[Duplo]

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?

Tuco, you got me thinking, I may actually have a 35mm and a 67 casual portrait, shot in similar lighting conditions on Delta 3200 online. I will give it a look. That would mean same film, similar lighting conditions and same viewing size...

I rarely carry more than one format at a time and they are rarely loaded with the same film, thus having those images side by side is not very common for me.
Will look for the two images after dinner.

[tuco]

Tuco, you got me thinking, I may actually have a 35mm and a 67 casual portrait, shot in similar lighting conditions on Delta 3200 online. I will give it a look. That would mean same film, similar lighting conditions and same viewing size...
...
Will look for the two images after dinner.

Sure, give it a try. I have some delta 3200 shots on 120 roll too but not equivalents. Delta 3200 can be exposed/developed at different exposures indexes changing the perception of grain some, I think. At 1:1 there is a lot of grain but scaling an image file down by an order of magnitude here kind of cleans it up a lot, I think.

Delta 3200 at EI 400




Delta 3200 at EI3200 testing a IR beam switch I made to remotely trigger my Pentax 6x7, M* 300/f ED IF lens

[Duplo]

Sure, give it a try. I have some delta 3200 shots on 120 roll too but not equivalents. Delta 3200 can be exposed/developed at different exposures indexes changing the perception of grain some, I think. At 1:1 there is a lot of grain but scaling an image file down by an order of magnitude here kind of cleans it up a lot, I think.

Delta 3200 at EI 400




Delta 3200 at EI3200 testing a IR beam switch I made to remotely trigger my Pentax 6x7, M* 300/f ED IF lens

Good point around exposure index.
Pushing and pulling film can change the properties of a film.
i.e. tri-x at 320 is pleasant to my eye, but at 800 it is too contrasty for most scenes for me and tend to go for HP5 when shoot ISO800.
I normally do not shoot a lot of Delta 3200, but having just begun reorganising 2 years of film images have some advantages, as I have a lot of images fresh in mind.

the two images below were shot both shot/developed at 3200, scanned and then resized to 1000 pixel on the shortest edge.

First one is a candid from a wedding with the MX and fa43ltd:


Second on is with the 67ii and 105/24 (with a number1 extension tube), dof is rather shallow.


Nothing special, but should show hov the larger negative impact technical image quality at a normalised print size.

[tuco]

Second on is with the 67ii and 105/24 (with a number1 extension tube), dof is rather shallow.

Cool, I've used that combo before trying to emulate a shallow DOF head shot on a view camera. That 105/2.4 at f2.8 with the #1 tube on a 6x7 starts to emulate that look and feel pretty good, think.

[Duplo]

Cool, I've used that combo before trying to emulate a shallow DOF head shot on a view camera. That 105/2.4 at f2.8 with the #1 tube on a 6x7 starts to emulate that look and feel pretty good, think.

the 105/2.4 and #1 extension tube can be very tricky, but the #1 extension tube is very useful for portrait work, especially headshots. I use it with the 165 as well.
here are another one with the 105/2.4 and Extension tube #1 combination on tri-X @EI320 at minimum focus distance.

Pentax 6x7 with 105/2.4 @ f/4, 1/1000 and extension tube #1

I have one shot @ f/2.4 but then her forhead is out of focus. Pretty much only her eyes are sharp on that one.

Shot on Kodak Ektar 100. Developed at home with Tetenal Rapid kit.




---------- Post added 10-16-15 at 09:14 PM ----------

Sure, give it a try. I have some delta 3200 shots on 120 roll too but not equivalents. Delta 3200 can be exposed/developed at different exposures indexes changing the perception of grain some, I think. At 1:1 there is a lot of grain but scaling an image file down by an order of magnitude here kind of cleans it up a lot, I think.

Delta 3200 at EI 400




Delta 3200 at EI3200 testing a IR beam switch I made to remotely trigger my Pentax 6x7, M* 300/f ED IF lens

May I ask how this automatic shutter thingy works? What do you use to trigger the shutter button?
I was thinking of making a remote shutter using the one I have for my K-3 but havn't yet figured out how to press the shutter...

[jpzk]

Wow ! Congrats for the enjoyable/educated discussion going here!

This is the sort of thread which really is pleasant to read/see because it is about photography !!
I never thought I would enjoy a "Medium Format" thread as much as this one.
Keep it going !

JP

[Duplo]

Pentax 6x7 with 105/2.4 @ f/4, 1/1000 and extension tube #1

I have one shot @ f/2.4 but then her forhead is out of focus. Pretty much only her eyes are sharp on that one.

Shot on Kodak Ektar 100. Developed at home with Tetenal Rapid kit.




---------- Post added 10-16-15 at 09:14 PM ----------




May I ask how this automatic shutter thingy works? What do you use to trigger the shutter button?
I was thinking of making a remote shutter using the one I have for my K-3 but havn't yet figured out how to press the shutter...

That is a gorgeous image.
F4 or 5.6 is a much better choice in terms of DOF and stepping back a little (as you did)
Wide open and especially at minimum focus distance you are in a situation where getting both eyeballs in focus is tricky

Wow ! Congrats for the enjoyable/educated discussion going here!

This is the sort of thread which really is pleasant to read/see because it is about photography !!
I never thought I would enjoy a "Medium Format" thread as much as this one.
Keep it going !

JP

Civil discussions on photography is fun indeed, feel free to join

[tuco]

...
May I ask how this automatic shutter thingy works? What do you use to trigger the shutter button?
I was thinking of making a remote shutter using the one I have for my K-3 but havn't yet figured out how to press the shutter...

Here are a couple of pictures taken while I was making it. I have that stuff in cases now. Mine works with mechanical film cameras via old-school cable release. The CO2 air version uses an air cable release and should handle all mechanical cameras no matter how much force it takes to press the shutter button. My Hasselblad 500C/M takes a pretty good push to trip the shutter. And a small electric solenoid version that handles more sensitive shutter buttons via a cable release ( not shown).

The black thing is the CO2 canister that will dispense a shot of air to trigger the camera. The DIY single layer circuit board was me going over-board on the project. It is a re-triggering, monostable delay off circuit to control the duration of the camera fire and duration between being ready for the next shot when using the IR beam switch. I got most the circuit plans off the internet and just had to integrate it into my project. I only know enough about electronics to be dangerous. I typically have to hack my way through that part my projects via trial-n-error.

I used a commercial, off the shelf wireless relay transmitter/receiver. It came with a key-ring remote switch seen in the picture. I can use that to trip the camera or use the IR beam switch ( the blue thing) which you aim at a reflector and it waits for its beam to be broken to trip the camera. I just hacked into the wireless remote relay board's power and trip signal to integrate it into my project.


CO2 Version Shown



Circuit board for the IR beam switch to add features. It's not really needed but without it, every time the beam is broken and for that duration it would dispense air. This just helps regulate the duration of the air burst and when it's ready to trigger again.

[gofour3]

I found a couple of the same boat using a similar focal length lens and both using slide film.
One shot in the 35mm format and the other in 6x7.


Pentax 6x7 & 67 55/4 shooting Fuji Provia 400x (taken in August 2014):



Pentax K1000SE & M24-35/3.5 shooting Fuji Sensia 100 (taken in February 2012):


Phil.

[ColColt]

To me, that says it all.

[daveward]

To me, that says it all.

ColColt, I too see differences. One picture does seem better than another. My untrained eye does not, however, see the differences between formats. I only see differences between the pictures. Would you be so kind as to add some further thoughts to this. What factors did you consider to arrive at your conclusion? Can you point out the things you see that show the larger format is better? Thanks!!

Phil, thanks for taking the time to locate and share these pictures.

Dave

[ColColt]

You don't need a trained eye to be able to comprehend the superiority of medium/large format over 35mm. A blind man with leather glasses can see the difference. When it comes to enlargements bigger has always been better due if for no other reason the enlargement factor is much less with larger format so you have better sharpness, less grain better tonal range, etc. It goes without saying the big advantage of medium format is that the larger the image, the more detail you can record in a film frame which means that with the same type of film you can enlarge medium format images much more than 35mm before the increase in graininess begins to obscure detail.

W. Eugene Smith, famous photojournalist, left Life magazine at least twice because they chastened him for using the "miniature" camera-35mm and told him he needed to use a larger format. Margaret Bourke-White, to my knowledge seldom if ever used 35mm but rather her smallest negative was 3 1/4 x3 1/4 best I recall, favoring her Graflex and Speed Graphic cameras and she was known to use 4x5 often.

If you can see the difference, as you mentioned, why do you keep questioning larger format is better? I don't know what else will convince you.

There are some problems with comparing these particular images:

One is taken during sunlight, one when there is nothing but soft light. One is taken on Provia and one on Sensia.

To really show the difference between MF and FF one would need to shoot at the same time and with the same type of film.
Also the scanning is a problem. When scanning MF it is much easier to get a good scan from a flatbed but FF really need a dedicated scanner to show at its best.

[Duplo]

ColColt, I too see differences. One picture does seem better than another. My untrained eye does not, however, see the differences between formats. I only see differences between the pictures. Would you be so kind as to add some further thoughts to this. What factors did you consider to arrive at your conclusion? Can you point out the things you see that show the larger format is better? Thanks!!

Phil, thanks for taking the time to locate and share these pictures.

Dave

There are some problems with comparing these particular images:

One is taken during sunlight, one when there is nothing but soft light. One is taken on Provia and one on Sensia.

To really show the difference between MF and FF one would need to shoot at the same time and with the same type of film.
Also the scanning is a problem. When scanning MF it is much easier to get a good scan from a flatbed but FF really need a dedicated scanner to show at its best.

The two boat images while slightly difficult to compare head to head from a format difference point of view, as the film is different, thus colour and contrast response too. They sitll show a difference.
Adimttedly the MF image has been shot in more favourable light and IMHO on a better film.

If you look at the two delta 3200 images posted by me above, you will have two images shot under very similar conditions on the same film stock and under similar exposure and lighting conditions.
Both have been developed at EI3200 thus you can rule out processing differences due to push/pull processing to a large degree, same goes for initial exposure as both were metered by the same light meter.
Thus grain structure contrast and tonality should be resonably identical.
They are both scanned on the same Canoscan 9000F mark II using silverfast software with identical settings, with eyeball contrast adjustment and identical sharpening in photoshop after resize.
The difference is down to the degree of enlargement necessary to produce the an image with a pixel hight of 1000 pixels

I belive they show a difference in grain structure and tonality.