Topic: Grain vs negative size...

[mcduff]

A perfectly reasonable answer to this question is "quit thinking and just shut up and shoot". This question was promoted by me finally starting to use some 3200 ISO 120 film I have kicking around.

THE QUESTION: I have a 35mm camera with a fairly fast (1.4) lens and a couple of MF cameras with reasonably fast (2.8 ) lenses. So my 1.4 lens is 2 stops faster - the diff between 100 and 400 ISO film. When I am shooting handheld in low light, I could shoot my 35mm camera with the 1.4 lens and 100 ISO film or I could shoot MF with the 2.8 lens and 400 ISO.

Normally I do not have a lot of faster film around and my normal response in low light is to just grab my 35mm with its fast lens and deal with it. But I was looking at some work done with faster film in MF and it can look really good. I am gonna start trying out faster film in MF but I would like to get some feedback if anyone had thought about this.

Do how about it? Fast lens in a 35 or faster film in a MF?

[Ezzie]

This does to a certain degree depend on if you wet print or scan. Scanning does enhance grain making the comparison difficult. For wet prints I would say bigger is better no matter what


For scanning however, with respect black and white I would say it is 6 and one half dozen the other. Indeed 400 speed film will not compare favourably to 100, even given the difference in frame size, at least up to 6x6. Which is why I am selling my Mamiya 645, I just don't see the point. For sizes 6x7 and up however you will be hard pressed to get comparable results in 135.

With colour hwoever it is a bit different. Grain is not that much of an issue, and with the new Portra 400 I would say that MF wins hands down regardless.

[jojonas~]

and add another stopp for the longer lens on mf? but yeah, grain is a whole other deal between 35 and 120. what can be grainfest on 35 can be pleasing on 120.

I don't push much myself but I have tried tri-x at 1600 in medium format.

reload by jojonas~, on Flickr

on another note, expired film can be more forgiving too in medium format
you can look on the contact sheet (https://www.flickr.com/photos/jonasfx/12537619485/sizes/o/) for this one:

bowl of flowers by jojonas~, on Flickr

[timor]

Not quite understand your problem. Do you want the grain ? Or not ? If yes, use HP5 or TriX and develop in some nice, sharp grain chemistry. If not, take a look at T-grain films and staining developers. You need to do own experimentation as with modern films is much possible. More, than the books describe. 

[Photo_Utopia]

I've often pondered this question also, I think I fall marginally onto using faster 120 film because of negative size when tonality and larger prints are needed, that said for street and candid a stop or two slower film can give quite tight grain and nice tonal range.
I don't think the question can be answered in all honesty, most ƒ1,4 lenses aren't great performers at that aperture where all the ƒ2,8 medium format ones I own are pretty good. Try a roll of 125 ISO and some 400 in the two different systems–it'll be more than grain size that will be the difference; which one you favour will be personal choice.
I quite like Ilford delta in 120  at EI 6400 give a similar grit to Tri-x for me

[mcduff]

Timor. No I don't want grain. An example: I was going to shoot 3200 delta last night in my MF camera. That camera does not have a super fast lens -f2.8. I realized that my 35mm camera with its faster f1.4 lens could get the same shots with film shot at 800 ISO. And I was just wondering which situation would give results that looked less grainy.

Two of the variables that reduce the effect of grain are shooting a slower film (possible with faster lenses) and a larger neg. 35mm cameras generally give us faster lenses but MF cameras give us bigger negs. I have just been wrestling with which helps most in low light situations. This may be one of those YMMV situations requiring me to just figure out which I like best. But I was wondering if folks who had both systems favored one over the other for low light.

[mcduff]

Ya that pic looks pretty good at 6400 and I would agree with your suggestion of it being comparable to a 400 ISO at 135. I think I need to do some tests.

[gsgary]

This is HP5 at iso1600 35mm, wet printed

[gsgary]

This is HP5 120 @ iso1600 stand developed and scanned

[Francois]

As usual, I have an opinion about this sort of stuff.
The best way to look at this is by comparing surface area first.
the 35mm frame has a surface area of 864mm²
the 6x6 frame has a surface area of 3600mm², or 4.16 times bigger than 35mm.
So it means you can use a film that has 4 times the grain of 35mm.

Now, there is the resolving power of the film that is provided by the manufacturer.
TMX 100 has a resolving power of 200 lines/mm for high contrast subjects and 63 lines/mm for low contrast.
TMY 400 has a resolving power of 125 lines/mm for high contrast subjects and 50 lines/mm for low contrast.
Since you're going to shoot in low light, contrast is likely to be pretty high... so lets use the high values.
When you calculate it, TMX 100 / TMY 400 gives you a ratio of 1.6 pretty far from the 4 times the surface of the film.

So you should still get finer grain using the medium format camera with faster film.

I know this is a Mickey Mouse way of calculating it and that I should be using RMS Granularity and stuff, but I think that in the end the reasoning is sound.
And even if I'd square root the difference between 35mm and 120, it would still show that 400 iso film will be less grainy on 120

does that make any sense whatsoever?

[mcduff]

Haha. Francois I knew your brain would give my brain exactly the sort of answer it wanted. ;-)

Thanks. That makes sense to me and is a good way to ball park it.

[Francois]

Glad I could help.
I always love intellectual challenges like that

[Late Developer]

Very seldom do I use anything slower than 400 ISO in MF for exactly the reasons Francois explained.  I usually use Ilford XP2 Super as it's convenient C41 processable but I have also just experimented with Ilford Delta 400 and I really like the results.  It's not as smooth as FP4+ or Delta 100 but it's very close and two stops faster.

[Indofunk]

Ooh, mathematical calculations like Francois' make me hot under the collar 

[timor]

I was going to shoot 3200 delta last night in my MF camera. That camera does not have a super fast lens -f2.8. I realized that my 35mm camera with its faster f1.4 lens could get the same shots with film shot at 800 ISO. And I was just wondering which situation would give results that looked less grainy.

Do you release that Delta 3200 has an effective ISO about 1000. At ISO 3200 it is already "nice" push. If TX at 800 could do, go with it. However shooting 50mm lens at 1.4 and 80mm lens at 2.8 may give you different feel to the picture.
Gary has nice samples of his low light shots. (I seldom push,  , I pull rather more often.  )
BTW. I am not sure, if low light creates high contrast. I would think it is an opposite.

[tkmedia]

to improve the medfmt situation you can get slightly 'faster" 80mm f/1.9 for a mamiya 645, 85mm f/1.8 for old bronica 6x6, f/2 for hasselblad f cameras, 100mm f/2.2 for hassy H 645, 80mm Planar f/2 for contax 645, and f/2.4 for pentax 6x7.

[hookstrapped]

Another variable is if your 35 or MF is a leaf shutter rangefinder v. SLR.  A leaf shutter will buy you a couple stops handheld.

[mcduff]

A few responses to some excellent points:
Gary - Those shots look great. What was the Dev in this case?
Timor - ya I know 3200 is sort of a fudged ISO, but I have seen some nice stuff from it in MF (tintin had some nice ones a while back for example)
Tony - I have a 1.9 lens on the radar for my Mamiya, although it looks like 35mm always has faster options (eg 1.1 to .95!!) so it looks like even fantasy lenses will be faster on a 35mm than MF. The point was made that perhaps MF lenses are more usable wide open than some of the 35mm ones.
Hookedstrapped - I had not thought about leaf shutters. I do have quite a few leaf shutter cameras but none of them are great low light candidates (pretty slow lenses).

[hookstrapped]

I think a leaf shutter F4 is equivalent to a SLR f2 at least, in terms of your ability to handhold.  1/8s v. 1/30 for example.

[timor]

In any case, Don, the key is in enough exposure and magic of development. Francois brought up some scientific stuff, but first you have to achieve this kind of resolution of the emulsion in your process, but I bet you, that in low light without solid tripod that's a dream. What kind of high definition developer are you using ?

[tkmedia]

I think a leaf shutter F4 is equivalent to a SLR f2 at least, in terms of your ability to handhold.  1/8s v. 1/30 for example.

When I'm relaxed, depending on subject matter I can hand hold frequently at 1/2 to 1/4.. but only on waist level and leaf shutters. about 1/8 or so for focal plane waist and eye level leaf depending on camera. 1/15-30 ish for eye level FP.

[gsgary]

A few responses to some excellent points:
Gary - Those shots look great. What was the Dev in this case?
Timor - ya I know 3200 is sort of a fudged ISO, but I have seen some nice stuff from it in MF (tintin had some nice ones a while back for example)
Tony - I have a 1.9 lens on the radar for my Mamiya, although it looks like 35mm always has faster options (eg 1.1 to .95!!) so it looks like even fantasy lenses will be faster on a 35mm than MF. The point was made that perhaps MF lenses are more usable wide open than some of the 35mm ones.
Hookedstrapped - I had not thought about leaf shutters. I do have quite a few leaf shutter cameras but none of them are great low light candidates (pretty slow lenses).

First shot was ilford LC29 massive dev time and second was 2 hour stand 1+100 in rodinal

[timor]

First shot was ilfort L29 massive dev time and second was 2 hour stand 1+100 in rodinal

Nice work Gary.

[Francois]

Tony - I have a 1.9 lens on the radar for my Mamiya, although it looks like 35mm always has faster options (eg 1.1 to .95!!) so it looks like even fantasy lenses will be faster on a 35mm than MF. The point was made that perhaps MF lenses are more usable wide open than some of the 35mm ones.

You actually wouldn't want an f/1.1 lens on medium format!
Now, lets confuse everyone with a circle of confusion story
It all comes down to depth of field. The larger the negative, the shallower the depth of field. In order to compensate for this, you need to close down the aperture.
For a 50mm lens on 35mm film, if you focus an f/1.2 lens at 10 feet you will have a depth of field of 0.92 feet.
If you take lets say an 80mm lens on a 6x6 camera (about the same field of view as a 50mm on 135 film) at the same aperture and focus distance, you only get a 0.7 feet of depth of field.

[mcduff]

Ya I know Francois even a 1.9 lens on a mamiya 645 is about as tight as a 1.1 lens on a 35mm camera. I was just pointing out that at least it is an option to go that fast (eg f.95) in 35mm cameras.

I am not sure how you do your math but I cheat and use DOFmaster.com (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html). I want a 1.9 for the mamiya as I love shots with a huge OOF area, haha, but even for me a 1.1 on a MF camera would be too much!!!

[SLVR]

Here's my $0.02.

A 120 negative is going to have physically smaller grain. When scanned and posted online at the same res as 35mm frames the 120 negative is going to seem smoother because you have more grains at a smaller size. Just as 120 benefits from smoother tones, higher perceived sharpness, and tighter DOF because of the physical size of the capturing medium.

Whether or not the 35mm grain will outshow 120 grain at the same resolution I think depends a lot on your development and scanning regiment.

Here's some food for thought. I'm not a huge Nate Matos fan. But I did see him post this image about a year ago.


Camera: Yashicamat 124
Film: Kodak Tri-X @ 12,800
Developer: Kodak HC110 Dil B 30 mins @ 68F agitation every 5 min
Scanner: Epson V500

[mcduff]

Wow tintin. That is pretty nice and crazy fast. Clearly benefiting from the increased neg size.

Actually, tintin, your photos have been in my mind a bit as I think about this as you have taken a lot of low light shots using both methods 1) a very fast lens (1.1) on 35mm camera and fast film (eg 400) and 2) a not-as-fast (2.8 ) lens and very fast film (eg 3200) in a MF camera.

I know you have been leaning more for option 1 these days but I think that partly might be Leica-love

[SLVR]

I think both mediums are equal.

• Resolution aside I think the MF will be sharper over 35mm. Shooting F1.1 vs F2.8, we will see better lens performance from the F2.8.
• Handheldability its up to the user. I can get down to 1/15th comfortably now with the M5 and F1.1 because of the weight of the lens. My bronica is safe for 1/30th but no more. You may find that with a WLF that you can get slower? I can't speak to that as i've never had a WLF for my Bronica.
• Perceived grain at 72 dpi resized for screen may lean in favour of the MF even at 3200.

I think what's most important is development. Learning how to get exactly what you want from your film and dialing it in so you can compensate for slower lenses in MF or using faster film while still getting as little grain as possible.

What makes me choose 35mm over fast 120 is really what I feel like shooting that day. If I'm still in love with Leica then I'll take that, likewise if I want some MF action I have that too. As long as you're having fun and taking the images you want to take I think that's all that matters.

[Francois]

I am not sure how you do your math but I cheat and use DOFmaster.com (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html).

I cheat too... I simply couldn't bothered doing this by hand when there's http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dof-calculator.htm

[gsgary]

This was shot with my Mamiya C330 with 80mmF2.8 @ F2.8 on Ilford FP4



and this is a crop