From digital straight to MF?

[Darthfeeble]

I've scanned 120 with an epson v600 with very satisfactory results.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I know that you can get "satisfactory" results, but how does it compare to an original full frame digital image. I'm thinking of print sizes up to 16x20 or perhaps 20x30.

 

[Godfrey]

I know that you can get "satisfactory" results, but how does it compare to an original full frame digital image. I'm thinking of print sizes up to 16x20 or perhaps 20x30.

An "original full frame digital image" from what camera and lens? What format medium format are you referring two, what film, processed how, etc etc...? And what kind of skills have you got with film scanning and digital image rendering from film scans?

I'm trying to indicate that there are a whole lot of variables to nail down before attempting to make such a comparison. After 23+ years of scanning film formats from Minox to 4x5 with a huge range of scanners, and learning how to render them, I'd say that the difference in "quality" is purely an aesthetic one. A film negative has a different look and feel than a digital capture, quite independent of its "quality", so a well captured and rendered FF exposure can compete head to head with a well captured, scanned, and rendered MF image depending on what you're looking to compare them by.

Done right, you should be able to hang same size prints from either without anyone knowing which is which. Some people will assert that "they can always tell" but in all the time I've been hanging shows and selling prints, what camera and capture medium was used has never been an issue that I spent any time explaining.

Except on photographic equipment forums like this one, of course.

 

[karateisland]

My takeaway here is that everyone has their own preferences, and I won't learn my own unless I start somewhere. I want a 35mm rangefinder and a MF camera. I'll pick one and, no matter what, will learn a lot. That's very encouraging. Thanks for the great advice, everyone!

 

[f16sunshine]

I use mostly 6x6 for film. I like the square and the look of medium format b+w.
35mm gives you a chance to learn film with more flexibilty.
Exposure Bracketing is very easy with 35mm and, every accomplished film photographer has gone through a phase of bracketing to ...better understand how to expose for the way you want the image to look.
35mm can also give a dirty... grainy edge to your images.
It’s one reason I still use it at all.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

My takeaway here is that everyone has their own preferences, and I won't learn my own unless I start somewhere. I want a 35mm rangefinder and a MF camera. I'll pick one and, no matter what, will learn a lot. That's very encouraging. Thanks for the great advice, everyone!

That's pretty much it. 35mm, MF, Large format film, they all look different, it's almost like 3 separate hobbies. Just have fun and do what you like, in any order. I don't think any one of those looks like it's digital equivalent, (though there is no digital LF equivalent), though some here obviously do.
You'll never know unless you go, that's the main thing.

 

[aizan]

i wouldn’t bother getting a 35mm rangefinder since you have the x100f. i’d just spend the extra cash on all the other knick-knacks you’ll need for medium format. getting into film is not just buying a film camera with a lens.

 

[icebear]

Unless you get darkroom equipment set up permanently to take extra care of developing MF film yourself, the whole exercise is a wasted effort.

Once I was cut off from doing developing and printing myself in a pro darkroom, I got a crisis every second time I got negatives back from development, fingerprints, dust, scratches. Just forget about it.

It wasn't until I got a Monochrom that my interest in b&w photography was sparked again and being no expert wizard in pp image manipulation, I can easily achieve results that I would never be able to get out of a darkroom. And prints up to 24x36" (yes, inches) are stunning, ... I haven't tried to print any bigger yet. If you do a couple of things right (use a yellow filter, max out the exposure by using the histogram, shoot wide open and use short shutter speed) then you'll be able to achieve MF results in more convenient package. You have to slow down yourself, not choosing a camera/equipment to do it for you.

 

[ptpdprinter]

An "original full frame digital image" from what camera and lens? What format medium format are you referring two, what film, processed how, etc etc...? And what kind of skills have you got with film scanning and digital image rendering from film scans?

I'm trying to indicate that there are a whole lot of variables to nail down before attempting to make such a comparison. After 23+ years of scanning film formats from Minox to 4x5 with a huge range of scanners, and learning how to render them, I'd say that the difference in "quality" is purely an aesthetic one. A film negative has a different look and feel than a digital capture, quite independent of its "quality", so a well captured and rendered FF exposure can compete head to head with a well captured, scanned, and rendered MF image depending on what you're looking to compare them by.

Done right, you should be able to hang same size prints from either without anyone knowing which is which. Some people will assert that "they can always tell" but in all the time I've been hanging shows and selling prints, what camera and capture medium was used has never been an issue that I spent any time explaining.

Except on photographic equipment forums like this one, of course.

I didn't want to get too far in the weeds with the comparison. The reason I asked is that the OP is going to be scanning his images, and I was interested in whether by digitizing his MF negatives, he was giving up the advantages of MF film over full frame digital. I was looking for a general answer. I know I was disappointed with the quality of 6x prints from V700 scans of 35mm B&W film, for example. A 6x print of a 6x6 negative is roughly 13.5" square. If I were shooting more MF film, I would want a dedicated MF film scanner, which is not inexpensive. Using MF film is just one piece of the equation.

 

[cz23]

Everything he said is correct....

That's funny; when I read the four points I thought, everything he said is incorrect.

1. You'll have infinite ways to make your 35mm film look different than your digital output.
2. 35mm can certainly wow. And besides, it's the image that wows, not the technical quality.
3. Film will slow you down, regardless of format. And slow is not necessarily good, especially in some genres.
4. I scan both and find 35mm easier.

Anyway, the only way to know for sure it to try both.

John

 

[JHutchins]

I feel a bit guilty asking for more feedback before I've offered anything constructive back to the community, but since the brains in this forum are second to none, I figured what the heck.

Yesterday a photographer friend recommended that, as I jump into film from digital, I skip over 35mm and go straight to medium format.

Here is his reasoning:

1. The digital camera that I have (X100F) is extremely flexible and capable in a wide variety of situations, and so it works wonderfully as a snapshot and travel camera for my purposes. He thinks I will be disappointed in a 35mm camera because it will be much less flexible and the results will look too similar to my little digital rangefinder.
2. He says that if I want to be wowed by my film pictures, it’s best to jump to a format that is less similar, ie, 645 or 6x7, and use something like a Mamiya rangefinder or a Plaubel Makina.
3. If I want to make myself slow down and pay more attention to the process of taking a picture, that can be done with a medium format camera just as well as with a 35mm, or perhaps better since it will take fewer shots per roll.
4. I don’t have access to a color dark room (yet), and his experience says that MF is easier to work with on a scanner.

Note that I am not printing (as of yet), but am enamored of the special “something” that I see in 6x7 negatives, and even halfway competent scans.

So what do you think of his recommendation? Does it make sense to jump into film photography and supplement a digital with a medium format camera?

I believe I’ve made up my mind, but it was an intriguing idea I've not seen promoted elsewhere, and I’d love to hear what everyone else thinks.

I think it's important to subtract all of the "film is better than digital/digital is better than film" debate and argument out of this question. If you want to shoot film because you're firmly on the film is better side of that then the following are largely secondary considerations. If you want to shoot film because you think film is fun or you're going for a classic look (35 tri-x in d-76 or in rodinal or in diafine or in whatever developer gives you the particular look you're hunting for) then think about these:

What is the camera you want to use. If you want a Leica M rangefinder then you will be shooting in 35mm and that's that's that. This is not a trivial consideration. Those of us who take pictures spend a lot of time taking pictures and therefore a lot of time with camera in hand and the camera is the thing we look at the world through so choices made by the camera manufacturer matter. They matter in lots of ways -- what we actually see (a rangefinder window is different than the view through the pentaprism/screen of a Nikon F, which is different from the view through the ground glass of a rolleiflex) and they matter as to how quickly we make an image (an F3 with a motor drive is faster than a Hasselblad -- but so too is a Rolleiflex). I don't really agree with people who say medium format is only for static subjects. There are fast medium format systems and slow medium format systems. There are also slow 35mm systems. The fastest 35 mm cameras (Nikon F6 for example) are faster than the fastest MF cameras (and also it's easier to get more shots per roll) but there's a middle range with lots of overlap and the notion that you can use a Rolleiflex or a Pentax 67 or a Mamiya 6 or MF Fuji rangefinder only on static subjects is just ridiculous.

Image quality is not a meaningful phrase in itself. The image is ultimately an aesthetic judgment and you need to think about what appeals to you. Do you like the look of film grain? Maybe 35mm or even half frame or submini cameras are what you should be thinking about! Are you looking for extended tonal range? Maybe skip the 35 and MF and charge right into large format.

The point of all of this is to say think about the things that are driving you toward using film, try to put into words what those are. Is it the satisfaction of using a particular camera? The fun you might have exploring the physics and chemistry of film processes? The aesthetic qualities of particular images you've seen taken with film? If the last what precise qualities appeal to you?

Once you stop thinking about better/worse as some abstract quality spectrum that can be thought about independently of your specific tastes you can start thinking about the choice in a sensible way.

 

[lxmike]

Good luck with your quest, let us know how you get on

 

[ptpdprinter]

Nobody said this was going to be easy. Lot of people (including me) come at it from different directions.

 

[Godfrey]

I didn't want to get too far in the weeds with the comparison. The reason I asked is that the OP is going to be scanning his images, and I was interested in whether by digitizing his MF negatives, he was giving up the advantages of MF film over full frame digital. I was looking for a general answer. I know I was disappointed with the quality of 6x prints from V700 scans of 35mm B&W film, for example.

That begs the question: "What do you perceive to be the advantages of MF film over (a modern) FF digital capture?"

Flatbed scanners are not the best film scanners. I had the V700 and found it to be only so-so with 35mm film. It was only able to achieve between 2300 and 2900 real PPI, so the output file at best @2900 is about an 11 Mpixel image with all the issues of scanning film to deal with. A dedicated Nikon Coolscan V ED produces far better output with a true 4000 ppi.

On the other hand, switch to 6x6 and that same V700 at 2900 ppi produces a 41 Mpixel image that's got much more to work with. I've produced very satisfying 20x20 prints from such scans, and larger is easy if you use some sizing tricks.

My Leica SL or M-D are 24 Mpixel, FF cameras. Without the noise of film emulsion and grain, I can make good clean prints at lower printing PPI and achieve very very clean 17x25 printed area photos from them. With the same tricks as above, I can get up to about half again that size.

So if its print size you're after, it's pretty much a toss up between MF film and a 24mpixel or better FF camera, as long as your lenses are good and the image you're printing is good calibre. Other qualities of a print are more an aesthetic choice, as I said before.

For 13x13 sized prints from MF negatives, I eschew the scanner entirely and use a copy camera technique to capture the 6x6 negative. This nets a max 16 MPixel image from the SL which prints beautifully at 300 ppi to 13x13 size. Faster, cleaner, and more manipulable ... and all the character of the original 6x6 camera to boot if you do it right.

 

[johannielscom]

Saying a medium format camera is a technocrats thing in a forum as gear driven as this one is pretty laughable.

Trust me, there's far more technocrats hanging over rangefinders here than there are over medium format. I wouldn't say people like Helmut Newton, Vivian Mayer or Trent Parke were/are technocrats because they shoot MF.

And Ko.Fe's example of what a medium format camera 'sucks at' is really no statement about the camera or the format, sorry.


I shoot this and it's neither big or heavy.

It's a Horseman 842 Convertible with a 6x7 film magazine and a 62mm Topcon lens. It can do 6x9 too. They're not even that expensive on eBay any more, seems most people forgot about them and shell out for a Linhof or Alpa or the likes.


That camera is easy to shoot and load, and gets me results like this:

Which was shot on expired Portra400VC and can be scanned to a 60MP file covering 40x50 inches in print.

Oh, and I don't think the above statement on quality etc is 'technocratic' at all because I believe that all photographers should eventually relate their shooting to printing. Because that's just about the only thing that distinguishes us from the cameraphone masses...

 

[ptpdprinter]

That begs the question: "What do you perceive to be the advantages of MF film over (a modern) FF digital capture?"

Flatbed scanners are not the best film scanners. I had the V700 and found it to be only so-so with 35mm film. It was only able to achieve between 2300 and 2900 real PPI, so the output file at best @2900 is about an 11 Mpixel image with all the issues of scanning film to deal with. A dedicated Nikon Coolscan V ED produces far better output with a true 4000 ppi.

On the other hand, switch to 6x6 and that same V700 at 2900 ppi produces a 41 Mpixel image that's got much more to work with. I've produced very satisfying 20x20 prints from such scans, and larger is easy if you use some sizing tricks.

My Leica SL or M-D are 24 Mpixel, FF cameras. Without the noise of film emulsion and grain, I can make good clean prints at lower printing PPI and achieve very very clean 17x25 printed area photos from them. With the same tricks as above, I can get up to about half again that size.

So if its print size you're after, it's pretty much a toss up between MF film and a 24mpixel or better FF camera, as long as your lenses are good and the image you're printing is good calibre. Other qualities of a print are more an aesthetic choice, as I said before.

For 13x13 sized prints from MF negatives, I eschew the scanner entirely and use a copy camera technique to capture the 6x6 negative. This nets a max 16 MPixel image from the SL which prints beautifully at 300 ppi to 13x13 size. Faster, cleaner, and more manipulable ... and all the character of the original 6x6 camera to boot if you do it right.

That's the kind of information I was looking for. Thanks.

 

[willie_901]

In my view, if you want to use a complete analog photography workflow, it makes sense to skip 135 format film and start with medium-format media. Large negatives/transparencies are better negatives/transparencies.

The advantages for a MF hybrid workflow are well-described above.

You wrote, "If I want to make myself slow down and pay more attention to the process of taking a picture, that can be done with a medium format camera just as well as with a 35mm, or perhaps better since it will take fewer shots per roll."

I think this a a worthy goal. But you can accomplish this with any camera. The media format and media are irrelevant. Just pretend the camera you happen to be using is a MF analog camera. Think of this as if you were an actor. Imagine you are playing the role of a deliberate, thoughtful photographer.

 

[johannielscom]

Once I sold a lens to a fellow who came to pick it up and over coffee told me he took only one 4Gb SD-card with his Leica M8 when going on a 2-week holiday. The limited amount of memory space made him think about if the shot was worth taking, before taking it.

Willy's right, it can be done with any camera, as long as you're aware there is a choice at all

 

[nightfly]

Coming from film, I still use digital in the same way. One shot of any given subject. I don't bracket or try it a million times.

I try to pre-visualize or failing that often pick up the camera and look through the viewfinder and put it down without shooting even thought there's virtually no cost.

I like to think of it as pre-editing. This works for me. Others might learn from trying things a lot of different ways and figuring out what works that way. I probably screwed up a lot when I first starting shooting (film) and have internalized that now.

Film gave me a discipline that I've taken to digital. While it could translate the other way, I don't think it's a given.

 

[mich rassena]

I consider 35mm a bit of a dead end these days, so I'd recommend you leap into medium format. You don't even have to spend a lot of money to get good results.