I Hate Medium Format...

ToddB

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
1,134
Format
Medium Format
I did a beautiful shot of my daughter with her guitar in the mesa sitting a stool with strobist lighting with FE. Printed it on 11x14 FB paper. Turned out beautiful. So I guess what I'm saying is.. If I only have my FE with me and I see something. I know with confidance that I can print and be happy.

Todd
 

Thomas Bertilsson

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,708
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format

That's a good way of looking at it. Often the best camera we have is the one we have with us, and it makes a lot of sense to just be happy with what we do manage to capture in photographs, subject matter wise, and work to make the most of it.

Of course one could turn that argument on its head and only ever bring the camera needed to make photographs for whatever project is ongoing, and simply abide by the limitations of the camera at hand. If somebody doesn't like shooting landscapes with 35mm, then don't. If somebody must use an 8x10 for portraits, then so be it. It's all good in my book. They are all photographs. Different strokes for different folks.

I greatly admire those who have a focused enough vision and set out to expose film only of what fit into a project. When you do this, it is probably obvious what camera should be used, and what meets the needs and wants of the photographer.
 

ntenny

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
2,481
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Format
Multi Format
mrred said:
I develop film better to the point where my sharper glass on 35mm trump what I have on 120 IQ. Look at my gallery.
Click to expand...

First of all, I greatly admire people whose attention to detail is good enough to bring a 35mm workflow up to this sort of standard. I know it can be done, but I think I'm too impatient and scatterbrained for it myself.

But it's interesting to me that you attribute the difference substantially to developing the film, rather than to in-camera matters like focus and stability or to printing skills. Can you expand a little on what aspects of development you're thinking of above? Choice of developer, specific agitation techniques, temperature control...?

Thanks

-NT
 

E. von Hoegh

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
6,197
Location
Adirondacks
Format
Multi Format
The jump in IQ between 35mm and 6x7 (say) is huge. From 6x7 to 4x5 , the difference is there too but less dramatic. For me each has it's advantages - 35mm SLRs for macro and general portability fill an important niche for me. But, the Rolleiflex is just about as portable with no extra lenses to tote. Both can be brought along on a hike or other outing without dominating it. A 4x5 needs to have the outing organized around photography, or it's just frustrating. 8x10 is a world of it's own, but the only thing better than an 8x10 contact is an 11x14 contact.
As for printing from 35, large prints (8x12" to 10x15" are as big as I go) begin to lose the finer nuances of tonality with which I got spoiled by MF and LF.
The right film, a good lens, solid tripod, and good darkroom technique will get a sharp print at sizes larger than those, but as you enlarge the image you divide the tonality and I'm only happy going so far.
I use a lot of slide film in 35, projected slides are wonderful.
I should mention, I didn't appreciate just what a good job 35 can do until I started using the larger formats and trying to get similar quality from 35
 

Axle

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
543
Location
Milton, ON
Format
Multi Format
I like 35mm, great for a grab and go camera for street/volume shooting
I like Medium Format, wanting quality and some volume
I like 4x5, when I want to slow down, get the best quality, and only have a handful of shots I want to get.
 

mrred

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
1,251
Location
Montreal, Ca
Format
Multi Format

In defence of those that know me, I make them suffer from my dyslexia and add... That makes me appear as a big scatter brain...

The biggest boost in quality was with the path of reversal developing. There are many more steps involved, but repetition makes greater consistency. I make all the chemistry from scratch, but the only complicated (not really) one is the e72 to replace the Dektol.

For more of a quick and dirty processing I use Billy Thortons with 'stand' regiment. This also gives me the best resolution / tones without the bad side effects of traditional stand developing because the total time is under 10 mins or so.

I use the latter mostly because of the close development times between films. I can mix films if unsure what they were.

Yes, all of these would easily apply to 120 but my glass on the 35 platform is newer and superior.

The problem I have is if I wanted to spend the $$ on equal glass for my 120 gear, I would shake my head and just go into LF instead. My Mamiya 645J and Musk 5 work fine. I am just not convinced I should pour any more $$ into them. I have wasted much with other peoples junk.

All those train shots are reversals and the one of the station platform is a 6x9 from the Musk 5 with my last roll of Neopan 400 in 120. It is an actual thing of beauty to see it up to the light.
 

Prest_400

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
1,438
Location
Sweden
Format
Med. Format RF
Thomas Bertilsson said:
That's a good way of looking at it. Often the best camera we have is the one we have with us, and it makes a lot of sense to just be happy with what we do manage to capture in photographs, subject matter wise, and work to make the most of it.
Click to expand...

I like that thought. I will etch it on my head.

I've been for a very long time wanting to get into MF, yet I still have to take the last step; Even if I have almost completely thought it out.
First is spending the money, that as a student it isn't quite insignificant. And I sometimes think it's a mental indulgence: Better quality et al, yes...
But I think it would improve me, slow down. But I think that due to less shots in a roll I'd enjoy shooting film more.

I've gotten a new smartphone and it does good snaps and is much more convenient... Letting me slip in the bag a real 35mm (OM1) every once in a while. As a student whose main shooting nowadays is just on the fly stuff I am quite happy with this combination.
Again, what you said about any camera, the phone is best for off the fly stuff but quality wise it's quite far off to an ideal (especially dynamic range) but it does what no 35mm, 120 and even digital "standard" camera does. And it compliments a film camera really well (I still don't quite trust the lightmeter app I got however).

edcculus said:
What I like MOST about MF is that I don't have to figure out how to make it through 36 exposures.
Click to expand...
Agreed on that. I still need torturous amounts of time to fill a 36 exp roll. 8-12 seems ideal.
I've had this Portra 400 on the OM1 for a while and still on frame ~20. I am itching to process it.
 

Nuff

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
581
Location
Tokyo, Japan
Format
Multi Format

I agree, I carry my pentax mx with me everywhere and I'm still on frame 16. If it was MF, I would be able to see the photos already. But then, if it was MF I wouldn't take it with me everyday on my commute to work.
 

Thomas Bertilsson

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,708
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
Nuff said:
I agree, I carry my pentax mx with me everywhere and I'm still on frame 16. If it was MF, I would be able to see the photos already. But then, if it was MF I wouldn't take it with me everyday on my commute to work.
Click to expand...

Pros and cons with everything, for sure.

I have no problem burning off a roll of 35mm in 15 minutes if I'm in the groove shooting portraits. But at the same time my Pentax KX has had a roll of Cine Still C-41 film in it since February, and I'm on frame 20. I don't see what the hurry is either, though. It's a nice game of patience.
 

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,314
Format
4x5 Format
Thomas, you're good at burning thoughts into people's heads...

You were saying something about using the right camera for the task at hand... And then there's using the camera you have with you...

I revel in the idea of using the Wrong Camera for the Job, it's part of the joy of photography for me... So I'll take landscapes with a Kodak Pocket Instamatic and I'll go to Disneyland and take family snapshots with 4x5. It's a wonderful feeling to do less with more, or more with less. Just messing around with quality is so much fun.
 

Prest_400

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
1,438
Location
Sweden
Format
Med. Format RF
Nuff said:
I agree, I carry my pentax mx with me everywhere and I'm still on frame 16. If it was MF, I would be able to see the photos already. But then, if it was MF I wouldn't take it with me everyday on my commute to work.
Click to expand...


Perhaps that's what I should do, take the OM1 more with me.
Ever since I got it, I just tend to take a camera when I predict something interesting in the day or just take it with a thought of shooting in mind. Also known as, take it for a project when you shoot for it.
This is why I thought a lot about MF, as I do a take it as needed basis. I like to plan things but in reality sometimes it makes matters worse.

I never liked hurrying shooting, I might get in a groove and burn half a roll easily (event, travel) but I self-limit myself. Specially because I end shooting meaningless stuff. However, portraits might be a different thing, and a worthy one.
 

Black Dog

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2003
Messages
4,291
Location
Running up that hill
Format
Multi Format
It's hip to be a square peg


I do that too...maybe some time I'll use my Zero Image pinhole for portraits, or even street photography:munch:
 

Thomas Bertilsson

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,708
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format

I shot landscape with 35mm Tri-X for an entire year, just to prove to myself that I could make nice photographs with it. And I did (I think, anyway). They are different from what I get with the Hasselblad, but not less worthy in my opinion.

What using the 'wrong' camera for the job brings out is creativity and thinking about what we do, to pay attention to what's important. I have always thought that it's essential to bring back the mood and feel of a place, and while detail and resolution can be nice, it just isn't that important. Do I think that enlargements from 6x6 look nicer than those from 35mm? No. I think they look different. The grain of 35mm brings something to the photographs in the same way the lack of grain can bring something, and sometimes the lack of detail lends a beautiful quality too.

It's much nicer to focus on the positive aspects of a photographic print than it is to focus on the negative aspects, but it's much more difficult to do. To pay attention to what we actually DO get, irrespective of what camera was used, should be our prime concern, not whining about wishing we had a camera that makes a bigger negative. Just get on with it and make beautiful prints, and have a good time doing so!

For those who are concerned with quality from 35mm, try TMax 100 some time, and process in Kodak Xtol for a sharp but extremely fine grain negative, and then print it big. When I do 16x20 prints from such negatives, (cropped to fit an aspect ratio of about 2:3), I am always flabbergasted and can't really understand what it is that folks have against it. Smooth beautiful transitions of tone, sharp detail, and the little bit of grain that's there lends a gorgeous texture, kind of like how FP4+ would from 6x7 negs. Obviously it isn't as smooth as 6x7 or 4x5, but it is really really good.
Then if you want more texture, just pop a roll of TMax 400 in and prepare to be amazed again, for it is a mighty fine film too. And then you can go bonkers and shoot Delta 3200. Use Rodinal for good measure, and when you enlarge big you will be very surprised at the detail you can get behind all that gorgeous grain. It's a very wide spectrum of results that are available from that tiny little negative.
 

Jaf-Photo

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
495
Format
Medium Format

I tend to oscillate between the two.

MF is clearly superior in image quality and MF cameras are more fun to shoot. I also like the fact that I can finish a MF roll a lot quicker than 35mm. I'm not awfully patient.

But, if you use the right film, the right equipment and the right developing technique, 35mm will give you beautiful images.

Film grain can be beautiful and 35mm is better for showing it off.
 

xtolsniffer

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
677
Location
Yorkshire, U
Format
Multi Format
I have to agree about the beauty of grain. I have some flower 'portraits' from velvia 50 shot on 35mm and enlarged to 12"x16" on my wall, the grain is there but it gives a wonderful look to the image. I have similar ones next to them on my wall shot with 6x7 velvia, they are 'sharper' and show almost no grain, but I wouldn't say they are better, just different. I am constantly amazed by the quality you can get from 35mm when treated right.
 

ntenny

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
2,481
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Format
Multi Format

Amen. Maybe it's an engineering trait for me---the irresistible urge to say "Let's see what *this* tool will do!"

There are, obviously, people among us who do their best work with a single system with which they're intimately familiar, and others who thrive on mixing and matching tools with tasks, often in whimsical, unexpected, or Officially Not Approved ways. I think it's genetic, frankly.

I'm standing in my office as I write this (yeah, yeah, shut up, I'll get some work done in a minute), looking at a handful of prints I've chosen to bring in. In each case, I have a really strong association between the image and the tools I used to make it. To the viewer I suppose it's just a 5x7 black and white print of a sliced melon; to me it's all tied up with the texture of the wood of my 5x7, the fiddliness of getting that old Rapid Rectilinear into the front of a modern shutter that isn't *quite* the right size, the cheap easel I misuse as a contact frame, the undying magic of seeing the print come up in the tray of Dektol, and so on.

I'm not quite sure what it would feel like to create something and not have that messy web of associations with it, though I'm aware intellectually that there are people who do good work that way.

-NT
 

Alan Gales

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,253
Location
St. Louis, M
Format
Large Format

I was like you. After I started shooting medium format my Contax cameras and Zeiss lenses just sat in the bag. I eventually tried large format and sold all my 35mm gear (except for a Stereo Realist) to help fund the large format.

Right now I own an 8x10 camera with both 8x10 back and 4x5 reduction back and my Hasselblad doesn't get much use. I use digital cameras for sports, Ebay, and snapshots.

There is nothing wrong with shooting 35mm but if you don't use your gear then I suggest sell it and put the money towards something you will use. That's what I did.
 

E. von Hoegh

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
6,197
Location
Adirondacks
Format
Multi Format

Last year I was given a Nikon Coolpix 995. This was a $1000 camera in 2001; 3.2 megapixels (!).
When I point it at beautiful things, it gives me beautiful pictures.
 

Jaf-Photo

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
495
Format
Medium Format
E. von Hoegh said:
Last year I was given a Nikon Coolpix 995. This was a $1000 camera in 2001; 3.2 megapixels (!).
When I point it at beautiful things, it gives me beautiful pictures.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but I think film grain looks prettier than digital noise. Or in the case of a 3.2 Mp camera, digital blur.

And, unfortunately, I have seen a lot of failed and technically flawed pictures of "beautiful things". And vice versa.

If you take a jpeg of Tom Waits in the glaring sun with your 3.2Mp Nikon Coolpics, it probably won't look anything like art. But if Corbijn does it with Tri-X in a Hasselblad and lith prints it, it will.

So the assumed point that the medium is unimportant in photography, doesn't quite hold up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

E. von Hoegh

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
6,197
Location
Adirondacks
Format
Multi Format

Sorry if that assumption came through, it wasn't made on my end.
Use the format that best matches the subject material; I could care less about photos of Mr Waits, but I certianly wouldn't use the Coolpix for, say, architectural subjects - especially since I have a perfectly good 8x10 for that stuff.
As for digital noise and blur, the Nikon surprised me by being rather quiet - 3.2mp is a roadblock for sure, so is one and a half square inches of 35mm film. You can't get past either of them. The little Nikon also does well for closeups. When I first took it out to play with, I filled a memory card with a series of flower photos that really surprised and pleased me. I should do another series with printing (smallish prints) in mind, just to show what can be done with what is now regarded as a real POS camera .
 

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,314
Format
4x5 Format
E. von Hoegh said:
...series of flower photos that really surprised and pleased me. I should do another series with printing (smallish prints) in mind, just to show what can be done with what is now regarded as a real POS camera .
Click to expand...

Now go shoot those flowers in 8x10

I have a little point and shoot electronic camera that I got before joining APUG (with a Foveon chip no less), and it surprised me at its ability to make good looking close-ups of flora and fauna.

Among the closeups I shot were a few digital shots of a frog that often frequented my backyard, (I live in California Red-Legged Frog habitat)... But I took no film photos of this endangered species.

Next time I see one, I am shooting film for sure, probably 35mm so I can use either the Macro or Telephoto and crop tightly. My larger formats are better at the larger scenes. But I may have missed my chance, the frogs haven't hung out in my backyard lately....
 

E. von Hoegh

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
6,197
Location
Adirondacks
Format
Multi Format

A speck of pollen will fill up the DoF...
Now if you can tell me where to get it processed, I'll use up the PKR 64 in my freezer...
 

Roger Cole

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
6,069
Location
Atlanta GA
Format
Multi Format

Don't assume it's a blur. I have a Coolpix 995, which I bought new for about $700 in, IIRC, 2003 or so, plus a 1GB microdrive (remember those?) for which I paid another $385 I think it was, which was much cheaper than getting an entire GB of storage on a regular CF card. At any rate, the results still are far superior to camera phones with more pixels but tiny sensors and lesser lenses. I have 8.5x11 prints from it that look really good on the wall. I wouldn't want to go any bigger, and viewed close up (less than a foot away) you can see the noise but even that is small and tight enough that it doesn't look bad. Hanging one the wall and viewed from inside the room they look good. (I gave shots of myself that a friend took with it to my parents and they have them hanging.)

The autofocus has trouble in anything but good light and it's sure no DSLR but it's surprisingly decent. And I agree; it's particularly good for closeups.

Now art, I dunno, that's in the eye of the beholder and I admit I haven't really tried using it in B&W much or converting to B&W. It's for snapshooting, or was before I had a camera phone with me all the time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jaf-Photo

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
495
Format
Medium Format
I always have a Canon S95 in my bag, in case a photo should present itself. It's 10Mp in RAW and makes passable photos if you process them a bit.

But in my opinion 35mm film beats it hands down, regardless of whether grain is discrete or prominent.

So I also have a 35mm Minola Hi-Matic 7sII, which I often carry for the same reason.

In fact, I will mainy focus on 35mm for a while now, as I have recently replenised my 135 film stock.
 

E. von Hoegh

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
6,197
Location
Adirondacks
Format
Multi Format

"So the assumed point that the medium is unimportant in photography, doesn't quite hold up"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…