Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: medium format "look"  (Read 18337 times)

madlantern

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 50
medium format "look"
« on: October 25, 2016, 02:16:58 am »

I had been under the impression of what gives medium format pictures their unique "look" was that their large crop factor (e.g. 0.7) allow them to use longer lenses for the same field of view. e.g. a 24mm being equivalent to a 16mm on a 35mm sensor


This would allow them to compress the subject more because of the longer focal length. However, I then I read this article: https://fstoppers.com/originals/lens-compression-doesnt-exist-147615


And apparent I was mistaken before. So what does give medium format photos their supposedly unique "look", or is that more myth than reality? Is it just high megapixels and the sheer amount of detail?
Logged

viewfinder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 124
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #1 on: October 25, 2016, 03:43:10 am »

In my view this was much more apparent during the film era than now.   I'm not sure that there actually is any real "look" with current equipement other than the quality in MF prints being slightly more visible......just my own personal view!

However, during much of the film era most pro work was made with Rollieflex and then Hassleblad cameras (and latterly others such as Mamiya) using a square format.   Although much pro work was cropped during printing the square shot from the full transparency or negative was very common and immediately contributed to a definite "look".

In addition, Rollie & Hassy were frequently used wih waist level viewfinders,...standard equipement on both cameras.  This provided a lower level view in much pro work that made for a specific "look.     Pentaprisms for these cameras were available but were both bulky and heavy, not to mention very expensive so many top users prefered the waist level use.   The canmera was typcially mounted on a tripod away from the photographers face the shutter being tripped while the operator was still looking at the subject not the viewfinder.   This enabled the photographer to keep both visual and emotional contact with the subject and this comes through in much or the best fashion and editorial work from the 60's as well as before and after this era.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #2 on: October 25, 2016, 09:51:12 am »

With film, I think it was to do with the finer grain you'd see (if you wanted that) for a given size of print, as well as the cropped formats you could pull from 6x6 or 6x7. Much square imagery was used and that, by itself, created a definite look to pictures, but one defined by shape rather than pure film granularity concerns. It's easier to crop a square orginal and make a vertical oblong one than vice versa, unless the intention was there during the shooting. I never found joy trying to make horizontals from 6x6. 135 formats, being that much smaller, don't usually allow the same level of cropping without loss of quality.

Digital MF is another matter, and as I have never owned such gear, I have nothing much to add, other than that cropping from a current, non-square MF digital image may not be that helpful at all. Cropping from digital 135 formats is much the same as it was for film: you end up losing a lot of real estate. Starting from a square, digital MF should logically offer whatever the film equivalent did. For those who would be able to afford and enjoy a square digital 'blad, I hope the design concept makes it through to production, but Mr Oosting didn't seem too convinced...

Having written all this, I suggest that in general, non-pro life, cropping from anything reasonable makes little difference to the final product: a picture you might like and enjoy working with in the computer. Do we all make gigantic prints? Do we even print much anymore? In film days, unless you shot trannies, you had to make prints in order to have anything you could look at. No longer the case.

All things equal, I would love a square digital 'blad for tripod work, and a smaller D700 for hand-held stuff. More pixels on 135 doesn't concern me at all; I no longer print for anyone, but if I did, I'd join the pixel race too, probably of necessity, in that quest for the magical quality we are discussing...

Rob

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5022
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #3 on: October 25, 2016, 12:07:42 pm »

Yes, the article is correct, in that shooting wide and cropping vs. shooting with a longer lens, you get pretty much the same exact rendering in respect to proportions and spatial relationships.  The only variation could be that the entrance pupil of a lens that is physically longer will be slightly further away, thus altering the composition a bit, but depending on the composition, may not even be noticeable. 

However, when you compare MF to 35mm, keep in mind that to get the same angle of view, you need a longer lens.  Longer lenses have less depth of field, which is not dependent on format size, only optics.  This will give you a different feel for the same angle of view.  This may not be apparent with the wider lenses, but once you get past normal, it will be more so. 

(If you compare say a 35mm image to the same angle of view from a 4x5 or 8x10, the differences will be even more apparent.) 

MF uses larger pixels to get the same resolution.  Larger pixels absorb more light, recording more information, and put less stress on the optics.  (Or I should say less stress on the people making the optics.)

Last, the color is better on MF.  I know many will disagree with me here, but I have compared files along with looking at MF and 35mm image from the same photographers, there is a difference.  I don't always notice it, but occasionally, the color will seem off in the 35mm images, most notably in wood grains. 
« Last Edit: October 25, 2016, 01:33:17 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

David Eichler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 823
    • San Francisco Architectural and Interior Photographer
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #4 on: October 25, 2016, 01:26:53 pm »

The more you enlarge an image, the more subtle midtones you lose, which I think still holds true with digital, as it did with film, although it seems to me the effect is generally less noticeable with digital. However, this will depend upon the particular image and the degree of enlargement. The result is that some images done with medium format will tend to exhibit smoother subtle tonal gradations than with small format, although the output medium may have an effect upon whether this difference translates to the viewer.
Logged

SZRitter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 384
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #5 on: October 25, 2016, 01:42:32 pm »

Part of it, at least to me, has to do with the ease of making optics for less reproduction ratios. At least, that is my understanding. To get equivalent sharpness out of the lens, MF didn't need the resolving power of 35mm. But, with modern processes, it seems that gap is almost gone.

Another advantage was down stream, once again with reproduction ratios between the negative and print. Bigger source materials = better print. Another thing digital has sort of altered, as it's less the size of sensor, and more the amount and quality of the data (i.e. MP and quality there of).
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #6 on: October 25, 2016, 03:05:30 pm »

Something I forgot to mention regarding look of MF pictures: the square shape almost forces concentration on the subject matter; there is often a valuable deduction of extraneous 'noise' fom the images made on 6x6. Unlike what's now popularly alluded to as negative space, square demands you know what your subject really is, and when you do, it leaves your viewer in no doubt either.

Maybe that's what made the LP cover so powerful a selling device.

Rob

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #7 on: October 25, 2016, 04:51:59 pm »

Hi,

It is more about the sensor area than the pixel size. It is really about photon statistics and it does not matter a lot if you distribute those photons over 20 M or 40 M pixels, but twice the sensor surface collects twice the number of photons if all other factors are the same. If you compare say the Sony A7rII and the Sony 100 MP sensor in the IQ3100, they have pretty similar pixel sizes but the IQ3100 has 2.38x time more of them. That gives an 54% advantage in signal/noise ratio.

With tonality there are two factors to the probable advantage to MF. With MFD it is a bit feasible that the CFA may be optimised for say D50 lighting and low ISO work. So balance between blue and red channels may be optimised for daylight, while DSLRs are possibly often optimised for mixed light conditions, like low colour temperatures or event fluorescent light.

The other factor may be surface area again, manipulating colour can increase noise, so the something like 40% advantage in Signal/Noise ratio may come handy.

This is a good posting on that issue: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1234124/2&year=2013#11744473

Best regards
Erik



MF uses larger pixels to get the same resolution.  Larger pixels absorb more light, recording more information, and put less stress on the optics.  (Or I should say less stress on the people making the optics.)

Last, the color is better on MF.  I know many will disagree with me here, but I have compared files along with looking at MF and 35mm image from the same photographers, there is a difference.  I don't always notice it, but occasionally, the color will seem off in the 35mm images, most notably in wood grains.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #8 on: October 25, 2016, 05:04:24 pm »

Hi,

The crop factor can be compensated by using larger apertures. So if you use a 50 mm lens at f/8 on a 24x36 mm camera it would give same DoF as an 80 mm lens at /f13 on a

But, MFD lenses are often quite usable at f/2.8 but many 24x36 mm are not so great at f/1.8. On the other hand we have some really excellent lenses from Zeiss and Sigma, like all the Otuses, the new Milvus 50/1.4 and 85/1.4, the Sigma Art 50/1.4 and the Batis lenses. All these new lenses have many elements and use liberal amount of SD glass.

Personally, I haven't seen any MFD look in my images but I seldom shoot at full aperture, more like f/8 on 24x36 and f/11 on MFD.

Best regards
Erik



I had been under the impression of what gives medium format pictures their unique "look" was that their large crop factor (e.g. 0.7) allow them to use longer lenses for the same field of view. e.g. a 24mm being equivalent to a 16mm on a 35mm sensor


This would allow them to compress the subject more because of the longer focal length. However, I then I read this article: https://fstoppers.com/originals/lens-compression-doesnt-exist-147615


And apparent I was mistaken before. So what does give medium format photos their supposedly unique "look", or is that more myth than reality? Is it just high megapixels and the sheer amount of detail?
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #9 on: October 25, 2016, 05:20:54 pm »

Hi Rob,

I would say that there is something to that. With the Hasselblad/P45+ combo i have a square view with the 37x49 mm sensor size shown by a transparent viewfinder mask. So I can see four compositions at the same time: 37x37, 37x49, 49x37 and the 55x55 mm (or so) 6x6 frame. With the P45+ I quite often shoot two images an stitch for near square. You see it in the viewfinder…

That said most of my images are still rectangular.

Today, we were hanging these prints at my office: https://echophoto.smugmug.com/KSU/Choosen/

They are mostly rectangular, two of the eleven where shot on MFD the rest on 24x36 digital (Sony Alpha 900, Alpha 99, A7rII).

The panos are printed at 0.9x3.0m and 0.9x4.0m, largest prints I ever made!

Best regards
Erik



Something I forgot to mention regarding look of MF pictures: the square shape almost forces concentration on the subject matter; there is often a valuable deduction of extraneous 'noise' fom the images made on 6x6. Unlike what's now popularly alluded to as negative space, square demands you know what your subject really is, and when you do, it leaves your viewer in no doubt either.

Maybe that's what made the LP cover so powerful a selling device.

Rob
« Last Edit: October 25, 2016, 05:29:37 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4210
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #10 on: October 25, 2016, 05:25:58 pm »

I believe in the MF Look.

But from my experience it's not related to any single factor. It's the cumulative effect of using a system that is entirely different from the average camera out there. Some factors I would call out specifically:
- Sensor size
- Pixel count
- Sensor design
- IR filter used
- Software
- Color Profile
- Lens design
- Lens quality
- Style of Shooting
- Viewfinder size

I'm short of time, so let's just pick three:
Style of Shooting... digital backs encourage you to shoot in a more considered manner. In theory one can slow down and think through the shot with any camera. In reality people are not machines and the camera in their hand influences their style.
Software... most medium format shooters (at least with Phase/Hassy) are using software that is developed down the hall from the camera itself. Those teams (hardware and software) interact from prototype onward. They drink together. They vacation together. They are incentivized to make the combination of their work sing.
Viewfinder Size... Once you've worked with a big bright medium format viewfinder it's hard to look through a small format camera's viewfinder. Composition is not an abstract process; it is a visceral interaction between the scene, your eye, and your mind. Composing through a larger viewfinder impacts the way you see, compose, and create a scene.

Nearly every thing about a Phase One system is different than a Canon system. I don't know why it would surprise anyone that it would create a different look. It's almost like saying a motorcycle and sports car lead to different driving experience - duh! Reducing it to a single factor is reductionist and, in my experience, wrong headed.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #11 on: October 25, 2016, 05:40:17 pm »

^^^ Nice post, Doug!

UlfKrentz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 530
    • http://www.shoots.de
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #12 on: October 25, 2016, 05:42:35 pm »

If I had to pick three that would be:

Style of shooting (obviously the most influencing parameter)
Sensor size
Lens design / look

I think the most important technical thing is the image ratio. Focus fall off is quite different with bigger size. That being said, we don´t really have a true MF size with digital. If you have been used to 6x7 or LF sizes it still does not compare.

Gandalf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 112
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #13 on: October 25, 2016, 05:55:33 pm »

I don't know MF, but I do use it sometimes. I don't think the medium format look is one factor, I think it is a combination of things. Size is one of those things for sure, but there are others. MFD isn't a cult, religion, or anything else. If you are an amateur it's art. If you are a pro it's a business decision. Personally, I can see the difference in my work and as much as I can't justify the expense I feel like I am delivering higher quality images and I spend less time in post. That is worth something to me.

Whether you can see a difference or not, you are right. Just because MF is better for some photographers doesn't automatically mean it is better for you.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #14 on: October 26, 2016, 01:15:55 am »

Hi,

I have pretty much the same shooting style with both MFD and 24x36 mm. With 24x36mm I also shoot action, never with the Hasselblad 555/ELD as I don't have a shutter button on that camera.

But generally, I always shoot on tripod whenever feasible. On the Hassy I mostly shoot f/11, because I struggle a bit with focusing. On the A7rII I mostly shoot at f/8. These are approximately equivalent apertures. Naturally, I change aperture for effect when needed. Why I use tripod? Because it helps me focus on composition and gives me some serenity when shooting.

I also develop both in Lightroom, with home made profiles.

What I have seen is that I can generally not say which camera was used for what image just by looking. The rare cases I directly compared the two systems I wouldn't say I saw a difference. Some lenses are better and some are less good, of course, but that applies to both systems.

My experience is with a P45+, it has same resolution as the A7rII in practice.

The aspect ratio doesn't really matter to me, as I almost always crop or stitch my images to subject, but I can often see that a more quadratic size is often more appropriate than more rectangular formats.

So, no, with my kind of shooting I don't think there is an MFD look.

But, would I do large aperture shooting for short DoF or had the policy to compose for sensor format it may be different.

I have not used any MFD than the P45+, but whatever the sensor or sensor size, the same physics still apply, so I don't think there was more of an MFD look with modern sensors.

High end sensors like the IQ3100 MP obviously can show a tremendous amount of detail when paired with excellent lenses, of course, but I would be pretty sure that we need print large to observe that advantage.

Which of these images has an MFD look?








Best regards
Erik

The answers: #2 and #5 from top are MFD, #1 is Sony A7rII stitched, #3 and #4 are a7rII and #6 is Sony Alpha 99 SLT.

If I had to pick three that would be:

Style of shooting (obviously the most influencing parameter)
Sensor size
Lens design / look

I think the most important technical thing is the image ratio. Focus fall off is quite different with bigger size. That being said, we don´t really have a true MF size with digital. If you have been used to 6x7 or LF sizes it still does not compare.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2016, 03:04:52 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

UlfKrentz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 530
    • http://www.shoots.de
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #15 on: October 26, 2016, 03:07:20 am »

snip

The aspect ratio doesn't really matter to me, as I almost always crop or stitch my images to subject, but I can often see that a more quadratic size is often more appropriate than more rectangular formats.

snip

Just for the record, I was talking about about image ratio, not aspect ratio. Of course aspect ratio needs to be adjusted for the intended use. The image ratio (how big the object is projected on film or sensor, so the relation of object size to image size) is quite influential. I remember a portraiture we shot on 8x10 inch B/W polaroid, the image was printed in a size of only may be 1,5x2 inches but no matter how I would have tried I would have never been able to recreate that look with a small format. If stepped down like in your examples the difference might be negligible.

Dustbak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2442
    • Pepperanddust
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #16 on: October 26, 2016, 04:53:18 am »


Which of these images has an MFD look?

Best regards
Erik

The answers: #2 and #5 from top are MFD, #1 is Sony A7rII stitched, #3 and #4 are a7rII and #6 is Sony Alpha 99 SLT.

I picked 2, 3 and 5. Naturally on websize images you can pick a wrong one but still apparently there is something that differentiates numbers 2 & 5 from the others. This question pop up every now and than over the last 10 (or more years). I don't know what makes MF look MF or even whether it exists. I only know I grab the HB every occasion I can, I enjoy working with MF. The FF I also enjoy working with but it is different. The image basically all end up in pixels :)
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4388
    • Pieter Kers
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #17 on: October 26, 2016, 05:11:05 am »

I agree with Erik,

shooting style - i do both architecture and lowlight action photography;
It is hard to do that both with a MF camera but you can do it with FF with great results.

Lens design/ look; when using FF you will have to pay for good optics to get the image quality of the equally expensive MF lenses. (think Otus)
By using FF you have far more choice in finding the specific lens you need.

Software: Nikon and Canon make their own software for the camera's/lenses - I prefer Lightroom for my d810 but in some cases the color of nikons NXD is better.

I have always liked the many creative options of FF/ 35mm.
My latest addition is a 300mm f4 PF lens; 800 grams and stunning image quality+ VR (1/40s= sharp)

I have worked with 4x5 inch, MF and 35mm.
On the D810 i can do a splitview; look in detail to both sides of my image to check @100% the sharpness/ depth of field. One push of a button and i see the central area.
Very nice - especially with TS lenses when using tilt.


« Last Edit: October 26, 2016, 05:14:59 am by kers »
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4388
    • Pieter Kers
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #18 on: October 26, 2016, 05:24:59 am »

...
The answers: #2 and #5 from top are MFD, #1 is Sony A7rII stitched, #3 and #4 are a7rII and #6 is Sony Alpha 99 SLT.

I would have chosen  3 and 5.

Why;
They are softer in contrast than the others.
They look like a classic landscape photo- they seem to be taken more thoughtful and with more patience ( look less like snapshots)
They look more post processed than the other images.

Are these qualities of the type of camera?... no
in image 5 two photographers seem to be in the wrong place :)




Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #19 on: October 26, 2016, 11:19:17 am »

Hi,

These two were the MFD images:

The first one is a quite deliberate image.


This one was made in great haste. It was my first real world (non testing) image on the P45+, that lighthouse is one of my favourite spots. I saw that sailboat on way when I arrived at the place, set up tripod, camera and lens and just got the shot.



Best regards
Erik
« Last Edit: October 26, 2016, 02:29:01 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up