What OTHER film formats LF shooters use for creative images?

Two years ago I jumped into Medium Format film from 35mm after years of digital. Now I'm legging my way into 4X5. GIven that I've seen a number of folks who've done this drop 120, and I'm beginning to understand where they come from, I thought I'd try to learn more.

I absolutely love my TLR, so I am not tempted to drop MF altogether, but sense that I could find that if this works the way I hope it will, then LF will become a focus of most of the non-TLR type stuff I'd otherwise do in 120 with a Rolleiflex 6008 or 'blad. For me, the appeal isn't just the challenge, but the prospect that my buildings won't find their perspective distorted to a point where adjustments in "post" don't make them much smaller than the originally framed shot. I have plenty of other reasons, but this is certainly one that comes up over and over.

So I'm curious what others have found - if you'd be willing to share. Did your decision "just happen" or was a it conscious decision? There's a virtue in simplicity, but also joy in variety.

My answer currently is MF (120) and 35mm.

I still love shooting large format - as a matter of fact, I teach large format photography at a local photography center. But I also love medium format, and use it extensively for travel. I have several medium format outfits - a clutch of Rolleiflexes (both standard and Tele models) and an RZ67, plus my "lo-fi" (not really, but they're not as complex or sophisticated as the Rolleis and RZ) Lomo Belair and Lomo LC-A. I still own a Contax RTS III for the off-chance I would want/need to shoot 35mm again, but I'm not really a small-format kind of guy any more. In pinhole, I have a 4x5 with a 65mm effective focal length and a 6x18 panoramic with a hemispheric film plane (so I don't get vignetting at the edges). I really should take the 6x18 with me to Mexico on my next trip to get some shots around Mexico City.

I don't use the large format as much, though, because a lot of the shooting I've been doing is either more spur-of-the-moment or involves significant travel (see Mexico), which is not conducive to hauling a big camera around.

I was shooting 35mm alongside my predominantly LF work but stopped about 12 years ago after only using 3 35mm images for my Exhibition sets in just over 20 years. Now I carry a TLR instead and I am using images made with them alongside images made with 5x4, 10x8 and now also 7x5/Half plate cameras.

The square format of a TLR is great for some images, it's very rare I crop an image and I compose full frame. I also shoot 6x17 with a panoramic 120 camera.

Ian

im an equal opportunity capturerer
i don't shoot a lot of pinhole, although
today i used my kitchen as a camera

I do a bit of everything. I started off in 35mm, moved to digital, and then slowly started incorporating film back into my work. At first it was back to 35mm, then I stepped up to 4x5. I eventually added 120, 110, alternative process, pinhole, etc., etc. I've studied done a fair amount of painting, so I checked the other artistic medium box as it seemed like the most fun one to check.

The way I see it, each process, format, tool, whatever, does certain things well, and certain things not so well. Sometimes I choose one camera to use it's strengths as an advantage, and sometimes I choose one to use it's weaknesses as a disadvantage (because limitations inspire creativity). While I may have preferences among my tools, I don't have loyalties.

Trying to avoid dogma but the switching of formats and dabbling, and TRUST me... I’m the worst offender, is what keeps us on forums and them in galleries.

I’ve had the privilege of meeting and working with many of my heroes and mentors (Nick Nixon, Barbara Bosworth, Laura McPhee, Greg Miller) and they’ve all had prolific careers as single format shooters.... happens to be 8x10 too which is just baller

In general I have a triopod/no tripod rule. If I am using a tripod I might as well just shoot 4x5. No tripod means 35mm. I do own a 120 camera too and i use that on the tripod if I am feeling lazy or I want a square for some reason.

Marked "Other" also. For me that is 16mm in Minolta and Mamiya subminiature cameras. Great if you like lots of grain.
To be honest I've been too lazy to shoot film in 4X5. I only use photo paper as a negative. Although very slow with hard to control contrast, at least I can handle it under safelight.

I shoot 4x5 and 8x10 large format sheet film.

I shoot 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, and 6x12cm 120 medium format roll film.

I shoot 35mm small format roll film.

Dodphotography: Nailed that one... mostly. I think what puts them in the galleries isn't just format, and their commitment to it, but their insight into themselves - often early in life, and realizing how to best make a difference... or at least their difference. For my photography (which is definitely an amateur level), I'm still learning and haven't finished gaining the tools and understanding to make a decision yet. If I run out of time, and that's a risk... that's okay. I guess at this point I'm just formulating thoughts along these lines and absorb how others learned and pursued their craft, and the decisions that led them down the paths they've chosen.

dodphotography said:

Trying to avoid dogma but the switching of formats and dabbling, and TRUST me... I’m the worst offender, is what keeps us on forums and them in galleries.

I’ve had the privilege of meeting and working with many of my heroes and mentors (Nick Nixon, Barbara Bosworth, Laura McPhee, Greg Miller) and they’ve all had prolific careers as single format shooters.... happens to be 8x10 too which is just baller

Click to expand...

I'm not good enough for galleries, but I really don't mind. I enjoy it all so much, and a lot of my pictures are priceless to me because they are of my family. I am a musician also, and have played professionally in the past; but making a job of something I enjoy ruins it for me. I no longer do that.

To each his own, though, because I fully understand the appeal of getting paid to do what you love... so I am not knocking that at all. My skill isn't up to it, regardless!

I tagged 35mm, but that is only for the Horizont 202. I find the finders in 36x24mm too hard on my eyes.

In 120 I do go as small as 6x4.5 with the Fuji rangefinder, but mostly it is 6x6 or 6x9.

In large format 5x4 wins over 8x10 at the moment, but that may be changing.

I find that 120 gives me some of the advantages of the smaller format (portability, responsiveness) and some of the 5x4 (screens for composition, good tonality at reasonable enlargements for the format).

I've been wondering how many of us shooting or beginning to shoot Large Format of some sort... are NEW to it. Seems to me there are a lot more than I would have thought... hence the abundance of new cameras. On the other hand, every time I find a Large Format shooter with great work, it seems they've moved on to digital and no longer shoot film - except for occasional giggles.
The other thing I think I"m noticing as I gain exposure here is that the LF shooters are attracted EITHER for the detail and resolution OR for the camera movements... or BOTH. And I would think that in the case where the movements play a role, then there's still a place for this that is worth "the bother". But I guess if you have enough $'s to throw at it, you can probably get a Phase 1 digital back and be done, too. So it's not quite that simple.

I have other formats, but I like both 2 1/4 " and 4x5. I tend to print on 8x10 paper, so either can provide some very nice results.

Problem with 35mm is being able to effectively control B&W contrast with different developments. I can't see carrying multiple bodies. But with either medium format or 4x5, one need only substitute a different film holder.