Formats and Mamiya Leaf Credo Impressions

I made a leap of faith...

Truly testing the system has yet to happen, but it's finally in my hands. Digital medium format has been on my wish list for some time now. It really is a fool's wish, financially speaking at least. But my motto has always been to do what you love and to hell with the rest. This post is aimed at the photographers out there interested in investing in a such system and the general public who is interested in the various formats available in the photography world (I will briefly go over this). 

Before we get into the details of why digital medium format (DMF), we should discuss formats. When we talk about format, we are talking about the sensor size (digital) or the size of the area of film being exposed to light in a single frame. Generally speaking, there are three major categories of formats: 35mm (small), medium format, and large format. Below is an overly simplified diagram comparing 35mm to medium format sizes.

From left to right: Fujifilm x100s (35mm Crop), Canon 5DII (35mm Full Frame), Mamiya 645DF+ Credo 40 (DMF Crop), DMF Full Frame sensor (no camera shown), and medium format film strip (60 x 60mm). 

Within each format category are variations in size. For example, medium format includes 6 x 4.5cm, 6 x 6cm, 6 x 7cm, etc. What is displayed above is only a very small part of the format spectrum. If we were to extend it, to the left would include the smallest of sensors (digital only) such as the ones found in point-n-shoot cameras and camera phones (diagram above was shot with iPhone 4s). To the right would be large format (film only), which includes 4 x 5'' (that's inches), 8 x 10'' etc. To my knowledge, digital only exists from the smallest of formats up to digital medium format. In general the larger the sensor size, the large the patch you'll need to cover that hole in your back pocket. 

The reason for shooting larger formats is for the level of detail and tonality. The benefits of having lots of detail is fairly straightforward. The more information in the image, the more life like it will be. Increased tonality refers to the range of tones in an image. Imagine a black and white image with varying levels of gray. Smaller formats can only capture a certain number steps within this spectrum while larger formats can capture (no surprise here) a larger amount. The comparison is analogous (although not exactly the same) to keys available on a 3-octave musical keyboard and a grand piano (5 to 7 octaves). The combined attributes of increased detail and tonality result in a more life like photograph. In this regard, digital does not even come close to film, but it certainly is closing the gap. Digital nowadays is mostly in the realm of 35mm (phones and point-n-shoots excluded). 35mm is great for its overall versatility, which is why it seems to be the dominant digital format. It is portable and the ISO range on these cameras is outrageous. This includes crop sensors. As a side note, to those arguing over APS-C and full frame, please stop. Before the recent improvements in technology, the principle reason for choosing full frame over crop sensor was for the ability to shoot at higher ISOs. This makes sense to me, but things have changed. Today, my Fuji X series camera, which is APS-C and outdated at this point, can shoot up to 6400 ISO. Resolution is a "nice to have" but unless you are planning to print large, this is not as relevant as you might believe. Still megapixel counting? I had a cropped digital photograph from a APS-C sensor printed to 30 x 20 and hung it at an art show. That's a crop of a crop sensor. There was not a single person who said "That was shot on a crop sensor camera!" Crop sensors seem to do just fine and are amazing in their own right. 

Sensor of the digital back. It's either completely protected or completely exposed. 

What should have become apparent by now is that every format has their pros and cons. Digital medium format is no exception. Before I dive into this, I want to say that I do no claim to be an expert on this topic. This information is mostly derived from research and is not entirely based on first hand experience, which means there could be oversights.

Let's start with the cons. The biggest attribute plaguing this realm is the ISO range. Most DMF cameras/backs have a low range, which is fine for studio use. If you plan to take it outside, make sure there's plenty of light or bring your own. The more "affordable" DMF cameras/backs like the one I have range from 50-800 ISO. Personally, I would not use files above ISO 200 so we are talking about a very small range. Recently, SONY (the current leaders in sensor technology) released a CMOS DMF sensor with a range up to 1600. The usability of the files at the higher end of the range is subjective and specific to each application. A second con of DMF is the price. It is a specialty item and not widely available. Because it costs so much to manufacture, there is a premium to pay. Fortunately, this technology has been around for little while, but not long enough to bring the dollar amount down to a reasonable number. Older certified backs can be had for around $2500, but they have the limitations of older backs (lower resolution, build quality, etc.). The newest backs outfitted with CMOS technology cost upwards of $30k. That number should make anyone shudder. The third would be portability. DMF systems are large and hefty. The Mamiya 645DF+ with a Credo digital back and a smaller 80mm LS lens weighs in around 7-9lbs (my scale is not calibrated, thus the wide range but you get the idea). Because focusing is more critical on this type of system, you will find yourself reaching for a tripod more than you would with a 35mm set up. Lastly, you shoot slower. This is not necessarily a universal con, but for someone who needs to crank out 10 frames per second, I would look elsewhere. 

So what about the pros? The biggest reason is the detail and tonality. Plain and simple. The second reason is the ability to use leaf shutter lenses on a digital system. What this means is the ability to flash sync at 1/1600 of a second. The sync speed of my Canon camera is 1/200, not great but still useable. I believe Nikon cameras can go up to 1/250th of a second. In a nutshell, flash sync speed is the ability of the camera to synchronize with the pop of light from a flash unit while still being able to obtain the correct exposure. These two attributes are huge for me and I want to emphasize the "for me" portion of that reasoning. Every tool should be specific to the photographer. Is it necessary to make great imagery? Absolutely not. Is it great to have? Yep.

Okay. Let's talk about the actual camera system. For those unfamiliar with DMF, these systems are typically modular, meaning each portion of the camera can be swapped out. These modular systems are comprised of a lens, body, and a back. The Mamiya 645DF+ (pictured below) is only one of the options.

The basic anatomy of the 645DF+ system. One interesting note is the color of the outer casing for the digital back. Mamiya's product photos made me think it would be a brushed light silver color when in fact it is a matte black. Very sleek. 

The Mamiya 645DF+ is an open platform meaning it can accept different brands of digital backs and lenses. You can even fit a film back to this, assuming it has the correct mount type. Other brands in the DMF market at the time of writing include Hasselblad, Pentax, Leica, and Phase One. When I did my research, the primary attributes I looked for were strong build quality and great user interface. Up until recently, all digital backs had LCD screens that were just terrible and with focus being much more critical in the DMF realm, that simply would not do.  Another issue with the older backs were the poorly thought out menu systems. This is minor compared to build quality, but when you are investing heavily into a system, one would like to have a well designed user interface.

Phase One systems are the standard for build quality. There are multiple videos on their website showcasing this (one of them has an elephant standing on one and resulting in no apparent damage). Recently, Mamiya Leaf became a subsidiary of Phase One and their release of the Credo digital backs drew my attention. In the past, the Leaf Aptus backs had some design flaws making it susceptible to unfriendly environmental conditions such as sand and water. These flaws include open vents on the outer casing to dissipate heat and an external battery. The new Credo design resembles that of the Phase One IQ backs with a high resolution touchscreen and weather resistant construction (ports are sealed, I cannot say it is weather proof). Granted, I have not dumped water or blown sand onto it, but the overall weight and feel of it makes it seem like it can take quite a few bumps.

I already had my sights on either a Phase One or Mamiya Leaf digital back given their build quality. Given the desire for a high resolution and budget constraints, my choices were nailed down to either the IQ140 or the Credo 40. Both are 40 MP backs with the same exact sensor. There were only a few differences and I will briefly outline them below:

• Focus Mask (Phase Only): The Focus Mask tool is a viewing mode that allows the user to quickly check which part of the image is in focus by highlighting those areas with a specified color. This is great if you need to be working quickly. The workaround to this is to either always shoot tethered to Capture One, which also has this tool, or go to 100% zoom for a manual check on the digital back screen (this takes a few seconds).
• Color Profiles: Each brand carries its own set of color profiles, which determine how colors are rendered. Mamiya Leaf has always been known for their skin tone friendly profiles. Although there are a number of specs and features listed for each product, one of the more overlooked items is the handling of files by the digital back. Luckily, a company by the name of Capture Integration had a nice blog post allowing folks to compare files from a Phase and Leaf Back. This step is extremely important and I think every photographer should go through their own editing process with each file and determine what the best fit is.
• Touchscreen: The differences in the touchscreen realm are minor but should be noted. The Leaf back has one giant touchscreen interface while the Phase has a touchscreen with the addition of four hard buttons. Without being able to test drive either system, I took a blind leap and after having played around for bit, I am definitely pleased with the Leaf build. One feature that is very nice to have is the ability to zoom in and out of a previewed image without having to put a finger on the image itself. The Leaf backs have touch-sensitive sidebars on the side of the screen (in between the soft-touch buttons). The overall sensitivity of the touchscreen is not as high as one would find on a smartphone, but this is probably to prevent the user from accidentally selecting items in the menu while their face is pressed to the viewfinder. The absence of hard buttons is not an issue for me. Having a full touchscreen interface feels very natural to me. 

For now,  I am a very happy camper. The Leaf back is everything I hoped for in terms of build quality. Feel free to leave any questions down below in the comments.

Color vs. Black & White Film Processes

In this post, I wanted to discuss the process of developing film at home, more specifically what materials are needed and considerations should be made. The chemicals and steps for each process will vary depending on what kind of film you choose to shoot (color vs. black and white), but only slightly. In fact, the processes share the same principle steps/chemicals: a developer, stop bath/bleach, fixer, and final rinse/stabilizer. 

The Chemical Process

The first step in developing your freshly exposed roll of film is to treat it with a developing solution, which creates your gray tones or colors. In black and white film, the developer converts the silver halide crystals in the emulsion layer into silver particles. In color film, the developer is oxidized when reacting with the exposed silver halide crystals. This oxidized developer then reacts with dye couplers resulting in the formation of color dye.  Color film consists of multiple emulsion layers, each sensitive to a specific type of light and containing a specific set of dyes. 

The second step in the development process is to stop the action of the developing solution. In the black and white process, an acetic acid solution known as a stop bath is typically used to neutralize the alkaline developing solution. In the color process, a bleach step is used to indirectly stop development by converting the silver halide crystals into soluble silver halides, effectively breaking down the silver image and stopping the formation of color dyes. 

Following the stop bath/bleach is the treatment with fixer. Fixer dissolves and removes the remaining silver halides making the image permanent and light-resistant. 

The final step is either a final rinse with distilled water (black and white) or a stabilizer (color), which protects the dyes from fading. 

Temperatures and Flexibility

The biggest differences between the two development processes are the temperature ranges at which the chemicals must be at and the flexibility of those ranges as well as the times of the individual steps within each process. For the most part, black and white processing occurs at room temperature (~20-24 degrees C) and the development times will change depending on what temperature you choose to process at.

Black and white processing tends to be a lot more flexible in its temperatures and times. This is where experimentation comes in and is what draws a lot of photographers to the B+W process. By playing with temperatures, times, and dilution factors of the chemicals, the final characteristics of the developed film such as acutance (sharpness), grain, and shadow detail can be changed. Additional variation can be introduced by swapping out and combining different chemicals, i.e. "A" developer with "X" stop bath" and "Y" fixer will yield different results when compared to "B" developer with the same stop and fix solutions. 

Color developing on the other hand is much more rigid in its process. Very little variation can be made within each set of chemicals. Doing so will usually lead to undesired change. For example, the developer is very temperature sensitive and should be closely monitored throughout the processing time. Any change outside the recommended temperature will lead to color shifts. Fortunately, the introduction of film scanners and digital editing helps alleviate some of the pressure, but caution should still be practiced.  The chemicals in the color process typically run at a higher temperature range (~38-39 degrees C), meaning the use of water baths is necessary unless you live near or in a volcano. 

Materials

Below is a laundry list of items I use to develop film at home. As a side note, this list is based on personal experience and I have not tried alternatives, meaning there could be better solutions out there! The goal of each of my kits is to keep it is small as possible. 

Color (C41) Process

Chemicals

1. Tetenal C-41 Press Kit: This kit includes a developer, a combination bleach and fixer (known as BLIX), and a stabilizer. These come in powder form. 

Misc. Items

1. 1000mL Amber Glass Bottles: These bottles will store your rehydrated chemicals from the press kit. It is important to protect your chemicals from light!
2. Graduated Mixing Beaker/Jug: I only use one to mix all my chemicals, making sure to wash well between each. 
3. 12" Glass Thermometer: Be sure to get one that is of high quality (reacts quickly to temperature change) and is long enough that cannot be lost when dropped into a jug of chemical. 
4. Paterson Tank: I recommend this particular brand because it eliminates the need for an actual dark room. Chemicals can be poured in and out with exposing the film to light. Pretty ingenious really.
5. Film Clips: These will hold your film as it dries. 
6. Film Changing Bag: This will keep your film protected from light as you move it from the camera to the Paterson Tank. There are different sizes. I recommend getting one that is a little bigger than you think you will need. The last thing you want is clutter in a bag which you cannot see into. 
7. Timer
8. Funnel
9. Gloves

Black and White Process

Chemicals

1. Kodak D76 Developer
2. Photographer's Formulary TF-4 Rapid Fixer: This solution is nice because it combines the stop bath and fixer into one solution. I actually use a newer formulation called TF-5 since it is carried at my local store. There is little difference between the two. 

Misc. Items

1. Same items listed above in the Color Process

General Tips

• Distilled Water: If the tap water in your area is not clean, use distilled water for mixing your chemicals. If you choose to end your process with a water rinse, use distilled water. Tap water can leave residue on your developed negatives once dried.
• Keep It Clean: If you have the bathroom space, it is recommended you process your films there versus the kitchen as this will eliminate the possibility of contaminating your foods with chemicals. If you do use the kitchen area, be sure to clean well after each processing session. 
• Practice with Changing Bag: If you have not used a changing bag before, I highly recommend practicing with a dud roll of film before the real deal. It can be challenging to properly insert the roll into the reel when you cannot see it. 
• Keeping It Cool: Keeping a moderate to cool temperature inside your home or wherever you process is a good idea, especially for the changing bag process. A hot environment will make your hands sweat and make the emulsion of the film susceptible to smearing. This happened to me one hot summer day. Do not let this happen to you!
• Dry Your Film in the Bathroom: The steam from your showers will help settle all the dust in the air, which means less dust on your film. 

After developing the film, I scan the negatives into my computer using a CanoScan 9000F, make any adjustments in Lightroom if needed, and call it a day. I read great things about the Epson v700 but the price difference between the two made me go for the CanoScan and so far I do not regret the decision. 

I hope this post helped reveal how accessible developing at home is and I encourage every photographer out there to try it themselves. 

Beauty Portrait

A couple of weeks ago, I did a test shoot with some friends of mine. The approach for the shoot, despite being in a very familiar environment (my apartment), was different. The portion I had spent most of time my pre-visualizing was the portrait of Kim, the female subject. The aim was a beauty portrait. I do not normally do beauty. Bluntly speaking, for me, photographing female subjects is very difficult, much harder than photographing male subjects. Although some of the challenge can be attributed to a number of items, I think much of it is due to the society and the well defined parameters it has set for what should and should not be seen as "beautiful." It sounds cold, I know. I do believe in the mantra of everyone being beautiful in their own way. But at the same time, no one can fully deny that mainstream media has not shaped our perception of what is attractive to the human eye. Clothes, hair styles, make up, the human body. It's all included in the list. But what is even more interesting is how this affects self-perception. As a result, people, women especially, spend more time criticizing themselves than complimenting. From a photographer's standpoint, these societal pressures create a bit of a challenge. 

Onward...

The second big difference coming into this test shoot was my mental approach. A few months ago, I dove headfirst into the realm of film photography and put myself on digital hiatus, during which I learned two main lessons. The first was being more critical of what was in my frame. I started a "Project 120" on my Facebook page not only to share the images I had captured, but to force myself to post images I had not framed perfectly. The goal was to learn how to frame the hard way, which meant learning through failure and posting those imperfections, not as punishment, but rather as a method of reinforcement. In practice, it simply forced me to be more aware as I shot.

The second lesson I learned was to shoot at a slower pace, which compliments the first. Having to physically wind the film after a shot forces one to recompose and refocus, assuming the camera is hand held and not on a tripod. I lugged along my film camera on my rock climbing trips and asked a few of my buddies to let me take their portraits. They were gracious enough and let me harass them for 3 minutes in front of their peers (thanks guys!). One frame in 3 minutes. Not exactly snapping away. Each portrait had a slower pace than with my DSLR and in a way, it helped the portrait come together because the subject assumed the process would take longer than with digital, thus allowing more time for me to compose and, more importantly, for the subject to relax and simply be themselves.

Fast forward to two weeks ago. I wanted to do a studio-type portrait session again with my digital set up along with my strobes. I wanted to see what impact going on digital LOA had done for me.

Here's the set up I had pre-conceptualized:

Diagram of the set up

The set up was meant for the female subject. The overall feel I wanted was a comfort, "at home" type of beauty portrait. I asked Kim to bring clothes she felt comfortable in and were somewhat revealing but still PG-13. As for the lights, I used a large octabank on my main light and a beauty dish on the back light. The purpose of the backlight was to simulate sunshine coming through the window, which is what my subject's back was against (not shown above). Why not use real sunlight? Well, it was winter time in Seattle. That should be enough to tell you why I could not rely on the sun to make an appearance. But despite (or in spite of) my cruel assumptions, the sun DID show up and it came full force. There wan't a single cloud in the sky. Here's an ambient light shot at f/11, ISO 100 at max sync speed WITH a 2 stop ND filter:

Snapshot of the ambient light at (an effective) f/22, ISO 100.

I originally planned to shoot at a wider aperture, but quickly realized that wasn't going to happen. The space in my apartment is less than ideal as a portrait studio, but I can make things happen if lights and props are positioned strategically around, almost like cramming one last object into a full closet and then quickly closing the door before it all comes tumbling down. I had set up the lights and rearranged my apartment furnishings to make the shot work at a specific shooting angle. But with the unexpected appearance of the sun, the shot now involved really intense flare that I could not frame out without compromising my composition. 

I decided to turn the negative into a positive and utilized the sun as a third light. I metered my lights in such a way that the sun was now a second kicker. The new orientation for my subject still involved the window but instead of her laying comfortably on the couch, I had her sit up on the window sill. I used a piece of white tulle I had leftover from another shoot to help diffuse the harsh sunlight that was blasting through the window (seen above). It also helped blur out the unsightly building behind her. 

Diagram of final set up

Shooting film changed the way I shot this session. Simply comparing how many frames I took in this session (about 50 including test shots) compared to what I did a year ago (over 200) was pretty revealing. I felt more at ease and spent more time communicating with my subject instead of on the back of my camera. Always a plus. Below is the final shot. It's not going to win awards, but I believe it is a step in the right direction and I think I am finally starting to find my "style" (more on this in a future post). Keep scrolling for more shots.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

...and a fun behind-the-scenes shot!  

Keep Shooting