But then you can't set different exposure setting for each frames, e.g 1st frame is push +3, 2nd frame is pull +2 etc etc. Gotta use the same exposure setting for the entire roll 😅
120 roll film has a width of 2 ¼ inches. From 1903 to 1971, Kodak made 122 roll film. The 122 roll film had a width of 3 ¼ inch. Since 3 ¼ inch roll film was larger in size than 2 ¼ inch roll film, 122 roll film was considered to be large format. The 122 film was used to make 3 ¼ x 5 ½ inch postcard size images in Kodak 3A Folding Cameras.
Hey, a quick correction first. It's "lp/mm" and not "llpm" for resolution measurement. lp/mm is line pairs per millimeter. Ummm, really the modulation transfer function (MTF) is the true metric of a particular film stock's resolution. Pull the data sheet for the film; the curve (curves for color emulsions) is on there. MTF basically tells you how much contrast is recorded from the scene, as the amount of scene detail varies, as expressed in lp/mm. You'll see film fanatics quote 30% MTF (MTF30) numbers to exaggerate the ability of their favorite stock. For actual, practical photographic uses, look at the MTF70 intersection of the curve. For example, you'll see something like Velvia in 135 is about 10MP, which should be consistent with most photogs' experience. As for shooting sheet film, I got that itch burned out of me years ago, even back when consumable cost didn't cost your right arm and your first born. For a time, I was enamored with low noise and high resolution. Film was the only way to get there - until gradually it really wasn't, and then suddenly it _really_ wasn't. Frankly, any number of current enthusiast FF digicams outshines something like Portra 160 in 4x5. And this is typical. There is still advantage in hauling around a view camera, however, and it's all about camera movements. The best of both worlds is to mate the view camera to a digital back. Take a look at the Cambo Actus (www.cambo.com/en/actus-series/) line.
Indeed, and also factor in development/printing and there's no way film can keep up with digital now. I say that as a film fan and an ex darkroom printer and lab technician in colour too. I've examined 1000s of transparencies over time. However I didn't like the tonality and electronic feeling of digital up until recently, I guess die to better sensors/software and crucially lens design, particularly mirrorless lens design. Colour transparency has nice colour separation, and digital is there I'd say too. But there's always the medium of display: transparency is wonderful to see when exposed correctly. Prints in silver have depth. But giclee printing is absolutely great too, and is sure to evolve much more in the early years of photography
I understand that 35mm resolution is roughly around 30mpx to 50mpx if you consider the film only. So if you adjust for the size, does that hold true for 120 through to LF? I would imagine so? In that case the 100mpx on 5x4 seems low - not related to the film. Probably more the lens or the scanning technique?
Big difference between scanning resolution (e.g. a Nikon Coolscan V at 4000dpi gives ~21MP image file for 35mm film), and actual resolving power of the film (highly related to grain size but also lens, how perfect the focus was, etc.). Scanning a 4x5 at the same 4000dpi scanning resolution would give about 308MP file, but same caveat. The 14x-15x scaling should between 35mm and 4x5 should remain constant for a given film stock, developer, process, shooting conditions, etc. But that 30-50MP for 35mm is nowhere near reality for film - I just got a darkroom up and running and started making my first prints, 8x10 prints from 35mm film so far. HP5+ printed at 8x10 has very noticeable grain even viewing from a couple feet away. Hard to give exact resolution but definitely nowhere near 30MP - doesn't mean it doesn't look nice, though!
I find 35mm to be the bottom of the barrel, worse image quality than digital most of the time, expensive and not so fun at the dark room, the good stuff is at large format and digital. With large format you already said it plus I can make my own emulsions and plates from scratch and get tremendous satisfaction, with digital I enjoy going out and taking photos of wildlife equestrian events and many other things with the most accurate colors and almost grainless, a true snapshot of that reality never running out of film. The best is I can digitize the analog to share and print the photos taken with the digital camera to enjoy and preserve, each side of the spectrum can enjoy the advantages of each other!
One of my takes in my “hot take” video was that 35mm isn’t good enough. I’m right there with you. I’m routinely disappointed by the quality even good cameras, lenses and films produce in the format.
@Overexposed1 "Slowing down" is an understatement. Ha. I just ordered the Lomograflok back 10 minutes ago, so I can learn the camera at a mere $1/shot as opposed to $2.25-$7.50/per shot on negative. It's a waste of the camera's format, but I won't have to take out a loan while I'm just learning to shoot the camera. I can take out that loan for 4x5 negs later.
Resolution is not what large format is about (the resolution of a Sony A7 R IV is already far beyond what can be seen even with ultra large prints) - it is about what can be done with rise/fall, tilt and shift (there are modular digital cameras that can provide that, but they cost so much that large format looks cheap in comparison ;-)). And it opens up some alternative techniques (e.g. pinhole photography with good "resolution", or wet-plate). The main driver of cost is film (especially color) - and development, if not done at home (this can be a bit tricky with sheet film, my experience is mixed).
@@paulatterby7507 Sure, if you pixel-peep on screen, there's a visible difference (but not necessarily in real details). I was talking about prints - unless you inspect a 50 x 40 inch print from 5 inch distance, the Sony will have plenty resolution *in practice* (and with AI based enlargement, nobody else will notice even then). If it is all about resolution, a 100 MP digital MF camera (e.g. Fuji GFX 100S) will do the trick, and bought used will cost only slightly more than a good 4x5 system - where film costs are by now quite prohibitive (with going on $10 per shot on color negative film if all done at home, and rising every quarter year at the moment). If you *love* shooting film, 4x5 is definitely nice and the way to go - no need for any other argument. ;-)
Not in a single frame, but it's trivially easy to stitch digital images together for similar resolution. But the look is different, largely because the standard lenses of LF are not the equivalents of medium telephotos but are in fact the actual focal lengths.
@@paulatterby7507 I disagree - I've just developed and scanned my first "real", non-pinhole 4x5 negatives (different film stocks, from ISO 100 to 400), and I'm underwhelmed. Even macro "scans" don't reveal the detail I could get with a 40 MP or 60 MP camera (I have friends who do have such cameras, I know what it looks like). Granted, the Schneider-Kreuznach Symmar 5.6/150 (coated) isn't the best possible lens (it does have a good reputation, and my lens seems to be in good order), but a (used) apochromatic LF lens would cost me as much as a Sony A7 R III or IV. Maybe your LF lens is top notch. My assessment still stands. Edit: Actually not my first non-pinhole negatives, my very first 4x5 shots were done some years ago with a friend's Sinar with a good Sinar lens, and results were more or less the same regarding resolution and sharpness (more grain than actual details). But *scanning* might be the point here - this can create visual sharpness without actual detail, and scan software can work wonders (I'm talking about unprocessed scans, no sharpening applied) …
I have shot both 35mm and medium format film. I enjoy shooting film because it is a slow process and it makes me think about everything that has to go into a good image. I hope someday to shoot large format in 5x7 just to at least give it a go.
I love large format, and shoot 4x5 but find between work and life, it’s hard to find time to shoot large format. Large format produces great detail, however, it requires planning the shot, it’s slow and methodical process, film is not cheap, not all scanners can scan large format. I find that I probably shoot a box of 25 sheets per year, so in some ways it can be economical if one slows down plans, composes and meters each shot. I have noticed a lot of people started getting involved in large format back in 2021 with the cameras offered by Intrepid and others. However about a year later alot of people did sell off their large format cameras and lenses due to the size of the camera, slowed down approach and film costs, they realize that they use it once or twice and move on.
I've usually dealt with contrasty film with overexposure and pull processing... I guess, if you really, really had a great landscape, or architecture shot, you could do 2 or 3 bracketed shots, scan and stack... Stacking 3 gigapixels... In any case, an apo lens on 4x5 Velvia really lays down the details! Thanks for cool video...btw, would be nice to do pixel-level zoom on your 4x5 microfilm images!
It should be mentioned that even TMAX 400 on 4x5 will deliver an incredible image quality and that large format cameras can do a lot more than taking high resolution images like perspective correction (tilt & shift & swing) or great bokeh pictures with a very small depth of field.
100% I am a pro having to embrace change over a 35yr careeer - I use a Hass H6D100C and it fits in nicely with the other rHass bits and bobs we have - but there is nothing as special as a 10x8 Transparency directly contact printed onto a Cibachrom -it would probably scale up to a billion pixels pr something - the colours and detail punch you on the face so hard you will never forget it - I miss those days
You might be able to find some old Kodak Tech Pan in 8x10 (discontinued in 2004.) Be sure to develop it in something like Technidol for lovely, lovely smooth tones. Beware, though: it's going to be expensive and you'll want to research developers as Technidol has almost certainly gone bad by now even if you can find some. To test it, try a portrait: the film's extended red sensitivity effectively eliminates blemishes. I loved that film back in the day, printed on Oriental Seagull or Forte paper. *sob* Crud, I'm getting old...
I use an MPP Micropress 4x5 with a Schneider Xenar 135 f4.7 lens. It was made in England in the 1950s. Similar to the American Speed Graphic. These two cameras are Press cameras. Much quicker to set up than field cameras like the Intrepid. I shoot Fomapan 200 at just over £1 a sheet in the UK.
The resolution and tonal range on large format is really impressive. I think you really need to be printing large to get the most out of it. I just printed two 6x6 negatives at 20"x20" and they came out really nicely. If I wanted to go bigger I'd need to be using sharper film and drum scanning and even then I think there's a limit. For me I just don't know if large format is worth it or not but there is something really intriguing to the images.
This is where I get to as well. I would love to shoot more of it, but there are very few situations where I can justify the hassle/expense. Thanks for watching!
I agree, I think the advantage of large format is not only in the larger film size, but in the ability to use shift and tilt movements, which can take time to learn. For the most part I find shooting 6x6 and 6x7 is truly all that I really need, I never print larger than 13” x 19” or 20” x20” in square.
Imagine if they made large format film rolls.
Maybe you can cut down large rolls of x-ray film
But then you can't set different exposure setting for each frames, e.g 1st frame is push +3, 2nd frame is pull +2 etc etc. Gotta use the same exposure setting for the entire roll 😅
Old military cameras had large format rolls
@@anta40until someone invents the 4x5 film roll interchangeable back, and you just added another 10lbs of gear
120 roll film has a width of 2 ¼ inches.
From 1903 to 1971, Kodak made 122 roll film. The 122 roll film had a width of 3 ¼ inch.
Since 3 ¼ inch roll film was larger in size than 2 ¼ inch roll film, 122 roll film was considered to be large format.
The 122 film was used to make 3 ¼ x 5 ½ inch postcard size images in Kodak 3A Folding Cameras.
Hey, a quick correction first. It's "lp/mm" and not "llpm" for resolution measurement. lp/mm is line pairs per millimeter.
Ummm, really the modulation transfer function (MTF) is the true metric of a particular film stock's resolution. Pull the data sheet for the film; the curve (curves for color emulsions) is on there. MTF basically tells you how much contrast is recorded from the scene, as the amount of scene detail varies, as expressed in lp/mm.
You'll see film fanatics quote 30% MTF (MTF30) numbers to exaggerate the ability of their favorite stock. For actual, practical photographic uses, look at the MTF70 intersection of the curve. For example, you'll see something like Velvia in 135 is about 10MP, which should be consistent with most photogs' experience.
As for shooting sheet film, I got that itch burned out of me years ago, even back when consumable cost didn't cost your right arm and your first born. For a time, I was enamored with low noise and high resolution. Film was the only way to get there - until gradually it really wasn't, and then suddenly it _really_ wasn't. Frankly, any number of current enthusiast FF digicams outshines something like Portra 160 in 4x5. And this is typical.
There is still advantage in hauling around a view camera, however, and it's all about camera movements. The best of both worlds is to mate the view camera to a digital back. Take a look at the Cambo Actus (www.cambo.com/en/actus-series/) line.
Indeed, and also factor in development/printing and there's no way film can keep up with digital now. I say that as a film fan and an ex darkroom printer and lab technician in colour too. I've examined 1000s of transparencies over time. However I didn't like the tonality and electronic feeling of digital up until recently, I guess die to better sensors/software and crucially lens design, particularly mirrorless lens design. Colour transparency has nice colour separation, and digital is there I'd say too. But there's always the medium of display: transparency is wonderful to see when exposed correctly. Prints in silver have depth. But giclee printing is absolutely great too, and is sure to evolve much more in the early years of photography
I understand that 35mm resolution is roughly around 30mpx to 50mpx if you consider the film only. So if you adjust for the size, does that hold true for 120 through to LF? I would imagine so? In that case the 100mpx on 5x4 seems low - not related to the film. Probably more the lens or the scanning technique?
Big difference between scanning resolution (e.g. a Nikon Coolscan V at 4000dpi gives ~21MP image file for 35mm film), and actual resolving power of the film (highly related to grain size but also lens, how perfect the focus was, etc.). Scanning a 4x5 at the same 4000dpi scanning resolution would give about 308MP file, but same caveat. The 14x-15x scaling should between 35mm and 4x5 should remain constant for a given film stock, developer, process, shooting conditions, etc. But that 30-50MP for 35mm is nowhere near reality for film - I just got a darkroom up and running and started making my first prints, 8x10 prints from 35mm film so far. HP5+ printed at 8x10 has very noticeable grain even viewing from a couple feet away. Hard to give exact resolution but definitely nowhere near 30MP - doesn't mean it doesn't look nice, though!
Love this. Not touching the stuff.
I find 35mm to be the bottom of the barrel, worse image quality than digital most of the time, expensive and not so fun at the dark room, the good stuff is at large format and digital. With large format you already said it plus I can make my own emulsions and plates from scratch and get tremendous satisfaction, with digital I enjoy going out and taking photos of wildlife equestrian events and many other things with the most accurate colors and almost grainless, a true snapshot of that reality never running out of film. The best is I can digitize the analog to share and print the photos taken with the digital camera to enjoy and preserve, each side of the spectrum can enjoy the advantages of each other!
One of my takes in my “hot take” video was that 35mm isn’t good enough. I’m right there with you. I’m routinely disappointed by the quality even good cameras, lenses and films produce in the format.
Check out that timing... I just bought a Crown Graphic Special
Best of luck! It's a challenge, but really rewarding!
@Overexposed1 "Slowing down" is an understatement. Ha. I just ordered the Lomograflok back 10 minutes ago, so I can learn the camera at a mere $1/shot as opposed to $2.25-$7.50/per shot on negative. It's a waste of the camera's format, but I won't have to take out a loan while I'm just learning to shoot the camera. I can take out that loan for 4x5 negs later.
You won‘t get 1000 MP, because large format lenses resolve usually in the 60-80 lp/mm.
Resolution is not what large format is about (the resolution of a Sony A7 R IV is already far beyond what can be seen even with ultra large prints) - it is about what can be done with rise/fall, tilt and shift (there are modular digital cameras that can provide that, but they cost so much that large format looks cheap in comparison ;-)). And it opens up some alternative techniques (e.g. pinhole photography with good "resolution", or wet-plate). The main driver of cost is film (especially color) - and development, if not done at home (this can be a bit tricky with sheet film, my experience is mixed).
I disagree. I own a Sony a7r4 and 4x5 large format film. Even scanned on flatbed scanner, the film is obviously better than the Sony.
@@paulatterby7507 Sure, if you pixel-peep on screen, there's a visible difference (but not necessarily in real details). I was talking about prints - unless you inspect a 50 x 40 inch print from 5 inch distance, the Sony will have plenty resolution *in practice* (and with AI based enlargement, nobody else will notice even then). If it is all about resolution, a 100 MP digital MF camera (e.g. Fuji GFX 100S) will do the trick, and bought used will cost only slightly more than a good 4x5 system - where film costs are by now quite prohibitive (with going on $10 per shot on color negative film if all done at home, and rising every quarter year at the moment). If you *love* shooting film, 4x5 is definitely nice and the way to go - no need for any other argument. ;-)
Not in a single frame, but it's trivially easy to stitch digital images together for similar resolution. But the look is different, largely because the standard lenses of LF are not the equivalents of medium telephotos but are in fact the actual focal lengths.
@@paulatterby7507 I disagree - I've just developed and scanned my first "real", non-pinhole 4x5 negatives (different film stocks, from ISO 100 to 400), and I'm underwhelmed. Even macro "scans" don't reveal the detail I could get with a 40 MP or 60 MP camera (I have friends who do have such cameras, I know what it looks like). Granted, the Schneider-Kreuznach Symmar 5.6/150 (coated) isn't the best possible lens (it does have a good reputation, and my lens seems to be in good order), but a (used) apochromatic LF lens would cost me as much as a Sony A7 R III or IV. Maybe your LF lens is top notch. My assessment still stands. Edit: Actually not my first non-pinhole negatives, my very first 4x5 shots were done some years ago with a friend's Sinar with a good Sinar lens, and results were more or less the same regarding resolution and sharpness (more grain than actual details). But *scanning* might be the point here - this can create visual sharpness without actual detail, and scan software can work wonders (I'm talking about unprocessed scans, no sharpening applied) …
I have shot both 35mm and medium format film. I enjoy shooting film because it is a slow process and it makes me think about everything that has to go into a good image. I hope someday to shoot large format in 5x7 just to at least give it a go.
5x7 is my favourite format
I love large format, and shoot 4x5 but find between work and life, it’s hard to find time to shoot large format. Large format produces great detail, however, it requires planning the shot, it’s slow and methodical process, film is not cheap, not all scanners can scan large format. I find that I probably shoot a box of 25 sheets per year, so in some ways it can be economical if one slows down plans, composes and meters each shot. I have noticed a lot of people started getting involved in large format back in 2021 with the cameras offered by Intrepid and others. However about a year later alot of people did sell off their large format cameras and lenses due to the size of the camera, slowed down approach and film costs, they realize that they use it once or twice and move on.
I've usually dealt with contrasty film with overexposure and pull processing... I guess, if you really, really had a great landscape, or architecture shot, you could do 2 or 3 bracketed shots, scan and stack... Stacking 3 gigapixels... In any case, an apo lens on 4x5 Velvia really lays down the details!
Thanks for cool video...btw, would be nice to do pixel-level zoom on your 4x5 microfilm images!
It should be mentioned that even TMAX 400 on 4x5 will deliver an incredible image quality and that large format cameras can do a lot more than taking high resolution images like perspective correction (tilt & shift & swing) or great bokeh pictures with a very small depth of field.
100% I am a pro having to embrace change over a 35yr careeer - I use a Hass H6D100C and it fits in nicely with the other rHass bits and bobs we have - but there is nothing as special as a 10x8 Transparency directly contact printed onto a Cibachrom -it would probably scale up to a billion pixels pr something - the colours and detail punch you on the face so hard you will never forget it - I miss those days
You might be able to find some old Kodak Tech Pan in 8x10 (discontinued in 2004.) Be sure to develop it in something like Technidol for lovely, lovely smooth tones. Beware, though: it's going to be expensive and you'll want to research developers as Technidol has almost certainly gone bad by now even if you can find some. To test it, try a portrait: the film's extended red sensitivity effectively eliminates blemishes. I loved that film back in the day, printed on Oriental Seagull or Forte paper. *sob*
Crud, I'm getting old...
This is why i still shoot my CHAMONIX 45F2 4X5 LF Camera, love the REZ and more IMPORTANTLY the ART! Great video here.
Thanks, friend!
Red 25 filter?
large format is also sooooo much fun...
Very informative
Many thanks
Ansel Adams used giant plates!!! Crazy amounts of detail in very large images...
And the latest films and lenses are even better. A lot better. In some ways we are in a (reduced-choice) golden age of film.
I use an MPP Micropress 4x5 with a Schneider Xenar 135 f4.7 lens. It was made in England in the 1950s.
Similar to the American Speed Graphic. These two cameras are Press cameras.
Much quicker to set up than field cameras like the Intrepid.
I shoot Fomapan 200 at just over £1 a sheet in the UK.
The resolution and tonal range on large format is really impressive. I think you really need to be printing large to get the most out of it. I just printed two 6x6 negatives at 20"x20" and they came out really nicely. If I wanted to go bigger I'd need to be using sharper film and drum scanning and even then I think there's a limit. For me I just don't know if large format is worth it or not but there is something really intriguing to the images.
This is where I get to as well. I would love to shoot more of it, but there are very few situations where I can justify the hassle/expense. Thanks for watching!
I agree, I think the advantage of large format is not only in the larger film size, but in the ability to use shift and tilt movements, which can take time to learn. For the most part I find shooting 6x6 and 6x7 is truly all that I really need, I never print larger than 13” x 19” or 20” x20” in square.
to be fair I printed a 35mm to 60x40 inches with no loss- you cant do that with a digi camera under 60mp
That picture of the bridge is insane. Who took it?