4x5 vs 120: tonality examples

[jett]

This subject has probably been beaten to death, but does anyone have a visual comparison displaying the difference in tonality between the two formats? I want to see a side by side comparison of two identical / near identical images. It's hard to gauge with flickr seeing that the lighting, films, scanning/processing techniques, and above all photographers and images can be very different.

I know that 4x5 should have better tonality but I'm trying to gauge whether I should pursue this format. Every now and then I see a 4x5/8x10 image that is simply stunning, from a technical point of view atleast. I know that a jpeg image isn't the best means for comparison but most of my images are scanned anyways. I understand that large format isn't only about tonality, but it is a very important criterion for me.

If it matters, I prefer visual samples of people/portraits.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Consider Linhof 6x7 cm (56 x 72 mm) enlarged 3x to whole plate (6.5 x 8.5 inch), where it looks like a contact print.

You're right: a JPEG on a computer screen will tell you NOTHING. But having (occasionally) shot the same still lifes on 6x7 and 4x5, and wet printed them, I'd say that an immense amount depends on your enlargement size, enlarger, enlarger lens... Increasingly, I regard 4x5 as a waste of time, a pointless intermediate between 6x7 and 5x7 inch/13x18 cm.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Moto-Uno]

If possible I'll try and see if I can show something. I recently did some 11 x 14 and can't help but say the larger the prints become the more obvious the improvement becomes with the larger negs! Concerning Rogers points above, I've no experience with 5 x 7 , but 4 x 5 comes into it's own when you may in fact appreciate a film choice .

 

[Steve M.]

Like Roger said, don't make any decisions based on internet photos. Personally, and this is w/ Tri-X, I saw a lot of difference between 4x5 tonality and 120, just as I saw a lot of difference between 135 and 120. Thing is, I love the grain in Tri-X, and I don't love toting a medium format camera, much less a LF camera, so I shoot 35mm exclusively now. I just couldn't get the sort of fast, spontaneous shots w/ anything but the smaller and quicker 35mm cameras. Sounds simple, but it took me many years to figure this out.

 

[Samouraï]

Like Roger said, don't make any decisions based on internet photos. Personally, and this is w/ Tri-X, I saw a lot of difference between 4x5 tonality and 120, just as I saw a lot of difference between 135 and 120. Thing is, I love the grain in Tri-X, and I don't love toting a medium format camera, much less a LF camera, so I shoot 35mm exclusively now. I just couldn't get the sort of fast, spontaneous shots w/ anything but the smaller and quicker 35mm cameras. Sounds simple, but it took me many years to figure this out.

I've found that with a bit of intuition, the Mamiya 6 performs nearly as well as my manual focus 135 cameras (close enough to my M3 to use it in the street, at least).

 

[thegman]

I scan on a V700, and have printed pretty big from 4x5 and 6x7. However, they were different subjects, with different types of film, etc. So almost impossible to compare.

However, one thing I do notice is that on a V700 (so a pretty good flatbed, but certainly not as good as 4x5 scanners get), getting a good scan from 6x7 needs a little effort, getting the same out of 4x5 is effortless. 4x5 keeps itself flat, and a mere 3200dpi scan comes up with a huge amount of resolution.

4x5 for me makes sense, as I know I can't be bothered to hump about an 8x10, and 5x7 seems a bit hard to come by.

 

[Moto-Uno]

This is a straight scan from an 11 x 14 print using a 35mm neg

 

[Moto-Uno]

This also from an 11 x 14 print of a 645 neg. Peter

 

[Moto-Uno]

This same as above only from a 6 x 9 neg. Peter

 

[Moto-Uno]

The last of the series is from a 4 x 5 neg. I'm sure others that have printed from larger negs will be able to tell you the differences are more discernible on the print than the screen. Peter

 

[Dwig]

...I'd say that an immense amount depends on your enlargement size, enlarger, enlarger lens... .

The single largest factor is the type of light source in the enlarger. With condenser sources there will be a big difference. With a true diffusion source there will be little or none, provided matching development can be achieved and enlarging lenses of equal quality and condition are used.

 

[gunsmithing]

I also use 4x5 and will crop the size to a 2x3 to get a prefect photo

This an old new paper trick. A one book a had years ago it had a sample of this at a football game the newspaper had a great shot of the ball being caught using 4x5 but the new photographer was off on the lower left side smaller than a 35mm film was the ball being caught. In the darkroom this just crop the photo.

Dave

This subject has probably been beaten to death, but does anyone have a visual comparison displaying the difference in tonality between the two formats? I want to see a side by side comparison of two identical / near identical images. It's hard to gauge with flickr seeing that the lighting, films, scanning/processing techniques, and above all photographers and images can be very different.

I know that 4x5 should have better tonality but I'm trying to gauge whether I should pursue this format. Every now and then I see a 4x5/8x10 image that is simply stunning, from a technical point of view atleast. I know that a jpeg image isn't the best means for comparison but most of my images are scanned anyways. I understand that large format isn't only about tonality, but it is a very important criterion for me.

If it matters, I prefer visual samples of people/portraits.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The single largest factor is the type of light source in the enlarger. With condenser sources there will be a big difference. With a true diffusion source there will be little or none, provided matching development can be achieved and enlarging lenses of equal quality and condition are used.

There isn't a single most important factor. I'm not sure it's even possible to rank them. But for any given enlarger and lens, the single most important factor is enlargement size. Also, the quality of the lens matters a LOT. Try an old, uncoated lens some time.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

If you're scanning, instead of wet printing, 8x10 disguises shortcomings in the scanner better than smaller sizes. Most scanners are pretty awful, next to wet printing.

Cheers,

R.

 

[DominikDUK]

+ 1 Roger People pay thousands of dollars for a camera lens and use a cheap enlarger lens.
A 35mm contact print has a great tonality, same applies to a 6x7 contact print and a 4x5 contact print, the bigger the enlargment the more tones you lose. You should get nearly the same tonality across formats if you use the same enlargment factor not size. In size the bigger neg nearly always wins.

A huge advantage of bigger formats is detail the bigger the neg the more detail you'll get.

 

[Roger Hicks]

+ 1 Roger People pay thousands of dollars for a camera lens and use a cheap enlarger lens.
A 35mm contact print has a great tonality, same applies to a 6x7 contact print and a 4x5 contact print, the bigger the enlargment the more tones you lose. You should get nearly the same tonality across formats if you use the same enlargment factor not size. In size the bigger neg nearly always wins.

Up to about 3x, with reasonable technique, a sharp lens and ISO 400 or under (certainly with ISO 100/125), an enlargement should pass for a contact print. After that...

People tend to forget that when the Leica was introduced, many people were satisfied with 6x9cm contact prints. A Leica could deliver quarter-plate at only 3x.

FAR too many people over-enlarge. And, as you say, FAR too many use cheap enlarger lenses. Or, worse still, flat-bed scanners with small formats.

Cheers,

R.

 

[gns]

I know that 4x5 should have better tonality but I'm trying to gauge whether I should pursue this format.

I think you just have to try it. Switching from hand-held to 4 x 5 will mean a whole package of differences in the way your pictures look (not least of which is determined by WHAT pictures you can or will make).

 

[Moto-Uno]

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

 

[Turtle]

I came to feel the same way and tried 8x10, then decided 5x7 was big enough for me, but not too large to handle conveniently.

I think you really need to see original prints, because everything ends up out of whack on screen.

IMO, if you are looking for the finest tonality, 5x4 starts to pull away from 6x7 very clearly above 11x14, even with 100 speed films.

Consider Linhof 6x7 cm (56 x 72 mm) enlarged 3x to whole plate (6.5 x 8.5 inch), where it looks like a contact print.

You're right: a JPEG on a computer screen will tell you NOTHING. But having (occasionally) shot the same still lifes on 6x7 and 4x5, and wet printed them, I'd say that an immense amount depends on your enlargement size, enlarger, enlarger lens... Increasingly, I regard 4x5 as a waste of time, a pointless intermediate between 6x7 and 5x7 inch/13x18 cm.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Dwig]

There isn't a single most important factor. I'm not sure it's even possible to rank them. But for any given enlarger and lens, the single most important factor is enlargement size. Also, the quality of the lens matters a LOT. Try an old, uncoated lens some time.

Cheers,

R.

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.

There are a lot of factors involved, but most of them are independent of the format used, lens quality being one. Those that are independent of format don't directly pertain to the OP's original question. They are peripheral at best.