the 3D effect in MF digital

[JeffKohn]

The optics on the MF cameras combined with the larger sensors also exhibit that mid-tone detail that seems to have the same properties. I think it is described as contrast vs. resolution in inferior optical design. In other words, when designing cheap optics, (read: canon, nikon etc.), manufactures have to choose contrast to make up for poor rendering of detail. Leica, and Zeiss etc. have a different customer base and can build better optics without and or less of this compromise. I would imagine that the MF cameras all have optics that measure up to this higher standard. Please forgive me if I have the terms contrast, sharpness, detail, resolution mixed up, but I think you get my meaning.

I guess if you're talking about cheap consumer kit lenses you may have a point. But there are plenty of 35mm-format optics that out-resolve the typical MF lenses as far as pure lp/mm, made not only by Nikon and Canon in their professional glass, but also Zeiss et al.

[uaiomex]

This is certainly true. Years ago, we compared a "35" Nikkor 105 to a LF 105 El-Nikkor. Shot same place, same view, same hour, same tripod. Both processing were made within the hour. F stops I can't exactly remember but I'm positive they were around optimal. We put both Velvia transparencies on the light table. Appart from the different perspectives (one was mild telephoto and the other one mild wide-angle), sheer lp/mm was vastly superior from the 35mm transparency. Being from a telephoto lens I gave it a slight advantage but not enough to compensate for the huge superiority in resolution from the 35 slide. Suffice to say, the 4X5 transparency was way superior to the 35 slide both printed at 16X20".
Eduardo

I guess if you're talking about cheap consumer kit lenses you may have a point. But there are plenty of 35mm-format optics that out-resolve the typical MF lenses as far as pure lp/mm, made not only by Nikon and Canon in their professional glass, but also Zeiss et al.

[cyberean]

Was there a point you were trying to make?

yes.  there is a flip side to the characterization presented.
... and it's not as shiny as the presented characterization.

[JeffKohn]

This is certainly true. Years ago, we compared a "35" Nikkor 105 to a LF 105 El-Nikkor. Shot same place, same view, same hour, same tripod. Both processing were made within the hour. F stops I can't exactly remember but I'm positive they were around optimal. We put both Velvia transparencies on the light table. Appart from the different perspectives (one was mild telephoto and the other one mild wide-angle), sheer lp/mm was vastly superior from the 35mm transparency. Being from a telephoto lens I gave it a slight advantage but not enough to compensate for the huge superiority in resolution from the 35 slide. Suffice to say, the 4X5 transparency was way superior to the 35 slide both printed at 16X20".
Eduardo

No doubt the larger format has an advantage in resolution, whether we're talking film or digital. I'm not saying 35mm is just as good as MF. But the question this thread asks is about the "3D quality" some say MF has over smaller formats, and I don't think it can be argued that this has anything to do with MF lenses being sharper.

My personal feeling is that if there's a 3D quality, it comes down to DOF and really only applies to shots with shallow DOF. It's easier to get a shallow DOF with a larger format, and with the longer lenses that MF uses for a given FOV, the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus will be different than with a smaller format using a shorter lens (even if that shorter lens has a very fast aperture).

For shots where the DOF goes pretty much to infinity (eg landscapes shot with stopped-down aperture), I don't think the "3D advantage" is there. I am not saying the MF shot won't be better in some ways (it will certainly print larger before the detail starts to fall apart), but I don't think it's a matter of the MF landscape being more "3D".

[bcooter]

Well, I'm sure I don't tell you any news. But, sorry, the generalized story of the dentists is getting old… at least little bit ;-)

I also mentioned heart surgeons.

Be cool, I'm not knocking dentists, heck one of the best photographers I've ever seen was a dentist and I've heard that Howard Schatz was an eye surgeon or something like that.

It brings up the ol' joke, how to make a small fortune in photography . . .  start with a large fortune.

One of the kids that works for me said his girlfriend is trying to decide to run in At-Edge, or Le-Book or both.  Heck she's 4 years old and she's got the family money to drop $20,000 in marketing, hoping to get a rep, hoping to get famous, etc. etc. etc.

In fact most of the photographers I know would love to just go have fun with cameras but the toothpaste is out of the tube and professional photography, even simple professional photography that is good enough to move you forward costs money.

So when you think, OK, I'm going to shoot ___(fill in the blanks here)____and go out to the desert, then you start thinking, ok well, I guess I should take some models, yea and we also need a stylist, props, wardrobe, then that fun idea becomes a $5,000 to $10,000 idea and money starts to screw up everything, cause then you think crap if I'm going to spend 10 grand then I guess they better be wearing jeans, or bras, or maybe carrying a prop because then I can present to Nike, or Levi's or somebody that pays real money, then of course now your shooting a spec job, no matter how you cut it and once your brain is full of that, then you have to make sure they're smiling, at least sometimes, so it becomes marginalized and any professional that doesn't go through this thought process is either an heir to Pepsico or is stoned.

So, as a professional, when I see those guys stomping around in the woods all the tripods 6 feet from each other it looks like fun, though I think it probably would be a good idea if they moved away from each other and found their own shot, but hey, it's their gig, not mine.

But let's be realistic these expensive specialty cameras are becoming much less a tool for professionals and much more a hobby for rich guys (and girls).  Leica has know this forever (that's why that Lecia guy wears his signature shoulder sweater), I'm positive Hasselblad sells a lot of cameras to the Brentwood group and Phase has recognized this, that's why that Podas thing happened.  

There is only three things wrong with the Podas marketing effort  and first is the name.  I just can't help but think podass which sounds like some kind of underground, alternative music group from Louisiana.  "Tonight's musical guest . . . PODASS."  The second thing Phase missed on was the production values.  If your gonna take a some well heeled guys out on the road with some models, take a few assistants, some foam core, a generator and maybe a stylist so they can shoot something really interesting, not just a small softbox and a battery flash.  In fact try to make it so they can get the shot of their lifetime.  The third thing with Podas is that blog.  Somebody needs to tell whoever did that blog to make sure all the production stills are in black and white and labeled production stills.  That way none of the pixel boys looks at those photos and says "huh, a $50,000 camera for snapshots".

But back to the original point of this thread, the 3d thing.  I don't believe in the 3d thing, never have unless your printing an art book in gravure with spot varnish.  That looks almost 3d but still cameras don't shoot 3d and the difference between a ok photo, a good photo and a great photo has a lot less to do with the camera than most people think.

In fact I believe the digital era of photography will be known as the over detailed, over sharpened generation.

Even if your a dentist.

IMO

BC

[shelby_lewis]

I also mentioned heart surgeons.

Hey BC... funny post, but I'm not sure you got the gist of the original disagreement with your "dentists" post... ie, there are guys who don't just shoot fashion/people out there, to whom that last little, nearly imperceptible, 2% of quality matters for their subject matter. Landscape and Architectural photography comes to mind.

So, throwing the whole vibe that MF only exists to serve dentists and heart surgeons is demeaning to those who are actually served by its advantages. Besides, who cares what a bunch of amateurs are doing around the MF camera department at Samy's? Does a synopsis of who stands around the MF camera department there dictate who should be using the gear? I love your posts, but man, they are like throwing a wet blanket on the folks who actually like using that gear (for reasons not in your rubric of correct camera usage).

But we're getting away from the discussion about "3d effect".

I can see it and have never owned anything digital but 35mm stuff. Using the ZA 135/1.8 or the Sigma 50/1.4 on a Sony a900 always got me wwwaaayyyy more "3d-ness" than anything else on the canon system... save the 85/1.2 (kind of). So I do believe the lenses are a serious contributor to the look as well. That doesn't help the case for MF being more 3D... but the a900 does have a pretty dense CFA (like MF digital), so color separation probably also plays a role as well.

[asf]

Wayne Maser was a dentist. At least when I was involved in the fashion world (long long ago) that's what the assistants all called him. The Dentist.

The majority of long term successful commercial photogs I know came from money. Most of the top fashion photogs, the ones who have been on top for more than 10 years, came from money. Or they were bankrolled by someone. It takes a lot of money and years of paying out just to start out. What I've seen happen is young photogs break out and all of a sudden make $300k+/year, only to be broke again 3 or 4 years after when their lull came. If they didn't come from money they didn't survive. (yes $300k is a lot, but not to some people, and when you get "there" it's not so hard to make that much. Or at least it didn't use to be.)

I don't know for sure, but am willing to bet the majority of people Shelby is referring to do not make their incomes with photography. Or maybe I should say they aren't making the kind of money to buy Alpa's and p65's selling shots of the desert they took standing next to 20 other tripods and photo vests. Photography didn't get them there. Some other endeavor payed for it. Whether that's dentistry or something else doesn't really matter.

I know a fair share of pro's and have never known one who would participate in a fun shoot. Maybe it's because the ones I know are in NY, London and Paris and aren't easy going gear geeks. We don't talk much about gear and shooting, if we talk about work at all we talk about clients and campaigns. The first time I heard anyone mention 3d effect is on this website, and still it's the only place.

That said if there is such a thing, if you want to get it, you'll see it on 8x10, maybe sometimes on 4x5. Not so much with these little sensors we use on MF digital.

[Juanito]

I've never seen the 3D effect. But then again, I've never seen the green flash and, living in San Diego, I've seen more ocean sunsets than I can count. (There's supposed to be a green flash from the sun just as it slips below the horizon on a clear evening.)

I like shooting with MFDB cause of the angle of view, the faster sync speed, the pace of shooting. There's so many other things that go into creating a great photo - and getting hired to create more - that some mythical 3D effect doesn't even make it onto my radar.

John

[Ray]

I've never seen the 3D effect.

Would you consider the following 2 images to have what might be described as an enhanced 3D effect, considering the shots are completely 2D?

[attachment=18135:1635.jpg]  [attachment=18136:6028.jpg]

[Juanito]

Would you consider the following 2 images to have what might be described as an enhanced 3D effect, considering the shots are completely 2D?

I can see what you're talking about with the image of the woman. The contrast and sharpness on the face makes her pop. There's a heck of a lot of PS work that went into that shot though so I don't know how much if any of that effect is attributable to the camera.

John

[Wim van Velzen]

The artist who painted/drew these portraits mimicked the effect photographers get when using little DoF - so to this artist finds there is some 3D effect in at least some photographs. Why otherwise try to get the same in a painting/drawing?

[RodrickBond]

First post here for a while, hi everyone.

I've been thinking alot about this elusive '3D effect' lately, and the work of one photographer I've been following lately comes to mind, his name is Pierre Hebert and here's a gallery of his large format work I quickly put together:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrbend/galler...57622860373978/


For me each one of these shots just nails it, even just looking at an 800 pixel jpeg on a monitor. I'm inclined to agree with gwhitf that it has alot to do with the diagonal of the capture area. The relationship of angle of view with inherently narrow DOF creates seemingly endless layers of depth in some of those images. I'm sure theres some more complicated pseudo-science going on, as well as the obvious skill of the photographer.

Thoughts?

-Rick

[gwhitf]

Somewhat related (long but good) article, in that Ockenfels shot a lot of Type 55, so you can see the nice optical effect of 4x5, (and why it's so unfortunate that Polaroid is gone, and why it's unfortunate that we're stuck with these tiny, soulless, technically-perfect sensors, which to me, is similar to having sex with a robot):

http://tinyurl.com/y9ch5r5

After that, scroll thru about five or six pages of this site, and then look down at your second-mortgage P65+, and look me in the eye, and tell me that we're making progress. Ten thousand guys, all shooting the same basic sensor, wondering why their pictures all look alike, and then after having to sell a kidney pay for the P65, they've got to pay a retoucher more, to give their work any degree of individuality.

Progress?

http://myparentswereawesome.tumblr.com

[Jonathan Wienke]

which to me, is similar to having sex with a robot):

Don't knock it til you've tried it...

[Daniel Browning]

The relationship of angle of view with inherently narrow DOF creates seemingly endless layers of depth in some of those images.

Getting thin DOF at wide-to-normal angles of view on 35mm is uncommon. Most people use deep DOF in their wide to normal shots. But with f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses, the DOF in the shots you see could be repeated on 35mm. They will not be able to match the high contrast and low aberration of the large format when both are at the same DOF.

Those small web images are riddled to death with nasty aliasing artifacts, similar to what you get from MFDB, except this time it had to be added in post processing.

[bcooter]

Ten thousand guys, all shooting the same basic sensor, wondering why their pictures all look alike, and then after having to sell a kidney pay for

http://myparentswereawesome.tumblr.com

to some extent I agree.

For most of us that moved from film to digital, we went to almost "medium format" looking for that holy grail, mucho mojo of 6x9, 4x5 or 8x10, where whatever came out of the camera looked much different than the standard hand held cameras.  

It didn't, it doesn't, it probably never will, at least without a great deal of post processing.

When you read that Ockenfells' interview you have to take  to heart when he says you just gotta look in the mirror and decide with digital, this is just the way it is and the world ain't going to spin backwards for anyone.  (well, he didn't exactly say that, but you get my point).

The thing I find most interesting about all of the "professional" digital cameras is Canon is beating at Nikon, Nikon is beating on Phase, Phase is beating on Hasselblad, but they are all pretty much making the same thing and the  real development in photography (or should I say image capture) today is with an I-phone.

There a dozens of apps that you just push a button and you got sx-70 polaroid, or black and white, or flared transparency film or  . . .

But I guess that's the new deal.  The Iphone shoot.  if only they made one with a manual exposure control.

I just saw an Iphone app where you take a picture of your room, then press a button and change the color of the walls, so home decorating is now automatic.

I wonder how long until there is an Pascal, digital box, Iphone app, where you take a picture of your girlfriend and with a few pushes of a button she looks like a retouched image of Sarah Jessica Parker.

BC

[UlfKrentz]

"
My take on it: It's only the size of the Capture Device. It's only optics. Nothing to do with film vs digital or post.

Take two tripods: set them up side by side. On one is 8x10 Deardorff, on the other is Canon G11. Note differences in size of "sensors". Take same photo, compare inherent depth of field. With G11, damn near everything is sharp even wide open. With Deardorff, you gotta stop down to f16 to get anything sharp.

That is exactly my experience. Years ago, when economics was not so hard we made a b+w portrait of a business lady on 8x10 polaroids. That image was only printed in about 1,5x2,5 and even in this small size it´s 3D was blowing away all other stuff. We also did fashion shots on 4x5 size at this time. This all had its own taste and I also believe its a matter of size. MFDB is at least a bit nearer to size, that´s why we prefer working MFDB.
When I was starting photography many years ago I thought everything could be done with my 35 Nikon, today there might be less that 1% of our work that is done with "35"DSLR. But as mentioned before the most important thing is how you use your gear, I´m sure there are a lot of well equipped "photographers" out there that produce a lot of megapixel-junk that could have been done better with any camera.

Cheers, Ulf

[JeffKohn]

Ten thousand guys, all shooting the same basic sensor, wondering why their pictures all look alike

And if those same 10,000 guys all shot 4x5 Velvia their pictures wouldn't look the same?

[Fritzer]

3D look ? Hysterical !

[BJL]

If the "greater 3D effect" is real, I doubt that it has anything to do with either sensor design differences or shallow DOF.
It might be due to higher resolution, in the sense of more lines per mm on the final displayed image, related to the lower degree of enlargement needed to get a print of a given size and so on.

Not sensor technology differences, because the 3D effect claim for MF and LF was made with film too. There, the identical "sensors technology was used, just with different lenses and different degree of enlargement.

Not shallow DOF, because it is very often claimed for images taken at apertures f/2.8 or smaller (most MF lenses do not go beyond f/2.8!), and many good 35mm format primes can give give shallower DOF that f/2.8 in medium format. Unless the "MF 3D effect" claimants have simply never looked much at images made with good 35mm format cameras and lenses at large apertures.