Medium Format Digital v. Medium Format Film

[dave.gt]

Now for something a little different.

What is your preference? Chocolate or vanilla? How about Neopilitan ice cream? Or Rocky Road? Or in Photography, black and white or color? Or digging a little deeper, film or digital?

Creatively, whether in culinary things or Photography and life in general, I do not like to be limited. Why is that? It must be a curse or fate that drives me to make images just to see what it will look like and when I am happy with it (or give up), I am always looking for the next image.... What can I do better to express what I am wanting the image to evoke?

Have you ever done a project with a mix of formats? An example would be: 120 film images from a classic film camera (or using a film magazine in MFD) and digital files from a Medium Format digital camera? If so, I am interested in seeing your results!

Lately, I have been wanting to shoot a project with both the studio's H5D-50c and the 503cxi. I have not yet decided on the project, let alone whether it will be all in color or a mixture of color with black and white.

There is definitely a lot of difference in my work having used both, like Neopolitan ice cream. But I am thinking Rocky Road at the moment!

If anyone has examples, please post them as I am anxious to learn from you.

 

[dave.gt]

Let me guess...

No one on this forum shoots Medium Format film?

 

[dave.gt]

Ok... can't blame you, with all the exquisite work posted here.

In case you are wondering if I have lost my mind, consider three things:

1. I am not primarily a landscape photographer... I don't even consider myself a photographer, everybody is a photographer these days. I tell stories. I create photographic images. I write.

2. Watch this trailer, and the immediately following 19min. Visions of Storytelling video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lKOn4saO-tU

3. Watch Abstract on Netflix (Season 1/Episode 7).. I found this last year after I traded for my 503cxi.

This may give you some insight as to why I am considering blending my Medium Format digital storytelling with Medium Format film images. There is a different workflow and a different aesthetic involved in the process and in the final work. It is not just about the final image.

If it still does not capture your imagination that is ok... I just hope you enjoy the film.

 

[Oren Grad]

Let me guess...

No one on this forum shoots Medium Format film?

I shoot medium format film (and small format, and large format), but I've never mixed medium format film and digital on a project.

For monochrome, which is what I mostly care about, I see the tradeoff as follows: it's easier to record a high level of subject detail with medium format digital, but it's easier to to achieve a pleasing tonal scale with medium format film. So one needs to decide which is more important for whatever the purpose is.

EDIT: I should have added that the two media are different enough in overall character that I'd find it challenging to mix them seamlessly on a project. Thus the need to decide which is better suited to the task at hand.

 

[Shashin]

Let me guess...

No one on this forum shoots Medium Format film?

It is the mixing that is uncommon, not a particular process. For continuity, I generally shoot a particular format and style. Not that it can't be done, but there needs to be some context or rationale for the difference. Otherwise, it can just seem random.

 

[dave.gt]

I shoot medium format film (and small format, and large format), but I've never mixed medium format film and digital on a project.

For monochrome, which is what I mostly care about, I see the tradeoff as follows: it's easier to record a high level of subject detail with medium format digital, but it's easier to to achieve a pleasing tonal scale with medium format film. So one needs to decide which is more important for whatever the purpose is.

Oren, thanks so much. In my case, I have two end uses for my work presentation, wall hangings with acrylic face metallic prints, and "high-end" 12"x12" photo essay books.

Telling a story of a scientist suffering a traumatic injury leaving him a quadriplegic and through years of intense rehabilitation therapy, recovering enough to stand, walk, hug his wife and return to work in his profession, seems best suited for a book form presentation. Prints of specific images such as portraits in color or black and white can be any size. I think tonality may work best rather than detail, especially with portraits of women.

Mixing color and monochrome has been a normal part of my projects to date.

What do you think of color using digital capture, and monochrome on film?

 

[Oren Grad]

Mixing color and monochrome has been a normal part of my projects to date.

What do you think of color using digital capture, and monochrome on film?

Well, there are two aspects to the question as you've asked it. I do think that with current technologies, digital capture is better suited to color. So there's that. On the other hand, subjectively, a mix of color and monochrome on a project usually feels awkward to me. On the third hand <sheepish >, that's certainly a matter of personal taste, and if color/monochrome mixes have been working for you that's great - I don't mean to say that there's something inherently wrong with that. And it's possible that if I had the opportunity to spend time with some of your work in its intended final, printed form I might conclude that you had used the mix effectively.

 

[sog1927]

I shoot medium format film (and small format, and large format), but I've never mixed medium format film and digital on a project.

For monochrome, which is what I mostly care about, I see the tradeoff as follows: it's far easier to record a high level of subject detail with medium format digital, but it's far easier to to achieve a pleasing tonal scale with medium format film. So one needs to decide which is more important for whatever the purpose is.

I suppose it depends on the film. I used to be quite partial to Tech Pan, back when you could get it. As long as you were okay with shooting at ISO 16 or so, you could hit resolutions that are still not obtainable with any currently available digital back (~150 lp/mm for normal contrast (16:1) subjects, I think that's close to a 290 MP equivalent for a 56x56mm frame, much higher for high-contrast subjects). And, of course, it was available in sheet film, too ;-) Rollei ATP (still available!) claims approximately twice this resolution (300 lp/mm for a 16:1 contrast ratio target), but I've never used it. The limiting factor when using films like this (besides needing a really good tripod) was always the lenses (and of course the limits of optical printing and/or scanning).

 

[Oren Grad]

I suppose it depends on the film. I used to be quite partial to Tech Pan, back when you could get it...

Yes, I went through a phase of trying 35mm Tech Pan in Technidol Liquid Developer, back in the day. Astonishing capacity to record detail, but very finicky in exposure and development and I didn't care much for the tonality.

The film was intended and optimized for purposes other than general-purpose continuous tone pictorial work. I remember Dick Delagi's writing about his modified POTA formula for Tech Pan, I *think* before Technidol LC and Technidol Liquid were generally availlable; it was cool that developers could be specially formulated to get Tech Pan within hailing distance of general usability. But in the end it was still something of a kludge, and when detail was important and TMX, which arrived a bit later, still wasn't enough, I found it easier to get pleasing results by moving to larger formats.

 

[dave.gt]

I suppose it depends on the film. I used to be quite partial to Tech Pan, back when you could get it. As long as you were okay with shooting at ISO 16 or so, you could hit resolutions that are still not obtainable with any currently available digital back (~150 lp/mm for normal contrast (16:1) subjects, I think that's close to a 290 MP equivalent for a 56x56mm frame, much higher for high-contrast subjects). And, of course, it was available in sheet film, too ;-) Rollei ATP (still available!) claims approximately twice this resolution (300 lp/mm for a 16:1 contrast ratio target), but I've never used it. The limiting factor when using films like this (besides needing a really good tripod) was always the lenses (and of course the limits of optical printing and/or scanning).

Interesting that you should mention Tech Pan as we were discussing that this week. Sigh... Now we are where we are with film. Do you have any thoughts on readily available film from Ilford?

I must admit to being quite interested in the imminent announcement of Ektachrome from Kodak.... There was a mention on FB that word might come as early as this coming week. No idea what to expect about the quality of the new film, but it may be surprising.

Back to tonality, with the work that I do, setting moods is important and monochrome/black and white suits me just fine with that, especially when the images are reference to past times, usually not happy times by any means due to the subject matter of profound injuries or disease. So, yes, tonality IMHO is more important in those cases than detail.

 

[dave.gt]

I shoot both on my Hasselblad V system, black and white film and color with the CFV50c back. The roles are color for commercial work and B&W film for fine art prints. I still have a couple hundred rolls of 120 Techpan that I gnaw away at on a long term project. It’s not a film for all things but for this project it is stellar.

Ahhhh...now that is an idea! Thanks so much!

An interesting option is to use the two film backs that Capture Integration has for rent. At least, the lens will remain the same.

Film choices.... I must really put some time into this decision.

Could this be the Techpan film?

https://www.freestylephoto.biz/4222...MItsLt_7a22wIVArXACh2X9g6FEAQYAyABEgJEBPD_BwE

 

[thompsonkirk]

The Dave, I don’t see where you’ve given any real reason for mixing media in the first place.

It would make sense in a long-term or historical documentary project where BW film came first, and color film/digital later.

But I can’t offhand see any aesthetic gain from, or rationale for, mixing analog/digital/BW/color media - with the one possibility of a current project using digital color and BW film, if you’re wedded to the analog darkroom for achieving a certain BW tonality.

And even in that instance, I have a question: Can you bring to mind any important photo books or exhibits (by one artist) that have actually gained from mixing BW and color? Any, that is, that are not retrospectives, showing how the photographer’s vision and technique changed over time?

Just my 2 cents,

Kirk

 

[dave.gt]

The Dave, I don’t see where you’ve given any real reason for mixing media in the first place.

It would make sense in a long-term or historical documentary project where BW film came first, and color film/digital later.

But I can’t offhand see any aesthetic gain from, or rationale for, mixing analog/digital/BW/color media - with the one possibility of a current project using digital color and BW film, if you’re wedded to the analog darkroom for achieving a certain BW tonality.

And even in that instance, I have a question: Can you bring to mind any important photo books or exhibits (by one artist) that have actually gained from mixing BW and color? Any, that is, that are not retrospectives, showing how the photographer’s vision and technique changed over time?

Just my 2 cents,

Kirk

Kirk,

With all due respect, why do I need to give anyone a reason for my own artistic expression? But, if it helps you to understand, please know that I have always been a little different, still am.... and nothing frustrates me more than to do what everyone else does, especially related to art. If I can learn from others, that is wonderful. Yet I am always pushing limits and looking for alternate expressions. For me, black and white can be used successfully in setting the mood for past memories of dark times. Film noir comes to mind as does any number of cinematic effects using black and white. Color, on the other hand, is cheerful and bright, at least to me in general, and seems best in MF digital, in most cases. All of my work the last two years have been retrospective because it has all been Storytelling. I have used color to celebrate the beauty of life for those patients who have survived horrific injury and disease. They have been grateful for the hope and inspiration they see in their own personal portraits/stories of healing.

I have actually stated, above, an actual project, quite successful in its own right, that I started in October and finished in January of this year that could have been done differently. As successful as the project was in color MFD, I did not draw out all of the emotions associated with the period immediately after the trauma and the extreme difficulty of someone and his family dealing with life as a quadriplegic in rehab for several years because I was focused on the recovery aspects and celebrating the motif's achievements.

In my first posts, I included some links that show another artist who has used film in a particular aesthetic with film only and with a different approach to his workflow. The idea for me to blend both film and digital is an artistic concept that I will be exploring because I think it has merit. There is no need to justify why I want to explore this approach, others I am sure have already done so in their own way.

I am not trying to change any mindset of anyone. Everyone is different but I am and always have been a little more different as I tend to sing my own song while I walk alone. After more than six decades, i have explored and discovered many wonderful things along the way with the help of others more knowledgeable than me, like yourself and so many others on this forum and countless others I have met in my journey.

I merely started this thread as part of my discovery process.

 

[dave.gt]

Apologies for the title of this thread, I just realized that the title is wrong and at first may seem controversial as in choosing one or the other.

If I had the presence of mind, I would have had the title something like:

"How best to use Medium Format film images and MDF images in a Story?"

But it is too long.

Sometimes, my communication skills are lax which I can only attribute to exhaustion. Sorry.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

In a way I would think that film used to have processing built in, while digital leaves processing pretty free, as long as we use raw data.

Film is good at handling high contrast data, at least in some ways. But, that handling is in the hand of film makers, processing labs and printers. With digital we need to be master of all.

Great masters were shooting 4”x5”, but scanned at say 2000 PPI. That was all that was needed. But, it could be that 6000 PPI would deliver better detail.

Personally, I feel that a good digital camera yields plenty of high quality detail. With film, it is always a struggle. Film can hold a lot of detail, but at the cost of noise.

The way it may work, film may resolve more high contrast detail, while digital may handle sublime differences better, due to lower levels of noise.

Best regards
Erik

 

[richardman]

I don't shoot medium format digital because of cost. One problem I see is the size format change between the classic 6x6 to 44x33 or even the uber-expensive 54x40. I did a project with both Leica M7 and M9 and the results are seamless.

 

[dave.gt]

I don't shoot medium format digital because of cost. One problem I see is the size format change between the classic 6x6 to 44x33 or even the uber-expensive 54x40. I did a project with both Leica M7 and M9 and the results are seamless.

Cool... great combo with the M7 and M9.

I shoot 6x6 with the 503cxi and I shoot 6x6 with the H5D-50c, courtesy of Steve Hendrix at CI who helped me make a mask for shooting. It works extremely well and gives me an option with every shot to go square or 645. I have not had time to use the film magazines from CI, but hopefully in a week or so, I will have that opportunity. Finding opportunity is... complicated.

So, yes, I will be shooting square format with either digital or film when I do go that mixed format route and it just fits my vision, so I will be working on that project over the summer. Like album covers of the past, the square format works very well with 12"x12" books. I can literally make a 40-60 page book in an hour (and spend the next week editing!!!). I have fallen for the square format lately and I find it refreshing. But not all of my work is with the square. I love panos. And I am working with 16x9 as well. Whatever is dictated in my mind by the project...:thumbup:

 

[trioderob]

for Black and White nothing is going to top large or medium format silver halide film printed old school in a wet lab.


I have A/B it a million times with digital at a photography museum near me called the San Diego Photography museum in balboa park near the zoo.

there is just a magic to the look that I would pick over digital every day of the week

you just have to decide if its worth the grief

 

[JohnBrew]

Dave, this is probably not a very good comparison, but here goes anyway.
Both RM3di, 70 HR Rodie. First with CFV-50c and it is a focus stacked shot. Second is film and I cannot recall which as I tossed the negatives.

 

[dave.gt]

Dave, this is probably not a very good comparison, but here goes anyway.
Both RM3di, 70 HR Rodie. First with CFV-50c and it is a focus stacked shot. Second is film and I cannot recall which as I tossed the negatives.

Wow, John!

That comparison is really cool. Same lens yet wider perspective with film! I will move to the big screen on the computer firca closer look! Stay tuned, be
right back!