is an idea of a loss of quality. Sharpness is easy, just step back. Contrast can also be fixed.
So I guess my question is, how can the information in the film be lost or altered in printing? In an absolute sense, there cannot be a loss. Granularity is transfered in a contact. So to me, the loss must be in the way we perceive it. In my darkroom, I have my nose to the paper; in an exhibition, I am at a healthy distance. Does that mean S. Salgado has fairies printing for him? No, he has aliens projecting mind rays to keep you away from the print. Figuratively speaking.
Finder
Veteran
raid said:
Yes and no. If the pixel resolution is not the limit to "detail," then you reproduce the qualities of the different film images. If pixel resolution is very low, then you could probably not tell if it was shot on 110 or a disk camera.
raid
Dad Photographer
Finder said:
Finder,
Would you define for me what you mean by "pixel resolution'.
If we have 10MB digital files and if I have a MF camera and a 35mm camera and I use similar quality lenses on bot cameras and use the same type of film and then use similar scanning techniques and machines, would in your opinion same sized image files look similar or is there a chance that MF files show more details than 35mm files?
Thanks.
Finder
Veteran
raid said:
Pixel resolution is simply the total number of pixels in the image.
You are asking a very complex question. So you are saying if we take a single scanner that can take 35mm and MF film and scan to produce a file of Xmp, then are the scans the same in terms of "detail"? The answer is no. The MF film scan will appear more detailed. Why? The MTF response of the medium-format scan is much higher. Not only will the scan show finer lines, but there will be more contrast to those lines. Now, if I make a 1mp file, the difference will be small compared to a 40mp or larger file.
The odd thing is why would you think a reproduction of an image would not reproduce a difference in detail? Would have to be a pretty bad reproduction. Certainly I can see the difference in reproduction I make on paper - that is what printing is.
raid
Dad Photographer
Finder said:
Thank you for the response, Finder.
I had this question on my mind since I started more often not requesting prints but obtain scans only from negatives. I was unsure whether digital files will lose too much of what is on a negative. I was asking myself "why use MF if I only get a scan?"
I thought that asking here this question would give me useful resoonses, and it has done so.
So the orginal details will prevail.
David Goldfarb
Well-known
It just so happens I've been scanning some negatives this morning of various formats on my Agfa Duoscan, all at 1000 ppi/16 bit greyscale, and scaling them down to about the same size for the web. Ignoring format for the moment, which should make it obvious, I don't think it's too hard to figure out which of this was from a 5x7" neg and which was from a 6x6cm neg (sorry, no rangefinders involved in these two)--
Ronald M
Veteran
The bigger the neg, the better it looks assuming lenses of equal quality. A Yashicamat 2 1/4 sq will not make a better print than a Leica. A Rollie with the later better lenses will.
David Goldfarb
Well-known
I'm not so sure about that. Obviously there is some point at which the quality of the lens matters--say in the competition between Holga and Leica--but film size is a very significant factor.
In the above two shots, the 5x7" was made with a pre-war Schneider 210/3.5 Xenar (Tessar type) with a postwar aftermarket coating. The 6x6 was made with a Bronica S2a and a 1960s coated 135/3.5 Nikkor-Q--also a Tessar type, but one would hope that the design and quality of manufacturing had improved in 40-odd years, and Schneiders weren't particularly known for quality control until at least the 1970s. The 6x6 was shot on Tri-X and the 5x7" on Fortepan 400, which some would say isn't as good a film as Tri-X. Both were processed in the same deep tank of Acufine within an hour of each other.
In the above two shots, the 5x7" was made with a pre-war Schneider 210/3.5 Xenar (Tessar type) with a postwar aftermarket coating. The 6x6 was made with a Bronica S2a and a 1960s coated 135/3.5 Nikkor-Q--also a Tessar type, but one would hope that the design and quality of manufacturing had improved in 40-odd years, and Schneiders weren't particularly known for quality control until at least the 1970s. The 6x6 was shot on Tri-X and the 5x7" on Fortepan 400, which some would say isn't as good a film as Tri-X. Both were processed in the same deep tank of Acufine within an hour of each other.
Finder
Veteran
David, I am glad you are going there. You are absolutely right that film size is more significant than optics. I am right behind you. Carry on.
Last edited:
ChrisN
Striving
Ronald M said:
I'm also not agreed with you here. The sample photo of mine, which Peter posted in post #7 of this thread, was taken with a 1937 Rolleiflex, which certainly lacks the improvements of the later lenses. Yet the character and resolution certainly matches the photos I have taken with Leica 35mm lenses. I have some photos taken with a Yashica 124G that show similar quality.
Attachments
cmedin
Well-known
Ronald M said:
Oh, give me a break. A "Leica" will do better than a "Yashicamat". Which Leica? A Barnack with a Summar? An M6 with a 'cron? Which Yashica-Mat? Yashikor or Yashinon lenses?
I'd love to see the Leica lens that can hold up to a Yashinon lensed Yashica-Mat TLR stopped down to around f/8.
ChrisN
Striving
I should have been more circumspect in my own response above. Speaking as the original poster, this is not about Leica vs MF - we've seen that argument before turn nasty. My question was about the way the different negative size returns different image charactistics, even with the same film and shooting the same scene. The discussion has been excellent and informative so far; please lets not turn it into a different question and argument.
FrankS
Registered User
I promise.
raid
Dad Photographer
I promise too [even though I have been "good'].
keithwms
Established
Ah yes, you are right, it is easy to tell which is which. The 6x6 shot is in 1:1 aspect ratio 
With all due respect to LF, this isn't a fair comparison. The bottom shot isn't properly focused, there is motion blur in places where you don't necessarily want it, and the light isn't exposing his hair and face in the same way. Not to malign your 6x6 shot, which is cute, but the 5x7 has much better treatment of focus and that is what jumps out in the comparison. Tonality is a non-issue in this case... just my opinion!
With regard to tonality, I am skeptical that one would see a difference in a web version, which doesn't hit the grain in the 6x6 shot. We are looking at both shots on monitors with a rather limited number of greys.
Having said all that, in a print comparison, a 5x7 contact print would indeed have better tonality than a 6x6 enlargement to 5x7. That's why newbies like me keep blowing our savings jumping formats so that we don't need to enlarge at all...
Both are lovely shots by the way, but the top one is far better composed.
With all due respect to LF, this isn't a fair comparison. The bottom shot isn't properly focused, there is motion blur in places where you don't necessarily want it, and the light isn't exposing his hair and face in the same way. Not to malign your 6x6 shot, which is cute, but the 5x7 has much better treatment of focus and that is what jumps out in the comparison. Tonality is a non-issue in this case... just my opinion!
With regard to tonality, I am skeptical that one would see a difference in a web version, which doesn't hit the grain in the 6x6 shot. We are looking at both shots on monitors with a rather limited number of greys.
Having said all that, in a print comparison, a 5x7 contact print would indeed have better tonality than a 6x6 enlargement to 5x7. That's why newbies like me keep blowing our savings jumping formats so that we don't need to enlarge at all...
Both are lovely shots by the way, but the top one is far better composed.