Black & white film/format musings

[m_liddell]

I got into MF about 8 monthes ago, and still use my nikon FM as much (possibly more), the freedom of shooting handheld with fast lenses is great. I often use 35mm on it's own at a new location (for landscape) so I can shoot quickly and a lot of film and not get bogged down and let my creativity flow a bit more. This means I've covered more shots and angles than I ever could with my RB67 on a tripod. I evaluate the 35mm shots, see what worked and what didn't and return shooting only MF. Maybe as I improve I won't need to do this as much.

Another thing I've found 35mm useful for is portraits since I'm not great at portraits and have very little experiance in that area. A few times I've been shooting with my RB and the subject has been inexperianced and is a little nervous, I've got out my nikon with portrait lens and shot a lot of film quite quickly moving around so the subject has little time to adjust their expression to a 'forced' one and the shots are far more natural since they don't have time to react. Also there are far more shots to choose from so the chances of getting a good one are much higher. There is no way I could do with with the RB. Unfortunatly often a portrait shot in 35mm handheld esp with fast film doesn't enlarge very far!

I'm always gutted if a 35mm shot turns out really good because I always think how much better it could have been in 6x7...

For street style shooting 35mm is in it's element. Horses for courses.

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

Ever since I bought my Pentax 645 and Speed Graphic, it's tough to pick up the 35mm kit..

"I'm always gutted if a 35mm shot turns out really good because I always think how much better it could have been in 6x7"

I feel the same way...

 

[ContaxGman]

A year ago I bought the Canon Rebel, had some fun, realized that at 8x10 it produced better technical quality than any 35mm film I have ever used because it has no grain at ASA 100 or 200 and provides all the resolution I can see in that size enlargement. But when I decided to make a real effort to take more pictures in 2005 I chose to go back to my Contax rangefinder and film. Why? After years of owning all sorts of cameras, Canon SLRs now gone, Nikon manual focus still owned, a Yashicamat now sold (foolish me) and a Graflex now sold, not to mention my Minolta SRT202 that served me for almost 20 years, and now an Olympus digicam and the Rebel, I realized the Contax was the most perfect camera for me. It has the automation I want - auto focus and exposure, with exactly the adjustments I want. I can easily tweak exposure in 1/3 stop increments, can easily set ASA as I see fit, and it is small and light and elegant in appearance and use. None of the menus that I could never remember on my old Elan and on my Rebel. Unlike an SLR I may not see exactly what's going on the film, but its plenty close enough. I don't do macros or telephoto shots, and if I need to I have other cameras for it. And, maybe best of all, it has unbelievably sharp optics and when loaded HP5+ it is ready for practically any lighting situation handheld. And that may be the biggest thing for me. I always have found the tripod to be the biggest fun-sucker in all of photography. Still own one and still use it when I have to, but hardly ever have to with this system. Most of my prints are small, 5x7 or 6x9, and at these sizes, especially 5x7, the quality is superb, even with pushed HP5. Grainless? No. Sharp and with wonderful tonality? Yes, especially in DDX (which I can't find right now - going to try Paterson FX50 which sounds like it may produce similar results).

Does if offer the technical quality of medium and large format? Of course not. But I find I use it, and that is the key. It is the funnest, most intuitive camera system I have found (for me) and that keeps me shooting. No one looks scared when I point it at them because it and its lenses are tiny compared to SLRs with zooms and medium format cameras. I shoot people, landscapes, still lifes - any thing and everything. I'm having fun. Got a sink installed in my utility room so I can now use it as a darkroom, and find I'm getting way more satisfaction from working in it than I ever got in front of the computer. So here's my vote for 35mm - hopefully it will be around for a long time to come.

 

[Mongo]

My first camera was a Nikon FE-2, and it's the only 35mm I have left at this point. I have too much great glass with it to get rid of it, but I find myself leaving it behind all of the time. My shooting these days is pretty evenly split between 6x7, 4x5, and 8x10. I'd like to try out a 645 RF to see how it compares to the FE-2 for ease of handling; if it worked out well enough I might retire the FE-2 forever.

I don't think I'll ever be able to actually sell the Nikon. It's been with me from the start, and I have an (unreasonable) emotional attachment to it. Having taken it more places in the world than I care to remember, it's just become part of my life. I still pick it up and play with it a bit, but I'll bet it's been a year since I put any film through it.

Who knows...maybe this thread will get me in the mood to pull a roll of something out of the freezer just for old-times sake.

 

[BruceN]

I like MF, and I'm starting to play with 4x5 and am liking that, too. But my trusty Olympus OM-1n and OM-2n are still the main workhorses for me that they've been for over 20 years now. Maybe I'm just getting crusty and set in my ways, or living in my own reality, but I like 35mm. For 8x10 and sometimes 11x14 (if it's a particularly good neg) it does just fine for me. But then I don't necessarily view grain as an evil thing to be avoided at all cost. Don't get me wrong, I really like other formats too, I just seem to shoot a lot more 35mm. I can't see it going away any time soon.

 

[CraigK]

I will be the first to admit that I have way more cameras than I really need and that I have yet to really, truly exploit any one of them to its full potential. I have found use for every format that I have, from half frame to 8x20 and enjoy each of my cameras for what they are. I tend to shoot way more black and white than colour but have made some nice images in everything from SX70 polaroid to Cyanotype to pt/pd. As someone posted earlier "horses for courses"

However of all the cameras I have, the one I would take to the desert island, is a Contaflex lV. Read why Dead Link Removed

 

[gchpaco]

I use 35mm and MF a lot, and just got a LF camera which seems like it'll work out great. I do a lot of landscapes, where the larger formats work out very nicely indeed, but still do a lot of 35mm. The simple reason is flexibility; since I can usually get a pretty good 8x10 out of 35mm, I'm content to use my Nikons for street work, quick portraits, pictures of my cats (took forever for them to settle down in one place long enough to focus the 4x5, let alone expose any film), etc.

That said I don't do much landscape work in 35mm any more; why bother?

 

[Max Power]

It's pretty much the same story with me...The camera I choose depends upon what I want as an end result...
I use four cameras for different purposes. My C220 is used for landscapes and portraits when I have the luxury of time and want to use MF; because I use a tripod 99% of the time, I use FP4.
My Minolta X-700 is my favourite 35mm. I love the glass I have and I just 'know' what it will render in a given situation, so I use either of the Deltas with it. It turns out unbelievable negatives in ID-11. My Minolta kit lets me do things that the C220 won't.
I have a Canonet when I want to do the lightweight portable inobtrusive thing. I find the range of shutter speeds and f-stops limiting, especially with Delta 400, but I like the compactness of the camera.

Now a confession...Since I don't shoot 35mm colour, my wife and I went out and bought a digicam for Christmas. This too has it's place in the spectrum, because it replaces a 35mm P&S. At 4mp it takes reasonably good little snapshots and even has a movie function. I was surprised at just how poor the professional prints it makes are, but for what it is used for, I really don't care...If I want quality, I go to my reliable film eqpt.

Cheers,
Kent

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I shoot a range of formats from 35mm to 11x14", and I don't shoot very much B&W in 35mm anymore.

Even for snapshots or street photography, I'm much more likely to use medium or large format. We keep an album of personal travel photos and casual snapshots of friends--mostly 5x5" prints from 6x6cm negs--and they have a kind of visual coherence, both from the square format and the similar texture of MF. I love using my 4x5" Technika with the rangefinder as a press camera, and the 5x7" Press Graflex SLR offers a great combination of spontaneity and a neg big enough to contact print on Azo.

I shoot 35mm B&W occasionally if I want a grainy effect, or sometimes if I want to shoot pinhole, because I have a pinhole cap that fits my 35mm camera, or if I'm going to be in very low light, because I have a 50/1.2 for my Canon.

I use 35mm mostly for bird photography and copy slides in color.

 

[Steve Weston]

Hi everyone
I to have multi format kit floating around including a Canon EOS 3 with a single 28-135 IS lens and a Canon T90 with several lovely FD lenses. But they do spend a lot of time in the bag as I prefer to use my Rollies, either my twin lens F2.8 or 6008/1. For me a lot has to do with getting in the darkroom and deving and printing, I just love the quality i get from these MF cameras as well as sloshing around in there and seeing what comes out, ( I still think it's a magical experience). I am also currently trying to start in large format,5x4, and I'm gradually putting together a kit so I have that to look forward to. Unfortunately it is a battle against my partner who thinks that I'm getting left behind by not joining the digital freaks, but I enjoy myself and as long as someone somewhere manufactures film then I'll still use it.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Hmmm...

Well, just to be different....

I have a Minolta 16 II that I carry all the time -- it fits in a shirt pocket, holds 25 shots (with cassettes reloaded with thin-base Agfa Copex Rapid) and I can carry another 50 shots of film in a pants pocket, and while not quite as quick to operate as a good SLR (focusing with slip-in correcting lenses is a major pain) it solves the "didn't have a camera" problem. The 10x14 mm negatives are pretty limiting, but with microfilm grain is less of an issue than ability to hold the camera steady, get the right distance lens, and in lower light, the lens quality (the 22 mm f/2.8 Rokkor is pretty decent at f/5.6, but it sucks badly wide open).

I use my pre-1970 Spotmatic when I need reflex focusing, fast glass, and TTL metering -- mostly in low light, now.

Most of the film I use is 120, because most of my cameras take 120/620, from the Ansco Pioneer box camera to the Seagull 4B and Kodak Reflex II TLRs and Moskva-5 6x9 rangefinder.

But the camera I love most is the Ziess-Ikon 250/7 Ideal, 9x12 plate camera, vintage 1927.

Oh, yeah, there's a digital in the house -- a 5 megapixel bought for the wife. I use it when I need an immediate snapshot, usually while wishing I had film for my SX-70 (I could shoot, develop, and scan the Polaroid in the time it takes to get the digital to download correctly).

 

[fhovie]

I have 2 Minolta 16II, an MG and a Rollei 16. With TechPan I can get a great 5x7 print, with most films a 3x5 print is good if exposed properly. The time it takes for these fun little cameras is the same as using a 6x9 folder and the prints from the 6x9 are so much more interesting. I just never have time for the little films in the darkroom.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I have 2 Minolta 16II, an MG and a Rollei 16. With TechPan I can get a great 5x7 print, with most films a 3x5 print is good if exposed properly. The time it takes for these fun little cameras is the same as using a 6x9 folder and the prints from the 6x9 are so much more interesting. I just never have time for the little films in the darkroom.

I've got an MG as well, don't use it much because I can't figure how to clean the inside of the close-up lens and the meter is a little simple-minded (still works fine, but I've gotten spoiled by the center-weighted meter in my Spottie). I find 5x7 isn't difficult with Copex Rapid (digital print, scanned at 2400 ppi), and I get to shoot at EI 100 when I develop in Diafine, diluting Bath A 1:49. I keep thinking I should get a Kiev 30 (larger frame, focusing lens, supports a longer film roll), but it's so hard to be sure of getting one with a good shutter, and if it doesn't come with cassettes then I have a film capacity bottleneck.

The main and only reason I carry the 16 II everywhere is because it fits in a shirt pocket. If I had a well-working Minox 35 or even Rollei 35 I might well carry those over the 16 mm -- but I have the 16 II, and the Minox 35 I used to have had a stuck shutter and a spring piece that kept popping out of the folding mechanism; Rollei 35 (any sub-model) are just too expensive for my budget.

 

[c6h6o3]

So my question is, how many of you black and white film photographers who have both 35mm and medium format cameras continue to use 35mm regularly alongside your medium format equipment.

I don't use 35mm at all anymore. My wife shoots color film in the Nikon because she can't stand digital photography, and if I'm feeling too lazy to use the Hasselblad, I just use a digital point and shoot.

 

[Baxter Bradford]

The look you are after and subject matter will determine best format for yourself. It is usually agreed that carrying a camera of any sort is usually preferable to having to consign the once in a lifetime image to your memory. Large cameras are nutter-magnets and so would preclude many fantastic images, but they do have their place and I do enjoy using my 4x5.

As an indication, the attachment is an unsharpened section from a 900ppi neg scan of my "Coniston from Brown Howe" in the standard gallery here I think (there was a url link here which no longer exists). The film was Fuji Acros QL 4x5 at ISO 80 developed in PMK. Grain is none too existent.

 

[Dr.Kollig]

I'm into 35 mm and sometimes I use MF, I did shoots with a Mamiya C 220 on slide film and that stuff really woes compared to 35 mm slides. Sold that C 220 and got Hassy 500 C with 80 mm not to bad, but in b/w printing 12*16 '', results were not that much better than my Leica M with new glass. Ok, tonality is relatve if one spends half the night doing lith prints.
My problem with MF compared to the Leicas are low light levels, in a studio with flash MF is fine but in hotel rooms, ruins etc. MF is too slow, compare a 150/4 Hassy with a 75/1.4 Leica, it is a 3 stop difference plus 1 stop in speed 1/60 versus 1/125.

And I'm not into tripods, so go figure. (And now turn around as I will get a 6008 Rolleiflex in about 10 days, s/h the camera is dirt cheap, as no one wants them, I will trade in the 150/4 Hassy plus some cash) So I guess for me it is MF on/off.

Wolfram

 

[rusty71]

When I shoot 35mm, I use slower speed films, like Efke KB25 and KB50. I sometims shoot a medium speed film, but that's it.
I much prefer 120. I shoot a Rollei 2.8E, Hasselblad 501c, and Kiev 60 when I'm feeling adventurous. I have been using a large format Crown Graphic more lately.

 

[dancqu]

The square 120 format is quickest of all formats to shoot;
always the camera is upright. Also always upright are the
negatives when in the enlarger.

The square format is less expensive, more compact,
and lighter weight than other 120 formats. A waist level
finder is all that is needed. Dan

 

[Donald Qualls]

The square format is less expensive, more compact,
and lighter weight than other 120 formats. A waist level
finder is all that is needed.

Actually, of all the 120 cameras I own, the setup I like best is a 6x9 masked to 6x4.5 -- sixteen exposures on a roll and the 105 mm lens is just on the wide end of portrait length with that format, plus I get a camera that's smaller (when folded) and much lighter than either my Seagull or Reflex II. Since I usually want a longer lens than what I have, this works very well, and I should probably be looking for a better camera than my Wirgin Auta to support this format -- perhaps get a spare back for my Moskva-5, drill another framing hole, extend the framing shutter, modify the film mask for 6x4.5 and mask down the finder (which will get me a much nicer lens, better shutter, and rangefinder at the cost of a bulkier, heavier camera than the Wirgin).

Even better might be to find an Ikonta C with the 6x4.5 mask -- smaller and lighter than the rangefinder versions, but still with the Tessar and a decent shutter (Compur-S or Compur-Rapid).

 

[valdez]

Thanks for your very interesting comments. I was actually prompted to post this question by two things:

1.) I was looking through Mary Ellen Mark's book 'American Odyssey' and was struck by the superior image quality of her medium format prints compared with 35mm (at least what appeared to be 120 versus 135).

2.) I picked up a Rollei 6008AF for a great price and am struck by how quick and easy it is to use off a tripod - excellent for fast-moving spontaneous handheld photography. It's the nicest camera I've ever seen.

Once again, thanks for your thoughts.

 

[dancqu]

"... quick and easy it is to use off a tripod ..." And on a tripod as well.
I've a 6 x 4.5 which need be flipped to the side. I added a rotary finder
and a gear head to the tripod. My 6 x 4.5 format is now in working order.

I'm about to start shooting with a RZ67 which has a rotary back. Heavier
but no need to throw my center of gravity left or right. May be able to use
it with my ballhead. Could be I'll be back to 2 1/4 square someday. Dan

 

[fhovie]

I just ran a roll of FP4 through my SRT201 with many various situations of lighting - people - landscape - backlit - badlit - and developed it in XTOL with the idea of making some great 8x10 prints (as a test). One or two are about acceptable as 8x10 but even with that, the comparative lack of richness and smoothness in tone and lack of razor sharp details - lead me back to the same old thing. For an amazing 8x10 B&W print, MF or larger is indicated. A 6x9 negative pushed 2 stops (1600) makes a better quality 8x10 print than a slow film in 35mm. Some of the shots I took, I will go back and do in 8x10 format as I can see the potential in the image. I know that the 8x10s I made from 35mm would be "fine art" for most folks but at this point in my adventure, they are just lacking a little - not extrordinary in richness and clarity. For the time and effort to make extrordinary artful prints - I will focus my attention on MF and LF. I also know that the negatives I made with 35mm will almost all make stunning 5x7 prints. But even with that - not so stunning as a 5x7 contact print on AZO or even a good Kalitype. I will keep my 35mm camera and will shoot it on trips and make shots for the small albums but for anything that hangs on a wall, I will grab the Rollei SL66 or the 4x5 or the 8x10. And I don't at this time think that any "magic Bullet" combination of film and developer will overcome the economies of scale when larger prints are required. I submitted 3 photos to the local art gallery for a juried exhibit - they accepted 2 of my 3. The one they did not accept was a 35mm enlargement. The others were 4x5 enlargements. Anyone can see the difference. Although the 35mm image was very fine - the quality of the enlargement is just a little less - all other things being equal. Opening night is tonight.