My statement regarding image quality in the opening thread seems not to have met with universal acceptance, even though true!
Consider the following.
Imagine my 10x8 is set up with lens fitted, focused and the required exposure set. It’s film holder is loaded it with Ilford FP4 and the shutter tripped. Next I transfer the lens to my 5x4 mounted in the same position, focus on the same spot, and make an identical exposure, again on FP4. Now consider my 35mm panoramic film back fitted to the 5x4 without changing any of the camera or lens settings. It’s loaded of course with FP4, and an exposure made. Following processing of the film, what difference in quality may I expect to see when examining the negatives?
None!
I will see a change in image quantity, but not in quality.
I suggest, for the purpose of promoting further discussion, that any change in image quality between the formats only becomes apparent at the printing stage, and is solely a factor of enlargement.
Shall we now address the question of image quality?
Hmmm...I always figured that the photographer was responcible for image quality...and that the camera/lens/film combination (along with the exposure and development) were the determinators of the quality of the negative.
If I make a shitty image -- that's my fault, not the equipment/format.
Vaughn
__________________
At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can be a good day of exercise.
I suggest, for the purpose of promoting further discussion, that any change in image quality between the formats only becomes apparent at the printing stage, and is solely a factor of enlargement.
But it's three different images.
8x10 contact
4x5 contact. Centre part of the first and smaller.
35mm pano. Even more selected image.
It's sort of like arguing if you change from B&W to colour film you end up with the same photograph.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
"Consider the following.
Imagine my 10x8 is set up with lens fitted, focused and the required exposure set. It’s film holder is loaded it with Ilford FP4 and the shutter tripped. Next I transfer the lens to my 5x4 mounted in the same position, focus on the same spot, and make an identical exposure, again on FP4. Now consider my 35mm panoramic film back fitted to the 5x4 without changing any of the camera or lens settings. It’s loaded of course with FP4, and an exposure made. Following processing of the film, what difference in quality may I expect to see when examining the negatives?
None!"
Absolute hogwash. You MUST be playing devil's advocate here, or I am just flabbergasted!
This is ignorant of field of view and composition, which are the real issues when photographing. You don't make a photograph to display image quality. You make one to display composition and/or content. Of course if you crop an 8x10 neg down to the point where you are only using a section of neg as large as a 4x5 neg, image quality will be the same as if you had popped a 4x5 reduction back onto the same camera setup that you had shot with 8x10. Any idiot can figure that one out on their own.
*This has almost ZERO real-world application, so is useless as far as comparisons are concerned.*
You're not going to be sitting there thinking, "Gee, I have my shot composed on 8x10. Maybe I should leave the camera set up exactly like it is, but use a 4x5 reduction back instead..." That's throwing away 3/4 of the shot you just set up and changing your shot entirely. That is like deciding whether to print something in 12 point font size and cut a square out of the middle of the page to read it, or printing it at 6 point size so it all fits on the same-sized square. Doing it the first way makes the page "impossible" to read as intended by the author.
The only possible application of your info is when your lens is simply too short for what you want, and you know you will need to crop way way down and waste 3/4 of your negative anyhow when you print. In that case, use the 4x5 reduction back rather than wasting a piece of 8x10 film. Similarly, if you know you will need to extensively crop your full frame digital shot to get the field of view you want on your print, use an APS-C camera instead for better image quality...but you won't ever ask yourself, when your full frame camera is sitting there on a tripod, shot beautifully composed, "I wonder if I should swap the camera out for my APS-C body instead...."
Instead, do this little test using the same horizontal field of view with each of the formats, then enlarge them. Put a 300 on your 8x10 and take the shot. Put a 150 on the camera, put on the 4x5 reduction back, compose just like the first shot, and take the shot. The 8x10 shot has to be enlarged 1/2 as much to make the same sized print. Your 35mm bit makes no sense, as you are using a view camera anyhow (wasn't that the original gripe...having to use a big camera?), and using the same width of film you are using on a piece of 4x5 film, so if enlarged the same amount horizontally, "image quality" will *obviously* be identical save for differences in processing, and other variables such as base thickness, different emulsion batches, etc.
Your way, you would shoot the shot on 8x10 with a 300mm. Then pop a 4x5 reduction back on and shoot it with a 300mm, changing nothing. I suppose that if you brought your 35mm camera with a 300mm lens, pointed it the same way you could take a shot with it as well.
With your way, you simply DO NOT get the same shot. It is a ridiculous and useless technical exercise that only illustrates that magnification is independent of format. Big whoopdeedo. You will never, ever have this consideration come up in real life shooting.
I don't use LF, but I think I get what Dave is saying. Of course you will have three different photographs, but the quality of each image will be the same: the sharpness, the contrast, the detail etc.
__________________
-----------My Flickr-----------
The Earth has music for those who listen
✯
My statement regarding image quality in the opening thread seems not to have met with universal acceptance, even though true!
Consider the following.
Imagine my 10x8 is set up with lens fitted, focused and the required exposure set. It’s film holder is loaded it with Ilford FP4 and the shutter tripped. Next I transfer the lens to my 5x4 mounted in the same position, focus on the same spot, and make an identical exposure, again on FP4. Now consider my 35mm panoramic film back fitted to the 5x4 without changing any of the camera or lens settings. It’s loaded of course with FP4, and an exposure made. Following processing of the film, what difference in quality may I expect to see when examining the negatives?
None!
I will see a change in image quantity, but not in quality.
I suggest, for the purpose of promoting further discussion, that any change in image quality between the formats only becomes apparent at the printing stage, and is solely a factor of enlargement.
The 8x10 will of course have captured a much larger part of the subject scene than the 4x5 and far more again than the 35mm, but are you discussing format or lens quality? (none if the same lens is used and each negative is cut to the same size as the 35mm negative).
If you were to use a 35mm SLR with the manufacturers own 300mm telephoto to take the picture and an 8x10 LF with a LF 300mm lens and cropped the centre of the 8x10 or 4x5 negative to 24mmx36mm size and compared them, then I think you would see a difference in resolution and sharpness.
For large print sizes, an enlargement from a larger negative will always have a smoother transition of tones than from a smaller negative. If you don`t enlarge on papers sizes above 11x14 or 12x16, then an enlargement from a 6x7 negative will usually be very satisfactory. Large-Format is also about perspective control and not just image quality.
I don't use LF, but I think I get what Dave is saying. Of course you will have three different photographs, but the quality of each image will be the same: the sharpness, the contrast, the detail etc.
I think you'll find that the contrast is different. Certainly, if all three films are developed in the same developer with the same dilution, temperature and time the contrast will be different. I use 35mm, 6 x 6 and 5 x 4 and have tested FP4 as described above and did find differences in contrast, albeit, subtle.
__________________
"Digital circuits are made from analogue parts"
Fourtune Cookie-Brooklyn May 2006
was I? 
Linear Mode
