Format conundrum - MF & LF?

keithwms · Oct 22, 2007

I'll just add my own feelings after touring various formats and enjoying them all.

MF and LF have very different strengths and capabilities. During a recent trip to Owens Valley I took a 6x6cm rangefinder and a 5x7" LF field camera, they have completely different capabilities. The MF can literally be shot from the hip.

There are some MF systems that push the envelope of resolution and really encroach on the tonality of 4x5 LF; for example, you can shoot 6x12cm on a 4x5 camera, or you can shoot 2x3" / 6x9cm on a mini view camera or 6x8 on a fuji gx680 or mamiya rb67 or fuji rangefinder etc. Use a fine-grained film or slide on MF and you will definitely push the capabilities of 4x5.

Tonality notwithstanding, the main things that separate MF and LF for me are: rapid viewfinder composition, lens speed, and use of roll film.

Bottom line, there are captures that are best made by 35mm, others best made by MF, and others best done by LF. There is no do-it-all camera. The digital makers would like to force us all to use 35mm SLRs, but fortunately that isn't yet the case, so... vive la difference.

Ian Leake · Oct 22, 2007

keithwms said:
so... vive la difference

Absolutely

k_jupiter · Oct 22, 2007

keithwms said:
I'll just add my own feelings after touring various formats and enjoying them all.

There are some MF systems that push the envelope of resolution and really encroach on the tonality of 4x5 LF; for example, you can shoot 6x12cm on a 4x5 camera, or you can shoot 2x3" / 6x9cm on a mini view camera or 6x8 on a fuji gx680 or mamiya rb67 or fuji rangefinder etc.

And yes, you can shoot 2.25 x 3.25 on an RB67. All it takes is a Graphmatic back. No image cutoff.

tim in san jose

Don Wallace · Oct 26, 2007

FWIW, I shoot MF, 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10. I have an RB67, a Wisner for 4x5, and an Ansco 8x10 with a 5x7 back. Believe it or not, the 4x5 is the least used, although it was my favourite format for a long time. Once I started shooting large format, I just could not go back to the 35mm, regardless of how convenient it is. The difference between 35mm and even medium format is just too much. If you want to contact print 8x10 and also do enlargements with something else, I would get a used RB or RZ with a lens or two, or even a TLR. They are not very expensive these days and you get used to them quite quickly.

panastasia · Oct 26, 2007

k_jupiter said:
And yes, you can shoot 2.25 x 3.25 on an RB67. All it takes is a Graphmatic back. No image cutoff.

tim in san jose

Not exactly true, at least with the Pro SD model and Graflex RH8 back (6X8). When the back is rotated to the horizontal (landscape) position the bottom corners of the negatives are clipped 2 or 3mm each. Not in the vertical (portrait) position.

k_jupiter · Oct 26, 2007

panastasia said:
Not exactly true, at least with the Pro SD model and Graflex RH8 back (6X8). When the back is rotated to the horizontal (landscape) position the bottom corners of the negatives are clipped 2 or 3mm each. Not in the vertical (portrait) position.

I don't have an RH8 back (which I believe is 6x9) on my rb67, that would be a step down in quality from my existing 6x7 Mamiya backs. My RH8 back sits unused in some box somewhere.

I have a Professional and a ProS body. I have not tried anywhere close to every lens / attitude combination, but I do know a 65mm lens with the Graphmatic in either horizontal or vertical position does not cut off any image area. I need to consult my shooting notes to see if I shot any of those images with my 50mm lens.

One of these days... once work eases up a bit, I will get the rb67 lens mount done for my 5x7 camera and we will see what the coverage is on the various rb67 lens.

tim in san jose

dpurdy · Oct 27, 2007

Every different format speaks a different language. A MF camera is not just a smaller version of a LF camera. It is a different kind of vision and print. I would recommend you simplify your life for now and just get the LF camera while you are still strong enough to carry it around with young enough eyes to focus on the ground glass under a cloth without wearing reading glasses. An 8x10 camera is a lot more work than a MF camera. To go out in the world you have to load up the big camera and a couple of lenses and a half dozen film holders and light meter and a big heavy tripod. You can't cover a lot of ground with all that without getting tired and needing rest and probably losing your inspired state of mind. So if you are still young, do that now. Later it just gets harder.

If you are packing up all that gear and film and sitting there looking at you is a great little MF camera, if you are like me that MF camera starts to seem like a really good idea. Before I owned a couple of nice Rolleis I had only the 8x10 as an option. So I did a whole lot of 8x10 and loved it. Now the 8x10 just seems like a lot of work. Last week I actually was longing for some LF image quality so I packed up the 4x5 and was just about ready to leave with 10 film holders and a big tripod and large camera bag over the shoulder, when I looked over at the Rollei with it's little bag and light weight tripod and rolls of film already in the bag and I just said "Screw It" I would rather use the Rollei and have a nice hike. That is what it is like being 55.

DP

JBrunner · Oct 27, 2007

Go all out for the LF. Get a relativly cheap MF TLR like an old Mamiyaflex for when the LF is impractical.

Pro: You will have a MF when you need/want.

Con: Every time you make a great neg with the MF that could/should have been an 8x10, you'll kick yourself.

nicolai · Oct 27, 2007

How about renting one of each for a week and seeing what works best for you?

John Kasaian · Oct 27, 2007

JBrunner said:
Go all out for the LF. Get a relativly cheap MF TLR like an old Mamiyaflex for when the LF is impractical.

Pro: You will have a MF when you need/want.

Con: Every time you make a great neg with the MF that could/should have been an 8x10, you'll kick yourself.

A very good point! Add to that bit of wosdom that LF gear, good LF gear especially 8x10 is appreciating in value. Good used stuff is still out there but it is getting harder to find and more expensive than it was two of three years ago. If you want to hop on the 8x10 train, now is the time to get aboard. MF equipment is still dropping (well, plummeting) in value. IMHO I'd get my LF gear first.

jonw · Oct 28, 2007

I enjoy the flexibility of MF, but if you wish to experiment more with old lens, e.g., petzvals, etc., then IMO you will find more flexibility with the LF.
I love my Bronica MF systems, but the gg on the 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, and 11x14 are magic!! Jon

Bandicoot · Oct 28, 2007

k_jupiter said:
I don't have an RH8 back (which I believe is 6x9) on my rb67

The RH8 is generally described as a 6x9, but if you measure the film gate on one you'll find that it is really much closer to 6x8 in size - about 57mm x 78mm.

Real 6x9 is much closer to the nominal 2 1/4" x 3 1/4", at about 56mm x 82mm, which is what a Horseman 6x9 back is, for example.

Peter

dpurdy · Oct 29, 2007

I finally got around to making a bunch of silver prints from 6x6 negs and at 9x9 inches I am disappointed. If you spend your whole life as a LF photographer and try to downsize to MF I think it is inevitably going to be a disappointment. I am thinking I might sell the really nice Rollei with HFT Planar and buy boxes of 8x10 film instead. Even if you only get to shoot a couple of shots a day rather than 6 or 7 rolls, at least those couple of shots are of highest photographic quality.
dp

keithwms · Oct 29, 2007

dp, can you give more detail about your process... 6x6 captures on what film, with what developer? In my experience, 6x6 slides go very credibly to 10x10", and considerably larger... But of course it always depends on the particular task at hand. When I want to do b&w, then I tend to larger formats.

Anyway I don't think Brett Weston said he was disappointed shooting medium format after spending much of his life doing 11x14" contacts. And you can now do a lot more with MF than you could even in his day.

Everybody's mileage varies.

dpurdy · Oct 29, 2007

My processed film had been stacking up a bit over a few months as I was too busy to print so there are a few different types of film.. mostly ACROS and TMY. The ACROS mostly processed in beutlers and the TMY in XTOL. And I am not sure what my problem is. I am a big fan of Irving Penn and I am well aware of Brett Weston doing some SL66 stuff as well as Aaron Siskand. I think I have just not learned how to work with small film. And the depth of field for the 80mm planar is much less than you can do with a bit of tilt and swing and f45. I think the point is still that it is a different vision and the way you see or think with a view camera doesn't necessarily translate to a small roll film camera. Obviously that is my own short coming. Another obvious difference is that with the 120 film I am printing in enlarged silver paper whereas with 8x10 I print in platinum.. another complete language difference.
Dennis

jmooney · Oct 29, 2007

Thanks again for all the info, this has been really enlightening and helpful in deciding my next move.

When it comes down to it the only thing that I really want out of 8X10 at this point was contact prints, otherwise all my current wants/needs are better served by a smaller format for reasons of portability and speed.

I'm also fairly new to developing and printing and would like to get more experience before I move to sheet film.

I had initially planned to outfit myself with a 35mm prime kit and a basic MF kit but that kind of contradicted my want of a larger negative and made the 35mm less flexible and put a lot of my budget into a small negs. I'm not willing to give up the convenience of 35mm though so I'm going to be picking up a 35mm body with a decent zoom and assemble a Hasselblad outfit for my work. I've been attracted to the sqaure format as I can see it fitting well with several projects I have in mind.

The key for me is to find a balance between practicality, vision, quality, and time. The 8X10 won't see use at this point and I'd be relying on the 35mm. 6X6 is that balance for me. I know I'll use it when I would have opted to leave the 8X10 at home so I'll have the ability to use a larger format in a way that fits my available time and vision. I can't really ask for much more than that.

I haven't given up on the 8X10 at all, it's still a goal but a longer term goal at this point. I fear I'd wind up fighting the format at this juncture and that would be a bad thing for sure.

Take care,

Jim

Rolleiflexible · Oct 29, 2007

A wise decision, Jim.

Black Dog · Nov 4, 2007

I'm super stoked at the thought of working with LF again-8x10 here I come! MF can be vg, but does need a pretty solid tripod to function at it's best. I feel that if I'm going to lug one of those around I might as well put the biggest camera I have on it [and contact prints have really grown on me]. So 8x10 for landscapes and still lifes/architecture but a Mamiya C330 with APX 400 for when I need to be a bit quicker off the mark [mainly child portraits] or XP2 for those landscapes where lugging the big rig really would be a big ask. The 4x5 will be for trannies and Polaroids and 35mm as a sketchbook [Trip and Pentax LX].

rippo · Nov 9, 2007

8x10 is an orphaned format. too small to contact print, and too ungainly to enlarge. i'd say get a medium format camera for enlarging (or 4x5), and a banquet or other ULF camera for decent sized contact prints.

(causing trouble...)

JBrunner · Nov 9, 2007

rippo said:
8x10 is an orphaned format. too small to contact print, and too ungainly to enlarge. i'd say get a medium format camera for enlarging (or 4x5), and a banquet or other ULF camera for decent sized contact prints.

(causing trouble...)

8x10 contact prints are exquisite.

Nobody has ever told me they were too small, except a designer who specialized in decorating McMansions.

Trevor Crone · Nov 9, 2007

rippo said:
8x10 is an orphaned format. too small to contact print, and too ungainly to enlarge. i'd say get a medium format camera for enlarging (or 4x5), and a banquet or other ULF camera for decent sized contact prints.

(causing trouble...)

Matt........causing trouble........no, but just take a look at the wonderful 10x8 contact prints of Olivia Parker, the ones printed on Azo and selenium toned, then tell me they are too small?

regards,
Trevor.

Jean Noire · Nov 9, 2007

I would love to make 10 x 8 contacts but at present lack the finance to do so. I use 6 x 6 (4.5) and 35mm and find that these suit my stye of photography.
I think that you need to ask yourself the question as to what type of photography you want to specialise in. If studio work and landscape go for the 10 x 8. Just reportage, streetwork, limited size prints consider MF.
I would agree that using film/ paper is the most useful way to gain experience so do so first with MF and move on later.
But as some have pointed out LF equipment is getting scarce and expensive.
Regards,
John.

Jean Noire · Nov 9, 2007

Sorry, on the other hand Bill Schwab seems to have had some particularly large prints made recently from his 6 x 6 's and they are quite successful. Hm...going to be a personal choice here but you are missing out on valuable photography time if you take too long to decide.
Regards,
John.

jmooney · Nov 9, 2007

Well a Bronica SQ-A is winging it's way to my house as we speak. I'd like to get some more darkroom experience under my belt and then I'll revisit 8X10. It's definatly a question of when not if. Thanks for all the support and input.

Jom

rippo · Nov 9, 2007

JBrunner and Trevor: I was speaking slightly tongue in cheek there, although it's based on my personal preferences. I've found that making 8x10 prints on the enlarger is often not very satisfying. I don't need HUGE prints, but 11x14 or 16x20 (the latter from digital means) I like better. Especially something as detailed as a landscape...8x10 for me is a size to use for simple, 'iconic' subject matter, such as a headshot portrait, or a floral close-up, that sort of thing. When I print my kallitypes I've found the same to be true: I need slightly larger than 8x10 for landscapes.

So if I were to contact-print actual negatives, rather than using inkjet negs (kallitype) or the enlarger (silver jelly), I'd need a ULF camera. 8x10 would be too small. And getting an 8x10 enlarger is not going to happen.

Hence, medium format and 4x5 work well for me. 8x10 might be a format I'd skip on the way to insanity/ULF.

I do realize many people enjoy 8x10 cameras, and I fully support that!

Format conundrum - MF & LF?

keithwms

Ian Leake

k_jupiter

Don Wallace

panastasia

k_jupiter

dpurdy

JBrunner

Moderator

nicolai

John Kasaian

jonw

Bandicoot

dpurdy

keithwms

dpurdy

jmooney

Rolleiflexible

Black Dog

rippo

JBrunner

Moderator

Trevor Crone

Jean Noire

Jean Noire

jmooney

rippo

Format conundrum - MF & LF?

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency