Interchangeable backs on medium format SLRs - when/what/why do you use them?

[abruzzi]

When I used to shoot weddings...

If I were photographing a wedding I think the only thing I'd shoot is myself. It just seems like a thankless job that would destroy my love of photography, but I it seems a number of people here have survived that gauntlet.

A12, A24 and A70 backs takup space but im shooting out of my car most times and can take out what I don't want to carry at a short distance from my transport for a best chance of getting my shots.

I'm more sensitive to bulk than I am to weight, and I've figured out ways to fit my Bronica ETRSi in some tiny bags, and still have space for mutiple backs.

 

[neilt3]

I have three camera systems that take interchangeable backs , Kiev 88 , Bronica ETRSi and Bronica SQ-Ai and have several backs for them.
Depending on what I'm doing , where I'm going and what time of day I'm going , decided what film I'm carrying.
When I go away on holiday in my campervan , I'll have one back typically with FP-4 for typical daytime use .
HP-5 for evenings or areas of low light ( inside use etc ) , Rollie infrared and very occasionally, colour film .
That doesn't mean when I go out I carry them all , I might just have one on the camera , and another type in a bag or pocket .
Sometimes if I'm near the end of a roll when I'm going out , I'll have a spare back loaded ready to take over , so I'm not changing film on a mountain or somewhere.

Sometimes if I'm shooting a TLR I might have regular B&W loaded , but I'd probably have a second body loaded with either IR or colour .

I tend to use TLR's when I know I'll only want to use one film type , it's easy to just carry a separate film back than a full camera .

 

[loccdor]

If I were photographing a wedding I think the only thing I'd shoot is myself. It just seems like a thankless job that would destroy my love of photography, but I it seems a number of people here have survived that gauntlet.

I'd imagine it's good training to operate a camera quickly, but other than that I share your view. I was friends with a family who did wedding photography and they were always complaining about the demands of their clients and the drama involved.

 

[abruzzi]

I tend to use TLR's when I know I'll only want to use one film type , it's easy to just carry a separate film back than a full camera .

TLRs have never really worked for me, but I did a test on a trip last summer. I brought two cameras--my ETRSi and a Fuji GA645Zi. Each day, when we left the apartment, I'd pick one camera or the other. Mostly, I preferred the ETRSi and the ability to change backs (I also preferred that the long lens I brought for the Bronica was a 150mm, while the Fuji only went to 90mm.) I guess the other point worth making is how frequently people press the shutter button. One of the reasons I stopped shooting 35mm is I >hate< 36 exposure rolls because I'm very selective with my shots. Over the course of a day walking around Budapest, I might shoot 2 rolls (30 exposure) of 6x4.5 total but usually less. If I was shooting a lot faster it might be easier to time my completion of a roll to move from an outdoor setting to an indoor setting without wasting film, but a interghangable back solves that issue.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Mainly for different films. I have three for the RB. One for a slow ISO, one for fast (usually HP5), and one for Rollei IR... or all three will be fast films. Depends on what the plan is.

 

[wiltw]

If I were photographing a wedding I think the only thing I'd shoot is myself. It just seems like a thankless job that would destroy my love of photography, but I it seems a number of people here have survived that gauntlet.



I'm more sensitive to bulk than I am to weight, and I've figured out ways to fit my Bronica ETRSi in some tiny bags, and still have space for mutiple backs.

Yeah, dealing with the bride/mom can be problematic, but fortunately I never ran into bridezilla. I found that the enjoyment of such shooting came from encountering a wide variety of photographic challenges that one needed to quick come up with a solution, and do so with satisfaction, particularly those in which the bride had no idea were problematic! These were an opportunity to grow as a photographer, much more than shooting without such challenges to solve.

 

[Paul Howell]

I directed a photo shoot once where the photographer had two (maybe more) Nikon F4s with the same lens and an assistant always ready with a loaded one by his side. It was one of the very few shoots I had where the photographer used 35mm.

This was a common practice for wedding, fashion, even some news photographers. There a many photographs of Vietnam era JP with 2, 3 even 4 cameras hanging off them to keep up with the action. The weight an size of bulk film backs kept use to sports and science applications.

 

[MattKing]

If I were photographing a wedding I think the only thing I'd shoot is myself. It just seems like a thankless job that would destroy my love of photography, but I it seems a number of people here have survived that gauntlet.

I used to really enjoy it. The relationship created with the couple and many of their friends and family was often one of the highlights.
But it really is a young photographer's domain - the energy required is huge!

 

[MattKing]

Yeah, dealing with the bride/mom can be problematic, but fortunately I never ran into bridezilla. I found that the enjoyment of such shooting came from encountering a wide variety of photographic challenges that one needed to quick come up with a solution, and do so with satisfaction, particularly those in which the bride had no idea were problematic! These were an opportunity to grow as a photographer, much more than shooting without such challenges to solve.

+1

 

[Pieter12]

If I were photographing a wedding I think the only thing I'd shoot is myself.

It used to be wedding photographers were pretty much at the bottom of the totem pole, just above baby and Sears portrait photographers.

 

[Pieter12]

Whats your estimate - how big is today's MF market compared to rest of market, when looking at "pros"?
I guess MF has become even more niche than 6,7 decades ago.

Hard to say. Fuji, Hasselblad and to a lesser extent Phase One pretty much are the only players left, manufacturing-wise. Leica keeps rumoring an S4 but I wouldn't hold my breath. Digital MF sensor size is a bit smaller than MF film but still has advantages, especially for movements. A lot of architectural and landscape photographers use technical cameras with a MF Fuji GX body or Hasselblad or Phase One digital back. To answer your question, I think the proportion of MF digital and film professional users has diminished mainly because FF digital is quite good and not too expensive comparatively. And the art photography world that is not shooting film seems to have embraced digital MF from what I can tell.

 

[MattKing]

It used to be wedding photographers were pretty much at the bottom of the totem pole, just above baby and Sears portrait photographers.

Karsh did weddings.
I worked with people who charged thousands to photograph weddings, and were highly sought after - including by other photographers.
I even did some of their proof prints and machine enlargements .
The marketplace was really varied - from bargain basement, to really, really high end.
When it came to cost, my work was near the lower end, but I was a student using the work to help me get through University sciences.
I photographed for all sorts of people - from the impecunious to the fairly rich and powerful. Having satisfied clients who really enjoyed working with you is by far the best way to get new work.

 

[Pieter12]

Karsh did weddings.

Philip Glass worked as a plumber and drove a cab.

 

[wiltw]

Hard to say. Fuji, Hasselblad and to a lesser extent Phase One pretty much are the only players left, manufacturing-wise. Leica keeps rumoring an S4 but I wouldn't hold my breath. Digital MF sensor size is a bit smaller than MF film but still has advantages, especially for movements. A lot of architectural and landscape photographers use technical cameras with a MF Fuji GX body or Hasselblad or Phase One digital back. To answer your question, I think the proportion of MF digital and film professional users has diminished mainly because FF digital is quite good and not too expensive comparatively. And the art photography world that is not shooting film seems to have embraced digital MF from what I can tell.

And the lack of widespread availability of good reliable film processing with excellent tight process controls makes shooting film and getting quality prints so much more problematic today than it was 3 decades ago. And find a lab that does negative retouching and print retouching. And then there is also the demise of so many film emulsions that pro shooters relied upon, and availability in 220 length.