Medium Format vs Digital

[vincetylor]

When it comes to using film, you are all wrong. I would recommend sticking with your Nikon 35mm. With todays scanners you can easily print up to 24x36 from 35mm originals. And I can also tell you this: YOU WILL NOT SELL VERY MANY PRINTS AT 24X36 EITHER. We sell far more 5x7, 8x10 and 11x14 than 16x20 and larger. I actually have several 40x60 Lightjet prints that look outstanding. You also get MUCH better wide angle lenses with Nikon 35mm. Better zooms, faster glass too. You will get more images per roll so you can bracket as well as try many different angles and focal lengths. 35 mm allows the photographer to *create* better images because of the issues mentioned above. 4x5, 8x10 sheets of film is TOTAL overkill nowadays with todays hi-res scanning.

 

Now digital is another story. My son shot with a Nikon D2X, while I shot 75 rolls of Velvia two months ago with my F-5 on a one week Hawaiian shooting trip. ALL of his work is edited and some even published, while I am still just starting the editing. Also, perhaps 20 percent of those of mine were ruined by having a problem with my 28-70 lens. Digital would have caught that. I had to change rolls of film 75 times, almost always in the field. He changed (4 gig) memory cards in the car in between shooting in the air conditioning with music rarely... My film and developing costs were over $1400, his was zero. He edits on his computer screen. I have to squnt on a lightbox. The quality of his images (even when interpolated) to 24x36 IS as good as mine will look if not better after scanning. I think you get the picture by now. However, the D-70 0r D-100 is just not going to cut it if you wish to sell professionally. 6 megs is not enough. Save for the D2X, or just stick with what you have now.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Vincent - sorry, but size does matter. Your high-resolution scans get larger without adding information. You *might* pull useful info up to 3200 dpi if you always shoot with a tripod and use MLU.

 

Robert

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I should add that there are reasons for using 35mm film:

 

* Fast long lenses that you can carry into the field easily.

* Don't generally print often beyond 11x14

* Fast AF

 

Robert

[aaron_lind]

Fully manual medium format cameras are way more fun than digital ones. I started to like

photography a lot more once i quit shooting with reckless abandon with my D30/10D. Its like

gambling kind of.. when your paying for the film and developing and spending the time in

the darkroom for 12 photos. you pay more atention to the process. Other than that i wouldnt

really know which one was "better" per say but i think my rolleicord III takes pictures that are

on par with my 10D, and the rolleicord makes better enlargements. Plus, i've since come to

love square format. it has a more "zen" feeling.

[nick_l.]

"When it comes to using film, you are all wrong. I would recommend sticking with your Nikon 35mm. With todays scanners you can easily print up to 24x36 from 35mm originals.... I actually have several 40x60 Lightjet prints that look outstanding."

 

Are we talking inches or centimeters here? If inches, I don't believe you. It doesn't matter what scanner you have, you cannot get good 40x60 prints, or even 24x36 prints from 35mm film --- unless you're making compromises on sharpness and tonality and assuming people will look at your pictures from at least 20 feet away.

 

Re the original question: It comes down to which part of photography you enjoy more - the end result or the actual process. If the latter, then MF wins simply based on the big, bright viewfinder you get as opposed to the stamp-size DLSR image. If it's only results you want, well, it's still debatable, but if prints are no bigger than 11x14, then 6MP DSLR is hard to beat. As others above have remarked, MF is a 'zen' thing, especially square format.

[martin_brenner1]

I'm using a Rolleiflex 6003 with the 40mm Super Angulon: I love it!

One possible alternative, at least in my eyes, could be the Mamiya 7II. You can get fantastic wide angle lenses!

Martin

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Yes, it comes down to your own preferences - and the size of the prints that you expect to make. I've seen great results from DSLR's. And I've seen great results from film (when printed within the size constraints imposed by negative size).

 

Choose the tool you enjoy. And get out and make some photos!

 

Robert

[jmf]

Try LF. Do everything you do in MF and then add in tweaking rise/fall, swings and shifts. Plus, the viewfinder can't be beat ;'{)} .

 

I definitely know what you mean though. I switched to an RB67 from a 35mm slr for landscapes. It just forces you to throttle back and be a bit more involved in the image process.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Yes, I'm tempted by LF, too. I'll give it a go sometime in 2006.

 

Robert

[vincetylor]

"Are we talking inches or centimeters here? If inches, I don't believe you. It doesn't matter what scanner you have, you cannot get good 40x60 prints, or even 24x36 prints from 35mm film --- unless you're making compromises on sharpness and tonality and assuming people will look at your pictures from at least 20 feet away." Nick L.

 

We ARE talking inches, and I AM looking at a 24x36 giclee right now that has compromised nothing. You must be in the 80s still...

 

I shoot exclusively with Velvia 50 slide film which as most people know has minimal grain. I also use the Creo Scitex scanner at 8000 DPI for a true 24x36, 222 meg file that produces beautiful, clean, sharp Lightjet prints at the 24x36 size all of the time. I recently tried using Lizards Genuine fractals to interpolate these 24x36 files up to 40x60. The results were a surprise to me: very clean, again nice sharpness with minimal grain. Usually I use a tripod when shooting, though the 40x60 samples were on hand held images as well. The truth is, very few artists sell prints in that size anywhere, since most people do not have that type of wall space. I could easily afford to go with medium format, but quite honestly, there is just no real need to do so. I am certain that using 35mm format with its better selection and quality of lenses, more film in a roll etc etc allow me to create the best possible images I can. Now if you are into billboard photos, then obviously 35 would not be the format of choice. Also, as stated above, the digital workflow has some tremendous advantages to keep in mind, but you will pay dearly to get anything that can print large enough consistently. Plus, who feels comfortable leaving an $8000 camera on a tripod in the salt water shoreline for hours? Or even a $5000 model for that matter...

 

Digital IS coming along, but not quite there yet for me. 35 mm format with high resolution scanning meets all of my needs to create beautiful images every day.

[mikem77]

My local pro lab has a 24x36-inch print on display that was created from a 35mm Velvia tranny scanned with a Creo Scitex. I'll admit that it completely exceeded what I thought 35mm was capable of. However on closer inspection, the noise what quite evident and the edges were soft. However at a few feet away, it looks very good. But then I looked at the prints created from 4x5 trannies (Creo Scitex scanner) and the difference was evident even with a viewing distance of 6-7 feet.

 

The Scitex is an incredible machine and it may pull out some extra detail at 8000dpi from a 35mm tranny. But at that level, I would think you are gonna run into the resolution limits of even Velvia and you will hit grain far before 8000dpi. Anybody have data on this?

 

Plus interpolation is more effective for some scenes than others. It is no secret that portraits are easily interpolated to higher resolutions. The same applies for some landscapes, but don't count on it for all scenes. Interpolation is creating new information by guessing.

[david_henderson]

Vincent. I don't doubt your conclusions for a moment and indeed I make similar points to the people who promote a view that you need large format cameras to produce quality prints of landscapes. All good stuff ten years ago but the world's moved on.

 

But the question I'd ask is whether you've tried medium format? The advantages I feel I get are little to do with bigger prints- its to do with making better photographs. Things look different through a medium format lens; the format is different. It may not transform everyone's photography, but it surely had a positive effect on mine. Again I won't dispute for a moment that measured in terms of resolution per sq inch of film , 35mm lenses(or at least the best ones of recent design) out-perform MF lenses. But it isn't "per sq inch" that's relevent, its what you get in the image in total. Looked at that way there's little doubt that there's more information in a MF Velvia transparency than there is in an equivalent from 35mm. Now again, as someone who sells a few prints, I can agree with you that there isn't a huge demand for the very large prints that you could make from MF but not from 35mm. But that isn't where I'm headed, which is that other things unchanged the MF transparency and the print made from it will look different, and in particular will look smoother and more elegant.

 

Of course the "value" angle is interesting too. Frankly, with the volume of used MF equipment around, its now probably cheaper to acquire the ability to produce a quality 200mb file from medium format gear than it is from 35mm. If I'm standing in the sea and thinking about what the consequences of a big wave or dropping the camera are, I can get a replacement Bronica, back, finder and lens for the equivalent of maybe $700. Would that be the same with a Canon and L lenses?

 

Anyway, interesting -and valid- debate.

[rj]

Daniel,

Lets assume your argument is correct and a 35mm original can be scanned and printed to 20x24 with good to excellent results, it would then stand to reason that a medium format original could be scanned and printed with the same equipment to that image size and look cleaner and more finely detailed than the smaller original. Lets face it, there is no replacement for displacement.

[vincetylor]

I have well over 150 images in our print line and on our website that we currently offer as 24x36 Lightjet prints. Do you know how many are unacceptable due to grain, softness, flatness or anything else? Zero. The only issue I have to keep in mind is to make sure I do not sharpen the files for prints that size, or grain CAN become more of an issue. IF a photographer uses consumer-grade lenses, does not use a tripod, stop down, is not careful with exposure etc etc, then yes the larger prints will certainly expose and magnify those issues. If the photographer takes pride in shooting it right the first time, then enlarging those originals to 24x36 will not be a problem in regards to print quality under any circumstances. At least not from my experiences.

 

Sure, a 24x36 print from a 4x5 tranny will look smoother than one from a 35 mm slide. The differences however will not be THAT noticable to the naked eye. This fact is usually overlooked and often exaggerated. But let me also add this: While the photographer that uses large format will take perhaps a few diffent shots trying to capture a scene with his equipment, another photographer using 35mm with a variety of zooms, focal lengths, angles, shutter speeds, as well as bracketing for exposure, will undoubtedly produce the superior image. And perhaps many superior images in fact. It is much easier to produce *winners* with 35mm than large format and even meduim for that matter. I would rather have a better variety of winning images, than one that will blow up to a size slightly better. A size that very few people will ever purchase by the way or one that you will rarely need.

[mikem77]

I disagree that 35mm will always produce the "winner" unless we are talking about candids, wildlife, or sports where things like shooting speed make a huge difference. If this is the case, I would claim that Canon's 1Ds Mark II (or whatever it is) will beat 35mm film anyways. Do you think that Ansel's pictures would have been better with the speed of a 35mm camera or the variety in lenses that are available?

 

Look, all formats have their own unique style as well as technical advantages and disadvantages. Get out of the studio and visit some art fairs!

 

I once thought that those using 8x10 view cameras were loony. Then I saw a gallery of contact prints made from an 8x10 camera and changed my mind because the prints were utterly amazing. When is the last time you've seen a contact print from an 8x10 B&W negative?

[vincetylor]

Yes David I have looked at getting into the medium format for many years. After all I sell landscapes exclusively. A move to 645 would still allow the photographer to bracket as well as *create* beautiful images. You also get 33 images to a roll of film which is pretty close to what I get with 35mm. The reasons I never made that switch however was simply because of wide angle lenses. They dont have anthing like my bread and butter 17-35 Nikon. Pentax does now have the 33-55 which is closer to what I use, but still not there. Also my lenses are all 2.8. My F-5 is so much more versatlie than any meduim format camera and several times faster which does occasionally come in to play. Editing with a 4x slide holder is easier as well than looking directly at the originals on a lightbox. As many times as I tried I just could never see the justification over what I currently use. The GM at the lab I use agreed with me on making the switch. We just never need the super-large originals nowadays. 35mm just works beautifully.

[vincetylor]

Mike I can agree that the Cannon Mark 2 does produce just about as good an image as I can get with 35mm. However, tell me why I should spend $8000 for a camera that can just do basically what I am already doing now? I would be sweating bullets leaving that thing on a seaside tripod or heaving it down to a hard to reach waterfall. Also the Velvia originals are still more aesthetically pleasing than what the Cannon or Nikon D2X can produce. I have seen this firsthand. The reason I will eventually get into digital is because you avoid the process to scan entirely. That is HUGE for me. You can also clearly see when mistakes are being made. No film or developing costs. The time for a switch to digital is getting close. But for me, not yet...

 

No meduim format outfit offers the quality of lenses available by Nikon right now. And large format falls even shorter when compared head to head. The over-all value is greater by staying with 35. At least for me anyway.

[mikem77]

Hey Vincent, I agree w.r.t to the $8000 Canon! I currently shoot 35mm with used Minolta equipment. The quality/dollar I get for a $100 lens and a $200 camera body is unbeatable.

 

I have a strong interest in B&W and 11x14 prints from 35mm were ok. But after seeing B&W prints from large-format cameras at a local art fair, I was convinced to buy a 4x5 setup. Spent about $1200 on the 4x5 setup (3 used lenses, 1 new field camera). I found a 4x5 enlarger at a garage sale for $75 since my existing enlarger maxed out at 6x9cm. I added a used Rodenstock Rodagon enlarging lens for another $30 and I was good to go. I still make 11x14s from 35mm, but when I nail a 4x5, the results are incredible. Even 8x10" B&W prints from a 4x5 negative exhibit noticeable improvements in tonal range and sharpness. Would I see a noticeable improvement for 8x10" color prints? Probably not....but slapping those 4x5" Velvia trannies on a light table sure is cool :-)

[vincetylor]

I hear you both Mike and David on what these other formats have done for you and your photography. It's probably not the easiest thing to try to express either, since it's much more than just about size of negs. I could see myself ENJOYING the using of larger formatS like yours, even more than I do now. Seems slower and more relaxing...

 

Living on an island basically means that most of my shooting trips however involve airfare, rental cars, hotels etc. Basically it's a business trip. When I do get to a location I am focused on working these locations as carefully and thoroughly as I possibly can. This way, when I do get to the lightbox I will have the best opportunity to find a few real winners. I usually arrive to a location with my F-5 along with the Nikon 17-35 around my neck, and the F-100 with the 28-70 over my shoulder, and a tripod on the other hand (similar to what you see on my current self-portrait). This combination has allowed me to work a scene as thoroughly as I know how. The number of times an image from a very unusual angle, or different focal point worked over the ones I expected to work when shooting is more numerous than I ever would have guessed. I also make point of always bracketing by .1/3 in each direction wherever I am shooting. (With Velvia, I have found that decision has saved many a trip once they were developed regardless of how good my equipment or how careful I might be). The point is that 35mm has allowed my this opportunity to shoot an abundance of images, from many differing vantage points, at many different shutter speeds and aperture settings. Sometimes seven or more rolls from one location. When I do get to that lightbox, I am almost always grateful that I took that time to change it up and workm it thoroughly. Last Fall, I was in the Blue Ridge mountain area where I found a beautiful rose in full bloom. A soft rain also happened to be falling which really gave me an outstanding opportunity. I shot perhaps four rolls of this one rose, with three different lenses (28-70, the 105 macro and the 80-200). I also shot it from f/3.5 to f/22 and everything in between while bracketing as well. When I started to edit that series back at home, I was disappointed by several of these images, yet my socks were knocked off by yet others. The point is, that for me, the 35mm system allows me to do this very thing (creating winning images) that has over and over again proved so very valuable. In the end (with the exception of perhaps digital down the road) I cannot see a better system for creating the best possible images we as photographers are possibly able to find.

 

Thanks for the interchange, is always helpful and at times even can be fun.

[nick_l.]

Vincent,

 

If 35mm film still works for you, that's fine. I appreciate your comments and, not being a technophile myself, it's great that you're resisting the mass movement to digital. I would not knock your results without first seeing them.

 

It's just that I am sitting now in an office which has a number of $1,000+ "art prints" on the walls which are clearly 24x36, clearly shot with 35mm film, and clearly blown up way beyond their capacity to maintain detail. I've seen the best that 35mm street photography has to offer in MOMA exhibits that looked just fine at 12x18 max., but look overblown if they went much larger than that. It all depends on what your standards and goals are. Street photographers should keep on using 35mm film. But I don't see the point of landscape photographers taking the trouble of using a heavy tripod, mirror lock-up and a cable release, and then using 35mm to keep the weight down. That's sort of like sprinkling NutraSweet on your chocolate sundae :)

[vincetylor]

"I am sitting now in an office which has a number of $1,000+ "art prints" on the walls which are clearly 24x36, clearly shot with 35mm film, and clearly blown up way beyond their capacity to maintain detail." Nick L.

 

I have seen the same over and over again myself. Just recently visiting in the hospital, I must have seen dozens of large prints throughout the corridors. ALL taken beyond their limits, or all poorly photographed. Times have indeed changed Nick. The detail in this posted image here:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3173139

 

is what I am looking at in a 24x36 giclee right in front of my eyes. There is no compromise in detail, richness, contrast or anything else. Five to six years ago or so you probably could not do this, but today you can indeed do this. These 24x36, as well as the few 40x60 that I have had printed look like your regular 5x7 prints from years ago. We have sold quite a few off our website with not one complaint, even though many have asked ahead of time about sharpness/quality issues with these larger sizes.

 

"But I don't see the point of landscape photographers taking the trouble of using a heavy tripod, mirror lock-up and a cable release, and then using 35mm to keep the weight down. That's sort of like sprinkling NutraSweet on your chocolate sundae :)"...

 

It is a *system* that works well together, not just the camera exclusively. If medium or large format had the same system, it would be a no brainer. Now that digital scanning does allow beautiful enlargements from 35mm, this system is even more valuable in my mind. Like I mentioned above, with faster and wider lenses, a great selection of zooms, faster more capable cameras, more film to a roll etc etc, 35mm in my opinion allows the photographer to create (in most cases, I am sure not all) a greater selection and variation of originals. I have seen these big 8x10 systems lugged around and plopped down in one location with perhaps three shots fired, while I at the same time shot off three rolls from every angle imaginable. Who do you think will come home with the more spectacular images? Over and over again, that's how it seems to have worked for me.

[david_henderson]

Whilst my own conclusion has been that medium format offers the best quality/convenience trade-off available to me, I have to take issue again with the contention that you can't get more than 14" x 11"", or 16" x 12" or whatever from a good 35mm colour transparency today. These homilies were born when everyone had to use Ciba or type R or interneg processes driven by optical enlargers and frankly I've got 18" sq prints from sharp, detailed and carefully exposed 6x6 trannies produced by top labs that I've never been happy with.

 

But the world has changed- its not just "digital" per se because there's enough crappy scans and production line printing going on to convince any sceptic that digital isn't any better. When you get to the quality end of the market though it is a completely different story. The combination of a high end scan (usually but not always a drum scan) and machines like LightJets and Chromiras has completely changed the paradigm. If you want to see what's possible then send just one of your best transparencies to West Coast Imaging or similar and form a view. You won't necessarily see these prints in museums or art-school shows because they are pretty recent and still a bit expensive for photography students; but you will see them if you look at Galen Rowells work, Jack Dykinga, Robert Glenn Ketchum and so on. Some photographers are producing at home prints of a size, quality and detail that weren't available at any price just a few years ago. You simply don't need the real estate, in terms of film size, that you used to. If you doubt it, then maybe you need to try it.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Vincent - I shoot a lot of B&W and the larger negs make a *huge* difference. Since I need MF for B&W, why not use it for color, too? And my Mamiya 645 was cheap - used lenses are only a couple of hundred $$$'s. I'm even willing to stand in the surf to snag shots!

 

Yes, Velvia is very fine grained, but for me, the colors are over the top (not good with skin tones!). It is a very popular film, though, so I know that color balance comes down to personal preference.

 

Robert

[vincetylor]

I was very interested in the Mamiya at one point Robert. However, they have the least attractive selection of wide-angle zooms of any medium format manufacturer... and still do. The 35mm equivalent is 34-68. That would basically put me out of business. I use my 17-35 perhaps 80 percent of the time... and the 17 range more than not.

 

Like mentioned above, I tried and looked for years to jump into medium format, but was never really persuaded quite enough because of my attachment to wide angle zooms. Now, after using my sons D2X and how it completely eliminates the need for scanning altogether, with instant results, without film or developing costs, wwhile editing on your computer screen, I am just about sold on the next version following the D2X. I would still have to give up my 17-35 for one of the 12-24 versions, plus $5000 for one camera is something I am not comfortable with, especially the way I work. Also, I do like using TWO outfits at one time when shooting (which aint gonna happen with $5000 cameras by the way).

 

The more I type, the more I want to stick right where I am with 35mm...

[westboundimages]

Vincent, with all due respect, but you are way off on so many fronts. For starters, your work is very nice. The color saturation that velvia has to offer plays perfectly into the hands of your subjects; namely bright colored tropical scenery.

 

BUT please, do not think your work is on par with the likes of dave muench(http://www.muenchphotography.com) and other TOP shelf landscape artists. There are reasons why these top guns use large format and don't simply walk around firing from the hip with 35mm SLRs.

 

Getting past the obvious SIZE difference between large format and 35mm film, there is the MORE important issue of PERSPECTIVE CONTROL. With large format cameras you can do WHATEVER you want with the subject. The photographer can control depth of field and the angle of vertical lines(such as trees, cliffs, mountains, buildings etc) in ways that are ENTIRELY IMPOSSIBLE with 35mm or even MF.

 

The same way you fancy your "zoom" lenses and their ability to frame the scene, so too does the LF photographer employ perspective control to better frame a scene. If you think you have control with your zooms, try a LF camera and learn what control is all about.

 

Unless you've worked with LF you will never know what I am talking about and most everything I've said will be blown off by a comment such as: "Well, my photo shop's manager said there is no need to use anything other than 35mm, blah blah blah."

 

It's like the age-old argument that you don't need to read or write music to be a good musician. Perhaps. But it all comes down to a particular person's definition of a "good musician". To some, the Red Hot Chili Peppers are "good musicians". To others, anything less than Rachmaninov is an imitator!

 

When we are describing "symphonic landscape photography"(such as the work of Muench) there is NO OTHER WAY to do it. You MUST use LF.

 

On the other hand, if your goal is to compose "popular hits", then any tool will do.