Medium format and when does it really shine?

"1. If you are not using Silverfast to run your scanner, you are losing at least half the data the negatives have due to poor focussing."

I am using Silverfast

"2. If you are stopping your lenses down to f/16, you are losing most of the data you could be getting due to diffraction. F/64 on an 8x10 is like f/8 in 35. DON'T stop down more than necessary, it KILLS the image."

I agree and try to shoot at two stops over fastest F/stop most of the time if depth of field isn't an issue. I also had heard that depth of field in medium format requires further stopping down the lens in comparison to 35mm. I also like shooting macro which I imagine is more difficult with medium format.

"3. If you aren't using a tripod, you are losing at least half of the data you could be getting."

I do use tripod if not fast shutter speeds and I have a couple of IS lenses as well as a nice sharp 50mm 1.8

"4. If you are not locking the mirror up ( a problem on all SLRs, 35 or 120 ) you are losing data"

I use the self timer which locks up mirror prior to shutter release.

"5. If you are not using chromagenic films, you are running into anti-aliasing issues. You can't image traditional B&W grain, even TriX & Rodinal, on a scanner that costs less than.. well, a whole lot ! Shoot C-41, it scans better, and easier."

I like the character of chromogenic films for skin tones when shooting portraits...maybe the grainless look of it makes skin looks creamy or something. I do think it seems to lack dmax or something when compared to traditional B& W films. When I scan at 5400 dpi I can see the grain in the film. What did you mean by anti-aliasing issues?

"6. Are you scanning TIF files or JPG ? JPG, you throw out all the shadow information. Scan 16 bit TIF files."

I always save as a TIFF which gives me about a 30 meg file for black and whites and 110 meg file for color.

"BTW, if you shoot a slow color neg like Kodak Portra NC or Fuji Pro 160, you get a ton of information, and can filter as you feel like to make your B&W images."

I shoot Reala 100 Kodak 400 UC for color and EFKE 25, APX 100, Tri-x, and TMAX 3200. I have a 13" x 19" of some aspen trees shot on TMAX 3200 and the grain is beautiful. Do desaturated color film images really look as good as scanned traditional B&W film?

I'm glad my ? created some interesting responses for all to read. I think until I get divorced or win the lottery I will have to work with what I have which is a complete 35mm outfit including film scanner and a nice printer.

It seems funny that people take offense with part of my workflow being digital. People even make comments like "it's not like digital where you just press a button" when talking about print making. Being skilled at Photoshop takes time and is a very powerful tool with great control. It's kind of like saying making great photos is as easy as pointing a camera and pressing a button. I have respect for those who have mastered the craft of traditional printing...I can't do it, but I have gotten some great prints using the tools I have. There may be a need for a forum for those of us that shoot film and scan then inkjet print!

I think digital can look sterile at times. I may buy a digital body at some point to replace color film and also get the added benefit of the cropping/multiplication factor for telephoto and macro shooting. I don't think digital can give me the look I want to replace B & W film!

There is NO mulitiplication factor with digital, there is a perceived view, which is simply the same focal distance with less image area, but a digital camera does not multiply any more than a film camera, you just have the same field of view as you would with a longer lens, but 500mm is still 500mm and 50mm is still 50mm..the multiplication factor is a myth. If you put a 200mm lens on a digital camera with an APS sized sensor, you still have a 200mm lens, that is showing the same field of view as a 300mm lens, but it is still a 200mm lens.

The reason you see responces about the digital part of your work flo is because this is an analog site that aknowledges that in order to display on the web requires scanning, and scanning gives you a pale comparison to the actual print, but again, the front page does state APUG analog Photography Users Group, devoted to analog photography. When you come here and start talking about your digital work flo, there is bound to be comments made about it, the mass majority of us strive to show what our analog prints look like and represent. Your question was a good one, and invoked some interesting responces.

Dave

bigdog said:

...I think digital can look sterile at times. I may buy a digital body at some point to replace color film and also get the added benefit of the cropping/multiplication factor for telephoto and macro shooting. I don't think digital can give me the look I want to replace B & W film!

Click to expand...

It has been my humble experience that the area where digital B&W loses the most is in the so called print. I have looked at various B&W digital attempts, and frankly, there is little difference to my eye between scanned film and all digital - ok, let me rephrase, they may look different, but both look equally sterile and artificial, as long as the output is from an inkjet.
I am not trying to shoot down your methods, although I am sure you can guess where I stand on the issue, but instead I am trying to make a constructive suggestion: try silver printing, you may find that difference to really blow you away - I know I do! You may also find it very, very much easier on your wallet. I understand that there is a perception (which has kept me from processing my own for years - so I do not exclude myself from being under mistaken impressions), that a traditional dark room is very time consuming, expensive, and logistically speaking a nightmare. Well, that is simply not so. I won't even speak of prices, but suffice it to say, you can have a really, really nice set up for a lot less than you spend on ink in a year. Time consuming? I gather from your posts that you are not a casual photoshop user but rather someone who either already has, or strives to learn his tools in order to work to some high and very exacting standards. As such, there will be a learning curve, but the time involved will not be any different than learning any other process thoroughly. As far as the logistics? I print in an apratment that a few years ago I would not deem fit for human habitation. The whole set up is put up and torn down every time I use it, and it takes me maybe a half hour to complete the process. With any, and I mean any semblence of permanence, that would be even less time-consuming. And as far as the film itself, well... I think you have to do your own unless you're really wealthy and can dictate completely custom terms to a lab. Things that I don't think twice about doing are very difficult and costly to get from a lab - and that side of it is truly cheap and can be contained in a sink and changing bag. Just some suggestions - there is one I overlooked: its magic, and I guarantee you will love it!

Peter.

PS. Dave (Satinsnow) am I ever glad you chimed in on that "multiplication" issue. It is one of the most common (and feverishly perpetuated by the digital crowd) misconceptions. If I had lenses that fit a MF camera and a 35mm, I would have a multiplication factor too - and NO one talks of moving down to 35mm to get more out of their lenses

df cardwell said:

A scanner is like an automobile, it needs a driver.

There are 3 choices, pretty much, for the software to drive the scanner.

1. The manufacturer's software, which is always rudimentary, and is usually only good for casual use. It is like getting a free enlarger with your camera. It is OK for websites, and making small prints.

2. VueScan, an independent bit of software, abvailable for nearly all scanners and Macintosh and PC. It is inexpensive and a trmendous improvement in simplicity, reliability and quality over Nikon, Minolta, whomever's software. It is like that good quality enlarger that works well, and is good enough for all normal purposes.

3. Silverfast, which is a very high performance bit of software, with a somewhat steep learning curve, but which wrings every bit of performance out of every scanner for which it is made.

In my experience, Vuescan has a much finer focus than a manufacturer's software. But Silverfast is far better than Vuescan. Silverfast has a preview function that allows me to compare 2 focus settings, within .01 mm. That makes a huge difference.

I hope this answers your question.

don

Click to expand...

It does, and thanks very much, Don. I tried Silverfast years ago when I first got a scanner and did not see much advantage to it. Oh, it was better than the Epson or Polaroid (SS4000) software, but still did not give me better results than Vuescan, which I have now used for years. I suspect that perhaps I was not using the latest version of SF, and so maybe it is worth another look.
Thanks again for the clarification.
Regards,
--Eddy

gnashings said:

PS. Dave (Satinsnow) am I ever glad you chimed in on that "multiplication" issue. It is one of the most common (and feverishly perpetuated by the digital crowd) misconceptions. If I had lenses that fit a MF camera and a 35mm, I would have a multiplication factor too - and NO one talks of moving down to 35mm to get more out of their lenses

Click to expand...

With a few adapters (which I have) and some pencil marks on the GG (which a previous owner made) I can use 6.5x9cm film in my 24x30cm camera. Now that is a crop factor! I'm not going to make a 35mm adapter, though...

I have been shooting a Bronica 6x6 for a little over a year now. I love everything about them. You get a lot sharper images evan at a smaller enlargement simply because you have more data to work with. I still don't go much larger than 11x14 if I am shooting say 400 ISO but 100 ISO or less you can go much higher. It is also a lot eraser to keep you negatives clean. I hardly have problems with dust any more when it was a big struggle for me when I only had 35mm. I troth I hardly shoot 35mm any more unless im am doing pro work. I think it would be worth the investment. This scanner works really well for MF negs and its not to bight of an investment http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?oid=45471984&ref=qfm

df cardwell: you mention 2 different focus preview settings in SilverFast. I can't find that feature on mine. Where is it located?

Thanks,
Dan

bigdog -

if you have a shop near you that rents equipment, why not rent a camera + lens and burn some film over a weekend. you may be able to answer your own questions regarding your needs and wants after using a medium format camera for "your usual shots".

its really hard to suggest to someone that they should have something or they need something, by only reading what they do and how they do it.
me? i would scrap the mf alltogether and get maybe a 4x5 camera ( like a speed graphic with a long bellows extension ) and a 127mm tominon lens. sort of wide, but not super wide, and you just rack out the bellows and it is a macro lens. 4x5 negatives can be processed by a lab (mail order or local) and if you want to try your hand at wet-process, you can get something like azo, a light bulb ( no enlarger) and process it in dektol, a water bath and fixer. it is pretty much as easy as you can get. you can still scan negatives - scanners that scan big film are coming way down in price, and a camera+lens isnt too much $$ ...

sorry to suggest a larger than medium format camera for you ... they are so cheep these days it is hard to resist ...

goodluck

john

Silverfast AI ( and higher ) has focus preview. I meant to say it allows you to compare two images at different focus settings.

The 'focus' icon looks like an enlarger.

I hope none of the previous contributors to this thread get me wrong because I found much of interest in this discussion.

But this is clearly the type of discussion that should be moved to the grey area. The thread did not start with digital content, but there is no question but that it has much of it now.

Frankly I believe it would be much better for hybrid discussions of this type to be in the open forum rather than in the grey matter, but since that is not the case, rules that apply to one should apply to all.

Sandy





QUOTE=Ole]With a few adapters (which I have) and some pencil marks on the GG (which a previous owner made) I can use 6.5x9cm film in my 24x30cm camera. Now that is a crop factor! I'm not going to make a 35mm adapter, though... [/QUOTE]

Ole said:

With a few adapters (which I have) and some pencil marks on the GG (which a previous owner made) I can use 6.5x9cm film in my 24x30cm camera. Now that is a crop factor! I'm not going to make a 35mm adapter, though...

Click to expand...

I guess you changed the size of your "sensor", huh?

sanking said:

I hope none of the previous contributors to this thread get me wrong because I found much of interest in this discussion.

But this is clearly the type of discussion that should be moved to the grey area. The thread did not start with digital content, but there is no question but that it has much of it now.

Frankly I believe it would be much better for hybrid discussions of this type to be in the open forum rather than in the grey matter, but since that is not the case, rules that apply to one should apply to all.

Sandy

Click to expand...

I agree that this discussion has been "hybridised" -
but since it started analog, is of interest to analog users, and so far ends analog, I would prefer to keep it where it is.

Just my opinion (as a moderator).

Soeren said:

The one downside is the number of frames on a 120 film, 10 against the 36 on 35mm.

Click to expand...

Use 220 film!

Ole,

You really ought to consider the 35mm adapter, as there are subjects just crying for a 24mm x 300mm negative. I say this as a person who has made panoramas involving 5 or 6 shots with a 35mm SLR, an Exacto knife, and some mounting tape.

As to whether you can see the difference between MF and 35mm at normal distances, all I can say is that I have 16x16 inch prints from Velvia, shot on 6x6cm film, and 11x14 (9.5x14, actually) from slow 35mm hanging in my living room, and from even a few feet away, the prints from 6x6 give a sharper appearance. You have to get close to the prints to compare what's been lost with 35mm, but you can see some loss of definition from 3 to 4 ft away.

A late TLR isn't much bulkier than a modern auto-SLR, and with a prism, my Mamiya 220 focuses about as quickly as does a 35mm. It's at least worth trying one out, to see if you can work with one, and whether you can actually see the difference.

Petzi said:

Use 220 film!

Click to expand...

Trying that would take this thread into the product availability forum since there are not that many films in 220.
Cheers Søren

Ole said:

I agree that this discussion has been "hybridised" -
but since it started analog, is of interest to analog users, and so far ends analog, I would prefer to keep it where it is.

Just my opinion (as a moderator).

Click to expand...

And no mud slinging! I think this is great! (although I usually throw the first mud ball...)

Soeren said:

Trying that would take this thread into the product availability forum since there are not that many films in 220.
Cheers Søren

Click to expand...

Fuji makes pretty much every professional film in 220 rolls, and Kodak has some choice also. I may be true though that your local dealer does not have that in stock.

bigdog said:

I know 35mm is the most versatile format. Should I even consider other formats if I never go for prints larger then 13" x 19"?

Click to expand...

Once you enlarge or scan beyond around 4 or 5X, you start see the difference as lens sharpness goes soft, while tonal softness crumbles into the sharpness of grain.

If you start with a very good film+lens combination that yields 80 line pairs/mm and enlarge by 5x, you're down to 13 line pairs/mm. It's still sharp, but that's about it. Beyond that, quality and luminosity really start to degrade.

So you can get a nice 5x7 from a very good 35mm negative. On 6x7 film, you can get around 11x14 and still have a respectable image. On 4x5, it's bigger still.

This is all based on the assumption that people will walk right up to your photos and look closely - but if they're meant to appear on a billboard, the numbers are all different.