Why larger film

[sarallyn]

Surely a contact print from a 8x10 (or larger) negative is even better than an enlargement from a MF neg.

you're probably right.
i'm just a little out of it today. (darkroom fumes + nyquil.)

 

[monkeykoder]

I say film is better than digital because I hate light... Only kinda kidding.

 

[Hawaii Five-O]

I saw some old B&W photos on tv a few days ago, man they sure were cool so much contrast and depth, so crisp too. Large format defiantly rules the B&W arena

 

[epatsellis]

Surely a contact print from a 8x10 (or larger) negative is even better than an enlargement from a MF neg.

Like so many other things in life, bigger is better...



erie

 

[epp_b]

I fully understand the reasons why film is optically superior to digital, but digital is just too convenient for me to bother with film

 

[danjchau]

-------------

 

[epatsellis]

It depends Dan, I often shoot 4x5 color negatives, and occasionally 8x10. A 16x20 from a 4x5 negative and a 16x20 from a D300 look totally different, in alot of subtle and not so subtle ways. An 8x10 negative or transparency blows anything else out of the water, and it's not subtle.

Larger formats have more of a 3d look to them, more of "looking through a window" than looking at a picture. While you still have some of that look when you view them on a computer, looking at actual prints really shows the differences much more readily.

For image control, a view camera wins, and for what a used tilt/swing lens cost for an SLR, you can have full movements, and some money left over. Like anything that gives you 100% control, however, it's incumbent upon the operators skill as well.

As to convenience, digital wins hands down. I realize not everybody has a film processor sitting in their house, or a Frontier at the studio they have access to, and quite honestly if I didn't, I'd be shooting a lot less film.

 

[photographyaddict]

i prefer medium.

 

[McQueen278]

Also the AA filter on the digital sensors degrade the image a bit to fix a problem that doesn't often hurt an image. A 1Ds/5D makes a beautiful image, but with the AA filter it will inhearantly be less sharp that a 1V at the exact same lens, aperture, shutter speed etc. This of course doesn't apply to the larger neg debate, but it's something to think about everytime someone throughs out the digital card. These cameras are also clearly oriented toward larger prints.

 

[epatsellis]

And one of the reasons why images I shoot from my 9mp 4x5 scan back blow away 20+mp Dslr images, every time. In terms of sharpness, apparent detail and color accuracy, LF digital is a whole other world.

Also the AA filter on the digital sensors degrade the image a bit to fix a problem that doesn't often hurt an image. A 1Ds/5D makes a beautiful image, but with the AA filter it will inhearantly be less sharp that a 1V at the exact same lens, aperture, shutter speed etc. This of course doesn't apply to the larger neg debate, but it's something to think about everytime someone throughs out the digital card. These cameras are also clearly oriented toward larger prints.

 

[djacobox372]

I'm kinda excited to try medium format film. I hear it the best way to take B&W photos, the blacks are inky blacks and the whites white, and more depth than other formats.

I'm a bit confused about how the size of the negative could effect the exposure of the film...... more detail and, because of that, smooth gradients yes, but that's it.