Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Why Medium Format?  (Read 44124 times)

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #140 on: September 07, 2016, 11:00:19 am »

 It's a shot of film by the way...

I also believe that it's a directed shot, the reasoning backing up my believe, is that the group of men dressing suggests that they have nothing common with each other on their social background other than their sex.

Note the difference in minimum distance.

(I'm a statistician, it's déformation professionnelle)

Viewing distance is relevant to the number of people watching. Usually, when a subject in an exhibition attracts a group of people, watchers tend (out of politeness) to give room to others, when one senses that he is the only watcher, then he tends to move closer...

Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #141 on: September 07, 2016, 02:25:54 pm »

Serveral of the males couldn't see much of the painting anyway: they block each other's view. Possibly it was a directed shot after all, which would be a big disappointment.

Rob

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #142 on: September 07, 2016, 02:57:33 pm »

Serveral of the males couldn't see much of the painting anyway: they block each other's view. Possibly it was a directed shot after all, which would be a big disappointment.

Rob

disappointment? ....I think you have the wrong idea about image making!
Logged

Phil Indeblanc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2017
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #143 on: September 09, 2016, 01:11:20 am »

Funny, Nice catch, as it might be staged.
The painting with clothes on is the one the female is looking at, the men are looking at the nude.
Logged
If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #144 on: September 09, 2016, 09:10:03 am »

disappointment? ....I think you have the wrong idea about image making!



Of course disappointment, Theo; one would like to believe in decisive moments for ever. Makes that PJ's Photoshopping away of background crap look positively benign.

Soon we shall learn that there are really no lottery big-winners at all - just false news items claiming that they exist!

Rob C
« Last Edit: September 09, 2016, 03:10:43 pm by Rob C »
Logged

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 621
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #145 on: September 09, 2016, 11:03:15 am »

I think journalists have been prone to doing a little 'gardening' since the invention of the camera. Not that he could ever be spontaneous with the type of equipment he had available but Matthew Brady was notorious for staging things. A lot of still and video from WWII was staged to some extent. I seem to recall that the flag raising on Iwo Jima was shot several times..........but I can't substantiate that.

Sure, there is a certain charm to the entirely candid shot. But I have to say, it never occurred to me that the image we are discussing was candid. It looks totally staged.
Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #146 on: September 09, 2016, 01:21:12 pm »



Of course disappointment, Theo; one would like to belive in decisive moments for ever. Makes that PJ's Photoshopping away of background crap look positively benign.

Soon we shall learn that there are really no lottery big-winners at all - just false news items claiming that they exist!

Rob C

I can ensure you that most of the amazing shots out of old or modern masters of photography (this one is out of Elliott Erwitt http://www.elliotterwitt.com/lang/en/index.html ) are a product of the visualization/pre-design/direct/execute process... I'm afraid that visualization (which includes the rest of the process by definition) is the fundamental behind all art... Superb shot by the way... (as most out of Elliott), it's the result that counts...
Logged

mikeyam

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #147 on: September 14, 2016, 11:37:13 pm »

Long-time lurker, but I have to chime in... for those saying there are no DOF advantages to medium format, I think you're wrong. I've seen the differences many times and it's not about nuking a background into oblivion, it's more like creating layers and subtle separation from in-focus to out-of-focus. I especially notice it in wider environmental portraits, where the subject is sharp and the background is blurred, but details are still somewhat discernible.

Here are a few examples I found (some better than others):
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=27561.msg227988#msg227988
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=28709.msg278412#msg278412
http://www.thephoblographer.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Jonathan-Bielaski0004.jpg
http://s3.amazonaws.com/lkbkspro/lkbks-trumanagement/ml_5554c540-e964-4821-9347-3d530a771fd0.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4M-uGshOEJA/T0SsaoOBp_I/AAAAAAAAA94/EZiYCEd2Uyw/s1600/Screen+Shot+2012-02-22+at+08.42.25.png
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mnfR7eW48Hw/T0IKqQRxxyI/AAAAAAAAA9w/0UdLydC3kc8/s1600/allan_wells+3493.jpg

Call me full of it, but I've seen this "look" over and over again.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2016, 12:45:58 am by mikeyam »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #148 on: September 15, 2016, 12:50:48 am »

Hi,

I would say that both sides are sort of right.

In theory you can shoot 80 mm at f/2.8 on MFD or 50 mm at f/1.8 on 24x36 and you would get identical results. But there are some buts…

Older 24x36mm 1.7/50 and 1.4/50 designs were not so great at full apertures. Now we have quite a few new 50 (or so) lenses where lens count has been jacked up to say 10-12 elements, a typical example being the Zeiss Otus 1.4/55 and the Sigma 1.4/50 Art. Zeiss upgraded their "normal" 1.4/50 design to a more advanced Distagon type device with 10 elements.

An Otus 1.4/55 on a high MP 24x36 camera would probably give a very good bokeh at full aperture at least as good as a Planar 80/2.8.

One other issue is that most lenses have issues with correction of axial-chroma, giving magenta/green fringing in out of focus areas. This applies to both MFD and 24x36 mm lenses but it is often masked by stopping down. The Otus corrects this fully, no fringing on that lens. The Milvus 14.4/50 is half the price but has not corrected axial-chroma as well.

So, yes 24x36mm can do it, but needs a very well corrected large aperture lens and those are expensive.

Best regards
Erik

Long-time lurker, but I have to chime in... for those saying there are no DOF advantages to medium format, I think you're wrong. I've seen the differences many times and it's not about nuking a background into oblivion, it's more like creating layers and subtle separation from in-focus to out-of-focus. I especially notice it in wider environmental portraits, where the subject is sharp and the background is blurred, but details are still somewhat discernible.

Here are a few examples I found (some better than others):
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=27561.msg227988#msg227988
http://www.thephoblographer.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Jonathan-Bielaski0004.jpg
http://s3.amazonaws.com/lkbkspro/lkbks-trumanagement/ml_5554c540-e964-4821-9347-3d530a771fd0.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4M-uGshOEJA/T0SsaoOBp_I/AAAAAAAAA94/EZiYCEd2Uyw/s1600/Screen+Shot+2012-02-22+at+08.42.25.png
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mnfR7eW48Hw/T0IKqQRxxyI/AAAAAAAAA9w/0UdLydC3kc8/s1600/allan_wells+3493.jpg

Call me full of it, but I've seen this "look" over and over again.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #149 on: September 15, 2016, 01:13:22 am »

Expensive.  And heavy.

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Why Medium Format? An interesting real world experiment
« Reply #150 on: September 15, 2016, 01:17:57 am »

Hi,

I have been asked to supply some images for decorating two very long corridors at office. I presented something like 85 images covering much of my digital camera usage.
CameraProposedAcceptedPercentage
24 MP full frame46511%
42 MP full frame25416%
P45+2528%
APS-C800%

This was a screen based evaluation, so pictures were selected on looks and not image quality and the statistics are not great. Doesn't proof anything, of course, but also sort of indicates that MFD images don't stand out from others.

All images were shot on tripod.

The proposed images are here:

https://echophoto.smugmug.com/KSU/Korridor
https://echophoto.smugmug.com/KSU/Spice/

Best regards
Erik
« Last Edit: September 15, 2016, 04:27:58 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Bo_Dez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 331
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #151 on: September 15, 2016, 04:42:47 am »

Hi,

I would say that both sides are sort of right.

In theory you can shoot 80 mm at f/2.8 on MFD or 50 mm at f/1.8 on 24x36 and you would get identical results. But there are some buts…

Older 24x36mm 1.7/50 and 1.4/50 designs were not so great at full apertures. Now we have quite a few new 50 (or so) lenses where lens count has been jacked up to say 10-12 elements, a typical example being the Zeiss Otus 1.4/55 and the Sigma 1.4/50 Art. Zeiss upgraded their "normal" 1.4/50 design to a more advanced Distagon type device with 10 elements.

An Otus 1.4/55 on a high MP 24x36 camera would probably give a very good bokeh at full aperture at least as good as a Planar 80/2.8.

One other issue is that most lenses have issues with correction of axial-chroma, giving magenta/green fringing in out of focus areas. This applies to both MFD and 24x36 mm lenses but it is often masked by stopping down. The Otus corrects this fully, no fringing on that lens. The Milvus 14.4/50 is half the price but has not corrected axial-chroma as well.

So, yes 24x36mm can do it, but needs a very well corrected large aperture lens and those are expensive.

Best regards
Erik

In a general comparison this is sort of true but it is not identical. The degree of difference is alway subjective but for me it's an obvious difference that I can't look past. Focal and tonal transition is one of the biggest differences, medium format being far greater, smoother and less choppy.
Logged

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 621
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #152 on: September 15, 2016, 08:33:14 am »

In a general comparison this is sort of true but it is not identical. The degree of difference is alway subjective but for me it's an obvious difference that I can't look past. Focal and tonal transition is one of the biggest differences, medium format being far greater, smoother and less choppy.

At what print size or monitor zoom would it take to see this if the difference is, in fact, "far greater"? (Not challenging your assertion, just asking.)
Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate

AreBee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 638
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #153 on: September 15, 2016, 08:45:23 am »

N80,

Quote
A lot of still and video from WWII was staged to some extent. I seem to recall that the flag raising on Iwo Jima was shot several times..........but I can't substantiate that.

Shot twice. Not staged. Refer here.

Credit: Isaac
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #154 on: September 15, 2016, 09:16:50 am »

Eric.  Viewers aren't pixel peepers or DR specialists.  They care less if they were shot digitally or on film, or if it's medium format or 35mm, or whatever.   People pick pictures they like based on content, style, lighting and personal preferences. Could you tell us which 11 they selected so we can tell if there was a common preference.  And your pictures are all very nice.  They have a bright appeal and they're not overdone like many landscape pictures.

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Why Medium Format? An interesting real world experiment
« Reply #155 on: September 15, 2016, 10:11:51 am »

I have been asked to supply some images for decorating two very long corridors at office. I presented something like 85 images covering much of my digital camera usage.

For how many images did you have room?

Cheers,
Bernard

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Why Medium Format? An interesting real world experiment
« Reply #156 on: September 15, 2016, 12:06:55 pm »

Hi Bernard,

We don't know yet. This time we have just selected 11 image but we will need many more.

Best regards
Erik

For how many images did you have room?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #157 on: September 15, 2016, 12:32:07 pm »

Hi Alan,

To begin with, I really appreciate the kind words.

Back to the issue, some folks say that they can recognise an MFD image in small print at say 15 feet or that MFD images stand out on web size images. I don't think that things work that way. I used to say that images don't care about the way they have been taken.

The nice thing here is that the panel consisted of folks seriously interested in photography but not being gearheads.

It can also be said that I am a middle road of shooter and I shoot the same way using MFD or mirrorless. The three years I was shooting MFD it was one of my mostly used systems. But, I use any system the same way. Tripod, mirror lock up, careful focusing, medium apertures. Also I seldom use flash outdoors.

Since I got the A7rII I have not used the P45+, essentially. In part this is a result of "the latest gear is most fun" syndrome, but also because the Sony does a good job on pretty much everything.

A small point is that pixel peeping you peep pixels. If we pixel peep on the P45+ we see pixels. There are 39000000 millions of them, but we see just a few. If we pixel peep on say my Sony Alpha 700, we still see a few pixels, but there are only 12000000 of them. To really see the benefits of pixel and pixel size we need to make large prints.

But, I really think that we have all the pixels we need now. Still see a lot of advantage of small pixels, but it is more about proper rendition of small detail.

Here are the images that were selected by the panel: https://echophoto.smugmug.com/KSU/Choosen/

Best regards
Erik


Eric.  Viewers aren't pixel peepers or DR specialists.  They care less if they were shot digitally or on film, or if it's medium format or 35mm, or whatever.   People pick pictures they like based on content, style, lighting and personal preferences. Could you tell us which 11 they selected so we can tell if there was a common preference.  And your pictures are all very nice.  They have a bright appeal and they're not overdone like many landscape pictures.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2016, 12:46:00 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #158 on: September 15, 2016, 12:43:59 pm »

........... But, I really think that we have all the pixels we need now. Still see a lot of advantage of small pixels, but it is more about proper rendition of small detail.....

Best regards
Erik

It was about time...

There is no "proper rendition of small detail" with (ultra) small pixels, it's only hiding artifacts (that still exist...), "proper rendition" will only exist when there will be no interpolation (and the technical solutions related with it - call me Bayer pattern) involved... Then people will "beg" for larger pixels.

Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #159 on: September 15, 2016, 12:47:24 pm »

Making noise again old friend?


It was about time...

There is no "proper rendition of small detail" with (ultra) small pixels, it's only hiding artifacts (that still exist...), "proper rendition" will only exist when there will be no interpolation (and the technical solutions related with it - call me Bayer pattern) involved... Then people will "beg" for larger pixels.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9   Go Up