Hello, I have (or thought I have...) wanted something like a Pentax 67 or 645 for many years now. I finally decided to purchase one and things are not quite what I expected. My first film scans from my local lab are not significantly different than what I seem to be getting from my ME super, in some ways they are worse... I don't have access to a dark room and my personal scanning abilities aren't that great, but I have been happy with 35mm cameras, but I am rather disappointed with my medium format. The last couple roles of film I got back from the lab didn't show a lot of difference between the medium format and 35mm in terms of resolution, it was better but not as much as expected. The tonality and depth that I associated with medium format seems to be a bit of an illusion. And for some strange reason I seem to be getting a bit better color out of my ME super and any of my 35mm lenses than I am with the 645 and the 75/2.8. I see such outstanding results by people like Jose Villa, and Elizabeth Messina, as well as a guy who goes by Johny Patience, or Bruce Percy (I know that I am not nearly in the same league as these guys...). So I expected a certain look and feel to my images that I associated with medium format. Is there a chance that this is just a 'time needed with this particular piece of gear' problem, or is medium format not as significant of a difference as I have been lead to/ possibly fooled myself into believing? Is it something that only works if you work in the dark room or pay RPI $40/role, or whatever they charge now, and do your own scanning? Thank you in advance for any advice.