Motivation for shooting MF

[xtolsniffer]

I may be having an existential crisis, so forgive the slight rambling, but I would be interested in your views...

I started off with 35mm, and I still very much enjoy using that format, especially the older more mechanical cameras such as the Nikon F2. Quite a few years ago at the height of the digital-dump I picked up an RB67 which had always been my dream camera. Over the years I found I wasn't using it as much as I expected due to the bulk and weight, so picked up a rather broken Mamiya C330 which I fixed and really enjoyed using, not just for the camera but for the conversations you got into with people when using it.

Just recently I've been looking at the images I have shot at both 35mm and 6x6; during lock-down in the UK this often resulted in similar images of the same things within the limited range from home that we were allowed to go. I tend to print to 10x8 or 12x16 in my darkroom so grain from the HP5+ that I use in both formats is pretty visible in the 35mm shots. What I have found is that I rather like grain from the 35mm, it looks more, for want of a better word, 'authentic', and I wasn't sure what I was really getting from using MF.

Have I lost my MF mojo? What is it about shooting MF that gets you going? Is it the process, the cameras, the image quality? If it's image quality, what aspects of MF images get you excited? Just curious...

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I may be having an existential crisis, so forgive the slight rambling, but I would be interested in your views...

I started off with 35mm, and I still very much enjoy using that format, especially the older more mechanical cameras such as the Nikon F2. Quite a few years ago at the height of the digital-dump I picked up an RB67 which had always been my dream camera. Over the years I found I wasn't using it as much as I expected due to the bulk and weight, so picked up a rather broken Mamiya C330 which I fixed and really enjoyed using, not just for the camera but for the conversations you got into with people when using it.

Just recently I've been looking at the images I have shot at both 35mm and 6x6; during lock-down in the UK this often resulted in similar images of the same things within the limited range from home that we were allowed to go. I tend to print to 10x8 or 12x16 in my darkroom so grain from the HP5+ that I use in both formats is pretty visible in the 35mm shots. What I have found is that I rather like grain from the 35mm, it looks more, for want of a better word, 'authentic', and I wasn't sure what I was really getting from using MF.

Have I lost my MF mojo? What is it about shooting MF that gets you going? Is it the process, the cameras, the image quality? If it's image quality, what aspects of MF images get you excited? Just curious...

to me the jump in image quality from 35mm to MF is enormous. I expected a similar jump from MF to LF but, there was none. to meMF is the ideal compromise between weight, complexity and image quality. If I could have only one camera, it would be my Hasselblad 501c.

 

[Don_ih]

I like the lenses for medium format. With a longer lens, such as an 80mm, in the larger format, you get a picture that you can't really get in 35mm, particularly where you focus on a subject as separate from a scene. I don't care much about grain (whether it's there or not). You just get a different-looking kind of photo with medium format. (And, yes, I know that you can use an 80mm on 35mm and get practically an identical, but cropped to 35mm, image. It's the fact that it's not cropped in 6xWhatever.)

 

[Craig75]

I have to say im am interested in testing out Henning's own test that a slow 35mm film with one of the latest highend optics can keep pace with mf.

I can see the point of mf back on a 5x4 for movements but if i am able to wring out mf quality from a 35mm and also make more grainy images too then that sounds a game changer to me

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Try color transparencies or b&w reversal in medium format... maybe even project them.

Contact printing also becomes viable once in MF territory. Mix and match multiple frames and play with the layout to create your picture instead of enlarging a single frame.

Basically, take advantage of the physical size of the format. The MF (or even LF) 'look' can usually be duplicated on an arbitrarily smaller format with the correct subject & exposure parameters are dialed in. One of the most 'large format'-looking galleries of images I've ever saw were created by a gent photographing model train scenery with a Coolpix 950 (1/2" sensor).

 

[Alan9940]

I really enjoy the square format which contributes to my shooting experience with the Hasselblad or Rolleiflex. I also appreciate the portability of it vs my LF outfits.

 

[Dan Daniel]

It sounds as if you enjoy shooting a medium format camera more than shooting 35mm, but you like the look from 35mm negatives more than you like the look from medium format. Here's the camera for you!

https://www.shutterbug.com/content/twin-lens-contaflex-35mm-tlr

HP5 has a great look with its grain. I would shoot what excites you. I like the 'clarity' of medium format, detail and such. I certainly appreciate what others do where grain is integral to the image.

In the first issue of Aperture magazine, Minor White wrote an essay about 'post-visulaization.' Poking some fun at his friend Ansel Adams, his idea was that a valid approach to photography was to shoot as inspired without the need for excessive planning and forethought. Then sort out the resulting images and see what resonates, etc. This was written when 35mm was just starting to make inroads in the 'art' photo world (1954?). I think Robert Frank's 28,000(?) negatives edited down to 83 images is an example of the change in photography in the '50s.

So- you like grain. You might like being able to shoot with less concern over each time you fire the shutter. Maybe medium format is simply not the format for you.

 

[xtolsniffer]

Thanks for the thoughts everyone - really interesting perspectives.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

HP5 has a great look with its grain. I would shoot what excites you. I like the 'clarity' of medium format, detail and such. I certainly appreciate what others do where grain is integral to the image.

Aggressively agitated Delta 3200 in rodinal perhaps?

 

[xtolsniffer]

Aggressively agitated Delta 3200 in rodinal perhaps?

Done that! It does have an interesting look...

 

[itsdoable]

Back in the film days, MF gave a nicer tonal range than 35mm with B&W, and printed better. With transparencies, it was the same, but with colour - and printed on CibaChrome, or projected, was unmatched by 35mm. But it's very content specific - most sports and subjects with action or motion was not that different on 35mm.

Today, it's more the process and tactile feel of the mechanics of MF film equipment, because I can get the same image look (DoF, tone, resolution) with FF digital. I just like shooting film. LF however, is a different story...

 

[BrianShaw]

“Back in the film days…”.

For some of us we are still in the film days along with the newer imaging technology too!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Like most people here, I started off with 35mm, but I really didn't cut my teeth in photography until I tried medium format (C330). That is when I started to take photography more seriously. Then quickly I jumped to large format...4x5 then to 10x8. I used LF 99.9% of the time for many years, rarely using the RB. Over the last few years, I've reaquainted myself with the RB so much so that I've bought another lens, prism finder, and film back (nice to have three now!). My time now spent with both formats is about 50/50. Optics are fantastic with the RB. Being more mobile is the other aspect.

 

[narsuitus]

What is it about shooting MF that gets you going? Is it the process, the cameras, the image quality? If it's image quality, what aspects of MF images get you excited? Just curious...

I began my photographic career with my father's medium format camera. I used medium format for years before I used a 35mm small format camera. I primarily used small format for newspaper work and medium format for weddings and portraits. The detail and tonality of medium format images (6x6, 6x7, 6x9, and 6x12) really excites me.

 

[Paul Howell]

Like most I I shot MF for the increased IQ, in the 60s and early 70s film was, well more primitive in terms of grain and resolution. When I was freelancing for several book publishers, cover, author photos, and related shots for publicity they required 6X6 or larger. Over the years as film has improved, Tmax 100 and 400 I have shot less and less 4X5, a 6X9 negative is good way past how large I am able to print.

 

[wiltw]

I chose 645 for professional purposes decades back. I largely abandoned 135 format for professional purposes, and brought it out only when the fastest lenses combined with ISO400 film could accomplish the shot in limited light circumstances (and no flash was possible for whatever circumstantial reasons). The reasons for 645 were the classically touted benefits, which are exactly the opposite of why you like 135!

1. 645 neg requires 1.7X less enlargement to make same size print, making grain 2.89X less apparent in area
2. 2.89X more grains/color clouds per subject area, resulting in better tonality and color gradations

Typically, in the past classically photographers have found 16X enlargements the max that they or clients can look at without complaints about 'too grainy'... that means 16" tall prints from 135 vs. 27" prints from 645 or 35" prints from 6x7.

In addition, 645 negs could be hand retouched to remove blemishes or other subject imperfections that a client might wish to have removed from their wall print.

 

[Pieter12]

I shoot Hp5+ in MF and process in Rodinal, giving me a nice, crisp grain that is not obtrusive. But what I really appreciate in (non-RF) MF is the large viewfinder, allowing more careful, studied composition.

 

[Don_ih]

It is absolutely possible to have an absolutely identical image with any image circle diameter (aka negative format).

You're wrong.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I may be having an existential crisis, so forgive the slight rambling, but I would be interested in your views...

I started off with 35mm, and I still very much enjoy using that format, especially the older more mechanical cameras such as the Nikon F2. Quite a few years ago at the height of the digital-dump I picked up an RB67 which had always been my dream camera. Over the years I found I wasn't using it as much as I expected due to the bulk and weight, so picked up a rather broken Mamiya C330 which I fixed and really enjoyed using, not just for the camera but for the conversations you got into with people when using it.

Just recently I've been looking at the images I have shot at both 35mm and 6x6; during lock-down in the UK this often resulted in similar images of the same things within the limited range from home that we were allowed to go. I tend to print to 10x8 or 12x16 in my darkroom so grain from the HP5+ that I use in both formats is pretty visible in the 35mm shots. What I have found is that I rather like grain from the 35mm, it looks more, for want of a better word, 'authentic', and I wasn't sure what I was really getting from using MF.

Have I lost my MF mojo? What is it about shooting MF that gets you going? Is it the process, the cameras, the image quality? If it's image quality, what aspects of MF images get you excited? Just curious...

I like the heft of my RB67.

 

[moto-uno]

I can't remark on the apparent theory in reference to identical photos on the 2 formats , but I sure as hell can see the difference
in an enlargement anywhere near 12x16 . Peter

 

[Sirius Glass]

I like the larger negative, but the larger view finder image lets me pick out and eliminate unwanted details in the background. That results in better photographs.

 

[wiltw]

'You're wrong!"

"No, you're wrong!"

Let me contribute to this arghument...
If you put a 72mm FL lens on 135, and you put a 129mm FL on 645 (both lens FL= 3*vertical frame size), and the light meters ISO250, 1/250 f/5.6, and focus on a 5' tall subject at 20' with a 60' tall background object at 200'

1. The 135 format frames 6.6' x 9.9' at 20', and frames 66.6' x 99.9' at 200', while Tthe 645 format frames 6.6' x 8.2' at 20', and frames 66.6' x 83.3' at 200'. IOW they frame the same vertical but only due to aspect ratio difference of frame they frame different horizontal distance, yet with identical 'perspective' (relationship of primary subject to its surroundings). If both negs were printed on 8"x10" paper, they could appear identical in framing and perspective and area framed (since 135 has to be cropped to fill 8" x 10")
2. The 135 format has 8.7' of DOF at f/5.6 while the 645 format has 4.5' of DOF at f/5.6, due to the long FL need by larger format for 'same FOV'. The aperture would need to be 1.7x smaller on 645 for DOF to be the same 8.7' deep.
3. Both formats expose ISO 250 at 1/250 f/5.6...there is no difference in exposure for different formats ('the photographer has no need to count photons.)

 

[braxus]

I love using all my medium format gear. I use it the most out of all the formats. 35mm is second and 4x5 third. Medium format is the perfect compromise between quality and economy. Some of the cameras work just as much in features like a newer 35mm SLR. And the fact you get less frames per roll, means I don't have to blow off so many shots before I can develop the roll. I still use 35mm, but very limited on that today. I just like using 120 film, no matter which medium format camera I decide to use for the day. Film options for 120 are almost as good as 35mm, and the price per roll is about the same. And the quality of the negatives is so much better then 35mm. 4x5 has its uses, but its slow to use, and when Im not able to shoot at that pace, I dont use it. But 4x5 is a format where the quality is above what is really needed for the shot. Medium format is good enough in most cases.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

It sounds as if you enjoy shooting a medium format camera more than shooting 35mm, but you like the look from 35mm negatives more than you like the look from medium format. Here's the camera for you!

https://www.shutterbug.com/content/twin-lens-contaflex-35mm-tlr

HP5 has a great look with its grain. I would shoot what excites you. I like the 'clarity' of medium format, detail and such. I certainly appreciate what others do where grain is integral to the image.

In the first issue of Aperture magazine, Minor White wrote an essay about 'post-visulaization.' Poking some fun at his friend Ansel Adams, his idea was that a valid approach to photography was to shoot as inspired without the need for excessive planning and forethought. Then sort out the resulting images and see what resonates, etc. This was written when 35mm was just starting to make inroads in the 'art' photo world (1954?). I think Robert Frank's 28,000(?) negatives edited down to 83 images is an example of the change in photography in the '50s.

So- you like grain. You might like being able to shoot with less concern over each time you fire the shutter. Maybe medium format is simply not the format for you.

very tempted by the camera

 

[Don_ih]

@Old Gregg --- please demonstrate it by taking two identical photos. One should be with a 35mm slr and the other should be with a Graphic View or something - both need to use lenses of the same focal length - say 28mm - actually, use the same lens.

What I originally said is the 35mm negative could only be identical to a crop of the larger format negative:

(And, yes, I know that you can use an 80mm on 35mm and get practically an identical, but cropped to 35mm, image. It's the fact that it's not cropped in 6xWhatever.)

If one image is a crop of another, they are not identical.

Everything that you pointed out, I knew. Well, except for the "more light for same exposure" for a larger format - which is wrong. Exposure is not based on the number of photons travelling through an aperture but is a ratio which more aptly would be understood as the density of those photos (number of photons per square cm) which would be the same for identical exposure settings (aperture+shutter speed) for any lens. I mean, if I need to spray a teaspoon of paint at a square inch of a wall to fully coat it, it only stands to reason I would need however many square inches the wall is multiplied by a teaspoon to spray the whole wall. That's obviously more paint but not more paint for any given square cm. So, the crop of the larger negative that would match the small negative would have the same density (if it was the same film, developed in the same way) at the same exposure settings.

I was just saying what I like about larger formats and you came along and told me I was wrong.