Why use medium format film cameras

[simonpg]

Fritz, while I am not a digital process expert by any measure, I have learned a lot by asking those who are and reading a lot, which helps me have a solid understanding rather than any expertise.

Sure, like you say and recall from the drum scanner person, a major factor not well understood by users of film scanning and digital capture: all scans require sharpening which is a natural by-product of the scanning process; the same applies to digital capture at all levels (as I understand it) but maybe to varying degrees.

With regard to you comment or question about "is it the image captured or the scanning process" that we see as the end result. I think at the drum scan (or even some of the best MF dedicated film scanners) level we get to see what the lens and film optically captured or the vast majority of it at least. Obviously the image is only as good as the weakest link, so the drum scan can only deliver what the lens and film captured; but, poorer spec and performing scanners cannot get that far.

So I suppose the relevant outcome is that to do full justice (or as close as is technically possible) to an MF image one needs a high end dedicated film scan of a drum scan - so we can use our best Epson flatbeds for convenience like you do and I do; but, for exhibition, resale or home framing to show of our great images, we should always invest in a drum scan or at least a high end dedicated film scan.

I am personally happy that high res 35mm scans done by my Fuji Frontier lab gives me best quality 26MB files for great prints that must (my opinion) be as good as an old optical print when done by hand with good care including colour correction and sharpening.

How stupid it is of the IT industry to call the process of sharpening "unsharpen mask" - means noting to photographers

And why can't software like PS use terminology identical to photographic terms for things like filter effects throughout the software application: eg "81c filter mask" etc... Maybe they will get to it eventually (or maybe I have missed the fact they have begun to do so).

 

[jsmisc]

That's interesting Simon and makes sense,
The only think is I have found that libraries such as Alamy and fotoLibra ask us not to sharpen so that the customer can decide on the level of sharpening required. This makes things awkward when one is used to sharpening and now has to stop. It means making a duplicate for printing and sharpening that I suppose,
John

 

[fotografz]

The most accepted way of sharpening is to scan at the maximum ppi @ 100% neg size, 16 bit, and save that as your master.

Then make basic corrections as needed creatively (but no sharpening), as a layer, and save.

Then, crop and size the image based on the print needs ... and only then apply sharpening. Often, when doing reductions, you can subtly apply different contrast levels at size to avoid the edge halo that most sharpening applications suffer from.

Digital cameras differ in need for sharpening. CCD sensors without anti-aliasing need less if any at all. The Imacon backs need very little as does the Leica DMR. Canon EOS cameras with CMOS and filters need it much more. Very good scans don't need a lot from my experience, and when you do use it too much, it just enhances the grain.

 

[qnu]

Simon,

The technique called unsharp masking originates in the world of photography, and was done, in the darkroom, using an (guess...) unsharp mask.

The IT-community adopted the name from photography, and is (contrary to what you might think) not imposing a silly name onto the photographic community.

Here's a Link to a description of the process: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/unsharp/

 

[afranklin]

Hi Simon,

[How stupid it is of the IT industry to call the process of sharpening "unsharpen mask" - means noting to photographers

]

unsharp mask is a darkroom term from a long time ago...so it's not from the "IT" industry.

I also don't think you mean the IT industry. IT is the business of choosing and setting up and maintaining computers...has not a thing to do with the programmers who wrote PhotoShop.

Regards,

Austin

 

[qnu]

And having messed with contrast- and other masks in the darkroom... my endless gratitude for IT and that nameless business (software engineering?) that gave us computers and PS.

 

[najobskalf]

Simon, I agree with you about hoping for a full frame square format digital back some day. Actually, isn't deviation from the square format some sort of blasphemy, anyway?

What I seem to sense from your various comments is that it may not be appropriate to compare film and digital directly anyway, as they are so different.

I do hope photography does not go the way of hi-fi, where frequency response curves and distortion figures gave way to subjective discussions about the comparative "musicality" of different mains cables and all that!

 

[rcyoung]

> Here is a link that describes the "wet room" approach

> http://www.largeformatphotography.info/unsharp/

 

[simonpg]

John, I was unaware of that unsharpened requirement which is handy to know.

Marc's comment about scanning methodology makes sense and it's what others have told me - keep a virgin master file. Like he says I have found the best sharpening is when you have set the image up for final printing of the chosen size.

And Marc, thanks for sharing your digital sensor knowledge. I suppose that each user needs to invest time in understanding the specific performance attributes of his camera's sensor.

Thanks QG and Austin - life is a learning experience. I stand well corrected for that view. Now I know for sure - amazing, so photographers are ultimately to blame for nonsense terms!

What intrigues me is that in other chats with pros non has ever made that comment. Thanks for the link. But I think you're both just a bit to generous to the IT community - I having lead reviews of ERP and CRM functionality regularly find a dysfunctional disconnect among IT professionals (programmers, systems engineers and architects alike) where the real world intuitive functionality is so often poorly enabled.

 

[simonpg]

Thanks Robert for the link.

Bojan, while I'm a great fan of the square format, I'm also mindful that VH did not so much intend us to see the square as a mandatory format, but more the largest desirable image size while enabling the equipment to be of relatively "compact" proportions - we are blessed with sufficient area to make crops and retain lots of film area for large prints. But if we intend to shoot slides for projection only, then we do have that confinement to a square format. I do wonder though how many do shoot for projection only.

But, yes, like you, when I first realised the H series was not 6x6 I felt cheated! And then I considered the variables involved and realised that this company had solid reasons for a 6x4.5 image. However, I feel that my preference will always remain for 6x6 which to my eyes has a beauty and creativity all its own.

And, Bojan I share you hopes for photography not going the way of hi fidelity music (seems a contradiction of terms when you think of the sound today's conventional systems produce).

 

[rcyoung]

> 6x6, 6x4.5, 35mm....the format is really determined by your final > use. 6x4.5 and 35mm are geared towards the "mass publishing" > markets....do you ever recall a square print in a mass market > publication ? Magazines, newspapers and books are ( almost to a > fault) rectangular in size. Print a full. half, quarter page and > you have smaller and smaller rectangles. 99% of all 6x6 images end > up getting cropped to a rectangular format by an editor or the > photographer himself (if he wants to frame it as, say, in the > wedding photo industry). Hence, the use of a rectangular film > format "at the start" has advantages in these areas.

I actually do prefer the "look" of a true 6x6. It is different than what the eye is accustomed to seeing, and so it makes more of a statement.

 

[simonpg]

Robert I do agree that there is something wonderful about a good 6x6 image especially when printed BIG.

See my thread about Charlie Waite exhibition here down under - OTT section.

 

[qnu]

Robert,

Yes, i do indeed see many square images in "mass market publications". And many other shapes too.
Most do not conform to the 'usual' image formats cameras produce. Images tend to be sized to fit the lay-out.

I believe the reason why Hasselblad decided upon the square format was purely because it obviated the need to turn the camera on its side. In the age when prism finders were not that common, a quite sensible decision.
Since many photographers naturally tend to 'fill' the frame the camera they happen to be holding offers (hence the need for visual aids (focussing screen masks) to crop in-camera), most Rollei and Hasselblad images ended up being square.

And it works: as long as you try to compose for the frame, the pictures will turn out fine.

Still, some formats are better suited for some subjects, other formats for other subjects. That's when you crop.
Some formats are better suited for a particular lay-out than other formats. That's when the 'art department' crops (unlike photographers, they usually do not have this partisan attitude towards one format).

 

[fotografz]

Being an Art Director/Creative Director in advertising, a wedding photographer on the side, and owning a small commercial studio, I can shed some light on format use.

In advertising, it is necessary to produce images with additional image space around the core subject area. There are many reasons for this:

Ad images appear in many different publications, most of which have different size specifications ( from Digest to a Tabloid format). In addition, advertisers may produce a full page vertical ad in 10 publications, and a 1/2 page horizontal ad in 10 others.

Then there are bleed requirements which differ publication to publication.

It all adds up. I've done ads that required up to 20 different furnishings be sent to publications.

That same image may also be used on a outdoor board which can also require different spec's. Posters and catalogs may also figure into the mix.

Under these conditions, 8X10 & 4X5 were once the most efficient formats, but are not used that much any longer ( 4X5 cameras are used, but not the films).

35mm was/is the least efficient, and used more for emotionally oriented editorial approaches.

A 6X7 is the most effective medium format followed closely by 6X6 because the subject are can be kept large vertically while providing additional area on the sides for those 1/2 page horizontal publications.

Virtually all commercial printing is now digital. The cost of film, processing, and drum scans in terms of money and time is driving commercial photography to digital capture. Especially true for catalog work which is a massive business. 100 shots X $20 per roll film & processing X $70 drum scan is an $9,000. line item clients are increasingly questioning in today's belt tightening financial environment

Now that digital MF backs are starting their dominate climb, the 645 is where it's at. It actually isn't 645. It's slightly smaller and makes a perfect 8 1/2"X11" sized print. At 39 megs now, there aren't many commercial demands 645 sensors can't meet.

Weddings are increasingly being done with 35mm DSLRs. The beginning of the downfall of MF in this industry wasn't due to digital, it was due to the rise of the photojournalistic style, where 35mm of any type came into vogue. Digital was the natural evolution from 35mm film ... and to some eyes has now evolved to provide a look equal to or superior to MF (graduates from the Helen Keller school of photography?). So, they could have their cake, and eat it too.

It remains true that 6X6 digital would serve commercial photography well for the reasons mentioned above. It would simply be a matter of cost verses return on image quality. But if you're spending $60,000. on two 39 meg backs, what's another $15,000? ; -)

For other than die hards like me, 6X6 is a dead issue for wedding photography, The full frame Canon 1DsMKII & 5D made sure of that. And if it isn't dead yet, the next round of 22-24 meg Canon DSLRs will be the final blow.

Continued advancement in MF digital backs is the only hope for Hasselblad and Mamiya (maybe Rollei). I keep my Mamiya 6X7 Pro II gear only out of nostalgia and an occasional film portrait. A full 6X7 sensor is a pipe dream that'll never be realized in my lifetime. The most I could hope for is a 6X6 back to use on it and my Hasselblads.

 

[najobskalf]

Not even old painters stuck to a 4x5 format. If he had had the opportunity, it is likely that Hieronymous Bosch would have used a square format camera, as evidenced by the centre panels of his Temptation of Saint Anthony and his Garden of Earthly delights (perhaps with a panoramic camera for the side panels).}}

 

[rcyoung]

> Thanks for the input. I am glad someone who actually deals with > this on a day to day basis was able to provide an "insider's" > perspective.

 

[najobskalf]

Robert, I had forgotten what emulsion we used with the quarter micron Epon sections and had to contact an ex-colleague. He says Tech Pan 4150 was very good for the ultrafine grain, but the mulsion was too thin and has a small exposure latitude to give a good image. If you processed it to the higher contrast that was needed to get the detail from the plastic sections then much of the information was lost.

We used Agfa Rapidoprint Ra711p. This is/was a rapid process (developer incorporated) line film with an Orthochromatic response. It had the edge sharpness needed, the good sensitivity to blue light for the toluidine blue stains and the 2 minute process times in an automatic roller transport processor using Kodak Dektomatic RT developer 1 + 9 at 35 Celsius and around 2cm/sec.

That film has long since gone, but Agfa now have Alliance CE film.