The Limits of Perception

[JimKasson]

I've never examined the prints and negatives which you question me about.

Is there a way that I could see MF images that are perceptibly higher IQ than smaller formats to you?

I have already suggested how you can do that.

 

[JimKasson]

I've never examined the prints and negatives which you question me about.

I thought you were an experienced film photographer.

Is there a way that I could see MF images that are perceptibly higher IQ than smaller formats to you?

 

[UsherFellig]

I think it's often forgotten that digital often out-performs and out-IQs film cameras of roughly comparable format, especially in the last ten-ish years. Since about 12mp or thereabouts, APSC as well as m43 surpasses the IQ of those legendary 35mm analogue cameras and lenses storied of yore.

And digital 135 format cameras have at minimum equalled the resolution, detail, and enlargeability of analogue MF since, what, 24mp or so. Some would say since 12mp or 16mp.

The excerpt below is from an article or blog post on the site of Jim Kasson of this forum. It's actually from post titled "Why I Use Medium Format," but the gist of it is that for the writer, digital MF is used, but is a small slice of the use case given recent advances in FF technology. The entire piece is a very good read, but I keep this excerpt handy when needing to retain a sense of proportion:

++++++++++++++++

]]]]]When I used MF cameras with film, the motivation was to get images that held lots of detail and exhibited little grain at sizes larger than 8X10, and smaller than 20X24 inches.

. . .

Digital photography moved the goalposts. When the 16 MP Canon 24x36mm camera came out in the mid-aughts, lots of photographers replaced their MF film cameras with them. Then 24 MP cameras became the standard. Nikon and Sony introduced 36 MP, 45 MP, and 62 MP cameras whose image quality was firmly in 4×5 film territory. The 100 MP MF cameras offered still better quality, but what we could get from 24×36 mm sensors fully satisfied most image uses.

If you are not light-limited, you can still get higher quality images from 33×44 and larger sensors than you can from full frame ones. But the subjects and presentations that require that level of quality are becoming a smaller and smaller subset of all photographic subjects and uses.[[[[

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/why-i-use-medium-format/

+++++++++++++++++

Do you print larger than, say, 24X36? Or perhaps, do you have one of those super high-rez, humungous screens you'd like to use to gaze and marvel at 100% blowups of little pieces of an image? Maybe 100mp MF digital would be for you.

Alternatively, is matching say, 645, 6X6, 6X7, 6X9, even 4X5 analogue IQ and printability good enough for you? If so, well . . .

 

[DavidMillier]

A question of language maybe differing between countries. I have called transparency film "slides" all my life. It is only in international publications that I regularly see it called "chromes" or even positives or even transparency. 50 years ago I started photography shooting Agfa CT18 process-prepaid slide film...

 

[SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany]

And digital 135 format cameras have at minimum equalled the resolution, detail, and enlargeability of analogue MF since, what, 24mp or so. Some would say since 12mp or 16mp.

Sebastião Salgado exhibition Natural History museum London 2013 : photographs from 32 countries their rural areas rural people nature.

Sebastião had already transitioned to Canon 1Ds series by then, there were photos from his 1Ds (mk1 or mk2 or mk3) in the exhibition.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-22080740.amp

I went to Natural History museum to view. Wowed by every photograph.






Sebastião with his Canon dslrs

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.

 

[marco1974]

And digital 135 format cameras have at minimum equalled the resolution, detail, and enlargeability of analogue MF since, what, 24mp or so. Some would say since 12mp or 16mp.

Sebastião Salgado exhibition Natural History museum London 2013 : photographs from 32 countries their rural areas rural people nature.

Sebastião had already transitioned to Canon 1Ds series by then, there were photos from his 1Ds (mk1 or mk2 or mk3) in the exhibition.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-22080740.amp

I went to Natural History museum to view. Wowed by every photograph.






Sebastião with his Canon dslrs

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.

'Genesis' is an Interesting case, because he actually shot some of the photographs for that project on film (Kodak Tri-X in a Pentax 645N) and some of them with the digital Canons (1D models). Hence, it was his transitional hybrid project.











I too saw the exhibition in London, and bought the hardback book. I couldn't tell which were shot on medium-format film, and which on full-frame (35mm) digital.

--
Marco

Galleries by Marco Raugei

pbase.com

 

[SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany]

I too saw the exhibition in London, and bought the hardback book. I couldn't tell which were shot on medium-format film, and which on full-frame (35mm) digital.

Sebastião gave a brief talk in a small room Somerset House, I think 2018, that we all are human beings we all struggle suffer.

Afterwards I went to greet Sebastião. Sebastião was so humble towards me, I'm nothing a nobody, made me emotional thinking about Sebastião.

 

[JimKasson]

A question of language maybe differing between countries. I have called transparency film "slides" all my life. It is only in international publications that I regularly see it called "chromes" or even positives or even transparency. 50 years ago I started photography shooting Agfa CT18 process-prepaid slide film...

Hard to think of an 8x10 transparency as a slide.

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

I was gonna say the same. Only more like: How do you fit a medium or large format chrome into the slide projector?

And, even though I shot few 35mm positive films to become slides, I know there were other film emulsions which didn't use chromium. However, the popular ones did, such as Kodachrome. So popular in fact, there was a song written....

Stan

 

[Erik Kaffehr]

A question of language maybe differing between countries. I have called transparency film "slides" all my life. It is only in international publications that I regularly see it called "chromes" or even positives or even transparency. 50 years ago I started photography shooting Agfa CT18 process-prepaid slide film...

Hard to think of an 8x10 transparency as a slide.

What about 6x7 cm?

Best regards

Erik

 

[SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany]

I print for a lot of folk from every kind of modern sensor from Phase One to APS-C. And in prints that are +/- 40” on the long edge, I can see meaningful differences “all day long.” Image detail, tonal transition, overall dynamic range (assuming the image has it to capture out in front of the lens).

Rand

I'd love some of my photographs to be sold as rolls of wall paper people could fill up whole walls whole rooms with so that they would get something of beneficial to them when they are looking at the walls in the room.

With the digital cameras I photographed with though it would look terrible.

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.

 

[SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany]

Most film photographers use the term as a shortening of Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Fujichrome.

And it usually distinguishes someone who uses large amounts of film, that is - a "pro" - from "occasional" users who frequently call chromes, "slides."

Most pros also tend to use the terms, "transparency" or "film positive," interchangeably with chrome. Occasional users are generally unfamiliar with those terms.

I remember a few times as a young teen having to sit through projections from projector of photographs taken by family friend. I'm sorry to say I was bored to tears although I never showed this I always showed I was bright eyed interested.

These days I'd be far more understanding.

Closest I got to shooting Chrome was digital Ekta and Koda simulation in my Kodak badged Az651, these Chrome simulations were a reason last year I purchased Kodak Az651 also because 65x zoom alongside a few other goodies. I don't have it anymore though.

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

 

[DavidMillier]

Hi,

I was gonna say the same. Only more like: How do you fit a medium or large format chrome into the slide projector?

And, even though I shot few 35mm positive films to become slides, I know there were other film emulsions which didn't use chromium. However, the popular ones did, such as Kodachrome. So popular in fact, there was a song written....

Stan

I have some 6x9 Velvia images but I have never seen a large format transparency.

 

[kciuk aka Ken60]

Stan I have projected 6cm x 6cm transparencies in GP frames. OK the projector was not as nifty as a Kodak 2050 or the like , but quite common. The quality of projected image was glorious.

 

[DavidMillier]

I too saw the exhibition in London, and bought the hardback book. I couldn't tell which were shot on medium-format film, and which on full-frame (35mm) digital.

Sebastião gave a brief talk in a small room Somerset House, I think 2018, that we all are human beings we all struggle suffer.

Afterwards I went to greet Sebastião. Sebastião was so humble towards me, I'm nothing a nobody, made me emotional thinking about Sebastião.

I live next door to a Booker Prize nominated author. He's just some guy. But I understand the feeling. Jim can casually name drop all sorts of famous photographers, lucky man.

 

[SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany]

I too saw the exhibition in London, and bought the hardback book. I couldn't tell which were shot on medium-format film, and which on full-frame (35mm) digital.

Sebastião gave a brief talk in a small room Somerset House, I think 2018, that we all are human beings we all struggle suffer.

Afterwards I went to greet Sebastião. Sebastião was so humble towards me, I'm nothing a nobody, made me emotional thinking about Sebastião.

I live next door to a Booker Prize nominated author. He's just some guy. But I understand the feeling. Jim can casually name drop all sorts of famous photographers, lucky man.

It was just Sebastião's humbleness towards me I remember. If he'd behaved as an a*hole then I would forgotten about it.

I couldn't give two hoots about whether a person is famous or not or their standing in a forum. I remember humaneness. I enjoy cameraderie in dpr forums. My local homeless person is important to me.

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.

 

[kciuk aka Ken60]

David medium format transparency was originally plagued by the Kodak offerings developed E6. The results were blueish in nature from Ektachrome. Kodak maintained that Kodachrome , which was a non substantive tripack ( needed special development to include the couplers) was not a professional film and refused to provide it in anything other than 35mm.

One day in the studio I was shooting a cover, and towards the end of the shoot there was a knock on the door. It was the Fujifilm rep and he saw we were busy so simply placed a few boxes of 100D 120 on the side said try it, and left. I finished the 5"x4" shoot on Ektachrome and loaded a roll of the 100D into the RB67 and shot it off to compare. When I saw the results on our lightbox , we had our own E6 process, I threw the sheets of 5"x4" in the bin. The difference in beige tones was amazing, colours were so much better that we changed all our orders over to Fujifilm.

A few years later , and a lot more losses to the big yellow box company, and we had a knock on the door.... it was a Kodak rep saying " we are thinking of doing Kodachrome in 120 roll ! I said , pity its not E6 as in publishing we need the speed of our own E6, and frankly Fujifilm is so good we are not wanting to change. By that time the Kodachrome process in Holland was doing all UK film , and the delays were not workable professionally.

 

[Rich42]

Most film photographers use the term as a shortening of Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Fujichrome.

And it usually distinguishes someone who uses large amounts of film, that is - a "pro" - from "occasional" users who frequently call chromes, "slides."

Most pros also tend to use the terms, "transparency" or "film positive," interchangeably with chrome. Occasional users are generally unfamiliar with those terms.

I remember a few times as a young teen having to sit through projections from projector of photographs taken by family friend. I'm sorry to say I was bored to tears although I never showed this I always showed I was bright eyed interested.

These days I'd be far more understanding.

LOL.

That was a universal experience in 20th Century America. We all endured the experience.

The dreaded dinner invitation including the boring after-dinner slide show of your host's most recent vacation images. One of the most cliche'd humor-horror-story genres.

Kodak Carousel Slide projectors were ubiquitous in American corporate boardrooms and suburban homes. Everyone had one. Besides film, it was Kodak's most successful product.

A round carousel tray held (holds) 80 "slides" in their cardboard or plastic "slide mounts." That's what Kodak called them, so that's their official name. 35mm film, but sometimes "superslides" that were the same 2 inch x 2 inch size, but had a larger window with 120 film (from cheap plastic cameras).

Everyone had projectors, but only rich folk (doctors, dentists and lawyers) actually had projection screens. Slide shows were viewed projected on bare walls or on bed sheets thumb-tacked to a wall.

One of the reasons the Carousel was so successful (other than the fact it was reliable and seldom jammed) was that it warmed the slide in the "next up" slot. While in the projection slot itself, slides got hot from the projector bulb and flexed or "popped" while being viewed, throwing them out of focus. Warming them before moving them into the "hot seat" minimized that. Eventually auto focus machines practically eliminated the problem.

I had several Carousel projectors. I lost the last one sometime in the 90s. I also remember some projector brands with "straight line" trays of slides. But the Carousel was King. There was a Leica branded machine somewhere back there and a monster that handled 6x6 medium format.

 

[Oren Grad]

A question of language maybe differing between countries. I have called transparency film "slides" all my life. It is only in international publications that I regularly see it called "chromes" or even positives or even transparency. 50 years ago I started photography shooting Agfa CT18 process-prepaid slide film...

Hard to think of an 8x10 transparency as a slide.

What about 6x7 cm?

Best regards

Erik

There have been 6x7 format slide projectors.

 

[kciuk aka Ken60]

Rich if you take that Kodak 2050 and place it in a stack of three and sit another three stack beside it.... then connect them up to a computer with specialist software and a monster audio setup.... You get a gatling gun effect with dissolves and multi screen effects, all to a banging sound track . I designed and specified the first AV theatre for the publishing company, and programmed the first AV showing the stuff we did . Of course I had a company in London actually do the programming as I sat in the client chair and nodded