The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

MF Look

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Folks, I'd just like to make it perfectly clear that no one here has suggested that I'm out of place.

Jack, rest assured that my decision to leave has nothing to do with our differing POV on this thread. Marc, I fully accept that being reminded that great images are made by people and not cameras is likely to be irritating to gear heads wanting to talk equipment.

Once again I wish all here the very best and good shooting.

Keith
But no one is suggesting you leave either so not sure I understand all of this but there is absolutely no reason for you to leave us. We all respect everyone and there opinions here and we all love a lively debate and it is good for the soul. So from my seat and as one of the proud owners here I see no reason to leave us. But obviously this is your decision but this thread is really not about some ones shooting talent. Which honestly was not the topic to begin with was my images. There shit trust me I do this for corporate clients everyday and it puts food on the table. Please believe me i can shoot my way out of any paper bag and my work can be absolutely stunning when that need arises. This is not about that but about what a look is coming out of these MF backs that i am finding intriguing on a regular basis that maybe a combination of big pixels, no AA filter and the tonal ranges that MF provides all the time and only comes to life on certain occasions in 35mm. I came from Nikon, Canon, Leica, Kodak and almost anything else out there. I am just seeing this look more on a regular basis in MF than i have seen before.
 

sizifo

New member
It always struck me that the sigma DP1 images have a strikingly 3d look. And checked around now: this camera apparently has no AA filter. There really seems to be a relation.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Folks, I'd just like to make it perfectly clear that no one here has suggested that I'm out of place.

Jack, rest assured that my decision to leave has nothing to do with our differing POV on this thread. Marc, I fully accept that being reminded that great images are made by people and not cameras is likely to be irritating to gear heads wanting to talk equipment.

Once again I wish all here the very best and good shooting.

Keith
Instead of leaving, why not start a thread that deals with what you want to talk about Keith. The assumption that everyone here is nothing more than a gear head may be incorrect ...
 

woodyspedden

New member
Actually his use of the gear head comment is insulting and feels simply like a parting shot as he walks out the door. Sad because it just makes it so much harder to come back.

I agree with you Marc, There are threads here which are almost totally equipment oriented and others that are not. Guy and Jack run workshops which are all about making images and while you can't dismiss the gear for some of them (like the lighting workshop where the choice of lights can be somewhere between nice and critical). But I expect to come back from the workshop understanding how to use lighting to create better images. Of course if I only get it technically right and miss any kind of unique creation the effort is lost.

Come on back Keith and do as marc suggests. Start a thread and talk about what is important to you. Marc, as an example, is a creative director as well as a photographer. I believe he can help all of us in analyzing our images and using the critical critique to help us get better at what we do.

JMHO

Woody
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Instead of leaving, why not start a thread that deals with what you want to talk about Keith. The assumption that everyone here is nothing more than a gear head may be incorrect ...

Marc, I remember making that very same request (not a suggestion from my part) to Keith Laban, sometime ago, elsewhere.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Honestly I don't think any of us or this forum are what i would call gear heads. At the end of the day of shooting we ALL produce images that are to satisfy a certain need be it for yourself or for a client. No question we all love our gear and love to talk about it but the bottom line if it does not help us get nice images than we move on to something else. Gear is just a tool to help the photographer create images. No one here buy's gear and does not go out and use the damn stuff. At least from my perspective the members here are very active in creating images. Jack and i also encourage on any thread or section to post images of anything you want to talk about or show to other members. Not too many forums actually encourage that. WE DO in a big way.
 

Greg Seitz

New member
then please enlighten me with specific examples... As respects digital, I've never seen it in thousands of frames out of my Canons except for some of the early ones like the 1D, but see it frequently from my Leicas and most MF backs.
Well, I'll just throw one out there that I took today. To me this certainly has the 3D effect. I think it's the combination of the lighting, lens, DOF and the particular subject against its background that creates the illusion of depth here. For me I get more of a 3D feel with this shot than I do in looking at the particular examples Guy showed but of course it's pretty subjective and I'm sure opinions will differ.

Just for the record, this was shot with the D700 using the Nikon 28mm f/2 AIS lens at f/4.

 

John Black

Active member
I think the medium format look is a function of using longer lenses (relative to 35mm format) which results in more compression and a stronger sense of the DOF. Equally important is the expanded FOV with the larger medium format negative. The "look" is a ratio (very loosely speaking) of the telephoto traits in contrast to the wider FOV. There are other important aspects - the sharper the subject relative to the background, the better. Good side light to give roundness helps too.

There are some lenses which look more medium format than medium format (IMO) - such as the Contax 100mm F2 Planar on a 1Ds vs a 110mm F2 Planar on a P25. The relatively new Zeiss 50mm F2 Makro Planar is showing some of the nuances as the CY 100/2. It's very rare that I see anything from Canon lens that looks really 3D, but the Contax 100/2 is relatively consistent.

I do agree it's easier to achieve the "look" on medium format, but dSLRs can do it too. I suspect we'll see a very strong medium format look with the new P65+.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Shots that POP ( ie isolating in focus from out of focus by shooting wide open) is something that is certainly not MFD domain and we all love the f : 1.2-1.4 type lenses in 35mm land or the F: 2 -2.2 lenses in MF land. In MF you dont even need that much lens speed to make things POP as the narrow DOF equivalent in MF is achieved at much higher apertures - because of image circle size differentials.

incidentally ( and no offence ) some terrible OOF rendition evident in the green foliage above - visually jarring to my eye. I find that green foliage is very tough test of bokeh in any sized chip and lens combo - funny thing is green foliage ( especially grass ) is also the bane of B&W film landscapes.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Marc, I remember making that very same request (not a suggestion from my part) to Keith Laban, sometime ago, elsewhere.
Well, in many ways he's right ... more focus on the actual art of the images is a good idea. That's why in Peter's thread on Lens design in this issue of Victor, I was more taken with the images in the publication than the article. Powerful stuff.

However, that isn't what this thread is about at all.
 

Greg Seitz

New member
Pete,

No offense taken. I assume you're talking about the leaves in the top foreground above the grapes - I find them distracting as well.

What I was trying to do with this example was to show that the "look" is achievable with a DSLR and in fact is not that terribly uncommon. Jack mentioned he'd rarely seen it with his Canon DSLRs which runs counter to my own experience. The particular example is one I just shot out on my walk (not specifically trying to create the "look") that I thought would serve to show the effect. This one isn't the classic razor thin focus plane one gets when shooting wide open with fast long glass but was achieved with a 28mm at f/4 with a significant depth of field.

Greg
 

LJL

New member
This is where I keep getting a bit confused in this thread......the somewhat hard to describe "look" of MF digital, which some describe as "3D", while others are talking more about color roll-off, no-AA filter color crispness, and other things. Achieving the very shallow DOF look is not such a big deal, and can be done quite nicely with MF or DSLRs and good glass. That seems to be a part of what is getting lumped into the entire discussion.

From what Guy originally started this post with, the "look" is more related to how colors transition and separate, not just DOF separations, and those color separations seem to be more related to sensors (maybe CCD) and lack of AA filters. The DOF issue does help create a different kind of dimensionality, which does get melded into the entire image and how we tend to view things, IMHO.

Greg's shot above shows great DOF separation, but to me, it still does not have that more interesting color crispness aspect that many tend to see more with the MF images. Not always, but more often than not, as many have been describing. So, putting the compositions aside (yes, that is very hard sometimes, and that is also where as much of the more artistic qualities tend to come into play), the "gear" components come back to glass and sensor. This is what I was trying to say earlier about shooting a DSLR side by side with an M8. They provide a different "look", much as the MF does against the DSLR also.

I am sure folks much smarter and experienced than me can construct all sorts of pro/con arguments, but in the end, there is something different about the image from a MF back (and even the M8 with its CCD and no-AA filter) that imparts a somewhat distinctive color sharpness (for lack of a better descriptor right now) that contributes to the perceived dimensionality of the image, beyond what is delivered by DOF manipulations alone. I think this is what I thought Guy was trying to describe, and with which I tend to agree. Yes, the lighting plays into this a whole bunch, as does the specific lenses. What would be interesting to see is a set of comparison shots, as best that could be assembled, with identical lighting, closely matched lens equivalents for the sensor sizes, etc. This may help remove some of the personal passions about specific lenses and stuff. Shoot it at the equivalent DOF/aperture for each. My bet would be that the MF backs would show a bit more of the color sharpness and roll-off that we started to describe, followed by the M8 or other non-AA filter, CCD camera, followed by the DSLRs with there CMOS and AA filter set-ups. Just my thinking again on all of this.

LJ
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Pretty much right in line on what I was describing LJ. This was not really a thin DOF arena which obviously we can do with almost any format. It does have more to do with color transitions, separations and tonal ranges, big pixels lack of AA filters and stuff that actually defines the look per say. Even my lame examples are from a 35 and 55 lens stopped down to about 6.3 or so. Certainly not the thin DOF lenses we would use for such things which in a sense will confuse the issue at hand. Thin DOF will certainly give a 3d look in many cases with certain lighting and subject. This has more to do with a overall effect throughout the MF systems that I just see more on a consistent level.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I think everybody above has raised good points. It's clearly more than DoF separation, and more than how the oof areas get rendered. Maybe it has more to do with the tonal separation in SIMILAR colors? I think Peter may be onto something with his comment on the Green channel and LJ with his "color sharpness" comment. Historically, I've always been disappointed with digital greens, and have noted that colors from the DMR, M8 and MF backs seem to be "cleaner" and more detailed and hence more appealing to me, especially notable in the Greens...
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
Tonality, tonality, tonality. Probably the least mentioned of all image atributes in these digital days but we certainly knew what it meant in the film era when it was the prime reason for shooting any larger format. Methinks there has been far too much dumbing down of what inherent quality is in an image these days. It's all resolution and noise. So little talk of drawing, tonality and the small and invisible attributes that come together to make an incredible whole. I have almost no doubt that all here knew exactly what the difference between 35mm and MF was in the film days and why MF was the obvious choice for any people photography. I have little doubt that the majority of DSLR shooters have no idea and as such have no idea of the importance tonality plays in an image. I attribute most all of the vehement denials from the crop and 4:3 camp as to the benefits of larger chips to this. They don't know what they are missing! No doubt the resergence of LF shooters is directly attributed to this, lots of people realising there is more to an image than the pure resolution.
 

Dale Allyn

New member
Many good points in this thread. In some images what is being described (or attempted to be described) is rather subtle. In others it's quite obvious.

Ben's mention of tonality fits well, and it's pretty clear to me that the lack of AA filter is material. The way that these systems render certain scenes or subjects is just different than most other formats. And I agree that the M8 carries similarities, while not the same.

The night before last we took a walk in the evening and I shot some scenes at dusk. The shots were mostly intended as an exercise (as was the 6 mile walk), but I have to say the files have a characteristic to them makes the images very pleasant. There are details and tones which I would not have captured with my Canon gear (having shot this type of scene countless times with Canon) and would have tossed the Canon files. After all, the outing was for exercise, practice and fun. But actually I'm enjoying the images, though humble as they are, for the delicate details and tones which I have not captured with lots of other digital gear in the past, especially in the absence of "special" light. The light on this evening was very unremarkable.

Cheers
 
Top