what is your format favorite of the day, ( and process ) and why?

[removed account4]

there a a zillion fanboy threads here on apug
about minox, leica, ebony, chamonix, hassleblad &c

people float to formats they enjoy using aesthetics ( like the aspect ratio )
or because they make contact prints, or because it is the only format they have ever used
and love it .. but sometimes these notions of favorite format change over time.

what is your current favorite format and why?
(please don't just say because i contact print and do alternative process work,
there are reasons beyond alternative process that have lead people to formats like 36x50' )

thanks!
john

 

[markbarendt]

Medium Format first and foremost because of the natural point of view with waist level finders, most of my faves have been shot below normal eye level. Second is the size of the ground glass. Third is roll film rather than sheets, bit more practical.

 

[BradleyK]

I'll bite, John.

Although I started out in 35mm, and have two extensive systems (SLR and rangefinder), I have, over the course of the last several years, been shooting an ever-increasing amount of medium format. A couple of reasons come quickly to mind: 1. I print my own black and white and do enjoy the ease of working with the larger negative; 2. I love the challenge of shooting in the square format (I am a non-cropper; if the image doesn't work for me, it never gets printed); 3. Medium format seems, in my mind, a valid compromise to lugging around a view camera (although I do have occasions when I wish I had never sold mine off); 4. With the demise of my beloved Kodachrome, a great deal of my landscape work seems to have changed in two ways: about 75 per cent is now black and white (PanF+, FP4+ and Delta 100/Tmax100), and the bulk is now medium format.

This not to say, of course, that my 35mm shooting has been left at the wayside. Rather, the types of subject matter I shoot with 35mm is more restricted: My Nikons and Leicas seem to be used primarily for people and events, with the former also used for some landscape tele work.

In sum, I would suggest that current interests - subject-wise - predominate in my reason for the nod to medium format.

 

[frank]

MF because of the combination of negative size/print quality over 135, and roll film convenience over sheet film.

If I were a sports or bird photographer I'd choose 135, if I were a studio or landscape photographer I'd choose 4x5.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

MFbecause, to me it is the best compromise between quality ,cost,weight and flexibility

 

[Rick A]

Playing with my 11x14 Century #2.

 

[Trail Images]

Like many I started with 35mm. I used it for wildlife photography, so it was the best choice for roaming and lens choices. However, as I transitioned to all landscape I moved to 6x7cm and eventually 4x5.
I cannot say I have a preference between these two particular formats as I find them both useful when doing certain creative ideas and overall conditions. Additionally, I have certain MF lenses that are designed for specific uses that I do not have in LF and vise verse. So at times it maybe more lens usage that dictates the outcome more so then the format.

 

[Ian Grant]

5x4 because it's a practical, portable LF format, I can also shoot it hand-held.

Ian

 

[MartinCrabtree]

35MM. Cost,availability,portability,ease of use,ect. I may do some LF eventually skipping over MF altogether.

 

[bdial]

Medium format for the same reasons Ralph mentioned. But lately, I've been working with 35mm quite a lot, it's been an interesting process of re-discovery.

 

[David Brown]

MFbecause, to me it is the best compromise between quality ,cost,weight and flexibility

Yes, I agree. However, medium format covers a lot of territory, as does "large" format.

My go to camera is the RB67. However, only on a tripod. If I need to travel lighter, I go with the C220. Sometimes I need even more portability and/or the more contrasty lens, and that means the Fuji 645.

But I am also rediscovering 35mm - after swearing I would never shoot it again. Even other photographers can't tell 11x14 prints from my 35mm negs from the roll film ones.

As to process, I'm silver gelatin all the way.

 

[Oren Grad]

I'm in a 4/3 groove just now - 6.5x8.5 Chamonix, 3.25x4.25 Crown Graphic, Olympus Pen FT. I checked "other" because 6.5x8.5 is what's driving this. It's just right - not too big, not too small, not too square, not too elongated, contact-prints beautifully on 8x10 paper with a border for safe handling and corner mounting, works well both in the hand and on the wall.

But tomorrow... who knows?

 

[snapguy]

love

When I'm not with the girl I love I love the girl I am with. Same with formats. My main squeeze is medium format but that 35mm format is such a delicious tart. And with a long lens or a short one, she will do anything. But there is nothing like 4x5 for a picnic or the submarine races.

 

[removed account4]

i know whatyou mean snapguy there's nothing like being present ..

i have 3 favorite formats currently that i go to ..
one is half frame.. something about it maybe its rectangle is easy for me to see with
one is 3A postcard format ... with a 5x7 sheet of paper in the back of the camera it is a priceless paper negative
that looks perfect contact printed on 5x7, electrified, or contact printed on a larger sheet of paper (8x10 or 11x14 )
and cameraless .. love that format because it is versitile

 

[DWThomas]

I answered MF -- on this particular day! I could argue that's what I started with, as some of my first pictures were taken with a 1930-something vintage Kodak folding camera my parents had, followed by my first camera of my own circa 1949 or so, a Brownie Target Six-20 -- wooo hooo! But I mainly used 35mm from the late 1950s up into this millennium.

Today most of my "serious" work is done with medium format gear accumulated over the last ten years. I like the bigger negative, not having to waste or skip 15 or twenty exposures to see the results of a roll, etc. My MF choices (arranged in descending order of seriousness, loosely speaking) are Bronica SQ-A, Yashica 124g, Perkeo II, Ercona II, and yes, I still have the Brownie Six-20 and it still works!

I also have a B&J Press 4x5, and my latest format is 8x10, used only with a home-built pinhole macchina fotografica, and I just bought some film for the Minox B, so I cover a range.

(And these days a lot of my more casual or documentary shooting is "other" technology -- lately (dare I admit it) even an iPhone 5c! )

 

[darkosaric]

35mm. It has all I need - quality good enough for me, and it makes a click in a fast and precise moment when I need it.

 

[bsdunek]

When I'm not with the girl I love I love the girl I am with. Same with formats. My main squeeze is medium format but that 35mm format is such a delicious tart. And with a long lens or a short one, she will do anything. But there is nothing like 4x5 for a picnic or the submarine races.

Great way to look at it, snapguy.

Guess you could say I started with MF (Kodak Target 620 box camera, followed by a Voighlander 6X6 Baby Bessa. Today, my Mamiya Super Press 23 is my favorite. At least when I'm not shooting with a Minox, 110, Nikon, Holga, or whatever.

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

MF for the reasons Ralph mentioned.

 

[fotch]

I like Medium format because of the richness of the negative size an the versatility of being able to shoot with TLR, SLR, Press, and View cameras.
However 35mm is almost as good and better in a lot of ways, such as variety of lens, films, motor drives, and price per shot can be a plus.
I also like 4x5, however, it cost more & the equipment is larger.

 

[cliveh]

35mm because of the aspect ratio of the format.

 

[Arklatexian]

Re: Medium Format!

MF because of the combination of negative size/print quality over 135, and roll film convenience over sheet film.

If I were a sports or bird photographer I'd choose 135, if I were a studio or landscape photographer I'd choose 4x5.

May I remind you that Victor Hasselblad was a bird photographer and developed the Hasselblad camera looking for a superior camera for that purpose. I think for the reasons listed above.....Regards!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

135, because it is where Leica is.

 

[NedL]

...one is 3A postcard format ... with a 5x7 sheet of paper in the back of the camera it is a priceless paper negative
that looks perfect contact printed on 5x7, electrified, or contact printed on a larger sheet of paper (8x10 or 11x14 )
...

Totally agree with this. The "postcard" format has become my favorite aspect ratio.

I kept that same "view" in two box cameras that can use 8x10 or 7x11 paper.. they use window mats cut to about 5.3x9 inches. So you end up with a contact print on 8x10 or 7x11 paper that is like what John is talking about, but on bigger paper.

The 116 format is nice too: 2.5 x 4.25 inches.

It's hard to explain in words, but for me those formats seem "natural" and easy on the eye.

 

[mooseontheloose]

MF for the same reasons Ralph listed. But whenever I go back to shooting 35mm I'm always surprised at how much I enjoy shooting it, and how many keepers I get on a roll.

 

[Moopheus]

I've been shooting a lot of 120 lately, what with all the cheapish MF gear available, why not. But I still use 35mm and also 4x5. It's all good.