Brian Legge
Veteran
If the results from my $40 Autocord looks a lot like that pair, I should stop worrying about quality ever. If only the low light performance was as good.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I would give Paddy a blue ribbon for this explanation. I've been researching this for a while now, and the key is in the above sentence.
We all know that if a sharp, in-focus subject is rendered against a non-focused background, we get the "pop-out" effect. A small sensor/film can do that to some extent aided by large apertures. Bob's Summilux example above is a good illustration of this.
But notice in large format photos, there are an additional "layer" between the sharp, in-focus subject and the blurred background. I call this the in-between objects. These objects are located (spatially inside the photo) behind the subject but not quite far enough to be part of the background.
In smaller format, you can't tell these objects apart from either the subject in front, or the background. Why? because the details recorded are not enough to supply our brain with information to construct the necessary depth perception. Which by the way, is heightened by *gradual* rendering of out-of-focus areas.
Larger format excels at rendering these in-between objects due to their higher detail, smoother tone gradation, and wider POV. But again, the key is that these objects has to be rendered with less sharpness than the subject in front.
Allow me:
In this photo (a scan of a 6x7 negative frame):
gas pump = sharp, in-focus subject
left back wall with the plank leaning on it = in-between object (notice how much detail it has, yet not sharp)
trees = background
The result is as though we are standing right in front of the subject.
NOTE: This is why stitched DSLR shots could also have the same effect, because you are now capturing way more details *and* scene area than just a single frame.
Last edited:
bobbyrab
Well-known
It is possible to put 35mm film through a MF Hasselblad, so your saying that the resulting neg will be a higher quality than that achievable with the same FL lens from, lets say Leica. Sounds dubious.
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
I notice that the actual area of glass on the lens of my Yashica is smaller than many of my 35mm lenses. This has always stuck me as odd given the increased size of 120 film. Surely if you are using more of the lens' area to focus onto the film then this will have an effect on the image that is projected onto the neg?
ChrisP
Grain Lover
Distance from sensor
Distance from sensor
The change in DOF and perspective is due to the different distance from the sensor (in this case film). I researched this because I used the Oly 4/3 format alot.
The closer the lens/sensor combination effectively puts you to the subject the less DOF you get. Now because Medium format covers a larger angle of view (AOV) with the same focal length lens as 35mm (80mm lens on MF has the same AOV as a 44mm lens on 35mm) you have to get closer to the subject using MF. If you put an 80mm on both a MF and a 35mm camera and stand at the same spot you'll have the exact same DOF. (At this point the lens sensor combination is putting you at the same effective distance, you could crop out a 24x36mm peice of the the MF negative and it would look identical to the 35mm neg). The MF camera will obviously show more of the scene though (wider AOV). So if you want to frame both of them the same way you'll have to move about twice as close to the subject with the MF camera (assuming you're using 80mm on both cameras) which will decrease you DOF. This is what causes the shallower DOF of medium format.
If you have a 44mm on the 35mm camera and an 80mm on the MF and you stand in the same place, your framing will be the same but you will effectively be closer to the subject using the MF due to the greater focal length magnification (if you crop out a 24x36mm peice of the MF neg, it won't match the 35mm, it will be more "zoomed in") so once again less DOF.
Same thing happens with 4/3 hence more DOF.
So all in all I only know why the DOF changes, not why you like it better.
Distance from sensor
The change in DOF and perspective is due to the different distance from the sensor (in this case film). I researched this because I used the Oly 4/3 format alot.
The closer the lens/sensor combination effectively puts you to the subject the less DOF you get. Now because Medium format covers a larger angle of view (AOV) with the same focal length lens as 35mm (80mm lens on MF has the same AOV as a 44mm lens on 35mm) you have to get closer to the subject using MF. If you put an 80mm on both a MF and a 35mm camera and stand at the same spot you'll have the exact same DOF. (At this point the lens sensor combination is putting you at the same effective distance, you could crop out a 24x36mm peice of the the MF negative and it would look identical to the 35mm neg). The MF camera will obviously show more of the scene though (wider AOV). So if you want to frame both of them the same way you'll have to move about twice as close to the subject with the MF camera (assuming you're using 80mm on both cameras) which will decrease you DOF. This is what causes the shallower DOF of medium format.
If you have a 44mm on the 35mm camera and an 80mm on the MF and you stand in the same place, your framing will be the same but you will effectively be closer to the subject using the MF due to the greater focal length magnification (if you crop out a 24x36mm peice of the MF neg, it won't match the 35mm, it will be more "zoomed in") so once again less DOF.
Same thing happens with 4/3 hence more DOF.
So all in all I only know why the DOF changes, not why you like it better.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Nice illustration Will and great example. Gear question. What FL was your gas pump shot.
Also Bob I'm curious about the besutiful vignetting on your street shots. Which Yashica lens is on your Yashicamat? The Yashinon/Lumuxor (tessar) or Yashicor (triplet). My old Yashimat D had the triplet. It did vignette but also was very swirly until f5.6 in these type of distances.
Also Bob I'm curious about the besutiful vignetting on your street shots. Which Yashica lens is on your Yashicamat? The Yashinon/Lumuxor (tessar) or Yashicor (triplet). My old Yashimat D had the triplet. It did vignette but also was very swirly until f5.6 in these type of distances.
tlitody
Well-known
That'll be dependant on its focal length and maximum aperture compared to your 135 fromat lenses. The real determing factor is the aperture as not all the glass area is used. Only what the aperture allows.
dfoo
Well-known
Great images... although it looks like there some serious problem with the lens. Whats up with the extreme smear at the edges of the image?
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
I'll have to check what lens when I get home, but I can tell you that the vignette was added in post processing. I find the 120 B&W film scans allow me a lot of exposure latitude, so I make the most of it with adjustments to help the lighting along here and there.
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
bobbyrab
Well-known
All the glass is being used regardless of the aperture, if you partially obscure the edge of a lens with say your finger, it will still be visible as the lens is stopped down. Try it with an SLR and you'll see.
venchka
Veteran
I got a theory. It's related to the more real estate in medium format negatives. Just as there is more real estate in 4x5 and 8x10, etc. negatives.
OK, so you point your lens at a scene and the lens packs the scene onto the film. Now suppose that there is a gradual white to black transition in the scene. Lots of in between greys right? In the packing onto film process, the gradient that occupied a foot in real life may occupy a 1/4" on medium format and a mm on 35mm film, right? So, tonal gradient was spread over a lot of film grains on the medium format negatives and only one or two on the 35mm negative. It's like when you divide something in half repeatedly. Sooner or later you will end up with something too small to cut in half. That something will disappear. The grey will be gone leaving just black & white.
Clear as mud?
---f
-
Each has their benefits. The bigger negs, smoother tones or appearance of.
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
Very philosophical, and I like the division thing ... but, are we working at that scale do you think?
wayneb
Established
I think a lot of it is "first impression satisfaction" - you glance at an image (even scanned and reduced to 500 px wide) and immediately your brain gets the sense that "there's a lot to look at here" - call it detail or information, but it's also true in the out-of-focus areas, where it's not really detailed.
The brain is hungry for information and with 35mm there's always a sense you have to hunt for it a bit, it's effort to extract, where MF just gives the sense there's a lot there.
Related - there is this great series of photos of famous negatives:
http://www.ethertongallery.com/html/specialprojects/negative/details/6.htm
One of the things it does it shows the difference in sizes, look how tiny 35mm is, yet HCB creates a whole world in there.
The brain is hungry for information and with 35mm there's always a sense you have to hunt for it a bit, it's effort to extract, where MF just gives the sense there's a lot there.
Related - there is this great series of photos of famous negatives:
http://www.ethertongallery.com/html/specialprojects/negative/details/6.htm
One of the things it does it shows the difference in sizes, look how tiny 35mm is, yet HCB creates a whole world in there.
anitasanger
Well-known
Excellent images. I too notice a fundamental distinction between 35mm vs. 120 - and even more so between 120 and large format. To me it seems like the object in perfect focus takes on a 3 dimensional quality that really makes the subject pop. I've even noticed this with old LF amateur snap shots such as police mug shots and such. It's very appealing to me. I've never noticed a digital photo with characteristics this noticeable. Since this distinct quality seems to grow more apparent with increasing format size, I would assume it's somehow related to displacement. I have know idea what causes it though!
chrishayton
Well-known
Its the way a longer lens renders a scene added to the increased neg size. a longer lens gives a flatter field of view at a given focal distance (eg 50mm compare to 80mm)
Obviously bigger negative gives more tonality and detail at equivalent enlargements but the main issue is focal length.
Stick a 80mm MF lens on a 35mm camera and its no different to a picture taken with a 35mm 80mm but expand the negative area and you can then get closer and receive the same angle of view as if you put a 50mm lens on it in the first place. however the 80mm gives you a flatter perspective and shallower DOF hence the difference in 'look'
Its even clearer with a 150mm lens on 5x4 or on the opposite end of the scale a 25mm on micro four thirds
edit Not sure if thats explained particually well.
Obviously bigger negative gives more tonality and detail at equivalent enlargements but the main issue is focal length.
Stick a 80mm MF lens on a 35mm camera and its no different to a picture taken with a 35mm 80mm but expand the negative area and you can then get closer and receive the same angle of view as if you put a 50mm lens on it in the first place. however the 80mm gives you a flatter perspective and shallower DOF hence the difference in 'look'
Its even clearer with a 150mm lens on 5x4 or on the opposite end of the scale a 25mm on micro four thirds
edit Not sure if thats explained particually well.
ampguy
Veteran
one non-tech explanation I have is that when you know you're going to be spending much more on the film/processing/scanning, etc. for each shot, and each shot will decrease youre remaining shots to ~12 or so -1 with each shot, one might be more careful with composition, exposure, etc.
I notice that with 35mm film, I start getting more and more selective and careful towards the end of the roll, wondering if there is a convenient place to sit and change rolls coming around soon.
I notice that with 35mm film, I start getting more and more selective and careful towards the end of the roll, wondering if there is a convenient place to sit and change rolls coming around soon.
dfoo
Well-known
I guess you mean the vignette on my images?
Nothing up I just like it like that.
No, I mean the odd "smearing". Check out the shot of the people sitting on the base. On the top-right hand corner there is very strange aberrations in the image. It doesn't look like OOF bokeh, more like something is wrong with the lens.
Stuart John
Well-known
I always enjoy looking at my TLR images. I like the tonality in small prints and print around 8x8 inches. Even at that small size I prefer them to my 35mm images..
