Tonality in MF vs 35mm

ChrisN

ChrisN

Striving
Local time
8:25 PM
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
4,496
In Keith's thread about Neopan 400 (here), there are some lovely images posted as example of results with Neopan and various developers. One thing that has struck me there, and with a couple of recent rolls shot with HP5+ in a MF camera, is that the tonality achieved with MF seems to be better than the same film used in 35mm. There just seems to be a richer range of mid-tones especially recorded in the MF compared with the 35mm results. Am I imagining this?
 
There is a richer range of mid-tones especially recorded in the MF compared with the 35mm results. This is due to the greater area of the larger neg. When enlarged to the same sized print, the MF neg silver grains are enlarged and expanded to a lesser degree than a 35mm neg would be. Low, mid, and high tones benefit.
 
The main thing you're seeing, I think, is local contrast. All things being equal (and even if they're not so equal, like if you use a faster grainier film with MF and a slower film and sharper lenses with 35mm), this will generally give you a richer look with a larger format.
 
Same number perhaps, but there seems to be more subtle reditions or better differentiations of tones, don't you think?
 
I absolutely agree and have noticed it a few times. Someone posted this shot on this site a while back, I think in a post about TLRs. I was impressed and downloaded it to study in my own good time. I don't recall the name of the owner but if he turns up here, please take this as my compliment. ( I hope you do not mind me putting it here.) I love the tones in this shot which according to the name was shot on Rollei.
 

Attachments

  • 2007-09-24_Rollei_1_004.jpg
    2007-09-24_Rollei_1_004.jpg
    178.3 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Finder said:
Same number of tones, less granularity, more detail.
Click to expand...
No.. we do get more tones.

More film real estate means more intermediate levels of grey between contrasting areas.. And that accounts for that buttery smooth impression you get with MF.
 
peterm1 said:
I absolutely agree and have noticed it a few times. Someone posted this shot on this site a while back, I think in a post about TLRs. I was impressed and downloaded it to study in my own good time. I don't recall the name of the owner but if he turns up here, please take this as my compliment. ( I hope you do not mind me putting it here.) I love the tones in this shot which according to the name was shot on Rollei.
Click to expand...


Nice example, Peter, and demonstrates precisely what I'm asking about.

And, umm, that's my shot! :D Thank you for the compliment!

Taken with a Rolleiflex Automat 1, on HP5+. The old machinery is at Lanyon Homestead, on the south side of Canberra - they do good cake and coffee too so well worth a visit on a weekend afternoon.
 
Last edited:
Ahh Chris. Well done mate. I thought the tree in the background looked like a gum tree so I should have guessed that it could have been yours. But I did not say anything because I often look at Californian landscapes and mistake them for Australian ones. In any event well done - this is a very nice shot which illustrates the point just so!
 
pvdhaar said:
No.. we do get more tones.

More film real estate means more intermediate levels of grey between contrasting areas.. And that accounts for that buttery smooth impression you get with MF.
Click to expand...

Tonal range has to do with the Dmax and contrast of the film. Take one emulsion, and regardless for how big the film is, you have the same Dmax and contrast.
 
for a reeally slow and small-grain film, or very low contrast scene, you won't see a difference in tonality. Pan-f e.g. looks quite much the same.
For 400+ speed, there is considerable dfifference.
Even more so in C41 stuff. E.g. fuji NPH400 (pro400H, whatever it is called today), while okay looking in 35mm, it is really really excellent in 6x6. Tonality-wise, i mean.
 
Finder: true, but only true for the same magnification of a film area in both cases.
If you make a full frame image of the same schene on 35mm or on 6x6 and magnify them both to the same final print size (or monitor image size, in pixels) the difference is considerable.
That's one of the reasons for using MF, besides the resolution.
 
Pherdinand said:
Finder: true, but only true for the same magnification of a film area in both cases.
If you make a full frame image of the same schene on 35mm or on 6x6 and magnify them both to the same final print size (or monitor image size, in pixels) the difference is considerable.
That's one of the reasons for using MF, besides the resolution.
Click to expand...

I use medium format more than another format. I guess we are not understanding the word "tonality". That is not surprising as it is a subjective term. But it implies the number of tones. When I print my 35mm or my 6x12, I see no change in the number of tones - just granularity and detail. This includes the color negs I print - NPH400 is one of my favorite emulsions.

If what you say is true, then a scan of an image at different resolutions will change the number of tones. Unless the resolution is very, very low to have sampling problems, there will be no change in the number of tones - you can even check the histogram. Format does not change the film response.

I would submit the idea of "tonality" is being confused with other aspects of the image beyond tone (most likely granularity).
 
Last edited:
I have to agree with Finder. I think that 'tonality' tends to be used when we're actually refering to how smooth tones seem to grade. The number of shades is the same between MF and 35mm, it's just that because of the seemingly finer grain, it looks like there's a wider range (i.e. more shades) of tones.

Clarence
 
Finder: I guess I am not understanding "tonality", not "we".
You seem to do.
What i only know is, apart from the grains themselves, the whole image looks better in such cases of bigger film size. I guess it IS related to the grains...
 
MF definitely to my eyes has MUCH better tonality, although it's much more noticeable to me in black and white, not so much in color. A good way to explain it is the transitions between tones are way smoother.
 
Last edited:
Yep, in addition to richer mid-tones in a normal sized print, the transition between tones is definitely smoother, i.e. microcontrast. So, objects appear more three dimensional than with 35mm.
 
No-one has yet mentioned the half-tone effect.

To demonstrate it, enlarge an even mid-tone on ISO 400 film about 5-7x.

Make one enlargement conventionally.

For the second. move the paper during the exposure. The original research was, I believe, done with a gramophone turntable.

The two greys are different. Even before we can see grain, it affects tonality.

My own experiments have convinced me that up to about 2-3x, you can get contact-print tonality; at up to 5x, it's still 'creamy' (except for very grainy film); at 5x-8x, where it can be seen in the denser areas but not the thinner ones (grain depends on exposure, remember), tonality 'falls apart'; and at around 8-10x the tonality improves again because the half-tone effect is visible everywhere.

Cheers,

Roger
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom