MF creeps up my head ....

[fr3d]

Hi,

can anyone help me explain (to me) why alot of medium format photos just draw me into
the scene and pop out of my screen while slr images (imho) most often look flat and 2D in
comparison? Is it the photographer, the lenses rendering, the size of the medium, PP skills,
or simply my mind tricking me?

To me it often looks like the MF gear has a different kind of oof rendering compared to an SLR.
For some reason I often feel that the images need to be printed big because looking at them
imposes a feeling of being physicaly small in relation to the scene shown. slr images on the
other hand most often look to me like they are born 9x6 prints - lacking the masjestics of a
large format shot.

Ok by now you should either think that I am gaga or you know exactly what I mean.

Here are some MF examples:

Pentax 6x7
Mamiya 6x7,1 more
Bronica
Fuji 6x6

There is plenty more in this pool

Can you pinpoint what I am trying to get at?

Interestingly I wasn't able to find such chracteristic shots taken with the S2 or the Pentax 645D but then
there aren't as many around really.

[ndevlin]

Imho, it's because MF is more often used by professional photographers who really understand light and PP (or dark room work back in the day).  Point an MF camera and an APC DSLR at an identical subject, and process identically, and you will end up with basically the same product in most instances. The magic, if there is any, is in the skill of the user.

That said, the tonal transitions are smoother on larger formats, in both film and digital. When used correctly, this can make a photograph 'better' and thus more compelling.

My 2c.

- N.

[siebel]

Actually, I disagree with you completely. I own P45+, P65+ and IQ180 backs and my wife has an Aptus 12. I also have a Nikon D700 which gathers dust in the cupboard.
There is a massive difference in how a DSLR and a MFDB render an identical scene. Every DSLR I have tested, except the M9, has a tendency to over saturate and sometimes posterise colours. The anti-aliasing filters also reduce absolute resolution and compensate with software sharpening, which is not the same result. MFDB sensors are true 16bit sensors, DSLR's are mostly either 12 or 14 bit native. They simply do not capture the same breath of image data that a MFDB can. Even a 22MP MFDB will deliver far superior quality to a top-shelf DSLR as native ISO. When you get up into the higher resolution backs, the quality gap widens dramatically.
As a result, MFDB's can deliver both tonality and true resolution that a DSLR simply cannot. That is why the images look so different.

[EricWHiss]

Larger image circle of the lens, larger film plane (magnification) affect the images by having greater tonality and also a different roll-off from in focus to out of focus.   It's the kind of look you can't see by pixel peeping but only by getting back and viewing the whole image.

[uaiomex]

I agree. It's both. I've seen totally flat, lack-luster digital and non-digital images made with MF.
Eduardo

Combine bits of ndevlin's answer and bits of siebel's answer and you'll have your answer

[fotojoh]

I'd say Nick's response is closest to actuality. I've seen superior results with all types of equipment and I greatly doubt you'd be able to judge the superiority of medium format by sifting through internet postings. Joe

[RobertJ]

Try 8x10 chromes.  I think you'd like it better than MF.

[fredjeang]

Is it the camera or is it the photographer?

If it were predominately the camera I'd wouldn't have any interest in using it.

Touché.

But not only the photographer, all the people and skills involved on the chain, included the printer habilities.

[Greg Campbell]

IMO, it's 80% shooter, 20% gear dweeb stuff. (lens / film / bits / whatever.)

Add to this the fact that you can't run around in Machine Gun mode.  When film and lab processing costs approach a buck a shot, most people slow WAY down and tend to pay attention! 

IMO, buying a MF kit and shooting chrome will do much more for your photography than you might anticipate.

[ChristopherBarrett]

I'd say Nick's response is closest to actuality. I've seen superior results with all types of equipment and I greatly doubt you'd be able to judge the superiority of medium format by sifting through internet postings. Joe

+1  If you're shooting MFDB (and this is a BROAD generalization) you are typically being more careful about composition and making sure the light is just right.  They impart a more conscientious workflow.  I'd say it's 80% that and 20% image quality.

Vision > Tools

CB

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

In my film days I got much better pictures with MF than on 135. One day I run out of 135 film, why shooting in the charming french town "Dinard". So I shoot free hand on MF. My pictures were like 135, just bigger.

I'd suggest that much of the advantage of MF is that the photographer slows down. Than of course you can put an MF back on a precision body with swings and tilts, perhaps shimmed to perfection. Add to that a couple of decent lenses, or Rodenstock HR Digitars. Quality sorts of adds up.

In addition, a larger sensor can collect more photons. Better DR! A larger sensor will also produce a higher MTF on a given size of feature than a smaller one.

In general MF will show it's advantage when you can utilize it's potential.

Best regards
Erik

+1  If you're shooting MFDB (and this is a BROAD generalization) you are typically being more careful about composition and making sure the light is just right.  They impart a more conscientious workflow.  I'd say it's 80% that and 20% image quality.

Vision > Tools

CB