Will 645 give me "that medium format pop"?

Atracksler · May 5, 2015

other than the texas leica, what other 6x9's are there?

macfred · May 5, 2015

Atracksler said:
other than the texas leica, what other 6x9's are there?

- Zeiss Super Ikonta C (520/2)
- Plaubel Makina II / III
- Plaubel Brooks Veriwide 100 (6x10)
- Lomo Belair X 6-12 (6x6, 6x9, 6x12)
- Moskva 5

maybe more ...

pentaxuser · May 5, 2015

I am sceptical about being able to relate "pop" to negative size. Surely what counts is print size. Clearly a big enlargement eventually suffers if it is from a small negative. However on a C41 negative that enlargement might have to be bigger than most people would normally want or normally look at

If you can invite say 1000 members of Joe Public to inspect 1000 prints from the same colour negatives at say 8x10 print size and they can group those prints accurately into their origins from 35mm; 645; 6x6;6x7 and 6x9 to a statistically significant level then this might mean something but other than that test or any test that produces statistically significant results I remain sceptical of there being a demarcating "pop" sized negative

Now of course if we are talking of a perfect film for "landscapes" as opposed to portraits then that a whole "different ball game". Then there is only one film that anyone can possibly choose and it is ........

pentaxuser.

480sparky · May 5, 2015

I'm still unexposed to the definition of 'pop'.

Alan Klein · May 5, 2015

These are 6x7 originally. But if you, notice, there's two shots in there that are crops from two others. https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/sets/72157625602231872/

Which one's "pop"?

By comparison, here are some 35mm. Which one's "pop"? https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/sets/72157625526207614/

I think the main thing is that medium format will give you less grain (and more resolution) especially when you blow them up. They also seem to scan better with flat bed scanners, especially in the shadow areas. The tones gradiate better, if that's the correct word.

Pioneer · May 5, 2015

I took the work "pop" to signify that 3D look that is typical of certain photographs. To me that is NOT indicative of negative, or even print size. It is more a function of light and composition that occurs when I least expect it sometimes, though I am beginning to learn some specific circumstances where there is a better chance of it showing up.

I interpret what M Carter is referring to is tone and resolution, and medium/large format can certainly provide that in spades. I love these formats but if improving tone and resolution were all that were needed to make a wonderful print with "pop", or that glowing 3D effect then there would be hundreds of workshops out there with coaches and mentors willing to teach us how to do it. (And I would have already taken 3 of them!)

Maybe the OP will tune in and give us some examples of what pop is to him.

polyglot · May 5, 2015

repeat after me: There Are No Magic Bullets.

"pop" is all in the lighting, not the choice of camera.

agfarapid · May 6, 2015

From what I can see that "pop" you refer to is a function of proper exposure, proper development and proper printing which will give you outstanding images. Whether 6x6, 6x4.5 or 6x7 (I have them all plus 6x9) they will all give you that look if the above is followed. I've been using Mamiya 645's for years with excellent results.

Greg Heath · May 6, 2015

Will 645 give me "that medium format pop"?

I use the Fuji GS645S. That lens has "pop". I love that camera. The lens reminds me of the Zeiss on my Hasselblad.

I have never used a Maniya 645, but have a Mamiya RB67 with a 50mm, 90mm, 127mm and 180mm. To be honest other than the format 6x7 it does not have the "pop" that the Zeiss has.
If you want "pop" and want it cheap try to find an Agfa Isollette II or III. They have a nice look. I rebuild them for fun. I love restoring them.

Airplane- Fuji GS645S. Acros 100
Bella (dog) Hasselblad 503cx 80mm Zeiss
Sidewalk- Agfa Isolette II
Starburst-Mamiya RB67

film_man · May 6, 2015

If by pop we mean a like 3D look then that can be done with the right light and some lenses will make it more pronounced (generally ones with Zeiss in the name). Eg I have a couple of shots with the right kind of side lighting that make things look as if they are about to jump out of the photo. These are with a Zeiss 50/2 on a R3A. The show the same pop I saw with photos I made with a Hasselblad and with a Zeiss 50/1.4 on a Nikon.

On the other hand, if by pop we mean a look that is both smooth yet full of detail then yes 645 and the bigger the better will do it for you. However you cut it 35mm is grainier and coarser in look, medium format even in 645 will have much smoother tonal gradations while at the same time showing more detail. I'm talking generally here when comparing common film stocks like shooting Kodak Portra on both.

If you want to be pedantic then yes you can shoot some really fine grained whatever developed in this and that in 35mm that will get you the same look but that's beyond what most people would consider common shooting conditions.

frank · May 6, 2015

Medium format pop for me, means the almost hyper realism in detail, clarity, and tonality compared to a 135 format print.

Atracksler · May 6, 2015

I've been doing a lot of looking on flickr, since there are a ton of images with a ton of cameras and a ton of technical levels - trying to figure out what that pop is for me.

I think there is a quality to MF that is different from 35mm. I am entitled to my own opinion, no matter how wrong it may be

I think that in looking at a lot of images there are certain rendering characteristics that I really grove on, and the lens rendering I seem drawn to is the Zeiss look. I find that 70-80% of the hasselblad images I look at are on the nose for me. Probably a bit higher with Contax 645 (but this may be a user issue, since the person buying a connate 645 is probably not a novice... and its way out of my price range anyway) A similar percentage of the RB67 images do it for me, and 50% of the Mamiya 645 images do it. I also really like the Fuji GW690 (I shoot 4x5 with a fujinon lens which I also like a lot)

I know that a lot of the end result is the nut behind the camera, rather than the body or lens, and maybe the film to a degree as well (Portra seems to have a quality I like in color)

I have one M645 lens that I use on my A7 (120 f/4 macro) and the reason I'm looking at the 645 is to use that lens, (because I'm a cheapskate).

I'd say probably if money were no object, A hasselblad would do me fine, but I live in a world of mortgages and a limited "hobby fund", so I'm looking at cheaper options.

Hope that helps...

MattKrull · May 6, 2015

Then get a M645. Don't second gues yourself too much. 645 systems (M645 and ETR) are so cheap right now. Buy it, love it. If you find you want a bigger negative later, move up later.

I love my Bronica ETR-Si. It works for me. I love the way delta 400 enlarges from a 645 negative, and yes, Porta 400 in 645 produces some amazing results.

All that said, my best colour images to date have been taken on Porta 400 in 35mm, and the lens that produced the most stunning "oh wow, that looks 3D" was a fixed lens range finder from the 60s (which I stupidly sold).

film_man · May 6, 2015

From my own experience I have used extensively the following: Zeiss lenses on 35mm, Hasselblad V series bodies, Bronicas, a Mamiya RB67 and some other stuff. One thing I'd say is that a Hasselblad sounds amazing but there is a difference in how it operates, I certainly found that a Rb67 is easier to use than a Hassy (I've had two 501CM bodies and a 500ELX with pretty much all lenses from 50 to 250mm), a 645 is the simplest and easiest to use but in the end a 6x7 camera is just out of this world compared to anything smaller when it comes to visual impact.

So if you have a M645 lens get a 645 lens and see how that works for you. Medium format is a journey and no matter how much you read about it you will never know what you need until you've tried it. The good thing is you can buy stuff and sell it for virtually no loss later on, even a Contax 645. Just beware that a Contax 645 is not just amazing results but also a lot of hype and a lot of inconvenience.

Finally, do not underestimate what a Zeiss 50 will do on a 35mm body with good processing.

Greg Heath · May 6, 2015

There are ways around the money mantra. I have always purchased used cameras. If you buy from KEH dot com in the bargain category you will find some good shooters. I got an RB67 127mm and a 180mm for $13 & $16.
I personally CLA'd them cause I am a meticulous nerd and they shoot fine. The glass is flawless. The barrels look like hell !! Lol.

Buy one part at a time. It's all doable. Especially the Agfa Isolettes. Great Cameras.

http://flic.kr/p/pvud5g

darkosaric · May 6, 2015

polyglot said:
"pop" is all in the lighting, not the choice of camera.

+1
I was looking for this "pop 3D" for a long time , asking questions here as well.
On the end I understood that it is in the lightning - specially lightning of the subject in comparison to the lightning of the background. Combine this with proper distance from the subject and proper f stop, and voilà: pop is there.
Some lenses will increase this 3D pop (like Leitz Summar), but you can get it with almost every lens/format, cheap old nikkor 50mm/f2 works without problem.

In short: main subject in light, background around 3-4 stops darker, 50mm @f2.8, 3-5 meters from subject --> pop.

fotch · May 6, 2015

Big is better, when enlarging or projecting. Small is better, when carrying or maneuvering the gear. Also, small is usually less expensive, both for gear and film. In the end, it depends on what you are trying to achieve for a given budget.

As an example, years ago, I was photographing a farm in a small plane. The 35mm was easy to handle, the 645 gave better when enlarging to 20x30, and the 4x5 was really big for the small plane cabin, and slow when it came to taking additional shots. I ended up using my Mamiya 645 w 90mm F1.9 and medium speed color film. JMHO

mweintraub · May 6, 2015

Does this count as the "POP" look?

Taken on FF *igital with 50mm 1.2 lens.

frank · May 6, 2015

It's funny that we are not even sure what were talking about when the OP says "pop".

mweintraub · May 6, 2015

frank said:
It's funny that we are not even sure what were talking about when the OP says "pop".

Yeah, and they aren't coming back to answer that.

Atracksler · May 6, 2015

I think I posted several examples on the first page of what I felt had "pop".....

Here are a few more......

Mamiya Medium Format Tilt Shift by F.T.Aiello, on Flickr

Portrait by John Magas - www.johnmagas.com, on Flickr

v700_019 by stevetoronto, on Flickr

L1100829 by studio467, on Flickr

I understand that you can get this pop from 35mm. I have an A7, which fills my 35mm niche for the time being. Im really trying to decide between 645 -- which I think inherently has less pop (from my non-scientific perusal of flickr) versus 6x6 or 6x7....

Fixcinater · May 6, 2015

My guess as to the important factors in producing that "pop":

Side lighting on subject to help show texture, with enough contrast/hardness not to completely fill in shadows
Lens with high levels of so-called micro-contrast
Film with low levels of grain and high sharpness
Relatively open aperture but likely not wide open as WO would reduce "micro-contrast" and scene contrast, as well as depth of focus too much.

The middle two are likely easier to achieve to a sufficient level with medium format gear due to lower grain for given image size and less strain on optical system. Planar 50/1.4 pops in this way for me, as does Pentax 105/2.4 when used at f/4-5.6.

The other way I see "pop" is when a fast tele lens is used with a relatively high subject to background distance so background detail is completely lost and smooth blur is what the subject is seen "in front of." Canon's 200/2.0L lens pops in this way when I was lucky enough to have used it for a few images. Similarly, the 500mm f/4.0L did it but you need to be 1/4 mile from your subject...

frank · May 6, 2015

Pop could either be subject isolation with limited DOF, or the hyper-realism (clarity, detail, tonality) of MF. The first can be done with 135 and larger formats, the latter usually requires 120 format or bigger.

My prints from MF negs pop compared to most of my prints from 135 format.

Atracksler · May 6, 2015

I (the OP) put some samples in post 8....

480sparky · May 6, 2015

About the only recurring theme in them is the OOF background. That can be done with 'pert near any format from 35mm on up. So to answer your question, yes.

Will 645 give me "that medium format pop"?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency