I was told by a LF shooter that the grain structure on 4x5 and 8x10 sheet film is larger than the grain on 120/220 for the exact same film type. This doesn't make any sense to me. Why would grain on say, 220 Velvia 100 be tighter than 4x5 sheet Velvia 100? That would defeat, at least some degree, one of the main purposes of shooting LF - to get more detail. Can someone clarify this? Thanks.
Posted by Kent Staubus on July 4, 2007 at 12:27 PM
It's not true. The only thing that's different is the physical size of the piece of film. It's the same film, just cut into bigger pieces. I've actually cut a 35mm sized piece of slide film and looked at it under my microscope and compared it side by side to a 35mm slide of the same film. They were identical.
What Kent says is true. The only thing that I could think of that may have given this impression to LF shooter you mention is that there was a processing error (usually temperature control) that caused 'clumping'. This would certainly lead one to believe that the grain in the LF film is larger.
Thanks Kent and Preston. I figured that had to be the case. It was just weird hearing it coming from a LF shooter, and I've never shot it personally to know for sure.
As far as I know the grain structure is the same. One thing that is different is the thickness of the base. Obviously I don't know every single film out there but I'm pretty sure that's the case for the ones I use (Fuji slide films).
You all are correct. Having processed tens of thousands of rolls of film in a commercial photo lab, if the film is all one type, the different sizes will be all the same emulsion and with the same grain structure and receiving all the same processing times and temps.
the only difference is the thickness of the films.
35mm is very thin compared to LF film. (Fuji)
Interestingy with the new Velvia 50 emulsion, the thickest version is the MF film.
maybe it was a misunderstanding, what is truely different is, that lenses designed for 4x5 or 8x10 are usually not quite as "sharp" as those designed for 35mm. somewhere on the web, couple of years ago, I read a test about that. sure enough, it means as much as most of these tests do concerning the field of nature photography: not much.
Discussion
6 repliesKent in SD
Just my 0.00002
-PB
Guy
35mm is very thin compared to LF film. (Fuji)
Interestingy with the new Velvia 50 emulsion, the thickest version is the MF film.
maybe it was a misunderstanding, what is truely different is, that lenses designed for 4x5 or 8x10 are usually not quite as "sharp" as those designed for 35mm. somewhere on the web, couple of years ago, I read a test about that. sure enough, it means as much as most of these tests do concerning the field of nature photography: not much.
georg