Medium format questions from 35mm user

[jeffreyg]

Why not use the format that you are most comfortable with and that works best in your hands? It's the content and quality of the print not the size that matters. I have seen magnificent 8x10 and smaller prints done by photographers who are considered masters. At recent shows such as Art Basel (Miami Beach) very large, shiny and in-your-face photographs seem to be trendy but there are also galleries exhibiting small vintage prints that IMO put the others to shame. Many of the large prints are just that -- large and colorful with little else going for them. They are quite pricey so the galleries push them. I wonder if they will hold value over time.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[Diapositivo]

I already knew the article cited by Thomas. It is interesting indeed, but I think it has a basic flow, maybe, in the fact that for 35mm they used a Carl Zeiss Tessar T* lens (multicoated, a modern lens) while with the Hasselblad they used a Carl Zeiss Tessar lens, not multi-coated, which means a decades-old lens. Add to this that the 35mm was not used at full aperture while the Hasselblad lens was tested at f/5.6, its full aperture, and full aperture is probably where the lack of coating is more noticeable. If there are decades of difference in the technology to produce the lenses, the results lose some scientific value. They remain, I think, quite interesting and thought-provoking.

I never used a MF camera. I remember a spectacular image, here on APUG, of a detail of a dollar banknote taken with a B&W high-resolution film, with a Leica. The detail was quite stunning, and the contrast was quite high.

Generally speaking, the advantage of MF over 35mm is the lesser grain and the higher tone gradation, I think somebody calls it the micro-contrast (others use this term to mean "acutance" though, that's not what I am talking about). 35mm is supposed to have something more hard-cut and gritty which can work great sometimes, but not always. Proponents (or "fans") of MF normally don't cite resolution as a distinguishing factor, but grain and better tonal gradation.

Police and spy-workers, including paparazzi of all kind, always used the small format as far as I know which means that, when quality is not at stake and resolution is all that matters, when usage considerations are taken into account, 35mm wins. Aerial photography uses MF but in that case usage considerations do not constitute a hindrance.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I already knew the article cited by Thomas. It is interesting indeed, but I think it has a basic flow, maybe, in the fact that for 35mm they used a Carl Zeiss Tessar T* lens (multicoated, a modern lens) while with the Hasselblad they used a Carl Zeiss Tessar lens, not multi-coated, which means a decades-old lens. Add to this that the 35mm was not used at full aperture while the Hasselblad lens was tested at f/5.6, its full aperture, and full aperture is probably where the lack of coating is more noticeable. If there are decades of difference in the technology to produce the lenses, the results lose some scientific value. They remain, I think, quite interesting and thought-provoking.

Thank you for validating my opinion that most of these studies are not scientifically valid. Now I will move the article to my ignore list.

 

[vpwphoto]

Tom and the rest of the debaters:

I shoot all the formats and have examples all over my house. The 10x10's from Hassy negs just glow, mostly because the 100 and 50 speed film is enlarged to such a lesser degree had I actually cropped a 35mm neg square. There is a 11x14 of my kid from 35mm up the hall, and it is nice too, but the combo of grain and subject make it work... not the case for those 10x10 landscapes.

It's hard for anyone to quantify what the OP's actual intent was in wanting to make a larger negative, but I think we all can agree that there is something so nice about a negative enlarged to an appropriate and relative size/ again relative to view distance.

I took in Ansel Adam's Fiat Lux exhibit when in came to Inidanapolis... a few of those 3 x5 feet prints I presume enlarged from 8x10 negatives sure would have been nice if the "Old Master" stepped up to a 16x20" negative. I have said and heard enough about this silly over inflated-- over enlarged debate

 

[hpulley]

In my experience even with PanF+, 16x20 is too much for 35mm. What looks great at 11x14 is just put over the edge a bit at 16x20, the enlargement is 'empty' rather than showing more detail it shows me that is the limit but perhaps with even better technique, larger tripod, etc. I'd get good 16x20 out of 35mm. Generally 11x14 is about as much as I personally am able to enlarge 35mm to while getting satisfactory prints. 6x6 or 6x7 enlarges easily to 16x20 and looks better in 11x14, even 8x10 but with the right negative I am completely satisfied with what I can print from 35mm to 8x10 or 11x14 with a good film and technique.

That said, on a trip there is something to be said for getting 36 exposures per roll! If you are planning out some special shots for that 16x20 then 8-12 shots per roll is OK, even a single shot or two but if you're travelling you may see a lot and then it is easier to carry 35mm. Convenience can go a long way while travelling.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I already knew the article cited by Thomas. It is interesting indeed, but I think it has a basic flow, maybe, in the fact that for 35mm they used a Carl Zeiss Tessar T* lens (multicoated, a modern lens) while with the Hasselblad they used a Carl Zeiss Tessar lens, not multi-coated, which means a decades-old lens. Add to this that the 35mm was not used at full aperture while the Hasselblad lens was tested at f/5.6, its full aperture, and full aperture is probably where the lack of coating is more noticeable. If there are decades of difference in the technology to produce the lenses, the results lose some scientific value. They remain, I think, quite interesting and thought-provoking.\

I'd like to put this to bed, but the lenses used were 50mm Planar f/1.4 T* for 35mm, and 80mm Planar f/2.8 for MF. Both were stopped down two and four stops for the test.
There never was an 80mm Planar f/5.6 for Hasselblad.

But whatever. It doesn't really matter. I am happy if I can help a few out of a bunch of photographers realize that perhaps they don't have to step up to a larger format in order to make larger prints that they are entirely happy with. That's the case for me, and 14x18" prints from either Acros processed in replenished Xtol (almost no grain and very sharp) AND Delta 3200 processed in Rodinal look fantastic to me. If I had a darkroom with a higher ceiling, and an APO enlarging lens, I would have no qualms about going bigger yet.

Small prints are beautiful. Big ones can be beautiful too. Regardless of format. In my humble opinion.

 

[MattKing]

This really just re-states what has been posted before, but I think it is worth saying again.

When enlarging to something like 11x14, the process of printing from a 35mm negative makes much higher demands on the original photographer and printer's skill and his/her material and equipment than the process of printing from, for example, a 6x4.5 negative.

A 6x4.5 negative can be much more forgiving than a 35mm negative. IMHO, forgiveness encourages learning and confidence, so I would encourage those who have shot and printed from 35mm to try medium format.

 

[Diapositivo]

I'd like to put this to bed, but the lenses used were 50mm Planar f/1.4 T* for 35mm, and 80mm Planar f/2.8 for MF. Both were stopped down two and four stops for the test.
There never was an 80mm Planar f/5.6 for Hasselblad.

You are right. There is a typographic error in the text, when it says:

The MTF measurements were made with different apertures for each lens: Planar T* 50/1.4 at f2.8 and f5.6; Planar 80/5.6 at f5.6 and f11; and Sironar 150/5.6 at f11 and f22.


But in fact in a previous paragraph it states it's a Planar 80/2.8. So, no full aperture, but no T* just the same.

 

[Diapositivo]

If I had a darkroom with a higher ceiling, and an APO enlarging lens, I would have no qualms about going bigger yet.

This thread reminds me of the film Blow up, by Michelangelo Antonioni, both for the extreme enlargement with detail obtainable from a 35mm, and for the original theme of a person not wanting to be photographed (with the difference that, in the film, the photographer actually takes pictures of a couple in the park). The protagonist made enlargements by projecting on the wall, he had a big obscure chamber naturally.

PS Doh, the thread with the person not wanting to be photographed is another one.

 

[bblhed]

Here's where I'm coming from, I own several medium format cameras 3 folders, a twin lens fixed focus, and Pentax 6X7. I like medium format and what it can do for me, but I also know my limits.

I'm with everyone that says to just use the 35mm that you know and love, pick the film you know gives the finest grain and the color or tonal response you want use that. Also you might want to get a tripod and a remote release of some type.

If you really are interested in Medium format, get your hands on something in the under $50 range like a Zeiss folding camera that you can put in your (big) pocket and try it out with some B&W film you can process yourself. This will be a fun way to get into medium format and if you don't like the format you can keep the camera and just shoot it for fun now and then. Folding cameras are a lot of fun for snapshots if for no other reason, just for the looks you get from people when you are taking the photo.

 

[pharmboycu]

Wow... so much to process here. I've gotten some great advice and I'm trying to sift through it all.

I think for now I'll stick with the 35mm that I'm comfortable with. I'll probably end up using either the Pentax K1000 or the Canon F1 and A1. Please don't laugh at my choices-- I feel very comfortable with the K1000 and more confident with it. I feel I get better photographs with it that I do with either of the Canons. Yes, that's probably my learning curve not being up to par, but it's more enjoyable and I think I get a higher percentage of keepers with it.

I'll probably be carrying Ektachrome 100VS, Ektar 100, Neopan Acros 100, a special roll of Pan-X, and a roll of Kodachrome 25 and 64 (I live on hope that maybe someday I can get it processed) as well as the tripod.

I should probably ask this in the 35mm section, but as it is related to my trip and my selections, I hope ya'll will allow me a little latitude in misplacement for the sake of continuity. With the Pan-X, being that it expired in 1987 (been frozen since then), should I shoot at box speed (32) or rate it at 25 or 64? I'm a little confused as to if any compensation is necessary and whether I'd need to over or under expose the film.

Thanks again. I really do appreciate the info, even if it takes me a while to get back here and take it all in.

John

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think for now I'll stick with the 35mm that I'm comfortable with. I'll probably end up using either the Pentax K1000 or the Canon F1 and A1. Please don't laugh at my choices-- I feel very comfortable with the K1000 and more confident with it. I feel I get better photographs with it that I do with either of the Canons. Yes, that's probably my learning curve not being up to par, but it's more enjoyable and I think I get a higher percentage of keepers with it.

I think that you made a wise choice, you can enter MF after and take your time to make the best choice. People here will push their own agenda, but you need to find what feels good in your hands and what you can afford.

Steve

 

[Ric Trexell]

I made a simple mistake with a medium format.

Dear Pharmboy: I was trying out a RB67 Pro S that I bought to back up my other RB and took a shot of a big house. While checking it out in the viewfinder I decided to turn the back to the vertical position. I took two shots and was putting the camera a way when I noticed I had the lever for double exposure in the d/e mode. That is an example of what happens when you are using a camera that you are not all the familiar with. I put the camera back on the tripod and did it right and got a nice shot. Had I not noticed that and been 10 miles from the main road, I would have been really boiling mad. Mistakes will happen with any camera, but that shows the need to learn your camera. I would take both a 35mm and a MF and shoot a shot with each. If the MF turns out better, great, and if it doesn't, then the 35 will save the day. Have fun whatever you do.

 

[michaelbsc]

The biggest improvement you can make in your final output will be to use a tripod, with the "better" 35mm films with care you can make fine 16x20 prints.<br />
<br />
Marty

Sometime a few years ago there was a long discussion about lenses and image quality.

Maris, whether you love or hate his beliefs, made what I found to be the definitive statement. His claim is that the sharpest lens in your bag is the tripod. He's right.

 

[Ottrdaemmerung]

Pharm: Films tend to lose speed slightly as they age, so you'd bump down the rating on your camera, i.e. from 32 down to 25. B&W films deteriorate much more slowly than color, though, so 32 might be just fine anyhow. Bracket if you have any doubt.

No laughing here about your K-1000! I have one myself and although it's not glamorous in the least, it's a workhorse. Like the others said, put it on a tripod.

 

[EricO]

The one thing I can say is that having a new MF toy to play with could raise your level of excitement for photography that could last for another 3-4 years. I love my 35 mm cameras but I'm very excited about the MF camera that I bought 5 years ago and I'm always waiting for the next opportunity to use it or always looking for something new to purchase for it.

Eric

Wow... so much to process here. I've gotten some great advice and I'm trying to sift through it all.

I think for now I'll stick with the 35mm that I'm comfortable with. I'll probably end up using either the Pentax K1000 or the Canon F1 and A1. Please don't laugh at my choices-- I feel very comfortable with the K1000 and more confident with it. I feel I get better photographs with it that I do with either of the Canons. Yes, that's probably my learning curve not being up to par, but it's more enjoyable and I think I get a higher percentage of keepers with it.

I'll probably be carrying Ektachrome 100VS, Ektar 100, Neopan Acros 100, a special roll of Pan-X, and a roll of Kodachrome 25 and 64 (I live on hope that maybe someday I can get it processed) as well as the tripod.

I should probably ask this in the 35mm section, but as it is related to my trip and my selections, I hope ya'll will allow me a little latitude in misplacement for the sake of continuity. With the Pan-X, being that it expired in 1987 (been frozen since then), should I shoot at box speed (32) or rate it at 25 or 64? I'm a little confused as to if any compensation is necessary and whether I'd need to over or under expose the film.

Thanks again. I really do appreciate the info, even if it takes me a while to get back here and take it all in.

John

 

[vpwphoto]

One of my favorite photographers uses a K1000 and 50mm
No shame...
The F-1n is so satisfying with it's precision and silky smooth action.

 

[KarnyDoc]

Hi everyone--

(snipped)

2) I do not currently own a medium format camera. In searching the various threads I've seen recommendations for Yahsicas, Rolleiflexes, Fujis, etc. Is there a particular model that would be well suited for someone in my situation-- who knows the basics of 35mm photograpy but has yet to work with medium format? I'm interested in the Fuji 6X9, but they are cost prohibitive at this point.

Thanks for being willing to share with a newbie!

John

Having moved from 35mm to MF myself a few years ago, I can offer this observation, following the 2005 eBay purchase of my Hasselblad 500C/M (I'd long wanted a Hassy, and I finally had the ability to buy one).

It is both familiar and alien. Much of your knowledge in 35mm will transfer to MF, but at the same time, you'll have to scale up your sense of reference because the image size is so much larger.

While one will generally find 35mm accessories' larger cousins in MF, there are also others not found in 35mm, such as removable film backs, darkslides, etc. For those that have an equivalent in 35mm, the accessories will cost more.

Those are just a couple of thoughts.

Dieter Zakas

 

[DaveO]

MF Cameras

If you want to try MF Photography you might look into Yashica Mat 124 cameras. Make sure that they have Yashinon lenses though since they are Yashica's best. Probably about $ 150-250. If you want to spend a bit more, look into the Rolleicords with the xenar or tessar lens. There's probably not much difference in quality in the photos, but the build quality of the Rollei is better and so is the resale value.

DaveO

 

[TareqPhoto]

Go with MF, doesn't matter which system as long you use one, but i really recommend you to go with 6x7 or 6x9, 6x4.5 is not that much appealing even i don't use one yet, i did shoot few outdoor shots with my Fuji GSW960III, amazing and damn sharp. One day i wish to have an enlarger [or a dr... sca......].

 

[BrianL]

The K-1000 is a very fine camera body. Absolutely nothing wrong with a basic camera. The key is the lenses. Pentax made some extremely fine lenses, I preferred them to the Canons as a general rule. Here is a suggestion. Take one of the 35mm cameras either the Pentax or Canon and build a single branded 35mm system around it. Much better than multiple brand systems as there is too much of a risk of overlap. Concentrate on learning with the single system especially the quality of the lenses and pick a couple of films to learn with and concentrate on their characteristics. Don't become a slave to equipment. While it may make a good photo slightly better, only you can make a good photograph. Concentrate on learning and teaching your eye and mind to the art.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The K-1000 is a very fine camera body. Absolutely nothing wrong with a basic camera. The key is the lenses. Pentax made some extremely fine lenses, I preferred them to the Canons as a general rule. Here is a suggestion. Take one of the 35mm cameras either the Pentax or Canon and build a single branded 35mm system around it. Much better than multiple brand systems as there is too much of a risk of overlap. Concentrate on learning with the single system especially the quality of the lenses and pick a couple of films to learn with and concentrate on their characteristics. Don't become a slave to equipment. While it may make a good photo slightly better, only you can make a good photograph. Concentrate on learning and teaching your eye and mind to the art.

Very well spoken! Being intimately knowledgeable of one's equipment is much more important than chasing silver bullets. Hard work pays off, as usual.
I always think of Friedlander, Cartier-Bresson, Gibson, and Salgado when people speak of the need to switch cameras to make better prints. I really don't think any of the above photographers would make better photographs with medium format cameras. The ultimate print quality is, to me, a secondary thing and not nearly as important as capturing wonders of a moment, conveying emotion, intelligence, or importance. And I believe that 35mm is good enough to do all of that.
Personally I use 35mm because I like what I can accomplish with the lenses (and I hope to get better at it with time). I use 6x6 because I like that format as well from a framing standpoint, and also what the lenses do. I don't pick one over the other to increase print quality; I try to pick what's appropriate for a certain situation.

 

[Sirius Glass]

One of the gems in this thread is that there are a number of all mechanical [except the light meter] cameras are available. Any one of them is a good place to start.

Another gem is:

I try to pick what's appropriate for a certain situation.

 

[pharmboycu]

The K-1000 is a very fine camera body. Absolutely nothing wrong with a basic camera. The key is the lenses. Pentax made some extremely fine lenses, I preferred them to the Canons as a general rule. Here is a suggestion. Take one of the 35mm cameras either the Pentax or Canon and build a single branded 35mm system around it. Much better than multiple brand systems as there is too much of a risk of overlap. Concentrate on learning with the single system especially the quality of the lenses and pick a couple of films to learn with and concentrate on their characteristics. Don't become a slave to equipment. While it may make a good photo slightly better, only you can make a good photograph. Concentrate on learning and teaching your eye and mind to the art.

That is EXCELLENT advice that I WILL take to heart. My favorites are the K1000 and my Canon F1. Fortunately, both systems can be had for relatively inexpensive prices now. At this point, I feel most confident with the K1000, so I will build my system around that. It feels good in my hand and is very intuitive to use. (The match/needle of the F1 throws me for a loop sometimes.) While it may not have the reputation of the F1, I'd much rather take photographs with something I am truly confident with. Even if they're not professional quality, the result will be more pleasing to MY eyes and if anyone else happens to like the results, great.

Thank you again!

John

 

[pharmboycu]

One of my favorite photographers uses a K1000 and 50mm
No shame...
The F-1n is so satisfying with it's precision and silky smooth action.

May I ask which photographer uses the K1000 and 50mm lens? I'd love to see some examples of what can be done with this combo for inspiration.

Thanks!

John