Medium format equipment for nature photograpy

[mike_hegerfeld]

Let me first start out by saying that I have researched the photo.net

and read the posts concerning my question. I read the thread that Bob

Atkins started on the merits of med-format in nature photography

which was quite informative. The question which I really need help

concerns the submission of chromes to publishers for publication. I

recently sold an article and three of my photos to a small magazine

in Florida, so at least I've gotten my feet wet. The one argument

that I have heard is that you have a better chance with photo editors

if you submit med-format chromes as opposed to .35mm since med-format

since they are bigger and looks more impressive, etc. Is this really

a true statement or is it just one of those assumptions people make

because it seems reasonable. Has anybody had any first hand

experience with photo editors concerning this topic?

[brian yarvin]

Mike:

 

When I was starting to work in Medium Format I tried coding the format in the the image serial numbers so I could track sales from stock agencies. (many of whom would report back little more than the serial number when a sale was made)

 

To my great surprise, the difference was far greater than anybody predicted. The medium format images now outsell the 35MM ones by a very wide margin.

 

I've found that most photographers will argue with me about this but I can't think of a better way to test it.

 

Oddly enough, one of the stock agencies involved actively discourages their contributors from shooting anything other than 35MM and got really angry at me for demonstrating otherwise.

 

I have heard many stories about different formats but this is the only way I could check it using real figures. So, yes, I can prove that Medium Format sells better with certain stock agencies, and yes, lots of people are mad at me for saying so.

 

This is news that nobody wants to hear.

 

Brian in Queens, NY

[bobatkins]

I can't answer the question, but I'd assume it's quite dependant on exactly what sort of "nature" images you're trying to sell and what market you are after. For example I hear that most landscape calander publishers aren't really interested in 35mm slides. To sell to them you need medium or even large format. I'd assume the same would be true of the poster market.

 

I'd be interested to know if wildlife photographers selling to the magazine (editorial) market see any advantage in medium format.

 

Brian - can you qualify your comments by telling us what type of images you were shooting? Were the MF images different in nature (subject) from the 35mm images?

[brian yarvin]

The subject matter of the early images in both formats were landscapes and travel. I have never really shot wildlife.

 

I now no longer shoot landscape or travel with 35MM unless I want to use a film that isn't available in other formats like Imation 640T.

 

My comparison was in images of the same subject. Comparisons of different subject matter by sales is a whole different ball of wax and doesn't really belong on the Nature Forum.

 

Brian

[chris_varner1]

First, I have not had any real experience with photo editors concerning medium format(I shoot exclusively 35mm)images. I do recall reading an article by, I believe, George Lepp, in which he answered this exact question. As you know, and he pointed out, there are top rank nature photographers who shoot exclusively each of these formats. Obviously, their preferred format has had no impact on their sales. Lepp discussed the pros and cons of both format and concluded that sells depend on the quality of the image. (Aside note: To conduct any meaningful data on which format editors, in general, prefer, the tests would involve considerably more controls. To find out what a particular editor prefers, ask. )

[bobatkins]

Brian - I think sales by subject is appropriate here, as long as we stick to nature. My impression/guess is that while MF might gain you sales in the landscape/scenic market, you probably wouldn't see the same advantage if you were shooting wildlife. Of course it's also much more difficult to shoot wildlife in MF (lack of long telephoto 35mm equivalent lenses for one thing, not to mention size and weight of MF telephotos!) so it there would have to be quite a significant advantage wrt sales to make it worthwhile to try to get into MF wildlife work. Some people do of course.

 

I should add that my total image sales (all 35mm) barely pay for my film costs, so don't take anything I say as significant in this area!

[drc]

Mike, you do have a better chance (all things being equal) with a larger format simply because they present or look better than a smaller 35mm version. A common first question i hear when i,m cold calling to some photo editors is "what format do you shoot", and if you reply "35mm", they'll often state that they only use medium or larger formats. This is where your sales side has to kick in (to get yourself an appointment) and hopefully they see great 35mm images in your portfolio, as a result of your professional disciplined shooting techniques and talent.

[mark_windom]

I have been told by my stock agency that with the technology that exists today format size is no longer much of a consideration. My personal experience in the agency has shown this to be true; my 35mm images have sold as well as my MF and LF images of the same subject matter. One thing to consider here, however, is that in my case all formats are duped to 70mm and then distributed to potential clients. I don't know if I have lost any sales because of original format size. It is also easier and less expensive for a stock agency to scan and get a 35mm image out into the marketplace than it is to do so for a MF or LF image.

 

On the other hand, my experience in self marketing has been quite a bit different. When it comes to scenic and landscape images I rarely submit 35mm, particularly to calendar and certain magazine publishers. I have found that MF and LF images are much more readily accepted in these situations.

 

Photogs like John Shaw and Art Wolfe have made very successful careers for themselves shooting nature and landscape images with 35mm while guys like Muench and many others have done so with LF. Ultimately it's the image itself that matters the most.

[kenny_dunn]

Mike- I decided I wanted to try and sell my images a couple of years ago so I bought some MF equipment. I feel it has helped me because some of my customers won't even accept 35mm. I have a 500mm and 300mm lens now and have been doing some wildlife photography and have sold a few images that were just so-so because, I think, they were 2 1/4. This spring I moved up to 4x5 (also shooting the 2 1/4) and that has not seemed to really help. Its funny, I just got Johns Shaws Biz of Nature Photography and one of his first comments is you don't need anything but 35mm. Oh well. I am going backwards now in that I am getting a 35mm system again because some of my publishers are asking for photos that are just too hard with 2 1/4 (MF is very difficult to do handheld, and the images they are asking for has nothing to do with nature). I go full circle.

[randy_bienia]

Interesting debate..... I have submitted both medium format images and 35,to the same company at the same time. 35 was calendar cover material, medium format wasnt selected for anything...My point being, its the quality and the content of the image that is most important,otherwise,sure, if everything else was equal who wouldnt go for the bigger negative or trans

[john_macpherson]

I know of one "pro" shooter who used to use medium format (67) without

a tripod and relied on the sheer size of the chromes and the laziness

of the picture editors he dealt with to achieve his sales. Any good

sharp 35mm would blow many of his pix away. Never assume that all

picture editors are as critical with their Schneider loupes as you are

- some of them use Agfa plastic 8x throwaway magnifiers. Thankfully

they are a very small minority, and deserve to stay that way.

<

[john_macpherson]

And to add - I use 35mm, 67 & 69. For normal book repro. up to A4

size the quality of a good sharp tripoded 35mm is fine for most

purposes. However there is a distinct and noticeable difference

between 35mm and MF in terms of sheer quality, provided the

repro/printing is good enough to show it. I had around 60 images used

in a major natural history book a few years ago, some 35mm but most in

67 format. The printing was good and the mix of formats held together

well. The publisher wanted to do a big splash launch and enlarged

selected key images for wall and point-of-sale display (some up to 4 x

5 feet). Needless to say the 67's blew all the smaller formats away at

that size (although they did not enlarge the 35mm originals to

anywhere near that size.)

<P>

I just got Tom Mangelsen's book 'Polar Dance', and many images are

35mm, reproduced superbly, but he also uses a Fuji 69 and some of the

images are repro'd across two pages and are simply stunning. The

difference in quality is noticeable - but that doesn't make his 35mm

images in any way less good or less impressive!

<P>

Randy has it nailed - "its the quality and the content of the

(individual) image that is most important,otherwise,sure, if

everything else was equal who wouldnt go for the bigger negative or

trans"

<P>

<

[drc]

Further to Johns comment about the Pro who relied on "the sheer size of the chromes". A judge at a local camera club complained of some of their members cutting down medium format slides to enter them into 35mm class contests, which at the time really shocked and offended me.

Some of these people should concentrate on aquiring good technique as opposed to falsely relying on a larger format to hide their poorer ones.

[bobatkins]

I'd be interested to hear from those involved in MF nature work and who have found better sales from MF than 35mm whether they have found any particular bias for 645, 6x6 or 67. If 35mm is considered inferior, is 645 enough to increase sales, or do you find that you need to go to all the way to 67 to get a real edge over 35mm?

[dan_smith]

IF all else is equal, larger will always be more impressive than smaller on a light table, in print and with enlarged images.

But all else is seldom equal.

Want really sharp? Try the 20x24 and contact print everything. Your work output will drop dramatically even as the technical quality will knock your socks off. Too many drawbacks to Mammoth cameras for wildlife and way too many as well for most scenic work for most photographers.

 

Drop to 8x10 & you have scenics that people would kill for. But if you aren't that good photographer you just have very large boring chromes to look at.

 

Same with 4x5-it is the photographer, not the format. Though shooting 4x5 with camera controls not availble in smaller formats is still the standard for scenic & landscape work.

 

As for MF, the line gets closer. With fast 800mm lenses available you do have some options and working habits can be pretty closely compared. SLR, TTL and ease of handling are relatively close. A motor drive of 8 frames a second isn't.

 

But if you are looking on a light table & see a 6x7 from an excellent photographer & the same(basically) shot from 35mm with the same excellent quality, the 6x7 will be chosen more often than not.

 

The reason? IMPACT!

 

The larger chrome jumps off the table to grab your attention.

 

Then it becomes a matter of what the editor and color separators prefer working with. If they are set up for 35mm only they will either choose the smaller chrome of make a copy of the larger one.

 

I have been in photo conferences where I have laid larger chromes on the table right next to the 35mm work & had an editor sweep all the 35mm images off the table, saying(while pointing demonstrably), "I want THAT one". No matter that the competitor had 60+ images, all good. The high quality & large size shows better on the light table. No loupe really needed for a first impression-and first impressions are bigger & better the bigger the film one sees. A 4x5 to 8x10 chrome will knock your socks off compared to MF. MF chromes will do the same in comparison to 35mm.

 

This is why there is such a good market in 70mm dupes-to get an edge on the competition when the images are on the light table.

 

Only you can decide if the slower shooting style of MF suits what you want to do in photography. But for what it does, the larger images are more impressive to look at. When sloppy or used with poor 'vision'? All you have are bigger boring pictures.

[chuck_greene]

Mark and Dan,

 

What do 70mm dupes typically cost? I called my local lab and the prices they quoted for dupes larger than 35mm seemed quite high ($30 each for a 120 roll film dupe from a 35mm slide).

[carl_sampson]

The lab I use in the Los Angeles area is A&I (www.aandi.com) and they charge $7.00 for the first dupe and then $2.75 and lower for subsequent copies of the same image.

 

I have never used their dupe services so I can't comment on their quality in that regard, however they are one of the top labs in the country and have found that their regular processing services are the best that I've used in the LA area.

 

I am currently considering submitting some shots to a publication and

I have been pondering on whether to send originals or 70mm dupes. I have in camera dupes but for only some of my shots so it would be nice to use dupes for my own "comfort factor". In line with the previous discussions would the advantage of a larger transparancy on the reviewer's light table outweigh the loss of sharpness, etc. associated with the dupe? Also since 70mm submissions would obviously be dupes could most reviewers infer that there is a sharper original that could be asked for if needed?

[joseph_albert]

A question I have is how many stock editors expect larger format images to be cropped. The few I've spoken to have given me mixed signals here. One of the major advantages of larger format is not having to compose full frame in the viewfinder, and I've grown to like 6x6 the best of the medium formats on account of having freedom to crop without sacrificing the image size (for a 4:5 aspect ratio). I used to shoot both 6x7 and 6x6, but I've found that 6x7 really needs to be shot full frame to have a noticeable advantage over 6x6 (or 645 shot full frame). This made it less than desirable for me given the extra weight of the equipment and tripod. Thus, when I'm shooting to make prints to frame, I generally prefer to shoot 6x6 and crop to 4:5 aspect ratio.

<p>

However, it is unclear to me that this is the preferred way to work if one is submitting to a stock agency. I've spoken to a few, and not gotten a consistent answer. It appeared to me that those who expected a full-frame composition were used to dealing with 35mm and have this bias from that. I'd pretty much always shoot 645 full frame as well, but for 6x6 or 6x7 I'd generally want to leave headroom to tune the composition after the fact.

<p>

Any thoughts on this, ie shooting full-frame medium format compositions vs. cropped images for dealing with a stock agency?

[john_macpherson]

"Also since 70mm submissions would obviously be dupes could most

reviewers infer that there is a sharper original that could be asked

for if needed?"

<P>

Carl - hate to say it, but *NO*. Never assume that the editors will

infer anything. Write it in big dayglo letters on the mounts if you

want to at least give them a clue.

<P>

Joseph - I allow some space around most subjects with MF. Obviously a

landscape might be quite tightly composed (horizontal or vertical) and

in this case one would shoot one frame of each, H and V. However for

other subjects it often makes sense to allow some space around the

subject to allow for bleeds off the edge of the page, for

wrap-arounds, or simply for dropping logos or text into. The problem

doing the same with 35mm is that if you shoot to allow space around

it, the subject becomes relatively small in the frame, and when blown

up to A4 can start to look less then wonderful.

<P>

I can recommend as very valuable a half-hour with a sympathetic editor

and/or graphic designer to find out what their freedoms and

constraints are when working with images (your images!). It can help

you to better meet their needs in future.

[patrick_chase]

Hi Mike;

 

I think that a lot depends on what you shoot. For wildlife shots in general, and for "fast-breaking" applications like birding in particular, I can't imagine using anything but a modern 35 mm SLR.

 

On the other hand, my personal experience is that view cameras reign supreme for landscapes and scenics, both because of the larger film size and because they allow manipulation of both perspective and focus via movements (note that "view camera" doesn't automatically imply large-format: Many MF view cameras are available). I personally don't have much use for MF cameras which don't allow movements, but I know many who would disagree...

 

-- Patrick

[anthony_wong]

Hi everyone. I wasn't sure if David was joking here, but I though I'd point out something potentially interesting.<BR><BR>

<BR>

### David Crossley wrote:

> Further to Johns comment about the Pro who relied on "the sheer <BR>

> size of the chromes". A judge at a local camera club complained <BR>

> of some of their members cutting down medium format slides to <BR>

> enter them into 35mm class contests, which at the time really <BR>

> shocked and offended me. Some of these people should concentrate <BR>

> on aquiring good technique as opposed to falsely relying on a <BR>

> larger format to hide their poorer ones. <BR>

<BR>

I don't mean to be finicky, but I thought that I should point out that if I make a slide with a 80mm lens on a 6x6 camera and then cut out a 24mm x 36mm square from anywhere in the frame, that square will be less sharp than an image that I made with a 35mm camera sporting an 80mm lens of similar quality. If you compare the sharpness of a Hasselblad 80mm 2.8 planar lens with a Nikon 85mm 1.4 or Leica M 75mm 1.4, strictly in lines per millimetre on the film, you will find the Hasselblad lens to be significantly less sharp. The design has to be compromised for wider coverage (this of course doesn't really matter to the Hassy user because that 80mm will still record more details to 6 x 6 cm of film than a 50mm would record to 24x36mm - especially since film grain is the real factor in that little game). It's a simple fact of lens design that more coverage means more glass which means more chromatic aberation, so these 'cheaters' weren't really cheating anyone by themselves.

<BR><BR>

Now the interesting point that brings this post back on-topic, is that this phenomenon of incomparable lens sharpness diminishes with greater focal length, so wildlife photographers may have plenty to gain by going 6x4.5.

You'll notice just by looking at specs that 6x4.5 lenses don't catch up to 35mm lenses in speed until you get into the telephotos. This is because the angle of coverage is not so different at these long lengths, so a very similar lens design can be used to optimally cover 35mm or 6x4.5. For example, a fast 35mm lens for 35mm is an f1.4, whereas the fastest 35mm for 6x4.5 is f2.8 and that lens will weigh at least twice as much. Take a look at the fastest 300mm for Mamiya 6x4.5 (2.8) and it's the same speed, and almost the same weight and size as the f2.8 Nikon or Canon or Minolta or Tokina or Tamron 300mm. It just covers a greater diameter circle. I would wager that the extra coverage of the 300mm does not cost the lens much sharpness in strict lines/mm on the film. Of course, a 300mm lens on 6x4.5 may not seem to have the same magnifying power as a 300mm on 35mm, but in fact, you get the same magnification on the film at the same distance (hence blow-up quality); you will just have more area around your subject - essentially you get the same 35mm image + more around it. Maybe not everyone likes to think that way, but the M645 is not much heavier than an F5, nor is the 645's 300mm lens much heavier than the 35mm counterparts, but the cost is over double and it's not even autofocus, and I think that's ridiculous. I think Mamiya is gorging for that lens, and I do wish that Tamron or Tokina would start making 6x4.5 telephoto lenses. I understand that Cambron makes a 500mm lens for med format and it sells for about $350 (even though the exact same lens for 35mm costs $130). Anyway, I'll stop babbling now.

<BR><BR>

ciao,<BR>

Anthony

[bobatkins]

Cambron don't make anything. Cambridge camera put the "Cambron" label on generic lenses made somewhere in S.E. Asia. The same lenses are available under a whole bunch of names. The "medium format" 500/8 is, I believe the same lens as the 35mm 500/8, but with a different mount on it. It's a simple 4 element non-APO lens. It's unspectacular on 35mm, so it's edge quality on MF is going to be very questionable.

 

Good medium format lenses DON'T have lower resolution than 35mm lenses. The better MF lenses can equal the best 35mm lenses. You just pay more for them! A "normal" MF 80/2.8 for a Hassy will cost you $1800. A "normal" 50/1.4 AF lens from Canon or Nikon will cost you around $300 - and it's 2 stops faster. The Canon 80/1.8 is about the same price. The Hassy lens will probably equal or better the 35mm lenses. For 6x the price at 1/4 the speed, it should of course. Wide angle lenses do get a little more difficult in medium format versions, but if you're willing to pay $4000+ for a 40/4 lens for your Hassy, you'll get good resolution!

 

If you dig around on the web you can find some good "hard" data on MF lens resolution. There's some data in the Medium Format Digest here.

I've even seen 70-75 lp/mm from an 80mm 3 element lens on a Yashica TLR that I tested (at around f8). That's pretty similar to the numbers you get from a decent 35mm lens and the numbers hold up over the area of a 35mm frame from the MF lens, though at the edges of the 6x6 frame, resolution does drop off.

 

There are no technical arguments for not using medium (or large) format (except DOF issues if you don't have tilts), the reasons for shooting 35mm are strictly practical (cost, size, weight, speed, convenience etc.).

[drc]

Actually Anthony i was'nt joking, and some of these somewhat unethical people i described had their work disqualified from their respective competions and (quite rightly) hid their toasty embarrased faces for quite a while afterwards. However, i dont agree, and i have done tests where it counts in the field (in real life conditions), and still i believe the Zeiss medium format we used optically outperform the equivalent 35 focal length versions. Beyond their outstanding optical resolution you also have to factor in the vastly superior performance of a qaulity leaf shutter in reducing vibration against the almost earthquake like performance of a 35mm focal plane. Further, and also working towards better resolution, are factors such as superior alignment and security of the film plane as a direct result of the finely engineered tolerances and design of the Hasselblad film backs, and generally in the build and fit of the whole camera in reducing vibration and subsequently improving image qaulity.Cheers!

[michael_j._kravit]

I use Nikon fast glass on my F5, Zeiss lenses on my Hassey, and Schneider glass on my 4x5/5x7 field camera. My Hasselblad/Zeiss FE110mm, f2.0 ($3800)(Yes, 2.0!) is one of the sharpest pieces of glass I own. I have never tested lenses nor do I ever want to, but my experience has proven to me that for the nost part good camera technique is just as important if not more than great glass.

[anthony_wong]

David and Bob,

 

I'm glad you both got my point and understand that I'm certainly not saying that a 35mm camera can make an equal or better image than a medium format camera (most things except price being equal) - I mean, hey, prints from my crappy old RB67 system blow away prints from my current Leica M6 system even with much slower film in the M6. (I'm just re-stating that point in case anyone else didn't get it).

<P>

What I am saying is that, (in response to David's anecdote about people cheating in a 35mm photo contest by using medium format cameras), in most cases, cutting out the middle 24x36mm of a 6x6 slide will <B>not</B> get you <B>better</B> results than a 35mm format negative made with a <i>similar quality</i> lens. It will probably get you <B><i>the same</i></b> results. To me that means Zeiss or Schnieder vs. Zeiss or Leica, or Pentax vs. Pentax. This is not meant as an offence to the necessity of medium format, but as a comment on how it is silly to enter 35mm contests with cut outs from medium format slides. David's comment about the benifits of the leaf shutter is, however, valid, especially if the photographer was using fill flash, but I think you guys are mistaken if you think that medium format lenses generally outperform 35mm lenses <I><B>in lines per millimeter on the film</B></I>. Even when they do, it's probably not significant because it's really the grain that's holding decent 35mm lenses back.

<P>.

Forgive me if I'm getting nit-picky here, Bob, but I assume that you might like a good in-depth discussion here, and I want to clarify a few things, otherwise you can ignore this. If you tell me that a Hassy 2.8 has more resovling power than a particular 35mm lens of the same focal length, I will believe you, but in general, this is not true. Your statement that "Good medium format lenses DON'T have lower resolution than 35mm lenses" is erroneous. I was also wrong to say that the Hassy lens would be "<I>significantly</I> less sharp", because it's not a difference you'd notice on a regular sized print or with regular film (at the same magnification of the film), but good medium format lenses do not really equal <I>the best</I> 35mm lenses in resolving power, as you stated. It is true that they CAN have better resolution than many 35mm lenses, and it's completely true that in normal practice, modern medium format lenses always record more information to film and thus make much better prints when you factor in the lesser enlargement. I'm sure you know that.

<P>

When I wrote my last comment, I used the Hassy 80mm as an example because it's a well known top performer, and I happened to be looking at Zeiss's published MTF graphs for the 80mm Planar T 2.8 CFE for Hasselblad, and the Zeiss Sonnar T 85mm 2.8 for the Contax SLR, and the Zeiss Planar T 85mm 1.4 for Contax SLR that day, as well as some independant reports of the Leica 75mm 1.4 being able to outresolve any film but tech-pan which records 300 lpmm. The official Zeiss MTF graphs show that both of those Zeiss 35mm format 85mm lenses are better, even wide open at f1.4 vs f2.8. This comparison holds up more dramatically with wider lenses. This is why: The lenses are made by Zeiss to the best of their engineering ability, but the medium format lens is more retro-focus (because of the big mirror) and has to cover more area, which means more dramatic bending of light and more glass which means more chromatic aberration and stray light for the middle part of the film in order to cover the outer part of the film. The reason Medium format comes out way ahead of 35mm is because 20% less resolution at 50% enlargement makes for a final picture with 160% of the details and half the grain.

<P>

I will digress for a moment, however, for a number of reasons. One, the Hassy 80mm is an amazing lens and performs well enough to make great 35mm slides (it's not very far behind it's 35mm cousins). Two, you have to excersize excellent technique (as per Mr Kravit's comment) in order to see the difference, anyway. Three, David's comments about the other factors involved involved making a good picture have shed new light on my point of view, but I still think you'd be very silly to start using a 'Blad to make 35mm slides if you've got a comparable quality 35mm camera with the same focal length lenses. I'd pick up the Hasselblad instead of a Pentax, though. Sorry this has less and less to do with nature photography, <BR>

Err... Use medium format for nature photography, but don't clip out 24mm x 36mm rectangles and enter them into photo contests!