[Eyewanders]

I think the biggest difference is that when viewing a 120 medium format image, you are generally viewing a less magnified image.
If I take a 2400 dpi scan of a 6x4.5 negative and resize it to 800 pixels high, that is 21% the size of the original scan. Then, if I resize a 2400 dpi scan of a 35mm negative down to 21% of original, it's much smaller.

When viewed together, the apparent detail is similar.

6x4.5 Scan


35mm scan

Eggzacktly.

---------- Post added 08-28-15 at 05:33 AM ----------

From a class assignment yesterday morning.

Canon A-1, ilford delta 400

Those are both very nice. What was the assignment per se?

[Swift1]

Eggzacktly.

Here's a possibly better example.
The upper frame is a 6x7 Velvia RVP slide, shot with a 200mm lens. The lower image is 35mm Kodachrome slide, shot with a 90mm lens.
When both are viewed at the same magnification (from original), the apparent detail and tonal quality is about the same.

[LesDMess]

Here's a couple I just finished scanning, taken this weekend while on a camping/hiking trip in the Glenwood Canyon area of Colorado.

Both shot on Velvia 50 slide film and developed with the Arista Rapid E-6 kit.

Shot with a Zone VI 4x5 camera and Fujinon W 125mm F5.6 lens.

White River Wilderness - Velvia 50 - 4x5

Spouting Rock - Velvia 50 - 4x4

Beautifully seen and captured!



From the same roll of Fuji Sensia 100


Larger version -> Kentucky farmland

---------- Post added 08-28-15 at 07:50 PM ----------

From a class assignment yesterday morning.

Canon A-1, ilford delta 400

Nicely done. How did it do in class? Do you have to mount it for critique?

[Clarkey]

Here's a possibly better example.
The upper frame is a 6x7 Velvia RVP slide, shot with a 200mm lens. The lower image is 35mm Kodachrome slide, shot with a 90mm lens.
When both are viewed at the same magnification (from original), the apparent detail and tonal quality is about the same.

Or in other words, same film media to work from, just more of it to work with.

Good example.

[tianan1558]

@swift1: thanks! ^^

[pentaxpete]

ME Super + 28-80mm f3.5-4.5 SMC Pentax-A, outdated Fuji Velvia 50 rated 32ASA, Carbon Market, Cebu, Philippines.

Chairs, Santa Nino Church, Cebu, Philippines > ME Super + 24mm f2.8 Carl Zeiss Jena lens, outdated Fuji Velvia 50 rated 32ASA

Melted Candles, Sta Nino Church, Cebu, Philippines, ME Super + 50mm f1.7 SMC Pentax-M lens, outdated Fuji Velvia 50 rated 32 ASA

'Photo-Buddy' of Cebu Images Camera Club with his Top-of-the-Range Fuji X series, ME Super, 28-80mm f3/5-4.5 SMC Pentax-A, Velvia 50 at 32ASA

[skierd]

Cool shot with the melted candles.

Have you tried running that velvia at box speed instead of 32ASA?

[Jonathan Mac]

Here are some early morning shots inside shops setting up for the day in San Francisco's chinatown. All taken with the MZ-5N on Portra 160 film with either the M 50/1.7 or DA 70/2.4 ltd.


San Francisco, Portra 160 by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr


San Francisco, Portra 160 by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr


San Francisco, Portra 160 by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr


San Francisco, Portra 160 by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr


San Francisco, Portra 160 by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr


San Francisco, Portra 160 by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

[LesDMess]

Pete and Jonathan, Very nice series of shots!

---------- Post added 08-29-15 at 07:21 PM ----------

Or in other words, same film media to work from, just more of it to work with.

Good example.

There is no denying the amount of info that can be resolved by much larger area of film with everything else being equal - film, lens quality and output. I used a wall map as the target, good equipment, good technique and the same high quality film - in this case Kodak 100UC, and scanned using the same 4000dpi scanner I got these results.

Relative size of 35mm film to medium format 6X7.


Crop from 35mm


Crop from the MF 6X7.


For all intents and purposes, the medium format capture can make a very legible duplicate of the wall map.

[LesDMess]

Fuji 100, Pentax LX


Larger version -> House on the lake in SC

[arnold]

Fuji 100, Pentax LX

Lovely, what lens?

---------- Post added 30-08-15 at 14:05 ----------

OK, with all this talk of the fine details of lenses being noticeable, here is a challenge. What camera/lens is likely to have been used on this picture? I think it was K400 film, but don't remember without going through the negatives. Picture is about four years ago. No cheating! Picture straight from the drug store, no PP.

[LesDMess]

Lovely, what lens?

---------- Post added 30-08-15 at 14:05 ----------

Thanks!
If I remember correctly it was taken with the SMC Pentax-M 28mm F3.5.

OK, with all this talk of the fine details of lenses being noticeable, here is a challenge. What camera/lens is likely to have been used on this picture? I think it was K400 film, but don't remember without going through the negatives. Picture is about four years ago. No cheating!

On yours it was easy since it seems you identified it well on flickr . . .

From all the testing I have done with the primes I have - of all brands except for one Focus labeled lens, they are all very good performers that don't lack in the resolution characteristics.

[cooltouch]

Well, I made the "mistake" of clicking on the image, which took me to the Flickr page, which revealed this, which surprised me:

Retinette 017 (1951) folder Reomar f4.5, 50mm lens

[skyer]

Pete and Jonathan, Very nice series of shots![COLOR="Silver"]
...
Relative size of 35mm film to medium format 6X7.
...

A good comparison but can you tell of what size was the original map you shot?

[LesDMess]

A good comparison but can you tell of what size was the original map you shot?

50 X 32 inch -> Rand McNally M Series World Map