Re: [Leica] Large Format vs. Leica

["Barney Quinn, Jr." <barney@ncep.noaa.gov>]

Douglas,

I'll go out on a limb on this one. I've shot both Tri-X and T-Max 100 in
both 35 mm, 120, and 4x5. There is no question that you can make 11x14
B&W prints using a Leica which are sharp, crisp, and beautiful. Many
people on the list say that their 35 mm Leica stuff compares favorably
with 4x5 stuff. It's a claim which, IMHO, isn't probably that far off
the mark.

Let me challenge the group about something. 35 mm and 4x5 photography do
not function in the same space, and in particular they do not function
in the same technical space. 35 mm technology is much closer to the edge
of the envelope than is large format. You can hide a multitude of sins
in a small enlargement from a large negative. ( A 4x5 negative, to put
things in perspective, is really just about the same size as a 4x6 print
from a 35 mm negative. ) Large format photographers regularly produce
stunning results using sixty and eighty year old lenses. Some of the
lenses preferred by LF purists haven't even been manufactured in years,
and are only available used, when you can find them.

I'll believe the claim. In fact, I can tell you from my own experience
that it's basically true. How big of an enlargement are we talking here?
An 8x10 or an 11x14 from a large format negative is little more than a
contact print. If you hold a Tri-X and a T-Max print made from a 4x5
negative side by side the differences you'll see have to do with grain
and tonality, not sharpness. They are different. I wouldn't say that one
is better than the other. Thanks to the huge size of a 4x5 negative the
differences just aren't going to be nearly as dramatic as they would be
if you did the same thing with 35 mm negatives.  

 
Barney

Douglas Cooper wrote:
> 
> >
> > For example, Tri-X in 35mm looks like hell at any EI.  Not pretty,
> > and something you would only use if you needed it.
> 
> I'd have to take issue with that; but then, I *like* grain.  Tri-X remains
> one of my favorite films at 35mm.
> 
> Speaking of this medium vs 35mm format discussion, have you read that essay
> on photodo in which the author claims that with Tmax there is *no* inherent
> advantage to larger formats?  I find it hard to believe -- as did the author
> -- but he claims tests show that blowing up a a 4x5 shot on Tmax 100 offers
> no sharpness benefit over the same size enlargement from 35mm.
> 
> This seems radically counterintuitive to me, but then my large format work
> tends towards transparencies (where the advantage is obvious).
> 
> Douglas Cooper
> http://www.dysmedia.com