Film medium format vs digital medium format / 35mm format?

<p>You might check a couple of the other forums (medium format) on GetDPI and LL about this. There has been a lot written on the subject, with people who love MFD being able to tell the difference, and those who love DSLR saying the differences are minimal. <br>

I've shot with film, 35 mm, 6x6 and 4x5 and have since moved onto MFD. There was an old saying about film that above 10x enlargements, something broke down about the quality of the transitions - and that film qualities were then lessened. THis isn't to spark a huge debate about film vs. digital, rather to say that film qualities depend on the size of the enlargement. For me, 35 mm abouve 8x10 prints just didn't cut it - and thus the move to 6x6. THere is no doubt that the qualities of the "off" parts of film, be it OOF, bokeh, highlights, etc. are quite pleasing in a way that is harder for digital to master. <br>

However, the quality now available in MFD is pretty exceptional - and so it would be a hard argument to say that these aren't good. The DSLR folks will holler and shout about pop and 3D, but lets just say that once you've climbed the mountain, its hard to go back. </p>

Here goes (that huge debate): you talk about the effect of enlarging on quality, mention something about how it would work with film, but do not say anything about how that compares to that other medium.<br>So what are you saying? ;-)<br><br>Unless you really go LARGE, there's not much difference between the two. With film, the grain structure will become visible, with digital the increased amount of interpolation (i.e. fabrication of new pixels) will begin to show itself too.<br>The transitions mentioned in film will still be transitions, they do not 'break down', unless you get to sizes in which you can see the individual grains. With digital (which did not record those transitions to begin with), they are filled in with those fabricated pixels.<br>The difference is that film images become increasingly coarse, while digital images become unnaturally smooth (remember, for instance, the smooth skins in protraits, looking as if people's faces were made of some plastic, back in the not so distant days when professional digital cameras produced about 3 MP?).

<p>Setting aside the subjective "no win" debate between film and digital, lets discuss the whole other subject of how "format" and lens characteristics affect the photographic rendering ... which is nothing more than an artistic subjectivity akin to what Stieglitz called "Equivalents" ... where he stripped photos of clouds of any reference point or size relationship to render just that subject matter, or the equivalent of its reality. It took abstract thinking to better understand rendering reality, and he was the first to do that in photography.</p>

<p>When we look at a scene of anything, the eye/brain registers only part of it consciously, and we are aware of the remaining part is being secondarily present but not part of what we are focusing on mentally. The camera cannot do that, so the effect has to be simulated, and an equivalent presented.</p>

<p>So, while all of the following can probably be rationally debated forever, I tend to trust what I see and feel whether scientifically provable or not. I see, therefore it is : -)</p>

<p>Choice of format can have a distinct effect on a sense of simulated depth and reality. Most people can intuitively grasp this because they have been presented images from a Point and Shoot verses a larger format such as 35mm. This becomes even more apparent to the eye when comparing an image from an 1/2.3" sensor in a P&S digital camera compared to a full frame sensor in a 35mm DSLR. The content and subject matter can be identical, but the 35mm DSLR presents a better simulation of how the eye/brain works in processing reality ... it is a better simulation of depth and detail where the P&S looks less dimensional to the eye on a 2D surface. </p>

<p>I think the reason that digital rendering got tagged with being "flatter' is because it was commonly a smaller crop frame 35mm being seen until recently ... usually a 1.5 or 1.6X crop factor ... images from FF 35mm DSLRs do not present content any differently than a crop frame DSLR, but FF can render a bit more closely to the simulation of reality. BTW, the first full frame 35mm DSLR was the Contax N digital in 2002 and used a 6 meg CCD Philips sensor more commonly used in MFD backs. While a troubled and poorly supported system, those who had the camera marveled at the look and feel it produced compared to the crop fame 35mm DSLRs they were used to shooting.</p>

<p>Medium format <strong>digital</strong> has never been the same physical size as medium format film. In fact, it started out as 40 X 40mm 4 meg and then moved to 24 X 36mm with 6 to 11 meg ... virtually no larger than a 35mm frame of film. The closest that production MFDs have come so far is a sliver smaller than full 645 like the 60 and 80 meg backs with Dalsa sensors.</p>

<p>If seeing the difference in rendering reality and the look and feel between 1/2.3" P&S sensors and a FF 35mm DSLR holds true, then the concept should carry over to comparing a 645 digital sensor and a larger area MF film camera. Which is why there are those who love the whole look and feel from their MF cameras from Hasselblad V cameras, to Pentax 67, RB/RZ, Mamiya 7/7-II ... and so on. </p>

<p>However, I have shot my Hasselblad H4D/60 and a 645 Hasselblad H2F using film, with the same lens mounted on both cameras ... and other than the different characteristics of film verses digital (which is not a debate I will engage in), the sense of depth and reality as well as color properly processed are quite similar given the same lens and f-stop being used.</p>

<p>Personally, I see the difference between formats when compared, and favor MF (film or digital) for the characteristics it presents to the eye ... and it doesn't matter how many pixels they cram into a 35mm film gate, it still looks and feels like 35mm because the sensor is still the same physical size. </p>

<p>The whole 3D aspect of optics is another discussion ... IMO, it not a crock and actually exists because of how some lenses have the property of a more gentle roll off from in-focus to out-of-focus areas compared to others which appear more abrupt and present the subject a bit more like a cut-out (an effect I personally despise). Plus there are subtile differences in how some lenses tend to simulate sharpness using edge sharpness as the criteria where other lens makers opt for the use of micro contrast to present a sense of sharpness to the eye. Then there is the whole acuity/perfection verses beauty debate ... a more pronounced example being the Zeiss 110/2.</p>

<p>-Marc</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I don't have much - or any - MF format experience, however - when terms like 3D and FLAT are used, I think of 3D as being "seriously realistic looking" and flat - I usually think of flat images as one of two things. A poor quality image sensor can yield "flat" images because of noise, lack of tonal gradients, etc. I also think of a "flat" image as a portrait taken with a 200mm lens on a FX sensor - versus "up close and personal" with a 24mm lens - which appears to be more exaggerated. </p>

<p>I would have to think that MF would have the wide-angle advantage - especially with architecture - and any situation where you want increased field of vision without the distortion you may find capturing the same FOV with a 35MM camera. </p>

<p>I also tend to think that many people with pricey MF systems that cost as much as a small house would typically have excellent photographic knowledge - and their ability to construct an image may lend to it's "3D" feel - that they could also obtain on a 35MM camera - and when cropped, side by side, not much difference would be seen by the end viewer.<br>

Are my thoughts far off?</p>

<p>If that were true Matthew, than an APSc sized sensor would and could produce the same look and feel as a FF 35mm sensor, and a smaller than APSc sensor camera could equal the APSc sensor ... therefore, with that train of logic, the smallest sensor camera is the equal to a 645 FF IQ 180 digital back - and when compared side-by-side, not much difference could be seen by the end viewer.</p>

<p>My advice to those that actually believe that line of thinking is ... "See your optometrist while you still can." : -)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Flat? 3D? Low contrast? Higher contrast? High dynamic range? Low dynamic range?<br>

Lenses are are a contributor to the look of images, no doubt. We have spent a lot of money on lenses to get a feel for what we think personally works for us.<br>

Since the advent of digital sensors, and now providing very high dynamic range, I think this is contributing to the, 'Flat' look issue that seems to be raising some questions about the perception of a quality image. Which is why I prefer the look of film, coupled with the lenses I know.</p>

<p>Marc =) Good point. However, if I'm taking an identical image using the same lens on both a DX and an FX camera, and crop the image on the FX to the DX size, wouldn't the images be identical (as far as what the lens will produce goes?) ....</p>

<p>With MF being a larger image area - would it not capture more shadow detail and gradients?</p>

<p>(sincere questions)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I actually signed up on this site to post a response. I just picked up a Fuji 6x7 Rangefinder. Some of the first test shots have blown me away in terms of clarity and depth of field or "3D-ishness."</p>

<p>I'm guessing it can be reproduced with a very long lens from a big distance with a DSLR but I've been shooting DSLRs for many years now (Nikon D200, D300, D7000) and never achieved anything like this.</p>

<p>The skin of the dinosaur is so sharp and it seems to jump off the background. No post processing; just a scan of the Velvia 50 (120) film.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.will1.com/dinosaur.JPG" alt="" width="700" height="870" /></p>

 

<p>Sorry to bring back the old thread.<br>

But I think the skin on the above picture jumps out -- because the rest of the image is somewhat 'subdued'.<br>

Probably due to shallower depth of field only center is well in focus (where the skin is) -- and for some reason the lower portion of the picture appears to be overexposed.<br>

Of course the big dinosaur is also has larger defined 'curvatures' with shadows so they add to the 3d look (and good mf film does very well on the shadow tonality).<br>

I do find, however, that at least on monitor the images on the link below (and I have no idea what they were taken with) have 3d look to them<br>

http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl/sco/glencoe2012.htm<br>

I would think in print they would be breath-taking.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>hi Vlad,<br>

I am a regular reader of this forum, though not posting very often anymore. Than I happen to see a link to my work - thanks for your kind words!<br>

Since 2007 I have been working with a Hasselblad 22MP back (132c and later a 528c) on my Rollei 6008. PP in Phocus (raw) and Photoshop.</p>

<p>Last week I have been reorganizing some of my pre 2007 slides. Projected (I have two Rollei66s) they look gorgeous - better than on a computer monitor. That said, coping with the glass mounts, dust etc. I wouldn't go back for convenience nor for quality.<br>

Prints and certainly scanned files from film don't have the detail and flexibility I can get out of the digital files. Of course, the way of printing and scanning is just my mileage.</p>

<p>Comparing MF film to dSLRs is a different point. Their difference is more in workflow and how you see your subject (litterally) than in image quality as such.</p>

<p>There is little doubt that a camera itself will not make better pictures. But it is also a fact that film has certain different properties to a digital sensor which can result in more pleasing.<br /> One of the most important is that film reacts differently to over-exposure than film. Very simply, if you increase the amount of light that falls on film, it's rate of reaction will decrease as the amount of light increases. This does not happen with film. This means film reacts logarithmically (some would say more "organically") to different levels of light whereas film reacts more linearly. This gives rise to the "flat" or "clinical" look that many report with film.<br /> The other difference is the kind of chromatic grain which, without going into too much detail, is also more "organic" than film.<br /> Finally, a good film plus a good lab can produce beautiful tonal gradations (in black and white) and colour tones (in colour).<br /> Of course, with film, you get fewer chances to get it "right". You need know how to get the exposure spot on. And it's more expensive. All of these may or not be disadvantages - according to your tastes.</p>

<p>After making a posting in the thread you get a certain amount of time during which you can make edits. In this instance it would have been time well spent.<br>

You are missing "digital" somewhat.</p>

<p>There is no digital output that can compare with a well-crafted black and white silver print from a film negative. Close, beautiful, passable, gallery-worthy? Certainly, but a hand-made print is in another league. Conversely, if you want the best color output, shoot medium format digital originals. These days a full-frame 36 megapixel sensor will let you print any size you're likely to need with supreme color fidelity. This is the answer you're looking for.</p>

<p><em>"There is no digital output that can compare with a well-crafted black and white silver print from a film negative"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Yes, I think I've seen that in the <strong>"Authoritative And Irrefutable Book Of Photo Answers"</strong> so it must be true and not just an opinion. Harumph.</p>