Three things I wish someone would have told me when I started MF...

Jay Decker · Oct 28, 2015

While I absolutely love medium format photography today, my learning curve was a bumpy ride. After relating my story to someone recently, I was asked what I wish I had been told when got into MF and here's what I told them...

Medium Format for Portraits: SLR or TLR, but not RF.

While you might love shooting tight portraits with your 35mm rangefinder and 90mm lens, there is nothing equivalent for portraits in medium format rangefinders. The MF rangefinders are great cameras, but simply do not focus close enough for tight portraits. Cried my eyes out when I got rid of a Mamiya 7ii and Bronica rf645, but they just didn't cut it portrait-wise.

The good new for me was that a TLR with close-up lens attachment, e.g., a Rolleinar, works great for a (relatively) small and light MF camera that fits in a small bag and that takes wonderful photos. I use a couple of old Rollei 2.8C cameras and Rolleinars, and if I did it again today I'd probably save a few bucks and buy f/3.5 models, or even find a nice Yashica Mat 124 with a close up lens (a razor sharp lens is not always appreciated for portraits).

Loading 220 Film on Developing Reels can be Difficult: Hewes 220 Reels Work Best for Me

A number of people gave me their old MF film - Yay! A lot of that free film was 220. I had a 220 back for the Bronica SQ, so I went and a shot a roll.

After fumbling in the dark for 30 minutes trying to load that 220 film on a stainless steel reel that I had, I put the exposed film in a light proof container, and then sacrificed a roll of 220 to practice loading the film in the light. To make a longer story shorter, I never got that exposed roll of 220 film on that reel. Vince Donovan turned me on to the Hewes reels and I've learned to load the Hewes reels.

Shoot Some Color When You Start: MF C-41 Color is Pretty Awesome

Based upon the proportion of B&W images in the APUG galleries, most of us are B&W photographers. I wish that I would have started shooting color when started MF. There are two things that eventually prompted me to start shooting color, my daughters red hair and autumn colors in the mountains. There might be more colorful autumns in my future, but I missed capturing a little girl with red hair on MF film. Both make it worth mixing up Tetenal C-41 Press Kit chemistry or sending film to color labs (the last decent lab in my area closed) a few times a year. Give MF color a try, it is a lot of fun!

Hopefully this might help someone. Please feel free to add anything that you wish someone would have told you when you got into MF photography.

gzinsel · Oct 29, 2015

ya, i suppose, , , , someone should have informed me of . . . . . "something(s)" too, but in the end its all a learning experience.The catch is .. . . to try to "collect" as many as possible. hence your idea of people telling you in advance of your trial period. I use to agree with that approach, but increasingly, due to mu own idiosyncratic nature. Its just best if I work it out myself, on my own terms. I feel I get something out of it. IDK, may be i am the idiot!!!! for wanting to do it "7, the hard way"!!

Slixtiesix · Oct 29, 2015

Absolutely know what you´re talking about in the last point. I too discovered mf color photography too late, but slides in my case.

coigach · Oct 29, 2015

Excellent, particularly the RF observations.

anfenglin · Oct 29, 2015

MF slides are so amazing, those vibrant colors, the depth and sharpness are truly a sight to behold. Unbelievably great. Last year I shot a roll of Velvia 100 in the autumn in the sun and I spent half an hour with the roll on my light pad. Yeah, slides are expensive, but why buy lenses and cameras for thousands of (insert currency here) and then skimp on proper films.
Negative films are great too, though sometimes I think they are a bit boring.

gone · Oct 29, 2015

I had the same issue w/ portraits. Just crop w/ the TLR, no close up filters needed. But yes, a SLR is always better than a rangefinder for that, as you see what you get. There's plenty of negative on a 6x6 image to do crop with.

I would even recommend moving away from the Rolleiflex cameras (and especially the Japanese 4 element lenses, as they are too sharp and have bokeh that can be weird or harsh) and using a Rolleicord w/ Triotar lens for that sort of thing. That what portrait photographers prized when the cameras were new, and I find that Triotar to be a killer portrait lens.

narsuitus · Oct 29, 2015

I wish I had been told not to waste years shooting black & white with 35mm because medium format was so much better.

wy2l · Oct 29, 2015

Don't have to worry about loading 220 into reels...

paul ron · Oct 29, 2015

Im sure someone told you but you ignored the advice. Im guilty!

RalphLambrecht · Oct 29, 2015

I wish someone would have told me not to expect the same quality jump,I saw from 35mm to MF, when going from MF to LF, I should have saved my LF investment and put it into MF gear instead.Also, I didn't realize how difficult it was to focus a Hasselblad properly;lots of practise and bright focus screens required.

sagai · Oct 29, 2015

My C330 with standard lense has a close up of about 20ish cm, I don't think if more might needed.

railwayman3 · Oct 29, 2015

anfenglin said:
MF slides are so amazing, those vibrant colors, the depth and sharpness are truly a sight to behold. Unbelievably great. Last year I shot a roll of Velvia 100 in the autumn in the sun and I spent half an hour with the roll on my light pad. Yeah, slides are expensive, but why buy lenses and cameras for thousands of (insert currency here) and then skimp on proper films.
Negative films are great too, though sometimes I think they are a bit boring.

Yes, I wish someone had advised me, when I started serious photography, that I should use MF rather than 35mm. If I now had one-fifth the number of good MF negs and slides than the present number of 35mm ones I have taken over the years, I'd be quite content. The MF format shots which I have taken are far better in technical quality and more satisfying pictorially, simply because one is conscious of the extra cost of material and processing, take more time and care in setting up shots, and
aren't tempted to take two of three shots of a subject just for-the-sake-of-it. Even now my wastage rate on MF is far less than on 35mm !

Jay Decker · Oct 29, 2015

paul ron said:
Im sure someone told you but you ignored the advice. Im guilty!

That is very true. Someone once told me to find out what the people are using that take the kind of photos that l like and let that inform my selections. If I would have noticed that the Mamyia 7 was used for beautiful landscape shots and not portraits, I could have saved myself a lot of time.

RalphLambrecht said:
I wish someone would have told me not to expect the same quality jump,I saw from 35mm to MF, when going from MF to LF, I should have saved my LF investment and put it into MF gear instead.Also, I didn't realize how difficult it was to focus a Hasselblad properly;lots of practise and bright focus screens required.

The quality jump from 35mm to MF was the quantum leap for me too. I am amazed how well 16x20 prints from MF negatives hold up against the same size prints from my LF 8x10 negatives.

For focusing, a 45 degree prism finder was tool I needed to achieve consistently accurate focus.

Jay Decker · Oct 29, 2015

narsuitus said:
I wish I had been told not to waste years shooting black & white with 35mm because medium format was so much better.

Amen!

But, at the very beginning, my photography was dreadful. It took me hundreds of rolls of 35mm before I even started to see 2D in our 3D world and through the conversion of the image in my brain to film (film does not resolve relative subject brightness values like our brains do). But, for the few photos I did accidentally stumble into a good shot, it would have been great to have captured those on MF film...

mweintraub · Oct 29, 2015

railwayman3 said:
Yes, I wish someone had advised me, when I started serious photography, that I should use MF rather than 35mm. If I now had one-fifth the number of good MF negs and slides than the present number of 35mm ones I have taken over the years, I'd be quite content. The MF format shots which I have taken are far better in technical quality and more satisfying pictorially, simply because one is conscious of the extra cost of material and processing, take more time and care in setting up shots, and
aren't tempted to take two of three shots of a subject just for-the-sake-of-it. Even now my wastage rate on MF is far less than on 35mm !

Is this because you spend more time setting up the shots? I know that's what it is for me.

railwayman3 · Oct 29, 2015

mweintraub said:
Is this because you spend more time setting up the shots? I know that's what it is for me.

Exactly. And perhaps because it's too easy to slip a 35mm point-and-shoot in my pocket or in the car whenever I'm out, but to take the MF outfit, plus tripod, is more likely to be a definite decision to have a few hours devoted solely to "serious" picture-taking.

TheFlyingCamera · Oct 29, 2015

momus said:
I had the same issue w/ portraits. Just crop w/ the TLR, no close up filters needed. But yes, a SLR is always better than a rangefinder for that, as you see what you get. There's plenty of negative on a 6x6 image to do crop with.

I would even recommend moving away from the Rolleiflex cameras (and especially the Japanese 4 element lenses, as they are too sharp and have bokeh that can be weird or harsh) and using a Rolleicord w/ Triotar lens for that sort of thing. That what portrait photographers prized when the cameras were new, and I find that Triotar to be a killer portrait lens.

Well... if you REALLY want to do portraits with a Rollei, you get a Tele-Rollei and the 0.35 Rolleinar. Best of all worlds- nice close focus, sharp where you want it, smooth where you don't. And it really gives that little extra bit of pop to the "3D effect" from shallow depth-of-field.

ac12 · Oct 29, 2015

THINK when you load the film into a Hasselblad back, or any other back.
I went on autopilot and loaded a back, and it came out BLANK. The best the camera shop owner and I could figure out was that I must have loaded the film backwards, as if I was loading a TLR, so the paper ended up facing the lens rather than the film.....duh.

Practice loading new film first with a dummy roll in daylight.
Only when you are proficient, then load exposed film.

Not all stainless steel reels are the same, some are garbage and are DIFFICULT to load. And it is sometimes very hard to see the difference.
When you run into a troublesome reel, get rid of it. It is either a JUNK reel or a damaged one, and not worth the hassle and trouble it will give you.
I've used the old Honeywell Nikor reels for 40+ years; 35mm and 120.

Ko.Fe. · Oct 29, 2015

May be for OP, but for me close up, framed with limited space portraits ain't priority in MF.

If someone wants 6x9 (makes MF even more unique as media format), RFs and SFs are fine and only cameras for it.

C-41 kit, lab... If you haven't done printing from MF under enlarger, you haven't seen and done it yet as MF. Color or not, doesn't matter. The final darkroom print is.

And what is the big deal with 220? Can't control yourself with 120 # of frames?

Alan Gales · Oct 29, 2015

If the camera doesn't work, check to see if you forgot to remove the dark slide ya big dummy!

xya · Oct 29, 2015

momus said:
I had the same issue w/ portraits. Just crop w/ the TLR, no close up filters needed. But yes, a SLR is always better than a rangefinder for that, as you see what you get. There's plenty of negative on a 6x6 image to do crop with.

I would even recommend moving away from the Rolleiflex cameras (and especially the Japanese 4 element lenses, as they are too sharp and have bokeh that can be weird or harsh) and using a Rolleicord w/ Triotar lens for that sort of thing. That what portrait photographers prized when the cameras were new, and I find that Triotar to be a killer portrait lens.

not sure about SLR being better. you don't see the moment, i.e. if an person winks or so. TLR with a parallax indicator as the mamiya C models are wonderful for portraits, not even a lot of cropping necessary. and no close-up lenses, as there is a choice of appropriate lenses...

M Carter · Oct 29, 2015

I had a friend who was an AD at Neiman Marcus in the 90's, and she mentioned that for knits and textured fall apparel their shooters were doing C41 and printing, and the prints went on the (new-ish at the time) flatbed prepress scanners (vs. E6 on drums). She said the detail they were getting was amazing, and made it all the way to the print runs.

I shot some stuff for Joan Vass in that period - all high-end knits - and gave it a try with my RB and 180 lens. It was pretty cool, and I'd never shot C41 with that camera, just E6. Did a whole book with C41, very cool but a little hard for the clients used to light tables and magnifiers...

ColColt · Oct 29, 2015

I can identify with trying to load 220 in the dark on plastic reels...120 for that matter. It's not as easy as loading 35mm but I usually get there. What's nerve racking is when you fumble and drop the film and then search frantically in the dark trying to find it without stepping on it. Is there a witness in the house today?

markbarendt · Oct 29, 2015

Good advice Jay.

Black Dog · Oct 29, 2015

anfenglin said:
MF slides are so amazing, those vibrant colors, the depth and sharpness are truly a sight to behold. Unbelievably great. Last year I shot a roll of Velvia 100 in the autumn in the sun and I spent half an hour with the roll on my light pad. Yeah, slides are expensive, but why buy lenses and cameras for thousands of (insert currency here) and then skimp on proper films.
Negative films are great too, though sometimes I think they are a bit boring.

That reminds me-I need to pack all my exposed Provia off to be processed (+1 on what you say by the way).

Three things I wish someone would have told me when I started MF...

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency