What is large format (film photo) look?

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What is large format film photo look? Can digital camera achieve that?

[250swb]

6 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

Can digital camera achieve that?

No, if you are talking about tonality and the intrinsic qualities of film such as the use of grain (or lack of it) for the desired effect. And also no in terms of resolving power, but that also depends on what type of digital camera you are thinking of and what you mean by large format. You'd need 300-600mp to achieve the equivalent resolving power of 8x10, although the practicalities of using large format and digital in the landscape for example lean heavily in favour of the high megapixel digital camera not being affected as much by a gust of wind. 

So the answer is no, maybe, and not yet.

[BernardC]

You would probably have better luck going in the other direction, trying to get a digital look from large format.

There is no single "large format film photo look". Maybe the closest you'll get to that, in America at east, is a lost generation of photographers who tried (and failed) to emulate a certain period of Ansel Adam's output. That period corresponds to the 1970s and 1980s when he was reprinting older negatives and writing his classic instructional books.

The problem with trying to replicate large format digitally is very similar to trying to make a keyboard sound like a full orchestra. At best, you'll get something that's an homage rather than a replica.

Rather than asking others about large formats look(s), I recommend that you try to view as many photography exhibitions as you can. You'll come to your own conclusions about what a "large format look" means to you. Contrary to what many might think, there are a lot of contemporary photographers who use the medium, and of course you'll find countless examples going back to the birth of photography.

 

[pgk]

Large format relies on both film and lenses (and technique) which help produce a look which can, at times, be difficult to easily reproduce digitally. But as ever it depends. Trying to emulate a shot taken on say, 10" x 8" at f/64 becomes difficult on smaller format due to the magnification required if large prints are the desired comparison. That said, many images shot on large format were/are simple records and little differene will be perceptble at low magnification. Lenses too have characteristics which may not be easy to duplicate on smaller formats. And then there is technique because large format is a slower process which again shifts the emphasis on how an image is created in the first place. This can be duplicated obviously, but few will do so.

[BernardC]

37 minutes ago, pgk said:

Large format relies on both film and lenses (and technique) which help produce a look which can, at times, be difficult to easily reproduce digitally. But as ever it depends.

One of my favourite learning experiences as a young photographer was a shoot that one of my mentors did with a friend who cultivated a Marylin Monroe look. He did a session with an old 4x5 "portrait camera" and lens from the 1950s, which he had inherited them from one of his own mentors, and replicated three-point studio lighting techniques from that era. The negs were TXP, which is similar to many emulsions that were available in the 1950s, and I printed them on Agfa Portriga. Frankly, the prints were/are stunning, and she treasures them to this day.

One of his sayings was "if you want to make vintage pictures, use vintage lenses." I could probably replicate the look today, given the right "portrait lens" and the right paper, but any attempts to do this on digital would fail. I might get something that is very pleasing, but it wouldn't look the same.

[Einst_Stein]

I have seen a web site of a photographer showing his 4x5 works, very pleasing. I am lack of words to describe what is special about it, something of silky tones gradation, but more. If it can show that characteristic, certainly digital can. If, it happens to be digitized with huge resolution, such as flat bed scanning the prints in stead of film. 

On the other hand, what I see on Christopher Burkett’s web site do not fully reflect what I see in his gallery in Carmel-by-the-sea. I wonder why.

Whatever it is about the large format looks, it has to be resolution, tones gradation, or bit depth, or the combination. I cannot imaging it is out of reach from digital. Does it need more advanced digital than today’s, I count, but. Cannot explain. 

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There are a lot of factors. Magnification ratio is one -- the film is so big and when produced at a low level of magnification, the tonality of the film is just extremely good. The other issue is the inherent depth of field. Most 4x5 normal lenses range from 150-210mm, with that inherently shallow depth of field. That tends to mean the subject is easily separated from the background. When shot more stopped down, the magnification ratio means that diffraction is generally not visible until f32 or more. It is also a factor in the cameras themselves -- being able to easily rise or lower the standards, shift and tilt means that the photographer has more creative control and has the ability to line everything up well. Negative film has better highlight control and inherent compression than digital, so usually the full tonality of a scene is preserved in a way that digital struggles to achieve. Shooting everything on a tripod certainly does not hurt either. Finally, people having their portrait taken often react differently because the process is slower and seems less like their picture is being stolen. Usually the photographer is beside the camera during capture, rather than obscured behind it, and most sitters do not fully understand the process, so it cuts down on posing and makes things more natural. 

The work most easily replicated by digital would be landscape work with full depth of field. Medium format digital can meet or surpass that more easily. 

4x5 and 8x10 are great though. Here are two I took recently of the same subject one on 8x10 (standing), the other on 4x5. 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[pgh]

1 hour ago, Einst_Stein said:

I cannot imaging it is out of reach from digital.

In some cases it is out reach.

And that's fine.

Digital is a different medium and works best when embraced on its own terms. It's like trying to get a charcoal look out of black ink. Or wanting an oil painting look from acrylic. If you want the large format look - which as has been noted is about tonal gradation, shallower depth of field for a given field of view and a generally more forced and intentional way of composing - and you want all of these things together and at the same time, just shoot large format. 

The endless quest to equate digital to analogue processes, to me, misses the real issue, which is how to make a good picture - which usually has less to do with these marginal formal properties and more to do with fundamentals of light, content, timing etc and yes maybe some of those things like focus falloff but only at the last step and only mattering at all (if only even a little bit) when everything else has already been attended to first - which is, really, pretty damn rare. 

[pgk]

3 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

I cannot imaging it is out of reach from digital.

The physics of creating an image of large format is different. Using very small apertures which are diffraction limited and then magnifying the image (or indeed not magnifying as contact prints may be the goal) where this does not show, may well yield images which are tricky to replicate. If you want to replicate large format digitally you will first need to understand the physics behind its imaging and then figure out how to create a similar effect using different format and lenses.

I always remember discussing diffraction with a biologist who was struggling to get really detailed underwater images on DX format relative to mine on FX format. Its possible to get as detailed images but doing so reduced dof and thus the problem begins.

[BernardC]

I guess the real question is "how close to a large format look do you want to get?"

It might help if you told us what the "large format look" means to you. Photographers have been using large format for nearly 200 years, and their images don't all look the same.

As others have pointed-out, you can get fine grain, fine tonal separation, and relatively shallow depth of field with a good digital camera. Your images won't necessarily look like large format paper prints, but they will arguably be in the spirit of large format.

 

[willeica]

18 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

What is large format film photo look? Can digital camera achieve that?

There are too many aspects to fully answer that question. It really depends on what you would be looking for as a photographer. Among the factors are

1. The medium you are using, film , plate or digital sensor and the 'look' that gives.

2. The image size and the lenses and apertures you are using, these all create different 'looks', particularly when combined.

3. Whether you regard various factors such sharpness as important.

4. The subject matter you are photographing

This piece is interesting, although I always regard blowing up bits of large images looking for sharpness as complete nonsense, as no one in their right mind views images that way, unless they are engaged in surveillance of some kind.

https://www.mountainphotography.com/gallery/4x5-film-vs-digital-resolution-comparison/

William 

[Einst_Stein]

3 hours ago, BernardC said:

I guess the real question is "how close to a large format look do you want to get?"

It might help if you told us what the "large format look" means to you. Photographers have been using large format for nearly 200 years, and their images don't all look the same.

As others have pointed-out, you can get fine grain, fine tonal separation, and relatively shallow depth of field with a good digital camera. Your images won't necessarily look like large format paper prints, but they will arguably be in the spirit of large format.

 

I wish I know and can describe what large format look really is. Sorry for the vague question. A rose is a rose, though I might not know how to  describe it.

I am thinking from the physics factors.  What are the essential characteristics that makes Large for film photo special? 

Now I have collected the resolution (MP), the tonal gradation ( pixel depth of the camera/film and rounder point response of the lens), focus depth and accuracy ( focus confirmation of the camera  and view finder), balanced macro contrast & micro contrast. Among these, it seems to me the rounder point response of the lens and the balanced macro contrast and micro contrast are not obvious to match by digital. The rounder point response could be against the intuitive demanding higher resolution of smaller format photography. The balanced macro contrast and micro contrast could be achieved by post processing. 

About the balanced macro contrast and micro contrast, I have seen unpleasant photos (personally) from stand agitation and pyro developer, due to the exaggerated push down of the macro contrast and/or exaggerated boosted micro contrast. For these reason, I find I rarely use contrast masking in digital post processing. May be that is something I need practice more. 

Mimicking rounder point response is harder in post processing. I have no idea what can make the difference.

On the other hand, could it be the large format look is just a sign of some faults of the system? Like some old classical lenses?
 

[LocalHero1953]

9 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

rounder point response of the lens

I don't understand what you mean by this - can you clarify?

Other than that, trying to define a 'look' of any kind in one or two words is like nailing jelly to the wall - see the various threads on 'what is the Leica Look'.

I have never thought of large format being defined by a particular 'look' - I just see differences arising from the equipment as described by others, and the differences in subjects arising from the process of using large format for single shot images. It takes me around half an hour to take one shot for landscape (set up to dismantling), and perhaps ten minutes for each of several portrait shots (once set up indoors).

We also have to distinguish differences between digital 35mm, film 35mm and film large format. Factors like tonal gradation and highlight retention are common across all sizes of negative film (and different again for reversal). 

The age of the lens is one of the lesser factors, when you consider they are mostly shot stopped down in large format, and the images are not enlarged by the same amount as a 35mm negative or digital image.

I started shooting large format because I wanted to explore the benefits of higher resolution images, but I keep doing it simply because I enjoy the process.

 

Edited Tuesday at 08:30 AM by LocalHero1953

[pgk]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

..... trying to define a 'look' of any kind in one or two words is like nailing jelly to the wall - see the various threads on 'what is the Leica Look'.

I have never thought of large format being defined by a particular 'look' - I just see differences arising from the equipment as described by others, and the differences in subjects arising from the process of using large format for single shot images.

As 'system' MTF is a cascade of the various MTF graphs of an overall system, so too are any 'looks' which are most likely a cumulative mix of the characteristics of the 'system/methodology' used to create an image. Which is IMO why 'looks' are hard to define. Shifting one factor will change things but shifting several factors will change things far more as those shifted factors interplay with each other. In the case of Large Format, it may well be possible to mimic a final 'look' but to do so requires an in depth understanding of what is going on at each stage of the image being created and how these interact. Easier (but rather more expensive) to shoot Large Format I would say.

[LocalHero1953]

And the 'look' of a large format lens changes with tilting and shifting, as well as with the small aperture.

Edited Tuesday at 10:22 AM by LocalHero1953

[Einst_Stein]

By rounder point response, I am trying to think the image as a signal. By signal processing,  the property of a system can be characterized with the response of a single light source. This is called point response. Ideal point response is also a single point, but in reality if is like a bell with ripples out. The sharper the bell and lower the ripple usually leads to high resolution. In order to achieve that, the central bell could become a sharp pin, sometimes it could be like a volcano or a chimney, the top is flat or with dip. A rounder point response is without dip or flat plateau. An audio system can also be characterized with point response. A rounder point response usually sounds more pleasing. 

Be careful on this type of analysis. Human being’s feeling, be it sound or image, might not be completely matching the mathematical model.

 

[LocalHero1953]

3 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

Be careful on this type of analysis.

I am at no risk of this

[Einst_Stein]

3 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I am at no risk of this

I can see!

[250swb]

On 9/29/2025 at 2:40 PM, Einst_Stein said:

 

Whatever it is about the large format looks, it has to be resolution, tones gradation, or bit depth, or the combination. I cannot imaging it is out of reach from digital. Does it need more advanced digital than today’s, I count, but. Cannot explain. 

Perhaps the large format look you are looking for isn't in the equipment but the attitude? Use a tripod, point the camera at what you want to photograph then go for a walk around looking for a slightly better angle, think harder about what is in and out of the photograph, look at the clouds, wait for the sun, limit your digital exposures to four or six a day. As a large format photographer that is exactly what I do 80% of the time with a full frame digital camera. Large format has a certain work ethic and it is a hideous cliché but it mostly forces you to slow down, but in setting up for the shot lots of ideas can flow.

Outside of the print and having your nose on the glass to inspect detail a lot of 35mm photographs can look like large format. You have the New Topographic work of Lewis Baltz for example, the general Americana of gas stations and advertising signs, all of which have been photographed in large format, 35mm and medium format, and to a great extent book reproduction doesn't distinguish which is which. In some photographers you can see how the ended up using large format, Stephen Shore's early work in 35mm (American Surfaces) is mimicked in many ways by his later work, a similar progression is seen in the work of Joel Meyerowitz. Their palette simply changed by moving to large format, not necessarily the imagery. 

So composition and technique can be mimicked, maybe with digital a tilt-shift lens is needed for photographing buildings, the colour to match a dye transfer print, or the B&W to match a Victorian portrait, etc.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Einst_Stein]

4 hours ago, 250swb said:

Perhaps the large format look you are looking for isn't in the equipment but the attitude? Use a tripod, point the camera at what you want to photograph then go for a walk around looking for a slightly better angle, think harder about what is in and out of the photograph, look at the clouds, wait for the sun, limit your digital exposures to four or six a day. As a large format photographer that is exactly what I do 80% of the time with a full frame digital camera. Large format has a certain work ethic and it is a hideous cliché but it mostly forces you to slow down, but in setting up for the shot lots of ideas can flow.

Outside of the print and having your nose on the glass to inspect detail a lot of 35mm photographs can look like large format. You have the New Topographic work of Lewis Baltz for example, the general Americana of gas stations and advertising signs, all of which have been photographed in large format, 35mm and medium format, and to a great extent book reproduction doesn't distinguish which is which. In some photographers you can see how the ended up using large format, Stephen Shore's early work in 35mm (American Surfaces) is mimicked in many ways by his later work, a similar progression is seen in the work of Joel Meyerowitz. Their palette simply changed by moving to large format, not necessarily the imagery. 

So composition and technique can be mimicked, maybe with digital a tilt-shift lens is needed for photographing buildings, the colour to match a dye transfer print, or the B&W to match a Victorian portrait, etc.

It is definitely much more than just the atitude. It is also more than the resolution of the combination of the film and the lens. 

But your suggestion can definitely help to achieve better photography.