[rollei_list] Re: "Advantage of 4x5 over medium format" (was: Austin has ...
- From: "John A. Lind" <jalind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:53:21 -0500
First, Mark, thanks for the remarks about black backdrop materials. I have
a vision about what I want to create and have been working with the
background and lighting to make it happen. I don't have intermediate or
advanced "studio" work experience; what I've done in the past has been very
basic. It has proven to be quite a learning curve discovering exactly how
various modifiers can be used to control the light.
At 03:50 AM 4/19/2005, Mark Rabiner wrote:
>To me the advantage of 4x5 over medium format is the same thing.
>4x5 has amazing creamy smooth high tones. Highlights.
>The lighter tones are thicker and more solid.
>That's the only way I can describe them.
>Better than medium format and much better than 35mm.
>Crispy as the small format stuff is.
>It's also crunchy.
>
>That's how I like my peanut butter not my prints.
>
>Mark Rabiner
>Photography
>Portland Oregon
>http://rabinergroup.com/
I can tell the difference between small, medium and large format with
larger prints (8x10 and bigger; sometimes a 5x7) . . . if the photograph
and print are well executed. Just organized a non-professional photo show
for the local art association here (that has been a very rewarding
experience; as its organizer I cannot enter it myself though). Minimum
print size is 8x10 and well over 80% are in the 11x14 size class (and
"gallery presentation" is required or they're rejected). There aren't any
that look to be made using large format, but there are several clearly made
with medium format. Some of it is the level of detail and some of it is
the smooth value transition from highlight to midtone that you mention.
I have several 5x7 prints made from some of my own medium format work in
which I can see a difference compared to same print size using 35mm. Among
my own mix of work, the 35mm prints need to be 8x10 or 8x12 to be
comparable at normal wall viewing distances with my 11x14 and 16x20 medium
format work.
There are some disadvantages to using each format. I don't use large
format for a number of reasons, not the least of which is its size, weight
and lack of agility. I don't have the time it requires to work a large
format system properly; my photography is wedged in around my "day job" and
being able to set up a photograph and tear everything down again
efficiently has some priority. Running a close second is the cost in
equipment, film and developing. Not that I wouldn't like to be able to
work large format (or at least try it), at this point in time it would
inhibit what I'm trying to do with my photography much more than enhance
it. I do have medium format equipment, and it has proven to have
sufficient agility and portability to use for many of my photographs. If I
need high portability and agility, I use 35mm equipment but must trade that
off with something a bit less in resolution, crispness and the smoother
value transitions in larger prints. I couldn't have done what I did
shooting candid "blues jams" in a dimly lit small club, or documenting the
work done in an opalescent glass factory and hot glass studio with my
medium format system using available light. The coarseness of TMax P3200
at EI 1600 which I used for shooting in the dimly lit club and for some of
the glass works photographs resulted in an interesting appearance that
seems somewhat fitting for the subject material.
I do have shift lenses for both 35mm and medium format, and there have been
a few times I've wished for tilt capability (lack of which has forced some
modifications of a few compositions). One additional thing I've noted is
difference in depth of field. Medium format loses about 1.5 stops worth
for the same field of view and focus distance . . . meaning I must remember
to stop down 1-2 more stops when using the medium format gear to get the
same apparent field depth as I would with 35mm . . . for which I have a
"feel" for what I'll get most of the time with apertures and critical focus
distances. I just did a 1:1 macro last night and used the 35mm gear for
it. Reason? The subject material has some depth in which I wanted to
maintain apparent sharpness and I couldn't get enough light on the subject
material (in the manner I wanted it illuminated) for the extra stop-down
the medium format gear would have required. I was able to generate enough
light to fully stop down the 35mm lens (1:1 magnification is two full stops
of light loss from infinity focus using lens extension]).
If 4x5 is working well for you, more power to you! Right now its
disadvantages outweigh what I might gain from using it. Regarding medium
format, I'm trying to use it more than I have in the past . . . more along
the lines of whether or not it's actually possible to use it (and have a
decent chance of success) than what is easiest to use.
-- John Lind
Other related posts:
