35mm vs 5"x7"

[Ed Bray]

I recently took too similar images from the same vantage point on different formats.

The 35mm image was taken with a CV Ultron 35mm f1.7 @ f16 using Tri-X on the Leica M4, whilst the 5"x7" image was taken with a 6.25" Wollensak Velostigmat Wide Angle Ser. III f9.5 @ f22 taken on HP5+ on my Canham MQC, there was a bit of front tilt used to adjust the plane of focus.

I fully realise there is a difference in the viewpoint with the LF image having a larger foreground, but that aside, I really prefer the 35mm image the best as it has an almost charcoal drawing feel whilst the LF image seems a bit too sterile (for want of a better description).

Thoughts?



Ernesettle & Tamar Valley from rear of St. Budeaux Parish Church. by Ed Bray, on Flickr


5x7 Ernesettle & Tamar Valley @ 2100 dpi by Ed Bray, on Flickr

 

[lynnb]

apart from the differences in framing, the main differences I see are in contrast and grain, in that order of visual impact. I prefer the contrast of the 5x7". And also I like the MF richer tones (your preferences may be different, of course).

 

[thegman]

I prefer the 5x7. I have nothing against grain for some types of photo, but I often feel with landscapes sometimes you want to provide the impression of being there, and grain is a distraction from that.

Not always of course, but in this case I like the grainless one. Had it been an urban scene, I may feel differently.

 

[Moto-Uno]

The difference in time between the two pictures ( length of shadows ) plays a small roll
in their presentation , grain etc aside. Peter

 

[shadowfox]

I prefer the 5x7 even at that size
What did you scan the 5x7 with? The original file on flickr is humongous.

 

[Pablito]

That is extremely grainy even for 35mm Trix. When I develop TriX in D76, T-max or X-tol, there is barely any perceivable grain at that size. Also in the 35mm you have some pretty severe postprocessing artifacts around the branches in the top left. I prefer the composition of the top photo, but the tonality of the bottom photo.

 

[Frank Petronio]

35mm preferred and that's from a large format shooter ;-p

Technically the 5x7 photo is nice but that's all it is.

 

[Brian Legge]

I'm with Pablito on composition/tonality.

 

[Ed Bray]

Thanks for your comments folks, very interesting.

I prefer the 5x7 even at that size
What did you scan the 5x7 with? The original file on flickr is humongous.

Both images were scanned on my Scanmate 11000 drum scanner, the 35mm at 4000dpi and the 5x7 at 2100dpi.

 

[angelopartemi]

That 5x7 shot is sexy

 

[f16sunshine]

The first image.
There is a narrative existing in the first that is missing in the second.
The clouds and sky, framing and vignetting. You're right more like a charcoal.

 

[dtcls100]

Definitely prefer the composition of the first. It's wider expanse of sky and water really accentuate the fable like vibe of the photo. The large shadowed foreground of the second and less interesting sky and water view detract from this, despite its superior sharpness and tonality.

 

[Nokton48]

I prefer the framing and tonality of the 5x7 shot.