Mulitformat Shooters

[Ron Bose]

After going through an LF frenzy in the last couple of years, I was confronted with a beautiful little gem in the shape of a used Leica M6 and a 35mm f2 (Summicron) lens.

Now my staple, before my fall into LF, was MF (Mamiya 7 II), so looking at the results of scanned B&W 35mm negs is somewhat disappointing.

The scans are done at my lab on their photofinishing machine.

I want to understand why the scans look so average ?

- am I caught in the mystique of a Leitz glass ?

- are todays modern develop/scan/print photofinishing machines incapable of scanning B&W accurately ?

- is 35mm absolutely incapable of producing good sharp images ?

- my rangefinder needs adjustment ?

- have I been spoilt by big negs ?

Please don't get me wrong, the handling, convenience (and mystique) of the Leica make it a joy to use. It's so light compared to the Mamiya 7 not to mention the Wisner !!

btw, when I look at the trannies I've shot with the Leica they're pretty good, it's just the scans that leave me disappointed.

So my query is to all the LF'ers out there: once you are hooked on LF do smaller formats ever look the same ???

[bob moulton]

I have two Leicas, an M3 and an M2. My main camera is LF. I don't expect images from the two formats to resemble each othjer. I may shoot the 35mm more loosely--Duh!- and I think the "look" of the 35 is different. Sports, theatre, informal portraits, street images, musical groups, "street photography". As far as the scans are concerned, that is a complex situation. The quality of the scanner, the scanner software, the operator's expertise, his/her understanding of yoyur requests and needs--all those items at least could affect the ouput of the scans. Are the scans being viewed or are you outputting them via a printers? Monitor calibration, etc.--Those factors influence what you are seeing. Bob

[Nick_3536]

6x6 turned me off 35mm. 4x5 just closed the coffin. It's okay for things that need to be quick and light but I can't really see myself needing one of those big or expensive 35mm cameras.

[Paul Schilliger]

After shooting LF for many years, I thought the other day "wouldn't it be nice to be able to jump out of the car and to quickly point and shoot that beautiful winter scenery and leave the place before the next car arrives?" Instead, I had to keep driving, for there was no place to park the car and the road sides where packed with snow. There are many occasions when we see things that are worth a picture, but we know the setting time of the big cameras will be too much, or the shots are not quite worth a large chrome, but could be a good seller for one of those calendars. Of course, I still have my Nikon but the results are somewhat disappointing when it comes to print. I also have a Pentax 67 which produces very nice prints on par with LF, but it is not really point and shoot and a tripod is recommended, I don't have the big zoom and I'm not sure it can be handheld either. Then I though, maybe I should have a Fuji GA 645 ZI, or a Pentax 645 with a couple of zooms. These should produce sharp images handheld and have automated operation that would make them convenient for people photography as well... just some rambling!

[kallitype]

A "Prosumer" digicam, like Canon Rebel, Nikon 4500, etc is just the thing. Smaller than many 35mm, no need to wait on film processing, no need to scan for digital output, and image quality at the 5 or 6 megapixel level is intermediate between 35mm and 645, at least at the 11x14 or 13x19 print size. Just the thing for jump-shooting.

I have not seen any digital prints (including Canon 1Ds) that make me want to get rid of my 8x10 Gowland, but the prints from 1Ds are superior to those from my Mamiya 645, and awfully close to the quality from my Fuji GSW690. $$ is a wash, since you're scanning film for digital output. Why not skip the film step entirely??

And I won't start whining about the lousy film loading of the Leica M series...much!!

[Ralph Barker]

A Leica M6 makes a perfect companion for your LF camera, Ron. I almost always take my M6 along on LF field trips, using the Leica to capture supplemental images that might not warrant a larger negative.

That said, scanning 35mm does take considerably more care to get a good image, and B&W does seem to cause problems for many scanners. It's a PEBCAS - problem exists between chair and scanner. ;-) Naturally, a 35mm negative won't compare to a larger format, but decent images can still be made. Here's a scan of a 35mm FP4+ image created with an old 50mm DR Summicron on the M6:





Note that this was scanned on an Epson 3200 - not the best for 35mm, but passable.

[Eric Rose]

I pack around a Bessa R with 35mm lens and 90mm Leica lens when out with my LF gear. Get lots of neat grab shots that work well for smaller prints. Since I don't blow every neg I have up to 30x40 my 35 gear gets used about as much as my MF stuff. Still 75% LF tho.

[clay harmon]

I shoot big film mostly - 12x20 and 7x17. But I also carry around an Xpan and a leica for lunchtime strolls and quick shots. I find that 35mm is a totally different idiom than ULF photography. Grain is part of the language. No zonie head scratching and individual development of each image. Compose, overexpose a stop or so if there are really bright areas in the picture area, and then move along.

My philosophy is that if I have to put the thing on a tripod, then I might as well get out a 'real' camera. So I stick mostly to fast films in the ISO400 range, which allows me to handhold most of the outdoor photography that I am doing with the small cameras. Even so, I always look for something to brace either my body or my camera if possible.

I have found that the secret to high quality results is to set the camera meter 2/3 to 1 stop below the manufacturers rating, and then develop the film the bare minimum to get the CI to about .45 or .50. This will keep the grain small and sharp. I also use acutance developers such as Acutol or FX39, which give nice tight grain, which will give the eye the illusion of more sharpness than your system may actually be delivering, as well as some compensation in the highlights.

Finally, if you really get a keeper photo in the roll and want to photoshop it into a real work of art, you pretty much gotta pay the piper and get a high quality 16 bit drum scan of the neg. I have a dedicated desktop film scanner (Nikon Coolscan) and the Epson 2450 scanner, and a good drumscan will just clobber either of those in terms of quality. That said, I can get plenty good enough results from the desktop film scanners for images up to about 8x12. If you are going larger than that, better get the drum scan. NancyScans in NY has done excellent, albeit pricey, work for me in the past.

<Nomex flame retardant suit>/ON Of course, doing a wet darkroom print on real photo paper is the best route if possible. Richness, depth, feeling of real accomplishment, etc... <Nomex flame retardant suit>/OFF

And the cost of shooting a 36 exposure roll at lunchtime is about 1/3 that of shooting just one 12x20!

[Frank Petronio]

BTW, a few of Clay's photos are in View Camera magazine this month. Congrats Clay (I bought a Veriwide from you last year...)

[Ron Bose]

Thanks for the responses guys, it's a pleasant surprise to see some names who are more familiar to me over at the Leica forum !

I suppose that 35mm, MF and LF have their place in each of our arsenals. I'm beginning to realise that I should use the Leica for what the Leica excels at (B&W indoor low light or artifical room lights), MF for scenics (such as a cemetery) and LF for really interesting buildings, landscapes or where I want to play with movements.

My big mistake was taking the Leica to the cemetery on a sunny day with snow all around. And mistake number two was shooting B&W (APX-100 and Tri-X) with an orange filter, when it really was a Reala sort of a day ....