large and medium formate
- Thread starter hot shot
- Start date
Hertz van Rental
We're supposed to post photos?
Actually the costs are more or less the same - but you only get an average 12 shots on 120 as opposed to 36 on 35mm for the same money. So shot for shot 35mm works out cheaper.
bigfatbadger
TPF Noob!
hot shot said:
Quite cheap from http://www.7dayshop.com
If you get black and white film, you can process at home!
This is my current theme at the moment!
Alpha
Troll Extraordinaire
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2005
- Messages
- 5,451
- Reaction score
- 41
- Location
- San Francisco
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
hot shot said:
Shooting the 6x7 format, for example, is approximately 2-3 times more expensive than 35mm in terms of film costs. A roll of 35mm Ilford PanF black and white film is something like 5 bucks. You get 36 exposures. It's about the same price for a roll of 120. You only get 10 exposures. :x However, the quality is much, much better.
jwkwd
TPF Noob!
So, depite what I have always heard, size does matter ? .......sorry, could'nt help myself.
Hertz van Rental
We're supposed to post photos?
Size is no good if you don't know how to use it :mrgreen:jwkwd said:
Rob
TPF Noob!
hot shot said:
Have a look in the classified section at the YashicaMat I've got for sale - bargain entry into portrait photography and studio MF!
Rob
Jeff Canes
No longer a newbie, moving up!
- Joined
- May 19, 2003
- Messages
- 6,194
- Reaction score
- 28
- Location
- Hollywood, FLA USA
- Website
- www.pbase.com
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
hot shot said:
Don’t do it get a Canon 5D. Unless you are looking for a specific type of film look or doing your own darkroom work. I know that every one there is going to call me a foul. But IMHO digital straight from camera requires a lot less MPs that scanned film for the same quality.
still very much undecided :S
Soocom1
Been spending a lot of time on here!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 3,253
- Reaction score
- 1,489
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
First cameras themselves...
For starting off, either a Twin Lens (TLR) or a Bronica would be in order.
Working with a 645 is perfict for a biginner, and I would reccomend B&W film to start with. It really is cheaper and more fun in the long run.
Bronica 645 etrs sets have been had on e-bay for as low as $110 USD. You will just have to look.
Now. On explaining Med. format with small format film or digital. My explanation is a bit lingthy, but I hope it will help.
NOTE!!! If anyone can eihter clarify, or correct me on any of the numbers, PLEASE do so. I do not wish to miss lead or lie to anyone.
The difference can be substantial, and the quality issue is in fact just a small aspect to a very complex, yet simple issue involving a myriad of physics, and mathematical calculations.
The reality is that the difference in format sizes is the ability to capture an image that is as close to life size as possible. The smaller the format, the less information is captured in an image. The larger the format, the more information is captured, or more accurately, reproduced.
The complexity comes in when trying to explain why this is so. The myriad of information mentioned above is the combination of focal distance, aspect ratios, aperture size, shutter speeds, film or digital sensitivity (ISO speed), lens type, glass quality, glass size, and grain size or Megapixle count of the image capture area.
The last aspect is important, because even with various sized grains of film, the ISO sensitivity can vary wildly. The film sensitivity is directly related to the grain size of the silver halide, but is also related to how the film emulsion is manufactured, how thick it is, how it is developed and with what chemicals and its ability to react to light in the first place. In the case of digitals, the number of megapixles has nothing to do with the actual light sensitivity because they are directly controlled by the on-board computer. However, the more megapixels, the better and brighter the image because more information is being collected. Digital cameras have a tendancy to 'average' the light intisity from one pixel to the next. Film actually reacts to it.
That computer can select an ISO speed based on what the manufacturer sets to it. What is important here, is that even with a high megapixle count, vs. a very high grain film, both if set up in a small format package will never be superior to a med. or large format area of the same grain or megapixle size.
In fact, unless one is shooting in a 1:1 or Macro setting, the image will become distorted (albeit virtually unnoticeable to the untrained eye) to some extent, and in all formats sizes will have some loss of detail. The reason is simple: The smaller the format, the more image information is lost due to the ratio of image size to subject size and distance from the focal plain.
For the sake of argument, let up pretend that you have a digital camera that has pixels the size of atoms. We will be taking pictures in portrait layout for these examples.
Let us also say that the image area is a standard 35mm sized sensor. Now if we take a photograph of a person that stands 6 foot tall, the image of that person must now be squeezed onto an image capture area the size of a postage stamp.
So for the sake of argument, a six foot person is 1,828.8mm in height (6 x 308.8). That comes out to 52.25 mm of actual height to 1mm in the cameras sensor. Thus you must shrink the image of that person down 52.25 times smaller than their actual height. That also means that every 52.25 atoms of actual height can only be represented by 1 atom sized pixel in the camera. You have now effectively lost approx. 20% of the information needed to reproduce the image exactly as it originally was.
Now in a Med. Format system of say a 645 system, (the image size is 6 x 4.5 cm) the numbers change drastically. Now instead of 35mm, you are shooting the image onto 60mm, or almost twice the height as before. It is also twice the width, and thus becomes four times the area. But for this example, we will stick only with the height.
At 60mm, the number of times the image must be shrunk down becomes only 30.88 instead of the 52.25. Thus, for every 30.88 atoms of actual height, a medium format image made from the same one-atom sized sensor as our special 35mm camera (except it is now a 645 sensor) is represented by one atom. That is now a 14.4% loss of information vs. 20% of the 35mm sized sensor.
If a 4x5 large format is used, again, those numbers change dramatically.
First some conversion: A 4x5 image area is 101.6 x 127 mm. (4 inches and 5 inches multiplied by 25.4)
Now the numbers: In a 4x5 image, our six foot person must now be shrunk down only 14.4 times. Thus for every 14.4 atoms of actual height is now represented by one atom. Or a loss of only 11.6%. Cut in half those numbers for an 8x10, etc.
One thing that must be kept in mind. The above numbers are only representative of only one subject six feet tall. The closer, and/or smaller the subject is, the ratio between actual vs. captured reduces until a 1:1 or macro setting is achieved. Thus, the further away a subject is, and the larger it is, the more information is lost, and the greater a particular distortion occurs. The closer and smaller, the more information is captured.
For starting off, either a Twin Lens (TLR) or a Bronica would be in order.
Working with a 645 is perfict for a biginner, and I would reccomend B&W film to start with. It really is cheaper and more fun in the long run.
Bronica 645 etrs sets have been had on e-bay for as low as $110 USD. You will just have to look.
Now. On explaining Med. format with small format film or digital. My explanation is a bit lingthy, but I hope it will help.
NOTE!!! If anyone can eihter clarify, or correct me on any of the numbers, PLEASE do so. I do not wish to miss lead or lie to anyone.
The difference can be substantial, and the quality issue is in fact just a small aspect to a very complex, yet simple issue involving a myriad of physics, and mathematical calculations.
The reality is that the difference in format sizes is the ability to capture an image that is as close to life size as possible. The smaller the format, the less information is captured in an image. The larger the format, the more information is captured, or more accurately, reproduced.
The complexity comes in when trying to explain why this is so. The myriad of information mentioned above is the combination of focal distance, aspect ratios, aperture size, shutter speeds, film or digital sensitivity (ISO speed), lens type, glass quality, glass size, and grain size or Megapixle count of the image capture area.
The last aspect is important, because even with various sized grains of film, the ISO sensitivity can vary wildly. The film sensitivity is directly related to the grain size of the silver halide, but is also related to how the film emulsion is manufactured, how thick it is, how it is developed and with what chemicals and its ability to react to light in the first place. In the case of digitals, the number of megapixles has nothing to do with the actual light sensitivity because they are directly controlled by the on-board computer. However, the more megapixels, the better and brighter the image because more information is being collected. Digital cameras have a tendancy to 'average' the light intisity from one pixel to the next. Film actually reacts to it.
That computer can select an ISO speed based on what the manufacturer sets to it. What is important here, is that even with a high megapixle count, vs. a very high grain film, both if set up in a small format package will never be superior to a med. or large format area of the same grain or megapixle size.
In fact, unless one is shooting in a 1:1 or Macro setting, the image will become distorted (albeit virtually unnoticeable to the untrained eye) to some extent, and in all formats sizes will have some loss of detail. The reason is simple: The smaller the format, the more image information is lost due to the ratio of image size to subject size and distance from the focal plain.
For the sake of argument, let up pretend that you have a digital camera that has pixels the size of atoms. We will be taking pictures in portrait layout for these examples.
Let us also say that the image area is a standard 35mm sized sensor. Now if we take a photograph of a person that stands 6 foot tall, the image of that person must now be squeezed onto an image capture area the size of a postage stamp.
So for the sake of argument, a six foot person is 1,828.8mm in height (6 x 308.8). That comes out to 52.25 mm of actual height to 1mm in the cameras sensor. Thus you must shrink the image of that person down 52.25 times smaller than their actual height. That also means that every 52.25 atoms of actual height can only be represented by 1 atom sized pixel in the camera. You have now effectively lost approx. 20% of the information needed to reproduce the image exactly as it originally was.
Now in a Med. Format system of say a 645 system, (the image size is 6 x 4.5 cm) the numbers change drastically. Now instead of 35mm, you are shooting the image onto 60mm, or almost twice the height as before. It is also twice the width, and thus becomes four times the area. But for this example, we will stick only with the height.
At 60mm, the number of times the image must be shrunk down becomes only 30.88 instead of the 52.25. Thus, for every 30.88 atoms of actual height, a medium format image made from the same one-atom sized sensor as our special 35mm camera (except it is now a 645 sensor) is represented by one atom. That is now a 14.4% loss of information vs. 20% of the 35mm sized sensor.
If a 4x5 large format is used, again, those numbers change dramatically.
First some conversion: A 4x5 image area is 101.6 x 127 mm. (4 inches and 5 inches multiplied by 25.4)
Now the numbers: In a 4x5 image, our six foot person must now be shrunk down only 14.4 times. Thus for every 14.4 atoms of actual height is now represented by one atom. Or a loss of only 11.6%. Cut in half those numbers for an 8x10, etc.
One thing that must be kept in mind. The above numbers are only representative of only one subject six feet tall. The closer, and/or smaller the subject is, the ratio between actual vs. captured reduces until a 1:1 or macro setting is achieved. Thus, the further away a subject is, and the larger it is, the more information is lost, and the greater a particular distortion occurs. The closer and smaller, the more information is captured.
ThomThomsk
TPF Noob!
What is your budget? Yashicamats go for £40 to around £100 and Mamiya C330s from around £100 up to £200 on eBay. Chances are that if you decided that MF isn't for you, it wouldn't be hard to get your money back when you sold it on.
Thomsk
Thomsk
Most reactions
-
434 -
282 -
276 -
263 -
215 -
183 -
176 -
171 -
169 -
167 -
159 -
128 -
116 -
I
99
-
94
Similar threads
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/41/41760-e5b9dc90c1289f677ce3ca9dc1fa6dde.jpg?1619739884)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/42/42486-757c2978c4ecfb0e9dbfca10a0e2d240.jpg?1619740196)
