Book to Understand Medium Format Photography

[sanjay_chaudary]

<p>Hi,<br>

I use 35mm film slrs for photography - nature, wildlife , architecture ,landscapes , monuments , buildings. I am trying to understand about medium format photography - differences , advantages, equipment . I might look at shooting pictures with medium format equipment. I shoot colour negatives , slides and am currently looking at black and white. <br>

I came across this book :<br>

<br />1) Medium format advantage by ernst wild .</p>

<p> I would appreciate your comments and suggestions.</p>

<p> thanks in advance. </p>

<p> </p>

[sanjay_chaudary]

<p>P.S : I project my slides and view them</p>

[western_isles]

<p>If you already shoot 35mm and slides then you are part of the way there. Medium format uses all the technical and creative skills used in 35mm.</p>

<p>I also started with 35mm and then bought a used Mamiya 330f. The big difference was in composing on a reversed screen and within a square which I think is an acquired taste. At present I use a Bronica SQ which is square but in the past have used 6x7 and 6x4.5 the latter being a bit easier to compose.</p>

<p>Another good book, which I used myself is The Medium Format Manual by Michael Freeman. It gives a good summary of points for and against a variety of cameras and then goes over some of the technical and artistic challenges. </p>

<p>I now scan my slides and have been doing this for a while but previously my agent had all my slides scanned for me. Self scanning is not too difficult. Projecting medium format slides is not something I have ever done as I could never afford the projectors!</p>

<p>Two last things that you will need:<br>

1. A Tripod - Medium format is heavier<br>

2. A strong back for the tripod and camera, lenses etc.</p>

<p>Good luck and let us know how you get on.</p>

<p> </p>

[ken_kuzenski]

<p><br />Frank's suggestion of the MF Manual by Freeman is very good advice, Sanjay! I've got an old copy I found quite inexpensively, and it has been very helpful over the years. The cameras the manual discusses are mostly out of production but they ARE the ones you can look for on the used market. And there are some real bargains on MF gear where I live, because so many people use only digital.<br>

Another "yes indeed" to the tripod suggestion. Most medium-format cameras are too heavy for many ordinary tripods.<br>

I hope you find a camera you love and that you enjoy medium format. I use digital for routine things, but I use the MF gear for sheer pleasure, and I still enjoy it. :-) (Personally, I love 6x6 format, but others don't--you'll have to decide for yourself. :-) Good luck!</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Actually, much depends on the particular 6cm format camera that you choose.</p>

<p>Look for things like Hasselblad or Rollei or ..... handbooks.</p>

<p>Otherwise, aside from the scale, things like processing and picture taking are not really much different from 35mm work.</p>

<p>Oh, and you also need better muscle tone if you are lugging larger format cameras and their lenses around. This was not a negligible factor in the increasing popularity of 35mm after WWII.</p>

<p>"The days when cameras were wood and the men were steel."</p>

[sfcole]

<p>MF simply gives you a little less grain and a little more detail and enlargeability than 35mm. The problem is, many people get into it thinking that they will get large-format results. Then they don't and wonder why. It's still a fairly small format. People also assume that they will be be able to beat digital, which is no longer the case. It's good for portraits, but I wouldn't expect anything like 4x5 for landscapes. My Pentax K3 blows away my Hasselblad for landscape detail. You do have to like square format, which I do.<br>

I think MF shines when the photos still look like film (a little bit of grain), not when it's trying to compete against digital or large format. That's a losing battle.</p>

[baisao]

<blockquote>

<p>"People also assume that they will be be able to beat digital, which is no longer the case."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps it's your scanning method or some other factor. I use a Mamiya 7ii and was not surprised at what these testers discovered:<br /> <a href="http://petapixel.com/2014/12/18/comparing-image-quality-film-digital/">http://petapixel.com/2014/12/18/comparing-image-quality-film-digital/</a></p>

[baisao]

<p>I agree with JDM von Weinberg: there are variances among specific cameras but the nuts & bolts of photography still apply. DoF and focal length changes are the biggest differences to me, and a phone app can answer those differences until you get the feel for them.</p>

<p>For example, here's a reference than Jim Momary posted here in 2008:</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[sfcole]

<p><strong>Perhaps it's your scanning method or some other factor. I use a Mamiya 7ii and was not surprised at what these testers discovered:</strong><br /><strong><a href="http://petapixel.com/2014/12/18/comparing-image-quality-film-digital/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://petapixel.com/2014/12/18/comparing-image-quality-film-digital/</a></strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>Jim,<br>

Although I'm a big supporter and user of film, I don't find this test to be convincing in the real world. The first thing is that using iso 20 film and then paying megabucks for drum scans is inconvenient, expensive, time-consuming, and simply impractical. For example, one can't use such a slow film if there is any kind of breeze or wind present in a scene--shutter speeds are just too low. <br>

The second issue with a test like this is viewing: one doesn't normally enlarge a photo to this degree to begin with. And at this point in photography, everyone is aware, and has been shown, that even when a film shot does resolve the teeniest details, when you stand back and compare with the same scene at the same normal viewing size and distance, the digital photos simply look sharper. <br>

I use good equipment: Mamiya 6 and Hasselblad cameras, usually on a tripod, usually using 100 or 400 Tmax, and scanning on a Nikon 8000. I'm not going to start using iso 20 film, or paying $20-$50 for a scan. And I suspect few others are willing to do such backflips to compete with digital. One would be better off just buying the latest Pentax 645.<br>

However, my original point was to use film for its obvious film-like qualities, not to try to compete with digital only under limited, expensive, and time-consuming "laboratory" conditions that will only impress pixel-peepers and not actual photo-viewers.</p>

[baisao]

<p>Sorry, Scott. I guess I touched a nerve.</p>

<p>I get great results in real world conditions shooting Acros (souped in DD-X) or FP4+ (souped in Pyrocat-HD). These are my favorite films at the moment. I'm most certainly not a pixel peeper: I frequently find the incredible sharpness/resolution of the Mamiya 7 lenses to be unsettling. That's why I said I wasn't surprised by the lab tests. I get more of a film look with my Rolleiflexes, which is why I often prefer to use them instead of the Mamiya 7. </p>

<p>Image stabilization and high ISOs, are all great benefits to digital, but even in real world conditions I don't feel that I am missing anything with medium format film. YMMV</p>

[sanjay_chaudary]

<p>Thanks for all the responses. I will check the books out. I have a Manfrotto 055 Xpro B tripod and load capacity is 15.4 lbs. I guess this should be sufficient for medium format. I also have a decent ballhead.</p>