[fretlessdavis]

There's a guy who knows what he's doing...

Definitely concur on that. No chance of handholding if I'm rating 100 at 12, I'm sure, though.

[FrankC]

I know that the tonality blossoms as one uses a large film format. I'm wondering if the increase in tonality is observed in digital as well.
Will a camera with large sensor produce better tonality than a full-frame camera?

[normhead]

Not exactly an answer but these two pages might interest you..

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/38-photographic-technique/203024-who-took...hotograph.html

What cameras does Andreas Gursky use? - Quora

[tuco]

Definitely concur on that. No chance of handholding if I'm rating 100 at 12, I'm sure, though.

The thing is I shoot my Pentax 6x7 more like my 4x5 camera. Mostly on a tripod with a WLF, use a one-degree spot meter and with scenes that support that kind of shooting. I don't try and use it as a large 35mm camera. I have both digital and a Mamiya 7II for handhold shooting. The M7II is light and easy with no mirror. But it is a rangefinder with the associated rangefinder quirks.

[fretlessdavis]

Thanks for the info Tuco. I may have to try a compensating approach like yours. We rarely get great days for shooting out here, and I'm always out backpacking, hiking, and climbing in the day. I sometimes it seems my N-1 doesn't compress my values enough to get a nice print without pumping up the yellow on my enlarger and some extensive dodging/burning.

[johnha]

I know that the tonality blossoms as one uses a large film format. I'm wondering if the increase in tonality is observed in digital as well.
Will a camera with large sensor produce better tonality than a full-frame camera?

Medium format film has better tonal graduation because (with the same emulsion) you get higher resolution across the same area of the scene. Thus the same changes of tone in the scene are spread across more film grains, so the transitions are closer together and therefore smoother.

With digital this manifests itself as sensor resolution, colour bit depth (and to a lesser extent the hexagonal v square pixel arrangement). Therefore for the same resolution/bit depth/raw processing, you'd expect the same tonal graduation regardless of the size of the sensor - accepting that at very high ISO's (lower light levels) larger sensors may have an advantage.

John.

[fretlessdavis]

Not exactly an answer but these two pages might interest you..

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/38-photographic-technique/203024-who-took...hotograph.html

What cameras does Andreas Gursky use? - Quora

Thanks for the links. Seems like from the common comments I've seen about printing, and everything here, that using the largest format that is practical for the situation would be ideal.... i.e. popping my speed grip on my 645 for general portrait work and moving around, and then going up to 6x7 or 4x5 if I'm on a tripod and shooting landscapes. Probably should stick with 35mm still for candids and such... People seem to notice me and get uncomfortable when they see me pointing a massive odd-looking (to them) camera at them. Even friends and stuff that are used to me taking candids...

[tuco]

When I'm shooting into the sun with that 3 stop over exposure thing, I like to look for scenes like this for the slower shutter speeds I get; namely, something blurry and something sharp.

[fretlessdavis]

This is fantastic. Thanks for sharing.

I may have to try that compensating/N-3/Overexpose-Underdevelop thing out a bit more. As far as printing goes, that's about the range of tones I get out of FP4 @ 80 N-1, with some fine tuning and about the equivalent of a 1.5 filter. I may load up a roll in my empty 120 back right now and shoot it at 3 stops over and reduce development another 50%.

Still wash my scanner was here and I wasn't so restricted on bandwidth...

That would be a stellar shot in any format

When I'm shooting into the sun with that 3 stop over exposure thing, I like to look for scenes like this for the slower shutter speeds I get; namely, something blurry and something sharp.

[tuco]

Thanks. My one-degree says I get around 15 to 16 stops of light. N-1 would be hard pressed to get that because what I'm doing is beyond N-3.

[fretlessdavis]

Thanks. My one-degree says I get around 15 to 16 stops of light. N-1 would be hard pressed to get that because what I'm doing is beyond N-3.

Taking a closer look there's more detail way in the background than I thought! FP4 @N-1 gives me about 12 stops before I hit the shoulder with 35mm, but for some reason I seem to get a bit more out of 120. With the yellow cranked all the way up on my enlarger, I can get about 10-11 stops down on paper, but it usually looks flat.

I may stretch things out a bit more, though. Last slot canyoneering trip I did near Flagstaff, AZ, I had a nice shot of someone rappeling, but according to my meter, the base of the rappel was about 7 stops less light than the full sunlight at the top of the rap (about 150' walls about 10' apart at that point... a place that will never ever see direct sunlight) Despite my best efforts, either I had no highlight or shadow detail, or way too much obvious dodging down in the canyon. I spend a lot of time canyoneering and have almost given up, but if there's a way I can put 15 or 16 stops on film I may try it.

Is your development a carefully guarded secret?

If not, I would love to know what you're doing as a reference. Doing Rodinal 1:100 stand development, but alas, I am not a big grain person. I guess if I stick to T-Grain, that would probably be OK, though.

[tuco]

...
Is your development a carefully guarded secret?
...

Nope. The recipe is straight from the author of the PMK Pyro developer. Namely, meter and place your low values, add 3 stops of exposure and cut the normal development time by 1/2. But that is for PMK ( other developers is an unknown) and I add a little more time. It seems to work better with tabular grain films than cubic grain on the films I have tried.

[fretlessdavis]

Nope. The recipe is straight from the author of the PMK Pyro developer. Namely, meter and place your low values, add 3 stops of exposure and cut the normal development time by 1/2. But that is for PMK ( other developers is an unknown) and I add a little more time. It seems to work better with tabular grain films than cubic grain on the films I have tried.

I'll have to read up. Thanks.

[CDW]

I noted the same thing years ago when I went from 35mm to MF. 5x7 prints were noticeably 'sharper' than 35mm 5x7 prints, regardless of claims that you can't tell the difference. Under certain controlled shooting conditions that might possibly be true but it wasn't my experience either.

[filoxophy]

I don't have the experience to comment on the OP, but one of the things that pushed me to try MF was a comment by Danny Gonzalez in his buyer's guide to MF systems:

"What you're gaining over 35mm is consistency; not really quantifiable 'quality'.
I came to the above conclusion after I'd searched to see what real differences ever-larger format makes. What I found is that though it's much harder to achieve creamy tones with 35mm, it is possible and while it's harder to achieve incredible sharpness with 35mm, it is possible. If you're determined (and methodical) enough to achieve incredible quality, you can do it with 35mm, but can you do it every time you shoot? Only with larger formats (even then consistency isn't guaranteed)."

Source (on Internet Archive): Medium Format Cameras (Part I) by Danny Gonzalez