Medium Format Versus 4x5

Medium format versus 4x5
One is portable, the other makes a big piece of film--but which is the best to use?

by Jeff Grandy
When I say, 'medium format' camera, what does it bring to mind? Poor man's 4x5? Upside down challenged? Tilt-swing envy? Or, for the more enlightened, do you think: Portable? More pictures for the buck? Fast in the field? There are always two sides to the same coin.

I've shot with a 645 for years, and felt it was nearly the perfect camera for me. Yes, the lack of tilts and swings is a drawback, but not so much that it made me want to switch to a 4x5 camera. The speed at which I can setup and takedown is more important for me. I'd rather run, react, and shoot, rather than stand, wait, and hope. Some of my best images were taken by running down the good light, rather than hoping it hit where I pointed.

The price per image with 4x5 was always a consideration. I like to shoot a lot of film and edit tightly on the light table later. With 4x5, you can't help but think about the cost (which is roughly six times the cost of a 645 per image with developing figured in).

We've all heard of the advantage of seeing the image upside down on the ground glass. This is spoken of only by 4x5 users who have no choice in the matter of course. And how many of them do you see at the theater enjoying 'Mission Impossible 2' at the multi-plex while standing on their heads? I see patterns and form just fine right-side-up, thank you very much.

I have to admit though, that the shinier side of the coin always belonged to the 4x5 user in one category that made me envious: film size. Not film size for it's own sake, but the fine detail and nuance in a large fine print as a result of the extra size was so superior to my own that I came to the brink of the big switch many times. I liked my 16x20 size prints well enough, but anything larger was not acceptable for my taste. It was just too soft. Yes, I know that some people will enlarge a 35mm to billboard size and be perfectly happy, but that's not my style. If a rock has texture, subtle tone, detail in the lichen, that's good. If it's a big blob that you know has these things only from memory, that's bad.

But now my 645 is safe from the trading block, because digital imaging and printing is saving me from the hard choice of a larger camera format. Now my chromes are scanned on the Heidelberg 'Tango' drum scanner, fine tuned in the Photoshop darkroom, and printed on Fuji Crystal Archive Paper. My prints have never looked better. Images that rely on fine detail have especially benefited. They have returned to the world of the living. My 24x30 prints now easily have the detail of my 16x20 Ilfochromes printed traditionally.

Having said all this, it's still important to realize that digital imaging is not a miracle fix for all images. A blurry image still makes a blurry print. If you cut someone's head off in the composition, you won't find it in Photoshop. A properly exposed original still has more usable information than a dark original, although a 'Tango' drum scan can salvage some pretty dark work. And of course, good lighting and compositional choices never go out of favor.

Quite honestly though, even as much as my prints have improved, I still like the look of a print created from a 4x5 original better than one from medium format. A bigger piece of film simply captures more information. However, prior to going digital, I was embarrassed to put a 20x24 from my 645 next to one made from a 4x5. But I'm not any longer. Now I know my prints can hold their own next to any print on a gallery wall, or in a collectors home--with no 4x5 envy hanging next to them.