Why Medium Format?

[Theodoros]

Obviously artists at that level have individual artistic visions and thought process & methods to achieve their vision. Since most here are not personal acquaintances of such respected artists (at least I'm not) the only way to understand their work and methods is to study their work,  read their books and read/watch interviews where their thought process and work is discussed.

Richard Avedon's "In the American West" shows what it took to create that body of work. Victoria Sambunaris's "Taxonomy of a Landscape" and accompanying contact sheets show behind the scenes and a glimpse of the effort. Video interviews with Struth are very revealing of his way of conceiving and his thought process etc. etc.

Everyone starts at "Hey, that's a nice looking scene, I'll capture this..." but then the process of evolving as a practitioner begins.
How far we get depends on talent, work ethic, desire, vision, passion and did I mention talent

Spot on...

That's why the answer to the OP on "Why MF ?" should be...

1. Because the use of tools depends on the needs of the photographer as these advance with the tasks... and
2. Because its wrong to compare different tools aimed for different tasks having in mind and comparing on the limited tasks that another format is already good at....

[leeonmaui]

Aloha,

I'd never use a 35mm system again, I fucking hated 35mm digital.
From the minute I bought my first 35mm digital camera, I was saving money for medium format.
There is a lot of talk about 35mm "catching up", "closing the gap" but MF makers have not been sitting around either...

the attached image was shot with a Pentax 645Z and a 645 400mm f5.6 FA gimbal mounted.
tragically, my polarizer was on my old 400mm and didn't make it into the bag that night, after a few hours of 50 foot waves the air is thick with mist, a CPL cuts through a lot of that, otherwise I would stand that up to anything the white lenses were shooting that day.
The latest MF gear is very flexible and when it flexes out to the IQ side, its pretty impressive, much more so than 35mm

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Looking at prints of great masters you realise that they or their printers are masters of printing.

Ansel Adams is known for his large format work but in later part of his life he was actually shooting Hasselblad, on film naturally. But Ansel Adams was almost and perhaps foremost a great printer. But, Ansel Adams also knew his math. He developed the Zone system, found out which set of chemicals gave the gradation curves he needed for a scene, chose developers for edge enhancement when needed.

Making the print he used an enlarger with locally variable light source of his own construction, used burn in and dodging and used locally adapted bleaching on prints.

Ansel Adams is a great example that knowledge matters more than tools.

Some of the greatest printers used the dye transfer process with it's infinite amount of variation. Interestingly quite a few have progressed from dye transfer to digital printing. Part of that of course is that Kodak stopped making dye transfer materials.

This interview with Ctein is quite interesting: https://luminous-landscape.com/videos/conversation-ctein/conversation-ctein/

And so is this video with Charlie Cramer: https://player.vimeo.com/video/124162553

Charlie Cramer used to be a 4x5 film shooter, and had a drum scanner of his own but converted to medium format when MFD delivered quality that was good enough:
https://luminous-landscape.com/videos/luminous-landscape-video-journal-issue-16/interview-charles-cramer/

A small point, at that time LuLa has posted a test of digital vs. MFD systems:
https://luminous-landscape.com/measuring-megabytes/ There was some critique the comparison did 4x5" no justice as the scans Charlie Cramer did was just 2000 PPI.

It can be argued that higher resolution scans like 6000 PPI can extract more and better detail from Velvia than 2000 PPI scans. But I guess that 2000 PPI from 4x5" was considered pretty optimal or good enough. So when digital has matched Velvia 4x5" in resolution many former 4x5" shooters jumped train and swithched to digital, at a very considerable cost.

Tim Parkin offers a different insight: https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/

That said, I did my part of 3200 PPI scanning of 67 film, and I would never go back to film.

Best regards
Erik

Thanks for presenting the question in terms of "what sort of work requires..." and not "who requires..."
Now let's also remove the element of cost and focus only on the system...
So instead of asking: "what sort of work and output requires $50,000 camera system"
Let's ask: "what sort of work and output requires a 80-100MP MFDB camera system"

The type of work that requires such equipment is the work done by the likes of Edward Burtynsky (documentary landscape), Thomas Struth (contemporary), Richard Misrach (contemporary landscape), Richard Avedon (Portraiture), Victoria Sambunaris (contemporary landscape), Brett Weston (abstract landscape), Ansel Adams (traditional landscape), Hiroshi Sugimoto (seascapes)... even Peter Lik (colorful landscape) and Rodney Lough (colorful landscape)...  etc. etc.

Looking at printed works of these artists, in museums and/or galleries, makes it very clear that such work requires a different type camera system. I understand some of the names I mentioned passed away before the MFDBs even existed - but I am saying that is the 'kind of work' that requires MFDB equipment. So that's really my answer to your question. 

Now, obviously not everyone "pro" or "wealthy amateur" [I hate that term], who owns such equipment is at the level of the esteemed names I mentioned, but many are interested in doing that 'kind of work' and in that pursuit, they choose such equipment.

[GrahamBy]

It does start to sound like the arguments for 24bit 192kHz sampled audio, which employ extraordinary contorsions of logic to escape the fact that no adult human can distinguish the sound from properly implemented 16 bit 44kHz...
Similarly that the special and unique analogue signatures of vinyl and triode amps are distortions, as can be shown by including an A/D/A step in the chain.

All of which is fine and everyone should have the right, within their financial capacities, to shoot what they like. Hell, I just saw some photos of me as a model, shot on 6x7 Portra. They look great (euh, not because of me), I look like I had died two days earlier and had started to decompose, just the effect the photographer wanted

However the original question was, I thought, a valid one: for those who work in the commercial field with pragmatic quality requirements regarding resolution, colour fidelity and so on, does MFD bring sufficient, useful added quality to justify the added costs?

[hjulenissen]

It does start to sound like the arguments for 24bit 192kHz sampled audio, which employ extraordinary contorsions of logic to escape the fact that no adult human can distinguish the sound from properly implemented 16 bit 44kHz...

for those who work in the commercial field with pragmatic quality requirements regarding resolution, colour fidelity and so on, does MFD bring sufficient, useful added quality to justify the added costs?

For professional audio people, 24 bit and 192kHz capture adds negligible cost, and thus it is standard procedure to record at the highest possible quality setting, even if this probably does not affect the audible quality.

For a photographer/employer who spends a lot on travels, lights, models, etc, perhaps the price differential of a good 35mm camera to a MFD camera is negligible in comparision and worth it for even minute quality differences?

What are the alternatives if you want leaf shutter, camera/lens movements, high quality single-shot results?

Being an amateur, I try to keep expenses in check. If I did this for a living, having tools that I could operate well, with predictable results, good ergonomy, using lenses that I preferred, shutters/flash, day in and day out would mean a lot to me.

-h

[eronald]

Nice image.
When it works it really works.

Edmund

Aloha,

I'd never use a 35mm system again, I fucking hated 35mm digital.
From the minute I bought my first 35mm digital camera, I was saving money for medium format.
There is a lot of talk about 35mm "catching up", "closing the gap" but MF makers have not been sitting around either...

the attached image was shot with a Pentax 645Z and a 645 400mm f5.6 FA gimbal mounted.
tragically, my polarizer was on my old 400mm and didn't make it into the bag that night, after a few hours of 50 foot waves the air is thick with mist, a CPL cuts through a lot of that, otherwise I would stand that up to anything the white lenses were shooting that day.
The latest MF gear is very flexible and when it flexes out to the IQ side, its pretty impressive, much more so than 35mm

[N80]

This has been an enlightening discussion and I appreciate all the responses to my original question. My question was primarily one of curiosity and not to find out if MFD was something I needed or even wanted. And given this discussion MF does not make sense for me. I'm not a pro. I do not work in a studio. I rarely make prints larger than A3. Most of my 'artistic' work is in B&W. I often carry my equipment long distances. The current range of quality lenses for 35mm is now simply amazing and more affordable than ever (Sigma's Art line comes to mind), so not much need to compromise on quality glass. I do a fair amount of action photography (equestrian and motorsports). I do want to do more high end B&W landscape and make larger prints. For this slower, more thoughtful type of photography large format would likely be cheaper than MFD and I've been toying with the idea of getting a basic LF rig for years anyway. (I can process the negatives myself and scan and then print via high end inkjet). Not sure I'll ever do it.

Thanks again.

[N80]

For a photographer/employer who spends a lot on travels, lights, models, etc, perhaps the price differential of a good 35mm camera to a MFD camera is negligible in comparision and worth it for even minute quality differences?

Maybe some of my ignorance starts here. Where are the types of images you are talking about (high end fashion/marketing) ending up? Again, I think about magazine pages, which equate to tiny prints. I understand the importance of proper color and sharpness in this regard. But what benefit is 50 or 100mp for what ends up being an 8x10? (Again, not trolling, just asking.)

[algrove]

If you ever get to South Florida, a visit to Clyde Butcher's showroom situated along the old Alligator Alley is very eye opening considering some of his B&W prints are in the 6x12 feet range if I recall, with many in the 4x8 feet range.  He also has a showroom around Venice, FL, but the one along Alligator Alley is stunning to see as it is IN the Everglades.  He mainly uses LF, but it is the printing that impressed me most.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Bcooter (James Russel) used to have some comments from the commercial side. He was happy with P25, Canons of different size and Panasonic GH3. Now I think he mostly shoots Leica S2 (37.5 MP CCD).

One reason for 100 MP is actually that CMOS sensors are made in two sizes, full frame 645 (100MP) and 1.3X crop 44x33 (50 MP) mm. Most MFD systems are optimised for full frame 645, so the 50 MP CMOS sensors are bound to 1.3X crop.

So, if you need full frame CMOS, the only choice is 100 MP. CCD based backs come in different varieties, so there are 60MP and 80MP full frame sensors from DALSA, for instance.

Why doesn't Sony make a 50 MP full frame sensor? Because it would need a lot of R&D work to develop such a sensor and the market is probably to small. It would probably be more expensive than the 100 MP sensor as it would need a new pixel design, while the 100MP sensor probably leans a bit on current designs.

Personally, I have been using a P45+ for three years, but now I feel like it is going into retirement. It still can make great images, of course, but the Sony A7rII is a better tool for my needs.(*)

Regarding film, I don't think it is great fun to scan.

Best regards
Erik

(*) I am not really advocating Sony A7rII, at least not for everyone, but I have P45+ and A7rII, so it is quite natural I compare the two systems I have. For me at least, there is a great advantage with the A7rII, I can put almost any lens on it and the lenses I use can be used with a T&S adapter. Cost plays a major role, of course. Those 100MP bodies are beyond my reach.

Maybe some of my ignorance starts here. Where are the types of images you are talking about (high end fashion/marketing) ending up? Again, I think about magazine pages, which equate to tiny prints. I understand the importance of proper color and sharpness in this regard. But what benefit is 50 or 100mp for what ends up being an 8x10? (Again, not trolling, just asking.)

[voidshatter]

Very interesting!

Thank you for your post. It explained a few things I noticed in the Asian Social media but was unable to understand.   Now it makes sense.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In China, photography gear is a kind of luxury consumption. You just need the right gear to fit into the right group. A large amount of medium format digital sales goes into that category.

[MattBurt]

Those photos from China are mind boggling! Often if I see anyone else on a backcountry landscape shoot it seems crowded.

[JoeKitchen]

Those photos from China are mind boggling! Often if I see anyone else on a backcountry landscape shoot it seems crowded.

+1

Mind boggling and crazy. 

I can't imagine seeing this many MF cameras in one place, even at a DT/Phase One event. 

[cgarnerhome]

I find this thread somewhat amusing.  We all know the answer is fairly simple – it depends on what works for you.  Need is a very loaded word because it’s often a projection of what we think others want or what we can rationalize.  Although, I’m sure for some professionals there are clients that demand it.  I’m not a professional in that I do not earn my living with photography.  But I do indulge my desire to have the best equipment available when truly I don’t need it.  A couple of year ago I had an exhibit at the Federal Reserve Board in DC of my costal images.  Most of these images were in the 40 x 60 range and all were shot with a Nikon 800.  The opening was attended by a couple of curators of photography museums and by Joel Meyerowitz.  Not one person asked about what equipment I was using or whether the images were sharp enough.  My guess the people that visited the exhibit didn’t care about the equipment I was using.  I also happen to be a collector of photography with images from Adams, Callahan, Davidson, Newman, Arbus, Lange, Kertesz, Smith as well as many others.  What you notice is that most of these images were not shot with cameras that have the resolving power of my Nikon.  They are about content, design and representing a place in time.   It wasn’t until I became more obsessed with pixels and sharpness that I really noticed the softness.  If all of this is true then why would I possibly own a XF100!  One reason is because I can afford it and I love gear!  Totally irrational – right?  I do try to rationalize it because I print large images, it gives me more flexibility in post processing and it does slow me down some in the field.  It’s a thin rationalization but it works for me!!  To each their own.

[bcooter]

https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-have-we-reached-peak-digital-photography

[Phil Indeblanc]

Another reason for large 100mp LF would be production. I was just shooting some products, and thought I might be able to be faster if I can take the images with the products next to them along with the other product and chop up in production. So the extra resolution affords me that. But these are rare.

The China images are funny. That is a oddly large amount of forrest pattern LensCoats!

Also, I should have said MANY artists use film, certainly not most.

You also have to consider something overlooked often.
Using film is also someone marketable to those that are less informed, or value nostalgia.
If you are a artist who uses film, you somehow marketed yourself as a more "authentic" artist to some folks.
So this becomes a thing for gallery reps, and they may push such artists more. Hence you think most "artists" are using film.  There are plenty top artists, maybe not so well repped and popular, but just as strong, and use digital.
In the Fine Art, film is more marketable.
...Something to consider.

I have to add, great points Erik. I too was one of those people using a scanner and 4x5 and reading Michaels materials(although my original member-username got lost-changed), But I too was looking over Kodak, then Phase, etc....Its 10 years since I switched to digital, and never looked back, just for fun, and still have a full size fridge full of lots of film I haven't even looked at in years. I am nmore interested in making images, while I enjoy the process, it is a tool to the end product.

[Phil Indeblanc]

I didn't even see bcooters post and just now read the title :-) hehe...I'm guessing my post has some overlap.

[N80]

Totally irrational – right?

OP here. Not irrational at all. Except that I don't think anyone who is spending his own money (and isn't impoverished because of it) has any requirement to rationalize anything, least of all an amateur. Probably 99% of what we own is because we want it and the 1% of things we need could be of a lesser variety. If someone else, like an employer, is purchasing your equipment, then yes, you might have to justify it. As mentioned before, a very wealthy man could buy a top end medium format system like it was candy and never take a decent picture in his life. Nothing wrong with that.

[Phil Indeblanc]

Also keep in mind its more the "artists process" that justifies the tool. As Erik pointed out a number of great key importances, although his reasons we can leave aside for taking the A7R2 as a preferred tool for his image making, but Erik is a super critical guy when it comes to IQ, and maybe I'd ask him to refocus some past tests shots he has taken, but certainly it should give you a hint to how close the IQ gap has come between the platforms.

Viewfinder, lens characteristics, and color aside, when you are making images, and not taking them, sure the meat of the MF file is "thicker" and you can feel how it takes more effort before things start cracking, but you really aren't always at the limits of things when you work in a methodical, or even not so methodical approach with some of the cameras and their DR and such.

But I must say, with a AA filter that makes images milky and fuzzy, there is some step in clarity that people claim can be had with some sharpening and such, but you really don't get that 3D effect, maybe less difference with a shallow DOF, but there is a quality, even discussed here at least a couple other times in depth.

So I don't know how the Canon "negates" the AA effect, but the Sony doesn't have it, nor the Olympus.

Some test showing the oly with multishot being even clearer than some other camera I forgot it was up against, maybe the Nik810, but it had the edge for THAT particular setup of usage....

So those are very good tools for IQ. But say your an journalist/event/Corp shooter by day (75% of your work) and Stills or Fine artist by night and you want the right tool. I wouldn't put all my eggs into a A7r2 body to withstand the beatings I give it in the field. Years back I would have a 1Ds body, and a prosumer Canon body as backup. I do the backup from time to time, but with a A7r2, I would surely need to have 2 bodies, and bunch of batteries from what I hear.

Anyway, you are correct that you really DON'T need it, as much as you need a Ferrari to get to work faster in the mornings.

[hjulenissen]

Also keep in mind its more the "artists process" that justifies the tool.
...
Anyway, you are correct that you really DON'T need it, as much as you need a Ferrari to get to work faster in the mornings.

I think that it makes sense to distinguish between the tools of a creative person, and the luxury items of a consumer (note that a camera can be both).

A consumer can buy just about anything that makes her happy. He or she may argue that they make their choices because of this or that, but there is ample evidence that our purchasing behaviour is a complex, partially subconcious process.

A creative person use tools to produce some output. Even if camera A is not measurably "better" than camera B, if the creative person is, for whatever reason, able to make better output, then it may be worth something. An author using an old type-writer may be using a "bad" tool, but if that is what is getting his creative juices flowing, I'd say "go for it". After all, using the "bad" typewriter may (in this case) mean producing a better novel, even if the kind of text it is able to produce is just the same as a modern laptop.

-h