Motivation for shooting MF

[henryvk]

But what I really appreciate in (non-RF) MF is the large viewfinder, allowing more careful, studied composition.

Oof, yeah, say it again for the people with poor eyesight. Wearing glasses makes shooting a lot of 35mm rangefinders and SLRs a chore, making TLRs a welcome relief. Personally, I often don't even notice how much I'm straining my eyes until I don't have to squint through a damn hole anymore...

Luckily next year my insurance will cover surgery for implanted contact lenses. I'm done with wearing glasses :-O

 

[grat]

@wiltw there's no need to argue. your entire setup is not assembled properly. the aperture notation is format netural, that's what confuses you. if you want 100% identical images from different image circles, you have to deliver the same amount of light per area unit, so no - you can't use f/5.6 for both formats. in fact, you noticed yourself that DOF won't be the same. to create an identical image, the larger format needs to be stopped down more (see? drop the light level), and then the DOF will be the same, just like the perspective. but the exposures will be different.

The problem is, you're using frictionless pulleys and massless strings-- Yes, if you have two lenses of identical construction, equivalent focal lengths, and use proportionally accurate f/stops, and apply judicious cropping, you can get the same aspect ratio, the same depth-of-field, and the same amount of "illuminance".

But you're not going to have proportionally identical lenses with identical construction. LF lenses are optimized for large format, MF lenses are optimized for medium, and 35mm lenses are optimized to capture as much light as possible on a really small frame-- and while the emulsion for 4x5 and 120 are frequently the same, the emulsion for 135 is rarely the same, and you'd have to use something nuts like CMS II 20 to get the kind of detail that 120 offers from a 135 film.

you're complicating things with focal lengths and aperture numbers - those are arbitrary labels created for convenience. think in terms of volume (of photons) instead - because it's the only difference between two optical systems of different size.

Sorry, but they are the exact opposite of 'arbitrary'-- they are for convenience, yes, but there's a reason why the drop in light from f/4 to f/5.6 is exactly the same as the drop in light from 1/30th of a second to 1/60th of a second.

Certainly, for a target standing 15 feet away, using a 6x9 camera, an 80mm f/2.8 lens, you can get an "identical" image from a 35mm camera using a 34mm f/1.2 lens-- except no one makes it, and the construction of the two lenses is going to be somewhat different (assuming you can find one).

So in theory, you're right. In reality, it's impractical.

 

[wiltw]

Any difference in DOF zone between 135 vs. medium format is ENTIRELY due to the FL of the lens used to obtain identical AOV for both formats.

1. If you put 129mm on 135, rather than 72mm on 135, the DOF changes...(no format change needed!)
2. And if you put 129mm on 135 or on 645, the image of the 5' subject is IDENTICAL IN SIZE on both pieces of film!...about 18mm tall on film.

So 'shallower DOF on medium format' is NOT DUE to format (135 vs. medium format)...it is due only to FL.
If you shoot with 129mm FL on both formats, then print 8x10 from both negatives cropped to identical size of subject, the two prints are identical in DOF zone depth.

 

[Photomultiplier]

My main format is 6x6. I started out with 35mm but after a short period a got into MF.

The advantages (for me) are:
- Having an focusing screen without the need to peep through a small viewfinder
- Larger film size and image quality
- Only 12 frames to expose so i dont need to wait until a 36exp 35mm film is full

I also started using 4x5" recently because i wanted to have one for years now, but the jump in image quality was not as expected. I assume that diffraction due to the smaller apertures and lower resolution of the lenses are the causes, but
this is not the last word as my experience with LF are still limited at the moment. But the results were often not as crisp as i hoped they would be. At least in those cases where one needs apertures smaller than f22. (diffraction)

Therefore i came to the conclusion that MF is the sweet spot for me. Large enough to give me the quality i want (look at the Prints that e.g. Ladislav Kamarad and Bernhard Edmaier make from 6x6 slides) but flexible and portable enough to
carry that stuff around on the mountains and being able to work reasonably fast. And with the Flexbody i have some of the movements (i mostly use tilt) that i need in landscape/nature photography but within an MF system.

LF will be used in cases where i am able to use its full potential (scenes where i dont need to stop down beyond f22)

 

[wiltw]

I also started using 4x5" recently because i wanted to have one for years now, but the jump in image quality was not as expected. I assume that diffraction due to the smaller apertures and lower resolution of the lenses are the causes, but
this is not the last word as my experience with LF are still limited at the moment. But the results were often not as crisp as i hoped they would be. At least in those cases where one needs apertures smaller than f22. (diffraction)

The amount of VISIBLE DIFFRACTION seen in medium format vs. in large format is not increased by the use of smaller aperture with large format!
If you enlarge the 56mm film width to 16", that is 7.25x enlargment; using 92mm 4x5 film to same 16", that takes 4.4x enlargement ...so same end result in final size of viewable effect of diffraction. Both formats result in prints with identical number of line-pairs per millimeter at f/16 vs. f64, respectively.

You should have seen differences due to the increased number of film grains (B&W) and color clouds (color) because of the increase of film area for the same subject...if subject occupied 10mm x 10mm of film area on 135, it would have occuped 38mm x 38mm on 4x5 film, or 14.4x as many film grains or color clouds, for far better tonality and gradations across the subject. The difference might no have been any difference in line-pairs per millimeter of detail resolution.

 

[Photomultiplier]

@wiltw

Yes, the better tonality and "smoothness" was very pleasing and immediately visible.
Even at f45 i was blown away because the slide almost looked like a window to the real scene. But there was some kind of softness to the details. At f22, the details were noticeably sharper.
I will see how everything turns out at the sizes i want to print.

Your statement regarding the smaller enlargement factor with equally sized prints makes sense to me, of course.

 

[test_realm]

For me 35mm is fine in B&W but for color I find the format jarring. I need medium format for the gradation and depth.

 

[gone]

I stopped using MF gear for the same reasons you apparently did. The gear is big, heavy and usually slow to shoot. Those three things together are big negatives, no pun intended. I do like the square format though. As for grain, there's enough developers and films out there to get digitally smooth 35mm negs or ultra gritty negs, whatever you wish.

 

[eddie]

Have I lost my MF mojo?

Maybe, but it may not be forever. It may come back. There's a reason they make different formats, films, and developers. There's no need to be format monogamous.

 

[pbromaghin]

The first time I looked at a 6x6 negative on the light box, I was hooked on medium format.

 

[Don_ih]

Agreed. This whole thing was started by someone re-iterating the still-alive myth of "medium format look" which cannot be reproduced with a smaller camera. Of course it can. Is it practical or not depends on one's circumstances. For example, I can reproduce my Hasselblad film images on my digital camera with near perfect accuracy (resolution, DOF, everything). Of course, focal lengths, apertures and exposure will be different, because of what I wrote (requirement to have the same photon density per area unit)

@Don Heisz your comments are confrontational by nature, and don't really deserve a response, as you haven't demonstrated any effort/ability to read and comprehend my corrections. you're on your own: re-read what I wrote, hit Wikipeida, do google searches, whatever works for you, man.

I wasn't re-iterating any sort of myth. You assumed I was and went off on something unrelated. I was talking about getting the qualitatively same image but within a larger view. As in, the same thing you'd get with 35mm film, but with more of the scene around it. I've said it three times now.

As for confrontational, you were the one who said I was wrong about something I said that I like. But, then, you didn't actually understand what I was saying...

 

[flavio81]

There has been a lot of discussion here, including DoF calculations, but amazingly no one has mentioned a very important point with medium format, that contributes to the "look" and has all to do with film.

Film doesn't have a constant MTF curve. The cycles/mm (resolution) it can resolve decrease rather sharply. For example Fomapan 400 has a curve that lowers down to 50% MTF at about 25 cycles/mm and then it goes down on a cliff. 100% MTF is achieved only from 0 to 10 cycles/mm.

Lenses also have a MTF curve of course, which also decrease sharply after a certain point. When you multiply the MTF (modulation transfer functions) of the lens and the camera, you have the system MTF. Lenses are not perfect.

All the above is better explained on this link , for the technically minded.

But wait, there is more!

Lenses for pro Medium Format cameras are in general better corrected than 35mm lenses. For example, an 80/2.8 lens for 6x6, done with simply 4 elements (tessar formula) could give perfectly fine results. Even a three-element 80/3.5 can give really good results in 6x6. However, the pro 6x6 cameras have a 80/2.8 of six elements. This means much, much better correction of abberations and a flatter MTF too (further cycles/mm resolved at 100% MTF).

Lenses in MF are often of smaller aperture and every lens designer will tell you that, everything else equal (focal length, cost target, technology, glass type availability), a slower lens can be much better corrected. Even half a stop slower will make a big difference in the amount of correction that can be obtained! Consider for example a 150/4 lens in 6x6. This will give you an image more or less equivalent to a 85/2 in 35mm cameras, in terms of depth of field and angle of view. Yet, the medium format lens is f4 (for the same 28° angle of view) and thus can be better corrected. Much better, really. Ask an optical designer "which lens can be better corrected, a six-element lens of 28° angle of view and f4 aperture, or a six-element lens of 28° angle of view and f2 aperture?", and the answer will be "the f4 lens can be much better corrected... hell even using only 4 elements the correction could be as good or better than the other lens".

Now, 10 or 20 cycles/mm, in medium format, means much more detail than 10 or 20 cycles/mm in 35mm, simply because the image requires less enlargement!!

What does this all mean? Combine the fact that 10 or 20 cycles/mm convey finer detail (with greater clarity) in MF, with the fact that the MF lenses are better corrected, and this means that the system MTF curve of a medium format camera is able to resolve finer detail with greater clarity. I'm not talking about resolution alone, i'm talking about MTF which takes into account contrast and resolution.

This greater clarity increases the visual perception of "narrower DoF", since the main, focused subject is reproduced with an increased crispness. There is an increased "3D look" because of the main subject being reproduced with greater clarity, and thus further separated from the background.

Better corrected lenses also mean better rendering of out of focus areas, for example the "bokeh balls" won't turn into rugby balls at the edge on a better corrected lens. Or won't reproduce as soap bubbles (overcorrected sperical aberration). This is just an example -- but in a better corrected lens the overall rendering of out of focus areas will be better.

So, friends, the combination of all of this is what makes the "medium format look" and it can further be appreciated when optically printing MF pictures.

Agreed. This whole thing was started by someone re-iterating the still-alive myth of "medium format look" which cannot be reproduced with a smaller camera. Of course it can. Is it practical or not depends on one's circumstances. For example, I can reproduce my Hasselblad film images on my digital camera with near perfect accuracy

Yes, digital. Because on a digital camera, the sensor's MTF response is almost ruler flat, compared to film (plus sharpening makes it flatter). This makes the system MTF a lot higher. And thus you get close to the medium format look. But this is a film forum. Film, with its peculiar MTF curve, is what makes the difference.

This post is dedicated to @wiltw .

 

[warden]

There has been a lot of discussion here, including DoF calculations, but amazingly no one has mentioned a very important point with medium format, that contributes to the "look" and has all to do with film.

Film doesn't have a constant MTF curve. The cycles/mm (resolution) it can resolve decrease rather sharply. For example Fomapan 400 has lowers down to 50% MTF at about 25 cycles/mm and then it goes down on a cliff. 100% MTF is achieved only from 0 to 10 cycles/mm.

Lenses also have a MTF curve of course, which also decrease sharply after a certain point. When you multiply the MTF (modulation transfer functions) of the lens and the camera, you have the system MTF. Lenses are not perfect.

Lenses for pro Medium Format cameras are in general better corrected than 35mm lenses. For example, an 80/2.8 lens for 6x6, done with simply 4 elements (tessar formula) could give perfectly fine results. Even a three-element 80/3.5 can give really good results in 6x6. However, the pro 6x6 cameras have a 80/2.8 of six elements. This means much better correction of abberations and a better MTF too.

Lenses in MF are often of smaller relative aperture and every lens designer will tell you that, everything else equal (focal length, cost target, technology, glass type availability), a slower lens can be much better corrected. Even half a stop slower will make a big difference in the amount of correction that can be obtained. Consider for example a 150/4 lens in 6x6. This will give you an image more or less equivalent to a 85/2 in 35mm cameras, in terms of depth of field and angle of view. Yet, the medium format lens is f4 and thus can be better corrected.

Now, 10 or 20 cycles/mm, in medium format, means much more detail than 10 or 20 cycles/mm in 35mm...

What does this all mean? Combine the fact that 10 or 20 cycles/mm convey finer detail (with greater clarity) in MF, with the fact that the MF lenses are better corrected, and this means that the system MTF curve of a medium format camera is able to resolve finer detail with greater clarity. I'm not talking about resolution alone, i'm talking about MTF which takes into account contrast and resolution.

This greater clarity increases the visual perception of "narrower DoF", since the subject is reproduced with an increased crispness. There is an increased "3D look" because of the main subject being reproduced with greater clarity.

Better corrected lenses also mean better rendering of out of focus areas, for example the "bokeh balls" won't turn into rugby balls at the edge on a better corrected lens. Or won't reproduce as soap bubbles (overcorrected sperical aberration). This is just an example -- but in a better corrected lens the overall rendering of out of focus areas will be better.

So, friends, the combination of all of this is what makes the "medium format look" and it can further be appreciated when optically printing MF pictures.



Yes, digital. Because on a digital camera, the sensor's MTF response is almost ruler flat. This makes the system MTF a lot higher. But this is a film forum. Film, with its peculiar MTF curve, is what makes the difference.

This post is dedicated to @wiltw .

That was fascinating, thank you. I've not considered the concept of whole system MTF before, and now I'm mentally adding the enlarging paper and enlarging lens to the MTF mix too. When optically printing 35mm and MF I can see a difference even in my small prints, but it's been difficult to put my finger on exactly what that difference is.

 

[flavio81]

When optically printing 35mm and MF I can see a difference even in my small prints, but it's been difficult to put my finger on exactly what that difference is.

Exactly, it is the combination of the above (which also takes into account the lower amount of magnification required). Note that the MTF of the enlarging lens also gets into the "system" equation giving further advantage to the bigger format.

So well, answering what's the "motivation for shooting MF", my main motivation is getting that "3d pop" on prints. And of course i do appreciate bigger viewfinders. And film rolls are easier to develop than 35mm cartridges and less sensitive to dust/etc.

 

[Pieter12]

Note that the MTF of the enlarging lens also gets into the "system" equation giving further advantage to the bigger format.

I regularly print 35mm as square, requiring higher magnification to match my MF prints. Because of the magnification, I end up using the same lens as for MF in some instances. Depending on the film being used, a casual inspection does not reveal the smaller format. Look at Lewis Balz's work with a Leica on Kodak Technical Pan. The first time I saw the prints, I would have sworn they were shot with a view camera.

 

[flavio81]

@flavio81 great post above, well said!

Thanks my friend!

 

[flavio81]

I regularly print 35mm as square, requiring higher magnification to match my MF prints. Because of the magnification, I end up using the same lens as for MF in some instances. Depending on the film being used, a casual inspection does not reveal the smaller format. Look at Lewis Balz's work with a Leica on Kodak Technical Pan. The first time I saw the prints, I would have sworn they were shot with a view camera.

Which gets us back to my main point -- film's MTF being an important part of the equation. Tech pan had an exceptional resolution and an exceptionally good MTF response. Here it is:

Compare with, for example, Fomapan 100, for an example of a "regular" film. Just a rough comparison since we don't know the exact parameters:

At 60 cycles/mm (or "lines/mm") frequency, detail is blurry, almost not resolved by Fomapan 100 (10% MTF). At 60 cycles/mm, Tech pan still gets over 60% MTF. Tech pan can resolve 200 cycles/mm still at 30% MTF!

It's a radically different film with a higher fidelity transfer of the detail to the film. Of course it will help you to make the 35mm camera more competitive with MF.

 

[Ai Print]

to me the jump in image quality from 35mm to MF is enormous. I expected a similar jump from MF to LF but, there was none. to meMF is the ideal compromise between weight, complexity and image quality. If I could have only one camera, it would be my Hasselblad 501c.

+1

This is it for me really, and a hell of a lot easier to print in the darkroom in terms of how large dust might appear. If I would have just tried out a Hasselblad Flexbody long ago I could have forgone 4x5 all together.

Medium format is and always will be my favorite and most productive format, it’s where I make my best images.

 

[Pieter12]

+1

This is it for me really, and a hell of a lot easier to print in the darkroom in terms of how large dust might appear. If I would have just tried out a Hasselblad Flexbody long ago I could have forgone 4x5 all together.

Medium format is and always will be my favorite and most productive format, it’s where I make my best images.

Yes, dust is proportionately larger on 35mm negs, but there is a smaller area to claen. The larger MF neg can collect more dust os there is a trade-off. I generally can deal better with the smaller dust spots--they are easier to spot than the larger ones. Of course that is manually on a darkroom print. A digital scan is about the same effort with either one.

 

[Neil Poulsen]

For some reason, medium format just hits me in my sweet spot. Like most I imagine, I began with 35mm and began dreaming about MF. My first MF camera was a nice E2 Rollieflex. But I got into the Zone System not too long after, and I quickly found out that I needed interchangeable backs for black and white.

Next came a Bronica S2a system that I used for years and years. Very nice images, and of course, interchangeable backs. But my eyesight changed, and I found I could no longer use the viewfinder. Like you, I bought an RB system with a RB67 Pro S camera and a collection of lenses. Beautiful camera system; but of course, HEAVY.

I've finally landed on a Mamiya Universal Press system for MF. Reasonable weight, and it can be used handheld. One can use this camera for spontaneous images; but with available attachments, it can also be used for more precise composing and focusing. It has interchangeable backs for Zone System photography. It's a very nice, systems level, camera. I've decided that, with this camera, happiness comes in a smaller package.

But back the the original question, MF is a very nice combination of higher quality images and convenience. By comparison, for me, the low quality of images enlarged from 35mm film is unacceptable. And, I really dislike the 2x3 format ratio of 35mm film. (Yuk!) Versus sheet film, 120 film is indeed convenient, and it comes in smaller packages. 4x5, and especially 8x10, enlargers are getting harder to find. And when one finds one, they're expensive. But one can readily find enlargers for MF. One can be successful enlarging MF film in a darkroom stuck in a corner somewhere. But, this becomes problematic with 4x5 or larger sheet film. In addition to my Universal kit, I have an MF view camera that's ideal for travel. They've come down a lot, so I purchased a medium format, digital back. That gives me the ability to obtain high quality images in either digital or in black and white film using the same camera. MF is also nice for airport traveling. It's much easier to keep exposed MF film from going through scanners. Inspectors recognize roll film, but often don't have a clue when they see a sheet film holder. They can even have this irresistible urge to take sheet film holders apart . . . maybe even all of them. Especially for a Mamiya Universal Press camera, and for a view camera, lenses are less expensive for MF. Though I sold my Bronica, I like the square format that goes along with photographing in MF.

My ideal format is 4x5, view camera photography. But, I will never be without a medium format kit.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I love using all my medium format gear. I use it the most out of all the formats. 35mm is second and 4x5 third. Medium format is the perfect compromise between quality and economy. Some of the cameras work just as much in features like a newer 35mm SLR. And the fact you get less frames per roll, means I don't have to blow off so many shots before I can develop the roll. I still use 35mm, but very limited on that today. I just like using 120 film, no matter which medium format camera I decide to use for the day. Film options for 120 are almost as good as 35mm, and the price per roll is about the same. And the quality of the negatives is so much better then 35mm. 4x5 has its uses, but its slow to use, and when Im not able to shoot at that pace, I dont use it. But 4x5 is a format where the quality is above what is really needed for the shot. Medium format is good enough in most cases.

I find 4x5 scans look better than 6x7.

 

[braxus]

I find 4x5 scans look better than 6x7.

Of course they do, but its a marginal difference in the grand scheme of things. When medium format is already high enough quality, do you really need that little extra 4x5 gives?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Of course they do, but its a marginal difference in the grand scheme of things. When medium format is already high enough quality, do you really need that little extra 4x5 gives?

The jump from 2 1/4" x 2 1/4" to 4"x5" was not as great as I had expected.

 

[flavio81]

I find 4x5 scans look better than 6x7.

Perhaps using a flatbed scanner, which infamously doesn't extract all the information contained in the film and adds a ton of aberrations... Of course, the bigger the film area, the smaller the detriment of a flatbed film scanner on the image.

 

[flavio81]

@wiltw

Yes, the better tonality and "smoothness" was very pleasing and immediately visible.
Even at f45 i was blown away because the slide almost looked like a window to the real scene. But there was some kind of softness to the details. At f22, the details were noticeably sharper.
I will see how everything turns out at the sizes i want to print.

Your statement regarding the smaller enlargement factor with equally sized prints makes sense to me, of course.

I had more or less the same impresion when I saw my first enlargment done from a 6x7 negative.