Medium format digital vs SL2 in "high res mode" - any experiences?

[Jon Warwick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi, I am a 5x4 film user, and get 1.5GB drum scans done, which open to 60"x50" (= 150cm x125cm) for printing out natively at 300dpi. The sharpness and tonal smoothness is wonderful.

I also own an SL2 and SL 50 APO.  To maximize it apparent resolution, I often use its 187mb "high resolution" mode. It works very well - but it doesn't have quite the same resolution, and certainly not the same tonal smoothness, as my 5x4, and the prints from the SL2 still clearly say "digital" pretty clearly to my eyes.

So my post here is because I'm curious how much medium format digital would help me get closer to the things I enjoy about the 5x4 printed output? 

For the print size I'm considering of 60" (150cm) on the long side, I've ruled out the 37mp S006/S007, especially because I'm confident my SL2 in "high resolution mode" would beat it in resolution and also in terms of lack of moire + false colors, and that's important for the fine-detailed subjects that I take such as landscapes (think pines trees on a distant mountain side) especially when I'm used to the 5x4's resolution. The 64mp S3 is a possibility, but I am also looking at the medium format alternatives with a very close eye on the Fuji GFX 100 due to its high resolution / IBIS / price. 

So I guess my questions are:

(i) do you find medium format digital provides benefits, not just in resolution but also in terms of tonal smoothness and looking, well, "less digital" than 35mm full frame? I often read that  medium format digital's 16bit is really 14bit + some noise, so if you perceive better color depth it must be due to something else? For example, does the lower enlargement factor (ie, because the sensor is a bigger size than 35mm full frame) also help?

(ii) does anyone have direct experience of the Fuji GFX 100 vs S3 at the 60" print size I'm talking about, and even better how these compare vs the SL2 in its "high resolution mode"? Again, not just resolution, but also how you think the rendering differs across these various set-ups?

Clearly, one could argue that I should simply shoot 5x4 because that might be my holy grail in terms of printed output ....it'd be a fair point .... but I also much prefer the immediate feedback / travel portability / compositional aids / histograms etc etc etc of digital cameras .....hence why I'm starting to explore this path of medium format digital!

 Many thanks for any suggestions.

Edited January 21, 2021 by Jon Warwick

[Nick Guttridge]

Hi Jon, I used to shoot 5x4 transparency for mainly architectural clients. Your 1.5gb drum scans sound amazing. What film were you using? I remember there was a limitation with the transparency film I used to use (Provia 100 )when after a while the scanner was just picking up on grain. I remember all the dust and tiny hairs we had to retouch out also. Even with a really good scanner. Perhaps you are using a really fine grain negative film? 

I switched to digital medium format back in 2005. Been a Leaf and Phaseone user since. The Leaf digital backs have a certain colour about them which is very much like film. It's softer and has a beautiful look. I know that most photographers on medium format use Phaseone. I do occasionally with their IQ4 150mp digital back. That has provided wonderful files, but I find they need work to avoid the digital look. Last year I bought a second hand Leaf Credo 60 which was quite inexpensive. It is my favourite digital back for colour. I use it on an Arca Swiss F Metric.

A few months ago I bought a S 007 for my dance photography. Because I managed to buy three CS lenses relatively inexpensively. The camera body was brand new and selling for much less than normal too. I think I was very fortunate to be able to buy in to Leica S. I wouldn't normally be able to afford to for a second camera.  

I am delighted with the quality and look of the files from the 007. I needed a medium format camera which could work more quickly than my Leaf system or Phaseone in the studio. The Phaseone camera isn't a favourite of mine. It suffers from shutter lag when using their CS lenses. 

Now that Capture One Pro supports the S system we can now use the powerful colour controls. Yes it is 14bit, that is something which isn't as good as the medium format kit. But I am really very happy with the look from the S. I think perhaps trying out the S3 would be a good idea. It's much more compact than buying into the Leaf or Phaseone kit. You will have weather sealing, very long battery life and some of the best glass I have ever used. 

 

 

 

 

[djmay]

I use S3 to “scan” my 4x5 negatives. Excellent results. With respect to a digital look, you have control over that in your processing.

Edited January 21, 2021 by djmay

[mgrayson3]

I have not printed that large, but I have printed enlarged crops comparing the same image captured with an S(007) and an S3. The S3 difference is visible at 60", but is not bad, as in barely visible from a foot away. But resolution is not really the point. You will not get digital to look like film. They are different media like watercolors and oils. The question is if you like the output from a system. Hi-res modes are good in theory, and if the SL2's implementation works for you, that's great. My experience there is with the GFX100, and I found it is useless if there is ANY motion at the sub-pixel level. I would never use it for landscape.

I "downgraded" from the GFX100 to the S3 because I always preferred the output from the S, its ergonomics are superior (especially viewfinder use), and the lenses have a lovely character. The Fuji lenses are optically perfect for detail.. I'm just not happy with the current processing options.

It's personal preference. You may find that nothing matches the 5x7 for you. I agree with Nick about Leaf and Phase One backs. But that's a different (not worse, just different) animal in the field.

Try anything you can get your hands on. Even an S(007). You might be surprised at the smoothness of the output.

Edited January 21, 2021 by mgrayson3

[frame-it]

33 minutes ago, mgrayson3 said:

You will not get digital to look like film

+1

[Stuart Richardson]

I have both the S3 and SL2. The SL2 is sharper, especially in high resolution mode. I think your best bet is to stick with film. Your second best bet is Phase One or Fuji. I do not think the results of the S3 merit the cost if you are talking about it from a standpoint of resolution. I think the S006 looks more filmic, but it holds its own with 6x7, but not 4x5.

[Jon Warwick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

19 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I have both the S3 and SL2. The SL2 is sharper, especially in high resolution mode. I think your best bet is to stick with film. Your second best bet is Phase One or Fuji. I do not think the results of the S3 merit the cost if you are talking about it from a standpoint of resolution. I think the S006 looks more filmic, but it holds its own with 6x7, but not 4x5.

Thanks for your comment. I've got a test strips done off a Lambda printer to 60" from the SL2 in "high resolution mode" with the SL 50 APO. It really does carry an insane amount of detail and clarity for its native 47mp sensor. It is bitingly sharp in terms of acuity - almost too much - so am trying to figure out if i can make it look gentler in its rendering. The thing I like about the 5x4 is that it looks to have c 100mp of resolution, so fine detail is in abundance, but to my eyes the prints' rendering never looks harsh at the same time. If you have any suggestions on processing to make these images look gentler, I'd love to hear them. 

I'm looking in more earnest at files from the GFX 100. From what I can tell from examining files, the detail feels similar to what i see off the SL2 in its "high resolution mode", but the medium format maybe has slightly smoother tonal transitions ...something i'm looking into.  Clearly a native 100mp camera has the benefit of not worrying about motion blur when capturing the shot (compared to a pixel shift function), even if the SL2 is quite good in one its modes at negating that motion blur.

Thanks again to everyone for your help as i continue to explore the possible suitability for me of medium format digital.

Edited January 22, 2021 by Jon Warwick

[oldwino]

I have the Hasselblad X1D. As someone who’s shot a fair amount of medium format and smaller format film, but never 4x5, I will say the files from the X1D look the most film-like of any digital camera I’ve used. Of course, the resolution is astoundingly high. 
I’ve read an interview recently with Stephan Shore, who is now using the X1D for an ongoing project (entitled “Details”, I believe). He claims he is seeing in the Hasselblad files what he saw years ago when he was shooting 8x10. 

[Stuart Richardson]

As an 8x10 shooter, that is quite remarkable to hear. I imagine he must be talking more about color and ambience than about detail and tonality. I have seen the X1D files and they are great, but even with 1200dpi flatbed scans with no glass etc, 8x10 is pretty ridiculous...of course it is also a ridiculous pain to shoot, develop, scan etc. This one is a slide just popped down on the bed of an Epson 850 with no holder etc. A drum scan would be a lot sharper and likely lower grain too. I would post more examples, but it is hard to fit anything at less than 2mb that says anything meaningful. It is not that 8x10 is some magic potion etc, it is just brute force...the "sensor" size is so massive that your reproduction ratios are tiny so nothing is even remotely stretched. An 80x100 inch print is a ten times enlargement. The same size enlargement is about a 9x12 inch print for 35mm full frame. It is a bit sad to hear it from Shore, because if you were to stand in front of one of his mural prints from something like Uncommon Places or a Richard Misrach print etc, I think 50mp MFD is still not comparable. Not just in terms of detail, but in terms of naturalness, of which Jon was speaking above. That said, if we are talking practicality and ease of achieving great results, digital wins of course.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited January 23, 2021 by Stuart Richardson

[oldwino]

Here’s the Shore interview:

https://artreview.com/online-preview-stephen-shore-photo-london-2019/

He’s claiming very large prints that are “sharper” than 8x10. 

(His claim - not mine!)

Edited January 23, 2021 by oldwino

[Jon Warwick]

3 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

It is not that 8x10 is some magic potion etc, it is just brute force...the "sensor" size is so massive that your reproduction ratios are tiny so nothing is even remotely stretched. An 80x100 inch print is a ten times enlargement. 

 

Yes, and as one example i've seen some roughly 90" wide color prints from Mitch Epstein ....he uses an 8x10 camera a lot. The quality was utterly impeccable in terms of resolution and naturalness. Thomas Struth's prints off 8x10 are simply massive, and the scanned negs hold up really well in terms of rendering at huge sizes. Of course, many have transitioned successfully from 8x10 to medium format digital ....Gregory Crewdson comes to mind here. I find his latest work "An eclipse of moths" is staggeringly beautiful in terms of color science (and composition). It's worth a look on the internet for this series. I've never seen these images in the flesh, just from the book i bought on this work, so I can't give any personal view on how this "image quality" from the digital holds up vs his 8x10 camera (the latter he used, say, for "Beneath the roses") in the roughly 90" prints ....but i simply love the pictures, regardless of how they were captured.

Edited January 23, 2021 by Jon Warwick

[BernardC]

I don't know about anyone else, but when I read an interview with a photographer that mentions the exact make and model of their gear, I assume that the photographer is sponsored.

It's not something that happens organically in conversation.

The exception, of course, is when artists do interviews that are specifically about their gear and technique: a musician might mention what brand of guitar pick they prefer, or a painter might mention a type of canvas, but only if the audience is clearly limited to other similar artists. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

I know better than not to believe him (I am sure Stephen Shore knows very well how his prints look), but I am curious as to what in particular is the issue. My guess is that it is more depth of field, as well as the scanning/sharpening post processing regime that they are using for 8x10. Certainly 8x10 has more potential for detail, but it can be really hard to access it, not only because of the difficulty in scanning it to its potential, but also due to shallow depth of field, diffraction and even logistical challenges like vibration, film sagging, wind etc. So in the very 3d compositions that he makes outside etc, I can see how a 45m or 60mm on the X1D could give a sharper overall image than a 250-350mm lens on 8x10, especially if he has to stop down to f32 or smaller. In any case, digital is quite amazing. Analog is quite amazing. Using either of them well is difficult, and at the end of the day is only really relevant to the person behind the camera. I still have not seen nicer prints than those from 8x10, but it is an impractical way of working for most people and most circumstances. Sometimes it is the impracticality that can make it special, but at other times it is better to get something that is going to make it easier to achieve the end goal, which is to capture the light.

[John McMaster]

If you really want definition then a PhaseOne IQ4150 on some sort of view camera is the best there is digitally.  I have never been that impressed by the X1D images, I looked at using it instead of my M system but the samples on Hasselblads site are so poor to work with compared to S(007) files that I lost interest.

john

[davidmknoble]

If you have to have size, then you need pixels, whether they are from the sensor or from an upsizing.  If you want color, you need pixel size and dynamic range. I have the S007 and the SL2, and the dynamic range of the S007 and the color tuning is better than the SL2.  I can get some great files out of the SL2 and I’ve actually shot some slow shutter speed shots of the ocean with the SL2 in the multiexposure mode with great results. I like both bodies, but I can also share the lenses and shoot the S lenses on the SL2. If this doesn’t work, then the PhaseOne seems to be a great thought to try.  While the sensors are smaller on the S series, the lenses are incredible.

I’d also say I can get a film look with the M10 Monochorm.  I’ve had every Leica Monochrom and used them well, having shot black and white film as far back as the mid 1980’s. I still shoot BnW film.  The film look has a lot to do with lenses and type of photography.  Classical lenses wide open look very different from landscape lenses stopped down.  John Warwick, I’ll be interested in where you land...