Medium Format Look

Chris Dodkin

West Coast Correspondent
Lot's of discussion again, now the cheaper digital MFs are out, about whether MF really does have a look?

Typically described as 3D pop, or spacial rendering, or dimensional rendering of images.

What's everyone's take?
 
Beyond more expensive is better (and being a user of Leica cameras I clearly adhere to that! ;)), there is a apparent look to MF (and LF) I agree. I still think that Zeiss lenses create a certain look and I've always attributed the 'style' associated with the V-system Hasselblads to that. And it is different to the H system, with their Fuji lenses. However, maybe it is more to do with the fact that the lenses can be bigger, easier to design and maybe even be less affected by edge effects etc. The effective apertures can of course be smaller and so quite narrow DoF can be brought to play with less negative impact on the image and, with portraiture, the subject responds very differently when put in front of a MF and, especially, a LF camera; this is a serious business, not a snap.

I was discussing new cameras with a photographer friend the other day as he knew I have been looking at the new generation of PhaseOne backs and wondered if I'd bought one yet - I haven't. And the reason I haven't is that I don't really need the extra resolution they bring and, for most of what I do with them, I do not need the greater dynamic range. We have a couple of P45 backs and so far 39MP has been enough. I still also use the P20 backs as well and the tonal rendition of those is still exceptional even though they are only 16MP. More pixels in the systems these are used on just doesn't add anything (or at least enough) for now. And, although the touch screens etc are all jolly nice, I mainly shoot onto these backs tethered and it is one more thing to fail. The extra pixels etc don't change the look of the image though I don't think, if they did I might be more tempted. Having said that, I do rather like the achromat backs that PhaseOne produce. Hmm...

Staying with the higher resolution theme a bit longer (even though not associated necessarily with 'look'), for our technical imaging more resolution is usually useful if only to allow an increase in magnification while maximising DoF. However, that can only take you so far and then stacking ends up providing a better solution (and those files get big even at only 39MP per slice!).
 
Thanks Pete - I 100% agree with you on Zeiss, they have figured out the nuances of lens design that get you more 3D pop, even on smaller formats. Put them on MF, and it's very obvious (to me) although others seem to not see it, which is puzzling. Looking at the new 44x33 digital MF, the Fuji lenses set able to generate the look more than the new Hasselblad (non Zeiss) lenses, so it's clearly lens dependent and not just format size.

I think that MF lenses can be better corrected and built to a higher tolerance - and I am sure this plays a huge part in giving the final image enough data for your brian to say that you see the dimensionality in it.

What's interesting is that when discussing this with a sub set of people online, many still say that the look doesn't exist. Which is perplexing because I'm looking at images I've shot and I see it. So either it's there and I'm able to see it, or it's not there but my brain is making me think I see it.

Given that the perception piece is complex, remember the whole blue dress/gold dress images a while back, it's entirely possible that the MF look exists yet some folks simply can't see it.

I've yet to see a solid explanation of what is really going on - probably because lens designers who may know aren't writing their knowledge online for me to find, they're busy designing better lenses!
 
Back in my days of shooting film I used for a good many years a Hasselblad 500CM with the usual standard 80mm, a 50mm and a 160mm. I tended to use Kodak T-Max 100 which was developed in Paterson FX39. So many people commented on 'the look'. There was a very definite look to the photographs that this combination provided. A beautiful sense of realism and tonal quality that was never there with 35mm or indeed 645. In truth, I very much miss those days, I miss the sheer effort and patience that had to be put into my photography back then. Around 1994 I was also using a 5X4 field camera and that too had the look in bucketloads. It only goes to prove to me that digital is merely a facsimile of the real thing.
 
Oh yes, whilst I was shooting 5X4 I was using a Schneider 150mm apo-symmar. I always believed that this was partly responsible for that 'look'.
 
I really do have to agree with the comments on Carl Zeiss lenses. Bronica's lenses rarely gave the same appearance nor did Mamiya's on my RB67.
 
Back
Top