Is medium format your main format?

brainmonster said:

I find MF to not be forgiving...scanning is a little more difficult because dust shows up more easily, even straight from the lab wrapped in plastic. I need to wipe down each negative with a microfiber cloth, even when using digital ICE on my scanner. 35mm does not require this.

Click to expand...

I am puzzled by your perception...dust is the same size on MF as it is on 135 format film. When the dust gets scanned, it occupies the same scanner distance regardless of the area of film around it. When the image is printed at 8" x10" (or 8" x 12" size, the image and the dust is magnified 8.5X from 135 format, and the dust is magnified by 4.7X from typical 645 format...the dust becomes apparently 1.8X larger as seen on the 135 format scan's resultant print!

Comparing 24mm x 24mm section from 135 format vs. 56mm x 56mm section from square medium format, the magnification advantages of medium format vs. 135 format are even greater than 645 format...2.34X advantage for medium format in the apparent size of dust on the 8" x 8" print.

I understand that mefium format has more film area to gather dust, So cleaning film is more arduous because the larger area has to be cleaned. But any dust is less apparent after magnification to final print size.

GarageBoy said:

If so, what do you shoot and what's your camera of choice?
I mainly shoot 35mm film with 28-135mm lenses, so I'm not looking for super long or super wides - I don't need the speeds, and for low light stuff, I have a non film solution. Takes me months to go through 36 exp. Should I just switch to a 645 slr or a rangefinder or a tlr?

I have a 28/50/105 set up for my Nikon if I want 35mm, but I got spoiled by MF slides...

Click to expand...

After photographing for over 15 years, I realized the ideal camera(s) for me had to have the following:

-Very small in size / light
-WYSIWIG viewfinder if possible
-Manual focusing capable
-Cell / under or overexposure indicator
-Freedom to shoot - aka not having to worry too much about reaching the end of the roll too fast
-Give me an "analog photography" feel - aka the results need to feel like film
-Double Exposure capable
-Interchangeable lenses

These are my 8 Golden Rules for me to fall in love with a tool and incorporate it in my workflow.


Therefore, my favorite cameras to own and use are the following:

110:
-Pentax Auto 110 - 7 out of 8 Golden Rules, one extra point for being a SLR that fits in a jacket pocket and giving out outstanding results


35 half-frame:
-Olympus Pen F (with two lenses) - 8 Golden Rules attained! - extra point for the freedom brought by half-frame (72 exposures...)


35:
-Minolta X-300 - 8 Golden Rules attained!


Medium Format:
I'm still struggling with this one, and I'm not always sure whether or not it makes sense for me to shoot it given my Golden Rules, but here goes:
-Semi Leotax 6x4.5 - 5 out of 8 rules!
-Zeiss Ikon 120 - same!
-Holga 120 - same!
-Bronica ETRS - 6 out of 8 rules - but the bulkiness takes away some fun for me
-Pentax 67 - only 4 out of 8 rules! - and wayyyy too cumbersome to ever make me feel like I'll ever love it as much as the first ones listed. It's a mastodon and doesn't have a vital feature of the Pentax Auto 110 (smaller than a cigarette pack) - light metering!



I also shoot experimental short films. If anyone reading this also does, for whoever might find it interesting:
I use mostly:
-a Canon 310 XL for Super-8mm
-a Pathé Webo for 16mm
-a Kinamo for 35mm.

All three I believe are the highest ranking in my "Golden Rules" for each format. There are more bulky ones - with more functionalities - of course.

I use my Rollei TLR 3.5F and my Hasselblad 503cw when I want to do square format. For 6x45 I use my Pentax 645N. Its autofocus is fast and sharp. I used to lug a Pentax 6x7 around, usually with a tripod, but age dictated time to sell.

fabulousrice said:

After photographing for over 15 years, I realized the ideal camera(s) for me had to have the following:

-Very small in size / light
-WYSIWIG viewfinder if possible
-Manual focusing capable
-Cell / under or overexposure indicator
-Freedom to shoot - aka not having to worry too much about reaching the end of the roll too fast
-Give me an "analog photography" feel - aka the results need to feel like film
-Double Exposure capable
-Interchangeable lenses

Click to expand...

Great post, thanks!

jawarden said:

Great post, thanks!

Click to expand...

Thank you so much for reading! Do you know your golden rules?

The only "golden rules" are those of physics and legal laws and they should be pushed to the limit.

I can't afford golden rules. Stainless steel works fine for me.

Pretty soon I will be only a 35mm and medium format shooter. Just ordered a used Mamiya ZD body and I already own a Contax 645 body (for film only), a Diana F, and a few Cameradactyls which are my main bodies for experimental stuff.

Pieter12 said:

I can't afford golden rules. Stainless steel works fine for me.

Click to expand...

Try the Fibonacci (°1170) spiral, it's like snail's schel cut in half, or his numbers sequence...
BTW, this spiral can still be found in LightRoom as an overlay for refining the composition.
But I have made a foil with that spiral printed on to cover the matte glass for my Linhof Kardan 4"x5" ...