High rate of print-worthy pictures with MF

[distributed]

My partner has made an interesting observation, one that I have also made when going through my negatives: The negatives on my medium format rolls have a higher likelihood to be worthy to print than the negatives on my 135 rolls.

Typically, I will consider about 1-3 negatives per roll to be printed. Interestingly, this holds true for both rolls of 12 6x6cm negatives as well as rolls of 36 24x36mm negatives. This is to say that my medium format pictures have a higher per-shot likelihood to be print-worthy, by a factor of around 3.

Do any of you have similar, or maybe conflicting, experiences?

I'm somewhat at a loss to what could be the reason for this. A couple of points I have thought about follow.

I prefer compact and non-huge cameras. My 35mm pictures are for the most part taken with a Rollei 35. For a large proportion of my medium format pictures I use a Rolleiflex, for the smaller part a 6x6 Nettar. None of these cameras are a big burden to carry around and none of them require, in regular circumstances, use of tripod. I do spend much more time thinking about whether I want to take a picture when I use large format. I don't consciously feel that I invest different amounts of thinking about taking a picture between 35mm and MF.

Obviously, the cameras differ in aspect ratios: 3:2 vs 1:1. Maybe I just feel more at home in the square format?

Is there some psychology at work that makes me appreciate pictures taken with the larger cameras more? Is the appreciation at work when I take the picture, i.e. do I maybe just shoot more and less carefully with the small Rollei 35?

 

[bernard_L]

Is there some psychology at work that makes me appreciate pictures taken with the larger cameras more?

don't think so

Is the appreciation at work when I take the picture, i.e. do I maybe just shoot more and less carefully with the small Rollei 35?

agree

Ditto between film and digital. Some years ago, my daughter went on a trip with a Rollei 35 and a digital camera. Took quite more pics with the digital, as you'd expect. BUT, there were more keepers on the film. Not just in proportion. In absolute numbers.

 

[warden]

...my negatives: The negatives on my medium format rolls have a higher likelihood to be worthy to print than the negatives on my 135 rolls.

I haven't found that to be true, but I have found that if I'm shooting 35mm I'm free to make exposures in a kind of quick, note taking sort of way, which I don't do when I have only ten MF exposures on a roll. That 35mm freedom sometimes results in print worthy images I wouldn't have made with medium format.

Of course, if I had made the image with medium format, the print would be better. But that's another story. ;-)

 

[Bazza D]

It seems to me that 1 or 2 really good shots per roll is the norm regardless of 35mm or 120. You can take a technically perfect picture but most are ordinary in everyday shooting. IT is nothing more than most of life is ordinary. Things that separate and make life different are rarer. It those rare moments that make better pictures.

 

[abruzzi]

For me, it is psycology, but not in the evaluative stage after the shot is taken, but more in the camera usage stage. The easier and quicker is is to take a shot, the more likly I am to try shots that probably won't work. The more I pay to take a single shot, the more restrained I am on a borderline shot. On 8x10, my minimum cost for a shot on normal photogrphic film (not xray film) is $4 for Foma, before factoring in developing cost. The most expensive 35mm shot I can take is about 50 cents before developing--Ektachrome E100. Like for like and the cost differences are far greater. There is also the effort factor. All but the most manual 35mm cameras automate some pieces of the process. Most of the 90's era cameras 35mm SLRs, and many of the 80's era, can be used as big point and shoots. Even a 70's era camera probably has a internal meter linked to the ISO, shutter and aperture setting, so you can easily take a shot withing 10 seconds of putting the camera to your eye.

Also, there is the interminable 36 exposure roll...I swear half the 35mm shots I take are just to get through the roll. For B&W these days I load my own rolls so I can make extra short 20 exposure rolls.

 

[Paul Howell]

As a former PJ I shoot 35mm with the expectations that I will take one or two images that I will print, when shooting MF and LF, I slow down and take time to really pick and choice what I shoot, 36ex vs 8 to 12 or with LF 1 or 2.

 

[Pieter12]

I find that the larger focusing screen of a medium format reflex camera slows allows me to study and consider composition more carefully, slowing me down. Also, the MF square format is more demanding. For me, both of those factors lead to a better "hit" rate per roll than with a 35mm rangefinder, for example.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

A have a couple of theories here. Maybe a MF camera slows you down and you're less likely to have an itchy trigger finger on the shutter. Also, maybe the square format suits your aesthetics more?

 

[craigclu]

On the other end of the scale.... I was recently doing some documentary sort of shots for a friend's wedding. The hired photographer was chatty and she explained that she was a sub-contracted hire and expected to do 120-180 shots/hour and likely end up with 1000-1400 shots to cull from. I imagine it's a model that works in the current digital age.
Back to original topic... I am much more reflective and careful with MF vs 35. I easily get 1/2 of the MF frames to be worthy of printing and the 35's have embarrissingly low print rates for me.

 

[Helge]

One of the things I find that holds true, is that you have to have a subject.
And subject is here very broad in meaning.
You have to be thinking of something when you take the photo.
It's not enough to want to capture a general scene or a general moment.
That is especially troublesome with landscapes, because you are often tempted to want to just "capture the view".
That just doesn't work on a 2D surface with four borders around it.
The requirement is a lessened a bit when you have huge prints or projections that you are able to view up close. But never goes away.
And there is of course always the option of going meta and post modern. But that becomes old hat if done monomaniacaly too.

You have amble time to think when you are using a medium format camera and it is quite apparent that you are taking a photo.
That I think is the major difference.

 

[faberryman]

You have amble time to think when you are using a medium format camera and it is quite apparent that you are taking a photo. That I think is the major difference.

I have amble time to think when I am using 35mm. I even have amble time to think when I am using a phone. You are the one in charge of what, when, where, how, and how long you think, not the camera you are carrying. Someone blaming his camera for himself not thinking is pretty pathetic.

 

[wiltw]

The care with which photos are taken seems to be somewhat proportional to the COST (film and processing) per photo, so there are fewer casual 'wasted shots' with larger and larger formats. Number of square inches of film increases both film cost and processing cost, per shot.

I have gone out with large format, and come back with only a single exposure.

 

[faberryman]

I have gone out with large format, and come back with only a single exposure.

Which is really discouraging because they are out there, you were simply unable to find them.

 

[wiltw]

Which is really discouraging because they are out there, you were simply unable to find them.

Not that 'I did not find them'...I did not find the shot for which I was willing to spend so much money unless it was truly 'worth it'.
With 135 format, it was too easy to casually take a shot, because the 'worth it' was not so significant. One shot on 4x5 takes over 12X the area of film and chemicals as 135 shot.
Now, with digital, I see shooters who take a 3-frame series for EVERY shot taken...I was standing in line to get into the Paris catacombs, and saw this happening by a shooter standing next in line with friends! After all, 'digital shot is free'.

 

[nosmok]

I've just been searching for it unsuccessfully, but there was a great meme I saw a few years back exactly about this-- 1st panel: a roll of 120 film, caption "8 shots, 2 of which are pretty good"; 2nd panel: a roll of 35mm, caption "36 shots, 2 of which are pretty good"; 3rd panel: an iPhone, caption "Thousands of shots, 2 of which are pretty good".

 

[faberryman]

Now, with digital, I see shooters who take a 3-frame bracket for EVERY shot taken...I was standing in line to get into the Paris catacombs, and saw this happening by a shooter standing next in line!

I have read one poster here say that he takes a 3-frame bracket of EVERY shot he takes with his medium format film camera, so people who do so with digital are not unique in that regard.

 

[faberryman]

I've just been searching for it unsuccessfully, but there was a great meme I saw a few years back exactly about this-- 1st panel: a roll of 120 film, caption "8 shots, 2 of which are pretty good"; 2nd panel: a roll of 35mm, caption "36 shots, 2 of which are pretty good"; 3rd panel: an iPhone, caption "Thousands of shots, 2 of which are pretty good".

It is a favorite meme for film enthusiasts.

 

[Helge]

I have amble time to think when I am using 35mm. I even have amble time to think when I am using a phone. You are the one in charge of what, when, where, how, and how long you think, not the camera you are carrying. Someone blaming his camera for himself not thinking is pretty pathetic.

The tools matters. In the same way clothes
and surroundings does.
Twelve or sixteen frames does put more pressure on you to perform. Whether you want admit it or not.

 

[Luckless]

Whether or not I have 10 frames to work with or 100 frames, I still have roughly the same limit on how many prints I'm going to make or images I'm going to publish.

If I took 3 roughly similar images on medium format film, or 12 similar images while shooting bursts in another format, I'm still only going to pick "The One" image out of either set to move forward with. I haven't been 'taking better images' with the camera where I get one shot of something in the time I could have taken several with a different camera, I've only been left with one image to pick from to do anything with. And as I shoot different subjects and styles on different formats, there isn't a great overlap so it isn't like I'm choosing one or two images out of a pool of 15 that is 'more likely' to be a medium format image. I print '1 out of 3' medium format vs '1 out of 12' from a smaller format because I probably didn't have another 9 similar images to discard due to redundancy.

I also have zero issues with going through multiple rolls of film and later deciding I don't like any of the images enough to bother printing from them, but I also don't do a lot of static scene photography with nearly unlimited time to debate composition. I'm more than happy to allow sober second thought of reviewing my photos after the fact to overrule my opinions I held when I took the photo in the first place.

Plus if it isn't so far gone as to deserve binning on terrible technical merit, I can always come back around to a negative later in life and change my mind yet again and decide to print anyway.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My print rate is higher for MF than 35mm and my print rate for MF would be higher except my mistakes in LF are higher due to lack of repeated regular LF use. The higher MF rate starts with a much larger view finder hence I see more unwanted items that I remove from the composition prior to firing the shutter. The higher MF costs are not much of a factor, however the much better Hasselblad Zeiss lenses remind me to take my time to compose more carefully AND reconsider whether the composition is photographical worthy.

 

[wiltw]

I have read one poster here say that he takes a 3-frame bracket of EVERY shot he takes with his medium format film camera, so people who do so with digital are not unique in that regard.

True. Shooting commercial shots, a 3-shot bracket makes sense, to give the client the 'perfect' shot. It is not merely about 'perfect exposure', as the right shot might be delibrately chosen to be a bit denser or lighter.
But I see far more multishot sequences even for casual snapshooting to chronicle 'what I did today', with digital. And even in my own shooting, I shoot more liberally and with less forethought when 'another shot is free' (although I still never shot my digital camera for multishot sequences). Someone rountinely shooting multishot mode with film, when not shooting for a client, likely simply has too much money to think carefully before shooting (yes, this is probably oversimplifying)

 

[faberryman]

Twelve or sixteen frames does put more pressure on you to perform. Whether you want admit it or not.

I am not sure how. You do know that if you are shooting medium format you can take a couple of extra rolls with you so you'll have 36 shots just like with one roll or 35mm. It's a little different with large format because you are probably not going to put 18 film holders in your backpack, but then there is not enough time in the day to shoot 36 large format shots. It takes time to set up the camera, frame and compose, expose, and disassemble the outfit, so the expectation is that you will take fewer shots. I just don't feel any pressure when I'm shooting. Some days I go through a lot of film, some days I don't. But I guess everyone is different.

 

[Pieter12]

The higher MF rate starts with a much larger view finder

As I mentioned earlier, the larger viewfinder, especially with a prism, really lets you see the composition much better than a rangefinder. And it's not upside down and dim like LF. Paired with a fast lens, it's an ideal way for me to shoot, thus a few printable shots per roll. But I don't really shoot much 35 right now to really be able to make a fair comparison. A nice big MF negative is just great to print. And I end up printing just about everything square, even 35 and 6x7.

 

[warden]

It's interesting that some people seem to think that shooting 35mm means less seriousness or care somehow. I haven't found this to be true. In one photo walk some 35mm exposures happen rapidly for me, say in a couple of seconds or even zone focused from the hip, and other exposures are laborious and slow while I look for the best shot. The format has nothing to do with it.

 

[Bill Burk]

There’s something inherently more print-worthy in the larger formats. I find the same ratio extends to 4x5 where every fourth sheet is worth a print. Almost as if every page of a binder has one frame worth printing. Maybe two or three once you get going.