Film Medium Format Cameras

[Kayaker72]

3b

4a

4b

5a

5b

[Kayaker72]

and...6a

6b

7a

7b

[Kayaker72]

As to which is what:

1a: Mamiya Ektar 100 (ME), 1b: R5
2a: R5, 2b: ME
3a: R5, 3b: ME
4a: Mamiya with Cinestill 50d (MC), 4b: R5
5a: ME, 5b: R5
6a: R5, 6b: ME
7a: R5, 7b: MC

Most, if not all, images were shot with the same exposure settings. I did post-process these, but it was actually pretty quick in LR. No photoshop.

[HDNitehawk]

So not a competition but as a blind taste test this is my preference:
1A, 2 (No Preference not comparable), 3A, 4A, 5A, 6B and 7B.

I assumed that in 1A those were birds and not dirt on your lens.

[Joel Eade]

Other than color temp and the shadows seem to be exposed differently I can't see much difference without pixel peeping. My guess is that with some post processing you could them to look pretty dang close to each other as far as internet viewing goes.

Curious to know how and why you see a place for medium format film in your photo world?

[Kayaker72]

So not a competition but as a blind taste test this is my preference:
1A, 2 (No Preference not comparable), 3A, 4A, 5A, 6B and 7B.

I assumed that in 1A those were birds and not dirt on your lens.

Yep. Birds.

Other than color temp and the shadows seem to be exposed differently I can't see much difference without pixel peeping. My guess is that with some post processing you could them to look pretty dang close to each other as far as internet viewing goes.

Curious to know how and why you see a place for medium format film in your photo world?

It has caught my attention that I often, not always, but often prefer the film image when people are shooting side by side of the same subject. I am now seeing this with images I've shot side by side. I do not want to go too far down that road as you are right, you can make digital awfully close when you try.

But my preferences are pretty similar to Ricks above, which was 1 R5 image, 5 film, and 1 no preference. (I am 2/5 split)

Most of the images I posted, I processed them trying to not think about the other. And not only did I pick different color temps, but so did LR when using auto. So where you start seems to effect where you end up.

I did try to get several images to match but I haven't been able to. Quick example:

Spending ~25 minutes on the R5 file.

to try to match the film image

Even with that effort, I still might prefer the film image, and even with several different attempts, couldn't get the sky to match.

So, where do I see using film?

• When I feel like putting in the effort. Slowing down, limiting myself to a couple of shots. I definitely have a heavy finger when shooting digital. Going out and limiting myself to 15 shots does have its appeal.
• Right now, I am thinking there are 4 truths to film v digital in terms of IQ, and I can see times when I want one or the other:
  
  • Digital can provide more shadow detail (see examples 1&2). Granted, this tends to be very linear, giving it a bit of a "digital" look.
  • Film handles highlights better (you can see this in some of the later examples, but I did over expose a couple of scenes, and digital is blown out well before film)
  • Elements of the composition with film seem to be more independent of each other with film, whereas with digital the entire frame feels more universal. With the R5 image in this post, for example, I added a liner gradient filter and dropped the color temp on the water which was not necessary with the film image.
  • Different films have a look, like a preset. That gives you a starting point once scanned. In general, I seem to like the look.

So, I am thinking of some of my landscape shots. I will try people at some point. But that 95% of my images will still be taken with the R5.

[HDNitehawk]

It is the color that is the difference.
Are both of those adjusted, first original second your modified?

Adjusting the balance in those two images, notice the grass off to the left. Notice the hue is red in the film and looks brown in digital.
Adjusting temperature corrected it to its natural brown hue. But at that time of day is that truly as it appears. The red of a sunset would come in to play.
It is actually something I noticed early on, you can balance a picture and take out some of the color put in to the landscape due to the light. But is it really representative, only you know because you know when you took the picture. The little dropper tool can change the time of day.


I am liking the colors of the film. Maybe it takes some of the PP guess work out of the equation.

[Kayaker72]

It is the color that is the difference.
Are both of those adjusted, first original second your modified?

Adjusting the balance in those two images, notice the grass off to the left. Notice the hue is red in the film and looks brown in digital.
Adjusting temperature corrected it to its natural brown hue. But at that time of day is that truly as it appears. The red of a sunset would come in to play.
It is actually something I noticed early on, you can balance a picture and take out some of the color put in to the landscape due to the light. But is it really representative, only you know because you know when you took the picture. The little dropper tool can change the time of day.


I am liking the colors of the film. Maybe it takes some of the PP guess work out of the equation.

In post #36, the first image is the R5 file that I spent time in LR trying to get it to match the MF film file. The second image in post #36 is the MF film file (#5a above).

There are some odd colors when you really look at it. Some of the snow in #5a has a green tint to it. But, in the modified R5 image, I am noticing that the universal changes I made to try to get other parts of the image to match has messed with the white steeple on top of the town hall in the center of the image. Not a big deal, and I likely would not have noticed except I prefer it in the film image below.

The lighting was tricky. I was hoping for a good sunset, but clouds on the horizon blocked it. So, the #5 images were taken right around what should have been sunset. Images #6 was taken just after sunset.

[HDNitehawk]

The red sky is the big teller in 6. The sky alone sets it apart.
I think it probably is closer to what you were seeing at that moment.
6b has more depth IMO.

5a tends to be the same way, but it was probably shot earlier. There is still more to the sky.

I felt like something was off with the steeple in the R5 image as well. It just didn't "feel" right.

Some of the small things you are pointing out, generally will never be noticed.

[Busted Knuckles]

Definitely differences in the color balance of the film. The Cinestill seems to have a red balance, 4a vs 4b and the sunset shots.

Way back in the day we would choose between ektachrome, kodachrome or negative films from fuji or Kodak. Even kodak negative 'pro' vs regular had a different balance.

I seem to recall we played with a couple of steps with ektachrome developing and could push saturation in a couple of colors. Don't even get started on B&W in a view camera and push/pull developing.

I agree that the highlights in digital 'small sensor' format blow out, certainly was the case between 35 vs 120 film back in the day, eFtr (for the right vs to the right) is a concept I try to remember.

Brant thanks for all the effort and sharing. Very helpful, will improve my exposure efforts.

Really good stuff.

Way too freaking messy for my efforts now.