Advantages of MF over 35mm

[narsuitus]

...at what level of enlargement you think you can see the advantage of medium format over 35mm? I ask because I set myself this little task and compared 35mm and 6x7...

When I was shooting Tri-X film for newspaper publication, it made little difference if I used 35mm small format or 6x6cm medium format film to print 3 or 4 column images. However, when I tried to get high-quality 16x20-inch exhibition prints from the negatives, it made a big difference because the medium format images were so much better.

Evidently, I am not the only one who can tell a difference. Once, as I was preparing a presentation for a photography class, one of the other guest lecturers (a sports photographer) asked to see my portfolio. When I pulled out the first 16x20-inch photo, the first words from his mouth were, “Oh, you shoot medium format too.”

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11336821@N00/6085773891/

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Evidently, I am not the only one who can tell a difference. Once, as I was preparing a presentation for a photography class, one of the other guest lecturers (a sports photographer) asked to see my portfolio. When I pulled out the first 16x20-inch photo, the first words from his mouth were, “Oh, you shoot medium format too.”

Another photographer... Do you often find the general public viewing your exhibitions mentioning the same thing?

 

[narsuitus]

I'm convinced that it's photographers only who agonize over what camera format was used to make that gorgeous 16x20.

Another photographer... Do you often find the general public viewing your exhibitions mentioning the same thing?

No, the general public has never asked me about the camera format. Only other photographers have mentioned format.

I have, however, had artists ask about the camera I used. When they do, I have to bite my tongue because I want to retort with the question, “… and what brush did you use on your paintings?”

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

No, the general public has never asked me about the camera format. Only other photographers have mentioned format.

I have, however, had artists ask about the camera I used. When they do, I have to bite my tongue because I want to retort with the question, “… and what brush did you use on your paintings?”

So, is it important what camera format to use, then?

 

[cliveh]

I know this is a bit of a tangent to the original thread, but relevant if using your images at very large sizes. Am I correct in thinking that when converted to digital, there is software available to add extra pixels to blend in tonal/colour variations for massive enlargements?

 

[Slixtiesix]

Yes but this is merely interpolation. It will not enhance the optical quality in any way, since there is no real information added. I saw this at Photokina at the Fuji booth. Large blow ups from 120 film looked grainy but sharp, while those made from X-Pro 1 files looked smeared like a watercolor painting when viewed at close distance.

 

[cliveh]

Yes but this is merely interpolation. It will not enhance the optical quality in any way, since there is no real information added. I saw this at Photokina at the Fuji booth. Large blow ups from 120 film looked grainy but sharp, while those made from X-Pro 1 files looked smeared like a watercolor painting when viewed at close distance.

Interpolation, thank you, that was the word I was searching for. I saw a print in Paris the size of a block of flats and it could have been taken from 35mm and looked amazing. I also saw one at Milan airport that was about 20 feet high with fantastic detail. Does this not negate the format size question to a certain extent?

 

[narsuitus]

So, is it important what camera format to use, then?

Yes!

If image detail is important to me, a larger format is more important to me than a smaller format. However, I do not think it is important to advertise the tool used to make the detailed image.

Also, format is only one of a number of important factors that are important to me. These additional factors also require no advertising.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Yes!

If image detail is important to me, a larger format is more important to me than a smaller format. However, I do not think it is important to advertise the tool used to make the detailed image.

Also, format is only one of a number of important factors that are important to me. These additional factors also require no advertising.

I'm glad you're so passionate about what you do. I do realize that photography is also craft, where practitioners choose what they want to use in order to get what they want. So I respect your choices, and everybody else's as well, as long as there is a mutual understanding that detail, no grain, and smooth tones isn't what makes a great print of a great image. Those things are subjective and something mostly photographers care about. Museums and their curators don't seem to care, for example.

Personally, 35mm makes me work harder with the print, which in the end gives me a greater final result. The camera is also more intuitive to use, although sometimes I really love how the Hassie or 5x7 forces me to slow down for certain things, and I appreciate choosing and owning those tools for those moments. But I never pick one over the other to achieve a better print, because of negative real estate. To me that would be counterproductive, so I represent the flip side of the coin, an alternative to conventional logic that I feel is more right for me, and takes me away from the whole thought process of 'bigger is better' because to me that simply isn't true. A good image will make a really fine print from any format, if proper care is taken. How else could Salgado, HCB, Erwitt, etc have such amazing prints produced, which captures people's imagination and spirit?

 

[Roger Cole]

No, the general public has never asked me about the camera format. Only other photographers have mentioned format.

I have, however, had artists ask about the camera I used. When they do, I have to bite my tongue because I want to retort with the question, “… and what brush did you use on your paintings?”

I don't think it tells you anything to note that photographers ask what format or what camera you used for the medium format images while non-photographers don't. Most non-photographers have no idea what different formats mean so would not even know to ask the question.

I think a better comparison, if one wants to do such, would be to show non-photographers prints as otherwise similar as possible from both 35mm and medium format and simply ask which they preferred. Unless grain was a part of the appeal (in which case they'd probably prefer 35mm on fast grainy films) I think you'd start to get answers favoring medium format at 8x10 or certainly at 11x14. For my own uses I don't like 35mm Tri-X, for example, larger than 8x10 for most subjects, while printed 10" square on 11x14 paper from 6x6 or even 11x14 (or as close as possible crop) from 645 I think it still looks superb.

In general I don't like going larger than 8x10 from 35mm, but with some caveats. If you use 35mm like a larger format camera, carefully, with slow to medium speed film, on a tripod, it can look great. But then I might as well use the larger camera.

I think it matters and I find myself shooting more and more medium format. I mostly shoot 35mm black and white when I need fast film (TMZ until now, or Tri-X in Diafine) and fast lenses, or I'm working fast and want to be able to frame with zooms. Otherwise I mainly shoot black and white in either 6x6 or 645. My 645 lenses are 2.8 and 3.5, the Yashicamat 3.5 - the 2.8 645 lenses are fairly fast but I have no zooms, and nothing longer than the 80mm at 2.8; my 150 is the 3.5N. So it's a convenience thing. If I need the convenience of shooting with the 35mm cameras and lenses, I do, otherwise I shoot medium or large format. Color is a bit different because I've been shooting a lot of slides this year and I don't have a medium format projector (yet) so that gets shot on 35mm.

I wonder if the money for the Mamiya 80mm 1.9 would be worth it to me, but even so the shallow DOF would become more of an issue than it is with a 50mm 1.7 in 35mm.

In the other direction, medium format supplants some of my large format. The difference going up to 4x5 is much less in normal print sizes than the difference going down to 35mm. Sometimes I wonder why I bother with the hassle of sheet film at all and don't just sell the 4x5 stuff and get an RB67, but I do enjoy working with the view camera (and even then mostly if I shoot color it's with a 6x7 back, but that's largely due to the insane prices of color sheet film these days.)

 

[xtolsniffer]

In general I don't like going larger than 8x10 from 35mm, but with some caveats. If you use 35mm like a larger format camera, carefully, with slow to medium speed film, on a tripod, it can look great. But then I might as well use the larger camera.

I think that comment nails it for me Roger, I found I was using my 35mm like medium format, prime lenses, slow film, on a tripod, with mirror lock-up, so I thought 'why not just use medium format?' If I found I was using my medium format like 35mm, then I may as well use 35mm I guess.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The key word is retain a really sharp image...The Canon 50mm f/1.2 at f/1.2 isn't anywhere near as crisp looking as the Zeiss 80mm

I disagree, and I didn't necessarily talk about Canon. Think Leica or Pentax. But then again, I also don't really care that much. So I'll stop with that, and go make some prints instead.

 

[baachitraka]

I am more biased to composition(proportion, relation, geometry, dynamics...) than format.

Good photo will always comes out no matter with what format it was shot.

 

[narsuitus]

A good image will make a really fine print from any format, if proper care is taken. How else could Salgado, HCB, Erwitt, etc have such amazing prints produced, which captures people's imagination and spirit?

Thomas,

I am very impressed with the 257 images in your gallery. You have produced a great body of work. I especially love the portraits of Jeanah. Please add your name to the list with those of Salgado, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Erwitt and others who have produced amazing images that capture imagination and spirit.

 

[narsuitus]

I was wondering at what level of enlargement you think you can see the advantage of medium format over 35mm?

I would not refer to it as an “advantage.” Instead, I would call it a “difference.”

If I need print sizes of 8x10-inches or smaller, the difference in image quality between small and medium format is not significant to me.

If I need print sizes of 16x20 or larger, the difference in image quality between small and medium format is very significant to me.

If I need to take a group photo of 25 or more people, I will select the medium format over the 35mm because I know that I need a lot of image detail regardless of the final print size.

 

[Dismayed]

I have some 8x10 prints that I made from 4x5 HP5+ negatives. They jump right out as being something special.

 

[fmajor]

In the other direction, medium format supplants some of my large format. The difference going up to 4x5 is much less in normal print sizes than the difference going down to 35mm. Sometimes I wonder why I bother with the hassle of sheet film at all and don't just sell the 4x5 stuff and get an RB67, but I do enjoy working with the view camera (and even then mostly if I shoot color it's with a 6x7 back, but that's largely due to the insane prices of color sheet film these days.)

This is at the heart of why i choose a 6x7cm camera when searching for a larger (than 35mm) format. To me, the massive increase in negative real estate the 6x7cm provides over a 35mm negative offers the option of much larger prints (given equal image characteristics). On the "convenience" side of things, to me sheet film usage seems a huge hassle - everything from loading it, storing it until developed/printed, availability (compared to 120 film options) and price per photo just seem less 'pleasurable'. Also, the 6x7 camera is, again to me, much easier to use - i can hand-hold it, don't need a darkcloth to shoot under and general ease of carrying/packing.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

I was wondering at what level of enlargement you think you can see the advantage of medium format over 35mm?

I'm making a general statement. I get similar sharpness and tonality between a 9x12 inch print from a 645 negative shot with a Bronica RF645 and a Leica enlarged neg printed at 5x7.

I am satisfied with ISO 125 small format negatives enlarged to 5x7. When I enlarge small format to 8x10 or 9x12 there is image fall-off and I'm often unsatisfied when viewing prints in the hand.

A MF negative printed to 9x12 maintains similar sharpness/tonality to the small format neg printed to 5x7.

I can print one size up from 5x7 using MF film and retain similar quality to the 35mm Leica neg. The larger you print the more you see a difference.

At viewing distance fine details are not visible when comparing the two formats at reasonable print sizes (9x12). That said, improved tonality and ease of printing are why I prefer MF for all prints over 5x7.

There are other reasons to pick one format over the other such as DOF, camera operation, and optimizing print size to negative shape.

 

[Mike Bates]

For small prints it doesn't matter much.

An average scanner will do a better job on MF than 35mm. A high end dedicated film scanner is capable of producing very nice scans of 35mm, however the MF scans will be even better.

At about 8x10 print size and larger, tripod usage becomes almost mandatory for 35mm although a heavy MF camera sometimes needs a tripod for steadiness simply because of its size and weight.

In a studio, MF rules because the larger film size allows better DOF characteristics at common shooting apertures with strobes. That can be offset by the freedom to handhold a 35mm camera while squatting, kneeling, standing, and generally jumping all over the place shooting at unique angles like a "real pro" fashion shooter. It depends on your style.

Even in MF, there are choices. A 6x7 has considerably more negative area than a 6x4.5. A 6x6 square format has more negative area than 6x4.5 only if you print square. If you print 5x7, 8x10, etc., you're loping off much of the extra negative area over a 6x4.5 anyway.

A big negative doesn't do you any good if you aren't carrying your camera when you want to shoot something. I have a few nice quality 35mm cameras for easy carrying when portability is crucial. I take a 6x4.5 if I'm feeling up to carrying a MF camera. My 6x7 camera pretty much goes to the studio or locations where a tripod is used. There's a purpose and room for all of them.

 

[Bernard_61]

Larger negative= more spatiality in the image. The MF pictures look completely different than 35mm ones.

Then, of course, less grain, more resolution, more tones, more latitude, etc....

 

[Philippe-Georges]

To me, the answer on this question is very personal.
Working with 35 mm (Pentax LX) makes me nervous, MF (Hasselblad) brings me peace...
I even stopped printing my 35 mm negatives, I threw them all in a box and never opened it again, although I have a rather huge amount of them and perhaps there might be some interesting work among these shots, but no, no more 35 mm, don't ask me why!

 

[Endo]

A 35mm film camera has its own LoFi charm. I wouldn't use it any other reasons. Digital is so much better than 35mm film these days.

 

[MattKing]

A 35mm film camera has its own LoFi charm. I wouldn't use it any other reasons. Digital is so much better than 35mm film these days.

This should be interesting - I'll fan the flames:devil:

35mm used by those who are skilled with it exceeds the quality of all but the most expensive/highest end digital.

Now I'll report myself to the moderators.

 

[Roger Cole]

Actually I agree that modern digital in the hands of most users has the quality edge over most 35mm film in the hands of most users. So what and who cares? Quality isn't the reason I use film. I use film because I enjoy using film.

 

[JBrunner]

This should be interesting - I'll fan the flames:devil:

35mm used by those who are skilled with it exceeds the quality of all but the most expensive/highest end digital.

Now I'll report myself to the moderators.

Duly noted. In perusing this pointless debate I'd just like to point out that at a certain level of performance "quality" is utterly subjective. A person who views film as "low fi" simply isn't familiar of the wide range of capabilities, emulsions, and skill sets film and film users have to offer. There, I just wanted to make that point before I started crushing skulls.