ilya_inov

<p>The article below contains what I found to be the best description of how to read a film characteristic curve and determine exposure latitude, as well as (what's really important IMO) how to find where the medium grey value falls onto the curve:<br /> <a href="http://www.filmshooterscollective.com/analog-film-photography-blog/a-practical-guide-to-using-film-characteristic-curves-12-25"><strong>A Practical Guide to Using Film Characteristic Curves</strong></a><br /> It's important to note that medium grey is not in the middle of the flat portion of the curve, but is rather determined by the film speed/ISO, converted from LOG2 to LOG10. From there you can see how much 'room' you have bother in under- and over-exposure. Most modern negative films have a -3 to +7 range, which is the inverse of how digital cameras work.<br /> Ilford uses a different/relative exposure scale on some of their B&W film curves, which makes it very confusing.</p>

<p>I'm in the same situation as the original poster was, i.e. considering which medium format camera to move to from my 35mm, will it be a 6x4.5 or 6.6/6.7? And while image quality is certainly affected by the negative size, I'd like to point out that another huge factor is your<strong> scanning method</strong>. I have found that using a dedicated film scanner like Nikon Coolscan offers a huge improvement in both detail and colors obtainable from a negative, as compared to a flatbed scanner. So while you gain more negative size with MF, you certainly lose in the scanning quality from a flatbed.<br /> And going to a larger negative size, you get the added issue of keeping the negative flat at the time of scanning, which also takes quality away. (there are aftermarket film holders out there that may remedy it somewhat). Then there's scanning software as well: most people also agree that using 3rd party scanning software like Vuewscan offers additional benefits compared to standard software that comes with the scanner.<br> So if you compare a 6x7 negative scanned on a flatbed to a 35mm negative scanned on a good dedicated scanner, the improvement in quality may not be as huge as comparing negative sizes will suggest. <strong>Only comparing apples to apples</strong>, in this case a Coolscan/Frontier scan of both, <strong>will give you the true indication of the improvement in quality</strong>. But how many people have access to a medium format Coolscan or Fuji Frontier?<br />Lots of things to consider!</p>