Jump to content

Why medium format film with these other cameras ..


RaymondC

Recommended Posts

I got into medium format about 18 months ago. I have only used them now and then, much of the time I give myself excuse even if is just a casual stroll along the beach or park, just to use up my film I suppose, haha. Which isn't the best way under noon (midday) light, harsh and strong light. If I was out of film I probably would not rush out to get more film just so I could take some casual snaps. They haven't been used since April this year.

 

Why is it that you use medium format film? It is for the b/w film, is it just because you are doing it slowly and using a much different camera?

 

I can see how b/w film may be different to digital but I might not use much color film. Many would only have a flatbed scanner at home to scan film, given the amount of film I do use it doesn't make sense to get a dedicated Plustek etc or farm it out and pro scanning.

 

Like your thoughts.

 

 

Cheers.

Edited by RaymondC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you expect answers different from those you got in the similarly titled thread that you started 3 months ago?

 

What is the main reason you shoot film under medium format?

 

It seems like you're just looking for a reason to start a film/digital argument or you've decided continuing to use film isn't right for you. If the latter is the case, have at it-I'm not going to try and tell you otherwise. My D800 gives me images that are probably on par with 645(provided I do my part and am using a lens with enough resolution to get all the resolution the sensor offers), although I'd still give 6x7 an edge.

 

The bottom line for me is that I like shooting film. I enjoy the results I get from Velvia as well as from B&W film. With B&W, I like printing in the dark room. Both are true even in 35mm, even though a good digital is clearly superior in terms of resolution.

 

For me, medium format remains the "happy medium" so to speak with much better IQ than 35mm and cameras that are a lot easier to load, operate, and handle than 4x5. Even though my RB67 weighs more than my Speed Graphic or B&J view camera, and the lenses weigh a ton, the loading thing is actually a big deal. Quick loads/ready loads don't exist anymore, and I'm not too keen on loading film holders in the field. A 5-roll box of MF film is smaller in every dimension than two 4x5 holders-that's 50 shots in the RB67 vs. 4 shots. Realistically, I'm probably not going to shoot 50 frames of MF in one outing, but I do want more than 4 shots on hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, a "casual stroll" with a medium format camera means a heavy backpack of equipment (35+ pounds) and a sturdy tripod. A hundred rolls of film isn't light either, but that stays in an insulated bag in the car, except for the dozen or so I carry with me. I suppose you could skip the hard part and shoot everything by hand. That's good for Kodak Brownie quality, also medium format.

 

Personally, I tired of the expense and uncertainty of film in 2007, when I purchased a 16 MP (4080x4080) back and never looked back. The Hasselblad was my favorite landscape camera until the Sony A7Rii came along in 2015.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure what the purpose of the thread is, but yes, MF film cameras are quite a pain to use compared to 35mm film cameras or any digital. This is what I say when people post on this site that they "want to get into MF film photography." I used an MF system for 15 years, but gave it up when I went digital, with no real regrets. If I had had a personal darkroom set up I am sure I would have kept the MF for black and white shooting.
Robin Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For fun !

 

It's something different. I also own 3 different bikes that I use for different types of riding.

 

I have a Yashica TLR that cost me all of $80. It's fairly compact and produces excellent images. The giant waist-level viewfinder provides a much different experience than a typical SLR or DSLR. There's color film in it now and I use it for landscapes, architecture, city skylines, - that kind of thing. If I got a different close-up accessory lens, it might also be good for portraits but my SLR or digital cameras work just fine for that.

 

I process my own film and was lucky enough to pickup a good film scanner for $100 and repair it. I look for deals on film on eBay and don't mind shooting expired film, so for me the costs of film and processing aren't the much, plus I enjoy seeing the images for the first time as I unroll the negatives off the reels. Images I may have taken days, or weeks ago.

 

It's a totally different experience from shooting digital. An experience that not everyone would enjoy, but that's OK.

Edited by tomspielman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure what the purpose of the thread is, but yes, MF film cameras are quite a pain to use compared to 35mm film cameras or any digital.

 

I don't think that's necessarily true, at least not if you're comparing medium format film to a 35mm. A Rolleiflex or other TLR is pretty simple to use and are not any bulkier than a 35mm SLR. They are not system cameras so they don't have the flexibility that 35mm SLRs or more complex medium format cameras do. You're not going to want to use them for sports photography or birding but for things that don't require magnification and aren't moving fast, they work pretty well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a batch of medium format slides coming back with my betterscanning custom film holder for my Epson so will do some scanning and prints and see how they really are physically. 19 rolls and I do this annually or each 2yrs since it's so expensive here I have to ship it to the USA.

 

Yesterday did a few A3 prints off my Epson R2880. B/w film to me looks different and medium format looks especially nice.

 

When they arrive I will do the same to color slides (medium format). With 35mm, my used Nikon Coolscan 4000 now longer works I took some scans I did before and I scanned it with my Epson and both printed to A3. There wasn't that much differences, both were usable but the Coolscan certainly had more detail but even the Coolscan gave quite a film looking image with color slides. Kodak E100G, and more contrast Velvia 50. When one looks at a slide with their bare eyes it looks slick, contrast, sharp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I... There wasn't that much differences, both were usable but the Coolscan certainly had more detail but even the Coolscan gave quite a film looking image with color slides. Kodak E100G, and more contrast Velvia 50. When one looks at a slide with their bare eyes it looks slick, contrast, sharp.

 

Not sure what you meant by: "quite a film looking image". It was film after all. ;)

 

My impression is that you weren't happy with the way they turned out. I have a Coolscan 8000 and an Epson V500. Honestly, a lot of the time just using more or less default settings in the scanning software will produce more pleasing images (to me) on the Epson. I attribute that to the fact that EpsonScan gets regular updates whereas NikonScan is over a decade old. I've also tried VueScan on the 8000. I know it has a devout following but I wasn't happy with it. It couldn't really do thumbnails with the 8000 so any kind of workflow was really slow.

 

Getting the most out of the scanner/scanning software is a learning process, - at least it has been for me. After a lot of messing around I finally got the Coolscan to produce images that were better and more detailed than what EpsonScan would do almost automatically.

 

If you decide to continue with film, I'd recommend learning how to process/develop it on your own. It's really not that hard, can potentially save you money, and you have more control over the results, - once you get some practice with it.

Edited by tomspielman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everyone. Due to my age, and some of it's attendant BS, I can not long "drag" my 8x10 or 4x5 kits about the landscape. However, a bevy of 6x9, 6x7, 6x6 cameras are not so "heavy" that a day must be spent indoors. For ages the LF negs were exposed & developed within the Zone System parameters. A wet lab "consumed" my time with these large negs. The MF negs are now developed over the kitchen sink using my Igloo cooler "system" These days an Epson V600 or V800 scanner has replaced the wet lab, but the MF negs are still exposed with Zone System thinking "rethought" for the digital age. Time fussing with these MF negs has not diminished, so there is one "negative" for MF in the digital age!. If I want to go on a day romp, I can always drag out the remaining 35mm gear. The entire adventure in photography is what you make it to be. Aloha, Bill Edited by Bill Bowes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no way I can get chemistry here now. USA won't ship here, Germany would ship by sea but it just made it uneconomical byt he time they got to NZ. Also cos colour chemistry goes off quicker than b/w it means I still have to collect up and binge develop.

 

Man .. locally they charge $16US to process one roll of slides and one roll of 35mm slides cost up to $35US. Unicolor, Arista colour development kits are unheard of here unless one flies overseas and take it back in person assuming it clears thru airport security. In the whole country here there is only 2 labs now that does E6.

 

I can see the benefit of b/w film more. Both 35mm and medium format. I do process b/w myself though.

 

I guess what I am saying is that b/w film and C41 has more that film look and slide film and esp with Velvia people wanted that punch look, the backlighted slide look. When it has been scanned. More of those attributes was better with a dSLR. dSLR is just sharp, and grain free and slick. I guess it might be the difference from viewing the naked slide and then viewing after it has been scanned and it picks up the film base.

Edited by RaymondC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only use film for nostalgia or fun. Unless I start shooting large format again there is nothing to be gained over a high end DSLR than the pure pleasure of doing the work for yourself and if your into darkroom work, your own processing. One way or another anything you shoot is going to wind up digital, 14 years ago I might of argued for film but not anymore. I own at least 20 MF cameras and 60 35mm SLR's and hundreds of lenses, all brands and sizes. I will still use them but not professionally unless I'm doing a show in MF B&W film.

Just use what you enjoy...that is all that matters.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just use what you enjoy...that is all that matters.

 

That's right.

 

And Raymond, it sounds like you're not really enjoying your medium format experience so it may not be for you. I have a Yashica TLR (as I've mentioned) and had an opportunity to pick up a Hasselblad a few weeks ago at a police auction but decided against it. Not sure what it would have ended up costing me but I just couldn't see myself lugging it around.

 

The TLR is plenty portable but has definite limitations. I'd never have one as my only film camera.

 

I've shot 4 rolls of film so far and have developed a couple of them. Will probably process the other two this weekend. Getting into medium format was relatively cheap for me so if I get tired of it I can easily sell what I've got and end up ahead. Through patience and luck I also acquired an inexpensive dedicated film scanner that can scan 120. If I had to pay a significant amount of money for processing and good scans, I doubt I'd continue with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...