Is medium format your main format?

[fs999]

The answer to the question is : yes, definitively yes

 

[Helge]

Precisely the opposite. It's actually the disadvantage of MF, that you must stop down to get a comparable DOF for situations like this, losing shutter speed. You're trading DOF blur for motion blur then.

You still get the better image quality.
Without having concrete evidence I’d say the DoF is still different for MF, even if it should be mathematically equivalent at a give aperture.

 

[brainmonster]

You need to learn to stop down some more and use a tripod in low light.
That’s one of the advantages of MF, that you can stop wayon film down without diffraction.

Unfortunately my Kiev sticks if I use shutter speeds slower than 1/15th...maybe I should ask for a discount.

Also carrying a MF SLR plus a tripod, at night, is extremely heavy and not really realistic. It would have added a lot of motion blur to those skaters as well, but maybe a cool effect even if it's not what I was going for.

I agree with the DOF being extremely thin on medium format. The picture of the pigeon was shot at F5.6....and still the DOF is extremely thin.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I agree with the DOF being extremely thin on medium format.

Of course, with 2+ to 6 times the negative area of 35mm, up to a point you can just shoot faster film in MF. Even push or use special developers. Tri-X at 3200 isn't objectionable when you only need a 4:1 enlargement for 8x10.

Of course, if DOF is everything, better get yourself a Minox, slitter, and stock up on Pan F+, Copex Rapid, or Adox CMS 20 II (and its special developer).

 

[abruzzi]

I prefer medium format for several reasons. First, I'm not as good at all this than many of you, so the larger negative is more forgiving of bad technique. Second, I like the waist level finder approach to framing and composition, and with a 35mm sized frame, WLFs are not nearly as useful. Finally, I can shoot 10 frames on a roll of film. I HATE, HATE, HATE 36 exposure rolls, and 24 exposure rolls aren't much better. I have several 35mm cameras that have had film in them for 3-4 month, because it takes forever to shoot 36 frames. (as an odd sidenote, I've always found amusing the obsessions some people have trying to get two or three extra frames out of their 36 exposure roll.)

 

[Donald Qualls]

(as an odd sidenote, I've always found amusing the obsessions some people have trying to get two or three extra frames out of their 36 exposure roll.)

That just simple cheapness, in most cases. Getting 40 on a 36 exposure roll is like getting a 10% discount (until you have to buy a different binder to hold the 42-frame archive pages you had to buy to accommodate more than 36 on a page).

 

[brainmonster]

I prefer medium format for several reasons. First, I'm not as good at all this than many of you, so the larger negative is more forgiving of bad technique. Second, I like the waist level finder approach to framing and composition, and with a 35mm sized frame, WLFs are not nearly as useful. Finally, I can shoot 10 frames on a roll of film. I HATE, HATE, HATE 36 exposure rolls, and 24 exposure rolls aren't much better. I have several 35mm cameras that have had film in them for 3-4 month, because it takes forever to shoot 36 frames. (as an odd sidenote, I've always found amusing the obsessions some people have trying to get two or three extra frames out of their 36 exposure roll.)

I find MF to not be forgiving...scanning is a little more difficult because dust shows up more easily, even straight from the lab wrapped in plastic. I need to wipe down each negative with a microfiber cloth, even when using digital ICE on my scanner. 35mm does not require this.

I guess I like having 36 frames, 12 seems like not to much. Although, I suppose it makes you more careful as to when you take pictures, going for quality over quantity. It's a different experience shooting MF. I tend to shoot more landscapes because MF shows a lot of detail in landscapes and is great for that purpose. Portraits also come out great because of shallow DOF and good resolution of facial features.

I'm looking forward to trying Portra instead of Ektar, I've come to the conclusion that I prefer Portra for everything, I bought some 400 speed for 120. Hopefully this will allow me to shooter at smaller apertures. I imagine the low light performance of MF should be better in theory than 35mm at equivalent 2.8 lens, but I haven't tried it. I'm a bit curious.

It looks like my Kiev works at 1/15th, and 1/2 second, and bulb works but you have to cock the shutter before changing to bulb mode, then it keeps working if you stay on bulb. 1/8, 1/4 second do not work for some reason and cause shutter to stick. Quirky camera. Maybe not quite enough of a problem for me to ask for a discount.

 

[Joseph Bell]

Cayenne, great story, thanks for sharing.
If you like 6x17: do you know the film "Koudelka shooting Holy Land" ?
this documentary movie depicts him going through Israel and Palestine with an Xpan and a 6x17 which he uses handheld. Very inspirational. It's also an eye-opener on the situation in this part of the world. My favorite quote: "One wall, two jails."

sincere thanks for this, the documentary looks fascinating, I would never have otherwise known!

 

[cayenne]

sincere thanks for this, the documentary looks fascinating, I would never have otherwise known!

Yep. I'm thankful for that suggestion too, that put me on a path to a bit of research about him....very interesting.

Unfortunately it almost had me trying to drop some $$ for a Fuji GX617 like he was shooting with hand held in that movie....

That reminds, me, I need to buy a lottery ticket soon...I "need" more MF equipment.


cayenne

 

[abruzzi]

I find MF to not be forgiving...scanning is a little more difficult because dust shows up more easily, even straight from the lab wrapped in plastic. I need to wipe down each negative with a microfiber cloth, even when using digital ICE on my scanner. 35mm does not require this.

hmm, I’ve never had an issue like that. I don’t use a scanner with digital ice, just a DSLR. I always clean all negative strips with a few puffs from a rocket air blower before scanning.

 

[brainmonster]

hmm, I’ve never had an issue like that. I don’t use a scanner with digital ice, just a DSLR. I always clean all negative strips with a few puffs from a rocket air blower before scanning.

Cool I will try that. If I don't use ICE even with 35mm and using a blower I've got dust all over each frame on the negative. Maybe DSLR scanning doesn't illuminate the dust as much, or I just live in a really dusty house.

 

[abruzzi]

Cool I will try that. If I don't use ICE even with 35mm and using a blower I've got dust all over each frame on the negative. Maybe DSLR scanning doesn't illuminate the dust as much, or I just live in a really dusty house.

that would be surprising, I live in New Mexico the land of dust storms and 60mph spring winds. Hawaii shouldn't be as bad. I do 95% B&W, so maybe color is more attractive to dust?

 

[Pieter12]

hmm, I’ve never had an issue like that. I don’t use a scanner with digital ice, just a DSLR. I always clean all negative strips with a few puffs from a rocket air blower before scanning.

Medium format negatives offer more area for dust to settle and collect, on the other hand dust spots are relatively smaller and simpler to clean up on scans or prints.

 

[grat]

Cool I will try that. If I don't use ICE even with 35mm and using a blower I've got dust all over each frame on the negative. Maybe DSLR scanning doesn't illuminate the dust as much, or I just live in a really dusty house.

Scanning with flatbed means there are like 6 surfaces for dust-- the scanning bed, the front and back of the negative, both sides of the ANR glass (if you have it) and the glass on the transparency unit.

Fortunately, I find the healing brush tools in Affinity work really well, especially with a little practice. I'm finding that iSRD leaves artifacts that while not dust per se, are still noticeable and need to be cleaned.

 

[Sirius Glass]

For all formats I use: 35mm, 120 and 4"x5" I use cans of compressed air to blow off dust for enlarging or scanning.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

For all formats I use: 35mm, 120 and 4"x5" I use cans of compressed air to blow off dust for enlarging or scanning.

B&H doesn't ship canned air. I've bought electronic canned air cleaner from Best Buy at their store. Where do you get yours and which do you use?

 

[Pieter12]

B&H doesn't ship canned air. I've bought electronic canned air cleaner from Best Buy at their store. Where do you get yours and which do you use?

I have bought canned air by the case from Costco. In my darkroom, I use a CO2 tank with an air nozzle, adjusted to about 10 psi. Nice, dry and gentle for cleaning negatives.

 

[Sirius Glass]

B&H doesn't ship canned air. I've bought electronic canned air cleaner from Best Buy at their store. Where do you get yours and which do you use?

Costco

 

[brainmonster]

B&H also sells those bulb air blowers that are non-aerosol that come with lens-cleaning kits. Maybe better for the environment, but not sure how well they work vs. canned air.

I actually might try it because the canned air often sprays way too hard, and sometimes freezes the surface causing condensation if you use it for a long time.

 

[Luckless]

I had a hand pumped marker 'airbrush' kit when I was a kid, and I kind of want to find something similar.

Was a large hard plastic tank with a sturdy bike pump, then an airline with a basic valve on the end. No oil, no real source of dust, no annoying motor buzzing or anything.

Didn't give a lot of pressure, or for a very long time, but for a few pumps it would charge enough air to readily clean several negatives.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I had a hand pumped marker 'airbrush' kit when I was a kid, and I kind of want to find something similar.

Was a large hard plastic tank with a sturdy bike pump, then an airline with a basic valve on the end. No oil, no real source of dust, no annoying motor buzzing or anything.

Didn't give a lot of pressure, or for a very long time, but for a few pumps it would charge enough air to readily clean several negatives.

If you can get by with basic tools, you might look for "Airhogs" toys. They had a line that used a hand pump to pressurize a plastic bottle, which then operated a uniflow air motor to drive either wheels or a propeller. Stripping one of these down to the tank and head section of the motor would give you a no-noise blower with a finger-controlled valve.

Otherwise, you could get the spare tire adapters that might still be sold with Badger airbrushes and connect one to a bicycle tire.

 

[pressureworld]

Medium Format is my main format. I shoot cityscapes and seascapes, but the price of Fuji Acros (my preferred film), lab cost for Portra, and new airport scanners have me thinking of throwing in the towel and going digital.

I'm at a real crossroads. I recently picked up a Fuji X-T2 and plan to shoot the Hasselblad a little less, especially in these lean times.

 

[markjwyatt]

... I recently picked up a Fuji X-T2 and plan to shoot the Hasselblad a little less, especially in these lean times.

The XT-2 has a nice ACROS simulation. Of course most serious photographers will end up shooting RAW. At the same time I am stepping back into a bit of MF with a 6x9 folder and my Mamiya TLR outfit.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

When shooting film (Tri-X for 75%), always MF, and this is how I like it:

And sometimes Caffenol processing, or toning the prints whit it...

 

[polka]

Yes, I waste essentially 120 (B&W) film (is this an acceptable altenative to "shoot" ?).
My prefered MF camera is a Zenza Bronica S2 with three lenses : 50mm/2.8 and 75mm/2.8 Nikkors and 150mm/3.5 Zenzanon
I find this focal progression ideal because :

I do also MF stereoscopy with a Spoutnik.
And anamorphic pinhole photography with self-made 6x17 cameras.
POLKa (the name of my anamorphic cameras : Panoramische Oberlicht Loch Kamera)