Imitating look of MF or 5 x7 with digital

[robert_landis]

Hi all, thanks for your input.

 

I am drawn to photo's I see which are made in other formats from DSLR, such as MF, and 5 x 7. I don't have the time or resources to get

into using film or very expensive cameras. (I am using a D7000 with 35 1.8, and 50 1.4 at present, waiting for a ?D600).

Is it just a matter of cropping correctly to get a 5 x7 appearance or a MF appearance? Does a MF or view camera with an 80 mm lens

give the same view as a DSLR? How could I create a 5 x7, etc. appearing image with a DSLR?

 

Thanks again for clarifying. My question may reveal the gaps in my knowledge- I welcome any wisdom you have to offer.

[Matt Laur]

<p>The best way to start answering the question is to ask yourself what <em>specifically</em> you're seeing that you like. Is it simply the aspect ratio of the image (the 5x7 vs. 2x3 format)? Is it depth-of-field-related artifacts (very shallow, for example), or is it the level of detail? Are you talking about looking in-person at very large prints made by very experienced people, or are you looking at modest web-sized images that have been scanned and posted online? When you're looking at MF images, are you looking at those shot on film, or those shot on a digital MF back?<br /><br />Half the battle, here, is understanding what it is about the image that's really talking to you. Quite possibly, you're looking at images taken by people who are - in using the more unweildly larger formats - doing so in the course of very deliberate shooting ... where they are also very deliberate about their compositions, their use and modification of the light, etc.<br /><br />Can you provide links to a few examples of the images that are talking to you? That would help to drive the convesation.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Robert: as Matt says, it depends what aspect of other formats you're looking for.<br />

<br />

An 80mm lens on a larger format will give a wider angle of view than on DX (or FX), because the recording area is larger:<br/ >

An 80mm lens on a 5" x 7" camera will give the angle of view on the short edge (we're talking about cropping the long edge to the same aspect ratio, so I'll ignore that) of a 15mm lens on an FX camera (5 inches is about 5.3x the height of an FX frame - 24mm), and about a 10mm lens on a DX camera (5 inches is about 7.9x the height of a DX frame - 16mm).<br />

An 80mm lens on a 6cm x 7cm medium format camera (like a Mamiya 7) gives the angle of view on the short edge of a 32mm lens used on an FX camera, or a 21mm lens on DX.<br />

In 645 medium format, which is also roughly the size of the largest digital backs, an 80mm lens gives the short-edge angle of view of a 43mm lens on FX, or a 28mm lens on DX.<br />

All these sizes would assume you were shooting the whole film area - actually a little is lost from the edges, unlike DX and FX, so the correspending lenses on the smaller cameras would be very slightly longer than this.<br />

<br />

Conversely, if you want the angle of view of an 80mm lens as used on an FX camera, but using a 5x7, you need a 424mm lens (5x3, the crop factor mentioned above, times 80mm).<br />

<br />

If you want similar looking images in terms of depth of field, you need to scale the aperture by the crop factor. Let's say we're wanting a "normal" angle of view (roughly 45 degrees across the diagonal). In 5x7 format, that's an 8.6" lens, or roughly 218mm - let's call it a 210mm lens, because these are made. Such a lens might be f/5.6, wide open. If we were to use it in this way, we'd get the same angle of view if we used a 40mm lens on FX, and shot at f/1.06 (5.6/5.3 = 1.06) - of course, there aren't many lenses this fast out there. Hence the apparent tiny depth of field of larger formats; it's more common to stop down significantly on larger formats (f/16 on a 5x7 is f/3 on FX).<br />

<br />

Summary: match the aspect ratio and use a much larger aperture (shallower depth of field) and you'll probably get what you're looking for, unless you're just after very detailed images.<br />

<br />

Large format cameras have another trick: most have shift and tilt control (this is rarer in medium format). To an extent you may be able to duplicate this in an image editor with a combination of deliberate blurring and focus stacking. Or you could get a tilt-shift lens for your DSLR but they're not cheap.<br />

<br />

Finally, if you're just after a "vintage" effect, you could try adding a small amount of gaussian blur to your images to represent undercorrected spherical aberration, and add some vignetting in an image editor. You can apply a sepia effect there too, if that floats your boat.<br />

<br />

Of course, you might be able to pick up a real medium format camera for less than you'd think, especially if you don't care about a meter. I have a Pentax 645 which is almost modern; a cheap TLR needn't be expensive, especially if you use your DSLR as a meter.<br />

<br />

I hope that helps - but if you have specifics, we may be able to advise better.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Could you provide a link to a photo that shows what this MF/5x7 appearance looks like? Or are you just referring to the focal crop factor?</p>

[robert_landis]

<p>Thanks so far.<br>

As far as examples, three come to mind. I believe Robert Adams used a 5 X 7 camera ( I think) for his "The New West" series. I'm not sure what focal length and what that translates to in a 35mm lens. Another would be Martin Parr- I believe his earlier work ( again - I think) was a medium format but it seems like those are almost "street photos" even though they were MF with flash. i don't think they were as thought out as Adams or Soth, but more spontaneous.<br>

An example with a 8 X 10 would be Alec Soth- specifically his portraits which are not head shots, but full length.<br>

I really appreciate your input.<br>

I realize we're just speaking about equipment, and not framing, vision, etc.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>So you've mentioned who uses those formats, but you're not mentioning what it is about the actual images you're referring to. Surely it's not as simple as the shape of the rectangle. Can you be more specific?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Well, I've had a look <a href="http://artgallery.yale.edu/adams/group.php?id=9047">here</a> at Robert Adams' work, and <a href="http://www.martinparr.com/index1.html">here</a> for Martin Parr's. I'm not sure I see anything about either that screams that it was shot on a particular format except possibly the framing, at least at screen size. Admittedly, the main reason you can tell Ansel Adams used a 10x8 for some of his shots is the detail in a contact print (I should say "allegedly" since I've never actually seen one), I would guess the same is true of Alec Soth - although I'm struggling to find good samples of his work (I'm so uneducated, photographically!)<br />

<br />

If there are specific effects you're trying to reproduce, we might be able to help, though.</p>

[robert_landis]

<p>Thanks again. You're really making me think. ( That's a good thing!) I can't articulate necessarily why I like certain things, but I know I like them. Maybe the format is not as relevant? ( How relevant is the format?) Could any of these or other photographer/artists make photographs with varied cameras and still have us take one look and recognize the work?<br>

I know the detail will be better in MF or 8x10. I know that by adjusting the aperture and the focal length you can adjust the "background detail"/bokeh. But, there must be a reason why anybody uses what they do. Why haul around a larger camera with film when a DLSR will give you a great image?<br>

I guess part of my question relates to the art of photography- how does someone take a seemingly random shot at a summer beach and make a image that is almost profound as opposed to a snapshot? I know it is about both subject/ content and framing, balance, lines that draw your eye, etc. How does one make a portrait that becomes more than that- a haunting image that you never forget? In Robert Adams case- a picture of an isolated empty lot that represents the changing of the West?<br>

Sorry to be philosophical here, but I am really trying to understand this stuff.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

People used large format and medium format because of the greater sharpness and tonal gradations they would get. That was a result of less enlargening required for a given size print. Think of what happens to the printing on a balloon when you blow it up.

 

"How can I use a 35mm camera to make a photo that would look the same as an Ansel Adams 8x10 contact print?"

 

You can't.

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>how does someone take a seemingly random shot at a summer beach and make a image that is almost profound as opposed to a snapshot? I know it is about both subject/ content and framing, balance, lines that draw your eye, etc. How does one make a portrait that becomes more than that- a haunting image that you never forget?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />These are good questions, but they aren't specific to equipment. People make equipment choices based on what works for them, or for clients if it's commercial work, but you can make an image at the beach that is profound with a phone camera, for example. Same things with portraits, personality and handling of the subjects are going to be far more important than equipment. <br>

<br>

And, as James points out, the larger formats are primarily used for technical quality, which is very different from image quality. I would add to James' comment that camera movements with a variety of lenses is a reason for going to larger formats in some cases.</p>

[phule]

<p>"How can I use a 35mm camera to make a photo that would look the same as an Ansel Adams 8x10 contact print?"<br>

[[You can't.]]</p>

<p>Only if you limit yourself to a single photograph. </p>

<p> </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>I know the detail will be better in MF or 8x10. I know that by adjusting the aperture and the focal length you can adjust the "background detail"/bokeh. But, there must be a reason why anybody uses what they do. Why haul around a larger camera with film when a DSLR will give you a great image?</blockquote>

 

<p>Bear in mind there's an historical component to these questions. Films have got much better at being fine grained and retaining tonal range over time. When the grain is the size of golf balls, the larger the film format the less grainy it appears (because the film grain is smaller relative to the size of the image). Modern 35mm stock is much better than what was available to Ansel Adams when he started out; he started with a 10x8 and moved to medium format over time. At any given point in time the larger formats will have the advantage, but there are diminishing returns.<br />

<br />

Even in digital, the highest-end medium format backs will get you between 80 and 200 megapixels (depending on how you're counting). They're expensive, slow, and actually getting this much useful data out of an image takes considerable effort and technique. This isn't anything special about the format - owners of Nikon's 36MP D800 are discovering exactly the same thing. A large format scanning back can easily top 200 megapixels, with the proviso that it doesn't work if the subject is moving. Film still has some advantages here - a high resolution (drum) scan of a 10x8 sheet of film has extraordinary resolution, and can capture a single instant. Some films can also capture an extraordinarily high dynamic range (others don't). And, of course, the larger your format the less significant diffraction is to you.<br />

<br />

On the other hand, getting a long telephoto lens onto a large format camera is really unwieldy (remembering that even the equivalent of a 200mm lens might be over 1m long), and there aren't the range of very fast lenses that are available for smaller formats. For some subjects, smaller formats are genuinely the best choice, not just for convenience. But if you want a tack-sharp landscape image blown up to fill your wall, DX won't cut it. For what it's worth, I still plan to pick up a 5x4 camera some day.</p>

 

<blockquote>Maybe the format is not as relevant? ( How relevant is the format?) Could any of these or other photographer/artists make photographs with varied cameras and still have us take one look and recognize the work?</blockquote>

 

<p>Ansel certainly switched formats; I'd say his style was still recognizable, though it also changed over time. Could he capture the level of detail in his larger Yosemite images using a smaller format? Maybe, with modern equipment; maybe not. Maybe you could get close enough that it wouldn't matter (at least to a less discerning viewer - "good enough for the internet..."), though. Could Cartier-Bresson have shot with a 10x8 and got the same results? Not practically.<br />

<br />

Equipment doesn't make a style, but the right equipment for the job matters. As modern equipment gets more capable, it's less important to specialise - but even so, I'd not try to take a 10x8 into the Olympics 100mm final, and I'd not expect my cell phone camera to do Yosemite justice (even if it's a Nokia 808).<br />

<br />

Disclaimer: My opinions may be gibberish.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I'd not try to take a 10x8 into the Olympics 100mm final</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's something I would like to try!</p>

<p>(I assume you mean 100 metres rather than 100mm!)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>(I assume you mean 100 metres rather than 100mm!)</blockquote>

 

<p>Oops. Do you know, I sometimes think I spend too long looking at lens specifications? :-)</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>It would be a short race!</p>

[James G. Dainis]

Convenience gives way to quality. Take a look at 1950s early 1960s sports events and you will see most of the pro photographers using 4x5 Speed/Crown Graphics. The convenience of small film far outweighed the better quality of larger film and digital convenience now outweighs that of film altogether. For offset printing in newspapers and magazines the quality of the original capture is going to be reduced anyway.