Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Here's my experience with this. I shoot all three formats, frequently with Tri-X. My experience is that there aren't dramatic differences in sharpness and contrast between an 8x10 or 11x14 full frame enlargement made with top grade Leica gear or a MF system. The real differences are in tonality, not grain. But, there's one huge warning here. To get results this good from a 35mm you have to keep in mind that you are working at the edge of the envelope, and you have little if any room for error. MF is more forgiving because you aren't working at the fringe of what it can do. These comments about quality don't hold true for 4x5. An 8x10 made from a 4x5 Tmax negative will give you a B&W print which looks as if it was painted using mono-chromatic paint. Really beautiful. I shoot T400CN or APX 100 for my 35mm stuff. I don't enlarge beyond 11x14 because I think that the image quality starts to fall apart at that point. I don't use Tri-X for 35mm. I just can't take the grain. For 120 I shoot either T400CN or Tri-X. For 4x5 I use Tri-X souped in Rodiol or D-76. I don't think that 120 or 4x5 Tri-X is are the same emulsions as the 35mm variety. I just love the results I get with larger format Tri-X. I find for all these differences to become visible you need to get larger than 11x14 for 35mm, 16x20 for 120, and 20x24 for 4x5, or at lease you need to get to this magnification level if you are doing smaller, cropped prints. Taste has a lot to do with it, and your mileage will certainly vary. Some people are far more into the technical aspects of image quality than others, and some kinds of photography, such as landscape work, lend themselves to high image quality. Others, like action photography, may not. Don't overlook the importance of viewing distance, either. Things look very different six feet from your nose than they do at six inches from your nose. Barney Johnny Deadpan wrote: > on 6/28/01 2:05 PM, Jason Hall at JASON@jbhall.freeserve.co.uk wrote: > > > I've heard it said that at > > modest enlargements the step up from 6x6 to 4x5 is not really visible > > but your comments below suggest there is a marked difference, I also > > dabble with 6x6 (Mamiya C220) in addition to my Leica's so I'd be > > interested to know how big you print and how much difference there is > > between the 4x5 and the 6x6 pics. To date I have never made prints > > bigger than 12"x16" although occasionally I'm cropping to 12x16". > > well it depends what you're shooting I think > > if you are shooting 100 asa then you won't see much difference between a > 12x12 print from 120 and a 12x16 from 4x5, thought it WILL be there in the > delicacy of the tonality and the rendering of very fine details. > > If you are shooting 400 asa then you will see a BIG difference. And if you > are shooting people on 4x5 I suspect you will be shooting 400 or higher > speeds. I certainly do. > > on 4x5 you can shoot film at 800 or 1600 and still have effectively > grain-free enlargements at all sensible sizes. You *cannot* do that on 120. > > I think there are subtler differences as well. They are certainly different > beasts. Shooting 4x5 tends to enforce totally different work habits that > produce different results. Slobodan called it 'monumental' and there's truth > in that. > -- > John Brownlow > > http://www.pinkheadedbug.com > > ICQ: 109343205