Your favorite analog format? Why?

[FoidPoosening]

This thread has turned out into a great read for me, especially since I'm newer to film. Keep it going and thanks guys!

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

35mm of course, but for mf I really like the square 6x6, and naturally 6x9 since its the same proportions as 35mm, and I am totally digging 4x5 right now. Hard question but if I had to choose out of all of them, most probably 35mm just because I am most likely to have a 35mm camera around with me at any time.

 

[1L6E6VHF]

Although standard 35mm is the format I have shot more images with than any other (for cost, convenience and accessibility), my favorite format is 35mm Realist (a stereo format that yields 28 pairs of 24x23 mm images from a standard 36x roll of 35mm film), simply because I have always been enthralled by the image of a stereo slide as seen in a good transmitted-light stereo viewer with achromatic viewing lenses.

I've shot some MF, including 6x6, 6x9 and 6x6x2 stereo, and the images can be impressive, but it seems I have never had the "luck" I expected from it as I did with 35mm.

Now, people who know me know that I have a weak spot for two formats that most photographers just hate - 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 Polaroid (AKA 100-series) and 126 (I always liked how you could throw every 126 slide into the tray the same way, and every image would fill a square screen). Some 126 cameras actually could produce superb images.

I've loved to play with formats. I wonder if anyone else on this forum has used all of these formats, that I have used at least once:
Minox (in Yashica Ataron camera)
Disc
110
240 (AKA APS™)
35mm Half Frame
Agfa Rapid 24x24mm
35mm Nimslo Stereo (21x18mm x2)
35mm Realist Stereo (24x23mm x2)
35mm full frame
126
828
127 (3x4)
127 (4x4)
127 (4x6)
120 (6x6)
120 stereo (6x6 x2, on a Sputnik)
620 square (4x6)
620 (6X9)
116
Kodak Instant
Polaroid 20 (Swinger)
Polaroid Captiva (later called "95" - integral)
Polaroid 3 1/4 x 3 3/8 (80-series)
Polaroid 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 (Roll) (40-series)
Polaroid 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 (Pack) (100-series)
Polaroid SX-70/600 (integral square)
Polaroid Spectra (integral oblong)
Polaroid I-zone (integral miniature)
8mm roll movie
Super 8mm cartridge movie

 

[PKM-25]

1. 6x6, Hasselblads and Mamiya 6, best combination of large negative and fast operation, my best images are made with it. I also use 120 film in 6x12 format with the 4x5, great aspect ratio and versatility.

2. 4x5, basically a "Giant" medium format with movements, easiest to enlarge, plenty of films available and still very economical. While I get nice images out of it and love to use it, pre-exposure dust is much more of an issue and it is much slower than 6x6.

3. 35mm, Leica, Nikon & Xpan, all for photojournalism, Xpan for landscapes sometimes, makes up less than 20% of my shooting. Plays exceptionally well with digital, swap glass.

12 camera bodies, 36 lenses, full darkroom that I can print up to 20x24, office for print finishing and a monster computer for scans, not much you can't do with the above....

 

[redox87]

I've only used 135 and 120 format before. I like 120 more because there's only 12 exposures so I can use them up faster rather than wait to get through 24-36 exposures. Image quality is better too, and I get to haul my TLR around.

 

[Wade D]

Most of what I've shot in the last 40+ years is 35mm. I own and shoot with a few 120 cameras of various format and also a Crown Graphic for 4x5. I guess the convenience of the smaller cameras is why I favor 35mm.

 

[Analog Swede]

6 x 6 - Camera size is within reason and the negative is large enough. I love the square format.
35 mm - I use it for slides (B&W and color). Convenient, easy and fast. A format for opportunities.

4 x 5 - I have built a LF camera. It is reliable but heavy and clumsy and I have a lot to learn before I really can use it.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I only have two formats that I use seriously. 35mm and 6x6. I love both for their qualities. A 12x12" print from 6x6 Tri-X or HP5+ looks so sublime when the stars align. I usually print them 8x8", though, and I love how that square looks with lots of room around it, slightly top oriented, on a 16x20" or 11x14" paper.
35mm I love because of its versatility. I still get really great quality out of the format, and the grain really adds something to the print. I print 6x8" on 8x10", 9x12" on 11x14", or 12x18" on 16x20" paper, and that inch border around the perimeter looks fantastic I think.

35mm is used when I might need to shoot hand held. While the Hasselblad can be shot hand held, it is less practical and nimble. But it can be done and handles wonderfully. The Hasselblad is what I use when the camera can go on a tripod and I'm doing long exposures, although I use some 35mm for that too, to add grain, but sometimes also to shorten exposure times due to the larger aperture settings available.

I can't imagine giving any of them up, and they both contribute equally to me having fun and enjoying photography. Can't pick a favorite among them.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Your favorite analog format? Why?

That's actually impossible for me to answer. I think you've either framed the question poorly, or do not understand the purposes of the different formats.
A few days ago, I was photographing waterskiers going over a jump. That day, my favorite format was 35.
If I had been taking pictures of say a certain local waterfall, my favorite format would be 4x5.
When I made dozens of photos of local wildflowers, my favorite format was 6x7cm
When I made several photos of the old Lake Placid Club, from behind the Methodist church across Mirror Lake, my favorite format was 8x10.
Horses for courses, that's why it says "multi format" under my name. It would make sense to say 'analog is my favorite medium' though.
I'm pretty certain that were I to be forced to choose one format for the rest of my life, it would be 8x10.

 

[baachitraka]

6x6: Beautiful swirly bokeh when shot with Rolleicord IIb at f/4.0 and print at 16x16cm. Though it is small, I find it ideal for personal album.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

8x10, because...

* The best part of the process of making a photograph is the part before one picks up the camera. That is the "walking around" part where one simply experiences the joy of quietly looking at things. And thinking about them. And perhaps later then deciding to "go get the Kodak." Rather than peering through a viewfinder as the first step, one peers through it as the last step. 8x10 by its very cumbersome nature forces this pre-scouting discipline upon me. With all other standard formats it's only an option.

* One cannot surreptitiously make a photograph using an 8x10 camera. While its value as a chick magnet is debatable, it effect as a people magnet is undeniable. If people are involved, either as primary subjects in front of the lens, or simply as onlookers behind the lens, you will be forced to interact with them. Making a photograph therefore becomes a wonderful social interaction tool.

* Using an 8x10 harkens back to a simpler time when the making of a photograph was an "event." The soup-to-nuts process was slower. The need for attention to arcane detail was greater. The patience required, both by photographer and by subject, was non-negotiable. Having one's photograph made meant stopping everything else one was doing while it happened. Then participating fully in the making itself. Then, and only then, going back to and resuming one's prior activities. This lends a "specialness" to 8x10 images that is not found in cell phone images.

* It allows me to skip the entire second optical degradation step (enlarging) in favor of contact printing at nice display sizes. The fewer times an image must pass through a lens after the initial exposure, the less loss of quality is inflicted. (Damned pesky laws of thermodynamics...) The final results can be jaw-dropping.

* It shields me from abuse on APUG that I am somehow not doing my part to keep film alive. A commonly invoked red herring. Every individual exposure is the equivalent of a 36-exposure roll of 35mm film. Or a full roll of 120 film. Bracketing is an exercise in acreage. Processing an exercise in swimming pools.

Ken

 

[StoneNYC]

8x10, because...

* The best part of the process of making a photograph is the part before one picks up the camera. That is the "walking around" part where one simply experiences the joy of quietly looking at things. And thinking about them. And perhaps later then deciding to "go get the Kodak." Rather than peering through a viewfinder as the first step, one peers through it as the last step. 8x10 by its very cumbersome nature forces this pre-scouting discipline upon me. With all other standard formats it's only an option.

* One cannot surreptitiously make a photograph using an 8x10 camera. While its value as a chick magnet is debatable, it effect as a people magnet is undeniable. If people are involved, either as primary subjects in front of the lens, or simply as onlookers behind the lens, you will be forced to interact with them. Making a photograph therefore becomes a wonderful social interaction tool.

* Using an 8x10 harkens back to a simpler time when the making of a photograph was an "event." The soup-to-nuts process was slower. The need for attention to arcane detail was greater. The patience required, both by photographer and by subject, was non-negotiable. Having one's photograph made meant stopping everything else one was doing while it happened. Then participating fully in the making itself. Then, and only then, going back to and resuming one's prior activities. This lends a "specialness" to 8x10 images that is not found in cell phone images.

* It allows me to skip the entire second optical degradation step (enlarging) in favor of contact printing at nice display sizes. The fewer times an image must pass through a lens after the initial exposure, the less loss of quality is inflicted. (Damned pesky laws of thermodynamics...) The final results can be jaw-dropping.

* It shields me from abuse on APUG that I am somehow not doing my part to keep film alive. A commonly invoked red herring. Every individual exposure is the equivalent of a 36-exposure roll of 35mm film. Or a full roll of 120 film. Bracketing is an exercise in acreage. Processing an exercise in swimming pools.

Ken

8x10 would be my favorite or will be when I have a decent amount of lenses, on this trip I'm on I constantly have scenes I know would be perfect for 8x10 if I only had X lens, also need to cut that half slide for panoramics, I can't bare to waste a whole sheet for half an image!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

8x10, because...

* The best part of the process of making a photograph is the part before one picks up the camera. That is the "walking around" part where one simply experiences the joy of quietly looking at things. And thinking about them. And perhaps later then deciding to "go get the Kodak." Rather than peering through a viewfinder as the first step, one peers through it as the last step. 8x10 by its very cumbersome nature forces this pre-scouting discipline upon me. With all other standard formats it's only an option.

* One cannot surreptitiously make a photograph using an 8x10 camera. While its value as a chick magnet is debatable, it effect as a people magnet is undeniable. If people are involved, either as primary subjects in front of the lens, or simply as onlookers behind the lens, you will be forced to interact with them. Making a photograph therefore becomes a wonderful social interaction tool.

* Using an 8x10 harkens back to a simpler time when the making of a photograph was an "event." The soup-to-nuts process was slower. The need for attention to arcane detail was greater. The patience required, both by photographer and by subject, was non-negotiable. Having one's photograph made meant stopping everything else one was doing while it happened. Then participating fully in the making itself. Then, and only then, going back to and resuming one's prior activities. This lends a "specialness" to 8x10 images that is not found in cell phone images.

* It allows me to skip the entire second optical degradation step (enlarging) in favor of contact printing at nice display sizes. The fewer times an image must pass through a lens after the initial exposure, the less loss of quality is inflicted. (Damned pesky laws of thermodynamics...) The final results can be jaw-dropping.

* It shields me from abuse on APUG that I am somehow not doing my part to keep film alive. A commonly invoked red herring. Every individual exposure is the equivalent of a 36-exposure roll of 35mm film. Or a full roll of 120 film. Bracketing is an exercise in acreage. Processing an exercise in swimming pools.

Ken

Plus, 8x10 is versatile. I saw and held in my own two hands 8x10 negatives of a bobsled negotiating "Shady" at the Mt. van Hoevenberg bobrun.

And, you are correct. Nothing else forces me to think more and prepare more thoroughly.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

8x10 would be my favorite or will be when I have a decent amount of lenses, on this trip I'm on I constantly have scenes I know would be perfect for 8x10 if I only had X lens, also need to cut that half slide for panoramics, I can't bare to waste a whole sheet for half an image!

You don't need as many as you might think. I use 240, 300, and 420. That's done everything for me since I got the camera in 1989.
Wide lenses for 8x10 are fraught - very difficult to get good images with; which is not to say I haven't. I feel the same with wides on 35 though so it's likely just me.

 

[StoneNYC]

You don't need as many as you might think. I use 240, 300, and 420. That's done everything for me since I got the camera in 1989.
Wide lenses for 8x10 are fraught - very difficult to get good images with; which is not to say I haven't. I feel the same with wides on 35 though so it's likely just me.

Well I walked out to this spot with my 8x10, set up, and found the 300mm was just not wide enough, I wanted a panoramic of those wind turbines, I only have a 300mm and 450mm so far.

So I had to go back, get the 4x5 and use the 90mm to get what I wanted... Just as an example... Of today's frustration with lack of lenses. I really do need 3 more lenses to be happy with the 8x10....

150mm SS XL
210mm (something? Computar or Kyvetar[or however it's spelled] type light and wide coverage)
600mm C

Someday I'll consider the 120mm SS XL and maybe a 720mm or 900mm if I get the extension board for the Chamonix and shoot from the car.

But the 3 above essentially completes the kit I already use and am happy with on 4x5 and I do find I tend to use the same equivalent lenses per shot for each, doesn't seem to change much, the only difference is the 450mm which in 4x5 I skip over the equivalent entirely. But I do find I've used the 450 a few times for images, but that may also simply be because I don't have a 600mm, can't be sure.

These are the turbines



Canadian Mounted police are very nice, I hiked right out to this spot right behind the station to shoot, no one even came over to ask me anything, I was surprised, in the USA I probably would have been tackled... Lol

 

[cliveh]

* It allows me to skip the entire second optical degradation step (enlarging) in favor of contact printing at nice display sizes. The fewer times an image must pass through a lens after the initial exposure, the less loss of quality is inflicted. (Damned pesky laws of thermodynamics...) The final results can be jaw-dropping.Ken

I like this bit and I believe Atget use to contact print his negatives, tone them and then offer them for sale. Such a purist way of working is very Zen.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Well I walked out to this spot with my 8x10, set up, and found the 300mm was just not wide enough, I wanted a panoramic of those wind turbines, I only have a 300mm and 450mm so far.

So I had to go back, get the 4x5 and use the 90mm to get what I wanted... Just as an example... Of today's frustration with lack of lenses. I really do need 3 more lenses to be happy with the 8x10....

150mm SS XL
210mm (something? Computar or Kyvetar[or however it's spelled] type light and wide coverage)
600mm C

Someday I'll consider the 120mm SS XL and maybe a 720mm or 900mm if I get the extension board for the Chamonix and shoot from the car.

But the 3 above essentially completes the kit I already use and am happy with on 4x5 and I do find I tend to use the same equivalent lenses per shot for each, doesn't seem to change much, the only difference is the 450mm which in 4x5 I skip over the equivalent entirely. But I do find I've used the 450 a few times for images, but that may also simply be because I don't have a 600mm, can't be sure.

These are the turbines

View attachment 92350

Canadian Mounted police are very nice, I hiked right out to this spot right behind the station to shoot, no one even came over to ask me anything, I was surprised, in the USA I probably would have been tackled... Lol

Looks like a rollfilm back on the 4x5... I use divider boards that give me 2x 4x10 or 2x 5x8 on a single 8x10 sheet. My 210 Dagor type will just do a 4x10 if I place the lens' axis in the center of the frame.

8x10 really is a limitless adventure. If I live another 1,000 years I'll never come close to the potential.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I like this bit and I believe Atget use to contact print his negatives, tone them and then offer them for sale. Such a purist way of working is very Zen.

I saw an original contact of one of Weston's peppers. Palladium, I think, and it not only seemed to glow but appeared about an inch deep.

 

[StoneNYC]

Looks like a rollfilm back on the 4x5... I use divider boards that give me 2x 4x10 or 2x 5x8 on a single 8x10 sheet. My 210 Dagor type will just do a 4x10 if I place the lens' axis in the center of the frame.

8x10 really is a limitless adventure. If I live another 1,000 years I'll never come close to the potential.

Yes as I said I need a half slide for my 8x10...

But I also need some other lenses.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I like this bit and I believe Atget use to contact print his negatives, tone them and then offer them for sale. Such a purist way of working is very Zen.

Zen? Nahhh...

''I'm a celebrator. That's why I like the Russians. They look at a tree and cry out, 'Look at that tree!' They're full of original astonishments.''

— Mel Brooks, quoted by Kenneth Tynan in Frolics and Detours of a Short Hebrew Man, The New Yorker, October 30, 1978



Ken