Getting better results from medium format film...

<p>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... <br>

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.<br>

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. <br>

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?<br>

Thank you in advance for any advice. </p>

 

<p>Personal opinion here...my experience is that the results are very noticeable when: 1) you either do your own developing or use a high quality lab, and 2) you do your own scanning or use a high quality lab and provide specific instructions. You don't mention what lab you are using, but if they aren't particularly adept with medium format development, printing, and high res scanning...it is time for a change. Medium format has all the capabilities of clearly differentiating itself from 35mm, but it also requires some attention be paid to the details.</p>

<p>Medium format will give you less grain no matter what. However if you want more resolution, you will need to use a tripod - religiously. Tonality is a little harder to achieve. Commercial scans and prints are generally processed to exaggerate contrast and saturation. You can have custom prints made, but in the long run you must do it yourself.</p>

<p>A color darkroom is a major undertaking, requiring construction, electrical and plumbing skills, or pockets deep enough to hire the work. For most of us, scanning abd digital printing is the better approach. Finding decent equipment is harder these days, and there is a steep learning curve in the process.</p>

<p>Dedicated film scanners, like a Nikon LS-8000/9000 work very well, but have been discontinued by the manufacturer. If you find a good one, new or used, expect to pay as much as $9000 (originally $2000). Flatbed scanners are the most economical option, and some produce fairly good results. Don't believe the hype. Practical resolution is between 2000 and 3000 ppi for a flatbed scanner. Along the way, you will need to buy good software, like Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop, and learn to use it to produce good results. Printers are optional. If not used daily, inkjets tend to clog. Fortunately if you have a good digital image file, even Walgreens can do a decent job printing it for you.</p>

<p>Ultimately, you will find that medium format film does not compare favorably with the better small format digital cameras in terms of tonality and resolution. Medium format digital is another option, and actually affordable if that's what you really want. You can get a 16 MP back for about $8000, which is equivalent to only 400 rolls of film (at about $20 for film + processing). 16 MP doesn't seem like much, but contains as much detail as a 4000 ppi scan of film, better color and a wider dynamic range. For under $16K, you can get a 50 MP back, which will challenge all but the best lenses in resolution.</p>

<p>I'm afraid I am not surprised. The issue will be largely that scanners for MF film are not very good unless you find a drum scanner and are prepared to pay the extra bucks for a skilled operator. Given that shooting direct to digital removes this intermediate step it is no wonder that digital is where it is today. I found commercial square 5 x 5 inch prints not much different really from good 35mm film prints, although of course there is less grain, but at that size this is not really noticeable.</p>

<p>In order to be really happy with MF I suggest you start your own black and white darkroom with a dedicated MF enlarger, or be prepared to pay the money for 1st class printing and drum scanning from a top line professional operation. You can scan with a decent flatbed and this is OK up to about 8 x 10, but personally I never found this entirely satisfactory either.</p>

<p>I bought a medium format outfit in 1997 and used it as my main camera for ten years. I also bought and used where circumstances indicated a MF rangefinder system. I bought these because I wanted to make large prints- bigger than I could make with quality from 35mm film. For some years I made prints that I could not hope to make from 35mm- for example 20" x 20" prints from transparencies. And then scan and digital print came along and my horizons became 36" x 36". </p>

<p>So here's the thing. If I'd wanted to make small prints only, or make images for a website, or (moving on a few years) using images on-screen then I wouldn't have needed a MF camera. Now unlike some others I could see a little difference - a smoother yet more resolved image- between my MF camera and 35mm on small prints and negs under a good loupe. But that difference would not have been enough to haul a 6x6 system with 5/6 lenses around with me for a decade- it was the ability to make big prints that sealed it. And I'm not the only one who noticed. Many of the bigger stock agencies would accept only MF (not 35mm) transparencies in the 90's and early 2000's. But again that's size related- a stock agency doesn't know how big an image a client's going to need so they always made sure they could offer a really big scan.<br>

And of course it is necessary to spend a bit to see the best from a MF original- the bigger you want to print , the more you need top of range scans. You won't in my experience see better very large prints from your own darkroom than you'll get from a top-end scan, and that scan will enable you to push the envelope that much further. Then also you're talking of great paper, great print skills, and not least a great original. Not every MF transparency is able to support a very large print. <br>

I suspect that you will improve as you use the MF more, but if your desired outputs are the same as with 35mm you' won't see the best from it. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Is the lens clean, no fungus, etc? Why not post a couple of your scans so we can see and advise?</p>

Thanks for the responses.

I'm finding, at least with what is convenient, that I won't get the results I was looking for. I had my local lab, which I am generally happy

with, do their best quality scan an the results were slightly better detail and a large tiff file, unfortunately that file is only marginally useful

in Lightroom. I usually don't have to do too much adjustment with my film.

I think the do it yourself option would be great but it's not an option right now.

<p>Totally at odds with my experience when I got back my first proofs from a Mamiya 645 Super+80/2.8. The difference between 35mm and 120, especially b&w, wasn't subtle. Wondering if your lab is scanning at a lower resolution than you're being told. Any chance of finding a pro lab that's still doing quality processing/scanning/printing. Not always easy to find today but worth looking if you want better results.</p>

<p>I'm guessing you're also aware that those medium format shots you admire are undoubtedly manipulated.</p>

<p>I find scanning MF film is much easier than 35mm and provides better tones.</p>

<p>I have experienced superior results using 6x6 compared to 35mm, and also results that aren't any better. The latter was with colour negative film developed and printed by a lab. Note the comment in a post above about tripod use!<br>

But even with 35mm, using a very good lens at optimum aperture, tripod, slow film can give results very close to medium format. In my experience, sometimes MF is worse: using fast film for candid portraiture in ordinary indoor light with fast film (Delta3200) compared to a wide aperture very good lens on a 35mm camera using 400 film. The faster film was chosen because of aperture and depth of field limitations with the MF camera. My experience is limited to black and white, darkroom printing.</p>

<p>My experience shooting medium format color print ISO 400 6x6 negative: handheld shutter speed 1/250 or higher, below tripod needed to avoid shutter shake. Also depth of field is more shallow than with 35mm format, make appropriate adjustments. I've little if any experience with scanning but have used DSLR, copy stand and light box to photograph a negative and software to make and improve the image. Process is tedious and results are OK but not stunning!</p>

<p>My opinion is that if you're not wet-printing onto proper photo paper, then what's the point of using film at all? Scanning gets you a digital file that's got around the equivalent of 12 bits depth dynamic range - if you're lucky. Usually it's more like 8 or 10 after a suitable tone curve has been applied. Leaving aside the DR, you've doubtless picked up a load of micro-dirt on the film from processing and handling, which can easily damage tonality and overall IQ, and the image has now passed through two lenses. The second one of dubious quality in the case of a flatbed or amateur quality scanner. And no matter how many pixels it produces, the lens (or flying spot size) limits the resolution of most scanners. Add in aliasing between film grain and scanner pixels and you've usually got quite a poor 2nd generation copy of what was in front of the camera.</p>

<p>If you want a digital file to make a digital print from, then a digital camera is the obvious and logical choice. Especially since high pixel-count cameras are now very common and relatively cheap. Waiting only for (affordable) lens quality to catch up with them.</p>

 

<p>I have an Epson V550 and I can assure that there is pronounced difference in the look of a 6x6 neg scanned at any resolution compared with that of 35mm. The fundamental attributes of medium format are inherent the moment you snap the shutter. The neg is going to have massive resolution. I shoot 6x6 mostly as well as 135. I was hooked on 6x6 from the first BW negative I scanned. It made it hard to go back to 135. Processing black and white at home is easy. I routinely make inkjet prints with a Canon PIXMA Pro9500 printer using Arista Baryta 11x14 paper (from Freestyle) and prints look really good - even A3 sizes - and I come from a darkroom background since 1976. People knock flatbed scanners all day long but I don't think they're actually seeing prints made from flatbeds since hardly anybody prints anymore. The belief that you can only get a quality print from a drum scan or a wet print is rubbish. Have you asked your lab what their using? Some labs here in LA only drum scan, and some have "art scanners" which means flatbeds. The only inconsistent scanning results I ever found are with 35mm images; some film/developer combos are not good match ups for scanning, but they're usually good enough, and I've tried them all, I think.</p>

So, I just went on vacation and wanted to put the 645 through its paces. This was my second time using this camera. I was nervous about

hand holding it( I did take two shots @ 1000th &500th of a second... Don't see any noticeable motion blur) so the camera was usually on

the tripod.

I was using portra 160 and ilford 50. Generally not wide open or stopped ask the way down ( I don't really know the lens well yet...) I did

also shoot a roll of velvia 50 that I had to send out. I sent that to Holland photo in Texas whom I've had one really good experience with,

hoping that will really be great...

I only have access to a v500 scanner, would it be worth trying to scan or learning to use that better with the 645?

<p>I use small format (35mm FF digital) for color and some B&W and find it as good as my previous experience with color film and MF, although for very large prints (16 x 24 and larger) I am sure that MF film is quite good.<br>

I do most of my B&W work with MF film and a very pleasant to use darkroom. The 35mm film B&W cannot touch the quality of MF (6x7 or 6x9) film for 16 x 20 and larger prints. The cost is small with modest film use (20 to 50 rolls per year), modest but high quality equipment (Fuji GSW 690 III or GW 690 III cameras) and today's inexpensive darkroom enlargers, optics and associated tools.<br>

It is also a lot of fun but you need to want to spend the time and do everything yourself. Also to embrace a type of photography approach that allows you to use a tripod asEdward mentions, at least in resolution critical cases (detailed landscapes, architectural subjects).</p>

 

<p>A couple of things... I do really like using the 645, just not sure what to think about the results. I don't mind the tripod, I really like the view finder and and it's just fun to use. I don't want to get too bogged down with gear related issues, but is there any reason to think that the 645 vs 6x6 or 6x7 is an issue, or maybe the Pentax vs. Hassleblad or Mamiya lenses. I expect the format to make the bigger difference, I mean 135 compared to MF... </p>

 

<p><img src="/photo/18061877" alt="" /><br>

Forgive my horrible photography, but this is what I am getting from the ME super with a 35/3.5.<img src="/photo/18061876" alt="" /><br>

these other two are from the 645, both from a tripod.<br>

<img src="/photo/18061873" alt="" /></p>

<p>guess that didn't work</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I am wondering, compared to the 35mm if this really seems that much different.</p><div></div>

<p>I do agree with Robin Smith and Rodeo Joe. There`s no point having MF unless you´re doing at least part of the job yourself (developing your black & white and/or colour negatives). <br /><br />I prefer square format and that`s why a 6x6 MF gives me more useful negative area compared to 35 mm frame (max. 24x24 mm).<br /><br />I also like relatively short DoF of MF lenses. After all it´s not always the question of sharpness or resolution. To me its more important how the subject itself pops out from the foreground/background<br /><br /><br />BR<br /><br />Esa Kivivuori<br />Finland<br /><br /> /><br /></p>

<p>your Pentax pic is very pixelated, its scanned at low resolution and blown up in software, its a lousy scan job and not a problem of the camera.</p>

<p>Its not a question of doing it yourself. I used MF professionally for years and used pro labs and where necessary scanning services to process/contact/print monochrome fibre and colour from scans. I'm convinced I got much better work than I'd have done myself with no experience. </p>

<p>And today its easier still because you can make print files on your own computer to control what you get on your prints. </p>

<p>Frankly if you're using decent labs now its more than likely that taking their tasks on board yourself would result in things getting worse not better.</p>

<p><em>I am wondering, compared to the 35mm if this really seems that much different.</em><br /> <br /> I see a huge difference between the linked shots, and in general, in 35mm vs medium format film; first one, the size. At the very same scanning resolution, one format is bigger than the other. (There are other issues in your samples, more related to the shooting technique than to the format used).<br /> <br /> If we look at two different format shots at the screen, my guess is that it could be somewhat difficult to know about them... otherwise, I for sure can tell you which one I prefer, once they are <strong>printed</strong> and over my desk. <br /> <br /> In my experience, if you want very sharp prints you don`t have to enlarge too much. Smaller formats are too small even to get a "reasonable" sized print (to my taste), so I way prefer medium format for almost everything. Personally, the only advantage of 35mm film is portability (and working speed, sometimes).<br /> <br /> Agree with Rodeo... scanning, unless of very high quality, will always result in a quality loss. I have a V750Pro, and to be honest, I must say I`m not able to get the most of it. I find scanning to be a difficult task, in fact I find much easier to get a good print from my darkroom. For color work, I prefer to have direct digital camera RAW files.<br /> <br /> Also, there are too many parameters to control in a scan. Not all scanners are the same, nor is the scanning software, so don`t try to know the performance of your gear with other than full quality scanning (gear, knowledge and procedures).<br /> <br /> And is not only the scanning... film choice, use and processing also counts. There are different films and developing qualities (developers in b&w), so results are also different. We usually talk about "film" as if it were only one product, while I can get noticeably different results changing just one parameter, either the film, the lens, the exposure, the developer, etc. Things are not as easy as it could seem.<br /> <br /> At this point I wonder if I`d find a noticeable difference between different brands, I`d say I don`t. I don`t shoot Hasselblad, but Mamiya (two different systems) and Schneider/Rodenstock/Nikon via adapters; I bet nobody will tell you which one is each... so I`d say enjoy shooting your film cameras, "standardize" your processing, print your pics and after that you`ll know which one you prefer.</p>

<p>Jose Angel, those comments are kind of what I was interested in... the comments about "its more about an issue with your shooting technique..." I am wondering if it was just that I needed more time to practice with the gear or if I would always get the same kind of results no matter what. If you could point out some things you are seeing that I should work on that would great!<br>

I keep seeing a lot of "use a tripod" and "you have to do it yourself (with the printing etc...). First I did use a tripod for all but 2 frames on the 4 rolls of film I've put through it so far. The second issue is a bit bigger. My wife actually bought me a dark room kit, though it's suited more towards 35mm, which I never got the chance to use as I was never home long enough and the chemicals were difficult to get. Now I have kids and I'm really busy, basically I don't have time to get really into the darkroom AND my wife doesn't want the chemicals around the kids...Unfortunately the closest I can come to doing it myself is scanning on an Epson flatbed and having the processing done by some other lab. Hopefully the scans would provide a file that I could mess with in Lightroom iff needed. <br>

<br /><br /></p>

<p>Just a quick point. If you scan 35mm negs on a decent film scanner, then switch to medium format and scan using a consumer flatbed, you just lost your medium format advantage, period. </p>