Is 4x5 worth the effort

Alan Clark said:
Alan and Helen, the differences you point out are because the light changed - it was sunny with moving clouds. I wasn't worried about this as I wasn't trying to end up with two prints that looked the same. I was looking for differences. The light level stayed the same, so the basic exposure stayed the same. I was concentrating and focussing on the tree trunk, as the idea was to see if there would be any difference in tonality and sharpness between 6 x 7 and 5 x 4. Both were exposed at f22 for 1/4 sec. And both were developed in ID11 at 1:2 for 14 minutes.
Helen, you say the mamiya lens is very sharp. It is, but it doesn't have that harsh sharp look that you see with some lenses. It actually has a lovely open quality to it that is quite special.
Click to expand...
The greater contrast makes images look sharper, even if they're not.
 
Alan Klein said:
The greater contrast makes images look sharper, even if they're not.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a scientific test. I was simply taking photographs in lighting conditions that I like, of a subject that I liked, using two different camera formats, to see if there were any differences. Look at the main trunk of the tree. That's what I was concentrating on. Can you see any differences?
 
Alan Clark said:
It wasn't a scientific test. I was simply taking photographs in lighting conditions that I like, of a subject that I liked, using two different camera formats, to see if there were any differences. Look at the main trunk of the tree. That's what I was concentrating on. Can you see any differences?
Click to expand...
I assume the contrast difference applies to the entire photo, not just the branch I mentioned, where it's most obvious. So sharpness differences due to exposure difference would apply on the trunk and everywhere else as well.

My own experience using a V850 scanner on both 6x7 medium format and 4x5 large format shows better resolution with the 4x5. Tonality and sharpness appear better as well. But I agree that for most purposes, medium format is plenty good enough.

Interestingly, I did a comparison with a Howtek 8000 drum scanner and the results of the V850 with 4x5 compared favorably with the drum.

Howtek 8000 Drum vs. Epson V850 flatbed scanners

Here's a comparison between Howtek HiResolve 8000 drum scanner and Epson V850 flatbed. Negative is mine, Tmax 100, processed normal by North Coast Photo dip and dunk with Clayton F76+ developer (similar to Kodak D76). Taken on a Chamonix 45H-1, Schneider Symmar APO 150mm with B+W orange...
www.largeformatphotography.info
 
Alan Klein said:
Interestingly, I did a comparison with a Howtek 8000 drum scanner and the results of the V850 with 4x5 compared favorably with the drum.

Howtek 8000 Drum vs. Epson V850 flatbed scanners

Here's a comparison between Howtek HiResolve 8000 drum scanner and Epson V850 flatbed. Negative is mine, Tmax 100, processed normal by North Coast Photo dip and dunk with Clayton F76+ developer (similar to Kodak D76). Taken on a Chamonix 45H-1, Schneider Symmar APO 150mm with B+W orange...
www.largeformatphotography.info
Click to expand...
Just had a look at this, I had not seen it before. To my eye the Epson looks about what you'd expect, ie ok if aggressively sharpened, but at source nowhere near as good as the drum scan.
 
For me, I believe the first image is 6x7 and the second image is 4x5.
 
Well Allan, regardless of whether I can see any differences in the images, you caused an interesting and lively discussion, which is all to the good.
 
I recall that Ansel Adams occasionally shot with a Hasselblad M/F, and I’m pretty sure he remarked that the results weren’t dramatically inferior to his 4×5 work. In fact, two of his iconic pictures—_Moon_ and, I think, _Half Dome_—were taken with that Hasselblad.
 
martin henson said:
I recall that Ansel Adams occasionally shot with a Hasselblad M/F, and I’m pretty sure he remarked that the results weren’t dramatically inferior to his 4×5 work. In fact, two of his iconic pictures—_Moon_ and, I think, _Half Dome_—were taken with that Hasselblad.
Click to expand...
Yes, a Hasselblad for half dome but an 8x10 camera for Moonrise, Hernandez.
 
A “pro” would use whatever the job demanded , and if there were specific skills needed to get what the client required they may or may not be able to do the job.
Likely they would today work with a digital back on a camera with movements to do commercial work for architecture, food, or product jobs , otherwise depend on image manipulation post capture as well as multiple exposure techniques for focus stacking etc in smaller digital formats.
Using film would really be a niche requirement from a client .
So it was a sweeping generalisation really,
Now if the “pro” work was as part of a self commission or personal promotion - book, project then the “bother” bit would be part of the creative endeavour and they could choose whatever they wanted.
Poor amateurs are beset by their human condition to use whatever floats their boat, which is wonderful because they are free to explore.
I think photography can be as simple or complex as you want it to be but there are constraints , requirements that a professional photographer has to work with.
Lastly I think Martin has the answer in his love of pinhole - yes you can use any format but bigger does definitely make a difference that is more noticeable within reason.
 
Dave_P said:
As for digital, yawn, nobody asked
Click to expand...
And yet, without it, we would have nothing to show in forums like this one. As soon as you scan a neg, you have digitised it. Unless you are fortunate enough to have a darkroom, a lot of LF photographers use the hybrid workflow, which uses an "analogue" camera to capture the image but, after development comes scanning and, instead of being limited in enlargement size by a film's resolving power and grain size, we are now totally in the digital world. Even if you scan a silver print, you enter that world and need to bear in mind how that scan of the neg or print is presented.
jhotopf said:
5x4 is worth the effort, it's all about the experience
Click to expand...
Indeed. It's certainly no longer the case that it is about image quality or size. But discussing image size and print quality in digital terms can reveal some interesting information.

Scanning at 2400ppi gives us a digital image…
  • for 5" x 4" film, of 12000px x 9600px, which prints without resizing to 50" x 40"
  • for 7cm x 6cm film, of 6614px x 5669px, which prints without resizing to 27.5" x 23.5"
  • for 35mm film, of 3401px x 2268px, which prints without resizing to 14" x 9.5"
Whereas, a 46Mpx camera, with a 36mm x 24mm sensor, cropped to 5x4 proportions, yields a digital image of 6880px x 5504px, which is roughly equivalent to 6x7 MF film. I'm not advocating digital, simply making a comparison based on a common measurement standard.
Nas said:
For others like myself it's all about the journey and the experience along the way. I'm happy to drag around my 12x10 ULF camera on a sack truck and expose long expired glass plates or paper negs because it's challenging, a lot of people would have no interest at all.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more. I suppose my reluctance to use LF photography has grown as I have aged. I am no longer capable of traveling on foot with a 15kg backpack, so Brett Weston's joke that "anything more than 500 yards from the car just isn't photogenic" becomes much more relevant, except, for me, 50 yards is more the limit ;)
Ian Grant said:
We can't avoid Interpolation, as that is part of the conversion of Pixels.PPI to DPI.
Click to expand...
But when print head resolution is 2400dpi, as it is on my Canon Pro-1000, with a 240ppi file, that means 10 dots per pixel, it is just not discernible. or worth considering.
Ian Grant said:
It's semantics, I was having A0 and A1 prints made from a 6mb camera over 20 years ago, print size is also related to viewing distance.
Click to expand...
And, when you use excellent upscaling software, like Topaz Gigapixel, print size becomes much less of a limiting factor and viewing distances are also far less relevant.
HowLarge said:
A “pro” would use whatever the job demanded , and if there were specific skills needed to get what the client required they may or may not be able to do the job.
Likely they would today work with a digital back on a camera with movements to do commercial work for architecture, food, or product jobs , otherwise depend on image manipulation post capture as well as multiple exposure techniques for focus stacking etc in smaller digital formats.
Using film would really be a niche requirement from a client .
Click to expand...
I think this just about sums it up.

My reply would be
  • Do you do photography with LF because you enjoy the experience? In which case, carry on and more power to your elbow. It is important that heritage skills are not lost.
  • Do you have work or client pressures to exacting standards? in which case, don't bother with MF film as it has no advantage over modern high resolution digital cameras. Unless, of course, you are addicted to the smell of darkroom chemistry :p
 
Last edited:
Yes I would imagine 6x9 to get closer to 4x5 , pinhole (or lens) , I cannot demonstrate it because I spend too much time imagining rather than actually doing (Thats another topic.. is it a valid one?)
 
Joanna Carter said:
And yet, without it, we would have nothing to show in forums like this one.
Click to expand...
And yet, this wasn't the issue being discussed at all. Someone asked about medium format vs 5x4' film. I am aware that computers are digital.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nas
Dave_P said:
And yet, this wasn't the issue being discussed at all. Someone asked about medium format vs 5x4' film. I am aware that computers are digital.
Click to expand...
Well, threads have a tendency to wander about and cover a lot of ground especially when there are a lot of replies. Doesn't matter as far as I am concerned. Sometimes, some interesting and unexpected stuff turns up.
 
MartyNL said:
For me, I believe the first image is 6x7 and the second image is 4x5.
Click to expand...
Well done Marty. Hard luck Martin.. Thanks to you both for sticking your necks out. Nobody else dare... not surprising as there was no discernible difference.
 
For prints up to 16 x 20 in the darkroom (a 7x enlargement for a 6x7 negative) I find there is no discernible difference between 6x7 and 5x4. An RB67 is much easier to use than a 5x4 camera, but I still use 5x4 because the front tilt movement really helps with the way I like to do landscape photographs. So I use both.
 
I think you got one of the golden qualities of LF there Martin expose and dev one image individually and truly bracket with a second sheet that you can adjust the dev for if the 1st did not do what you wanted.
Curiously the best argument for shooting raw with A dog too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top