Tonality in MF vs 35mm

If you look at my earlier shots of the George Washington Bridge, I think you can even tell from the thumbnails which was shot on a 35mm and which on a 6x4.5 MF.

/T
 
BTW, the whole systemic MTF is different for format. As you get bigger, the MTF response for the same image improves. Designing small format cameras are far harder because of this. This is why my very nice Hexar AF 35mm f/2 lens can never compete with my old Optar Speed graphic 135mm lens even though the specs on the Hexanon are better in every way. You just cannot beat format scale.
 
Maybe this is why I am using MF cameras this weekend. I want to see more details and better tonality. Am I correct in stating this?
 
yes, that's why i say: If you want to see really strong quality improvement, don't ask which leitz glass you should buy - try instead medium format.

But the technical quality does not make up for lack of a strong content.
 
I tried to go through all of the posts to see if this was mentioned: David Vestal wrote in the the late sixties that one of the factors that effects tonal quality is the film base. He said that because 120 is paper backed, it is able to get away with a thinner film base. 35mm film has the base and the strength all in the film base (e.i. thicker). The 'new' 35mm films have much thinner bases but maybe they still are thicker enough to cause an increased diffusion and light absorption over 120 film. And therefore reducing tonal quality. I would not say this is the only reason for the tonal difference phenomenon, just another factor.
 
charjohncarter said:
I tried to go through all of the posts to see if this was mentioned: David Vestal wrote in the the late sixties that one of the factors that effects tonal quality is the film base. He said that because 120 is paper backed, it is able to get away with a thinner film base. 35mm film has the base and the strength all in the film base (e.i. thicker). The 'new' 35mm films have much thinner bases but maybe they still are thicker enough to cause an increased diffusion and light absorption over 120 film. And therefore reducing tonal quality. I would not say this is the only reason for the tonal difference phenomenon, just another factor.
Click to expand...

220 film base it exactly the same as 120, but no paper backing. Sorry, but no dice with this idea. BTW, you always have emulsion toward the printing media so you don't have to image through the base.
 
Last edited:
Finder,

I think what Vestal was referring to was the 35mm thicker base which, regardless of how the emulsion is oriented, causes increased internal diffusion or light scatter. This fiber optic effect is easily seen if you shoot 35mm infrared film.

I was only remembering something that was said by a good photographer that, in my opinion, thinks. I wouldn't be so quick to discount this idea. It is also possible that because of the smaller image size on a 35mm negative the internal refraction of light in the film base is magnified versus 120. These are just thoughts, but it really doesn't matter because it appears from this post that this problem exists. The solution if one exists is to take all the data and try to scientifically improve results.
 
If the film base is a factor as Vestal describes it, it's a very minor one compared with the factor of film size. Most films have an antihalation backing (one exception being one of the Maco IR films) to reduce light scatter in the base. Large format films are usually on a thicker base than 35mm films, but they don't seem to be worse than medium format films.

Whether the base is a factor in enlargement, even with the emulsion toward the paper, would depend in part on the light source, I suspect, but the light source itself would be a much larger factor than diffusion from the film base.
 
35mm film being thicker than 120 makes it less able to record detail and tonality... but 4x5 film is far thicker than either. 4x5 enlargements I've seen are as much 'better' than medium format ones as medium format prints are 'better' than 35mm ones.
I don't think I buy the base thickness argument, or at least that it is a major player in overall image quality.
 
Did the old Ilford 72 exposure film record more detail due to its thinness? I never thought about it that way. I have not heard anyone say that the 72 exposure film was better than 36 exposure Ilford film.
 
Ahh, but races are won not by big amounts of improvement but by the addition of many small improvements. And we are talking about improving 35mm tonal quality vs 120. As drag racers say, "we win not by reducing pounds but by reducing many onces."
 
Zeiss claimed that 220 produced sharper results than 120, because direct contact with the pressure plate resulted in superior film flatness.
 
Just a thought, take a 120 negative that has good tonality and a 35mm negative with good tonality (by your definition), then cut the 120 to the size on the 35mm negative and print it. See if you can see the difference.
 
David Goldfarb said:
Zeiss claimed that 220 produced sharper results than 120, because direct contact with the pressure plate resulted in superior film flatness.
Click to expand...

It's also possible that, perhaps, they were trying to sell more of their 220 vacuum backs.
 
charjohncarter said:
Just a thought, take a 120 negative that has good tonality and a 35mm negative with good tonality (by your definition), then cut the 120 to the size on the 35mm negative and print it. See if you can see the difference.
Click to expand...

This would do it. So, who will do the test?
 
If you are using the same film stock, say HP5+, there is no point to doing this test, the 35mm neg will be better, due to the higher resolution of the average 35mm lens vs the average resolution of a MF lens. MF only wins in technical quality due to the fact that it needs a lesser degree of enlarging to reach the same print size as an enlargement from a 35m neg.
 
RObert Budding said:
It's also possible that, perhaps, they were trying to sell more of their 220 vacuum backs.
Click to expand...

As I recall it was in an article about lens testing with film, and anyway, I don't think Zeiss makes 220 vacuum backs, though they make lenses for cameras that can use vacuum backs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom