northeast16th
Member
for those who have used both medium format and 35mm, give me your honest opinion on this:
say you shoot 35mm and enlarge to 5x7, and you shoot 6x4x5 and enlarge to 5x7. say the lenses were, for all intents and purposes, identical in quality and characteristics. same film, same subject, same developments etc etc etc.
would an average viewer be able to tell a difference in quality at 5x7 at normal viewing distance? just curious to those who have used both formats.
cheers.....
ne16th
say you shoot 35mm and enlarge to 5x7, and you shoot 6x4x5 and enlarge to 5x7. say the lenses were, for all intents and purposes, identical in quality and characteristics. same film, same subject, same developments etc etc etc.
would an average viewer be able to tell a difference in quality at 5x7 at normal viewing distance? just curious to those who have used both formats.
cheers.....
ne16th
ZeissFan
Veteran
In general, yes.
The tonality and smoother gradation of tones is usually better in medium format than in 35mm.
To pull out a stupid cliche, size does matter when it comes to negatives.
The tonality and smoother gradation of tones is usually better in medium format than in 35mm.
To pull out a stupid cliche, size does matter when it comes to negatives.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
You would probably need to consider whether it's b+w or color. And, also the DOF differences. You need more light with medium format, as the lenses aren't as fast (typically), so you may actually need to use a faster+grainier film with MF versus 35mm, so the results can sorta 'equalize' a bit under some circumstances.
Also, MF might appear 'smoother' with more subtle tonal gradiations, but that smoothness may appear to defeat 'sharpness.'
But, if you could even out all the variables, i say Yes, you can tell the difference, even at 5x7. But, that difference doesn't necessarily equal "better."
Also, MF might appear 'smoother' with more subtle tonal gradiations, but that smoothness may appear to defeat 'sharpness.'
But, if you could even out all the variables, i say Yes, you can tell the difference, even at 5x7. But, that difference doesn't necessarily equal "better."
Steve M.
Veteran
I don't think you'll see any real difference at that size. I sent some online printing services some files recently. This was a hodgepodge of one digital file, and several 6x6, 6x9, and 35mm scans, all cropped and printed to 4x6 dimensions. Other than a little smoothness difference, as others have mentioned, everything looked very similar. The 35mm especially looked very good, and sharper than the MF probably, but they were taken w/ a Leica lens. Sorta levels the playing field. It just wasn't possible to see much difference at that small of a print size. But these were scans of negs. It might be different w/ straight optical prints.
As a general rule, 35mm lenses are sharper than MF, which are sharper than LF, etc. MF comes into it's own with large print sizes.
As a general rule, 35mm lenses are sharper than MF, which are sharper than LF, etc. MF comes into it's own with large print sizes.
KenR
Well-known
Even at 5x7 you can see the difference between the formats. After all, it's still a 5x enlargement for 35mm but a 2-3x enlargement for medium format (depends on 6x6 or 6x7 or 6x9). However, like everything else in life, what camera you carry is a tradeoff between size, weight, convenience of use and quality. If quality were the only factor, we would all still be carrying Speed Graphics, as there is nothing like the negative that you get from 4x5. All magazine covers (and Playboy centerfolds) used to be shot with 8x10 for that reason. In my youth, I could hike with my 4x5 field camera, this is not the case in recent years. Now, I'll use medium format, but if it's going to be real strenuous, I take 35mm.
FrankS
Registered User
Based on my experience with traditional B+W wet printing of both formats, there is a noticeable difference even at that size.
kuzano
Veteran
Physics rules on this one.....
Physics rules on this one.....
First of all, you set the parameters.... All factors being considered as equal, there is no doubt the MF negative is superior, under any equal set of circumstances.
Aside from the fact that 5X7 is slightly off on the ratio for equating to either of the negative sizes, the remaining math favors the MF negative.
The ratio of the 5X7 is 1.4 to one, while the 35mm negative and 645 negative are 1.28 and 1.33 to one. So, some slight cropping is involved.
But the definitive math favoring MF substantially is this:
The 35mm negative is 864 Sq/MM.
The 645 negative is 2610 Sq/MM.
The 645 is 3 times larger than the 35mm film negative.
The 5X7 print is 22,606 Sq/MM (127mm x 177mm)
Results:
The 645 must be enlarged 8.66 times to make the 5X7 inch print.
The 35mm neg must be enlarged 26.72 times to make the 5X7 inch print.
Math proof... 26.72/8.66 equals approx. 3, which concurs with the factor of the 645 neg being 3X greater than the than the 35mm neg.
Given that the criteria is all factors being equal, ie film used, lens used including identical drawing of the lens, etc. .....
How could one possibly defend an argument that 35mm film is an any way as good as shooting medium format. Change the medium format to 6X6, 6X7 and 6X9 and the numbers are progressively in favor of the MF film formats.
Now, I know the virtual impossibility of making this discussion and apples vs. apples discussion. But the math clearly favors MF and leaves 35mm standing in the dust.
Now those who are unwilling to set aside their 35mm cameras, I agree that there are significant factors, like camera portability, need for stabilizing the larger format, etc.
But on the basis of the question, as it was posed, MF simply blows 35mm out of the water.
Physics rules on this one.....
First of all, you set the parameters.... All factors being considered as equal, there is no doubt the MF negative is superior, under any equal set of circumstances.
Aside from the fact that 5X7 is slightly off on the ratio for equating to either of the negative sizes, the remaining math favors the MF negative.
The ratio of the 5X7 is 1.4 to one, while the 35mm negative and 645 negative are 1.28 and 1.33 to one. So, some slight cropping is involved.
But the definitive math favoring MF substantially is this:
The 35mm negative is 864 Sq/MM.
The 645 negative is 2610 Sq/MM.
The 645 is 3 times larger than the 35mm film negative.
The 5X7 print is 22,606 Sq/MM (127mm x 177mm)
Results:
The 645 must be enlarged 8.66 times to make the 5X7 inch print.
The 35mm neg must be enlarged 26.72 times to make the 5X7 inch print.
Math proof... 26.72/8.66 equals approx. 3, which concurs with the factor of the 645 neg being 3X greater than the than the 35mm neg.
Given that the criteria is all factors being equal, ie film used, lens used including identical drawing of the lens, etc. .....
How could one possibly defend an argument that 35mm film is an any way as good as shooting medium format. Change the medium format to 6X6, 6X7 and 6X9 and the numbers are progressively in favor of the MF film formats.
Now, I know the virtual impossibility of making this discussion and apples vs. apples discussion. But the math clearly favors MF and leaves 35mm standing in the dust.
Now those who are unwilling to set aside their 35mm cameras, I agree that there are significant factors, like camera portability, need for stabilizing the larger format, etc.
But on the basis of the question, as it was posed, MF simply blows 35mm out of the water.
Last edited:
northeast16th
Member
yes, numbers.....
yes, numbers.....
i never had any doubt that the numbers would prove better for a medium format negative. i was interested in knowing if anyone looking at prints could truly see any difference at that size.
it's like this. you want to catch a badger. you have a net which is 8 feet by 8 feet. this net will catch the badger no problem, and it has proven to be able to catch the badger every time. so why use a 24 by 24 foot net?
the numbers are always in favor of a bigger negative, but if only printing 5x7, i wanted to know if anyone could truly see any difference and it sounds like they can!
yes, numbers.....
i never had any doubt that the numbers would prove better for a medium format negative. i was interested in knowing if anyone looking at prints could truly see any difference at that size.
it's like this. you want to catch a badger. you have a net which is 8 feet by 8 feet. this net will catch the badger no problem, and it has proven to be able to catch the badger every time. so why use a 24 by 24 foot net?
the numbers are always in favor of a bigger negative, but if only printing 5x7, i wanted to know if anyone could truly see any difference and it sounds like they can!
Trooper
Well-known
Yes. I have shot the same scene with a Nikon F and Nikkor 55mm and a Mamiya 645 and 80mm lens. Both with Kodak Plus X, identical exposure, and developed together. The differences were noticeable and in favor of the medium format.
I've also done the same side-by-side tests with film vs digital, and because film isn't cheap, I hate to say it wins.
I've also done the same side-by-side tests with film vs digital, and because film isn't cheap, I hate to say it wins.
Darshan
Well-known
Back in winter, I took 2 shots each on 35 mm & 120 films. Similar angle of view, handheld, within 1 minute of each other.
I scanned them for the first time yesterday and honestly, didn't see a big difference on my laptop screen, in fact, I liked the 35 mm better. Mind you tho, there are a lot of variables involved, one of them is my s**tty scanning technique.
Sometime this week, I am planning on printing them at similar sizes, will let you know how they turn out...of course you will have to believe my eyes then.
I scanned them for the first time yesterday and honestly, didn't see a big difference on my laptop screen, in fact, I liked the 35 mm better. Mind you tho, there are a lot of variables involved, one of them is my s**tty scanning technique.
Sometime this week, I am planning on printing them at similar sizes, will let you know how they turn out...of course you will have to believe my eyes then.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
This question makes me think of a shot I took with my 28mm Leica lens on Ilford Delta 100 Pro. It was of a bridge, with a lot of fine detail in the masonry and ironwork. The 8 x 10 print was so fantastic that I had the thought, at the time, that this equals anything I can do with my Hasselblad. But I didn't trade in the Hasselblad. There are times when gradation is king, and the larger negative can still be the deciding factor.
Could I see the superiority of a 645 shot in a 5 x 7 print? I don't think so.
Could I see the superiority of a 645 shot in a 5 x 7 print? I don't think so.
tlitody
Well-known
the average viewer would only notice if you put side by side with the other. Infact many experienced photographers wouldn't notice at that size.
But so what. You can print in your own style which may be far removed from what the "fine print" brigade consiider to be good quality. Depends what your aims are. There is nothing which actually says that a bigger negative by definition produces superior results. It is only in the minds of those who believe it to be the case. Go on, try a few grainy as hell prints just for fun. You might find it adds some character and atmosphere to a print compared to boring "subtle and graduated tones".
But so what. You can print in your own style which may be far removed from what the "fine print" brigade consiider to be good quality. Depends what your aims are. There is nothing which actually says that a bigger negative by definition produces superior results. It is only in the minds of those who believe it to be the case. Go on, try a few grainy as hell prints just for fun. You might find it adds some character and atmosphere to a print compared to boring "subtle and graduated tones".
Last edited:
Vics
Veteran
My answer would be yes, for the simple reason that bigger pieces of film, given lenses of roughly equal quality, will better resolve the very fine and extremely fine details. My rule of thumb is to use 6x6 when my subject is rather far from the camera as in a landscape or cityscape and 35mm when the subject is quite close, as in street and portraits, or for action pictures. In other words, the farther away, the bigger the film.
bensyverson
Well-known
For color, no way... Not at 5x7. In fact, you won't even be able to tell the difference between the iPhone 4 and medium format with 5x7 prints. Really, there is no reason to use any one camera over another if color 5x7s are your end product.
For B&W, you shouldn't see any difference in sharpness between 35mm and MF at 5x7, but MF will have slightly smoother tones (less grain). A large format 5x7 contact print would be even nicer!
For B&W, you shouldn't see any difference in sharpness between 35mm and MF at 5x7, but MF will have slightly smoother tones (less grain). A large format 5x7 contact print would be even nicer!
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Yes. At least that's what I see in my own negatives. V. unscientific (different films, developers etc.). Film is just such an amazingly rich medium. When you increase the real estate it shows. And this is true at every bump up in size, even in small prints. A 5x7 contact print from a properly exposed and developed 5x7 negative has such a creamy-ness to it. Skin looks like . . . well, skin. The trade off for me has always been about weight of camera and speed of lenses. I generally carry the largest format I can stand, with the fastest lenses I can get. As I have slumped into middle age, this has meant a reliance on smaller cameras. Hey, what's the use of grainless-ness if you have an actual pain in the neck? OTOH, if you are in the studio and have limitless wattage, why not crank up the big boys and give that view camera its head . . .
bwcolor
Veteran
Sorry, not buying the above. There isn't "color" film. There are many color films. I don't really know what to say about the iPhone, but I shoot a good bit more 35mm than MF, but not because it approaces MF in quality, but because it is good enough for what I am doing. I suspect that there isn't a generic 5"x7" print either.
f16sunshine
Moderator
645v35 at 5x7?
You would have to be a photographer with experience or really study both prints to notice.
You would have to be a photographer with experience or really study both prints to notice.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
It makes a big difference for the hybrid crowd ... those who scan then print digitaly.
If you can't afford a megabuck scanner MF is the go IMO ... my poor little V700 doesn't capture much detail from a 135mm negative but it gets plenty from an MF negative.
If you can't afford a megabuck scanner MF is the go IMO ... my poor little V700 doesn't capture much detail from a 135mm negative but it gets plenty from an MF negative.
gavinlg
Veteran
This is a really good point. My v600 isn't that great with 35mm, but does just fine with medium format.
To answer the question, I see a big difference between MF and 35mm regardless of print size, in terms of spacial rendering and tonality. Obviously the bigger the print the more it's going to stand out too.