Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11   Go Down

Author Topic: I would like to understand the MF look.  (Read 61682 times)

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3289
    • Pieter Kers
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #80 on: December 03, 2013, 06:51:59 pm »

..
You'd have to bring the Otus though :)...

Sadly I only have the d800e and live in Amsterdam :)
(Well it is not so far from the Zeiss factory...)
« Last Edit: December 03, 2013, 06:55:15 pm by kers »
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #81 on: December 03, 2013, 07:33:57 pm »

Can someone who has had a good day tell me how one displays images "large" in the posts rather than as thumbnails?

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #82 on: December 03, 2013, 11:08:03 pm »

Hi Edmund,

I know two ways:

- Actual pixel crops
- Clickable links to external images

Best regards
Erik

Can someone who has had a good day tell me how one displays images "large" in the posts rather than as thumbnails?

Edmund
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #83 on: December 04, 2013, 12:03:04 am »

Hi Edmund,

I know two ways:

- Actual pixel crops
- Clickable links to external images

Best regards
Erik


Thank you Erik!

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #84 on: December 04, 2013, 12:50:53 am »

Hi,

I would guess that what's in front of (subject) , under (tripod) and behind (photographer) the camera matters more than the camera itself.

Most cameras are probably good enough for professional work, so I would think the other factors dominate.


Best regards
Erik




What a bunch of over critical photographers think is not the deciding factor, what I would like to know is can the client see the difference, can the client  appreciate the difference, does the client pick the photographer with MF over the dslr?
That's what would sell me on the MF look.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #85 on: December 04, 2013, 04:07:18 am »

Can someone who has had a good day tell me how one displays images "large" in the posts rather than as thumbnails?

Edmund


What's wrong with thumbnails?

What's wrong with thumbnails is that until Keith told me differently, I thought you just clicked them once and that was it. I then learned that no, you can click the first blow-up again, and in the case of my own shots, it reappears marginally larger but sharper!

If you go too big, you create problems for the viewer who has to scroll, and that destroys anything.

In fact, when I edit/compose and do any cropping of my stuff, I always reduce it so that the entire shot looks no bigger than about six inches across the greater dimension - makes the whole more contained and immediate.

My face is usually about 55 - 60cms from the screen, so that gives an idea of what I find comfortable for compositional decisions. Any closer and it induces a mild panic of visual indecision.

Rob C

Phil Indeblanc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2017
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #86 on: December 04, 2013, 08:26:38 pm »

:-), thats about as far is I am and maybe closer when pushing pixelson a 30" screen @2556x1600. I'll take a push back for anything compositional/balance etc.
Logged
If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...

MichaelEzra

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1112
    • https://www.michaelezra.com
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #87 on: December 04, 2013, 10:45:48 pm »

There is a lot less (if any) crappy MF lenses vs 35mm. This likely is a significant contributing factor for the generalized MF look:)
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #88 on: December 05, 2013, 12:06:01 am »

Hi Michael,

I would suggest that it is a contributing factor. On the other hand, the original posting pretty much disregarded resolution as a factor.

If we look at short DoF shooting there are two ways to reduce DoF: longer lenses and wider apertures. Because MF is larger, lenses are longer, so they can be used at smaller apertures. Many large aperture lenses are not well corrected for axial chromatic aberration and the more affordable ones are often crappy.

Size gives a natural advantage to medium format. But smaller formats are often good enough, and with good engineering good enough can be pretty good.

Best regards
Erik

There is a lot less (if any) crappy MF lenses vs 35mm. This likely is a significant contributing factor for the generalized MF look:)
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Justinr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1733
    • Ink+images
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #89 on: December 05, 2013, 03:02:41 am »

What a bunch of over critical photographers think is not the deciding factor, what I would like to know is can the client see the difference, can the client  appreciate the difference, does the client pick the photographer with MF over the dslr?
That's what would sell me on the MF look.

That would be the logical way way of looking at things but clients are not always logical or particularly knowledgeable, but they may subconsciously recognise a 'nice' photo although they are not aware of why they appreciate it. To my mind then it is best to offer as good an image as one can with respect to budget constraints and offer these although the customer may not immediately favour them over your competitor, once they are used to quality they will hopefully start to recognise a lack of it.

I'm aware that this philosophy does not apply across the board but I feel that the most effective way of preserving the craft as a profession is to persistently demonstrate the difference between snap shots and photography.
Logged

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1516
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #90 on: December 05, 2013, 04:57:47 am »

That would be the logical way way of looking at things but clients are not always logical or particularly knowledgeable, but they may subconsciously recognise a 'nice' photo although they are not aware of why they appreciate it. To my mind then it is best to offer as good an image as one can with respect to budget constraints and offer these although the customer may not immediately favour them over your competitor, once they are used to quality they will hopefully start to recognise a lack of it.

I'm aware that this philosophy does not apply across the board but I feel that the most effective way of preserving the craft as a profession is to persistently demonstrate the difference between snap shots and photography.

Medium format cameras, still have a lot of analog dna in them and use ccds.  Consequently we work them different than modern dslrs.

Last year I had three art directors from three different projects pull images from our website they liked.

It may be coincidence but every image they pulled was from a ccd sensor camera, even if the images weren't in the genre they worked in.

I don't know what this tells me, other than they all thought they were film.  I think it's not that the ccd images looked like film, it's because they just looked slightly different in tone and sharpness and due to the way you shoot medium format, they were produced slower, a little more refined and maybe  a fraction more thought process.

At least that's my guess.

This was one image they all selected, shot with a contax and p30+


IMO

BC
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8818
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #91 on: December 05, 2013, 05:48:37 am »

Last year I had three art directors from three different projects pull images from our website they liked.

It may be coincidence but every image they pulled was from a ccd sensor camera, even if the images weren't in the genre they worked in.

Hi James,

It was no coincidence, but it has nothing to do with CCD vs CMOS (both convert photons to electrons with the photo voltaic properties of doped silicon).

It has a lot to do with the MTF of the lens+sensor combination, with a larger format sensor having a benefit. The magnification factor with identical framing is larger on the larger sensor due to a longer focal length, and larger magnification results in higher MTF response.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: December 11, 2013, 04:46:05 am by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

julienlanoo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 228
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #92 on: December 05, 2013, 08:47:03 am »

Alex, try hetting your hands on the "film" versions of 35mm, of 120 of 4x5 of 8x10 and feel for your self,

As with film the haze of technology is not in front of your eyes.. You ll undersand
Logged

alifatemi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 278
    • ali fatemi photography
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #93 on: December 05, 2013, 10:13:04 am »

Alex, defining a MF by word is like to define a sunset to a blind man; its impossible. I was like you searching for differences all the web, but a month ago I borrowed  an iQ260 with phase one own body and its own 80mm lens, took a pic from myself  not even with tripod and MUP but on hand brought the file to my workshop, I cropped the image of just my face which was approx. one fifth of the frame, made a 40" print with Epson 11880; What I saw was just myself in real life: it was color, detail, tonality, dynamic range: it was everything that your eyes can see in real life! all of a sudden my Nikon 800E with all Zeiss lenses become ridiculously childish compare to DB. Such a small crop of a frame made such a big print. I just fall in love that taught to myself how I just wasted my time during all these years. save your time by making a big print and you will understand ; nobody can tell you how a sunset looks like but just your own eyes! I am a believer! just you have to rob a bank...
Logged

Sheldon N

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 828
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #94 on: December 05, 2013, 11:50:18 am »

due to the way you shoot medium format, they were produced slower, a little more refined and maybe  a fraction more thought process.

I would guess that this accounts for 75% of the medium format "look" that people see.

Experienced photographer, taking their time to truly craft and execute their vision, to the best of their efforts.

And if they are going to take the time to do that, then they are going to shoot with the best equipment they have at their disposal.

Correlation, not causation.
Logged
Sheldon Nalos
[url=http://www.flickr.com

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #95 on: December 05, 2013, 12:26:26 pm »

Yeah, but, I've seen cat shots from DMF gear on Flickr that have the MFD look.  These are far from considered, high production photos by experienced photographers. 


I would guess that this accounts for 75% of the medium format "look" that people see.

Experienced photographer, taking their time to truly craft and execute their vision, to the best of their efforts.

And if they are going to take the time to do that, then they are going to shoot with the best equipment they have at their disposal.

Correlation, not causation.
Logged

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 670
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #96 on: December 05, 2013, 12:46:27 pm »

Alex, defining a MF by word is like to define a sunset to a blind man; its impossible. I was like you searching for differences all the web, but a month ago I borrowed  an iQ260 with phase one own body and its own 80mm lens, took a pic from myself  not even with tripod and MUP but on hand brought the file to my workshop, I cropped the image of just my face which was approx. one fifth of the frame, made a 40" print with Epson 11880; What I saw was just myself in real life: it was color, detail, tonality, dynamic range: it was everything that your eyes can see in real life! all of a sudden my Nikon 800E with all Zeiss lenses become ridiculously childish compare to DB. Such a small crop of a frame made such a big print. I just fall in love that taught to myself how I just wasted my time during all these years. save your time by making a big print and you will understand ; nobody can tell you how a sunset looks like but just your own eyes! I am a believer! just you have to rob a bank...

Aren't you exaggerating a tiny little bit here?

I mean: MF is generally better, but it does not cure cancer, resurrect the dead nor give you a glimpse into the true face of God.
Logged

alifatemi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 278
    • ali fatemi photography
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #97 on: December 05, 2013, 01:17:34 pm »

to be honest no! If you print large, by that I mean above 40", the quality difference is so huge that leave you no doubt; it was like miracle. I always take picture with my D800E on tripod, MU, Zeiss primes blah blah, but always couldn't see that quality in large print but this time with 260, it was so obvious that made my decision to go and bye one although its very expensive for me. try for yourself and go big this time!
Logged

Justinr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1733
    • Ink+images
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #98 on: December 05, 2013, 03:05:35 pm »

Aren't you exaggerating a tiny little bit here?

I mean: MF is generally better, but it does not cure cancer, resurrect the dead nor give you a glimpse into the true face of God.

Well the Mamiya cleans out the kitty litter and you couldn't really ask for more than that.
Logged

KevinA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 979
    • Tree Without a Bird
Re: I would like to understand the MF look.
« Reply #99 on: December 05, 2013, 04:07:32 pm »

Presumedly a 500 series hassy with a 16mp CFV would still give the MF look, right?
Logged
Kevin.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11   Go Up