35mm for web = 120 or < than 120

[johnny_mustard]

<p>and i'm sure it's been discussed to death all over the web.<br>

note - we all know that medium format is sexier than 35. that aside:<br>

35mm + 100iso + prime lens + photoshop -> web only output = medium format or < medium format<br>

which is true?! Just bought a hasse 500c and thinking about selling it already.<br>

i'm aware about the size of the neg, and one can see more grain if you you blow it up, etc. Only interested in mind-blowing 4 by 6 images at 72 dpi.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>You have to get pretty big to see any MF advantage over a DSLR or 35mm film if this is your question. A Nikon 9000 scanned 645 mamiya slide will produce similar resolution to a Canon 5DII (probably the second highest DSLR resolution at the moment - Sony 900 at low ISO or Nikon D3X is better). If I scan a Fuji GX680 slide (6cm by 8cm) I get a higher resolution than the 5DII. Unfortunately you can really only see this when you get to images sizes around 20x30 inches or pixel peep. The file size of scanned MF can get quite large - 645 16 bit TIFF is about 150MB and 6x8 can get to 600 MB in a worst case situation. I assume that you are talking about 4x6 feet when you talk about 72 DPI (if this is 4x6 inches at 72DPI then you can almost use what you like except for lens distortion). Lenses not withstanding a top 35mm full frame DSLR will match a 645 MF film body at low ISO and beat it from about 200 ISO up. A 6x6 like the Hassy is better but only with a top quality scan (Nikon or better - not Epson) and will only show when you print quite large - say 20x30 inches.</p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>mind-blowing 4 by 6 images at 72 dpi.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>...which is less than 300 x 450 pixels...less than half of VGA...good god man, you don't need either 35mm or medium format - you need a vintage webcam.</p>

[johnny_mustard]

<p>Yes i was talking about inches not feet. But not talking about resolution. But some other quality not sure what it is. Obviously lenses make the biggest difference. I'm a film director, i can easily tell if the footage was shot on 35mm or digitally. I can spot the RED camera a mile away. With stills it's harder but i can still tell last i checked if something was shot on film or with a dslr. My question is can a pro tell if something was shot with mf or 35mm if you see it online. i'm not sure i can. </p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>I'd say your choice of good lenses on 35mm (eg...f/1.4 primes) should seriously limit the ability of 99.9% of the population (if not more) to identfify those shots over MF. You'll get the the same tonality, DOF, etc.</p>

[johnny_mustard]

<p>Gregory, that's what i thought, it's nice to hear a confirmation. Just bought an adapter for my Hasselblad lens so i can use it on my Canon 7NE. I have a few primes already, my fav is the f1.8 85mm. </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>If we are 4x6 inches and 72 DPI the you can hardly tell the difference between a Hassy and a point and shoot - unless the point and shoot has very bad lens distortion or artifacts. why would you buy a hassy and scan to get a 72 DPI 4"x6" image - what are you hoping to achieve</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I can't back it up with facts, but I'm pretty sure you can still see the difference between 35mm, MF and LF.</p>

<p>BTW, How on earth can you make the judgment about whether a MF negative from your 500c will give you the quality you want if you haven't shot with it yet? You say in this thread, that you haven't yet received it: http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00Udxh?unified_p=1.</p>

<p>So why not shoot with it instead of surmising what the negative looks like?</p>

[larry_freytag]

<p>Hi Johnny, Shoot a few rolls and try it out. I just love using the viewfinder on my 501. Give it some time and get comfortable with the square format. It is a blast. Have fun. Spent some time to get used to working with the nice big neg's. It can't all be reduced to DPI and etc formula style.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Medium format negative film seems to have a wider dynamic range and more open shadows than 35mm film. You may be able to see the difference in a web-sized reproduction. On the other hand, a good DSLR does just as well in this regard. Considering the small size of most web images (<500 pixels on a side), resolution and grain aren't a factor.</p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>Hmm??? Medium format film and 35mm film have EXACTLY the same DR and shadows. It's the SAME FILM, after all...just larger. <br>

The only conceivable difference visible at that size would be if you were to use a particular lens with a very unusual rendition, or shot it wide open. IIRC, a f/2.8 lens on 6x7 will produce DOF similar to a f/1.2 lens on 35mm....but then, those lenses exist for 35mm anyways.</p>

[johnny_mustard]

<p>i've also heard that mf produces smoother skin tones, and is ideal for portraits, not sure if there's any truth to that but you can always tastefully blur out the skin in ps if that's the only difference. Shooting my first roll of 120 in an hour. We'll see what happens. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p><em>"Hmm??? Medium format film and 35mm film have EXACTLY the same DR and shadows. It's the SAME FILM, after all...just larger."</em></p>

<p>That's correct.<br>

MF has a higher tonal resolution, due there being more space to resolve a tone transition in the subject.<br>

That produces smoother tones, but not a larger dynamic range.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I agree with de Bakker that the relatively less grain due to the larger size (for the same picture) leads to smoother gradations. There are other contributing factors, however.</p>

<p>The base is much thinner for 120 film than for 35mm, and seems to have less anti-halation coloration (easily seen in B&W film). If you look at the characteristic curves, the minimum density is 1/2 stop or so less than for 35mm film.</p>

<p>There are also different formulations for films with the name between 120 and 35mm. Fuji Reala and NPH400 are among them.</p>

[neilambrose]

<blockquote>

<p>My question is can a pro tell if something was shot with mf or 35mm if you see it online. i'm not sure i can.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>In short - no, they can't. Quite simply the images are too small to tell anything about them in terms of the emulsion or quality of the negative or enlargement potential. Don't forget that the scanning and downsizing process will dramatically alter the underlying image potential, as will post-processing.</p>

<p>But it is possible to see the signature of the lens. Lenses do render very differently, and there are certain lenses in all formats with signatures that stand out immediately at any size. This tends to be what people associate with a certain 'feel'.</p>

<p>It's only when printing the image at appropriate sizes that you can tell anything about the underlying format. There are images in my portfolio shot with MF 120, MF digital, 35mm film and 35mm digital. I defy anyone to tell which is which from a tiny image on screen.</p>