aplumpton Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 <p>It is probably fair to say that all quality medium format used camera equipment prices have not eroded as much as many 35mm film cameras and lenses (perhaps Leica and a few others apart). Access to quality MF equipment allows the film photographer to compete with the quality produced by higher priced digital systems, while still retaining the resolution of film and (even better) the particular visual quality of darkroom B&W prints compare to the normal inkjet print. With used quality MF gear (RF or SLR body and lens) starting above $1000, it makes sense for some to invest $200-$500 in a used Minolta Autocord or Mamiya TLR, the like, or a less collectible Rolleiflex. I don't think it is so much the manner of operation of the TLR versus SLR or RF bodies, but the potentially fine 6x6 negative or positive attainable at minimum cost. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene_aker2 Posted January 30, 2011 Author Share Posted January 30, 2011 <p>Good points. However, I think some film shooters do prefer the silent shutter of the TLR over the clunk of the SLR--whether 120 or 35mm. Also, older film shooter love the ground glass over 35mm peep hole viewfinder. Small differences. But important to some--certainly to me. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samples1 Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 <p>Shutter silence is certainly golden, and ground glass works better at arms length because I need reading glasses, but it also beats an LCD up close when using the magnifying viewfinder of my 635. Having said that, I have also seen at least one DSLR (forgot which one) that can be used at waist level very much like a TLR. Finally for me, something seems lost when you know with certainty exactly what your picture will look like before you click the shutter.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wmwhee Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 <p>There's nothing quite like viewing a composition on a ground glass screen. A few year ago I was out shooting with my rollei tlr, which features a bright screen, when a few passersby expressed interest in the camera. I invited them to view the composition on the ground glass. After viewing the picture, and then viewing the actual scene in front of him, one of the guys said that the image on the ground glass looked more real than the scene itself! Viewing a picture on a ground glass screen intensifies the experience of seeing the world as if for the first time.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene_aker2 Posted January 30, 2011 Author Share Posted January 30, 2011 <p>Bill: I think you hit the nail on the head. For the serious film photographer, ground glass is an integral part of the process, not mere convenience. The TLR, gives the photographer a link to large format photography!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo5 Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 <p>Very good point. I always feel the scene on the ground glass of my TLR looks better and more exciting than the resulting image when I make a print. Perhaps this is because it gets reversed on the ground glass? In any case, I wish my 1949 Rolleiflex had a brighter screen. The Hasselblad 500CM with the Acute Matte D screen was so much brighter and better, but I much prefer the ergonomics of the Rolleiflex, with just the ground glass and no screen.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumpton Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 <p><em>"For the serious film photographer, ground glass is an integral part of the process, not mere convenience." </em></p> <p>Gene, I know this is mentioned by many, and for some photography like macro or long telephoto, it is really the only way to go. I like the groundglass viewing on my TLR but I use that camera for only certain types of photography. A groundglass doesn't give you a direct and brightest view of a scene, as it is an element placed between the scene, the objective and your eye. What you are seeing is what is on the screen and at whatever f stop the viewing lens of the TLR wants to convery it to you (with blurred as well as sharp areas at that particular f stop).</p> <p>For most MF photography (and 35mm), I very much prefer the clean uncluttered (no blur of out of focus parts) of my RF Mamiya 6 or Fuji GSW 690III cameras. The Mamiya is as silent in operation as my TLR (not so the Fuji, although it is invariably on a tripod and sound is unimportant there). The image is as it apears in nature, seen directly and any alteration to the exposure or focus I do in my head when composing the image. I like the TLR but it is really bulkier and slower in operation (not necessarily bad always) than my RF MF cameras. I think that many prefer the advantage of the interchageable lens Alpa, Mamiya 6 and 7 and othe RF cameras and it would be interesting to see some good recent statistics on the relative popularity of these camera types.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wmwhee Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 <p>You're correct, Arthur, in saying the ground glass doesn't give you a direct and brightest view of a scene, as do your mf rangefinder cameras. I wonder how this--being one step removed from the scene, so to speak--affects a photographer's seeing. I still recall my early experiences of viewing the world upside down and reversed on the ground glass of a large format camera. (I recall looking at books of other large format photographers' work upside down and reversed on my lap to see what they themselves saw when making a photograph.) I like the distancing effect, the objectivity, created by viewing the world photographically in this way. For me, viewing the world on a ground glass aided, and increased the enjoyment of, composing a photograph: light and shadow, form, texture, lines. While viewing the world on the ground glass of a tlr is not the very same thing as viewing it on that of a view camera, it is close. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene_aker2 Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 <p>I think both Arthur and Bill make it very clear that serious film photographers have different preferences for selecting and composing scenes. Ground glass is certainly not helpful for moving scenes! Nor does the TLR help by never allowing you to see a stopped down view! Since most of my subjects: Landscape, Architecture, Portraits--are stationary, I prefer the unrealistic help I get from ground glass, whether TLR, or Large Format. Plus, I simply enjoy looking at the world on ground glass. The whole slow-down ritual of ground glass keeps me from going on "auto-pilot." <br> But back to the TLR itself; one of its merits is the simplicity of the machine and its operation. I find its simplicity and limits very calming. It puts me in a good mood. I use other cameras including digital ones. But when a camera presents me with a huge range of choices, I find it distracting, and I get more involved with the camera than with "seeing" pictures. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Nor does the TLR help by never allowing you to see a stopped down view!</p> </blockquote> <p>Mamiya did make a 105mm lens lens for their C220/C330 TLR cameras which featured an iris in the viewing lens which could be stopped down to judge the effect.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene_aker2 Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 <p>I forgot about that one. I once had a 135mm for the C3; but never a 105.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene_aker2 Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 <p>I forgot about that one. I once had a 135mm for the C3; but never a 105.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene_aker2 Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 <p>I forgot about that one. I once had a 135mm for the C3; but never a 105.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene_aker2 Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 <p>I forgot about that one. I once had a 135mm for the C3; but never a 105.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo5 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 <p>I believe there was also a Rollei iris accessory you could attach to the viewing lens to see depth of field. I've always used the scale around the focusing knob to set my depth of field with great results.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumpton Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 <p>Gene and Bill,</p> <p>Your choices make sense. I very often use a simple separate VF instead of a camera in evaluating a subject to photograph, which may explain why I like the simple uncluttered viewing of an RF camera. Occasionally, the MF RF is for speed of interaction, but not often for me.</p> <p>What I like about using the TLR has already been said, I think, but I might add that for me it seems like a very pure photographic tool, simple, straightforward and with a quality of inducing one to communicate with the subject (like LF and MF SLRs).</p> <p>A practical thing that first convinced me to buy a used model TLR - the ability to make double exposures, something not present on many MF cameras.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanessa_resler Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 <p>I'm an example of a "young person" who learned with film, then went to digital, and now I'm back to film. I just bought a Yashica 635 from keh and am very excited about it. I want to try street photography with it. I think there is a film resurgence. Or maybe it's just my wishful thinking.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene_aker2 Posted February 4, 2011 Author Share Posted February 4, 2011 <p>Vanessa: Congratulations on your new venture with the Yashica 635. I hope you have a chance to enlarge the negatives and make some prints. The Yashica is a people magnet--and a lively way to meet people who will ask you about the camera. AS far as a resurgence of film---well, it's never been gone. I think this thread shows that. There are a variety of forums and sharing sites on line of folks using the TLR. good luck!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanessa_resler Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 <p>Gene, thank you for the encouragement.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now