<snip>
> Well, what do you think? On an 8x10 5x7 blowup
> will I be able to tell the
> difference? How about on a 5x7?
> Thanks,
> Joe
>
>
Joe,
Begging your indulgence and that of the group, below
are some rather lengthy quotes from other forums
(fora?) explaining why even at 8x10, the best 35mm
images really do NOT equal a decent MF image.
They say it better than I could.
-Paul Reese
___________________
rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan)
wrote:
<snip>
Consider a 35mm image of a subject vs. a 6x7cm shot.
Same subject is say 0.1mm square on 35mm, about 0.2mm
square on 6x7cm (70/36=1.9+; 56/24=2.3). So you have
about 4 times the area/number of grains on 6x7, so you
can delineate where a line or subject edge is more
precisely (hence, greater accutance or edge
definition).
Now with four times the grains (cf pixels) you get 4
times more info, finer and larger array of mid-range
tones. On 35mm only one grain "votes" black/white; on
6x7cm, four grains "vote", each black/white, so net
effect is to give a range of possible grey tones where
35mm was limited to just one grain (black/white).
Hence medium format has "opened up" the black shadows
seen on 35mm with more grey rather than black/white
effect. Make sense? Same true of going to LF from MF -
more shadow detail, same reason. My 35mm shots block
up more easily than my medium format shots, so when I
have a subject where shadow detail is important, I
tend to reach for medium format....
Bob,
Like many others here, I shoot in both 35mm and medium
format. I contend that MF also records more highlight
detail - for exactly the same reasons you explained
for shadow detail. I think improved shadow detail is
simply more noticeable because highlights often don't
have much detail to begin with. For example, if your
picture is of a white automobile or a white
refrigerator - what detail is there to look for?
However, some highlights do have quite a lot of
detail. Best example I can think of is a bride in her
white wedding dress. At the threshhold of
over-exposure, medium format will show more detail in
a
white wedding dress than you can get with 35mm. Maybe
this is just one more reason for shooting weddings
with medium format instead of 35mm.
Gene Windell
_________________
(And from another post by Gene:)
The improvement is all across the spectrum. But it
just seems more noticeable and obvious in the shadow
detail, and this is naturally what people most often
comment on.
I've noticed that the range of color gradation in the
subject matter is not nearly so great in my studio
work as it is outdoors. I see a bigger difference in
mid-tone color gradation, between MF and 35mm,
when shooting outdoor scenics. In studio work, a
painted canvas or muslin backdrop is used along with
seamless paper rolls. Put a solid colored object in
front of this type of backdrop, and there isn't much
color tone gradation to begin with. But outdoors in
bright sunlight, the improvement in mid-tone color
gradation becomes quite obvious.
I've found that 35mm can equal the results of medium
format at the 8X10 enlargement size, but only under
ideal conditions. First, the exposure of the 35mm
film must be precisely accurate. Second, the
lighting must be somewhat less than full high
contrast. Third, bright highlights and dense shadows
must be absent from the scene. Fourth, the image must
be precisely focused. And finally, the 35mm camera
must be mounted on a tripod or electronic flash used
as the main light source. Unfortunately, all of these
factors are seldom combined under the conditions where
35mm cameras are most often used.
When a negative is enlarged, it is not just the scene
that is increased in size. The photographer's
mistakes such as focusing and exposure errors are
enlarged as well, and made more obvious. Because it is
magnified to a smaller degree than 35mm to achieve the
same sized print, medium format negatives are more
forgiving of the photographer's technical errors.
In the final analysis, I believe much less precision
in technique is required to produce technically
excellent photos from MF than 35mm. I believe the
lazy and complacent photographer would get more
impressive results by investing his money in a medium
format camera instead of a computerized 35mm SLR.
I've tried it both ways, and this has been my
experience.
Gene Windell
______________
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 04/26/08 EDT