35mm look with medium format?

[blacksquare]

Hello,

at first I apologize for my weak English.
My first film camera was a medium format, I still use MF cameras (Mamiya RZ, Rolleicord, ...) and I love it.
But when I see photos from 35mm film (mostly steetphoto) I like the moody, gritty, contrasty look with deep black.

Quick samples:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/46538639@N05/6221259494/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/oliverhutton/5223728253/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/giacomofrullani/25853907943/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/maddoc2003jp/3851542022/

How do you make these photos with MF? Push film? Magic in darkroom?
Or it's easier to get 35mm camera?

Thanks for every answer.
Jan

 

[saman13]

Extended development gives the increased contrast, greater relative enlargement from 35mm gives the grain. You could also increase contrast in the printing stage. MF seems to have less grain because you don’t have to enlarge the larger negative as much as you do a 35mm negative for the same final size. This enlarges the grain as well. You could increase the grain and contrast of MF by extending development and increasing development temperature.

But honestly, if it is the 35mm look that you like, why not shoot 35mm? In general, these cameras are less expensive, are more compact, and film is less expensive per frame (750 frames for ~$40 here in the US if you buy bulk). Maybe look into Fomapan films if you like the contrast.

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

Agree with saman.

Street photography often has challenging lighting which produces the effect of high contrast and moodiness. Specular and or local light sources with large areas of comparative darkness can create the feeling.

What time does the light start to fade on a city street, for example in Manhattan? On the west sidewalk of a north-south street on the east side of Manhattan, it is around 2:30pm. The point is that lighting is unique/strange on city streets, more so at night. Far different feeling than a wide open landscape in a farm field with heavy overcast (broadly diffused) lighting.

 

[Erik Petersson]

Vivan Maier did great street photos with a medium format. Perhaps you can look to her for inspiration.
Dead Link Removed

 

[DREW WILEY]

I use a Fuji 6X9 RF loaded with Delta 3200.

 

[spijker]

The examples that you give from Flickr are very likely scanned negatives. Scanning B&W negative film increases the grain so that already gives a more gritty look. A darkroom print from the same negative would look less gritty. After scanning, more contrast and deep blacks is mostly a matter of moving the sliders in Lightroom or any other photo editing program. What I'm saying is that what you see on Flickr is not so much the film or film format but more "digital magic". But as others suggested, start with a high speed film like delta 3200 or push a 400 ISO film to1600 ISO. Are you planning to just scan the negatives or will you print them in the darkroom?

 

[blacksquare]

Thanks to all of you.

I mostly like tonality and smooth gradation from MF, but sometimes I would like more contrast and punch.
It is possible that examples from Flickr are "digitaly modified" :/

I'll definitely try pushing some 400 ISO film.

spijker: I scan for quick preview and archive, then print best negatives in darkroom.

 

[Billy Axeman]

When you see a gritty photo from a 35mm negative it is in most cases already from a sensitive film, overexposed, treated with a suitable developer, overdeveloped, and most of all processed afterwards in a way I don't mention here to get more contrast.
So, you can try that on MF film but you can only approximate the same look at best. Moreover, the relative density of the grains on 35mm film is less than on MF film, so you have an inherent 'disadvantage' to begin with.

The best advice is indeed to use 35mm film. If you want to shoot with your MF camera anyways, an exotic way to accomplish that could be to load 35mm film on modified spools. See the following thread here:

35mm to 120 Converters
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/35mm-to-120-converters.155018/

 

[markbarendt]

Thanks to all of you.

I mostly like tonality and smooth gradation from MF, but sometimes I would like more contrast and punch.
It is possible that examples from Flickr are "digitaly modified" :/

I'll definitely try pushing some 400 ISO film.

spijker: I scan for quick preview and archive, then print best negatives in darkroom.

This is pretty easy.

First thing to try is simply printing negatives you already have a bit darker. Use a bit more enlarger exposure and or a bit more paper development. Don't worry about the shadows just let them go black, instead focus on the mid-tones.

Next try a harder paper grade when printing. If you are using Variable Contrast paper again you can use any negative you already have, no push required, just set the enlarger's filter pack to a harder grade.

Those two ideas alone 'fix' any punchiness problem I have.

You can use longer development of the film, a push, if you prefer, just understand that 'a push' and 'a paper grade change' accomplish exactly the same thing.

 

[Helinophoto]

You have two very distinct looks here; Hard contrast with grain, hard contrast with little or no grain.
Hard contrast with grain:
I see that at least two of these shots were made with 400 speed film, that is Tri-X and Neopan 400, both developerd in Rodinal.
- Tri-x is known for very pronounced grain in Rodinal, i suspect the same with Neopan 400.

They are both probably shot at a speed which is higher than the rated speed and then developed longer than usual.

The two other shots, are low-grain, high-contrast shots with TMax 100, most likely metered so they are underexposed and then overdeveloped, this will create very hard contrast.
All shots may or may not have been adjusted regarding contrast on the computer as well, but the difference in grain comes from different films in the developer mentioned.

I believe you may be able to recreate something similar to the two grainless, high-contrast shots, on medium format, but unless you use a very grainy film (like Fomapan 400 in Rodinal or similar), it will have a different look, medium-format simply has too small grain due to the larger negative to achieve the look of 35mm completely IMO.

 

[fdonadio]

I use a Fuji 6X9 RF loaded with Delta 3200.

I could use that for street photography in Dallas, TX.

 

[Paul Howell]

A 35mm is not only easy, but more cost effective, costs per frame is less, although it is possible to shoot MF fairly fast most lever advanced 35mm is quicker, and a motor drive or auto winder is faster still. If you shoot a Rollicord with a 75 or 80 fixed lens then using a fixed lens rangefinder such as a Canon or Minolta with a fast 1.7 45mm lens will give similar angle of view. If you want interchangeable lens Pentax Spotmatic or any number of M42 bodies with 28, 50 and 105 come to mind. If you have deep pockets, a Leica.

 

[Chan Tran]

I don't think what you saw is format related.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Use a high speed film other than 40TX which does not exhibit that much grain. Under-expose a bit and over-develop a bit using Rodinal 1+24. Or you could also use diluted D-72, try 1+1+7. You will probably have to experiment on which dilution to use to get the amount of grain that you want..

 

[Paul Howell]

I don't think what you saw is format related.

OP asked about MF vs 35mm for the 35mm look and asked it he should buy a 35mm for street work. For his intended purpose I think OP should buy a 35mm.

 

[fdonadio]

Use a high speed film other than 40TX which does not exhibit that much grain.

Did you mean 400TMY or 400TX?

Of these two, TMY is finer grained. Pushing Tri-X two stops will give you grain, even in medium format. I don’t like to push T-Max, as it’s already too contrasty for me. But it’s just my opinion.

 

[k.hendrik]

https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/bad-development.52655/

is this grainy enough? not 'street' though. Just happy shoot and trial & error

 

[ic-racer]

You might want to study Bill Brandt's medium format work.

The chief hallmark of his social documentary photographs is formal clarity, often achieved in the darkroom, by cropping under the enlarger and by emphasising tonal contrasts in printing. http ://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/b/working-methods-bill-brandt/

 

[film_man]

You can most likely recreate that look with some Delta 3200, or perhaps HP5/Trix pushed a stop or two. Even straight TriX will give you that look if you underexpose a bit and scan it appropriately. You will need to experiment a bit to find what works best for you, I find HP5 pushed to be very clean but higher contrast. Delta 3200 on the other hand if rated at (or near) 3200 will come out grainy even in medium format.

The main issue you will hit pushing 400 film a couple of stops or using Delta 3200, is that with good light you will run out of shutter speeds on most medium format cameras. So one last thing to try is Ilford FP4 pushed a stop.

You can even start trying things like Trix pushed one stop (ie 800) but rated 1600. So the film is still underexposed despite the pushing. Depending on subject matter and how you (or the lab) scan it you can get the grain/contrast.

However, as others have said, well if you want a 35mm look then get a 35mm camera. By the way, from the 4 samples you posted the one with the umbrella shows just some scanning/JPG artefacts, it is not grain what you see. The one with the monk dusting just looks like some normal B&W to me, you can probably get that look with straight FP4.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Med format obviously yields a much bigger neg suitable for bigger enlargements, if that is desired. Fewer shots per roll is not an issue unless you're a machine-gunner type. TMax 400 is rather fine-grained rather than gritty like Tri-X. But if you carefully meter it, underexpose by a stop or two, then overdevelop, you can achieve bold graphic blacks and superb midtone tonality. But due to its steep toe you do need to be conscious of shadow placement. By comparison, Delta 3200 has a more forgiving long toe. I love both films, but for different reasons.