Leica or Medium Format

[Robert Seeney]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello all

 

I have been shooting the M9 for a while with sum micron lenses - happy with the results. However, no matter how hard I try (and my photoshop skills are reasonably good) I cannot get anywhere near the 'soul' of Tri X shots. As a bit of an experiment, I asked friends to rate the 'feel' of the processing on various shots - some with the M9, others with a 5D2 and some with an old olympus film camera on tri - x. The olympus won hands down. Seeing that it cost me £15 and it is a real beater this was somewhat of an eye opener. (please note, I am not seeking to get into the digital/film debate).

 

So to complement my digital setup I am looking to get back into film - for printing to 12x18 or thereabouts. I would also like the occasional option to go larger with prints if needed but this will be the exception rather than the rule.

 

I won't get into printing my own photos from negs (famous last words) so I would be going down the self scan route. Having poked about on various sites, I am now facing the option of whether to go for a Leica M film or to go for medium format. (Hasselblad most likely 500).

 

This is where the confusion arises - will the larger negative size of MF allow me to get better scans than scanning 35mm negs or will it be limited because of home scanning? The scans I have had done commercially, allow me to use photoshop to tweak levels etc but they are so low resolution that blowing them up to any good size print just turns them to mush. In simple terms, will a scan of a MF neg give me a larger file to play with than a 35mm neg scan or is this irrelevant with home scanning?

 

I appreciate I will have the negative if I get a real killer shot and MF is likely to win out there if i print from neg but this would mean having to learn a whole set of very complex skills for which I don't have time - and lab printing from a neg wouldn't give me control of dodge and burn in the image.

 

I think I am even more confused than when I started typing this!

 

Thanks in advance

 

Rob

[dewittehd]

Hi Rob,

To do justice to the MF-format you need an MF-scanner. There are not many on the market and the prices are real: Reflecta is abouot the cheapest for 1400 Euro, Nikon 9000 is listed for 6500 Euro, and then we have the Hasselblads for 10000 up. Epson V750 Pro for 600 Euro would be an alternative but with lower quality. Have a look at Filmscanner-Shop: Diascanner, Zubeh (also in English) for tests and prices.. The alternative would be professional scanning with a cost of 2- 3 Euro/negative.

After having used the Nikon Coolscan 5000 I managed to get hold of a 9000 second hand in good condition. I am very satisfied with the quality of the scans, and it is a pity that Nikon stopped production.

Wishing you good luck in getting a decent scanner, it is worth it.

Jean

[250swb]

For printing 12x18 you may as well stay with your M9, you will get better quality than scanning MF film, and its cheaper than a new investment in MF, and with much more control over image parameters. If you want to go larger there is plenty of headroom in the M9's files, but just as would be necessary for MF anyway ultimate quality will be when using a tripod.

 

If you want to get the look of Tri-X in your images you might find a cheaper solution to embarking on a MF film path is to try Silver Efex Pro. This B&W processing software has presets for many films, and does a good job of rendering an M9 file to look like Tri-X. And of course you can adjust the outcome just as you would in a darkroom for contrast etc. No need to buy, it is available as a demonstration download.

 

Steve

[andybarton]

There are a few of us here who also use MF cameras, usually Hasselblads or Rolleis. I have a 503CX with a 50 Distagon and, when I get the twitch to use it, I am always amazed at the difference in quality between an MF and a 35mm negative, or slide. I ought to use it more often.

 

I use an Epson V700 scanner and have prints made by Whitewall in Germany and am a happy camper. I feel a New Year's Resolution coming on...

[chrism]

I can rarely achieve the tiny detail of a well-focussed M9 image when using MF film, even scanning with a Nikon 9000 or Imacon 848. I know the film is capable of that kind of resolution, but the M9 has the advantage of Leica lenses, added to which my developing skills might not be the greatest (I go for convenience rather than say the finest grain and highest accutance developers). But I enjoy it - the whole process - and use film most of the time. The M9 sulks. (SULKS, I said! Not sucks.)

 

But, and it's a big but, you mentioned the soul of Tri-X. Soul does not lie in pixel-peeping detail (especially a grainy soul like that of Tri-X), so don't worry about it. People printed big before digital. I think other factors might be just as important as file size when you come to decide between 35mm and MF film cameras. Size, weight, cost, availability, repairability, lens quality come to mind. Never mind that finding an affordable and working dedicated MF film scanner isn't easy these days. Since you have some Leica lenses, might it make sense to try an old M6 (or Zeiss Ikon) and see what happens? The M6 at least could be sold on if it didn't suit.

 

Chris

[CalArts 99]

A great image will always transcend the materials used. I'd personally not worry too much about 'soul' coming from the materials but more about the 'soul' from the content of the image itself. A viewer will become attracted to a good image despite how it was produced; DX, FX, 35mm, 6x7, 4x5, etc.. You'll be chasing your tail forever because in the end there really is no 'magic bullet' (expect for that thing that sits between your ears.)

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To add to the above comments, do not neglect the 'form factor' when deciding 35mm or MF. They present entirely different experiences and do influence your work aside from the technical aspects, Both are IMO wonderful experiences, but not really interchangeable. Superb results are produced by both, with quite different characteristics.

 

I am wondering if your 'problem' is more aesthetic rather than technical. Worth considering.

[RobSkeoch]

I realize you're not interested in building a darkroom. Easy to see why, although some people enjoy it. You already have the glass in the M-mount, so pick up a M-mount film camera and give it a go. The M6 is the class of the group but the Zeiss Ikon's, Bessa's could give you a taste of it before you spend serious money. Even the CL is a great choice and doesn't add much to the bag.

 

Anyway you know all this, my real point is try a few rolls of film, take the very best two images and have them printed by a real printer. Not just a lab that will make a straight print but someone who can really print. They'll do all the burn and dodging needed and you'll see by the results if this is a serious choice. There have always been great photographers shooting film but many of the top ones had either a staffer or custom lab make the prints.

 

Once you have a well printed photo in your hand you'll now if this is the route to go... or maybe converting M9 files remains the better solution.

 

If you add a blad to the mix, it's a great camera but an entire different direction.

[adan]

"This is where the confusion arises - will the larger negative size of MF allow me to get better scans than scanning 35mm negs...? "

 

Briefly - yes.

 

Having just spent yesterday playing around with scanning Hassy/Planar 80 f/2.8 CF and Rolleiflex T f/3.5 negs and comparing results on-screen with M9 images cropped square:

 

Even with a creaky 8-year-old Epson 3200 (actual resolution about 1800 ppi, for scans about 3800 x 3800 pixels), the 6x6 film (Ilford Delta 100) equalled the cropped M9 in resolution (actual detail captured, not just number vs. numbers), and outdid it in dynamic range.

 

And yes, they were sharper, finer-grained and more detailed than equivalent 35mm film scanned with a sharper (Nikon) scanner. Whether that counts as "better" lies in the eye of the beholder.

 

But - there are other factors.

 

Are you planning to compose within, and use, the whole Hasselblad image (square prints)? Cropping the Hassy to 4:5 or 3:2-shaped (12 x 18) prints will throw away some (most) of the advantage, over either 35mm or the M9 (just as cropping the M9 to square threw away 33% of its available resolution).

 

The Hassy lens was what pushed it ahead of the M9; the Rollei Tessar was struggling a bit to keep up (and wasn't even close at f/3.5-4). Lens quality counts regardless of film or sensor size. But, unless the 35mm lens is TWICE as sharp as the MF lens (not likely, even with Leica lenses, unless the MF lens is really weak), the MF lens only has to handle HALF the enlargement to any print size, so still usually comes out ahead.

 

That covers image quality - as others have said, there are factors beyond IQ: ergonomics, previous investment in 35mm lenses, whether IQ is the sole (not soul) measure of a picture's worth.

[davidbaddley]

Erl makes a very good point. Sharpness and resolution aside, working with medium format can give your photographs a different aesthetic quality than working 35mm. Eye-level or waist-level? Rectangle or square? 12 shots on a roll, or 36? These questions (and several others) will influence the way you work, and therefore, the photographs that you make.

 

I totally get the "soul of Tri-X" thing. This is due to both tonal relationships and the character of the grain. Because the grain is more noticeable with 35mm, it becomes a bigger issue. Your choice of developer will also greatly influence this. I prefer Rodinal for Tri-X because the grain-structure remains quite apparent and contrasty (almost salt-and-peppery), but still has excellent sharpness. This, of course, is a very personal preference and others will certainly prefer other film/developer combos.

 

This leads to another issue, integrity of material. I agree that, unless you use the most expensive scanners, you will loose both sharpness and character in the scan. As mentioned, you can apply this character to a digital file by using an application such as Silver Efex Pro, but this is a fabrication. Film looks the way it does as a natural result of what it is and the necessity of its process; its integrity of material. Artificially applying grain to a digital photo might look great, but it's also a fake. This is a non-issue to many photographers, to others it is a big deal.

 

If you dig the look of film, figure out how to score great scans that retain the true character and quality of the film, or learn to print traditionally. If you really like film, printing in the darkroom can also be rewarding. If this sounds like too much trouble, I suggest leaving Tri-X and its soul behind as you explore the integrity of a digital language.

 

- David

[philcycles]

Why not both? A Rollei TLR doesn't take much space and is a perfect complement. I have a 3.5 Tessar and it's great. Light and easy to use. I also have a Hasselblad outfit and while the Hassy alone doesn't take more space the temptation is to take some lenses and then you're hauling another bag alone.

So just take a Rollei along and have fun.

Phil Brown

[alw]

I only have a middle-range flatbed scanner, but the results when scanning MF negs is really stunning. Can´t say the same of 35mm negatives.

[too old to care]

I cannot speak for the quality of photos from an M9 since I do not own one, but my 501C negatives will scan better on my Canon 8800F flatbed scanner than my M6 negatives do on my Plustek scanner. I also have less problems with scratches and dust because they are not magnified as much for the same size print and the big negatives are easier to handle. However, I still enjoy using my Leica more because it is so small and easy to carry. People do not tense up when I point it at them like they do with the Hasselblad.

 

I will second or third the comment on using a darkroom too. Since I reopened my darkroom the only time I scan negatives now is when I want to email a photo to someone.

[250swb]

Just to put some perspective into the discussion (other than saying of course a MF neg will scan better than a 35mm neg), here is a MF comparison on Luminous Landscape

 

2010 Mini Medium Format Shoot-out

 

In which they are comparing MF digital backs which are vastly superior to a MF film scan for quality. But LuLa throw into the mix a Leica M9 and come to a surprising conclusion, that for all intents and purposes it is 95% as good as a MF digital back. That really should put to an end any discussion that going MF film is a better idea if the OP already has an M9.

 

But I do tend to think that the OP wants to have a crack at MF film and the original question is dressed up to garner some encouraging reply's along those lines, and not to discover anything to the contrary.

 

Steve

[earleygallery]

Firstly, I'm from the camp who believes film and digital are two completely different mediums. I happen to prefer photographs taken with film than digital output which I generally find somewhat bland. Nice very clean images, which are ideal for certain situations, but bland all the same.

 

So, you like the look of your Tri-X images from your cheap Olympus. Well, I'd say carry on using it, or if you want to use your Leica lenses then yes, buy a film M and the top of range Epson or Canon scanner - trust me, your scans will be perfectly good for the print sizes you mention.

 

MF is a whole other world. Yes a scan from the Epson or Canon will be better. For me, colour really shows the difference in the larger negs. The point is do you want to buy a whole new system? I have a Bronica ETRS which is 645. it give a useful negative size which is still 3 x larger than 35mm and saves wasted image area if you mostly print rectangular sizes. You can add an AE prism finder and speed grip and it handles in a very similar way to an SLR. They are bargain cameras now !

[Jeff S]

I've been the large format, medium format and 35mm film route (over 30+ years), and transitioned to digital two years ago with the M8.2. With film, I did all my own darkroom work (using Tri-X as my general film choice); same now with my digital 'lightroom'; the print has always been the goal.

 

What I found was that, similar to film but to a greater degree, there are many variables in the overall workflow that contribute as much or more than the camera to a wonderful print. Incremental improvements occurred when I experimented with papers and inks, used custom profiles, tried new software and printer settings, and much more. Nothing worked perfectly out of the box, but a lot of work yielded subtle but significant improvements.

 

A digital print is not a silver print...two different things. But, I've gotten good enough with my tools to hang both types of prints side-by-side without anyone thinking that one is inferior to the other, including some very discerning photographer friends.

 

I've also scanned some of my Tri-X negs, but frankly prefer the all-digital route since I find that I have greater control using LR with original digital files. Plus I don't miss the darkroom mess.

 

If you're unhappy with prints from the M9, I would first make sure you've done everything possible to explore the tools available and review your print techniques. There's no reason you shouldn't be pleased with the results given all the tools and materials available these days. But, don't get hung up on comparing silver and digital prints...I have some of the former that are so-so, and some of the latter that are spectacular...and vice versa.

 

Jeff

[wattsy]

To add to the above comments, do not neglect the 'form factor' when deciding 35mm or MF. They present entirely different experiences and do influence your work aside from the technical aspects

 

Yes, this is usually overlooked in these endless 35mm digital v. MF film discussions. Not only handling differences, but it is also usually forgotten that the size of the recording medium (and the corresponding focal length of the lenses) plays a large part in the resulting 'look'. Irrespective of the different characteristics of the recording medium itself, you get a different (and IMHO generally superior) result when shooting, say a 110/F2 or 80/F2.8 on MF versus a 50/F1.4 on 35mm.

 

I actually rather like the B&W output of the M9 (and I also think Silver Efex Pro is a marvellous piece of software) but it ain't the same thing as medium format Tri-X (or any other film of your choice).

[Robert Seeney]

Thank you all for the replies - been a very interesting read..never fails to amaze me the amount of experience on these forums.

 

I have used silver efex pro and had some reasonable results for tri-x off the M9 DNG's - I would imagine most people would not be able to tell too much of a difference in the look but there is still that spark missing (in my eyes and my friends anyway)

 

I totally agree about the M9 DNG's - the amount of detail is outstanding. I did a studio shoot with it this week and the files are comparable, if not better, than the 5d2. Great results from the shoot - but they have the digital signature. (no complaint about that - i like the digital look as well as the tri x look when the situation calls for it)

 

The reason I was looking at Hasselblad for MF was that I tend to find i crop a lot of images to square format. Whether this is because of inaccurate composition on my part or whether it is because I see the world in square format (much like some are 35mm shooters while others are 50mm) I don't know. I just know I like square images for over 50% of my shots.

 

I don't particularly want to get into medium format however since it is another expense/system - my original point was less than clear having re-read it!. Assuming that I want the film look from tri-x I figured that I had 2 routes - a film M or a MF (and chose Hass because of square format). The area I got confused on was whether a 35 mm home scan will be good enough for 12x18 prints or whether I need to go to MF for a decent amount of info to scan. Looks like opinions are divided a little and I think I need to see if I can find someone local to let me have a play with both and print them up.

 

I could continue to use the Olympus but it makes more sense to use the Leica lenses with a film M - the Olympus is in seriously bad shape. It's not quite at the gaffer tape stage but not far off!!

 

Ironically, the photos that are my 'daily' inspiration are ones that (hopefully) I will never get to shoot - the works of James Nachtwey and Don McCullin. (Both Nikon shooters I believe). As a purely personal point of view, I went to McCullins exhibition at the Imperial War Museum recently and the shots taken on film (and I am presuming tri-x) were just jaw dropping compared to a later digital shot. Although the digital shot was excellent (and I am not in a position to comment on such an outstanding photographer) it just lacked that certain something - I felt it could really have been anyone's work.

 

Thank you all once again for taking the time - I learnt a lot on this thread!

 

Rob

[Deliberate1]

Rob, I have made the same journey as you - in reverse. I recently bought an M9 and am learning more about it every day.

My go-to camera before the M9 was a Rollei 6008i. It is a wonderful, through the lens system camera. You can shoot with the 6x6 or other dimension backs. You can change veiwfinders to taste (I have the 45 degree and waist level). The lenses are splendid - especially the 90mm Schneider f4 macro.

I have a Scitex Pro II flatbed scanner. Ten to fifteem years ago they went new for around $25000. Now they are avaiable for well less than $5000. I got mine on Ebay for $1500. It makes an amazing 400mb file and pulls every little detail out of the shadows. I had a Nikon 9000 MF scanner as well. But the Scitex is superior. I print with an Epson 7800 which makes prints as wide as 24" and as long as you like. The quality of paper for chromogenic prints is improving all the time. I make B&W prints on an Ilford baryta paper that a very presentable.

So why did I forgo the Rollei for the M9. It certainly was not for the sake of quality. It was because I will be able to get images with the Leica that would be difficult or impossible with the Rollei. I have schlepped the Rollei and 25 lbs of gear all over the world. It does not get any easier or lighter. Film is a pain to transport, and with 12 exposure rolls, you will run out of film before you run out of ideas. The images you take with the Rollei you will not see until they are developed. The Rollei is a brute, and more than a bit intimidating. With the 45 degree finder and 90mm Schneider, I looks like a bazooka. In the Middle East, people would scatter when I raised it to my eye. With the waist finder, much better. But the camera attracts attention. With f4 lenses, tripod use is a must, unless you fancy shooting in overbearing light conditions or will print small. And it just is not a "decisive moment" camera, even with hyperfocal focusing.

And so I got the M9. It weighs a fraction of the Rollei. It is hands down faster to use. With f2 or more open lenses, combined with auto ISO, you will get images that I would not even attempt with the Rollei. The Leica does not scare people. You never have to ration your film. And from what I have seen, the quality of a well done M9 image is the practical equivalent of a well shot, developed and scanned MF chrome.

I love film too. And I hate to give it up. So I bought a 4x5 kit - Toyo 45 field camera with a 90mm (wide), 150mm (normal) and 210 (tele) lens. I use this rig for contemplative work. It is surprisingly quick to set up, weighs less than the Rollei and, best of all, you get the wonderful movements of a LF camera. Or best of all, you get images that are 5x bigger than a 6x6 chrome. I thought it was a revelation to see an MF chrome on the lightbox - unitl I threw a 4x5 on it. Be advised, the cost of the Fuji Quickload film sheets is $4 plus $3 for processing. You would be surprised how careful in your image selection and process this expense makes you.

The Rollei will likely go on the chopping block. It is a beautiful kit and is built like a scientific instrument and I admire it greatly. But a camera is only as good as its ability to make the images you want. The practical limitations of this format make the M9 a brilliant alternative, with few if any consessions to image quality. But even the M9 can not do what a basic 4x5 kit can. I like having one foot in the 20th century and the other in the 21st. Hope this helps.

David

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Sandokan]

I find I work and think very differently with a MF camera and a film 35mm and a digital camera.

 

The more pre-processing I do (as Erl puts it), the more good shots I get. As digital shots are free, i end up with lots of extra work to do later ... Which never gets done.

 

My prefernece these days is to only use MF as I have less to do later.