I have pictures of the same scene in 35mm and 6x7, taken with approximately the same angle of view: 28mm for 35, 55mm for 6x7. But if I put my 6x7 negative in the 35mm film holder, I will no longer have a picture of the same scene. I'll have a much tighter crop. If, on the other hand, I print the same scene twice on the same size paper, once with the 35mm neg and once with the 6x7 neg in my 6x7 film holder, the 6x7 print will have much less grain and better apparent sharpness. Been there, done that. But it's kind of obvious I would think. Paul
Dr E D F Williams wrote: > > I am suddenly tempted towards ribaldry - but will contain myself. > > Many of you will have pictures you've taken on both 35 mm, and a larger > format, of the same scene. I know I have. Amongst my slides I have shots of > mountain scenes taken with a Bronica SQ-A and a Pentax ME Super taken at the > same time on the same film stock - Kodacolor. Perhaps some of you, or even > one person could do an experiment? > > Find a pair of negatives of the same subject or scene. Focus your enlarger > and make a print of the 35 mm negative. Then put the bigger negative in the > 35 mm holder. Focus and make another print without moving the enlarger > column up or down. Compare the two. Does the larger format show less grain? > Is it sharper? Is the 'tonality' better. Unless there is a big discrepancy > between the two images due to differences in the quality of the two lenses, > the processing, or other taking conditions, they should be similar. I know > mine are. > > A good achromatic loupe would be enough to come to a conclusion - a print is > not really needed. That is merely labouring a point I've been trying to make > for days. Is there less grain on your 6 x 6 at say 5-10X magnification than > on the 35 mm? There certainly is not on mine. Are the edges of objects less > sharp in one than the other? Not that I can see. I've just done this myself. > Even though the outcome was a foregone conclusion - I was being objective. > But I used a microscope, not a loupe. > > What about tonality? I like tonality! I don't know what it is. But I'm ready > to guess. Is the word meant to describe the range of tones, grey levels, or > colours, that are discernable on a slide, negative, or print, by the human > eye? If so whose eye? Or is it the range of grey levels or colours > measurable only with a densitometer or spectrophotometer in a laboratory? Is > it something only certain people can see? Is it that barely discernable gut > feeling of 'betterness' due entirely to the fact that one piece of film is > bigger than the other? Is it magical? Does it involve an oracle? Maybe Harry > Potter can help us? > > When someone say's 'trust me' - never do. When they say 'believe me' - > don't. Say 'prove it' instead. Again I am tempted, but will restrain the > impulse. > > Don > > Dr E D F Williams > > http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams > Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery > Updated: March 30, 2002
