I want a larger negative. Does anyone care to comment?

[ntenny]

Put me down as another TLR fan. They're much more handholdable than most non-folder MF cameras, reasonably portable, and just plain *cool*. I also really like the square format (which seems to be a love-it-or-hate-it proposition for most people).

I also agree with the pro/con list---you just kind of have to weigh those criteria against one another, and decide if the balance justifies the expense (which for a good folder or a respectable TLR can be pretty modest).

-NT

 

[Jim Jones]

I'm with Michael R; skipping over MF and using just 35mm and LF works well enough. A 4x5 negative can be scanned and printed if one doesn't want to invest in a 4x5 enlarger. Edward Weston sold 4x5 contact prints. The lightest 4x5 cameras are little larger than some MF gear. Film holders do quickly add to the kit, though. We tend to work slower and take fewer shots with the larger film.

 

[Brian C. Miller]

I have seen a huge, something like 30x50", print made from Ilford 3200. It was amazing. Yes, there is an advantage to MF. I have enlarged a 645 shot to about 36" wide, and it looked really good. Lots of lovely detail, yadda yadda.

Every camera has trade-offs. The 6x6 format is good, and Yashicas are good and light. I have a Yashica 635, and it produces good results. I have a Fuji 645, a Pentax 6x7, and a Pentax 645. All good cameras, each with something special. If you want a folder, you may want to consider the Fuji folders. These are excellent cameras. If you want an older folder, what Mr. Kreckel sells looks good.

You might also consider (gasp!) a Holga. You can use it, have a bit of fun, and you only spent a little bit of money on it. They can produce reasonably decent images, and you will never care if it gets dinged up. The only drawback to it is when you have to make a lot of snaps with it in a short while. I used one to cover the Occupy Seattle's first big event, and the film advance knob left my thumb and fingers red from the effort. But otherwise I take it when I know generally the light conditions, and the camera could get banged up easily.

My recommendation: set a small budget and stick to it. There's lots of fine choices for cheap.

 

[eddie]

Matt- Go for it! I'd recommend finding a cheap 6x6, either folder or TLR. You can often find an Agfa/Ansco for around $25US. A TLR can be had for more, but the important thing is to get started. If you like the results, you can upgrade as funds become available. Until then, you can hone your processing/printing skills. The limited number of exposures per roll will help sharpen your compositional skills.
Then, in 2013, you can ask about 4x5. And, in 2014....

 

[tomalophicon]

Get a 20x24 and be done with it.

 

[MattPC]

Thanks to all for your interest and generosity in responding. Notes in the body ext.

I read though everyones thoughts, and I think I see a general theme:

large format is king! (and I'm very tempted, but the cost of darkroom/camera set-up is just too much for me at present)

my assumptions about the format are more-or less correct, though 'improvement' over 35mm may not be as great as I expect.

My assumption about equipment requirements are not correct. There are a lot of recommendations for very low cost TLR's.

Most importantly I had one very insightful PM (I'm not sure if I should quote a PM, apologies if I get the etiquette wrong) effectively advising me to put more effort into improving my work with 35mm first. after thinking hard about my results and how I get them, I believe he's correct.

So, here's my plan:

stay with my 35mm for while & use my tripod more, much more,
take more shots with bracketing or simpy sacrifice a few shots on each roll to keep my 'projects' fresh in my mind for darkroom work.
buy a lightmeter to enable incident and improve/ease spot metering,
test my safelight and replace if necessary (I can hear a collective 'well; doh!'),
buy a better enlarger lens (unless someone can specificaly say that my 6-element 50mm Komura or 75mm Fujinon's are in fact, good enough? when I do well, my 8x10's seem deadly sharp to my inexperienced eye with the 50, though I admit to not having tried the 75 seriuosly yet)
use more Acros and less Tri-x, and try out that bottle of rodinal that came in one of my box-lots. If I like it better than D-76, buy some more! But generaly, move my 'standard' film/developer combo to smaller grain/higher accutance. And put more effort into keeping my chems fresh! (I can hear another collective 'well; doh!')
print more, lots more (hey, I like it! and as I'm thinking about what I'm doing I'm bound to improve, and using my chems quickly has to be better than dumping them due to age, right?)
Keep an eye out for bargain TLR, 'cause it's gonna happen sooner or later! Anything with a tessar taking lens and clean mirror methinks...)

Thanks again for all your support,

MattPC.

 

[jp498]

AFAIK, fuji doesn't make bad lenses; if you have a fujinon enlarging lens, it's probably good. There are many people with no-name enlarging lenses that have seen better days.

Tessar TLRs are a good bargain. I think the triplet Yashica lenses are almost as good and better than most people would expect.

 

[Two23]

stay with my 35mm for while & use my tripod more, much more,
take more shots with bracketing or simpy sacrifice a few shots on each roll to keep my 'projects' fresh in my mind for darkroom work.
buy a lightmeter to enable incident and improve/ease spot metering,
test my safelight and replace if necessary (I can hear a collective 'well; doh!'),
buy a better enlarger lens (unless someone can specificaly say that my 6-element 50mm Komura or 75mm Fujinon's are in fact, good enough? when I do well, my 8x10's seem deadly sharp to my inexperienced eye with the 50, .

Well..........if you shot an 8x10 LF camera, you wouldn't need an enlarger at all. Just contact print them.




Kent in SD

 

[Vaughn]

Sounds reasonable, Matt.

The 6-element enlarging lenses sound just fine.
I'd plan on hurrying up the TLR buying schedule. The bigger the negative, the smoother the tonality can be (everything else being equal, of course). There is just more real estate to spread the same image onto. You will easily see the difference between a 35mm and a 6x6 negs enlarged to 8x10 or 11x14. Way too much fun!

But it can really wait. Exposing film, making prints, looking at photographs (yours and others), and enjoying the process is what is important.
Vaughn

 

[michaelbsc]

I do use a tripod in more situations, but I see it as a plus because I should have used one more when shooting mainly 35mm.

As someone here pointed out to me some years ago, because I was apparently too thick to recognize it myself, the sharpest lens in your camera bag is the tripod.

 

[Wade D]

Sticking with the 35mm format for now is a good choice as you hone your shooting and printing skills. Medium format can be quite cheap to get into once you're ready.
My cameras are a Yashica D TLR and an Agfa Isolette folder. $60 for the Yashica and $45 for the Agfa with new bellows. Both were good finds and I'm glad I waited for them and not jumping at the 1st ones that came along.
120 film can be cheap as well. $3 a roll (in a 5 pack) for the Fuji Acros 100 that I'm using now. I just started using it and so far I'm pleased with it.

 

[Wade D]

Get a 20x24 and be done with it.

There's one on ebay for $11,000.

 

[keithwms]

LF most certainly is not the king! Not in my kingdom at least Look, there are different tools for different purposes. If I had to use LF for everything, well, I simply wouldn't have many of the shots I considered worth taking.

Medium format is a great combination (not a compromise!) of the ergonomics and speed etc of 35mm with most of the detail and tonal charactersitics etc of the larger formats. if you know what you need, you'll very likely find it in medium format- it's the most diverse format, in terms of gear availability. View cameras, TLRs, RFs, SLRs, you name it... you can find it in medium format. It's also a format at the intersection of sheet and roll film, and instant film if you still use it. All of this can be quite handy.

Let me put it this way, if you've settled into your niche and have clear projects in mind, then go ahead and settle on one format. But if you are experimenting and poking into this and that, then do not assume that any one format or piece of gear is best. Let the purpose guide you to the gear, not vice versa. And if you are uncertain, then there is no alternative to trying a lot of things out.

I probably shouldn't comment further on LF so I don't ruffle too many feathers, but I'll just say that I've seen a lot of people engage in Ansel and Edward roleplay long before they have a clue what they will bring to the medium, rather than vice versa. Per described it as incest, and I think he was on to something.

 

[Ian C]

With regard to the original question: There are good ideas in this recent discussion in the following link about what can be accomplished with the 35mm format.

Once you’ve mastered this relatively inexpensive format, should you find it limiting, then it makes sense to move to a larger film size.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Jojje]

Lesser impact of unnoticed dust while enlarging.

- Just the way I thought, in practise you'll be amazed how many more dust particles fit to a three times larger negative...
The way my Mamiya TLR travels: http://www.royal-enfield-forum.de/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=68914
(Well that was just for show, actually it is an old Ikonta which I take for motorcycle trips.)

 

[Vaughn]

...
2. But, tougher and more attractive (to me) is: An Agfa Super Isolette (from Mr Kreckel at certo6, assuming he is able to find one for me?), a hood and filters to suit and the same meter. Again assuming I’m able to fit all this into my budget. I think this option mitigates the risks of service and me damaging it better, but is much more limited as a photography tool as my skill & interests evolve...Matt.

Just saw an Isolette a friend uses. What a wonderful little machine! New bellows, one of the nice 4-element lenses, and a feature he actually prefers -- a non-coupled range finder. By manually transferring the distance from the rangerfinder to the lens, one has less weight and less complicated linkages on the camera that need to unfold and fold back up. A coupled rangefinder is very convienent, but I see his point in keeping it simple. He was printing some 10x10 images. Small enough you could get two and have both B&W and color film loaded up!

 

[SafetyBob]

Matt, here is two cents worth considering. Once you concentrate better using your current equipment, particularly the tripod and you do not see much improvement in the sharpness or focus in your subject matter, consider a modest upgrade in your 35mm equipment, or get your current equipment serviced. I got an old Nikon FA a couple of years ago and it really shines with black and white film. That said, if you have a descent older 35mm camera, a good CLA and adjustment (send the lens you use most with it in with the camera....maybe some sample photos too) and what you think your having difficulty with and you will most likely get back a wonderful, old piece of magic back from your camera repairman.

I noticed a huge difference in image quality between the scans I get back from my lab from my 645 and my 35mm films......not so much when I now use MY scanning equipment. I love my old Yashica TLR, but the Mamiya 645 is so much easier to handle.....take that for what it's worth.

For now, as others have said, get the 35mm thing down a bit better, then start looking for bigger format. If you can't take a good picture in 35mm, you still won't in MF or even LF. Look at your pictures critically, then look at others to see what you like about theirs. Being able to discuss what you like about your pictures and theirs will start giving you the clues to start improving your own work.

Lastly, I find as I get older, I have to have my subject still with a manual focus camera or have an autofocus camera available to get a descent shot. Additionally, as you said, perhaps you may want to run a roll of the same subject changing up your settings and develop your film to see if the way your are developing has a little to do with your problems. I think that would be well worth your time....

Bob E.

 

[MattPC]

More thanks, I'm enjoyng all the opinions.

if you have a descent older 35mm camera, a good CLA and adjustment

My Yashica Electro 35 GSN produces really nice, sharp and rich images (when I get everything right!). I was a bit doubtful if the cost of it's recent CLA was going to be worthwhile. I'm now really pleased with it.
My Pentax P30n with std 50mmf2, produces images nearly as good and has full manual functionality. It's life is a little limited by the fungus slowly growing in prisim and just beginning around the edges of the lens. Of course I can replace this one for $15 and it's got at least another year in it yet.

These 2 can produce really nice images (as can my other 2 35mm cheapies). I'm the limiting factor. I'm struggling a little with mid-tones, skin tones in particular (I think paper grade and/or too strong a green filter are my issues, maybe aged D-76 on my last film as well. More exposures and prints to learn the solution. No hardship there!). So, after reading all the opinions in this thread and loads of research here on apug and elsewhere (work's been a little light this week), I've ordered an RH designs AnalyserPro instead of upgrading my camera. This will be my most expensive purchase on my analog 'journey' to date. I think I spent more on this than everything else combined! (excluding consumables of course)

I'm hopeful that this will help me get a working print more quickly so that I can pay more attention to finer tone control before I become impatient and move to another negative. Hopefully it will also assist with paper grade selection and lead me to better tone placement overall. Worst case, it will speed up printing once I learn to use it. If not, well, it's a new gizmo and I'll have loads of fun with it. If I really hate it, I can always sell it. (not likley methinks..)

And, I've got more paper on the way!

Good thread, I've really enjoyed it and I'm a little humbled by the generosity of respondants. A lot of thought has gone into the replies.

MattPC.

 

[Dan Quan]

I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who disagrees with getting new equipment. I am in a similar situation, my photos are pretty much shit, even though I'm actually paid for this, I have a feeling I can do better. I was eyeing a new camera on you-know-you-need-this-now-bay and realized that I'm a stupid fuck if I think that will make me a better light-writer.

Actually, I'm blessed with the option of going the opposite direction. I have at my disposal some really old, basic (I mean REALLY basic like two shutter speeds and some apertures, some even have actual lenses) cameras. I have realized I need to learn to make good photos before I even consider additional equipment. For me, it needs to be about the subject and light first, then, well, something and I'll let you know when I know. The point is my equipment is not limiting me, frankly I'm not that good yet, obviously. But I heard a saying that stuck with me, "with limitation comes innovation" and we all like seeing something we haven't see, or something we haven't seen that way, something interesting or at least new.

So, I'm going to start a personal project in which I use a very basic camera and become open to the light and the subject. Sorta like feeling the blues recorded on a 78 with scratches and all, and lovin it.


If your open to something like this, I'll send you a camera, if you want.

 

[elekm]

The promise of all new cameras is that it will suddenly transform you into a better photographer.

I think that a camera that you really like to use can make a difference in your photos, because you aren't fighting the camera.

However, the mere act of buying a new camera won't transform you into an artist. Lord knows, I've tried.

My favorite cameras tend to be those with the fewest features and no extra buttons. I like cameras that have a shutter speed dial, aperture and can focus. I'm not big on multimodes and a lot of time-wasting switches and other adornments.

But that's me, and other people like having those.

 

[michaelbsc]

I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who disagrees with getting new equipment. I am in a similar situation, my photos are pretty much shit, even though I'm actually paid for this, I have a feeling I can do better. I was eyeing a new camera on you-know-you-need-this-now-bay and realized that I'm a stupid fuck if I think that will make me a better light-writer.

[...]

But I heard a saying that stuck with me, "with limitation comes innovation"....

For several years now I've been turning over in my head that today's disposable camera loaded with a roll of 135 film is is really a hell of a nice little package. And a 1955 Brownie Hawkeye is actually astonishing if you five it a good cleaning.

MB

 

[cjbecker]

I will agree with the posts above me but recently I got my first 35mm camera, (coming from medium then large format). I wanted to get more away from the technical side and more more into straight subject matter photography. I got a fed 2 with a summitar. I used it, tested different ways to shoot it, to get the image that I was looking for, but could not come up with anyway for it to work for me.

I wanted to get into 35mm because of traveling. I wanted something smaller with more pics per roll. I am now back to medium format, TLR for my needs.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

If you only print to the same size enlargements you do in 35mm, then the improvement afforded by MF will at best be modest. It's a bigger negative, sure (6x7 for example is 400% larger than 35mm). But you need to use 35mm for years and years to appreciate it, not jump ship because a larger format has popular appeal over established or future need. The MF system I have isn't going to trump my 35mm system that I've used for 30 years because all the cameras have different applications, and no one format is suitable for universal application. Carting your stuff around on a motorcycle will limit your equipment somewhat, even expose it to considerable danger if the bike should tip over or you hit a power pole or worse. Maybe a Harley Davidson softail with a trailer attached (for years I got around on a mountain bike with a BOB Yak all-terrain trailer behind: everything survived the many bingles...).

 

[cjbecker]

If you only print to the same size enlargements you do in 35mm, then the improvement afforded by MF will at best be modest. It's a bigger negative, sure (6x7 for example is 400% larger than 35mm). But you need to use 35mm for years and years to appreciate it, not jump ship because a larger format has popular appeal over established or future need. The MF system I have isn't going to trump my 35mm system that I've used for 30 years because all the cameras have different applications, and no one format is suitable for universal application. Carting your stuff around on a motorcycle will limit your equipment somewhat, even expose it to considerable danger if the bike should tip over or you hit a power pole or worse. Maybe a Harley Davidson softail with a trailer attached (for years I got around on a mountain bike with a BOB Yak all-terrain trailer behind: everything survived the many bingles...).

The biggest I have ever printed in the darkroom is 8x10 and even then I much prefer the look of medium format to 135 and I also like 4x5 much more then medium format at 8x10.

I was hoping to get the gritty look out of the 135 but after shooting medium format for so many years it’s very hard to use 135. I have become custom to the tonality and look of medium format.

 

[photobum]

Matt, I'll address con # 8&9. The question of M/F equipment on a motorcycle. I've been an active motorcyclist for 45 years. I ride and I photograph and to combine the two is perfect together.

Camera equipment is a bit tougher than you might think. In over 300,000 touring miles my equipment failures are, the battery cover falling off my M-6 and a loose inner ring in a 135mm Heilar. I have had more equipment problems with airline travel with gear in the cargo hold. It would seem that the vibration combined with temperatures of 40 below allow things to loosen up.

I have carried everything from a 35mm point & shoot to a 4x5 Crown Graphic. A TLR on a soft 1 inch foam bed in a tank bag is perfect. Attach 4 walls of half inch foam. I use a 3.5 F model Rollie but my first traveling TLR was a 635 Yashica. That was hauled around on a 185cc 2-stroke.

I cannot in my wildest imagination conceive of worrying about camera equipment should I centerpunch a power pole. I'll just leave it at that.