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.
Of course. I don't see your point at all apart from stating an obvious fact. Has anyone ever argued that the superior image quality produced by larger film size is NOT a factor of enlargement? Larger film needs to be enlarged less (or not at all for contacts) and so produces better, tonality detail etc.
In fact, many 35mm systems will give better images than LF systems in terms of pure LPM resolution, but that advantage is lost because they need to be enlarged so much more.
Oh! and the way you ignore the difference in FOV (quantity, in your words) is just dazzling in its wrong-headedness.
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.
Wrong. Your example is purely theoretical and takes no account of real world systems.
For 35mm photography you would actually use lenses specifiically designed for 35mm and lens would be perfectly perpendicular to film and film would be held in absolute correct plane and be under tension and flat. Same for medium format system.
Once you go to 4x5 the film slops about in the film holder and try as you might, the lens will not be perfectly perpendicualr to film plane becuase zero detents on large format cameras are not as accurate as fixed system like 35mm and medium format.
When a lens is slightly off axis then aberations are increased and combined with the fact that large format lenses are not built to the same high tolerances of the best 35mm and medium format lenses, then you can't expect the same potential resolution. However, film resolution is not the equal of lens resolution so the critical factor is film flatness and lens alignment and on large format that is not the equal of 35mm and medium format.
Thats why so many people opt for fuji or kodak readyload systems which use a pressure plate to always put film in same plane. But is film plane at same depth as ground glass?
On 8x10 film flatness is an even bigger potential problem as 8x10 has a bigger area and is even more floppy than 4x5. Tilt your film back forward and the film bulges.
If technique and system is operated to perfection then all well and good. But in reality in the field, that rarely happens.
Last edited by rob champagne; 07-20-2008 at 03:22 PM.
Since there is little to be gained in terms of image quality over smaller formats, and much is lost in the way of portability and spontaneity, it seems to me that the possession of a large camera, such as a 10x8 can only represent a form of repressed sexual inadequacy. Would anyone care to comment?
I would imagine running around with 10X8 camera would be rather odd.
Me? I prefer my 8X10.
__________________
...
a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon, you're talking about real money!
Everett Dirkson
The whole thread reads like a Chapter in "The Edge of Darkness". Barry alludes to motor bikes, he was probably a mod as he had a scooter, Vespa then Lambretta, 2/3rds of the chapter later you realise he's switched to format sizes.
So Dave's Lambretta (FP4) performs the same on a B road (back road - 35mm), A road (main road - 120 camera) or Motorway (Freeway/Autobahn - LF camera) at the same speed with the same lens etc.
But reality is very different move over Dave and put a different driver behind the wheel and you'd get totally different performance.
Linear Mode
