[pure-silver] Tonal gradation/smoothness in 35mm negs c.f. larger formats
- From: "Peter Badcock" <peter.badcock@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:51:04 +1100
There has been a discussion on APUG about the differences between 35mm
negatives and larger format negatives in relation to tonal gradation and
smoothness of tones (particularly in the highlights).
So all other things being equal, can somebody please tell me why I can't get
the same tonal gradation/smoothness onto a print made from a 35mm neg cf. a
larger negative of the same film, same scene, same exposure conditions, same
developer etc etc. If possible, assume grain size is small enough to be
irrelevant - i.e. keep the print smallish, say no bigger than 6-7 inches.
Rather than pre-empt any explanations you folks come up with , I'll just
supply you with quotations for now rather than the original APUG thread (of
course you can search for it yourself, but I'd rather you thought about it
independently because I'm not satisfied with the only answer that was posted
on APUG)
regards
Peter
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Allan Swindles* [image: View
Post]<http://www.apug.org/forums/forum52/45389-35mm-big-enough-quality-prints-post560618.html#post560618>
Lol, IMHO the biggest advantage of medium/large format is in the *gradation*,
particularly noticable in monochrome work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by *mhv* [image: View
Post]<http://www.apug.org/forums/forum52/45389-35mm-big-enough-quality-prints-post560379.html#post560379>
What is important when you print from a small negative is to get proper
contrast. Too many people end up with flat, ugly stuff when they enlarge a
lot. You need to get proper exposure, development, proper paper grade, a
good paper developer, know how to dodge and burn, etc. If your goal is to
get the *smooth tones* of MF or LF, forget about it, it just won't happen.
But you can make excellent full-scale prints if you set your heart to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by *aldevo* [image: View
Post]<http://www.apug.org/forums/forum52/45389-35mm-big-enough-quality-prints-post562345.html#post562345>
But let's not kid ourselves. In photography there's no substitute for square
inches and 35mm gives you all of 1 1/2 to play with. And the real issue here
isn't necessarily grain or apparent sharpness - it's *smoothness of
gradation, particularly in the highlights*. You can create adjacency effects
till the cows come home in 35mm - so much so, in fact, that I believe you
can actually make an 8x10 print in 35mm appear sharper than a print of the
same size taken in 120 with good equipment. But smooth, translucent
highlights? Not a chance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by *aldevo* [image: View
Post]<http://www.apug.org/forums/forum52/45389-35mm-big-enough-quality-prints-post562861.html#post562861>
I've developed 35mm FP4+ negs in straight Edwal 20 from the photographer's
Formulary (and that's about as solvent as you can get, btw) and at 8x10
there is still, very definitely, *inferior highlight gradation* relative to
any MF negative enlarged to the same print size I have ever seen. And I've
seen many of those. The highlights will betray 35mm every time once we are
above about 4x.
------------------------------
* *
Other related posts:
