4x5 vs 120: tonality examples

[shortstop]

I use master technika 4x5 and have also a rolleiflex 3,5 planar. Rollei is near to LF for tonality rendition and is handheld. I'll compare 56x56 mm vs 4x5 inches using a low sensitivity film (new 25 iso rollei is a chance) with 6x6 against the usual fp4 with 4x5". Anyone did this experiment? I'm curious

 

[ottluuk]

I get the feeling here that we seem to be putting the use of 4x5 into the "serious photography only" category. But a 4x5 press camera with easily pushed 400 film and say a Kalart rangefinder is in fact a fun and forgiving picture taking experience. And a quick perusal of used Leica gear makes 4x5 almost cheap . As it's been said "try it,you'll like it"
Peter

Yeah, but film cost will bite you in the rear end if you're not careful about the volume you shoot. Isn't it something like 2-3 pops of 4x5 for the cost of a whole roll of 135/36 or 120 for a given emulsion?

 

[aizan]

for hobbyists, 5x7 and 8x10 are pretty much contact print formats...unless you're ok making enlargements digitally or can swing an 8x10 enlarger. if you're lucky, you can score a 5x7 durst l138 in good condition with all the bits and pieces. otherwise i'd recommend 4x5 if you're after larger prints.

 

[slidesandthecity]

http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html

I don't think you'll find a more detailed comparison of various film formats and also digital FF and MF online.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Enlargement size is a major factor when using a condenser or point light source. It is not a significant factor with a diffusion light source such as the classic cold light heads.. . .

Are you serious?

That there's no real difference between a 12x16 off 35mm (12x), 6x9cm (4.7x) and 13x18cm (under 3x), as long as you use the "magic" cold cathode head?

Few would agree with you. Especially if they'd tried it (I have 4x5 inch and 5x7 inch cold cathode heads).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Moto-Uno]

"ootluuk" can't argue the arithmetic, however , it doesn't take all that much film to see the best uses for the larger format ( and they don't come with motor drives either ). Originally though my remark was about the initial equipment outlay. There's still the fun factor of 4x5 and a press camera. Peter

 

[mfogiel]

In my experience (limited) with 4x5 against MF, the most evident difference, as long as you do not enlarge too much, is in the micro contrast domain. When you do stuff like landscape, the difference becomes quite obvious - less so if you do portraiture or lower resolution photos (wide open shots, etc)

 

[Turtle]

Dwig, I completely disagree that diffusion heads render enlargement size unimportant. It isn't remotely true and I can say that having spent 13 years printing from both a condenser and a 10x8 head, often onto small negs through glass carriers. You can't get much more diffuse than my old Devere 5108 printing 35mm in a 5x4 glass carrier....

 

[goamules]

I shoot very little 4x5, but here is a scanned contact print from 25 year old Tri-X. I mostly shoot the larger formats, all of them, up to 8x10.

 

[Steve M.]

One other thing to keep in mind is, what are you going to do w/ the camera? Many MF cameras can be used like a 35mm camera (to a point). You can carry them around w/ you, they don't attract a lot of attention, they're relatively fast to advance to the next frame, etc. None of this applies to 4x5, which is much bigger, much slower, attracts a lot more attention, etc. So you can't get the same shots w/ a 4x5 that you can w/ smaller formats. To me, LF is more about taking a studied and thoughtful approach, and it lends itself to that sort of thing better than 120 for sure.

I don't think anyone has anything to worry about regarding tonality w/ a 120 neg. It will be great if the right film is exposed properly. Remember, a medium format camera has sharper lenses than a 4x5 camera, as a 35mm camera has sharper lenses than a medium format camera. Having a sharp lens will allow you to shoot at wide apertures and get beautiful bokeh, which can compliment tonality. LF lenses are about coverage and the ability to resolve. It's more about the shallow depth of field that LF allows, as well as the ability to use camera movements. You aren't going to get that 'pop' from a 4x5 neg, I don't care how much larger you can print it, but you can get other neat effects, like the very shallow DOF and selective focus in the gorgeous example above this post.

If you want huge prints then 4x5 is better than 120, probably. But you can get very large, sharp prints from a 6x9, or even 6x6 negative. The ability to get a good, large print is interdependent upon having a great lens, great darkroom technique, the right film, a properly aligned enlarger w/ a good lens, the right subject shot in the right light at the correct shutter speed, and more. It's not about any one thing, size of negative included, it's about a succession of things, and any weak link in the chain will sabotage you if you want great large prints. Or, it's harder than it looks. But the right decisions and circumstances have to occur before it's even feasible. If you're doing studio work or that sort of slowly set up shooting, just use an 8x10 camera or larger, contact print the neg and be done w/ it. It's a simpler approach, but doesn't lend itself to every type of shooting.