Is Medium Format analogue irrelevant?

<p>Speaking of only film...</p>

<p>When I decided to start shooting film a little over a year ago, I first tried 35mm. For my tast 400 ISO film was border line too grainy. I like it, but it did not give me the wow factor I was hoping for. So I decided to try 120. I shot a roll of HP5 at 1600 ISO. I was blown away at the difference. I knew then 120 was the format for me. My camera of choice right now is the RB67 and I am loving it. My 5D and 40D just collect dust for now.</p>

<p>Bottom line is, if you want to shoot roll film, your only practical choices are 35 mm or 120. Compare a 6x7 negative to a 35mm neg, and the choice is clear.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>"Because with digital, it costs a great deal, also. Compared to MF cameras. MF is the best bargain available"<br>

Noticed how messed up my previous post was! Should say that digital costs a great deal. Compared to other cameras, MF is the best bargain available. Need to learn how to type and look at the screen at the same time! Also, to look at my comment before I hit the "submit" button! LOL</p>

<p>Sure 4x5" or larger can offer better quality than MF, the problem is just that the convenience of handling the equipment in the field is tipped in the favor of MF. With current technology I should be able to create something like good looking prints up to 30x30" from 6x6, which is basically all I need. 35 mm just doesn't deliver the goods at those enlargements, digital or not. I do like using 4x5" too, but it's not something I can just grab and shoot.</p>

<p>When I realized just how much I missed the lab work, my first camera to buy was my second Rb67. I've always loved the 6x7 format, and loved the camera. Yeah it's a big heavy beast, and if you add in a few lenses the kit weighs in about the same as a Volkswagon, but the results (at least for me) are worth the sweat equity. Medium format is not for every one, and I still take out my old Zorkis, my Fed, and my SRT-102, but my heart will always be with MF work. </p>

<p>Relevant? Irrelevant? Depends what you are trying to achieve and what kind of shooting experience you are after. I personally love it!<br>

This guy seems to like it for some reason<br>

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=856953<br>

The article implies that time constraints dictated the P45 over his preferred film.</p>

<p>Why does something have to have relevance to use it. Relevance to whom? For Gods sake, use what you want and shoot pictures you want and all the rest is what's <strong>IRRELEVANT-!</strong> Sometimes this site really irks me.</p>

<p>Perhaps "relevant" was a poor choice of a word. This thread was merely to hear views on the use of this format among you, the cognoscenti out there. It is not a flame war. It is not a dis on MF. It is only a question of how it fits in.<br>

What prompted me to write this is the following (self) notion to be crystal clear. In my experience as an amateur, I have used Leica M's for discreet street shooting, and now learning MF on a Rollei (which I am loving.) Fine art photographers that specialize in still life, landscape, and formal portraiture seem to use LF for their own optimum results. I realize these are generalizations based on my experience only. Thus, my genuine curiosity on where MF format fills the gap today. <br /> <br /> Yes, indeed, this statement is irrelevant. The creative process and how you get there is all that is relevant. I do not know any artist or even casually creatively inclined person that would ever dispute that. There are people shooting cardboard pinhole cameras that have produced breathtaking work.<br /> <br /> I have learned quite a few things on this thread. Yes, people like to flame, vent, protest, rant, defend and the rest that triggers, however the other side of is remembering the most important point made on this thread by a couple of you...<br /> <br /> Who cares...do what is good for you and your own process.<br /> <br /> Thanks for that.<br /> <br /> Mike</p>

 

<p>Hi Michael,</p>

<p>I can tell you that MF film photography is still a part, at times a big part, of my photography. I shoot 35mm (Leica MP and Nikon F100), MF (Mamiya 7II, Mamiya RZ and Fuji 6x9) and large and ultra-large format cameras. I also shoot a D700.</p>

<p>I decide which camera to use when planning a shoot. I first consider what I ultimately want from the shoots: color or B&W, 4x6 lab prints, 20x24 platinum prints, 16x20 silver prints, or the flexibility to make various size prints. I then consider the practical aspects of the shoot. Obviously, I will not choose an ULF camera for street work. LF is great, but impractical at times. </p>

<p>MF still fits that niche when LF is impracticable but I want large negatives from which to print. I find that I use MF most often in two situations: 1. In the studio when I don't want the expense or time constraints of shooting LF, especially when working with models. 2. When traveling. The last two times I've traveled to Europe, I carried my D700 and my Mamiya 7II with 2 or 3 lenses. The D700 is fine for most of my color work, but I still like the feel and look of traditional B&W silver prints over what I can get digitally. For making enlarged negatives for alt printing, both the d700 and the Mamiya fit the bill. I sometimes cannot get the exact shot I want because neither camera has movements like a LF camera, but it is a compromise. Also, many places do not allow tripods, a necessity for most large format work.</p>

<p>MF has long been a compromise between the ease of 35mm and the quality of LF. Nothing really has changed in that regard. The D700 is a great camera, and I even prefer the quality of it to MF in very low light situations. But, it hasn't replaced the MF for B&W, or for color when I need a very high resolution scan.</p>

<p>As stated above by several posters, cameras are just tools. Sometimes, in my photography at least, the best tool is still a MF film camera. </p>

<p>Yours, and others, milage may vary. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I asked a dealer what he thought of the new Fuji/Bessa rangefinder and he said he stopped shooting medium format, only 35mm, 4x5, and 8x10. Interestingly enough, I've found myself doing the same thing. I may try to find one of the Fuji 645 rangefinders to replace my 35mm, though.</p>

<p>And I currently have more medium format cameras than anything, 2 Mamiya press cameras with 6x9 backs, two Koni Omegas, a Russian folder, a Holga, an RB67, and the Holga gets the most use because it's pocketable. </p>

<p>Basically if I'm going unobtrusive and lightweight I'm going with the Holga or a 35mm p&s, and if I'm going with a lot of equipment I may as well take my Crown Graphic.</p>

<p>First of all I love photography, 35mm, 120, digital– its all good; and depending on what I want to express i may use one or all of them even within the same image.<br /> You ask why use medium format film?<br /> A few of points:<br /> Bang for buck is pretty high, I have been playing with a 6x9 folding camera that I bought for a few pounds the quality is astonishing, in B&W even digital cameras costing many thousands can't match it for tonality and resolution.<br /> Compared to 35mm the quality is just breathtaking and while smaller formats have more flexibility and choice of lenses (especially with faster and extreme wide/tele/macro/zoom) and may be smaller I personally feel that for my uses a folder or TLR covers much of what I do.<br /> If you shoot sports or wildlife then 35mm has its place but that place has been eroded by digital to become a very small niche.<br /> Larger film formats are great for landscapes and possibly formal portraits and studio work and that's about it, and if that is your niche they do a fine job.<br /> Medium format can also do quite a bit of what LF can do a 6x9 is not all that much less than a 4x5 and more flexible and for me the most important thing is the huge range of emulsions available quite a bit of what you can get in 35mm is also in 120 but not LF.<br /> Lastly 120 is pretty easy to develop yourself, scan cheaply and source S/H enlargers if you want to do colour neg your local minilab can normally process 120 along with your 35mm in an hour....<br /> In fact digital pretty much eaten 35mm films lunch for most things possibly B&W slow film aesthetic apart but overall quality, ease of use etc so...<br /> What I ask myself is with the glut of cheap 120 cameras encompassing everything from small pocket street-shooter cameras (Zeiss Ikonta 645) to pro workhorse (Mamiya RB 6x7) system cameras where do I fit in 35mm? The occasional Macro or sports shots? possibly low light with a F1,2 lens those shots are few and far between for me in fact I have a Leica M4P that sits on a shelf with very occasional use since my love affair with my 6x9 folder...<br /> Mark</p>

<p>@ Jason Hall.... not all 400 speed films are created equal! In color, the Kodak Portra films in 400 (400NC and 400VC) are wonderful as is the reasonably priced Kodak HD400 (which many many people claim is actually 400VC or 400UC professional film in a different package!) The professional Fuji 400 films are also very nice, all of these options feature very nice color balance (cheap 400 films tend to make skin tones red) and much finer grain. The grain isn't quite like 100 speed film, but it's as good as 200 speed consumer film and a stop faster. In the B&W world, Kodak just recently reformulated TMAX 400 and it now supposedly has grain similar to TMAX 100! I haven't tried it yet personally though.</p>

<p>Michael -</p>

<p>Good question and well phrased, very clear as to what you were asking. Among the many great responses was Robert Lee, pretty much hitting a home run with good info, using very few words.</p>

<p>I use an M-6 for slides, Rolleiflex E.2 and Hasselblad for MF, and a field 4X5. As much enjoyment as they all provide, it's MF that I consider the all round best and most usable. Even the Leica is blown out of the water when comparing identical films, of the same scene, taken at the same time. The 4X5 is fun and gives great results, but far more involved and certainly lacking the convenience of the Hasselblad or Rollei. When comparing the size difference between 6X6cm and 4X5 inch film, unless printing larger than say 11X--- I think there is not that much to be gained by using the LF.</p>

<p>Comparing portability, size, weight and ease of handling with the other formats, then considering image results, MF for me is the clear winner. I'd say the best overall application, not even squarely in between 35mm and LF, actually much closer to 4X5 than 35mm. Give the Rollei a good workout, get to know it well and you'll be rewarded with some super photo's.</p>

<p>Best of luck and enjoy.</p>

<p>Patrick </p>

<p>Thank you Patrick, but I am only useing B&W film right now because I can process it myself. I have not tried T-max (so many films so little time) but I used the following;</p>

<p>Ilford Delta 100, Delta 400, HP5+, & Delta 3200, Kodak Tri-X400, Efke 50 and 25 (really like the 25) Fuji SS, Acros, and Neopan,(Did like the Fuji 100 and 400, did not like the 1600) Fomapan 200 (did not like at all!) and a few others I can not think of.</p>

<p>I am not giving them a completely fair shake, I have only scanned the films and I know the do their best when enlarged in a darkroom. </p>

<p>Just after seeing my first 6x7 neg....it was love at first sight. :o)</p>

<p>Jason </p>

<p>Jason, for all around shooting, I've found that Plus X @iso 125 is my hands down favorite film. Good contrast, and tonal range. I've gone to 16x20 from a 6x7 neg with no loss of detail. </p>

<p>Thanks Ed, I certainly want to try Plus-X. My latest attempt was with Tri-X 320 in HC-110(B). <a href="../black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00U3jO">It is certainly a keeper combo.</a> Plus-X will be in my next order.<br>

Also just tried some Delta 100 and Efke 50. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/15184234@N02/sets/72157621708393543/">Both produced great results.</a><br>

Jason</p>

<p>Keep in mind that 8x10" is still a lot better than 4x5", if only for the reason that contrast prints are in a very ncie size, but there are not so many 8x10" shooters. We all have to compromise and for many the compromise is MF.</p>

<p>This photo was recently made with Mamiya 6 tucked into a small waist pack while climbing. There's no way I'm going to lug a 4x5 up a mountain, but with this camera and the right film--in this case Tech Pan--similar results can be achieved. You cannot appreciate the sharpness and lack of grain looking at this on your screen. You would if you saw the finished print in front of me. And when you zoom in, you just keep seeing detail, as opposed to mosaic. So, yes, there is a place for medium format.</p><div></div>

<p>Very nice. I'm sold :)</p>

<p>Medium Format is not irrelevant for one reason: Black and white - blows 35mm out off the water (digital or film - and no matter how good your photoshop conversion is), yet is semi-portable. Thats it in a nutshell.</p>

<p>I use a DSLR and a Mamiya RB67. I have to say the the quality of the DSLR means that the RB stays at home more often than not these days. The DSR is, most of the time, more than good enough. Ultimately though, if I am working on a project that requires top quality or large prints, the RB will reward the extra effort. Often you don't have to zoom into the photos to see the difference either. As already mentioned by a few posters, the RB forces a way of working that works well for some types of photo. I do accept that 4x5 might be more suitable for some of the work that I do, especially given that the RB probably weighs more than a field camera, but fankly I feel like I have enough to do just getting composition and exposure just right, and my developing is all set up for 120 roll film. 35mm for me just isn't enough film area. 645 is probably the minimum I will use. Part of the reason for this is that I have a flat bed scanner. It's a good one, but really not the best tool for extracting the best from 35mm. Feed it a 67, and the problem is the other way round - I have to decide what resolution to step down to in order to avoid a massive image file. Add to this the knock down prices of once lusted after kit, and I'm sold...</p>

<p>"Black and white - blows 35mm out off the water (digital or film - and no matter how good your photoshop conversion is), yet is semi-portable. Thats it in a nutshell."</p>

<p>My Crown Graphic is as portable as all my medium format cameras, in fact, folded up it's more portable than all except for my Russian folder. And the negatives blow the 6x7 out of the water.</p>

<p>I like medium format (I use a Mamiya AFD) because it gives me the ability to switch between film and digital, or between various type of film, by just swapping backs. </p>

<p>I have a 22 mega-pixel digital back, and I like it a lot. But when I'm on an architectural job I'll often put on a film back (I favor Ektar 100) because, when scanned with a Nikon CS9000, it'll give me about 48 mega-pixels. </p>

<p>There's a small example attached, but at sizes reasonable for the Web you can't really see the virtue of having all that resolution. The 24" X 36" prints I produce do cause clients to squeal with joy.</p>

<p>-- Greg Peterson</p>

<div></div>

<p>First, if you are not trying to make money with your camera there is really no such thing as relevant or not relevant. It is all about personal taste and what you enjoy.</p>

<p>If you ARE trying to make money, for <em>most</em> types of money making opportunities, YES, medium format film is not practical and is a poor business choice. However, there are some lower volume shooting needs, but with higher quality (special look/style) required where medium format film still works best. This might be certain types of landscape, large group portraits, individual portraits, B&W film, numerous other low volume niche areas. If you are dong studio work with these same areas AND can also crank out high volume then med. format digital makes sense instead. Film still has advantages for rough field work conditions when the highest quality is also needed. Also, many landscape photo artists do not trust long exposure to digital. But med. format competes with large format here.</p>

<p>I would be surprised if very many photographers make a living with nothing but medium format film today. More of a hybrid business model makes more sense with smaller format digital filling the volume where it can be used, and med. format film for the lower volume, special needs as mentioned above.</p>