Why do you shoot medium format?

[75suzuki]

I shoot in 120 for nostalgia, perhaps in memoriam, to be able to use the Brownie that my grandmother bought new in '52. I shoot in 120 b&w because I enjoy feeling connected to the past, to be able to get effects that id otherwise have to use photoshop for.

Sure 35mm is cheap, plentiful, great for when you need to take 20 shots and hope that one comes out. If I want to take a real photo, then the Brownie or another of my box cameras come out to play. Its all about the experience.

 

[NB23]

Because I love saying '120'

"One-twenny"?
"One-Two-Oh"?
"One-hunnerd-twenny"?
"One-Hundred-and-Twenty"?
"Twelve-Oh"?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Why not just go all the way to 4x5? Is MF really that much of an improvement over 135? Just meant to be a discussion thread to gather your personal perspectives.

the step from 35 to MF is a gigantic leap in image quality. the next step to 4x5 is not of the same magnitude.

 

[Cholentpot]

"One-twenny"?
"One-Two-Oh"?
"One-hunnerd-twenny"?
"One-Hundred-and-Twenty"?
"Twelve-Oh"?

no-no like I wrote. '120'

 

[Jeff Bradford]

Because that's what film the camera takes? Is this a trick question?

 

[David T T]

When I got back into photography, having flirted with it in the 90s, it was always going to be film, and I got a cheap 35mm film Rebel with kit lens. I then got hooked on the idea of the RZ67 after reading Film Is Not Dead. After looking into it, I changed my mind, wanting the cheaper all-mechanical RB67. I just love it! I love that I can maintain it for life, and I love the images, and it's incredible flexibility. I can drop a local lab's highest rez scan into a perfect 16x20 print at 300dpi with no "rez-ing" up or down, and they look amazing. I couldn't make a print of that size and detail with even a fantastic 35mm camera.

I like 35mm though for certain things, and shoot my little Olympus XAs in stealth mode on the street, or at times when the RB is distraction/annoyance/etc. Not everything needs to be a big print!

I've used a 4x5 camera before, doing critical photo documentation at my old job, and found loading sheet film to be a pain in the ass. Even for landscapes, 6x7 seems to do the job, given my largest intended print. If I wanted to print bigger, I would pick up a LF camera. That would probably be a shot planned well in advance. Otherwise, I'll walk around with the RB, 3 lenses, and a few backs loaded with different film stocks/speeds. Such flexibility.

 

[removed account4]

Ever try to shoot a 4x5 like a Crown Graphic hand held? They are big and heavy and hard to hold steady especially for someone like me who has a bad back. I can get better results shooting a medium format camera hand held.

hi alan

i have shot with a speed graphic handheld often it really isn't that hard
the hard part is remembering to put the dark slide back in
and flipping the film holder to wind the shutter..
framing ... that is why they have the sports finder... or the viewer ...
i mainly shoot with a series D ( slr ) hand held
ive done street portraits and everything else with it, no tripod... for about 20 years ( the speed for almost 30 )
the idea that newspaper cameras were or are hard to use without a tripod
would probalby make weeegeee roll in his shallow mafia style grave ...

 

[iakustov]

simple math does tell the difference for me as well as the look of the enlarged FB print.
Personally I find 4x - 7x enlargement of a negative to be the "cruising" factor so wont go past 8''x10'' of 35mm and 12''x16'' print of 6x7cm negative.
This is because I like to come close and see subtle details of a mounted print.

Area-wise, there is a huge step (around factor 5) between 35mm and 6x7 as well between 6x7 and 13x18cm:
24х36 mm - 864 mm2

MF vs 135:
56х45 mm - 2520 mm2 (х2.9)
56х56 mm - 3136 mm2 (х3.6)
56х70 mm - 3920 mm2 (х4.5)

LF vs MF:
90х120 mm - 10800 mm2 (х4.3, х3.4, х2.7)
130х180 mm - 23400 mm2 (х9.3, х7.5, х6)
200х250 mm - 50000 mm2 (х19.8, х15.9, х12.7)

And I have chosen these three formats - 35mm / 6x7 / 13x18 - also because of that matter. To be able to have that redundancy in the details, which really make difference for me in the end print.

 

[darkosaric]

I shoot medium format because I don't like cropping, and I want sometimes to use square format, and I do like the results from Diana F cameras. All those grain and tonality and picture quality improvements - totally not interesting for me.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Why not just go all the way to 4x5? Is MF really that much of an improvement over 135? Just meant to be a discussion thread to gather your personal perspectives.

Because medium format is a lot more portable than 4x5, slightly less portable/light than 135, but easily double the image quality of 135. I shoot a lot of 135 with a point and shoot as well as real SLR, but I also shoot a lot of 120 in 6x7 and 6x9 (I have a 6x6 blad, but almost never use it), and shoot a fair amount of 4x5, though it's mostly personal stuff, so I tend to reserve it for the select shots where I'm specifically going for that look or just want that monster resolution. I have a 6x7 back for my monorail, which is great for when you want/need that kind of control. I also have a Toyo field camera, and it's actually shockingly productive to use out in the field. Say what you will about Toyo (it's not a Linhof, that's for sure), but it has the right balance of sturdy and lightweight that makes it easy to put in your backpack with a changing bag, a box of film, and 4 to 6 film holders and go looking for stuff to shoot with it. You should still probably use a tripod, but all said and done, you can basically fit a whole large format kit into a standard backpack with it.

 

[Neal]

Dear Chrisbcs,

I have changed from 35mm to 645 for the majority of my walking around stuff because it combines (for me) the right number of exposures on a roll with a relatively easy to carry camera. Obviously 35mm is more discreet and convenient. One last note, I still walk around with a Crown Graphic and a couple of Grafmatic backs once a year or so. Not discreet at all. Often draws far too much attention.

Neal Wydra

 

[mhanc]

portability and relative ease of use - i like to walk around and explore so 35mm and MF are the formats for me. currently, MF is the go-to as the image quality / tonality is much, much greater than 35mm and 12 shots per roll is enough.

a few years back i sold off my LF gear, 8x10 and 8x20 -- just wasn't using it much and at some point stopped altogether solely for the hassle aspect of the format. shortly before the end, i found myself shooting no further than a few minutes from the car.

i do love a nice LF contact print which for me is the whole point of LF. therefore 4x5 is sort of the orphan format: too large a hassle to use and too small a negative for contact printing... ymmv

 

[Alan Gales]

hi alan

i have shot with a speed graphic handheld often it really isn't that hard
the hard part is remembering to put the dark slide back in
and flipping the film holder to wind the shutter..
framing ... that is why they have the sports finder... or the viewer ...
i mainly shoot with a series D ( slr ) hand held
ive done street portraits and everything else with it, no tripod... for about 20 years ( the speed for almost 30 )
the idea that newspaper cameras were or are hard to use without a tripod
would probalby make weeegeee roll in his shallow mafia style grave ...

Hi John,

You know the old saying that if you want sharp photographs then use a tripod. Anytime you hand hold any camera there is an increased risk of camera shake. I feel that 4x5 film is too expensive to take that risk. I mentioned this on LFPF quite a while back. Frank copied me and said that it took him years to figure this out. Of course there were plenty of photographers on the forum who shot 4x5 all the time hand held and disagreed with me.

I used to own a Crown Graphic so I know what they are like. Your Speed is similar, only a little bit heavier with the focal plane shutter. I flipped a Speed on Ebay once. I know I can get better results shooting my Mamiya C220f handheld. I admit that I have had a back fusion and this plays into it as well. Of course other photographers on the forum are older than I and have their own issues holding cameras.

I'm glad you posted your experienced opinion. It gives the OP both sides of the argument to chew on.

 

[removed account4]

hi alan
i forgot about that old saying;
and as you can tell from nearly all of my photographs you can tell !

OP

disregard my commentary about shooting LF (press or slr or box ) handheld if you like SHARP photographs and if you use fresh film.
but please keep it in mind if sharpness, a little camerashake, and expired ( as polly the bird says : cheep cheep ) film is in your bag.

 

[Alan Gales]

hi alan
i forgot about that old saying;
and as you can tell from nearly all of my photographs you can tell !

OP

disregard my commentary about shooting LF (press or slr or box ) handheld if you like SHARP photographs and if you use fresh film.
but please keep it in mind if sharpness, a little camerashake, and expired ( as polly the bird says : cheep cheep ) film is in your bag.

You have some real nice images, John! I don't know how you do what you do but many of them look like watercolor paintings. You definitely prove the point that sharpness can be overrated!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I've completely lost interest in 35mm. Medium format enlarges better, has more tonality, can be contact printed as a final result, and doesn't have too many frames per roll. I love my Rolleiflex, and I also love my Lomo Belair, despite all its legion of quirks (or perhaps because of them).

 

[Soeren]

Maybe I missed it but film flatness or lack of same is a huge factor in getting the full value of the larger formats

 

[sepiareverb]

1) Ease of use. I shoot a Pentax 67 instead of 4x5 for the quality is fairly comparable. With careful working I find I get plenty good IQ from the 67 in an easier to carry package. When I want big I shoot 810, very occasionally 11x14.

2) The look. Absolutely different than 35mm, and I really enjoy the square that the Rollei delivers. Sure I could crop, but I find the native format much easier to visualize in.

 

[filmamigo]

I've spent time shooting 135, 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 and 4x5. For me there is a sweet spot, that has to do with both the film and the cameras.

My sweet spot is medium format, specifically 645 and 6x6. The reasons include:

• Rollfilm. Having 10 or 15 shots makes for a fluid shooting experience for both portraits and landscape work. I like slow and contemplative, but rollfilm lets me easily shoot variations on a shot or simply keep working without interruption. Loading and carrying 4x5 holders is a barrier to me actually shooting.
• Tonality and resolution. There is a difference from 135. Sometimes when shooting 135 I will shoot multi-frame panoramas just to achieve the same resolution and tonality
• Diafine. I love developing in Diafine. But unless I want to really see the grain for a particular subject, 135 + Diafine is too grainy for my tastes.
• Waist level finders. My preferred way of shooting. I have tried two of the best WLF cameras in 135 (the Pentax LX and the Nikon F3.) Sadly they were too small to be usable. WLF finders for MF are Goldilocks-sized.
• TLRs and SLRs. I find shooting with a plain ground glass much less enjoyable and productive. Something about having the image upside down throws my brain for a loop. With TLRs and SLRs I get my finder the right-way-up.
• Sync speeds. I like using daylight fill flash for portrait work. All but a few 135 cameras aren't up to the sync speeds I enjoy on my MF cameras.
• Leaf shutters. Not only do leaf shutters give great sync speeds, I prefer them in general. Their lesser mass, and their radial motion, make (for me) sharper pictures than I get with focal plane shutters.
• Ease of processing, printing (and scanning.) I can use the same tanks and techniques to develop MF as I use for 135. I can even mix 135 and MF in the same tank. I can fit 645 and 6x6 into my compact enlarger (Omega B600.) And I can make high quality scans from moderately-priced scanners. (135 is a struggle with cheap scanners.)

 

[narsuitus]

Why do you shoot medium format?"

I shoot 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9cm medium format cameras because they are a good compromise between my 35mm, APS-C, and micro 4/3 small format cameras and my 4x5 inch and 8x10 inch large format cameras.

 

[Dan Fromm]

When all's said and done, because shooting MF pleases me. I can't think of a better reason. Can you?

 

[Alan Gales]

When all's said and done, because shooting MF pleases me. I can't think of a better reason. Can you?

Best answer yet.

When I moved up to large format I sold my medium format gear. I figured that between large format and digital I no longer needed medium format film. I came to the conclusion that medium format film made happy so I bought a C220f and now an Autocord.

 

[ac12]

For me it is about the compromise of portability and image quality of a large negative.
A larger negative than 35mm, and easier to carry and use than my 4x5 monorail view camera.

I shoot 6x6. A used Hasselblad kit, that costed me significantly less than a consumer grade DSLR.
Would I like the larger 6x9, YES. But the 6x9 comes with a more limited camera/lens system.

Also the larger 6x6 format slows me down and forces me to think and work in a different manner that the fast shooting 35mm SLR. I kinda like that.

As for camera. Having multiple cameras, like a carpenter or mechanic selecting his tools for the job, I select the appropriate camera for the shoot.
If I only have 1 camera, I have to use it for everything, appropriate or not.

• On one end, if I want small and light, I take a compact 35mm.
• On the other end, if I want max image quality of a LARGE negative, I take the 4x5.
• The 35mm SLR and 6x6 MF SLR are in the middle.

 

[nosmok]

This spring, I went to Yosemite for the first time, carrying a handheld 4x5 wide-angle outfit and my trusty Olympus XA. Got great shots in both formats but had the realization that just bringing one good MF outfit might have done just as well-- or two different folders, say; or my Medalist and my Wide-alist (65mm lens grafted to a Medalist body)in one bag. MF really is a "best of both worlds" thing for me. I remember my first shots printed from my first MF camera-- it was truly an "Ohhh Mannnn!" moment.

 

[NJH]

Tonality and smoothness. The first others have already touched on, you can see it easily just by making a small enlargement from 35mm, the tones in areas such as yellow or orange filtered skies just look much nicer. I believe the smoothness is also helped by the lenses, you can get thin DoF and all that on 35mm but the one thing I noted looking at all the plethora of Bokeh threads out there, for Leica lenses for example is really horrible jangling out of focus areas, and transitions into these areas. For Medium format it just seems that pretty much all the decent lenses handle this well and some are in a different universe from anything in 35mm land in this regard. Depends what one is looking for but if you appreciate smooth tones once you have tried MF its hard to go back to 35mm.