Why does Medium Format look so different to 35mm?

Bobfrance

Bobfrance

Over Exposed
Local time
9:46 AM
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
1,615
Hi Folks,

I've recently returned to dabbling with medium format using a Yashica-Mat TLR. I have to say I'm really enjoying the experience.

What I have noticed is the huge differences in the general look of 120 images in that (to me) they are far more pleasing to the eye than 35mm.

Would anyone care to explain to me what the essential differences are optically and how that affects the finished image?
I'm aware DOF is shallower at smaller apertures than with 35mm, but even so I'm yet to see a wide open Noctilux image that cropped square looks like medium format. Perhaps the closest I've seen are the shots done by C.Rangefinder (who's on this forum) done using multiple shots stiched together to give a larger image.

Anyway to illustrate my point here['s a few of my shots.


Untitled by Bobfrance, on Flickr


Untitled by Bobfrance, on Flickr


Untitled by Bobfrance, on Flickr


Untitled by Bobfrance, on Flickr

I await your wisdom. :)

(Apologies if this is the wrong forum - mods feel free to move it)
 
Last edited:
I've never been able to work it out, the tonal gradations always seem smother but I've never fully understood why, after all they both just go from black to white don't they?
 
That first image is truly magical, to me at least. Nice work Bob.

However, I can’t answer your question... I await the wisdom off the Gods :)
 
I don't go with the more info theory I'm afraid.
Compared to 35 film yes, but not compared to a lot of digital cameras. I've shot a Fuji 645 for a while and scans from that compare closely to what I get from my M8 and that just a 10MP camera.

For comparison here's a shot from my M8 shot with a 50mm Perar lens and processed in a similar way.


Untitled by Bobfrance, on Flickr
 
Thanks guys! I'm grateful for all your encouragement. :)

I don't suppose I really need to know the technicalities, but to me it's like having an itch I can't scratch. Anyone know what time the lens-gods get up?
 
ray*j*gun said:
Your original question was specifically in relation to 35mm film.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. My apologies, I should have been clearer. I meant 35mm, as a format, compared to that of 120.

I realise the M8's sensor is even smaller than 35mm, but even so renders a lot of detail.

I do agree with other's comment that it must have something to do with the image area. Which in turn must alter the DOF.
 
Last edited:
I am going to get shot for saying this but from the little medium format I have seen it just appears smoother to me. This is the part that will get me shot, maybe it is a bit like digital in that respect?

Bob
 
I'm not really sure what you're asking, so, sorry to be stating the obvious. It's just size and nothing else, it's bigger and better. If you only print a 35mm area of 120 film, it won't be any different from any 35mm image shot with similar quality and focal length lens. Or am I missing something.
 
Bigger area means more tones, smoother details, etc. Shallow depth of field too. Hard to explain really, but it is noticeable and real.

Jim B.
 
Because it matches digital for detail and resolution ... but without looking digital!

And I'm not trolling ... it's just the way it is. :D
 
The smoother tones and higher level of detail rendered are a consequence of the larger negative size. There are more silver grains available to record the image.

The different look is a consequence of the shallower DOF (at the same f stops) of the longer lenses which are "normal" for the larger format, compared to the shorter "normal" lens of 135 format.

This is how I understand it. YMMV
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom