I must say that for me, one of the main advantages of using MF is not more picture quality, but the larger and brighter view finder/waist level finder. They make it much easier for me to compose my pictures. Especially todays DSLRs have awkwardly tiny and dark finders, so I find it difficult to judge every detail when taking a capture.
This idea of "quality" is rather silly and pointless. Film possesses many qualities, even 35mm film - that digital does not. Sure digital has its own qualities inherent too, but to simply say "digital has higher quality" is nonsensical and misleading.
It's not nonsensical. What people usually mean by comparisons of quality are easily measured, quantifiable things like resolution and color fidelity. Resolution is pretty easy to measure, color accuracy only slightly more difficult.
Now which one actually looks better, well, that's a lot more subjective.
The "qualities" that are normally measured though are arbitrary and measured in in non-native terms.
Originally Posted by Roger Cole
Instead of lp/mm, dpi or ppi is used.
There are "generational" changes that scanning imparts and different scanners, settings, and software imparts differing changes, and differing printers or monitors or projectors add generational changes yet again.
As to color measurement, there is no point in measurement because it is purely subjective.
If I want someone under tungsten lights to look like they are under tungsten lights that's cool because that's the way it looks.
If I want the color in a face under tungsten light to look as if they were lit by the sun, that's fine too, even though it doesn't look that way in real life.
Heck I know people who swear Velvia looks real/normal/right/the way they saw it. Who am I to argue with them?
Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin
Advantages of MF over 35mm
[QUOTE=georg16nik;1410897]You scan 135 format and then join APUG to tell us how low quality the format is?
Lol! No I just mean that if we are talking of the advantages of Medium vs. 35mm, I'm saying the Medium is still higher resolution than 35mm digital images, where 35mm film can be beaten in the resolution arena between digital and film. And it's become cost prohibitive (at least for me) to spend about $100-$150 per image to have them scanned to the quality that would match the resolution of digital if I were printing large prints. I'm not saying I'm happy about it, if I could have my local lab scan my film at high rez for $2 per roll, it would be great but that's not the case, so IMHO the advantage of Medium format is that it can still beat out digital in the resolution arena, that's all, I still prefer film, but this is also a business and cost vs benefit is a factor for me.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Usually "high quality" means " high fidelity" in photographic context. Linearlity. 35mm film has its own style, and I think film is always more interesting than super clean digital images, but 35mm can't be considered as a linear representation of the reality any more.
MF film still has the edge over digital in many areas in terms of the quality, and it has film texture that everyone loves (at least here in apug).
Last edited by Endo; 10-26-2012 at 07:29 AM. Click to view previous post history.
You don't print optically, I see.
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
Same as the other poster who wrote that 135 is "LoFi"....
Such uninformed statements are usually made by folks without proper darkroom experience, knowledge and equipment.
Scanner and ink jet and rest of the "HiFi" kids tools are not darkroom tools in case You wonder.
and something especially for the LoFi theme
Originally Posted by timparkin
Advantages of MF over 35mm
Yes this is true, I don't have the room for a full darkroom, I do all my own processing in tanks and then have to resort to scans, but even the labs don't print from an enlarger any longer, I've tried finding that, so they end up scanning my film unbeknownst to me and then print from scan anyway.
However to your point, scientifically speaking grain-to-pixel a 20-25mp image vs 35mm film are on par with each other, I've read and researched this extensively because I prefer film but clients comment on how sharp the digital is and how unsharp the film (in comparison) and so I read up on it. The fine grain might be there, but as you said an enlarger print might take advantage but a scanner just doesn't have the ability to see it all, so the end result is that the 35mm is a little less crisp looking than the digital.
I don't want to get into a war over digital vs film, if I didn't love film I wouldn't be on this forum.
So please understand it's not that I wouldn't love to own an enlarger that would print me a beautiful 2'x3' print from film, but I don't and probably never will, and I'm not new to film, I've been shooting with an SLR for ..(does math) ...18 years ...
Anyway to get back on point, there are OTHER advantages to medium format, like the few cameras that have tips/shift capabilities that mimic large format (limited of course). So there's that.
It can also be less expensive to buy high end film equipment as the prices have dropped off a lot recently. You can get a full RZ Pro II with 3 lenses, a pelican case, a few backs, a viewfinder and a light meter all for under $1,000, it's silly...
The Haasy's haven't dropped AS much, but still you get my point I think.
You can also impress your friends and random people on the street with your fancy 1910 foldie camera for $50 or less! Haha
Umm OH when you are older and half blind you'll still be able to see your medium format film hehe
Cheers , and sorry if I offended anyone by bringing up digital, I just felt the question was broader than just film.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Back on topic please. Seriously.
That's just, like, my opinion, man...