You have to love this city and its weather 😉 .
This image was taken using the Mamiya 110/2.8 at its near focus limit; even at f/4 (the aperture used for this shot), the depth of field is quite thin — perhaps too thin for this portrait, since only the near eye is in focus.
Still, I like it.
The look of the Tri-X film and the bigger 6 x 7 “sensor” of medium format is quite remarkable. Notice the true-to-life rendering of his face, texture of his hat, etc. Currently, high-end 35mm digital cameras may be able to out-resolve this antiquated gear (at least using the scanner I’m using), but they cannot duplicate the look of this image.
—Peter.
Prosophos 
Impressive lens. For your dreamiing portraits you should try the Hasselblad Zeiss 110mm F2.0 Planar, the king of creamy bokeh, unfortunately for Hasselblad FE series.
Is it fair to compare a film scan to maybe a Leica Monocrome file? Let’s compare a film print with a digital print.
For sure the film look cannot be replicated.
Ciao and thanks for sharing your images.
Yes on all fronts Peter. Agree totally. Love the subtle tones in this.
Umberto unless something unusual has been done with the digital print (to try and replicate film) the film will bring a much more organic look to it. Depending on focus, depth of field and exposure sometimes it may be hard to tell the difference, though mostly it is the combination of tones that blend uniquely and texture that bring that earthy unique look. Though I’m sure people will add “earth” somewhere along the line in digital!
I use the MM and can see a unique character to these images you’d have to work on for a while with the MM and then you’d need to add some sort of vintage overlay (or vice versa). Grain in LR doesn’t really cut it.
I think you can go “close” to replicate film with the MM (mainly due to CCD sensor) though it won’t be the same experience.
Thank you Andy. My question was rhetorical but I completely agree with you. Generally speaking film is more 3dimensional even if with my M9 images really pop out. As regards B&W prints, film is still superior (for medium format by far). I have seen some very large MM prints and details were astonishing: I had the impression they were a bit clinical: to my taste, maybe the use of lenses with a vintage character could help.
I recently made 3 prints with my MM…850mm x 600mm. Very happy with what came from those files as far as prints go. But yes, more clinical when comparing next to Mamiya 7 prints 1m x 1m next to them. I suspected your question may be rhetorical but in the defence of film, just had to add my thoughts :-)…
The fact that the Monochrom is a black and white camera only and the way that it was marketed makes it obvious to compare to all different kinds of film. But (just like the M240,) it seems better to just try and see what it does without comparing it to something else. We want the M240 to be like the M9 and we want the Monochrom to be like film.
The Monochrom will always be a digital camera and never a film camera. Even with all the post processing it will never be a film camera. That said it will always be the Monochrom, the most amazing black/white camera in the world. It will beat film in many aspects, and personally I think these aspects shine when we do not try and make it look like film. Obviously when we say that one will always be different from the other, we can always have our preferences.
Personally I prefer the Monochrom to the output of most film, but I’ve never grown up with film and there is no voice inside my head that tells me there should be grain in a bw photograph or that the highlights should be handled in a certain way. 🙂
Personally I also prefer the M8/M9 to the M240 (since those are also so different that it’s useless to make them want to look the same), but I do know the M240 has its own draw/character that I need to get used to. And somebody starting out with a M240 might even prefer it over the M9, since there is no voice inside their head telling them that it should have more pop and subtler more vibrant colors. 🙂
Very well put Pieter and agree100%. I’ve been saying fora while the M240 and M9 are just different….and as you point out here so is the MM and film.
That’s really good
Incredible.
Long live film and good reasons to make photographs every day !
>
What a smart move to go back to film.
Besides my M9, I own a Rolleiflex 2.8 F, and the results I get for portraits are second to none. Focusing is difficult, the max speed is 1/500, the camera is heavy… but the results are really worth it. There is life in medium format portraits! And if you get the chance to print your best pictures on baryt paper (darkroom print, not Epson print…), then the magic is definitely there.
Thomas