Anyone try MF and go back to 35mm?

[Black Dog]

APUG's a great resource and I've particularly enjoyed the print and postcard exchanges, not to mention the legendary travelling camera!

 

[Roger Cole]

Since getting medium format cameras the only things I use 35mm for now are 1) slides for projection because I don't have a medium format projector, and 2) very low light because my lenses are faster. If I ever get an 80 1.9 for my M645 even that may decrease. YMMV of course.

 

[BetterSense]

35mm wins in imaging speed, or depth of field, which is almost the same thing in photography. I am attracted to the idea of switching to 35mm for more applications and moving to slower films like TMX. That SHOULD gain back a bunch of ground vs. Medium format with say HP5, but it has never worked for me in practice.

Modern films have nearly invisible grain for common enlargements, but even so, there is something about 35mm than can't seem to replace medium format, and it's not just the grain. I think the thickness of the emulsion itself becomes significant. Or maybe it's the enlargement ratios taxing the lenses more. Does anyone know the emulsion thickness of 35mm film?

 

[markbarendt]

BetterSense I believe that all the various roll film sizes are cut from the same master roll so the emulsion thickness should be essentially equal across all TMax 400 rolls.

That doesn't mean that the basic idea of "more emulsion" is mis-guided. It is just the other two dimensions that make the difference in "volume" or "silver molecule count".

In a larger format camera the scene is projected across more square centimeters, so more emulsion, molecules, volume, is affected.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I love 35mm, and I really love printing the small negatives.

It doesn't replace my medium format camera, though, which I also enjoy a lot. I went all the way to 5x7, but sheet film does not suit how I photograph, so I shoot about 50% 135 format and 50% 120-6x6.

I don't choose one camera over the other for print quality, as I find the quality I achieve from both formats is more than good enough up to 16x20 print size. I choose cameras based on what I'm photographing.

Over the years I've come to realize that I am much better off trying to focus on making interesting photographs rather than being too anal about print quality. Please note this is my personal approach, and you may or may not agree. It's what works for me.

 

[frank]

BetterSense I believe that all the various roll film sizes are cut from the same master roll so the emulsion thickness should be essentially equal across all TMax 400 rolls.

That doesn't mean that the basic idea of "more emulsion" is mis-guided. It is just the other two dimensions that make the difference in "volume" or "silver molecule count".

In a larger format camera the scene is projected across more square centimeters, so more emulsion, molecules, volume, is affected.

This. ^^^

 

[darkosaric]

Over the years I've come to realize that I am much better off trying to focus on making interesting photographs rather than being too anal about print quality. Please note this is my personal approach, and you may or may not agree. It's what works for me.

Could not agree more. But in your example Thomas - your print quality is so high that it is hard to find need to make it better .

 

[markbarendt]

Over the years I've come to realize that I am much better off trying to focus on making interesting photographs rather than being too anal about print quality. Please note this is my personal approach, and you may or may not agree. It's what works for me.

I struggle with this and I think part of the struggle is the word "quality".

Quality implies good vs. bad. Character has a different connotation.

What I'm getting at is that, for any given image, it is normal for a visual artist to choose a paper with the characteristics they prefer, to choose the pigments and a delivery medium (water, oil, acrylic, emulsion) they prefer, and to choose the texture (impasto, dry brush, ISO 400, 4x5" vs 35mm).

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Struggle away. It's analysis like this that to me becomes an obstacle; it's noise that clouds my ideas and goals. I'm just trying to keep it simple, knowing that when I choose 35mm or 6x6 I will get the print I desire at the end. And yes, quality is subjective, and should be measured in how well we achieve to make the print look the way we desire. But even if I measured it in terms of boring technical terms such as resolution or granularity, I'd be totally satisfied with 35mm up to my maximum size of 16x20 (and probably beyond, but I don't even desire to print that big).

To me, by far the most prominent ingredient in any photograph is the person making the photograph and their skill. That is why I do not choose papers based on subject matter - I just Ilford Multigrade fiber matter for everything, always processed in replenished Ethol LPD.
I simply do not subscribe to the idea that a different paper is going to improve my print. Only my skill will. Same thing with film. I use Ilford HP5+ for everything.

But I may not be like everyone else. I focus intently and intensely on my craft, improving my skill to always eke more out of what I've got. Any time I change it up I end up taking steps backwards in that pursuit and I have to start over, and that is very disruptive to me.

I struggle with this and I think part of the struggle is the word "quality".

Quality implies good vs. bad. Character has a different connotation.

What I'm getting at is that, for any given image, it is normal for a visual artist to choose a paper with the characteristics they prefer, to choose the pigments and a delivery medium (water, oil, acrylic, emulsion) they prefer, and to choose the texture (impasto, dry brush, ISO 400, 4x5" vs 35mm).

 

[DREW WILEY]

I tried medium format for about two years, then moved on to exclusively large format for the next thirty years. Now I'm rediscovering niche
opportunities for both my MF and 35mm gear.

 

[georg16nik]

BetterSense I believe that all the various roll film sizes are cut from the same master roll so the emulsion thickness should be essentially equal across all TMax 400 rolls...

Well, then why are most films from Kodak, Ilford on acetate base only in format 135 and MF but polyester for 4x5 and larger?
..or we think of different “master rolls”, perhaps?

 

[filmamigo]

I started in 35mm. When I discovered MF, I fell in love. I appreciated the look of the images, and really like working with a bigger ground glass (i.e. TLR or waist level finder.) But there is always a place for 35mm. Sometimes for the look of the image, sometimes for lens selection, sometimes because of camera size, features, etc.

I sampled large format (4x5) and didn't find the same gains. Perhaps if I tried 8x10 or bigger. But going to 4x5 from 6x9 rollfilm didn't seem like the same jump as 35mm to MF. Plus, there were even bigger challenges with size, handling, speed, etc. So, I let the LF cameras go.

I'm sure the point where the costs outweight the benefits are different for everyone. But for me, that point was MF ---> LF, not 35mm ---> MF.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Per "master rolls", roll film needs to, uh, er, roll up! So they primarily use thin acetate. Sheet film ideally needs to be stiff and robust to
lay flat, so they either use a much thicker version of acetate, or preferably polyester, which is far more dimensionally stable than acetate.
Therefore these different types of applications need different coating runs on different base materials.

 

[markbarendt]

Well, then why are most films from Kodak, Ilford on acetate base only in format 135 and MF but polyester for 4x5 and larger?
..or we think of different “master rolls”, perhaps?

What Drew said.

 

[georg16nik]

Yes, I am aware of it - hence I don't agree with the earlier statement by Mark, that “...various roll film sizes are cut from the same master roll...”
Base material and thickness vary for most formats, so the “master rolls” are quite a few. Also, poly base gets it's own set of treatments before coating, so ISO 400 emulsion is essentially equal across formats only in principle, and hardly traceable due to jump in formats, different optics, etc, etc;

 

[johnha]

In many cases it depends on whether you have a 'brand' preference - I shoot Pentax and they have the choice of 110, 135, 645 & 6x7 SLR formats

It really depends on the subjects you shoot, your shooting style and the MF camera system - my immediate preference would be my Pentax 6x7 gear - handles like 35mm only a much bigger film format. I've shot airshows with my Mamiya 645 with much higher quality than I'd have achieved with 35mm. A WLF based MF system might work well in the studio but for me the best choice would be an eye-level 645 or 6x7 system (rangefinder or SLR).

I now find it hard to shoot 36 exposures and find a roll of 120 (645 or 6x7) is much easier to shoot - my Mamiya 645 & Pentax 6x7 have fast-ish (by MF standards) lenses making them as easy to shoot as 35mm.

 

[markbarendt]

Yes, I am aware of it - hence I don't agree with the earlier statement by Mark, that “...various roll film sizes are cut from the same master roll...”
Base material and thickness vary for most formats, so the “master rolls” are quite a few. Also, poly base gets it's own set of treatments before coating, so ISO 400 emulsion is essentially equal across formats only in principle, and hardly traceable due to jump in formats, different optics, etc, etc;

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20106281054152313.pdf

Ilford has just two types of base so just two types of master rolls.

4-mil clear acetate. Used for all roll film formats.

7-mil polyester. Used for all sheet film.

As I understand it the master rolls are quite wide, say several feet, and really really long, thousands of feet. An entire roll is coated with say HP-5's emulsion then it is cut into all the various formats as needed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qjBJOFImaU

 

[DREW WILEY]

Of course, it's not quite that simple. Specialty films can require a unique base material or special prep thereof. Allegedly that's what killed off
Tech Pan in all formats.

 

[Mark Fisher]

Sometimes I like grain, sometimes I don't.......to my eye, 6x6 and 35mm have very different looks (beyond the rect vs square). I like both and use both.

 

[frank]

Different formats and camera types for different tasks.

If you need to be fast and mobile, or need long fast AF lenses, in all of your photography, then MF may not be for you.

But aside from these circumstances, I can't imagine anyone reverting to 35mm photography for all of their photography, after experiencing the quantum leap in technical image quality that MF provides over 35mm.

For me, MF provides the best compromise of speed/ease of use, and technical image quality, compared to 35mm and LF photography. It's the sweet spot format, IMO.

 

[markbarendt]

Of course, it's not quite that simple. Specialty films can require a unique base material or special prep thereof. Allegedly that's what killed off
Tech Pan in all formats.

If TechPan sold as much Tri-X, I'd bet that TechPan would still be around regardless of base requirements.

 

[Roger Cole]

Of course, it's not quite that simple. Specialty films can require a unique base material or special prep thereof. Allegedly that's what killed off
Tech Pan in all formats.

Oh, not the weird spectral response, the difficult development or the glacially slow speed then?

I never really saw the point of Tech Pan. It's so much easier to get the same grain and sharpness you'd get from 35mm Tech Pan by using a medium format medium speed film or large format fast film. Of course for those making prints many feet in each dimension then I suppose 4x5 Tech Pan made some sense. I know some people loved it. I couldn't manage to even like it. Yes, it was sharp and almost grainless, but the pain to get that just wasn't worth it.

 

[Roger Cole]

For me, MF provides the best compromise of speed/ease of use, and technical image quality, compared to 35mm and LF photography. It's the sweet spot format, IMO.

I have to agree with this. I enjoy large format, because I just like working with the view camera and the slow, contemplative approach, but in terms of results I could just as easily use an RB or RZ and dispense with the dust problems and slow loading of holders.

 

[Ai Print]

Of course for those making prints many feet in each dimension then I suppose 4x5 Tech Pan made some sense.

Actually, it makes more sense in the smaller formats since a lot of LF lenses are not up to the LPM task that TP would exploit. I'm sure lenses like the 110XL and most of the Apo Sironar S series would edge back in but it takes some really sharp glass in any format to show what that film can do. I love it with my Hasselblad and Mamiya 6 lenses in 120 and Leica glass in 35mm.

I have a nice stash of it, find it fairly easy to use when you know exactly what you are after rather than try to use it in broader subject matter and lighting. It works incredibly well for textural subjects like rock and ice.