Anybody gone fully from 35mm to 120?

Peter, after all my affairs, I'm back with a Brand New MP, lux 50 asph, 35 lux asph and 28 cron asph, buuut, for portraiture and great quality, and color I use my hassy 500CM with the 80 or 150, You will be amazed when You can see your MF negatives.

But at the end, 35mm is necessary for convenience, speed and light equipment. Also Leica is an investiment.
 
I mostly used medium format, a bit of 4x5 and very rarely 35mm. 35mm is good for vacations, where you may just want to burn through film taking snapshots, but as I rarely even finish a roll of 120 on one outing, a 36exp roll lives for a while in my camera, too long.

35mm has the ability to give all the quality I need, with good shooting, development and scanning. But medium format gives that quality effortlessly.
 
Frank Petronio said:
I saw that photographers continued to use 35mm film (or Holgas or Wet Plate or...) for its "organic-imperfect" qualities in reaction to the prevalence of smooth, perfect digital images.
.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as perfection! All photographic images are recreations, and it is entirely subjective as to which you prefer... My own candidate for top of the list would be the venerable Daguerreotype !!

Even a human being viewing the original scene with their own eyes will not have a perfect vision of that scene, such is the subjective nature of human perception.
 
Hello!

Thanks for all the input, I follow the discussion closely. A lot of good thoughts here.

Ko.Fe. said:
It is personal decision.
One of the most impressive real life portraits I have seen was from OP.
"Refugees from Iraq in Armenia". Feels close and personal for me too.
Click to expand...
Thank you! Interestingly, that image was shot on Kentmere 400, pushed. I thought, however, that it is HP5+ (bulk roll, that store guy said it was HP5+) and I developed it accordingly. The resulting imperfection may have led to the character of the image...in any case, it does not reduce its quality. All of which works a little against the motivation to use MF to get closer to "perfection".

shadowfox said:
One of the strength of film photography is the different formats available (with different matching cameras).
What would be the benefit for limiting ourselves to using one exclusively?
Click to expand...
Good point, and perhaps reason enough to keep the M6. Plus mine is in incredible mint shape, with the new finder, and like Bruno said, an investment (though I buy cameras to use them). M6 and GF670 may work nicely together, actually.

35mmdelux said:
I don't know about your hypothesis, Frank. Those little cameras with b&w film properly developed can achieve amazing results.l
Click to expand...
Yupp. From the number of images I have published in print, the Contax T3 is up front; astonishing results...that camera would stay in any case.
 
Most of the 35mm I shoot now is XPan or Widelux.

My 35mm lenses are finding more and more use on digital 35 and M43 cameras.

My favorite cameras are all 120 film - Fujica 690, Noblex 150, and Linhof 617.

Since my main focus is capturing images for wall hanging and gift giving, the 120 quality potential cannot be denied.

Texsport
 
I've contemplated doing away with 35mm altogether and going digital+120 only. What's keeping me from carrying that through is that I can stash the Oly Stylus Infinity in a pocket, but that's something that's completely undoable with the Bronica 6x6.. at least, it is with the pockets that I have in my jackets..
 
I have a couple of nikon SLRs that were gifts (the FM and the F3) so they will never be sold. Other than that, I only focus on 120mm format now. I did invest a good chunk of money into 135 with rangefinders at one point. But now I don't see the point. I love my 6x6 and 6x7 cameras. You can buy such amazing glass and bodies for such bargain prices that paying the same price for 135 just doesn't make sense (The plaubel or Mamiya 7 is a STEAL* compared to the Leicas).

Also... scanning 120 format on a flatbed scanner is much easier and better than 135. Did I mention developing it is easier too?
 
mwoenv said:
No, prints from each format have a different look so the format is selected depending on what I'm shooting.
Click to expand...

Is be interested to know some of the examples and rationale behind each. Not because I want to dispute but just out of curiosity.
 
Currently shoot only MF in a Mamiya 6. I would go back to 35mm for slides though, I still have a projector, and slides in MF are such a pain!
 
"With that in mind, to me the best remaining use of film is to make very high quality large format images that even a high-rez Phase or Hasselblad can't match".

I am returning to handheld large format, with my Plaubel Makiflexes. Not that I still won't use 35mm film for some things......... 9x9cm has definate advantages over my Hasselblads, and is surprisingly portable. And SO much fun to shoot. Used to use a 4x5" Graflex Super D and it's about the same buzz just much better shooting experience.

And it also takes 120 film Makina Holders and 6x9cm plates. Right now one of my Makina rollholders is loaded with Delta 3200. This is something new to me.
 
80% 120 and getting closer to 100%. Bought a Mamiya 645 with 80mm lens and fell in love with medium format. Have since added a 150mm lens and a 45mm wide angle lens. Just enjoy shooting with the camera.

Regards
clc
 
Thanks again for the additional thoughts and input.
I will take the GF670 as main camera on my next project, but also keep the M6 - the main reason is that I want to re-enter wide-angle photography, and here 135 shines.
The GF670 and an M6 + 25mm Biogon seems like a capable combination for landscape projects that include some documentary work with environmental portraits.

Thanks!!
Peter
 
I don't think anything can replace the convenience of 35mm, but lately I have found some joy in shooting Bronica RF, which is surprisingly portable and works very well in the street. The 645 format in general is a great compromise between the eminently portable 35mm cameras, and mainly tripod driven 6x6 and 6x7 formats.
 
mfogiel said:
I don't think anything can replace the convenience of 35mm, but lately I have found some joy in shooting Bronica RF, which is surprisingly portable and works very well in the street. The 645 format in general is a great compromise between the eminently portable 35mm cameras, and mainly tripod driven 6x6 and 6x7 formats.
Click to expand...

What is your 35mm rig mfogiel?
 
I shoot with both formats, I like carrying a small compact such as a Rollei 35, but also shoot regularly with my Mamiya C3
 
I did go completely mf from a set up including rangefinders and SLRs. I had a Fuji GS645S, and used 220 film *sigh* It was great for everything, including family photos. I love the 645 format.

Sadly, we were burgled, and the Fuji was gone, never to be properly replaced.

With only 120 available, I'm not sure that I'd make the transition again, unless I were using a 645 SLR with interchangeable backs, and had a spare loaded and ready to swap. But that makes a bulky package. The only other way I'd think about going would be a folder like a Bessa III or GS645 folder, which would sit in a pocket, and overcome one inconvenience with that availability.
 
I do both and let me give a slight plug for one of my favorite medium format cameras that will not break the bank. Try a Zeiss Nettar. Cheap but a fantastic lens.
 
jkrumsick said:
Is be interested to know some of the examples and rationale behind each. Not because I want to dispute but just out of curiosity.
Click to expand...

I don't have any side-by-side examples but the final image difference between formats is due to working distance, tonal range, lens design and DOF.

Take a ~75-90mm lens on a 6x7 camera which is a "normal" vs. a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera. The longer focal length has inherently less depth of field BUT due to a lesser enlargement factor to get the same size print, the COC of the medium format image works in your favor and the apparent DOF in the final print widens just a little bit.

If you crop out exactly 24x36mm in the center of a medium format frame the medium format lens' focal length is exactly the same as the 35mm lens' focal length with regard to the final print. A lens is a lens though and it doesn't know or care what it is projecting light upon so the DOF is a rigid constant with regard to focal length, regardless of format. It is the reproduction ratio, final enlargement and viewing distance which lend a difference to DOF

Now, the 6x7 is a tighter crop being closer to 4:5 ratio while the 35mm is a 2:3 ratio so a 6x9 camera is a better comparison for non-cropped final images but most miniature format folks doing printing are cropping the 35mm frame to suit the 8x10 paper and so the 6x7 medium format comparison is completely relevant.

Your working distance with a 6x7 camera is usually greater than a 35mm camera. Now, the eminent Mamiya RB and RZ 67 cameras kind of set the bar for this format in SLR use because there are so many of them, they are inexpensive (now) and the lenses are fantastic. The reason I bring this system up is that the camera has a built-in macro bellows so you can get much closer.

That system aside, shooting a medium format camera up close is rather like shooting a rangefinder up close as they tend to have longer close-focus working distances with standard lenses. This distance affects the DOF far more than final print enlargement ratio so that ~75-90mm lens on the medium format camera tends to settle back down closer to the drawing characteristics of a 50mm lens in 35mm format.

In spite of that the medium format system tends to draw a little more "three dimensionally" due to the longer focal length lenses ability to more selectively focus at natural looking apertures. This is why a lot of folks didn't (and still don't) like APS sized sensors. One the wide angle side, the DOF is about the same shooting a 28mm lens for example, but the angle of view is much closer to a normal lens.

Then there's tonal range. The medium format lenses tend to be much older, mature designs that draw with a very long tonal range and allow the shooter to tailor the image more than a very modern, higher contrast formulation. This and the fact that the sheer surface area of the medium format film allows tonality that is hard to get out of 35mm frames.

Ok, I'm just rambling now. Geeking out on lens design and format.

Phil Forrest
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom