Making the jump to medium format?

[bo eder]

Hi all,

Still new guy here - I'm back shooting 35mm and love it. Of course, being here, and other on forums, it's still true that if you're looking for nicer negs and chromes, going up in size is a no-brainer. So I'm contemplating it. But then, I see the work of James Nachtwey, Ralph Gibson, even Andy Summers, among others...and seeing some of their prints as big as 20x30, made from 35mm negatives.....what would be the real point of shooting bigger film?

Yes, I've shot a 4x5 LF once, and those 4x5 chromes are just awesome when you put them on a light table - I can see why someone like Clyde Butcher would print in feet rather than inches - especially if you were shooting 8x10!

So I was wondering what those of you here get out of shooting the bigger formats (bigger than 35mm) to keep you doing it. I'm not sure I want to make the leap into buying more camera stuff just yet, but I suppose sooner or later I will, but like I said, I'm so impressed with the pros shooting 35mm, it's hard for me to think I'd ever be that good anyway.

Anybody here jump to a bigger format and then dump it all for 35mm?

 

[Fixcinater]

For me, I see MF as a different experience, a different look for the results for sure but I work differently with my Pentax 6x7 compared to any of my 35mm gear.

Is it any better? I seem to like the results better, but that's probably more my editing before pressing the shutter than anything that happens after.

 

[Ron789]

I used MF a lot in the past and still have 2 MF camera's, but I hardly ever use them any more. Of course, the images produced by MF are sharper, have more details etc. But for the kind of photo's I make these days I don't need that. I feel that for me such technical perfection actually gets in the way.
Ask yourself what it is that you are looking for in your photography. If it's technical perfection that you're aiming for, then MF will surely be superior. Is it expression and creativity then 35mm may offer you much more flexibility, ease-of-use and lower cost.
As an (extreme) example, the 2 shots below I could never had made using MF:

 

[Sirius Glass]

The answer is Hasselblad:

• Smaller, lighter and better built than the wannabes
• Square is the perfect format [That is what Hasselblad advertised for years, so we know that is true]
• Service and repairs are easily available
• Lenses and other parts are easily available
• While Hasselblads seem more expensive they are more robust so that repairs are needed less frequently
• While the lenses are more expensive, really on the time between purchasing lenses is only a little longer. If one is shooting black & white and color then one will need to carry a second set of cameras. [See the next point]
• If you compare them to Rolleiflex and Rolleicords, Rolleiflex and Rolleicords require that you will have to wear three of them around your neck if you want to shoot wide angle, normal and telephoto, while Hasselblads only require the two other lenses to be carried
• If one is careful and RTFM lens jams are rare and easily recoverable
• If you stick to the CF or later lenses one set of B60 filters will work for all the lenses but the 30mm [fisheye], 40mm, 350mm and 500mm lenses
• Hasselblad is a complete system. It was the first complete system.

 

[frank]

In this day and age, if I'm bothering to shoot film, it's going to be at least medium format, unless there's a compelling reason (usually mobility) to use 135.

 

[Sirius Glass]

In this day and age, if I'm bothering to shoot film, it's going to be at least medium format, unless there's a compelling reason (usually mobility) to use 135.

All my serious [sirius] work is done with medium format. If I will want to print it in my darkroom and especially if I will want to mat and frame the photograph, then I will use medium format. 35mm film is a little harder to handle and can be limiting if the final print will need some cropping and enlarging. Why limit oneself when one can shoot medium format and not have to worry about the negative size and printing problems with cropped photographs?

 

[frank]

I've said this before but it bears repeating: medium format is a sweet spot, balancing between technical image quality and ease of use/mobility.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I print on 5x7 and 8x10. I could see the difference on 8x10 between 6x6 and 4x5 negatives. It is nice to try and use once in while, but for what I take pictures and how I'm taking them 135 format dominates 99%. MF and LF are just something to play with for me. Plus it is cheap. All of my MF, LF gear, including 4x5 enlarger, costs all together like my one Leica RF M-mount lens. No reason not to try MF these days. You don't really have to go for Hassie or Rolleiflex right away. Yashica Mat 124G or old Zeiss folder will give you right picture, IMO.

 

[flavio81]

I've said this before but it bears repeating: medium format is a sweet spot, balancing between technical image quality and ease of use/mobility.

I agree with this. It is a "perfect" sweet spot.

35mm is there only for when you need even more agility or lower film cost.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The answer is Hasselblad:

• Smaller, lighter and better built than the wannabes
• Square is the perfect format [That is what Hasselblad advertised for years, so we know that is true]
• Service and repairs are easily available
• Lenses and other parts are easily available
• While Hasselblads seem more expensive they are more robust so that repairs are needed less frequently
• While the lenses are more expensive, really on the time between purchasing lenses is only a little longer& white and color you will need to carry a second set of cameras. [See the next point]
• If you compare them to Rolleiflex and Rolleicords, Rolleiflex and Rolleicords require that you will have to wear three of them around your neck if you want to shoot wide angle, normal and telephoto, while Hasselblads only require the two other lenses to be carried
• If one is careful and RTFM lens jams are rare and easily recoverable
• If you stick to the CF or later lenses one set of B60 filters will work for all the lenses but the 30mm [fisheye], 40mm, 350mm and 500mm lenses
• Hasselblad is a complete system. It was the first complete system.

Oh Steve- quit being such a Hassy fanboy

But if you're actually good at what you do, you only need the normal Rolleiflex - the Tele and Wide are icing on the cake. And the Rollei is more portable in the end - it's all self-contained, no extra bulk to haul around. Yes, having interchangeable backs that let you switch mid-roll between film speeds/emulsion types is handy, but seldom necessary. If you need convincing, I'd say 79 rolls in 12 days in Italy, almost exclusively with a Rolleiflex 2.8E is pretty convincing evidence.

In all seriousness, though - the big advantage to any medium format system, in addition to the larger negative, is the lens signature. The glass in medium format cameras, be they single lens systems like the Rolleiflex or an interchangeable lens setup like a Hasselblad, Pentax or Mamiya, just has a different look to it. You'll have more control over depth of field and placement of focus than you will in 35mm. It's easier to get that "3D" look where your subject pops out from the background. And should you feel the need to enlarge to stupendous sizes, you can do so with relative ease.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I missed the obvious point that many of the medium format systems, the TLRs and SLRs, provide a bright [well not so much on some] view finder that is large enough and clear enough to see many small details that can make or break a photograph. They all, even Rolleis [that was put in for Scott] are a joy to use for composing.

 

[frank]

MF negatives are much easier to cut and manipulate in the darkroom than 135 format negs.

 

[DWThomas]

I've said this before but it bears repeating: medium format is a sweet spot, balancing between technical image quality and ease of use/mobility.

Yes, most of my film shooting these days is done with medium format. When I went that way, I called it the "Goldilocks format" -- not too big, not too small, ju-u-u-ust right!

 

[Sirius Glass]

...

• While the lenses are more expensive, really on the time between purchasing lenses is only a little longer. If one is shooting black & white and color then one will need to carry a second set of cameras. [See the next point]
• If you compare them to Rolleiflex and Rolleicords, Rolleiflex and Rolleicords require that you will have to wear three of them around your neck if you want to shoot wide angle, normal and telephoto, while Hasselblads only require the two other lenses to be carried

These two points are part of the Rollei bling.

 

[snikulin]

Yep, a 35mm defector is here.

I was a 35mm shooter from my early teens in seventies up until about 2003 when I got my first digital camera. I've sold my Elan IIe in 2005 when I've gotten FF Canon 5D.

When I got interested in film again in 2014 I went straight to MF. Well, having a friend with two boxes of forgotten MF darkroom equipment in his garage helped too.

6x6 is my only format now and I really like twelve frames per film too: the exposed frames do not sit too long in the camera and I still remember all the details about the shooting session. With 36 frames per film (and 24 frames too) it often took me to long to finish the film and I got unfocused and disinterested too often. Twelve frames per film feels just right to me.

No, I don't have any nostalgia about 35mm.
More over I contemplate sometimes about 4x5 to larger.

 

[bo eder]

Yep, a 35mm defector is here.

I was a 35mm shooter from my early teens in seventies up until about 2003 when I got my first digital camera. I've sold my Elan IIe in 2005 when I've gotten FF Canon 5D.

When I got interested in film again in 2014 I went straight to MF. Well, having a friend with two boxes of forgotten MF darkroom equipment in his garage helped too.

6x6 is my only format now and I really like twelve frames per film too: the exposed frames do not sit too long in the camera and I still remember all the details about the shooting session. With 36 frames per film (and 24 frames too) it often took me to long to finish the film and I got unfocused and disinterested too often. Twelve frames per film feels just right to me.

No, I don't have any nostalgia about 35mm.
More over I contemplate sometimes about 4x5 to larger.

Perhaps I made my return to film the wrong way. I stuck with the Canon stuff because I had those lenses. Looking at some MF gear on eBay, there's a lot of stuff that's cheap and good (Bronica SQ would be something I'd like to find, I like squares). If I dumped all my EOS film stuff, I could get a used Hasselblad 500CM with a lens. Researching cost of development and scanning, via The Darkroom.com the cost ends up the same, although we're talking 12 shots a roll as opposed to 36, but my film shooting is so contemplative I'd probably find a way to whittle a days walkabout down to 12 shots anyway

I think I'm being swayed, I'll let you know how it goes. But I will still argue there's 35mm art prints out there that are just outstanding, and I don't think shooting it in medium for me will make my images any better.

 

[bdial]

The answer is Hasselblad:

• While the lenses are more expensive, really on the time between purchasing lenses is only a little longer. If one is shooting black & white and color then one will need to carry a second set of cameras. [See the next point]
• If you compare them to Rolleiflex and Rolleicords, Rolleiflex and Rolleicords require that you will have to wear three of them around your neck if you want to shoot wide angle, normal and telephoto, while Hasselblads only require the two other lenses to be carried

But the Hasselblad wides and tele's are pretty much the size of a Rollei anyway, and probably weigh more, so, same difference more or less.

Several years ago, I traded the first Hasselblad I owned for a new F3 and some lenses because I couldn't afford any lenses besides the 80 for the Hasselblad. Regretted it for a long time, then came back to the fold when the prices first crashed, but kept the F3. I've been exploring 35 a lot lately, but I'm not ready to give up on larger formats. For the reasons already stated, MF is a nice sweet spot between 35 and 4x5 with many of the advantages of both, and nicely avoids most of the disadvantages of each.

 

[MattKing]

I like medium format for two main reasons:

1) the viewfinders are great; and
2) printing from the negatives is just a bit more satisfying than from 35mm.

And a third reason? A projected 6x6 or 6x4.5 slide is a joy to behold.

 

[Sirius Glass]

[/LIST]

But the Hasselblad wides and tele's are pretty much the size of a Rollei anyway, and probably weigh more, so, same difference more or less.

Several years ago, I traded the first Hasselblad I owned for a new F3 and some lenses because I couldn't afford any lenses besides the 80 for the Hasselblad. Regretted it for a long time, then came back to the fold when the prices first crashed, but kept the F3. I've been exploring 35 a lot lately, but I'm not ready to give up on larger formats. For the reasons already stated, MF is a nice sweet spot between 35 and 4x5 with many of the advantages of both, and nicely avoids most of the disadvantages of each.

If I take all of my Hasselblads [503CX and 903SWC] and all the lenses 38mm [SWC], 50mm, 80mm, 150mm, 250mm, 500mm, the extension tubes, two 2X extenders, filters, and film backs in a backpack, then I have a self contained back mounted physical fitness program.

 

[HiHoSilver]

'Been interesting to hear others talk about 35 & MF. When I paid for processing for MF, it kept it a rarely used obsession for 'important' shots. With BW done at home & C41 done cheaply, its used alot more - and needs to be. Its certainly a more contemplative, careful process, and that does me alot of good. OTOH - I continue to see 35 that just astounds me. Add to that the guys that talk about the difference between MF & LF being much less than 35>MF, and I think the description of 'sweet spot' becomes compelling. 'Love & respect the LF shots & shooters, but I've not found anything that trumps excellent composition & execution. If I have to wear out a few 35s to get there - I'll call it money well spent.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi all,

Still new guy here - I'm back shooting 35mm and love it. Of course, being here, and other on forums, it's still true that if you're looking for nicer negs and chromes, going up in size is a no-brainer. So I'm contemplating it. But then, I see the work of James Nachtwey, Ralph Gibson, even Andy Summers, among others...and seeing some of their prints as big as 20x30, made from 35mm negatives.....what would be the real point of shooting bigger film?

Yes, I've shot a 4x5 LF once, and those 4x5 chromes are just awesome when you put them on a light table - I can see why someone like Clyde Butcher would print in feet rather than inches - especially if you were shooting 8x10!

So I was wondering what those of you here get out of shooting the bigger formats (bigger than 35mm) to keep you doing it. I'm not sure I want to make the leap into buying more camera stuff just yet, but I suppose sooner or later I will, but like I said, I'm so impressed with the pros shooting 35mm, it's hard for me to think I'd ever be that good anyway.

Anybody here jump to a bigger format and then dump it all for 35mm?

For my main photography,I made the jump from 35mm(Nikon) to MF(Hasselblad)years ago and never regretted it.You just cannot get the detail and tonality from the smaller negative when printing 11x14 or larger.That said, jumping to LF(4x5) got me nothing over MF, but that may be my fault.

 

[Slixtiesix]

I quit using 35mm altogether when I stepped into MF. One reason is that I find medium format slides and negs much easier to work with. You already see a lot on 6x6 slides, and even more so with the larger formats, so you can enjoy them even without projection. Same with contact prints from B/W negs. The other reason for me is better quality and the fun of using the cameras.

 

[sagai]

As a side effect of my last film purchase there were some rolls next to a bunch of 35mm films.

Now I cannot wait to shoot and develop MF.
Actually the 12 pieces of 6x6 shots exactly the volume that I would consume when going out for shooting.

I would highly recomment to jump to.

 

[Trond]

I use 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 and 4x5", and love working with all these formats. One format does not have to exclude any other!

Trond

 

[Fr. Mark]

I went from 35mm to 4x5 then 8x10 to 5x7. I think the sweet spot may be 6.5x8.5...
I do like other people's work in MF and maybe the next camera I buy will be a 6x6, time will tell.
I used to think 35mm couldn't compete 'til I got a few shots "just right" on tech pan.
It is hard to beat 35mm Olympus XA for mobility...my LF light meter is bigger and heavier than the XA...