M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
Leica vs MF image quality
- Thread starter Krosya
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies: Replies 240
- Views: Views 18K
- Status
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Oh...NOW I know what we're talking about! Thank you for explaining that to me.Finder said:
I apologize, I didn't get the memo with the topic rules for this thread.Finder said:
Are we discussing your documentary work, now? And, where is this "dismissal" of medium format argument come from?Finder said:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Why is sharpness meaningful? Why do you want to know? What is the purpose of your reason for knowing? I also lack knowledge here and I want to learn.RML said:
Really, people, if you didn't take comments at heart so...
No sarcasm intended, no offense meant.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
You didn't get the memo? I'm sorry I neglected to let you know.sherm said:Gabriel,
I thought you were going to take a break from RFF???
But if there is something else behind your little passive-aggressive Texas-compensating attitude of yours, drop me a PM.
Tuolumne
Veteran
I don't understand how this very straightforward topic got so rancorous.
/T
/T
aizan
Veteran
i'm a sucker for flame bait.
ywenz
Veteran
mfogiel said:
If what you observed is in fact true, then one can compare a group of shots from a Leica lens to a group of non-leica shots and immediately identify the sex appeal of the Leica shots. Why is the attempt to convince done with specific examples used in an article with arguments of the same?
Finder
Veteran
Gabriel M.A. said:
You are welcome.
{quote]I apologize, I didn't get the memo with the topic rules for this thread.[/quote]
Please speak to an administrator about that
I was using my experience as an example. Should I not do that? Perhaps I should stick to the "rules" of photography I have seen in Popular Photography that tell me I can't do what I am doing.
As far as the dismissal of formats larger than 35mm, I thought you had done that in your posts? You seem to suggest 35mm is the only way to do things.
Turtle
Veteran
In short:
YES there are many factors when assing image quality
YES sharpness is a subjective term and a product of resolution, contrast, edge effects etc..
BUT...the question I believe was quite simple and I think most know what the poster was getting at.
All I will add is this: A small neg can look sharper at a certain enlargement size than a bigger neg at the same size. This is why I dont like making small enlargements from Acros or similar and this is an issue in 5x4, as a 10x8 from a 5x4 acros neg does not loook sharp. Basically every combo has its optimum if you are looking for visual bite. For some images this does nto matter and they are all about 'tonality' for some it does matter and a smaller neg might have more visual bite than a bigger neg enlarged only a little.
with MF however, you tend to be able to achieve great 'bite'and fine grain at typical portfolio and on the wall sizes of say 9.5x12-12x16 in in may regards provides enough 'bite' and pretty fine grain. At 5x7 MF still has an edge in absolute terms but in subjective terms can look sharper off 35mm.....as can a 10x8. The big issue comes when shooting say 10x8 negs in that if you are looking for 'bite' one often has to resort to tricks like semi-stand processing in agressive acutance devs to get that on a contact print or small enlargement.
However, if shooting MF one can use the same tricks to get amazing acutance on small prints but also have fine grain when you want it too.
If I am looking for detail, resolution and tonality I have not produced negs from 35mm that can really compete with rollfilm even at 11x14, but that is not to say they look 'worse' for it, as that totally depends on the nature of the image. Needless to say if I need to appearance of grain for the right pictorial effect, 35mm is technically better......
Dunno if that helps....
YES there are many factors when assing image quality
YES sharpness is a subjective term and a product of resolution, contrast, edge effects etc..
BUT...the question I believe was quite simple and I think most know what the poster was getting at.
All I will add is this: A small neg can look sharper at a certain enlargement size than a bigger neg at the same size. This is why I dont like making small enlargements from Acros or similar and this is an issue in 5x4, as a 10x8 from a 5x4 acros neg does not loook sharp. Basically every combo has its optimum if you are looking for visual bite. For some images this does nto matter and they are all about 'tonality' for some it does matter and a smaller neg might have more visual bite than a bigger neg enlarged only a little.
with MF however, you tend to be able to achieve great 'bite'and fine grain at typical portfolio and on the wall sizes of say 9.5x12-12x16 in in may regards provides enough 'bite' and pretty fine grain. At 5x7 MF still has an edge in absolute terms but in subjective terms can look sharper off 35mm.....as can a 10x8. The big issue comes when shooting say 10x8 negs in that if you are looking for 'bite' one often has to resort to tricks like semi-stand processing in agressive acutance devs to get that on a contact print or small enlargement.
However, if shooting MF one can use the same tricks to get amazing acutance on small prints but also have fine grain when you want it too.
If I am looking for detail, resolution and tonality I have not produced negs from 35mm that can really compete with rollfilm even at 11x14, but that is not to say they look 'worse' for it, as that totally depends on the nature of the image. Needless to say if I need to appearance of grain for the right pictorial effect, 35mm is technically better......
Dunno if that helps....
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Hi T,
Philipp
I guess it's people without empathy that are to blame, like you and meTuolumne said:
Philipp
javimm
Established
Technically, I think it's obvious that a larger negative has to have more detail than a smaller one. I really don't understanding why all that discussion. What counts to me is the image on the negative, far more than the size of it. For me an image is something that transmits, being it in 35mm, MF, digital or whatever.
There's a classic example, by Capa:
Such a powerful image, shot in 35mm, badly developed... It gives me chills, and the "poor" detail adds to it.
On the other side, a great picture by Ansel Adams:
Shot in LF I think, great tonal separation, detail...
What gives this two images their status is the actual picture, IMHO, not the detail or lack of it.
It's the image.
There's a classic example, by Capa:
Such a powerful image, shot in 35mm, badly developed... It gives me chills, and the "poor" detail adds to it.
On the other side, a great picture by Ansel Adams:
Shot in LF I think, great tonal separation, detail...
What gives this two images their status is the actual picture, IMHO, not the detail or lack of it.
It's the image.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Turtle
Veteran
I think some are in danger of losing the plot here (or have lost it). Just as a reminder here is the original post:
I was reading through some posts here and realized that many people here have some Medium Format RF (as well as others) cameras besides their Leicas and other 35mm RFs. So, my question is - how do you think Leica, Zeiss, CV and other lenses compare to those MF ones, such as Fuji645, Bronica 645, Mamiya 6 and 7? I hear that they all have great lenses, yet some 35mm lenses are great too. Some are even compared to MF quality. Like Zeiss 25/2.8 ZM for example. Leica lenses sure cost as much as some MF setups. So, what do you think, after using both - is it really worth it to have both systems? are they pretty close? Lets say if largest photo would be 11x14 inches - would I see a difference between the two systems?[/I]
to me, the poster is asking for help in understanding the 'qualities'of leica and Zess lenses in repsect to delivering 'image quality'. As to what 'MF quality' is, one could assume to mean detail and tonality, hence the nature of the question. He then asks about what difference would be seen on an 11x14....the implied question is 'can superlative Leica/Zeiss optic overcome the lack of neg size and therefore produce results subjectively as 'good' as MF'. I think the answer of course depends on what you are looking for...but if you are looking for fine grain and detail the answer is a resounding no, by all the accounts here.
I think it is fairly clear that the poster is not asking if photos have to be full of detail to be 'good' or whether this is 'important'. He is asking whether there is a difference. plenty of people have answered that question yet plenty of others have actually suggested that the question is invalid 'because it should not matter'. This attitude could be deemed offensive to the poster as it suggests that he/she is bothering with trifling matters and should be more worried about 'the art darling'.
Are there differences or not on an 11x14 using 35mm vs 120 = Yes, normally. whether it matters to you or whether you think the poster should care has nothing to do with the original question.
There is no need to overcomplicate what seemed to me to be a simple question, unless the respondant is trying to suggest that the post is too far below them and that the poster ought to be 'educated with regard to the finer philosophies of pictorial quality..." I have not heard his much hot air for a long time....
I use 35mm, 645, 6x9, 5x4,5x7 and 10x8. This is not bragging, but as someone who owns leica, Zeiss etc I find it quite easy to draw certain conclusions.....whay can't other? Why does Leica have to be defended to the point of not conceding any ground? When it comes to format comparison (ignoring portability and speed factors) this just makes Leica owners look like dicks.
For tonality, detail on a sheet of photo paper, fine grain...my 350 quid used Bronica RF645 CRAPS ALL OVER MY LEICA. This is not to say that it is 'better' however. Please somone, tell me I am mistaken and that by pointing this out I must be deluded ...or worried about the wrong things....or ignoring the art....
The poor sod asked a simple question and has recieved a lot of diatribe on everything but!
I was reading through some posts here and realized that many people here have some Medium Format RF (as well as others) cameras besides their Leicas and other 35mm RFs. So, my question is - how do you think Leica, Zeiss, CV and other lenses compare to those MF ones, such as Fuji645, Bronica 645, Mamiya 6 and 7? I hear that they all have great lenses, yet some 35mm lenses are great too. Some are even compared to MF quality. Like Zeiss 25/2.8 ZM for example. Leica lenses sure cost as much as some MF setups. So, what do you think, after using both - is it really worth it to have both systems? are they pretty close? Lets say if largest photo would be 11x14 inches - would I see a difference between the two systems?[/I]
to me, the poster is asking for help in understanding the 'qualities'of leica and Zess lenses in repsect to delivering 'image quality'. As to what 'MF quality' is, one could assume to mean detail and tonality, hence the nature of the question. He then asks about what difference would be seen on an 11x14....the implied question is 'can superlative Leica/Zeiss optic overcome the lack of neg size and therefore produce results subjectively as 'good' as MF'. I think the answer of course depends on what you are looking for...but if you are looking for fine grain and detail the answer is a resounding no, by all the accounts here.
I think it is fairly clear that the poster is not asking if photos have to be full of detail to be 'good' or whether this is 'important'. He is asking whether there is a difference. plenty of people have answered that question yet plenty of others have actually suggested that the question is invalid 'because it should not matter'. This attitude could be deemed offensive to the poster as it suggests that he/she is bothering with trifling matters and should be more worried about 'the art darling'.
Are there differences or not on an 11x14 using 35mm vs 120 = Yes, normally. whether it matters to you or whether you think the poster should care has nothing to do with the original question.
There is no need to overcomplicate what seemed to me to be a simple question, unless the respondant is trying to suggest that the post is too far below them and that the poster ought to be 'educated with regard to the finer philosophies of pictorial quality..." I have not heard his much hot air for a long time....
I use 35mm, 645, 6x9, 5x4,5x7 and 10x8. This is not bragging, but as someone who owns leica, Zeiss etc I find it quite easy to draw certain conclusions.....whay can't other? Why does Leica have to be defended to the point of not conceding any ground? When it comes to format comparison (ignoring portability and speed factors) this just makes Leica owners look like dicks.
For tonality, detail on a sheet of photo paper, fine grain...my 350 quid used Bronica RF645 CRAPS ALL OVER MY LEICA. This is not to say that it is 'better' however. Please somone, tell me I am mistaken and that by pointing this out I must be deluded ...or worried about the wrong things....or ignoring the art....
The poor sod asked a simple question and has recieved a lot of diatribe on everything but!
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
FrankS
Registered User
Thank you rxmd for that clear technical analysis, and to Turtle for that fresh breath of rationality.
I have a simple question (with no ambiguous terms I hope) for Magus: Have you ever printed 35mm and MF negatives with an enlarger?
I have a simple question (with no ambiguous terms I hope) for Magus: Have you ever printed 35mm and MF negatives with an enlarger?
FrankS
Registered User
Magus, respectfully, what I see is you trying to muddy the discussion by being picky about the semantics of other posters, but not holding your self up to those same standards. Just my opinion. So Magus, ever print a MF negative?
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
frank beat me to it... This is pretty typical of big fish/little pond stuff where some guy has to be right all the time and does it by debating semantics. Its odd that you guys are entertaining that, everyone here seems pretty level headed, but Im pretty new here.
this discussion did a good job of addressing the original poster, bigger negative has more information (grain) per square mm than a smaller one, so if that doesnt yield a sharper or whatever damn word you want to use to identify information per square mm, you guys might be out to lunch.
You really shouldnt confuse the discussion with big words that are apparently disctracting like "medium format". Simply take your Leica with the best glass in the world or whatever fantasy you want to have about it, and go take a picture of a brick wall. Then take a whole bunch of steps back until your brick wall now only fills 1/3 or 1/4 of the frame and take a similarly framed photo to match your original camera position. Take those two frames, both shot with the worlds best camera and the worlds best glass and go develop them in your favorite developer. Next, print these two frames 11x14 on the exact type of paper, developed in the exact type of chemistry. Print the first full frame, print the second so that the brick wall fills the frame to match the framing of the first picture, using only 1/3 or 1/4 of the neg depending how you framed it.
Now argue about which print appears "sharper" viewed from 6 feet away. Or the color of the sky or how you pronounce the word "tomatoe", all three would amount to equally efficient and worthy discussions.
Just remember, if you continue to argue this you are arguing with someone who claims that (and will surely now begin to backpedal or distract with language) that "As to the rest (35mm vs. MF), negative quality per square millimetre, for example, has nothing to do with enlargement. These are completely different syllogisms." If this statement had any bearing on planet earth people wouldnt be caught dead hauling 70mm Imax cameras to the top of everest, they'd just shoot on super 16mm and let magus work his physics defying logic on their negs.
this discussion did a good job of addressing the original poster, bigger negative has more information (grain) per square mm than a smaller one, so if that doesnt yield a sharper or whatever damn word you want to use to identify information per square mm, you guys might be out to lunch.
You really shouldnt confuse the discussion with big words that are apparently disctracting like "medium format". Simply take your Leica with the best glass in the world or whatever fantasy you want to have about it, and go take a picture of a brick wall. Then take a whole bunch of steps back until your brick wall now only fills 1/3 or 1/4 of the frame and take a similarly framed photo to match your original camera position. Take those two frames, both shot with the worlds best camera and the worlds best glass and go develop them in your favorite developer. Next, print these two frames 11x14 on the exact type of paper, developed in the exact type of chemistry. Print the first full frame, print the second so that the brick wall fills the frame to match the framing of the first picture, using only 1/3 or 1/4 of the neg depending how you framed it.
Now argue about which print appears "sharper" viewed from 6 feet away. Or the color of the sky or how you pronounce the word "tomatoe", all three would amount to equally efficient and worthy discussions.
Just remember, if you continue to argue this you are arguing with someone who claims that (and will surely now begin to backpedal or distract with language) that "As to the rest (35mm vs. MF), negative quality per square millimetre, for example, has nothing to do with enlargement. These are completely different syllogisms." If this statement had any bearing on planet earth people wouldnt be caught dead hauling 70mm Imax cameras to the top of everest, they'd just shoot on super 16mm and let magus work his physics defying logic on their negs.
Last edited:
aizan
Veteran
magus, magus, magus. with your philosopher's stone, flame baiting turns to democracy, and rudeness becomes dispassionate criticism. but we're only disembodied thought here, aren't we?
oh wait, i forgot to take my medication, or get myself laid. i'm out of my mind, so go on being courteous and rational.
i've waited long enough to say this, but i think the moderators should block his ip address. we didn't even have this much trouble with frank g's posts (just his website).
oh wait, i forgot to take my medication, or get myself laid. i'm out of my mind, so go on being courteous and rational.
i've waited long enough to say this, but i think the moderators should block his ip address. we didn't even have this much trouble with frank g's posts (just his website).
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.