The Medium Format look, why does it?

<p>This is an interesting thread - however, I find it remarkable (But not really surprising) that a self professed experts comes out with something like:<br>

<em>"The MF look, and its greater tonality (not smooth, but - compared to 35 mm format - very detailed) is due to the larger format. Not to dynamic range."</em><br>

It has everything to do with <strong>dynamic range</strong> - for instance, the ability of the 'larger' format film to resolve a greater dynamic range. Or perhaps this is a new concept that needs discussion?</p>

 

<p>It is. And it does.<br />The ability of a film to record a dynamic range of given size does not depend on how big that bit of film is.<br>

Both base density and D-max are what they are, no matter what format.</p>

<p>Medium format film has a distinct look compared to 35mm for several reasons. (1) Less Grain - a 6x6 inegative has 5x the area of 35mm, giving a smoother appearance. (2) Smaller depth of field - 35mm film has about 1.5x the depth of field at the same field of view and aperture. Consequently medium format images tend to "pop" more. (3) About a stop more tonality in the shadow region - the base is thinner, hence the minimum density of Tri-X is nearly 1 stop less than that of 35mm. (4) More resolution - The same lp/mm together with the larger negative is capable of rendering over twice the amount of detail in a given field of view. These effects are coupled with the fact that we tend to shoot differently with medium format, mainly with more deliberation, and subjects with more detail.</p>

<p>All of these factors contribute to the "look" of black-and-white film, whereas medium format color is best noted for its resolution, with depth-of-field a close second.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, I used a Rolleiflex TLR for news photography in the 60's, in preference to a Leica or Nikon F and interchangible lenses, because it was much easier to get the smooth, mid-range tonality needed for good engraving.</p>

<p>This has really been a great thread. Thank you's to you recent posters. Not only have you all help me understand some of the finer points of MF, you have also help clear up a little confusion I had about my 5D and it's capabilities. Now I just hope I can remember this two weeks from now. Thanks again.</p>

<p>Well, that photo you have on your link looks Photoshopped almost to the point of looking like a digital shot to me. So I am not sure that is a good example for your typical MF shot. But one thing I have noticed is that the grain is different in MF vs 35mm. Now I like grain, but what this means is that when you start enlarging, some images are going to have to stop at a certain size. W/ MF you can go a lot bigger because, obviously, not only is the image is bigger to begin with, but the grain is also smoother. It just depends on the look you're after and the size print you want.</p>

<p>I also might mention that looking at a rezzed down shot on a computer monitor is quite a bit different from seeing a well made print on the wall :)</p>

<p>Edward sums up the key points well. The aspect of DOF should not be overlooked -- the shallower DOF combined with the contrast and DOF rendition of Zeiss lenses do affect how subjects "pop". This doesn't come across well in small web images, but in bigger prints it can give a subtle yet significant effect. 35 mm just can't do that, which is why I sometimes pick up medium format.</p>

<p>This is a good thread, what do you mean by "pop"? And the depth of field is shallower than the 135 format? I've just begun to play with my RB67, and noticed the shallow depth of field, which I wanted. But why would the DoF be different at, say, F5.6 between the two formats? Thanks, Kurt</p>

<p>DOF is different at the same f-stop, because if you frame the subject in the same way on both formats too, it is captured bigger on MF.<br />Somewhat simplified: the unsharpness is enlarged more, so is more obvious, i.e. less depth of field.</p>

<p>Thank you Q.G.</p>

<p>Rubbish Q.G.</p>

<p>Noel, 4x5 can be a little cheaper initially if you're getting a simple 4x5 (like an old Cambo or Speed Graphic), inexpensive lens, and a holder or two, but the real costs start to add up as you buy film, holders, loupes, dark cloths, more lenses, etc. Cheap to get into, but very expensive on a per shot basis later on.</p>

well, I've heard, that you get the different look, because you use the same focal distance lens on a wider negative. As a result, if you shoot, lets say 50mm with 35mm sensor or negative, and you shoot the same 50mm with the 6x7 or 6x8 back, you get the look of 50mm, but you get a wider frame. I don't know if this is a right explanation.

As a result, if you shoot, lets say 50mm with 35mm sensor or negative, and you shoot the same 50mm with the 6x7 or 6x8 back, you get the look of 50mm, but you get a wider frame.

 

- Huh? Was it worth resurrecting a 9 year old thread just to say that?

Can't tell which film was used or a digital back. It would be nice to scan with film edge codes and notches. Tough to analyze internet images.

I do think Zeiss has something to do with it.

Well . . . I would say that it's not the lens . . . It's very interesting that people think that the photographer must have turned to Photoshop when these images have been created for years. In fact, many of the things that we do in PS are just updated versions of older technics.

 

Medium format has a different look for the same reason that 4x5 and 8x10 have a different look. The size of the film, all other things being equal, allows for less grain in an enlargement and this allows for smoother transitions and most detail.

 

Remember all of those incredible portraits of 1940's movie stars? George Hurrell forced them to go without makeup, under exposed his negatives and then drew the images in with pencil on the backside of his 8x10 negatives.

Whenever I know what pictures are taken with what format, lens, and camera, the larger the format, the better I perceive the image.

 

I can do it every time. Replication is easy.;)