The Medium Format look, why does it?

<p>Hello,<br>

I'm a struggling hobbyist and I have a question about Medium Format Cameras. For a reference photo, please look at this one from a portfolio here on photo.net.<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/9526558<br>

This person has several nice photos taken with a Hasselblad 503cx. I'm not sure of the lens. there is somethng about these photos that I can't put my finger on. It is generally the overall look of the photo. It is sharp, but has a softness to it. There is depth and texture, but smoothness. I know that the lighting and the model are a large part of this.<br>

I have a Canon 5D, and I know the dynamic range of digital isn't as great as film. But what makes this photo look like this? Is it because it's film? Is it the compression that one gets from a medium format and lens combination? Is it the optics of the lens that makes it soft looking? What kind of lens is typically used for something like this, and how would that translate to 35mm? hope this isn't too many questions?<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>I noticed the same thing when I switched from a Bronica, which had an unusually sharp Nikkor lens, to a Hass in 1968. The pictures from the Hass, which I had expected to be sharper, appeared softer. Eventually I realized that the Zeiss lens was indeed sharp but had lower contrast. This is very much preferable when you get into fine B&W printing. You can always increase contrast with the paper and developers, but you can't get the subtlety and details that the lens missed because it was too contrasty. My D700 is sharp and convenient, but does not have the subtlety of a Hass film camera.</p>

<p>Good lighting and the tonality of medium format b/w film. Well scanned, also.</p>

<p>Noone has skin smooth like that. So my bet is that Photoshop helped a lot to create that look.</p>

 

<p>The smoothness of tonality (not smoothness of skin; that picture is more heavily processed than I'd like) and,well, calm rendering is one factor making MF stand out. Not really sure where that comes from but it's common enough that I'd say it's a signature feature of the format. Another feature is that the depth of field curve (the falloff both front and back) depends only on the lens focal length. When you shoot with, say, a 90mm lens on a 6x7 camera you have the depth of field characteristics of a 90mm lens but the angle of view of a normal. That affects the perceived quality of the image too.</p>

 

<p>I still think the Hasselblad for black and white is the most fantastic tool there is. I shoot all my color on digital or 35mm now and still use the Hasselblads only for black and white. I have no scanner or digital manipulators for the HBs so I still develop and print everything by hand and enjoy the results as they are. For shots like that, I like the 100mm. Everyone has their favorites.</p>

<p>Dave: If you like the Hass for B&W film, try an 8x10.</p>

<p>Dave, I do agree also. I shoot 4x5 and 8x10, but I am so connected to the Hasselblad. PhotoShop and lighting is definitely at play here, and I would say the lens is slightly longer than the 80mm, like a 120 or 150mm. Hard to say for sure, but that would be roughly a 60 to 85mm lens on a FF DSLR.</p>

<p>Noel, my personal opinion is film has such a unique look, and the reason why I've nearly switched entirely back to film again. Plus I enjoy developing the film and playing with new techniques.</p>

<p>German Glass - you cant beat it !!</p>

<p>"No one has skin smooth like that. So my bet is that Photoshop helped a lot to create that look."</p>

<p>You can get smooth skin from film by increasing the density of the negative. The image in the link has, of course, been scanned, but film printed in a darkroom can produce a similar look.</p>

<p>It's been processed to death--the android sheen is obvious and totally unlike what a straight print would deliver.</p>

<p>Yes, it has been processed, but I was making the point that you can still get smoother skin by increasing density of the neg. Sometimes I place skin highlights at a zone VII density and print them down. Not the same as this (much nicer, IMHO).</p>

<p>Noel you asked about the lens....they did not say, but most Hasselblad portraits are done with the 150mm lens, its sharp ,but not as sharp as the 180mm or 120mm which are a bit much for portraits.<br>

A 150mm on a Hasselblad at between F5.6 and F8 is pretty hard to beat. Also softars will really soften the skin, but flair a little in the light areas, don't think they were used in these shots, but work very well in closeups of beautiful women.<br>

Yes Zeiss and Leitz optics are different creatures, the charts don't show everything, kinda like CDs and vinyl records, they do sound different, but not everyone can see the difference, heck some people think Rap is music..... what do they know, let them have digital.</p>

<p>I might stand alone but I hate that stuff. Soft porn and glamor nudes. And that look is why I don't do digital. He is going to great lengths to take the film look out of film. I like naked women as much as the next guy but that portfolio made me feel kind of sick to my stomach.<br>

Dennis</p>

<p>Yikes! I am at work - please let me know if the content contains things that might make my female co-workers blush, before I just blunder into the link. No offense - it just made me look like a pervert, nude-photo web surfer, when that was not my intent :-(<br>

Then again, I am at work, and should only be working.</p>

<p>Well I never worked much with 8x10, but I did do some commercial work with 4x5 and 5x7. Not my "cup of tea" but I certainly appreciate the art form. Now if I can only get myself to use the camera as much as the internet.</p>

<p>I agree that this should of had a NSFW disclaimer on it. very slow right now so I was browsing the web and had no knowledge at all that this would contain images that could of caused me problems. might comment more though when I get home... </p>

<p>Well, let me start off with with an apology to those who wanted a nudity warning. I'm sorry. I don't look at photo related sites at work. I don't look at much of anything at work except news and work related sites. So, I didn't cross my mind.<br>

As for the quality of the photos and the post processing, I suspected some post work, however, I'm sure a number of average people would consider these as "nice". I know of no other group of people that has a higher percentage of perfectionist than photographers. I'm one of them. So was my father. I'm sorry that the image selection wasn't a prime example of Fine Art, or that it was pornish. I had just seen it in review of top photos and used it as an example.<br>

I'm glad a number of people who replied recognized what I was talking about. And I thank everyone for replying. Maybe on day i can get a MF camera and get this look. Thanks again.</p>

<p>Noel,</p>

<p>The comments about the look of particularly the first picture the link leads us to are not really about whether it is a nice look or not, but about it not being the MF look.<br>

Do not get an MF camera to expect this look, because without adding a scanner and image editing software that offers a blur and smudge tool, you will not get it.</p>

<p>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.<br>

An (exagerated) comparison may help explain why: if a transition (in the subject) from black to white has to be recorded on 3 pixels, you can't get more than black, a single shade of grey, and white in your end result. Now if that same transition is recorded by double the number of pixels, you can obviously record more tones.<br>

Size matters.</p>

<p>And you will get that better tonality (and - provided you do not use a terribly bad lens - more detail) with any camera and lens, as long as the format is large enough.</p>

<p>Q.G., Thank you for your reply. I regret using the term "smoothness", because it did focus attention on the skin processing and texture, or lack of it. I do have Photoshop and I've done a little bit of it myself on a few images I've taken. But, I think you explained the bulk of what I'm seeing in MF photos, and that is the greater tonality. It is, for the most part, this 3 pixel to 6 pixel stepping, to use your example, that I calling smoothness. And I guess it is a smoother transition from tone to tone that I'm calling smooth. A lack of vocabulary on my part. Thanks for the explaination. All the replies have been educational. </p>

<p>The 3 pixel analogy is a very good one - I hadn't thought of things like that before. There is one other step in the process of getting the picture from the negative to a print though that most people use now - scanning. That seems to be where you might get the same sort of compression artifacts you see with a digital camera, since all but the highest end scanners seem to really only have about an 8-bit wide dynamic range.</p>

<p>I've tried scanning in 16-bit with my lowly Canon 8800F, and compared with an identical scan at 8-bit, saw absolutely zero improvement on the resultant digital image. I suspect that if I were to put together a proper darkroom kit for making prints directly from the negative, I'd see quite a bit of improvement, but I'm pretty much stuck with home negative development -> scan -> inkjet printing (or WHCC if I want better quality on real film paper).</p>

<p>If you really want to see great tonal ranges in a print, looka at a print made from a B&W 4X5 neg. For the most part as the neg gets larger so does the (smoothness) as you put it increase.</p>

<p>I learn a little about photography from my father as a kid. I did make my own prints and later, in high school, I developed my own 35mm film. I'm kind of getting a bug for it again. Although, I don't have the money right now, I understand that 4 x 5's are the least expensive. Is that true?</p>

<p>I really like what he did in photoshop. I often process using the filter he has employed and often to a much greater degree.</p><div></div>

<p>Very soft lighting and some PS work. You can get this look with your 5D.</p>