MF - why should an amateur bother??

I was ready to get a MF camera when I found out that my local camera

store can now digitize 35mm slides to create enlargements greater

than 8 X 10 that rival pics made with MF cameras. It is a little

expensive, like $25 for a 11 X 14.

 

Now that this technology is available, why would an amateur who will

want to blow up a relatively small number of prints larger than 8 X

10 want to bother with a MF camera? They said that you need to shoot

100 ISO or less to get the best quality. I shoot Kodak E100VS

slides. Is there something I would lose in the scanning process that

using the same film in a MF camera would give me in a straight

enlargement?

 

I am NOT bashing MF. I understand why many people would still chose

it. But the only reason I can see now, is that the cost of scanned

enlargements versus those done the old way, would be the only real

impetus for someone to chose MF. Am I wrong??

 

Thanks!

why would an amateur who will want to blow up a relatively small number of prints larger than 8 X 10 want to bother with a MF camera?

 

Well, I am an amateur, and I want to 'blow up' all my prints to at least 12x10 or 16x12. The quality is far far better than 35mm in this specific situation, all other things being equal.

I suppose it depends on how much you value satisfaction.

 

I can see no way that a scanned 35mm slide could rival a mf print.

 

MF printing does not have to be expensive.. Join a photography club and find out how to process and print your own efforts, I'm sure it will provide satisfaction.

A digitized 35mm scan can have apparent grain reduced and acutance increased (along with lots of other manipulations). The resulting print will look smoother and crisper than a conventional print from the same negative. Digital manipulation cannot however replace information that's not in the original negative. An excellent MF slide/neg will have that extra detail. (Ain't nothing like the real thing, baby!) Just scan a slightly out of focus negative and apply sharpening to see what a high acutance & low detail image looks like. MF can be scanned too. Conventional color printing - why bother?

Well, this is the old "35mm is as good as MF" argument. Unfortunately, it's built on some incorrect and misguided assumptions. MF technology has not stood still while 35mm has advanced. Advanced fine-grained emulsions and digital printing techniques are just as applicable to MF as to 35mm. 35mm technology *has* gotten significantly better, but MF has kept pace. With the introduction of new sub-$3000 MF film scanners from Nikon, Polaroid, and Minolta, the cost of bringing MF into the digital realm is lower than ever.

 

Even at 8 x 10 the differences between 35mm and MF prints are significant. At 11 x 14 and above, the increase in resolution and tonality will blow you away.

I have a bit different perspective than Barry's. I personally don't care to carry a MF camera around, and usually only use one when I have a specific need for it, like doing a wedding or special affair etc, where they have their use. A 6x6 has never been my choice of format, and I find most of the 6x4.5's overpriced. 6x7 is a landscape camera or at least studio camera by my accounts and well 6x8 is another matter as the camera rivals the weight of my 4x5. Each format has it uses irrespective of the great increase in detail or lack of grain from the larger negative, which seems more offset today with the better films. In fact, I could give my customers just 35mm prints and they would always be fine, as I find most of them rather ignorant of any idea of MF superiority. Basically they know what they like, and if it is a good picture, they wouldn't give a dam as whether it's a 35mm print or MF print.

 

So where does this land you? Well.. you will see the difference if you can make side by side comparsions,... and if you want to spend the money to get it because you know the difference, go for it. But don't expect everyone else to.

 

In looking at most publications on photography, I see that most of the pictures are taken with 35mm cameras, unless it's maybe View camera magazine, so I'm suspecting that a majority of 35mm slides are sold each year to fill the quoto for any type of magazine publishing, especially if it's a sports magazine where 35mm rules to roust. Like I said, each format has it's uses, and I wouldn't use a MF camera for sports, or landscapes for that mater where 4x5 will blow it away, but for event photography, fashion photography, yea it's good.

A camera store I looked at said the same thing. The owner of the store, Elvis, told me that he bought the store after he sold some bridge in New York:-)

 

I would be very skeptical of someone claiming that they can make an enlargement to rival MF fom a 35mm image(slide or negative). While it might be possible in some small section of the universe I would be a disbeliever until I was looking at the two images side by side. If you want to test their theory, ask them to prove it.

 

I don't have anything against 35mm, as I use both 35mm and MF. I just don't see how it could be done, even with the aid of a computer.

 

Just my 2 cents.

<i>> In looking at most publications on photography, I see that most of the pictures are taken with 35mm cameras</i><br><br>

 

yes, you can always tell the 35mm images in a publication. they are generally grainy and lacking compared to medium-format print. let's see if I have this correct. the same technology that allows your 35mm to equal 6x9 now allows 6x9 to equal 4x5 or maybe 8x10. so, there is no reason to use 8x10 if I can get identical results using 6x9. but wait, if the new 35mm is identical to 6x9 then why use 6x9? therefore, 35mm equals 8x10.<br><br>

 

for sale:<br><br>

 

Linhof Technikardan 4x5<br>

Hasselblad 503CW<br>

Hasselblad 203FE<br>

Hasselblad Flexbody<br><br>

 

looking for a clean Leica M4

There is more to an enlargement than just sharpness and lack of grain. The images from my roll film cameras have better color saturation and a much smoother look to the skin tones. There is also something different about using a roll film camera. Having fewer exposures on a roll and the bigger finder image make me take each image more seriously. Anyway, the real fun of medium format comes in at 16 X 20 and 24 X 32 blow ups. When I opened up the first 24 X 32 custom enlargement done on Fuji Supergloss of my best Yosemite landscape, my eyes nearly popped out of my head. The big print was actually better looking than the small prints I had. The print quality was so good that most people who see it on my wall assume I bought it and didn't take it.

Rick--the main reason why people do choose MF is because of the bigger

negative and thus greater enlargability. If you are not going to go

bigger than 8x10, fine. But first see if you can directly compare two

8x10 prints made with that digital printing of the same subject, one

from 35mm and one from medium format. If the difference in grain and

tonality is not enough to warrant going to medium format, so be it.

But you really should compare apples to apples--ie, digital prints to

digital prints.<p>On another note, another nice thing about some

medium format cameras is removable backs--useful for using many

different types of films at once. Of course, it would probably be

cheaper to just get an extra 35mm camera body than to buy into MF for

that.<p>Also, yes, shooting with a medium format camera will make you

shoot differently than with a 35mm--I know I never shoot without my

tripod with mine, and I take minutes to compose my photos--but you can

shoot like that with a 35mm, it just is not necessary to do so.<p>So

in other words, the main reason to go medium format is the bigger neg,

and better print quality. Before you decide to avoid MF, do some side

by side print comparisons (maybe rent a MF camera for a couple days or

a week?).

Well, allrighty then! I guess I am going to have to try it now to see for myself. Thanks.

Well, Here's my creative answer.

 

I bought a MF camera (TLR) because it was smaller than the 35mm camera, easier to use for snapshots, film was cheaper (per roll), processing was cheaper (per roll), and because square pictures look better than rectangular pictures.

 

To continue:

 

I bought a 4x5 because the camera (speed graphic) handles more easily than the smaller roll-film cameras, the dark room work is easier yet (I can be extremely sloppy and still get a 35mm quality 4x5 print), and because it looks cool. However, the cost of film is killing me ($1 a pop for B&W, $4 for E6).

 

Of the cameras, I usually grab a 6x6 for prints and a Nikon for slides. This may change when I get a MF projector.

Simple. I have thousands, I guess, of 35mm slides-many nice

Kodachromes among them. I would gladly trade them all for 1/10th the

number of 6x6 slides taken with a humble Yashicamat 124G. Once you

start working with scanning, the impact of film size only becomes MORE

apparent.

I agree that trying the scans with 35 and MF is a good idea. Why don't you rent a MF for a weekend and see how you like it, and see how the prints come out?

 

Dave

A scan will never improve the detail in the original or its smoothness of tone. 35mm is still 35mm, whether you scan it or not.<br>Of course, if you like sharpening lines around the edges of everything, then that's fine too.<br>If <i>you</i> can't see the difference, then go with digitally 'enhanced' 35mm.

While I agree with all the responses about why people like MF, I will never give up my 35mm for some purposes. Perhaps I am too easily entertained but I just like shooting MF. I like the way it loads (slowly and complicated sometimes), I like the way it handles (heavy and no zoom lenses), and I like the way it makes me THINK more about the image! MF will never be perfect for all situations but it sure is fun!

I've only just recently moved up to medium format. I shoot only black and white, and do all my own darkroom work. Although I will never give up 35mm, as it has it's applications, I've realized with shooting only 3 rolls, that medium format is so much better. The extra negative real estate is invaluable. If nothing else, medium format will will make you think more, but your life will be easier.

> I've only just recently moved up to medium format.

 

I always think of moving *over* to medium or large-format, not moving *up*. each format has its strengths, and it is up to the photographer to use the one that fits the application. I love my 4x5 and Hasselblads, but walking through the streets of Paris with a EOS-1v and 28-70mm thumping me in the chest, made me realize the beauty of a Leica M6 and how I would gladly compromise fidelity to get the image otherwise not taken.

I'm surprised no one mentioned that MF, in general, handles differently than 35mm. Some people, like me, like the differences and find they help improve our photography. In my case, the large view finder image of 6x7 lets me see what's in the field better than 35, resulting is better compositions with fewer distracting elements. Regardless of format, find the camera that's suits you. Cameras are tools, and you should use the one that helps you get the results you want.

I guess that I have a contrarian view. I use both MF and 35 mm and shoot lots of slides, mostly macro stuff. If I want B+W stuff, I use the 6x6 since I can process myself and handling 6x6 negs is much easier and enlargements are much nicer in 6x6. However for color the I almost always use 35 mm. I print most of my stuff myself (Epson printers) and it is simply much easier and less expensive to get a 35 mm slide into a digital format than a (usually much more gorgeous) 6x6 slide. You can get a very very good 35 mm slide scanner relatively cheaply, but a good 6x6 slide scanner costs big ($3 to $5K) bucks and getting 6x6 scans commercially is too expensive for me. So for B+W I am very happy to break out the Kowa, but for color it will stay the Canon. Also, 6x6 slide projectors are expensive and rare while 35 mm ones are dirt cheap.

Just my opinion.

Bill

interesting, but my observations are just the opposite. the larger the negative, the lower the scanner requirements. using an Epson 1640SU, I can scan my 6x6 or 4x5 negatives with acceptable quality. my 35mm negatives require a much more expensive solution for equal output.

 

I believe the format you use should resonate and help guide your direction. for me, there is nothing like the pure symmetry of the square 6x6. I would find it difficult using a format that did not align itself with me emotionally.

I am kind of on the trailing edge of the state of the art regarding newer equipment with an old Rolleiflex 2.8E and a Canon FTQL both left to me by my Dad. However, the difference in the prints are very visible. And yes, the 1.2 50mm lens for the Canon is very sharp indeed.

 

The price of $25 for the 16x20 sounds really good as well, and you might not notice any difference with out a 35mm and a MF print side by side to compare. But in my experience, the MF photos always look much sharper and enlargement quality is superior too.

I'll be the heretic here and say you may very well not see any difference between 8x10s shot on 35 and medium format. You should certainly see for yourself. Medium format gives you reserve capacity that 35 does not--both greater enlargeability and the option to crop with enough image left to work with--but in my experience the technical improvements are so subtle as to be almost invisible until you go larger than 8x10, assuming slow film and good technique. That applies both to C-41 prints, Ilfochromes and magazine reproduction. The question really boils down to your working style, quality expectations and how you choose to spend your (presumably) limited resources.

I think the difference between 6x6cm or 6x7cm and 35mm is pretty visible in prints as small as 4x5"/5x5"/4x6" (I've never been that enthusiastic about the 645 format). There's a lot more at issue than grain--above all overall tonality and local contrast as well as the effect of using a longer lens with a larger format for the same perspective. It's really a different aesthetic.

I would say for you to rent a MF camera, do a test roll and you be the judge. There is a marked difference that is visual even in the proofs!