[barondla]

Is this the sort of effect you're talking about?

Two random snaps from yesterday with exactly the same combination. Already posted in the 55mm club, but I think they warrant a re-post in this context.

This is partly what I'm talking about. Superb images, especially the one of the lady.

---------- Post added 05-05-20 at 04:34 PM ----------

Yup. I've noticed the same thing since I first saw pics from the 645D, and I've never shot medium format. I even use the same term that you do - "dimensionality".

Glad I'm not the only one to think this/

---------- Post added 05-05-20 at 05:06 PM ----------

I think MF has a superior ability to separate planes in our pictures, thus creating this 3D impression. APS-C particularly produces flat-looking images where everything appears to be in the same plane of focus. (Grand Canyon picture taken with Pentax 645Z + FA 45-85 mm f/4.5 @ f/11).

This image is closer to depicting what I'm talking about. Forget the sharp tree limb vs out of focus background. The tree limb, which is all in focus has this dimensionality.

I expect images with sharp subject and out of focus background to sometimes show depth, even with the K-1, and I compose with it in mind. What gets me about medium format are subjects that are almost flat, with maybe 6 inches of total depth ( everything in picture is in focus - no selective focus) showing dimensionality. Not being used to this I tend to compose like everything is flat, with no 3D depth. Was shocked when looking at some of my 1st images that showed this.

This old tree trunk was atken for Single In March 2020. I've shot this with various cameras (all digital), formats (Q, APS-c, FF) in the past. They all looked graphic, but possessed no great sense of depth. I see the 645Z image for the first time on the computer and wow.


Another example are these gas cans. Everyting is in focus and there is only a foot or so of depth in the whole image, yet the cans have a rounded 3D appearance (also cross posted in Single In Challenge March 2020).

.

The other thing surprising is these were shot in jpeg. Doing the Single Challenge with such a heavy work schedule was difficult. To save time I used a second SD card in the 645Z and saved jpegs there (still have Raw in 1st card). So this "fragile" dimensionality is robust enough to stand up to jpeg capture and greater file size reduction for posting on line. Amazing and fascinating.

Thanks,
barondla

[RICHARD L.]

For a number of years, I took vertical pictures of streams and brooks with my Pentax 67 and later 67 II with the 55 mm f/4. I used Ektar 100, a Manfrotto 028 tripod, Mirror Lock-up, f/16 and made 24X30 inch enlargements and every time, you got the feeling you could "enter the picture". The rendering was extremely realistic and recreated the impression of being there once again. Only larger formats permit this (645, 6X7 and view cameras).

Regards

[Sandy Hancock]

Superb images, especially the one of the lady.

Thanks Doug, but that's no lady. That's my daughter

[gofour3]

I think I know what you mean with "dimensionality"? (P67 & 67 55/4, shooting T-Max 400)



Phil.

[Kobayashi.K]

I believe the word 'dimensionality' has no meaning in photography, I never came across this term before. It is coined by OP because he can't quantify the effect.

A photo like the one from Phil (post #19) has a number of well known properties: high resolution, sharpness, sufficient contrast, and a full and well balanced range of gray values (for B&W). I would say the combination of them all can be called tonality.

That's all you need to explain the effect, nothing new here. In this case, the impression of a pleasant tonality is amplified by the fact that it is a B&W photo. The impression of depth is amplified by the perspective. A subtle toning is also added to make the tonality look creamy.

I'm convinced that Pixel Shift also enhances the effect:
Pixel Shifted Images - PentaxForums.com

Many stunning photos there.

[tuco]

120mm wide angle lens

[Alex645]

120mm wide angle lens

120mm wide angle? So this was 4x5? Love the quality.

[tuco]

120mm wide angle? So this was 4x5? Love the quality.

Thanks. Yes, my Crown Graphic handhold.

These are from a 180mm lens which is about like a 55mm in small format. I think it's the camera movements that make most the difference but I dunno.

[w2ck]

Hi,

Now there is a first for me: You have gone and made an HDA look good. I have seen many a one, but they were just something that needed working on.

Oh. Yes. HDA = Head Disk Assembly. Just in case someone didn't get that.

Stan

[tuco]

Hi,
Now there is a first for me: You have gone and made an HDA look good. I have seen many a one, but they were just something that needed working on.
Stan

Thanks. Yeah these legacy hard drives require a lot of mechanical precision that is amazingly inexpensive for a bunch of reasons of course.

[barondla]

Thanks. Yes, my Crown Graphic handhold.

These are from a 180mm lens which is about like a 55mm in small format. I think it's the camera movements that make most the difference but I dunno.

Fantastic image quality. It's often said lenses and other things can't be compared on "low quality" screens. These 4x5 images have been converted from analog to digital, down sized, and we are viewing them on low resolution (compared to large format film) screens and the quality advantage over something like APS-C or FF is easy to see. Amazing. How is that possible?

Thanks,
barondla

[w2ck]

Hi,

The essence of the rendering isn't lost by the scanning and downsampling processes. Not as 'smack-in-your-face' as it would be viewing with something better, but still there. Thankfully.

The other day, I helped a friend starting up a hot sauce line. Took some pics of his bottles with a 105 macro lens on a Nikon Df. So, not medium format, and he's downsampling for Web use anyway. So, enough overkill perhaps. But he took the same shots in the lightbox as I did - with his cell phone (of course he did). And flipping back and forth between my processed Raw shots and his cell phone ones, he remarked that he couldn't believe my shots looked so much better after downsampling.

Well, we here all know why, don't we? And, it would have been better yet if I had used my recently acquired 645D. But, I have yet to add either a macro lens or extension tubes. Pity, there. This is the kind of thing why I returned to medium format. Oh, well. In time. In time.

Stan

[tuco]

Fantastic image quality. It's often said lenses and other things can't be compared on "low quality" screens. ... How is that possible?

Thanks,
barondla

Thanks.

I dunno. I think the scaled down size here will mask any slightly out of focus, a little shake or lens resolution compared to the original scanned version or even one half that size. And the contrast is often higher than the larger size because less shadow detail is noticeable, I feel. So in that regard there could be a viewing improvement as seen on this medium if you like sharper images or slightly worse in terms of tonal scale.

[UncleVanya]

Hi,

The essence of the rendering isn't lost by the scanning and downsampling processes. Not as 'smack-in-your-face' as it would be viewing with something better, but still there. Thankfully.

The other day, I helped a friend starting up a hot sauce line. Took some pics of his bottles with a 105 macro lens on a Nikon Df. So, not medium format, and he's downsampling for Web use anyway. So, enough overkill perhaps. But he took the same shots in the lightbox as I did - with his cell phone (of course he did). And flipping back and forth between my processed Raw shots and his cell phone ones, he remarked that he couldn't believe my shots looked so much better after downsampling.

Well, we here all know why, don't we? And, it would have been better yet if I had used my recently acquired 645D. But, I have yet to add either a macro lens or extension tubes. Pity, there. This is the kind of thing why I returned to medium format. Oh, well. In time. In time.

Stan

I'd say the photographer not the equipment made the difference.

[rdenney]

I was looking through images from Alaska, and I don't think I've posted this one anywhere. It's an example, I think, of a larger format look. It may be about the way the details transition from in focus to out of focus, but really I think it's just the larger capture area producing a higher quantity of information.



I'm not sure it's that great a picture, but I think it illustrates the effect.

Rick "who would have applied a bit of tilt if using a view camera" Denney