Getting better results from medium format film...

[AlanKlein]

<p>I develop my MF film in a pro lab and scan myself on a flat bed Epson V600. I don't print much now. I love using MF (Mamiya RB67 6x7) because I think my work is better. I don't bother with 35mm film. I use a digital (P&S and MFS) for travel, family shots and stuff like that. <br>

With MF, I think more, and create better. I slow down. I like the feel and the way it operates. I like using a separate light meter. I like the whole process. Since I'm not a pro, the advantages of digital are a side issue.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Jason the MF shot is very nice. Much better than the 35mm both in tonal and resolution and in composition. There might be a correctable color tint, but I might be mistaken on that.</p>

[hnl_imaging]

<p>David, thanks.<br>

Alan, those are some of the reasons why I actually still use film at all, and why I bought the 645. I was really thinking that in some ways, the different shooting experience would push my way of seeing and working a bit. I almost wanted to do LF but my wife and kids don't have that kind of patience. Unfortunately I only get to shoot when on vacation. I use my P&S for everyday snapshots. And you are right, at least by my eye there is a magenta type color cast to the MF photo. I took the same shot on my K200 with a smc 35/3.5 lens which showed a much more pronounced color cast than the film shot does. I put images up straight off the scans from the lab. </p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't print much now</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jason is talking about seeing an objective difference MF to 35mm with the prints he's getting. The point of slowing down etc is significant for photography as a whole but not really for the MF/35mm question: after all one can slow down shoot on a tripod with 35mm too: this is a state of mind. Liking the whole process of MF photography is a different thing from objectively comparing print quality (independent of subject matter).</p>

[hnl_imaging]

<p>Robin, yes, that is the idea. I was really looking for a difference in perspective that I have been led to think was due to the physical size of the lenses and recording medium. I also wanted the different format and view finder... In reality for the last bit I should have gone with a 6x6 TLR or Hassleblad but I couldn't afford it. The 645 still has a bigger view finder than my aps-c or 35mm, at least it seems to.<br>

I know you can just use a tripod. I have actually been doing this. I was hoping for the depth you get. I see a lot of hassleblad b&w stuff that looks like you could actually talk to the person in the image, it just has a depth that I assumed was in the optics not so much the resolution... It didn't look as compressed as the 35mm stuff I am used to seeing that looks so ordinary. Is there a way to get that kind of look?</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Medium format can, and does, deliver results which are manifestly an improvement on 35mm. My favourite MF cameras are my Mamiya TLRs. As noted above: use a tripod; be precise about metering; process your own film and be very exact about development. It will pay dividends.</p>

[hnl_imaging]

<p>Dave Henderson, I really like your gallery! Wish I could do even an 8th of the quality of work you do! and that has been one of my problems, getting the time and ability to perfect the lab processes is beyond what I can do at the moment so i would definitely get worse results than I am with a lab. Unless for some reason learning that flatbed scanner is really of some use... </p>

[AlanKlein]

Robin mf is much better than 35mm when it comes to

prints. Although I'm not printing lately, 90 percent of

these were wet printed 16x20". On many of them you

can't even see the grain. So yes mm f peons better

than 35 mm.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/sets/72

157625476289859

[david_henderson]

<p>Thanks. I have a flatbed scanner myself. I use it for digitising MF transparencies , negs and the occasional small monochrome print--</p>

<ul>

<li>For my website</li>

<li>When I need to send material to a stock agency to select or reject</li>

<li>For any screen -based application from emailing a photograph to a friend to illustrating a point on Photo.net.</li>

<li>For making scans to make pages up to 12" x 12" for self-published Blurb books.</li>

</ul>

<p>So my V700 gets some use but not daily. And if you accept its limitations and work within them , you can get decent results at a not unreasonable cost. I used to have a Nikon 9000ED film scanner too, but when I found sources of Imacon scanning at about £5 a slide, cleaned, my strategy became to put the small quantity of high quality scans I need to external services , and do the easier stuff myself.</p>

[kivivuori]

<p><br /><br />I agree 100% with Chris Walker. Period.<br /><br /><br />BR<br /><br />Esa Kivivuori</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Alan,</p>

<p>Of course, I agree, but OP was talking about scans from a lab and being disappointed. My experience is that lab scans are often disappointing and that the difference between 35mm is less than you might expect a priori when looking at typical scans. I found the same with MF prints made in commercial labs at smallish enlargements. The care and pride in output is often lacking. If you do your own printing and developing you are onto a good thing. I contend (with Rodeo) that MF film is not really worth it if you are aiming for a good digital file as you might as well go straight to digital in the first place. But having said this, I think David H's strategy is a good one, but you will need a good lab for your Imacon scans, and the $$ and hassle mounts up. As you can probably tell, I gave up all my MF work (in 2009)!</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Robin: Good point. I use MF becuase I bought the equipment about twenty-five years ago for around $8-9,000. I used it for awhile and then it sat in the closet for years depreciating in value as digital equipment kicked in. I thought I should have sold it but just never got around too. <br /><br />Then, one day I decided to shoot again and began to enjoy it. I never did buy an DSLR and really didn;t want to carry around heavy equipment on trips, vacations, and parties. So my P&S and MFT sufficed for those occasions. I use the MF equipment when I go out to just shoot. It relaxes me and I enjoy working with a tripod, meter and the equipment and the film. It's good Karma for me. Relaxing if heavy. And most of all I think I do better work. Nothing wrong with DSLR. I suppose I could do better, work with it but that's not totally important to me at this time. I just don;t want to spend a lot of money again for a lot of heavy equipment I won't carry with me other than on special photo projects. So for those special projects, I'm using the MF equipment I have and paid for a long time ago. <br /><br />Regarding the OP, if he's shooting film, MF will give better prints, tonal values, easier to scan, etc than 35mm.</p>

[scott_murphy5]

<p>When properly applied, medium format will blow 35mm out of the water in terms of quality. But you do need to use a tripod whenever possible. I do not shoot color with my Hasselblad any more, instead shooting pretty much Kodak T-Max 100 exclusively. I do have a darkroom and process my own film and have a Nikon LS-8000 scanner and the quality is outstanding. <em><strong>Nothing</strong></em> beats a medium format negative printed on top quality B&W paper like Oriental Seagull.</p>

[randall_pukalo]

I see a HUGE difference in quality between the two images in terms of sharpness, don't you? Try posting same shot images, as your 35mm sample is poorly

focused and has very little depth of field. If you try the same shot with each while using a tripod you will see a massive difference in sharpness and resolution

for landscape or other high detail scenes.

Also, for both shots posted you should be using slide film. Not a portrait negative film. This change alone will greatly improve both your 35mm and 645

landscape images. And when you get back your 645 slides you will most certainly be impressed they will be works of art unto themselves and you will

appreciate medium format. And shooting slide film creates a tangible, real, beautiful object that digital does not. Not saying better than digital, it is not, just

unique, different, and beautiful.

[hnl_imaging]

<p>I finally got a chance to make some prints... cheap prints from costco... At any rate, in print, I definitely see a difference between the medium format with Portra 160 and 135 of the same film. Some photographs of my girls, the scans look kind of bad, but the prints actually look quite good at 8x10. I had some prints I also printed a shot that was done with the 645 on panf 50 and also on my K200D with a limited series lens. The results are kind of interesting, the film image does seem to have a bit better sharpness and tonality is better, it displays quite a bit more grain however. I spent quite a bit of time looking at medium format images in various places last night and I'm noticing that I seem to be getting quite a bit more grain from any of my films than many seem to be getting. I am wondering if there is a way to lessen this? I have also seen very good results from Epson V500, 550, 600, and 700 scanners on the web. ( I actually have a few rather large prints from 35mm film that were scanned with one, but the guy I had print them was a very good fine art reproduction printer...). <br>

Is there some good method of exposing the film and/or working with a lab to get a more dense negative?</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Get real optical prints from Bluemoon Camera, you will see a big difference, smooth, tight grain, great tones:<br>

http://www.bluemooncamera.com/120MachineENL.php</p>

[ondebanks]

 

<blockquote>

<p>your Pentax pic is very pixelated, its scanned at low resolution and blown up in software, its a lousy scan job and not a problem of the camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I totally agree with Mag's assessment - that 645 shot has much more to give, with better scanning.<br>

In contrast, while the plane of focus of the 35mm shot is narrow and only about 10 feet from the camera (well short of the gent standing in the scene), the relative lack of resolution in this plane and the grainier appearance are both obvious.</p>