The hypothesis I proposed in the O.T. included the deliberately contentious statement that there was no difference in image quality between the formats. I think I have shown that the gain from using larger formats comes only from the reduced enlargement required to get a print of a given size. This should result in better print quality being derived from the bigger negative up to the level that the receiving medium can display. I accept that there are those of you enjoying enlarging from 10x8 negatives, but for myself I don’t believe that there is anything to gain from going beyond 5x4 for the print sizes I produce, typically 16x12. I suppose if I had a much larger darkroom I could be tempted, given the low cost of 10x8 enlargers, at least for second-hand units. My reason for buying a 5x4 field was simply for the enjoyment of using the instrument whilst my 10x8 camera is intended to produce negatives for contact printing using so called “alternative processes”.
I thought anyone who had done multi-format photography was familiar with this basic principle. If you've bought your first Holga after your 35mm P&S, this pretty much sinks home. But I agree with your conclusions in general.
If you limit the size of your print size to 16X20 "I would go one step more and suggest that by using MF with a slower speed and finer grain film you should be able to match quality from 4X5. For example, in my own experience I see about the same quality in 17X22" prints from negatives made with Mamiyia 7II 6X7cm format and Fuji Acros as with 4X5" format and Ilford HP5+. The fine grain and sharpness of the Across appear to roughly compensate for the slightly higher magnification factor you have to use with the 6X7 cm format.
Sandy King
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Miller
The hypothesis I proposed in the O.T. included the deliberately contentious statement that there was no difference in image quality between the formats. I think I have shown that the gain from using larger formats comes only from the reduced enlargement required to get a print of a given size. This should result in better print quality being derived from the bigger negative up to the level that the receiving medium can display. I accept that there are those of you enjoying enlarging from 10x8 negatives, but for myself I don’t believe that there is anything to gain from going beyond 5x4 for the print sizes I produce, typically 16x12. I suppose if I had a much larger darkroom I could be tempted, given the low cost of 10x8 enlargers, at least for second-hand units. My reason for buying a 5x4 field was simply for the enjoyment of using the instrument whilst my 10x8 camera is intended to produce negatives for contact printing using so called “alternative processes”.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
That almost holds true except when you put 10"x12" (image area) prints from 6x4.5cm, 6x9cm, 5"x4" and 10"x8" negatives side by side you can see the difference. What is true is the differences are very slight, but they are discernible, and when you enlarge further become far more important.
Linear Mode
