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

PeterA

Well-known member
My take on the difference in look and feel betwen MF and DSLR is that you get more detail in the less in focus areas of a shot - the detail does't fall off as fast as smaller chips - at same apertures and distances - so you get a smoother transition from in to out of focus.

I agree with Marc's comment on the difficulty of using words to describe visual phenomena as experienced by different eyes.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Peter well said and that maybe the secret sauce. it just seems visually smoother in the transition area's. I like it
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
There was a term with certain large format lenses that got tossed around several years back -- proponents of the special look referred to it as "plasticity." I never understood precisely what they meant, but suspect it was something visibly tangible to them that was difficult to describe verbally. (I am reminded of a famous line from the movie "Chinatown" ... :) )

As for MF, I agree that it has a unique look, but more importantly, a pleasant look. But then I think my Leica files have a pleasant look too.

I suspect the look I am referring to has to do with a combination of things, and foremost is probably the absence of an AA filter. I suggest this, because I've never seen the pleasant characteristic I'm referring come out of a camera with an AA filter. Next I suspect it has to do with the glass. Some lenses have a smoother transition from the plane of sharp focus to the oof areas of the image. I have found those lenses mounted even on a camera with an AA filter improved the "look" of the files to my eyes. Unfortunately, it never boosted it to the same look as from a non-AA camera, but at least was clearly better.

In the end, when I mount a good lens on a camera without an AA filter, I get a higher percentage of "pleasant" images...

My .02 only,
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
I have seen some strange results, particularly from Canons shot at higher ISOs where it seems to me that firmware noise reduction in combination with the AA filter adds a degree of what I might call "vagueness" to transitions and edges. I don't see this vagueness in the M8, or a P45+ or even a Lumix LX2, but I do see it on a 40D, a D100, and a little ix800 point and shoot. I think it is a micro-effect that ends up making a subtle difference when one is not pixel-peeping.
When this micro-effect is combined with glass that is so sharp that one is at risk of an inadvertent Lasik procedure when viewing files and a dof that is small enough to define some space, that certain "pleasantness" is regularly generated. In other cases with subjects with a wide tonal range and good distribution and use of that tonal range, and particularly in B&W renderings where the distraction of color has been removed, it seems to be easier to obtain.
On the other hand, some like to shoot a pushed roll of tri-x once and awhile and of course a different sort of nostalgic pleasantness can be had. We used to have these debates ranging over the peculiar properties of Rodinal vs HC110 on just this sort of subjective effect on an 11x14 at four paces.

-bob
 

fotografz

Well-known member
The look can be found regardless of pixel size, format and anti aliasing filters.

Whether indeed it is pleasant is largely dependent on personal taste and or subject matter. A quality that is desirable when shooting custom cars is not necessarily desirable when applied to people and indeed often adds more than a touch of the Madame Tussauds.

http://www.metro.co.uk/fame/article.html?in_article_id=34400&in_page_id=7
Still not getting it Keith. Do you mean MFD is often "plastic looking". "waxy" when shooting people ... like a Canon 1DsMKIII file?

My take on this thread is that it's centered around a consistent visual quality regardless of subject matter or composition (a point made by Guy in discounting the subject matter itself.)

Jorgen's image is appealing because of the delightful happenstance of the composition, and use of an almost perfect focal length for it. The poor background rendering is vastly overshadowed by the power and dominance of the kids in your face ... but the background rendering is poor none the less ... IMO the separation of tones is less than ideal and frankly the skin looks plastic to my eye when compared to similar shots done with "real" 35mm B&W film ... but even those nuances are also vastly overshadowed by the subject matter to the point that "who cares" ... it's a great capture. Period.

Frankly, I don't personally believe 3D is the exclusive domain of MFDBs. I get it with certain lenses combined with certain "smaller" sensors... like some of the Zeiss ZFs on a D700. I also have observed that certain lenses on a MFD camera do not always have that smooth transition to OOF areas ... which usually has more to do with feathered lighting than it does most anything else ... and would be even worse if shot with a smaller camera.

However, I do believe that bigger sensors have more tonal range to work with ... which IMO leads to that notion of gradual transition in the OOF areas. I also believe that about 35mm film verses MF film ... or a 10 meg., sub-APS P&S verses a 10 meg. DSLR shot. It's not brain surgery. The concept is the same.
 

KeithL

Well-known member
"... but even those nuances are also vastly overshadowed by the subject matter to the point that "who cares" ... it's a great capture. Period."

Hallelujah!
 

robmac

Well-known member
Many older Zeiss-Contax lenses on FF Canons exhibit the so-called 3D effect under the right mix of circumstances.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
"... but even those nuances are also vastly overshadowed by the subject matter to the point that "who cares" ... it's a great capture. Period."

Hallelujah!
Double that! That is exactly what I said that you were saying here!;)

Why talk about 3D, etc? The purpose of this forum and this thread are very different.;)
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
My take on this thread is that it's centered around a consistent visual quality regardless of subject matter or composition (a point made by Guy in discounting the subject matter itself.)

Exactly Marc what I am more referring to is this is a consistent look throughout the MF land. Some images obviously will have more impact of this but what i am seeing is this is the very look that keeps coming up in almost all the images and the tonal range is the big plus and the transitions are just flat out smoother looking.

Not trying to discount 35mm DSLR's or the M8 RF cameras at all but I just see more of this in the MF world than I did when I shot all the other 35mm formats.


Also I am discounting the images posted because frankly they suck and i did not want to make it about the images but about the look they are showing and reason why i used these images. i don't want it to be about the image but the look they are showing.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Keith, Perhaps there was no mention of 3D (excuse me for that). Your point is now clear after you quoted Marc.

Here is my take on equipment in general:

Any photographer worth their salt knows what the most important factors for a successful photograph are. This can be discussed at length (I enjoy reading them and learn quite a bit from such discussions) elsewhere.

In a gear forum, how are we to get to discuss/see different kinds of gear (again most photographers are gear obsessed whether they admit it or not) if we keep pointing to an emotionally captivating image at hand while all the examples shown here are of a bunch of corporate dudes (and dudettes) at an evening gettogether? :)

I can only wonder what sort of goodies (photo gear) that you have in your closets!:D
 
Last edited:

PeterA

Well-known member
"... but even those nuances are also vastly overshadowed by the subject matter to the point that "who cares" ... it's a great capture. Period."

Hallelujah!
Keith I am wondering if you understand that this is a very aggressive exclamation on your part - the fact that everyone would agree with the sentiments expressed by Marc (in your quote) - as a matter of course - makes it also a very redundant aggressive exclamation.

Type on a page can often be misleading and the fact that this forum is not overtly structured to be a forum about critical theory , philosophy or art means that constant references to such issues irrespective of the title of the thread or the context of the discussion can deliver a touch of aggravation to people.

I don't mean to be rude here but a word like "Hallelujah" - followed by an exclamation "!" is hardly appropriate and in fact could be quite insulting to many readers, who well understand the difference between informal non empirical user experience type discussions and philosophising about photography and art. There has been no "eureka" moment Keith for anyone.

I have never ever read anyone say how a bigger chip or a 'better' lens will make them a better photographer - or that great photos havent been made by relatively simple photographic tools - many of us still use same.

I make one final observation - For every 'great' capture made with relatively simple tools - I can show you a thousand better images made by very sophisticated tools - images unable to be made by simple tools.

I guess the aspiration or simple technical inquisitiveness about the enabling power of technologies - gear if you like - is what brings people to this MFD forum.

Pete
 

KeithL

Well-known member
"Keith I am wondering if you understand that this is a very aggressive exclamation on your part"

What a strange medium the Internet is! I was merely expressing total agreement with Marc.

"I guess the aspiration or simple technical inquisitiveness about the enabling power of technologies - gear if you like - is what brings people to this MFD forum."

If that is the sole purpose of this forum then perhaps I'm out of place here?
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Keith, All you have managed to do here is to illustrate how gracious a host Guy is.:)
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
The look can be found regardless of pixel size, format and anti aliasing filters.
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.
 

KeithL

Well-known member
Ladies, Gentlemen, please forgive me; it appears that I am indeed out of place here. I wish all of you well and good shooting.

Keith
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Huh? Who said you were out of place? Your opinion is your opinion and I have no issues with that. You disagreed with my POV and I happened to disagree with yours, so all I was asking for is some examples that support your POV...

Best,
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Ladies, Gentlemen, please forgive me; it appears that I am indeed out of place here. I wish all of you well and good shooting.

Keith
Easy big guy ... it's just a reaction to the "it's the photographer, not the gear" being applied to a relatively innocent assertion about a certain look someone sees with a certain piece of gear.

Taking the higher artist ground ("It's the photographer, not the gear") could be applied to every single slight mention of gear and any "apparent" results.

Now wouldn't THAT suck the fun right out of all this chatter amongst friends?
 

KeithL

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
 
Top