How Did You Know MF/film is Better?

desertscape · 10-14-2015, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by daveward

I am trying to understand the basis on which you all made "investments" in the equipment...was it just the intuitive premise that bigger negatives can be blown up better?

I had shot 35mm film for many years and saw a Pentax 6x7 in a camera shop in 1976. I thought, " what a genius design idea to scale up a 35mm SLR". I bought one in 1988 but only used it as an amateur. I bought it because it was considered pro level equipment. I wanted better build quality and reliability that I figured would come with such a camera. When I turned pro in 1998, my customers really didn't want 35mm work, so my one 6x7 body and three lenses were not going to cut it, so I had to invest into the system fully.

ColColt · 10-14-2015, 05:42 PM

My best advice to the OP is to either do it yourself or have someone do it. Take a 35mm negative shot on Tri-X and a 120 negative shot with the same film. Scan both and enlarge both to the equivalent of an 8x10 photo. If you can't see the difference in quality you're either blind, indifferent or a troll.

The resultant test will be obvious and for those that make a living with weddings/portraiture or working in some other realm of publication it will become apparent the difference medium format makes.

Danaher Dempsey · 10-14-2015, 06:04 PM

I am thoroughly confused. I has been my perception that the recent increase in digital camera technology has put film into the dust bin of history.

So there is a reason to be using MF rather than a Nikon 810. Really? even for wedding pros?

I get the love of the experience described above but .... efficiently delivering a product seems to be the goal of a business.

So help me out here.

ColColt · 10-14-2015, 06:21 PM

Quote:

I has been my perception that the recent increase in digital camera technology has put film into the dust bin of history.

No idea where you heard that. Go over to APUG and look around. You'll see the continued love, enjoyment and quality work by many over there using film. Digital has it's place. The best thing about it is instantly seeing if you screwed up or not. That's about all it has going for it. It's like a machine gun. Buy a large card and bang away. Maybe one will turn out well if you shoot enough.

There have been untold countless weddings done with film compared to digital. Old pros that used Bronicas like Ed Pierce and Monte Zucker are about as good as it gets. Ed may have been forced into the realm of the digital world due to his wedding business but I'd bet he likes his old SQ much better. There's a quality to the color that digital just can't touch. B&W? It's a sterile environment to do it digitally and has no feeling to it. I would bet Alfred Eisenstadt and Margaret Bourke-White not to mention Henri Cartier-Bresson wouldn't have been caught dead with a digital camera.

Danaher Dempsey · 10-14-2015, 07:12 PM

ColColt, Thanks for the response.... It may help me to smarten up. -- Dan

tuco · 10-14-2015, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by Danaher Dempsey

I am thoroughly confused. I has been my perception that the recent increase in digital camera technology has put film into the dust bin of history.

I suppose it is mostly history in the commercial world of photography. Time is money sort of thing and I image most places are no longer set up to handle film for publication in magazines, etc. But I hear an interesting story about film now and then such as a wedding photographer including some film in their offering.

daveward · 10-14-2015, 08:06 PM - **1 Like**

Gentlemen,

I am not disputing the consensus that bigger is better, I can read here and all over the internet a chorus of voices attesting to that opinion. I too believe it is true based on the reasons I've read.

However, I am wondering when and how you each proved it for yourselves. It appears to me that on average, the proof only appears after one buys the equipment and "sees" for oneself there are valid differences. There seems to be very little evidence suggesting that anyone actually snapped a picture of the same thing with two different formats and said: Aha!

There is even less evidence that anyone did this which-format-is-better test before purchase. With all the folks who say there is no contest, I expected there would be a long history of well-documented evidence that MF is better. While, persuasive, I do not believe the broad consensus of MF owners is "evidence".

If you wanted to encourage more people to "experience" the benefits, it seems like showing off an example or two is better than saying: once you try it you'll see.

Just my 2 cents.

Duplo · 10-14-2015, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by Danaher Dempsey

I am thoroughly confused. I has been my perception that the recent increase in digital camera technology has put film into the dust bin of history.

So there is a reason to be using MF rather than a Nikon 810. Really? even for wedding pros?

I get the love of the experience described above but .... efficiently delivering a product seems to be the goal of a business.

So help me out here.

Originally posted by daveward

Gentlemen,

I am not disputing the consensus that bigger is better, I can read here and all over the internet a chorus of voices attesting to that opinion. I too believe it is true based on the reasons I've read.

However, I am wondering when and how you each proved it for yourselves. It appears to me that on average, the proof only appears after one buys the equipment and "sees" for oneself there are valid differences. There seems to be very little evidence suggesting that anyone actually snapped a picture of the same thing with two different formats and said: Aha!

There is even less evidence that anyone did this which-format-is-better test before purchase. With all the folks who say there is no contest, I expected there would be a long history of well-documented evidence that MF is better. While, persuasive, I do not believe the broad consensus of MF owners is "evidence".

If you wanted to encourage more people to "experience" the benefits, it seems like showing off an example or two is better than saying: once you try it you'll see.

Just my 2 cents.

Why not just show you as you request then?

Because hopefully the answer to this question is part of a photographic journey, I am well under way on my photographic journey, but your journey is yours. I can offer guidance based on my experiences, but I cannot travel it for you.

boiling your question down to an objective A vs. B comparison is next to impossible, because to make that comparison you need a rather specific scenario and some very detailed evaluation parameters and even then the answer would only apply within those.
It is something I have grown into as my photographic preferences have matured and my experience with each process and format have grown.

In my original reply I tried being detailed on some of the differences making comparisons difficult or downright impossible as it is soo much about personal preference, application, output and audience.

672 · 10-15-2015, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by daveward

That sir is the point of my inquiry. I suppose. It appears to me you had to have the equipment to prove it is better. I do not have the equipment, thus my view of MF examples is through the use of my computer screen. I do not have prints to survey, as you do. I am trying to understand the basis on which you all made "investments" in the equipment...was it just the intuitive premise that bigger negatives can be blown up better? Or did you see examples for yourself before you reached for your wallet? Thanks.

Dave

Before I made my "investments" in MF, I had questions similar to yours regarding the actual gains made possible for my style of shooting. Before I reached for my wallet , I had already deduced that Ebay made reselling quite easy and possible to recoup most of the money invested if I did not like the gear after all. So about ten years ago I bought a Mint condition pentax 672, used it for a while , got another one,
used it for a while, found a nearly unused one five years later, used it for a while and basically when I moved to 645D i sold the 672 bodies for about 90 percent of what i paid for them. Of course digital is way more fickle to resell and the 645D sold for 30 percent of purchase price after four years………

dsmithhfx · 10-15-2015, 05:29 AM - **1 Like**

It bears repeating: the most important piece of equipment in photography is behind the camera.

hsteeves · 10-15-2015, 07:58 AM

That's because digital is electronics and new electronics are 6 months away.

Originally posted by 672

Before I made my "investments" in MF, I had questions similar to yours regarding the actual gains made possible for my style of shooting. Before I reached for my wallet , I had already deduced that Ebay made reselling quite easy and possible to recoup most of the money invested if I did not like the gear after all. So about ten years ago I bought a Mint condition pentax 672, used it for a while , got another one,
used it for a while, found a nearly unused one five years later, used it for a while and basically when I moved to 645D i sold the 672 bodies for about 90 percent of what i paid for them. Of course digital is way more fickle to resell and the 645D sold for 30 percent of purchase price after four years………

**gofour3** · 10-15-2015, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by daveward

Gentlemen,

I am not disputing the consensus that bigger is better, I can read here and all over the internet a chorus of voices attesting to that opinion. I too believe it is true based on the reasons I've read.

However, I am wondering when and how you each proved it for yourselves. It appears to me that on average, the proof only appears after one buys the equipment and "sees" for oneself there are valid differences. There seems to be very little evidence suggesting that anyone actually snapped a picture of the same thing with two different formats and said: Aha!

There is even less evidence that anyone did this which-format-is-better test before purchase. With all the folks who say there is no contest, I expected there would be a long history of well-documented evidence that MF is better. While, persuasive, I do not believe the broad consensus of MF owners is "evidence".

If you wanted to encourage more people to "experience" the benefits, it seems like showing off an example or two is better than saying: once you try it you'll see.

Just my 2 cents.

The only real way you will find out is to shoot MF/LF yourself.

I found this camera rental place in SF for you:

Medium, Large Format-Adolph Gasser

As you can see they have various medium and large format cameras that you can try out for a day or two. So if you don't like it or don't find a difference then you are only out the rental money and film.

If you go down and check the place out I'm sure they will guide you in the right direction and answer any questions that you have.

Good luck and let us know how you made out.

Phil.

hsteeves · 10-15-2015, 08:06 AM

It's a little known 'ism' that the clonkier the camera, the better the image. A simple visual comparison shows that as you go up in format size, the cameras get clonkier, hence ... Any actual image quality increase is irrelevant. DSLRs are a dime a dozen but if you haul out some clonky medium or large format camera, especially one that makes noise or requires you to hide underneath a dark cloth, to the average layman this means your image is going to be just that much better. Sometimes you can actually put film in it.
ps. Sometimes, size matters.

daveward · 10-15-2015, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by gofour3

The only real way you will find out is to shoot MF/LF yourself.

I found this camera rental place in SF for you:

Medium, Large Format-Adolph Gasser

Phil.

Phil, quite nice of you to do that for me. Thanks.

tuco · 10-16-2015, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by daveward

...
However, I am wondering when and how you each proved it for yourselves... There seems to be very little evidence suggesting that anyone actually snapped a picture of the same thing with two different formats and said: Aha!
...

Actually, I have identical test shots with equivalent focal lengths taken on small and medium format. I'd have to scan them but no need to. It will show the the same thing I already showed you. I don't see anyone else here posting images from 3 different formats they shoot. I guess those images said nothing about the formats. I can't say they are the best selection/examples in the world but perhaps someone can post better examples. An 8x10 would be nice to see. Anyone have one of those to share?

Quantitatively, it has already been stated more than once. More film surface area; more the tonality is defined. That's one thing. Why isn't that evidence enough? That's probably something you can feel someone discovering for the first time, no?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How much did film bodies and film-era lenses originally cost?	Outis	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	90	12-30-2015 01:19 AM
How Do You Know How "Fish-Eye" A Lens Is?	reivax	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	03-07-2013 11:15 AM
How do I know the film is advancing ?	pcarfan	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	4	06-26-2010 08:13 PM
How do you know that SR is working?	kitkat	Pentax DSLR Discussion	10	07-30-2009 07:55 AM
How do you know if your lens is focusing right?	hmcfly	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	04-29-2008 10:03 PM

10-14-2015, 05:23 PM	#16
desertscape Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,272	Originally posted by daveward I am trying to understand the basis on which you all made "investments" in the equipment...was it just the intuitive premise that bigger negatives can be blown up better? I had shot 35mm film for many years and saw a Pentax 6x7 in a camera shop in 1976. I thought, " what a genius design idea to scale up a 35mm SLR". I bought one in 1988 but only used it as an amateur. I bought it because it was considered pro level equipment. I wanted better build quality and reliability that I figured would come with such a camera. When I turned pro in 1998, my customers really didn't want 35mm work, so my one 6x7 body and three lenses were not going to cut it, so I had to invest into the system fully.

10-14-2015, 05:42 PM	#17
ColColt Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 196	My best advice to the OP is to either do it yourself or have someone do it. Take a 35mm negative shot on Tri-X and a 120 negative shot with the same film. Scan both and enlarge both to the equivalent of an 8x10 photo. If you can't see the difference in quality you're either blind, indifferent or a troll. The resultant test will be obvious and for those that make a living with weddings/portraiture or working in some other realm of publication it will become apparent the difference medium format makes.

10-14-2015, 06:04 PM	#18
Danaher Dempsey Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 50	I am thoroughly confused. I has been my perception that the recent increase in digital camera technology has put film into the dust bin of history. So there is a reason to be using MF rather than a Nikon 810. Really? even for wedding pros? I get the love of the experience described above but .... efficiently delivering a product seems to be the goal of a business. So help me out here.

10-14-2015, 06:21 PM	#19
ColColt Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 196	Quote: I has been my perception that the recent increase in digital camera technology has put film into the dust bin of history. No idea where you heard that. Go over to APUG and look around. You'll see the continued love, enjoyment and quality work by many over there using film. Digital has it's place. The best thing about it is instantly seeing if you screwed up or not. That's about all it has going for it. It's like a machine gun. Buy a large card and bang away. Maybe one will turn out well if you shoot enough. There have been untold countless weddings done with film compared to digital. Old pros that used Bronicas like Ed Pierce and Monte Zucker are about as good as it gets. Ed may have been forced into the realm of the digital world due to his wedding business but I'd bet he likes his old SQ much better. There's a quality to the color that digital just can't touch. B&W? It's a sterile environment to do it digitally and has no feeling to it. I would bet Alfred Eisenstadt and Margaret Bourke-White not to mention Henri Cartier-Bresson wouldn't have been caught dead with a digital camera.

10-14-2015, 07:12 PM	#20
Danaher Dempsey Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 50	ColColt, Thanks for the response.... It may help me to smarten up. -- Dan

10-14-2015, 07:32 PM	#21
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	Originally posted by Danaher Dempsey I am thoroughly confused. I has been my perception that the recent increase in digital camera technology has put film into the dust bin of history. I suppose it is mostly history in the commercial world of photography. Time is money sort of thing and I image most places are no longer set up to handle film for publication in magazines, etc. But I hear an interesting story about film now and then such as a wedding photographer including some film in their offering.

10-14-2015, 08:06 PM - 1 Like	#22
daveward New Member Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: San Francisco Bay Area Posts: 22 Original Poster	Gentlemen, I am not disputing the consensus that bigger is better, I can read here and all over the internet a chorus of voices attesting to that opinion. I too believe it is true based on the reasons I've read. However, I am wondering when and how you each proved it for yourselves. It appears to me that on average, the proof only appears after one buys the equipment and "sees" for oneself there are valid differences. There seems to be very little evidence suggesting that anyone actually snapped a picture of the same thing with two different formats and said: Aha! There is even less evidence that anyone did this which-format-is-better test before purchase. With all the folks who say there is no contest, I expected there would be a long history of well-documented evidence that MF is better. While, persuasive, I do not believe the broad consensus of MF owners is "evidence". If you wanted to encourage more people to "experience" the benefits, it seems like showing off an example or two is better than saying: once you try it you'll see. Just my 2 cents.

10-14-2015, 10:43 PM	#23
Duplo Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Copenhagen Photos: Gallery Posts: 924	Originally posted by Danaher Dempsey I am thoroughly confused. I has been my perception that the recent increase in digital camera technology has put film into the dust bin of history. So there is a reason to be using MF rather than a Nikon 810. Really? even for wedding pros? I get the love of the experience described above but .... efficiently delivering a product seems to be the goal of a business. So help me out here. Originally posted by daveward Gentlemen, I am not disputing the consensus that bigger is better, I can read here and all over the internet a chorus of voices attesting to that opinion. I too believe it is true based on the reasons I've read. However, I am wondering when and how you each proved it for yourselves. It appears to me that on average, the proof only appears after one buys the equipment and "sees" for oneself there are valid differences. There seems to be very little evidence suggesting that anyone actually snapped a picture of the same thing with two different formats and said: Aha! There is even less evidence that anyone did this which-format-is-better test before purchase. With all the folks who say there is no contest, I expected there would be a long history of well-documented evidence that MF is better. While, persuasive, I do not believe the broad consensus of MF owners is "evidence". If you wanted to encourage more people to "experience" the benefits, it seems like showing off an example or two is better than saying: once you try it you'll see. Just my 2 cents. Why not just show you as you request then? Because hopefully the answer to this question is part of a photographic journey, I am well under way on my photographic journey, but your journey is yours. I can offer guidance based on my experiences, but I cannot travel it for you. boiling your question down to an objective A vs. B comparison is next to impossible, because to make that comparison you need a rather specific scenario and some very detailed evaluation parameters and even then the answer would only apply within those. It is something I have grown into as my photographic preferences have matured and my experience with each process and format have grown. In my original reply I tried being detailed on some of the differences making comparisons difficult or downright impossible as it is soo much about personal preference, application, output and audience.

10-15-2015, 12:36 AM	#24
672 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: santa monica Photos: Gallery Posts: 486	Originally posted by daveward That sir is the point of my inquiry. I suppose. It appears to me you had to have the equipment to prove it is better. I do not have the equipment, thus my view of MF examples is through the use of my computer screen. I do not have prints to survey, as you do. I am trying to understand the basis on which you all made "investments" in the equipment...was it just the intuitive premise that bigger negatives can be blown up better? Or did you see examples for yourself before you reached for your wallet? Thanks. Dave Before I made my "investments" in MF, I had questions similar to yours regarding the actual gains made possible for my style of shooting. Before I reached for my wallet , I had already deduced that Ebay made reselling quite easy and possible to recoup most of the money invested if I did not like the gear after all. So about ten years ago I bought a Mint condition pentax 672, used it for a while , got another one, used it for a while, found a nearly unused one five years later, used it for a while and basically when I moved to 645D i sold the 672 bodies for about 90 percent of what i paid for them. Of course digital is way more fickle to resell and the 645D sold for 30 percent of purchase price after four years………

10-15-2015, 05:29 AM - 1 Like	#25
dsmithhfx Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Toronto Posts: 5,146	It bears repeating: the most important piece of equipment in photography is behind the camera.

10-15-2015, 07:58 AM	#26
hsteeves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Saskatchewan Posts: 256	That's because digital is electronics and new electronics are 6 months away. Originally posted by 672 Before I made my "investments" in MF, I had questions similar to yours regarding the actual gains made possible for my style of shooting. Before I reached for my wallet , I had already deduced that Ebay made reselling quite easy and possible to recoup most of the money invested if I did not like the gear after all. So about ten years ago I bought a Mint condition pentax 672, used it for a while , got another one, used it for a while, found a nearly unused one five years later, used it for a while and basically when I moved to 645D i sold the 672 bodies for about 90 percent of what i paid for them. Of course digital is way more fickle to resell and the 645D sold for 30 percent of purchase price after four years………

10-15-2015, 08:05 AM	#27
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,091	Originally posted by daveward Gentlemen, I am not disputing the consensus that bigger is better, I can read here and all over the internet a chorus of voices attesting to that opinion. I too believe it is true based on the reasons I've read. However, I am wondering when and how you each proved it for yourselves. It appears to me that on average, the proof only appears after one buys the equipment and "sees" for oneself there are valid differences. There seems to be very little evidence suggesting that anyone actually snapped a picture of the same thing with two different formats and said: Aha! There is even less evidence that anyone did this which-format-is-better test before purchase. With all the folks who say there is no contest, I expected there would be a long history of well-documented evidence that MF is better. While, persuasive, I do not believe the broad consensus of MF owners is "evidence". If you wanted to encourage more people to "experience" the benefits, it seems like showing off an example or two is better than saying: once you try it you'll see. Just my 2 cents. The only real way you will find out is to shoot MF/LF yourself. I found this camera rental place in SF for you: Medium, Large Format-Adolph Gasser As you can see they have various medium and large format cameras that you can try out for a day or two. So if you don't like it or don't find a difference then you are only out the rental money and film. If you go down and check the place out I'm sure they will guide you in the right direction and answer any questions that you have. Good luck and let us know how you made out. Phil.

10-15-2015, 08:06 AM	#28
hsteeves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Saskatchewan Posts: 256	It's a little known 'ism' that the clonkier the camera, the better the image. A simple visual comparison shows that as you go up in format size, the cameras get clonkier, hence ... Any actual image quality increase is irrelevant. DSLRs are a dime a dozen but if you haul out some clonky medium or large format camera, especially one that makes noise or requires you to hide underneath a dark cloth, to the average layman this means your image is going to be just that much better. Sometimes you can actually put film in it. ps. Sometimes, size matters.

10-15-2015, 03:12 PM	#29
daveward New Member Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: San Francisco Bay Area Posts: 22 Original Poster	Originally posted by gofour3 The only real way you will find out is to shoot MF/LF yourself. I found this camera rental place in SF for you: Medium, Large Format-Adolph Gasser Phil. Phil, quite nice of you to do that for me. Thanks.

10-16-2015, 08:37 AM	#30
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	Originally posted by daveward ... However, I am wondering when and how you each proved it for yourselves... There seems to be very little evidence suggesting that anyone actually snapped a picture of the same thing with two different formats and said: Aha! ... Actually, I have identical test shots with equivalent focal lengths taken on small and medium format. I'd have to scan them but no need to. It will show the the same thing I already showed you. I don't see anyone else here posting images from 3 different formats they shoot. I guess those images said nothing about the formats. I can't say they are the best selection/examples in the world but perhaps someone can post better examples. An 8x10 would be nice to see. Anyone have one of those to share? Quantitatively, it has already been stated more than once. More film surface area; more the tonality is defined. That's one thing. Why isn't that evidence enough? That's probably something you can feel someone discovering for the first time, no?