35mm vs 2.25 8x10's?

domromer · Feb 21, 2008

Can a difference in quality be seen between 35mm 8x10's vs medium format 8x10's? I've never made a print from an MF neg ( always shoot slides).

domromer · Feb 21, 2008

anyone..anyone?

jstuedle · Feb 21, 2008

Yes, if the subject has fine detail it's very appearant. The tones and gradations are finer too. Something like feather detail when viewed up close if great in MF. You also have a lot more room to crop in MF than 35mm.

selmerdave · Feb 22, 2008

Have a look at a book of photography. Often the print sizes are no greater than 8x10, but the resolution is clearly beyond what you see from a 35mm. Obviously depends on the book, but find one with some details about the equipment used and have a look at the photos. Jim Zuckerman's "Perfect Exposure" is one that comes to mind, they're all 6x7 from Mamiya RB/RZ cameras.

Dave

nealjpage · Feb 22, 2008

I've got a 20x20 color cross-processed print on my wall. Very sharp.

ann · Feb 22, 2008

yes. the larger the negative surface the more information will be recorded.

the more information the better the tonal qualities, detail etc.

one can make very large prints from 35mm film but your technique must be spot of to be superior.

Bobby Ironsights · Feb 25, 2008

Yes. speaking from a personal level, I always beleived the old adage that you have to make enlargements to see the difference between 35mm and 120 format.

I beleived it, but I skipped a step, and went right to 4x5 inch negatives where the diffence is indisputable.

I beleived it, until I got into this semester, where we have to use 120 roll film in black and white.

Not 4x5, not 35mm, 120 only.

Well....I didn't have to get to the enlarger, I can see the difference in the contact sheets. I thought it must be because of the size difference, so I made some 5x7 prints and still....quite a difference.

I shoot prime lenses in 35mm and at fairly small apertures and I use very slow film, efke 25 and 50. So I know it's not sharpness that's improving.

It's something else. Not sharpness.....maybe it's tonal range or something... I don't know what it is, but I bought a Seagull 109 for 200 bucks thinking it was just a cheap throwaway camera that I was going to sell for 50 bucks once the semester was over.....

But what do you know???....It actually takes substantially better pictures than my 35 mm, so I've started using it for when I go out with friends and I wanna take snapshots for the occasion in low light situations, but still have them look nice...

I don't think I'm going to sell my seagull. Besides, someone else would just break it in the first week anyways. It has this quirk where if you change the shutter speed while the shutter is cocked....it breaks the shutter, not always the first time, but eventually.

compur · Mar 14, 2008

domromer said:
Can a difference in quality be seen between 35mm 8x10's vs medium format 8x10's? I've never made a print from an MF neg ( always shoot slides).

Yes, but it's more apparent with 11x14 and larger prints.

usayit · Mar 15, 2008

Yes...
I shot my final photography project using a combination 35mm and 645 formats using the same film (TMax 400 B&W). All prints were blown to 8x10 sizes and placed within a portfolio. You can definitely see the difference between the prints when placed side by side.

PeterK · Mar 19, 2008

There was discussion on large format photography website and they posted link with 8x10 scan and contact print:

http://www.victoriasphoto.com/Notes/Detail/

IMHO 35mm & med format film structure is the same, just smaller area.

Peter

Judge Sharpe · Apr 9, 2008

Bobby- you answered one question your self- the Ekfe film- It is much more silver rich than any thing else you can get today. More like the Old Kodak of yeaterday. And with the slow asa you are going to get much richer tones. It is sort of like Fiji print filn v, anything else- or Exta-Chrome.

christopher walrath · Apr 9, 2008

Yes. A 35mm negative holds some 40 billion silver halides crystals. That same film in a larger format, say, 6x4.5 has around 150 billion. 4x5? 550 billion crystals. 8x10? 1.1 TRILLION. Bigger is better. But not always necessary.