Film medium format vs digital medium format / 35mm format?

[reza_bassiri]

Dear community

 

I own a P67 and a 5Dmarkii. Of course the "look" (of the pictures) is different between the two formats but the medium, the capture, the

whole thing is different. In the digital era, given that digital medium format is just a bigger sensor, is their more than just bigger size, better

quality, nicer depth of field, more realistic colours? Do you get get that 3D effect where your subject just pops out of the image the way it

used to in the film era and real medium format??? What's the real deal, has anyone gone from analog to digital and felt a certain loss in

this effet, or feel a certain flatness in the output (vs film medium format)

Thanks for your comments and reply, they will help me in deciding wether DMF is for me anytime soon.

Cheers

 

Reza

[hjoseph7]

<p>I hear some photographers are getting the 3D look with certain 35mm digital cameras combined with certain lenses such as the Carl Zeiss lenses...</p>

[dave_s]

<p>Reza, welcome to photo.net. New user asks inflammatory question-- you wouldn't be a troll, would you?</p>

<p>Any magical '3D' properties of film are a crock. Your subject will 'pop' if it's isolated by sharp focus and narrow depth of field, or possibly by field curvature. Leica fans often say their lenses have semimagical 3D properties too, and that is also a crock.</p>

<p>Film or digital, use whatever works for you. It's not even a very important question in terms of the end product.</p>

<p> </p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>Content, emotion, light, fresh ideas... that's what matters.</p>

<p>I've shot everything from film 35mm through DSLR's through 6x7, 4x5, and Medium Format digital. Cameras will make a little difference in the look and feel, but don't expect it to make the image for you. Camera changes haven't made better pictures for me, and I actually sold my MFDB because it got in the way of image making for my purposes. It made great images and I liked it, but the process actually impeded image making for me.</p>

[reza_bassiri]

Thanks Harry, I heard the same with the Zeiss lenses (fixed focal length and manual focus only).

Dave i'm no troll, just sharing a question that has been frustrating me for a while. I love my P67, its feel and the way I

shoot taking more time to get the perfect shot etc... With the 5Dii everything seems more flat, even at 1.4 with subject

isolated... In the end the question i ask you and myself is wether MFD is the same as 35mm but bigger or does it give the

image rendering traditional MF has... Because obviously, digital has some advantages over film. Thanks Sheldon, i totally agree with you. Could you please tell me more about the reasons you switched back from Digital MF to 35mm?

Cheers,

Reza

[predrag_vranic]

<p>digital would always appear flatter to some of us probably because the physical properties of digital sensors are like that - flat as glass.</p>

[mac_hordam]

<p><em>"digital would always appear flatter to some of us probably because the physical properties of digital sensors are like that - flat as glass."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I'm not even sure what that statement really means, are you? I do know that if your film isn't flat as glass in the camera you're not going to get it focussed properly. So if the ideal is that they're both "flat as glass" where does that leave your comment.</p>

<p><em>"....I love my P67, its feel and the way I shoot taking more time to get the perfect shot etc."</em></p>

<p>Why do so many people say this? What is it that stops someone from using a digital camera with the same care and time to get "the perfect shot"? Digital cameras will only take the picture when you press the shutter, you can take as much time as you like before that happens, it's in your control just as with film.</p>

<p>3D effect is an illusion nothing more nor less. I have an image taken with a Panasonic LX2 digicam which exhibits this illusion. It's because of the shadings and variations in the predominant greens in the picture. But it's an illusion and it doesn't repeat itself on any and all shots I take with the LX2. It's not the sole province of medium format film or large format film, it's an illusion we sometimes see and erroneously attribute to the medium.</p>

<p>If you're feeling your images are flat then by all means change to something that stops that feeling but it doesn't necessarily mean they're no longer flat. It's going to have a bigger effect on your mind's approach than on the image itself.</p>

[mike dixon]

<I> What is it that stops someone from using a digital camera with the same care and time to get "the perfect shot"?</I><p>

Laziness and/or a lack of self discipline. But it's easier to blame it on the evil, mind-controlling properties of digital cameras . . .

[reza_bassiri]

Dear Mike, There are things inherent to my workflow in MF, external lightmeter, change of film, tripod you know these

better than i do. Obviously it slows you down which can turn to your advantage. Yes you are absolutely right about

laziness although I don't feel i fall (too often) in that category. On the contrary i can wait for ever for the right moment. I

don't either blame it on the medium, all i have are doubts and questions. When discussing with top fashion pros in Paris,

France (where I live) they ALL say the same thing "digital being flatter" than the analog equivalent (they also say the

image is much more precise, clinical with DMF). that's a given, ok. I love digital by all means and would love to turn to

DMF but i still have the feeling it's not that crucial between high end 35mm and at least entry level DMF. If I don't get that

feeling of depth at any given fstop then there is no real reason for leaving a 35mm format and go DMF.

[Robin Smith]

<p>Reza,</p>

<p>I have a long history in 35mm and MF film cameras, but I no longer use either having gone digital. The qualities you talk about are not special to film cameras, and in general I find my current digital kit much more powerful than my film equipment ever was - in the sense that it is easier to obtain a result that matches my vision. I include in this digital processing, which even most film photographers end up using and no one can doubt its power. I do believe there is still something different about a black and white print from a darkroom, but I feel that digital color is just streets ahead of anything from the darkroom era.</p>

<p>There is, of course, though a difference in depth of field with an MF camera versus a 35mm digital simply due to the intrinsic reduction in depth of field that you see going from 35mm to MF. If you are commenting on this, then I agree with you. Your only recourse is to buy an MF digital camera if you are wanting the MF look with a digital camera.</p>

<p>Certainly if you have a Pentax 6x7 and a wet darkroom then you have a great setup and I think a still powerful tool. The issue from my point of view is the availability of good home MF scanners which in my general opinion do not do justice to the reasons why I had MF in the first place.</p>

[Christopher Sperry Photogr]

<p>Reza, You may find some insight that you seek in the how-to-articles by Darwin Wiggett.<br>

http://www.darwinwiggett.com/</p>

<p>Such as:<br>

http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0105/dw0105-1.html<br>

http://oopoomoo.com/2012/03/seven-advantages-of-using-tilt-shift-lenses/</p>

 

[randy_cooprider1]

<p>Reza, Could you borrow or rent the equipment which you are thinking will give you the look you are searching for? You may experience other factors that influence the final decision. If you can get a Canon lens (for your 5D) with maybe F1.4 capability and take some test pics at F1.4 to f2.8 the 3D quality might emerge.</p>

<p>Good luck</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>I have a darkroom at home where every blue moon I develop medium format and 35mm B&W film. There is a distinct advantage in the medium format enlargements in my opinion and they do have this creamy 3D type quality as opposed to 35mm film. It depends allot on what you are shooting though, so it's hard to pin it down to the camera, lens or size of the film. However it is noticeable.<br>

<br />When I purchased my first full frame 35mm digital camera I again saw a small distiction between that and my 35mm digital camera. I would think that this would also be the case with medium format digital cameras. What made/makes Leica lenses so great and expensive is that small distinction between them and other lenses.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

The experience of using the film

camera is different...so you

often get a different result.

Case in point...throw a 4" wide

beam, 50' long on the ground and

walk it. Now put the same beam

between 2 buildings, 60 stories

high. Same beam, different

experience.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Would be interesting and usefull though, if those of us who see what Harry described as <i>"creamy 3D type quality"</i> analyse and describe the things that make it different, can identify what it is that is describe using terms like "3D", or "creamy"?<br>Is it a difference in DoF, tonality, resolution, saturation, contrast? What?<br><br>Same for "flat".<br><br>Usefull, so we can stop using terms like "creamy", "3D" and "flat", and begin to call it what it is.

[m_m7]

<p>I prefer much more the colors of the film . While is still produced I will keep using it . Here are too shots ,first with a Canon G12 ,second with a Fuji MF .Not exactly what you had in mind (full frame digital) but I do not have the same shot with my 5D .Now I much more prefer the Fuji shot but my wife likes the other one ..</p><div></div>

[m_m7]

<p>And the other one from Fuji </p><div></div>

[donbright]

<p>Darwin Wiggett's article on the subject Film vs digital really spells it out, a very thorough to the point and efficient article. The methods of capturing the subject he seems to have hit all of points. After all is said, what remains is the picture. It's the appearance of the picture that boils down to taste. My preference is for the way film renders the colors in the majority of scenes for the purpose of the landscape. We know now that top end digital sensors are able to deliver higher dynamic range, or at least this has become a strong selling point. I'm wondering, how high does dynamic range have to get? Is high dynamic range the contributor to this," Flatness," that Reza in referring to? Then why not just shoot film. Yes post adds more dimension to elements in the scene, but to me it seems there is still a look of gradation to tones, and color that make a film result more appealing. Just as the digital guys are accused of being, "Pixel Peepers," a term that has a sarcastic element to it, film enthusiast seem to be accused of being sedentary, and backward simply because they prefer not to make the leap. A leap that is costly by the way, if one is spending that kind of money for a tool that they are not comfortable with, or confident with, well that is just the spiral of obsessive buying, film enthusiast are trying to avoid. That becomes a very expensive experiment. I would be very willing to fork it over for digital solution that provides the rich colors and tones that top films can provide, but I don't see it yet, and I'm always mindful that this is my issue that perhaps I'm just ignoring it because of not wanting to change. We film users live within a veil of fear of the inevitable that film is going to be gone. Yet there are many that say its not going away, confusing actually. I long for the day there is no film vs digital debate, I don't know exactly how we got to this point that there should even be a debate, except that some have strong convictions about various issues of Photography. Photography is multi faceted, it always has been. Different tools for different forms of capture via varied subjects. I hope there is something of interest in my post here. I hope we will continue to have the choice of film & digital.</p>

[klm1]

<p>The debate over film vs digital has always fascinated me. I think it amounts to little more than each faction believing the choice they have made will render the best results because it is the choice they prefer. Therefor there really is no debate, just passionate photographers all wanting to share what they think is the best format. <br>

For me I prefer film, regardless of the outcome or opinions of others. Film challenges me to a higher level for composition of the scene and what settings it will require. And for the most important part I love waiting in anticipation for the results.</p>

[wolf_rainer_schmalfuss]

<p>If you project your 6x7 slides with an GOETSCHMANN 6x7 slide projector on an very large screen, and the same digital images with an very good beamer, I know already for sure, who will be the champion in this competition!</p>

[sasvata__shash__chatterjee]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2224439">Wolf Rainer Schmalfuss</a>, Aug 12, 2012; 10:00 a.m.</p>

<p>If you project your 6x7 slides with an GOETSCHMANN 6x7 slide projector on an very large screen, and the same digital images with an very good beamer, I know already for sure, who will be the champion in this competition!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think Wolf is insinuating that the projected 6x7 is going to look better. Though my experience is limited to lots of projected 135 transparencies, and 120 with a Rollei projector, not 6x7, I have to agree that look is simply gorgeous, when properly exposed. Though, of late, digital resolution is no longer the question and dynamic range is greatly improved with the latest sensors, digital still has a crisper look compared to how the highlights transition more gently and subtly in film. But therein lies the rub. Though the look of a properly exposed and projected transparency (or on a light table) is hard to beat, slide film in today's world has a double whammy: it has less dynamic range than print film (i.e. in the area where film is better than digital), and slide film seems to be getting extinct at a faster pace than print film! In a master's hand a film-to-chemical print is still going to be something to gawk at, but that master has to be more than a master photographer, they have to be a master print maker as well. For the rest of us, we'd likely do better with a digital camera and a good image editor.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=449762">M M</a> , Aug 11, 2012; 07:00 a.m. I prefer much more the colors of the film . While is still produced I will keep using it . Here are too shots ,first with a Canon G12 ,second with a Fuji MF .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am not sure color has anything to do with this discussion. Assuming you shoot raw, you can likely get close to the same color rendition with the G12 as with your Fuji MF with judicious editing. And in any case, the color you got from the Fuji is related to the particular film you used and how it was scanned to digital, and would look quite different with a different film. There is no "right" rendition of color, and not everybody would pick a particular image as "the better/best" as long as they are all technically correct for exposure, etc.</p>

[m_m7]

<p>Yeah yeah,I was expecting this "can do everything " in raw.In reality you cannot ...That particular shot was using Velvia 100F.And no ,I cannot get the Provia,400H or Velvia. You get different look from digital.No better or worse just different </p>

[mac_hordam]

<p><em>"Yeah yeah,I was expecting this "can do everything " in raw"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em><br /></em>Care to point out where that was said?<br>

<br>

(Think twice before posting)</p>

[david_henderson]

<p> M M. I think both of your pictures have significant imperfections and I have to say that in general I'd prefer to discuss the pluses and minuses of each medium on images that are presented at their best. Here you are presenting a film image with a distracting heavy foreground shadow in comparison with a digital photograph that appears to be not very well processed. All of which gets in the way of any point you may have to make. </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>MM</p>

<p>Your two examples look to be taken at different times and/or different days, so are not directly comparable.</p>