raid
Dad Photographer
I wonder why people use medium format cameras if they don't make very large prints from the negatives or transparencies. It seems to be the main reason for using MF cameras [or even LF] over 35mm cameras. There have been discussions about this topic at RFF. The debate had been about "details" that are visible on MF scans versus 35mm scans of the same size. For example, if you get 4MB files from scanned negatives, can you detect finer details in a MF scan versus a 35mm scan? Why or why not?
If you stop making prints or asking for prints, and you get only scans, would it be a waste of money to use MF cameras?
How do you feel about the superiority of MF cameras over 35mm cameras for extra details?
If you stop making prints or asking for prints, and you get only scans, would it be a waste of money to use MF cameras?
How do you feel about the superiority of MF cameras over 35mm cameras for extra details?
iamzip
Ambitious, but rubbish
Generally speaking, MF negatives give much more detail / much sharper pictures than 35mm, even when only moderately enlarged. Same goes for scanning. If you muck about with it to get smaller file sizes, you may lose some of the details. Also, Using MF gives you tons of room for cropping - since the negs are so big, you could crop an image significantly and still get very high quality pictures.
craygc
Well-known
I guess as many, Ive seen this comment arise in many forms over the years but I still tend to find it a little perplexing. I find - and least with my own work - that whether a processed scan displayed on a good monitor or a print, there is a very appreciable and visible difference between 35mm and (in my case) 6x7 even at sizes of 6R and 8R formats. Going larger just amplifies this difference. Im sure for all its a case of YMMV...
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I shoot MF (6x7) because the prints look better. Even 8x10 size.
I can't respond to the poll because it assumes that someone else develops your MF film. I develop my own, edit the negs on the light box, and scan that very small number that I choose to later work with.
I can't respond to the poll because it assumes that someone else develops your MF film. I develop my own, edit the negs on the light box, and scan that very small number that I choose to later work with.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
You can see a difference in resolution and grain even in small prints, even in small prints from scans. I shoot 35mm when I need a handheld camera and the ability to focus and shoot fast.
I use Medium format for things that I can spend more time contemplating, because I can achieve a much higher image quality.
Note the fine detail and very smooth tonality from this shot, made with a Mamiya 645.
I also didn't do the poll because I process my own and I scan my own. I only scan the frames I want, and I scan at 4000dpi, which is a 300+ megabyte file in 16bit color, or 100 MB in grayscale. I scan my BW negs in grey, color film in RGB.
I use Medium format for things that I can spend more time contemplating, because I can achieve a much higher image quality.
Note the fine detail and very smooth tonality from this shot, made with a Mamiya 645.
I also didn't do the poll because I process my own and I scan my own. I only scan the frames I want, and I scan at 4000dpi, which is a 300+ megabyte file in 16bit color, or 100 MB in grayscale. I scan my BW negs in grey, color film in RGB.
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
Christopher,
Referring toyour M645 image, I had a similar situation two days ago when there was very dense fog at Pensacola Beach, and you had white sand with a white sky and barely visible fishing pier. I was then wishing I had my MFcamera with me. I don't know whether the 35mm lens was able to capture on film the fine details barely emerging from the fog.
Referring toyour M645 image, I had a similar situation two days ago when there was very dense fog at Pensacola Beach, and you had white sand with a white sky and barely visible fishing pier. I was then wishing I had my MFcamera with me. I don't know whether the 35mm lens was able to capture on film the fine details barely emerging from the fog.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Did you develop it yet? I'd like to see it. It could be pretty good, but I just instinctively reach for the bigger film when I am doing landscapes because the quality is so much better. Some people here and at APUG have said, when asked about moving up to MF from 35, that 645 is too small and you won't see a big difference. I've had my 645 for 15 years, got it in high school, and I still see a HUGE difference! Sure, 6x7 is probably a lot better but I don't like to carry a very heavy kit because of some health problems and the 645 makes magnificent prints, even when printed big.
Here's a fog photo done in 35mm:
http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/new-mexico/photopages/waldo-canyon2.htm
I think I used Ilford Pan-F, so it is fine grained film, but it still has a gritty feel to it that I usually don't like in landscapes, though it does look kinda cool in this one. I used 35mm because I carry an Olympus OM with standard lens everywhere, at all times, just in case I see something cool. This was when I still lived in Santa Fe, and I was on my way to Albuquerque to go out to eat with some friends, and didn't intend to do any photography, but the fog down there over LaBajada Mesa was too beautiful not to stop for.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
MF has a smoother tonal transition. There's more information in the scan, so you can manipulate things without the image degrading as much.
But, more importantly, there are two characteristics that 35mm can't emulate. MF film has a different spacial/dimensional thing going on. Pictures have a real 3-D feeling. Secondly, shooting square with a Hassy or Rolleiflex or whatever gives different results than cropping a rectangular image. 6x6 pictures just sorta 'feel' different.
Look at these Mamiya RZ images on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=40287499@N00&q=Mamiya&m=text
35mm just doesn't look like that. There's something amazing about 6x7 with Portra or Tri-X.... It's not really about seeing more detail, because you're not necessarily 'inspecting' the image. The pictures are just 'richer' in some way.
I see it in my own pictures. This one was with a Leica-R 50 Summicron, with the new, fine-grained Ektar 100 film:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ckdexterhaven/3062346622/sizes/o/
This one was with a Hasselblad and Portra 400 - faster film, and not as fine grained, but with less enlargement, the results are still, clearly 'better':
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ckdexterhaven/3061156403/sizes/l/
Obviously, we're looking at compressed JPGs, but working with the originals inspired me to get a Fuji 645 camera to use instead of relying on 35mm for 'casual' travel photography. It was just such a letdown to go from 6x6 film to 35mm when working with the scans. And, i really LIKE the Ektar!
But, more importantly, there are two characteristics that 35mm can't emulate. MF film has a different spacial/dimensional thing going on. Pictures have a real 3-D feeling. Secondly, shooting square with a Hassy or Rolleiflex or whatever gives different results than cropping a rectangular image. 6x6 pictures just sorta 'feel' different.
Look at these Mamiya RZ images on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=40287499@N00&q=Mamiya&m=text
35mm just doesn't look like that. There's something amazing about 6x7 with Portra or Tri-X.... It's not really about seeing more detail, because you're not necessarily 'inspecting' the image. The pictures are just 'richer' in some way.
I see it in my own pictures. This one was with a Leica-R 50 Summicron, with the new, fine-grained Ektar 100 film:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ckdexterhaven/3062346622/sizes/o/
This one was with a Hasselblad and Portra 400 - faster film, and not as fine grained, but with less enlargement, the results are still, clearly 'better':
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ckdexterhaven/3061156403/sizes/l/
Obviously, we're looking at compressed JPGs, but working with the originals inspired me to get a Fuji 645 camera to use instead of relying on 35mm for 'casual' travel photography. It was just such a letdown to go from 6x6 film to 35mm when working with the scans. And, i really LIKE the Ektar!
sem
Registered User
In my opinion it is not for the quality. The reason is the fun of use. A bit heavy to carry around, very slow to focus, quite different to get the format, but just do it, it is fun, also the developing both film and printing.
Not quite an answer to your question but I think the reason for shooting is not only going for quality, it is to capture the moment.
Regards
sem
Not quite an answer to your question but I think the reason for shooting is not only going for quality, it is to capture the moment.
Regards
sem
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
why? because there is no replacement for displacement.
Todd
Todd
ChrisN
Striving
For the quality and character, and specifically the tonality. (We had a great discussion about this aspect some time ago - see http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49857&highlight=tonality )
dwaoka
emmigrant
MF makes me take more time to shoot, I think twice about frame before I press shutter.
MartinP
Veteran
I was unable to respond to the poll as I develop and print in the spare bedroom (a.k.a. darkroom).
Medium format simply has more quality, and looks clearly better at all levels of enlargement, than 35mm.
Just don't mention 4x5 or 10x8 . . . . !
Medium format simply has more quality, and looks clearly better at all levels of enlargement, than 35mm.
Just don't mention 4x5 or 10x8 . . . . !
Chris101
summicronia
I haven't for a long time, but I used to use MF for street shooting to make my subjects aware and impressed by my presence. It gives a very different look to street shots than does my current preference for 35mm.
Fred Burton
Well-known
It's the tonality that makes a difference for me. Even when resolution isn't an issue (in a smaller print, for example), the difference in tonality tips the scale toward MF. It's the best compromise between the beautiful tones of a 4x5 negative and the speed and small size of 35mm.
Mikael.N
Established
If you develop it is real pleasure to look at the negative much bigger you can see images thats not possible with 35mm and you think more when using MF
chris000
Landscaper
As others have said below, the difference in quality is clear which is the reason I started to use MF (SLRs and RFs).
But having used them for some years now I would say that the difference in handling is every bit as important. The greater time needed to use them and the relatively few number of frames on a roll all cause me to be more thoughtful about what I am taking and why.
35mm definitely has its place, especially on the street, but for landscape or posed portrait I would always prefer MF.
But having used them for some years now I would say that the difference in handling is every bit as important. The greater time needed to use them and the relatively few number of frames on a roll all cause me to be more thoughtful about what I am taking and why.
35mm definitely has its place, especially on the street, but for landscape or posed portrait I would always prefer MF.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
In addition to the finer MF details, many of the MF cameras have outstanding lenses -- sometimes this point is missed by photogs. For example the Hasselblad 80mm T* Zeiss is one of photogs legendary lenses rivaling any glass and can be picked up for as little as $350(+). With good MF glass even the boke is smoother.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
one reason additional to the above replies is, nothing in 35mm world comes close to the fun of using my rolleiflex.
Sometimes i get decent result from enlarging 35mm, especially from slow BW film. Depends very much on the subject matter. But 6x6 or, my latest 6x9 slides, are just a whole different category. A few 40x40 cm prints from Delta3200 frames i shot with my 70 years old 100-euro Rolleiflex hang here on my wall and (not to brag but) they look just stunning.
Sometimes i get decent result from enlarging 35mm, especially from slow BW film. Depends very much on the subject matter. But 6x6 or, my latest 6x9 slides, are just a whole different category. A few 40x40 cm prints from Delta3200 frames i shot with my 70 years old 100-euro Rolleiflex hang here on my wall and (not to brag but) they look just stunning.
historicist
Well-known
I use medium format much more than 35mm now, have it developed and scan it myself. The quality difference is remarkable, even in relatively small sizes (even if I'm being honest, about the only thing I ever do with my pictures is put them up on flickr as small jpegs).
I would also say that the subjective quality (bokeh etc.) of my Rolleiflex 2.8F and SL66 lenses is better than anything I've used in 35mm, and things like differences in bokeh are noticeable even in a print too small to make the extra detail apparent.
The last reason, and probably the most important for me, is that out of a roll of 12 pictures I seem to get more good ones than I did out of a roll of 36 with 35mm, which also saves me a lot of time in sorting them out and editing them.
I would also say that the subjective quality (bokeh etc.) of my Rolleiflex 2.8F and SL66 lenses is better than anything I've used in 35mm, and things like differences in bokeh are noticeable even in a print too small to make the extra detail apparent.
The last reason, and probably the most important for me, is that out of a roll of 12 pictures I seem to get more good ones than I did out of a roll of 36 with 35mm, which also saves me a lot of time in sorting them out and editing them.