Trading my LF to MF gear ?

Laurent · Sep 3, 2009

This is something that bothers me at the moment (and has bothered me for the last year).

I came to LF from 35mm and found a real joy doing LF photography. However, after trading my Sinar for a Rolleiflex (and keeping the Tachihara) I discovered MF... Last year I did not bring the 4/5 gear, and discovered how happy I was with my EOS3 and Rolleiflex.

This became worst in the last year because my darkroom became operational and I discovered that an 8 by 10 print is already a very nice print, and I'm therefore not sure I need the big negatives for this (this comes also from the fact that I discovered recently that "sharpness" and "good photographs" have nothing or next to nothing to do together).

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts (especially if you actually did give up LF for MF)

mjs · Sep 3, 2009

So why does it bother you? They make different cameras for a reason -- different people use different tools to get different results. If LF isn't your bag that doesn't mean anything is "wrong" with you, it just means you have other preferences.

I shoot mostly 4x5 these days; I love 8x10 but it's just too darned expensive. I also run the occasional roll of 35mm through a camera, and my old Rolleiflex New Standard gets used enough to keep the lubricant exercised, but I didn't feel guilty last night when I grabbed the backpack with the 4x5 and headed out the door.

But then, I've always been a contrarian type. I drove an economical sedan when big trucks were all the rage; now that everyone's going to economy cars, I'm thinking I'd like a small SUV, or maybe a van...

36cm2 · Sep 3, 2009

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8330/4.3.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)

Congratulations on having enjoyed 4x5, mf and 35mm! A lot of people never get the chance or take the leap. I too use a Tach, Rolleiflex and 35mm SLR interchangeably and agree that the Rollei gives me the most enjoyment. I don't even take my best photos with it, but the fun I have using it can't be beat. That being said, I wouldn't trade my 4x5 gear for anything. There are moments/subjects that just call for a more methodical, deliberate approach. It's kind of like having a glass of red wine with an Italian dinner vs. a snifter of cognac while you build a fire on a cold night. Both great, but very different.

As for print size, MF is more than enough for me to produce the print sizes I typically print, but if you're ever going to exhibit your work, any 16x20s will be a stretch. Plus 4X5 movements just can't be beat for certain shots.

Enjoy!

keithwms · Sep 3, 2009

Use whatever works for you and be happy!

Steve Smith · Sep 3, 2009

It's an interesting question. I am more than happy with my medium format results but I am still messing around with plans for 5x4 cameras and making parts and 10x8 is still in the back of my mind.

Perhaps it's just the added eccentricity of carrying around something which looks 100 years out of date.

Steve.

reellis67 · Sep 3, 2009

Nothing wrong with sticking with what you like to use and what best fits your needs. I've gone from 35mm to 6x4.5 to 6x6to 6x7 to 4x5 to 8x10 and have finally decided that a mixture of 4x5 and 6x7 are the best tools for me. I have no regrets about giving up on the other formats, including 8x10, although I'm keeping my 8x10 Korona because of it's history, plus it looks cool . You are the one you should be trying to please, so as long as you are happy with the gear you chose don't worry about what other people are using...

- Randy

David A. Goldfarb · Sep 3, 2009

Brett Weston started shooting with a Rollei SL66 after years of working in 11x14" and found he was seeing things in new ways, so why not? Go with what's working for you.

Ian David · Sep 3, 2009

I find that my preferences for format size ebb and flow. One month I am loving 35mm, another month I am loving LF, and perhaps most frequently I am loving MF. But I personally wouldn't sell out of a format completely. Unless you are about to starve to death, just keep your LF gear for a while, and you will probably find that you will need it again at some stage. The world is littered with photographers that regret selling something they thought they no longer wanted...

Laurent · Sep 4, 2009

Thanks for your thoughts. As this is kind of poisoning me at the moment, I took the afternoon to run a simple (stupid) test : I went to one of my favourite subjects to photograph it with the 35mm on a tripod...

The first thing that struck me is (I told you this test was stupid !) that I had an issue with keystoning... I almost forgot about this, but the lack of shift makes photographing a building a bit hard... So I guess that even if I don't always need the large negative, the other features are highly desirable.

The second thing that struck me is... a rainstorm, and I'm very glad to have take the EOS, since I brought a full film of images (still to be developed) about the effects of the rain on river Loire... This would have been impossible with the Tachihara...

So this seems to close the debate for me for the moment... But I'm sure GAS will come in another form sometime in the future !

mikebarger · Sep 4, 2009

I use a 6x7 back on a cheap sinar F for MF if I need the moves and I'm not worried about portability.

Mike

sharris · Sep 4, 2009

I don't shoot LF, but is funny how I was thinking to myself about my options of Digital, 35mm and MF which is newer to me. I liked 36cm's analogy above to wine and cognac. It's certainly a luxury to be able to choose and pick up the right tool to do the job; they are all so different and lend themselves in different ways. I have to assume it's the same for LF. Sometimes the zen-like setup, contemplation and composition must be very appealing. But having a roll MF to execute and get certain results can appeal too. So don't feel guilty or badly about having the right tools. Besides, don't most carpenters have a variety of hammers, screwdrivers and such to do their jobs too? Cheers.

Pupfish · Sep 4, 2009

I'm perfectly content to continue shooting a 645 SLR for wide angle work, even though it offers few other tangible advantages over a high megapixel 35mm FF DSLR besides the big, bright beautiful prism finder viewing-- which for me is enough of a reason to stick all by itself, as this greatly helps with composition and photographic seeing. Some will make the point that this is sufficient cause to use 5x7 or 8x10 over 4x5, and I can't quibble with their argument.

jeroldharter · Sep 4, 2009

I think that the trajectory up to large format and then back to medium format is what happens as people age. Their "way of seeing" seems inversely proportional to the weight of their gear. I am half joking around but sometimes going through the thought process of working up to 8x10 is an education that allows someone to reduce format and take better photos than before, a sort of wisdom.

I generally disagree with your point about "sharpness." Sharpness does not make a good print, but it is very hard to make a good print without sharpness. It is like trying to craft a good sentence with two syllable words. Smaller formats usually result in smaller prints but not needlessly blurry prints.

Laurent · Sep 5, 2009

jeroldharter said:
I generally disagree with your point about "sharpness." ...

I fully agree with your disagreeing... I tried to coin my phrase for a long time, but it does not express what I meant. I should have more simply written that absolute sharpness is not always needed to make a good photograph.

It's absolutely true that the use of LF for a while has taught me to slow down, and this is very valuable even in my 35mm photography.

One great advantage of the view camera is also the big ground glass, with is a wonder to examine (and I guess the upside down image has something to do with this) when framing and adjusting. (It's also a wonder to see my son watching the same ground glass and wanting to be under the dark cloth with me).

jeroldharter · Sep 5, 2009

Laurent said:
I fully agree with your disagreeing... I tried to coin my phrase for a long time, but it does not express what I meant. I should have more simply written that absolute sharpness is not always needed to make a good photograph.

It's absolutely true that the use of LF for a while has taught me to slow down, and this is very valuable even in my 35mm photography.

One great advantage of the view camera is also the big ground glass, with is a wonder to examine (and I guess the upside down image has something to do with this) when framing and adjusting. (It's also a wonder to see my son watching the same ground glass and wanting to be under the dark cloth with me).

I gave away my entire Canon 35mm kit (including a digital body) this spring because I never used it. Now that I don't have it, I have many more ideas what I might do with it! I gave it a friend's 15 year old daughter who is an aspiring photographer. For her age, she has a remarkable camera setup and she has been shooting away. So it is getting better use than if I were to have kept it.

dpurdy · Sep 5, 2009

I think the decision between LF and MF depends on whether you are enlarging or contact printing. If you are enlarging up to 11x and your MF film is fine grain, you have to be pretty much technically perfect with 4x5 to beat the image quality of good MF. Personally, I find the enjoyment and freedom/ease of using the Rolleiflex to out weigh the advantages of 4x5 unless you are doing architecture. For contact printing I use 8x10.
Dennis

waynecrider · Sep 5, 2009

My evolution since the 90's:
Nikon 8008s > Rollie 6x6 > 4x5 Crown> AE1P > FTBn > Panasonic D > RB67 > N80 > 645 Pro-S > 501cm > K1000 > YashicaMat > M3 > A1 > ?
I mostly shoot my N80 and Canon now but the 4x5 is being resurrected as a shorty.

waynecrider · Sep 6, 2009

Laurent said:
this comes also from the fact that I discovered recently that "sharpness" and "good photographs" have nothing or next to nothing to do together.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts (especially if you actually did give up LF for MF)

I want to amend my response above and note that we all probably go thru phases where something appeals to us more then another. Our photo closets are testament to that. I have found like you that the smaller formats and prints are plenty enough for me, but I do enjoy the more contemplative process of LF when I can get out in the country alone. But I went back to shooting 35mm, and for what I am shooting now it's the best system and provides all I want. Of course that may change (^: and probably will.

Laurent · Sep 6, 2009

I still love using the Tachihara, but I sometimes get lazy and may go to a site and not unpack the camera... This could also be procrastination ! I need to do more of the exercises in "finely focused", I guess, as feeling more proficient with the camera might help.

On the other hand, when I see the prints I get from the Rolleiflex, and the number of keepers I harvest with said Rolleiflex, this raises some questions...

mike c · Sep 6, 2009

jeroldharter said:
I think that the trajectory up to large format and then back to medium format is what happens as people age. Their "way of seeing" seems inversely proportional to the weight of their gear. I am half joking around but sometimes going through the thought process of working up to 8x10 is an education that allows someone to reduce format and take better photos than before, a sort of wisdom.

I agree wholeheartedly with the age aspect,used medium format for 40yrs and resently bought a 5X7. Just yesterday I wretched my back and right now I'm looking at the camera wondering when I'll be able to start using it.:confused:

Mike c.

Trading my LF to MF gear ?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency