Can someone Define the "Full Frame Look"?

It's a term I hadn't heard until a few weeks ago, and to be honest, I have no idea what it means. It sort of implies that there is some sort of consistency in look to ALL photos taken with FF cameras, and I think we all know that is bunk. The right photographer can ruin any photo or make any camera produce astounding results regardless of format.

My first inclination is to consider the "FF Look" to be the same sort of nonsense that people spout about how 'special' the colors are in a camera. It's one of those spurious talking points that can't be proven or disproven once the pixel peeping starts. But I'm willing to listen to a reasoned argument in the other direction.

So if possible, can someone who sincerely believes there IS a "FF Look" describe what the visual components are, and how it differs from formats both smaller and bigger than FF?

--
I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/
http://glenbarringtonphotos.blogspot.com/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130525321@N05/

It's better than the APS-C look, but not as good as the medium format look. The Leica look is a special case of the full frame look. Sigma fans will tell you the Foveon look is every bit as good as, if not better than the full frame look. The full frame look can be augmented by the Zeiss look.

Glen Barrington said:

So if possible, can someone who sincerely believes there IS a "FF Look" describe what the visual components are, and how it differs from formats both smaller and bigger than FF?

Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't pick up on that "sincerely believes" part right away

• Dennis
  --
  Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Glen Barrington said:

It's a term I hadn't heard until a few weeks ago, and to be honest, I have no idea what it means. It sort of implies that there is some sort of consistency in look to ALL photos taken with FF cameras, and I think we all know that is bunk. The right photographer can ruin any photo or make any camera produce astounding results regardless of format.

My first inclination is to consider the "FF Look" to be the same sort of nonsense that people spout about how 'special' the colors are in a camera. It's one of those spurious talking points that can't be proven or disproven once the pixel peeping starts. But I'm willing to listen to a reasoned argument in the other direction.

So if possible, can someone who sincerely believes there IS a "FF Look" describe what the visual components are, and how it differs from formats both smaller and bigger than FF?

--
I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/
http://glenbarringtonphotos.blogspot.com/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130525321@N05/

Click to expand...

Nothing special about it. Full frame digital is based on the 35mm film size that was the standard for decades. It also provides a nice baseline to compare lens focal lengths between formats.

Since it is larger than APS-H, APS-C, Four Thirds, Foveon, etc., it just provides more physical landscape to pack in the pixels, but not as much as medium format or 4x5. Shrug.







--
photojournalist

Dennis said:

It's better than the APS-C look, but not as good as the medium format look. The Leica look is a special case of the full frame look. Sigma fans will tell you the Foveon look is every bit as good as, if not better than the full frame look. The full frame look can be augmented by the Zeiss look.

Glen Barrington said:

So if possible, can someone who sincerely believes there IS a "FF Look" describe what the visual components are, and how it differs from formats both smaller and bigger than FF?

Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't pick up on that "sincerely believes" part right away

• Dennis
  --
  Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

You do actually see the "Medium Format look" used a good deal on the net, indeed I'v come across that expression more than "Full Frame Look".

The kind of things that get mentioned in relation to both relative to smaller format are greater resolution, smother graduation, more DOF control, etc.

While there is no format specific look, there are things that on average are true for specific formats.

For example full frame (FF) has usually bigger pixels and bigger surface area to absorb light. This means you will on average see cleaner pictures in terms of noise and thinner dept of field (DOF). What people usually refer to FF is that blurred background because of pure physics. But again, one can compensate sensor size with brighter lens and get a similar look. And the opposite is true for formats bigger than FF.

The thing is there is hardly enough room for micro four thirds (m43) cameras to replicate a look created by f1.4 lens on FF (if you don't use adapted FF lens with speedbooster).

I recommend you to read the equivalence article by dpreview.com, a very good read.

as slit 70mm cinematic film? If my history is correct, maybe "full frame" should actually be called "half frame".

nt=No text

Glen Barrington said:

It's a term I hadn't heard until a few weeks ago, and to be honest, I have no idea what it means. It sort of implies that there is some sort of consistency in look to ALL photos taken with FF cameras, and I think we all know that is bunk. The right photographer can ruin any photo or make any camera produce astounding results regardless of format.

My first inclination is to consider the "FF Look" to be the same sort of nonsense that people spout about how 'special' the colors are in a camera. It's one of those spurious talking points that can't be proven or disproven once the pixel peeping starts. But I'm willing to listen to a reasoned argument in the other direction.

So if possible, can someone who sincerely believes there IS a "FF Look" describe what the visual components are, and how it differs from formats both smaller and bigger than FF?

Click to expand...

I think the primary aspect of this "look" relates to how wide your shot can be and still have shallow DoF. 35MM FF can be wider than APS-C while maintaining the same DoF. Medium format takes it even wider, etc.

I think that you can still achieve these looks even on smaller sensors by optimizing subject distance and using the crazy wide aperture lenses, but overall the reference to FF look is likely because it is more trivial to achieve that look on FF, etc.

You can lookup the Brenizer method to see how some will even attempt to fake this look with smaller sensors by taking a grid of photos much closer and then merging them in post. This gives the impression that a shallower DoF was possible from a wider angle.

We all know that the various formats have different measurable characteristics as a result of the limits of technology. But that doesn't describe 'the look'.

The technology argument implies that the new Hasselblad should have more of the FF look than the latest Canon or Nikon DSLR. But does it? When does it start to have the "medium format look"? And how does the MF look differ from the FF look?

And by that definition, the upcoming m43s OMD EM1 II camera should have less of the "Full Frame Look", but we've ALL seen photos from cameras of every type that transcend the limits that conventional wisdom says that should be there. Does that mean that camera is awarded the title of having the "FF look" for all time? What if a given photo is significantly worse than other photos produced by a given camera? Does that remove the FF look for that camera?

It just seems to me, if you want to praise a camera for having a "FF Look", then you should have some specific qualities that a given photo should exhibit. And that any photos that exhibits those qualities should have the FF look status (and does that mean the camera that produced it is capable of the FF look?) Otherwise, it's just the 'special colors' argument all over again!

Full Frame look is the way a photographer looks like when he is shooting with a FF camera, especially a Canon with big white lenses.

Photography wise, there is no such thing at least not as a definition.

Moti

--
http://www.musicalpix.com

Dennis said:

It's better than the APS-C look, but not as good as the medium format look. The Leica look is a special case of the full frame look. Sigma fans will tell you the Foveon look is every bit as good as, if not better than the full frame look. The full frame look can be augmented by the Zeiss look.

Glen Barrington said:

So if possible, can someone who sincerely believes there IS a "FF Look" describe what the visual components are, and how it differs from formats both smaller and bigger than FF?

Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't pick up on that "sincerely believes" part right away

• Dennis
  --
  Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

I think you are closer to the truth of the situation than you might think. It's a vague talking point designed to convey some sort of 'worthiness' to users and potential users of specific cameras.

I'm personally of the mind that the emotional and intellectual content of photos counts for more than an ill defined concept that is loosely connected to various technological implementations.

I know I'm out in the weeds of 'thinky' photography, but I don't see what value the phrase, "The Full Frame Look" brings to the table. It's the 'special colors' argument all over again. (another meaningless phrase, I'd like to see disappear!)

--
I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/
http://glenbarringtonphotos.blogspot.com/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130525321@N05/

Glen Barrington said:

...

So if possible, can someone who sincerely believes there IS a "FF Look" describe what the visual components are, and how it differs from formats both smaller and bigger than FF?

...

Click to expand...

When people are talking about the "full frame look", they are generally talking about low noise images, shallow depth of field, and creamy smooth backgrounds.

While you can certainly take images like this with a crop body, large sensors can make it easier to get these sorts of images.

For instance, if you have a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom. You get the same field of view with135mm on a full frame as 85mm on a crop body. At f/2.8, the full frame at 135mm will have a shallower depth of field than the crop body at 85mm.

At the same ISO, the full frame will likely have less overall image noise, contributing to a smooth creamy feel.

Having shot a number of cameras across formats, my impression is there is no such thing as a "full frame look." Full frame does allow narrow DoF, in the extreme, than APS or MFT, so that's the only aspect of a full frame look.

On the other hand, I strongly disagree with this statement:

Glen Barrington said:

to be the same sort of nonsense that people spout about how 'special' the colors are in a camera.

Click to expand...

There are big differences in colors between camera brands. I don't know why. I shoot Sony. I don't like Sony colors. Whenever I shoot Olympus or Canon, I have a much easier time getting colors I like. My theory is that there's a difference it's in the Bayer filter, but I don't know. But there is a definite difference in look. Many years ago, I shot an on-paper better Sony camera and an on-paper worse Panasonic camera side-by-side at the same event. All the Panasonic photos looked better than the Sony photos, no matter what I did in RAW processing.

Just because you can't easily quantify something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It's a special recipe kind of like the 11 herbs and spices.

I've spent a shameful amount of time studying other people's photographs. It's easy to tell when a (natural light, single exposure) photo was produced with equipment that exceeds the capabilities of my own, but beyond that, all bets are off. Without EXIF data and/or full disclosure from the photographer, it's just too hard to play 'spot the sensor' in a post-HDR/Pano/Brenizer world.

Now, lenses on the other hand...but of course those effects can be replicated through other means as well, both pre- and post- processing.

What I find most interesting is not the look produced by any particular piece of equipment, but how it shapes the way a photographer sees. We love to cluck at philistines who assume the gear is largely responsible for the quality of our photos, but it's true that there are certain styles which only occur to you after becoming familiar with the tool that produces them. If that wasn't so, we wouldn't need to know the names of Ryan Brenizer, Miguel Panorama, or Hugh Dynamic Range.

Ryan Brenizer, wedding photographer. Developed a panoramic technique to emulate the "Full Frame Look".

Miguel Panorama, little known friend of Diego Rivera. After the initial rejection of "Man at the Crossroads", he came to the realization that communist icons would go unnoticed in very wide murals.

Sir Hugh Dynamic Range, twelfth Earl of Camerabury. Died from sudden, massive numbness after allowing his third cousin Ton Mapp to eradicate all shadows in one of his early photographs.

Glen Barrington said:

I know I'm out in the weeds of 'thinky' photography, but I don't see what value the phrase, "The Full Frame Look" brings to the table. It's the 'special colors' argument all over again. (another meaningless phrase, I'd like to see disappear!)

Click to expand...

I think that sometimes people see an undefinable characteristic they associate with a format and then go on a quest for that look, but then it turns out that only a small portion of photographs taken with that format have that look and a few photographs taken with other formats have it, too. I wonder if it isn't down to lighting, post processing and/or printing techniques.

There's a certain look I like in (some) photos that I tend to think of as the "large format look" though it's not unique to large format, nor do all large format photos have it - basically, sharp, detailed, perspective-corrected photos with verticals (typically buildings, can also be trees in landscapes) that would normally converge without perspective correction. I used to think it would be fun to try large format, then I thought I'd like to at least try a PC lens and now I'm pretty content emulating it in Lightroom.

• Dennis
  --
  Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

"the same sort of nonsense that people spout about how 'special' the colors are in a camera"

I wish I could "like" your posting more than once. I have it up there with "almost 3D" - yes, as 2D it is only one short; "rendering" and of course bokeh with every adjective except 'flatulent". I may start using the term "flatulent bokeh" and see how many people chip in saying they know exactly what I mean.

I await, with the OP some sort of scientific explanation of these terms. Meanwhile I'll open a window for the bokeh.

Glen Barrington said:

It's a term I hadn't heard until a few weeks ago, and to be honest, I have no idea what it means. It sort of implies that there is some sort of consistency in look to ALL photos taken with FF cameras, and I think we all know that is bunk. The right photographer can ruin any photo or make any camera produce astounding results regardless of format.

Click to expand...

So if you have decided it is "bunk", why do you even care and why the thread starter? IMHO it's best to ignore this type of stuff if it doesn't make a page in your book.

This is a full frame

Seriously and politely I assume the OP was seeking someone who could counter their doubt with some objective observations, which I'd be interested in too.