From digital straight to MF?

[karateisland]

I feel a bit guilty asking for more feedback before I've offered anything constructive back to the community, but since the brains in this forum are second to none, I figured what the heck.

Yesterday a photographer friend recommended that, as I jump into film from digital, I skip over 35mm and go straight to medium format.

Here is his reasoning:

1. The digital camera that I have (X100F) is extremely flexible and capable in a wide variety of situations, and so it works wonderfully as a snapshot and travel camera for my purposes. He thinks I will be disappointed in a 35mm camera because it will be much less flexible and the results will look too similar to my little digital rangefinder.
2. He says that if I want to be wowed by my film pictures, it’s best to jump to a format that is less similar, ie, 645 or 6x7, and use something like a Mamiya rangefinder or a Plaubel Makina.
3. If I want to make myself slow down and pay more attention to the process of taking a picture, that can be done with a medium format camera just as well as with a 35mm, or perhaps better since it will take fewer shots per roll.
4. I don’t have access to a color dark room (yet), and his experience says that MF is easier to work with on a scanner.

Note that I am not printing (as of yet), but am enamored of the special “something” that I see in 6x7 negatives, and even halfway competent scans.

So what do you think of his recommendation? Does it make sense to jump into film photography and supplement a digital with a medium format camera?

I believe I’ve made up my mind, but it was an intriguing idea I've not seen promoted elsewhere, and I’d love to hear what everyone else thinks.

 

[Steve M.]

Everything he said is correct. But, I would start w/ 35mm, primarily because it will provide you with an excellent opportunity to see what film is capable of and still be quick and inexpensive to buy into and shoot. You can slow things down all you want w/ any format. If you nail the exposures and use the right film development w/ a great lens, you will be surprised at the difference in image quality with film vs digital.

Personally, I can spot a digital photo from a film shot 99% of the time because film has much greater shadow detail and a more "natural" look. There have been impressive gains in digital imaging over the years, but you are still going up against a film process that has been improved and refined for over a century, and it shows. Just run a roll of properly exposed slide film through a 35mm camera and see the difference in image quality, especially in colour saturation and vibrancy. For B&W, something you can process in the kitchen sink w/o a darkroom, you will see a huge difference in deep blacks and bright whites, the tonal range and separation will be much greater than digital, and for the price of a scanner you can set up an enlarger w/ some trays and make wet prints on fiber that will be far superior to any inkjet print in permanency and quality. B&W is where film really shines against digital, which often gives you a lot of gray w/o the tonal range of film. Plus, B&W film grain can often be beautiful, while digital noise always looks like just what it is, noise.

Once you master 35mm developing, exposure and printing, then you will see a step up in medium format image quality, but you sacrifice things like getting 36 exposures to a roll, your film costs go up (and down w/ film selection), and you lose the speed and flexibility of the smaller and lighter 35mm cameras.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I ditched all MF gear except two vintage folders. If I need few frames, I could always bulk load 16 frames of 135 film.

MF suggestion often comes from technocrats, not photographers. I have seen many. But some photographers made their specific choice for MF. Vivian Maier mostly known for Rolleiflex pictures (but she also used 135 cameras indoors and on travel). Diane Arbus huge prints from Mamyia TLR are impressive.

If you are into photography, you must determine first what is you subject and how you get into it. People like Henry Cartier Bresson, Garry Winogrand, Jane Bown used 135 film cameras as great advantage. Because they were mobile with it. HCB and JB started with MF, but switched to 135 cameras.

MF is about static. If you like to photograph static objects and classic portrait (square, still and in the middle) is your forte it is MF. If you like 6x7 scans, you will need to like to work out to haul the beast (6x7 camera) 🙂.

This is where technocrats would prefers MF:


This is where MF sucks 🙂

 

[Gerry M]

^^^ Ko.Fe.

Well put!!

 

[ACullen]

I'd agree with everyone so far, start with 35mm.

As noted above, it's cheaper , has it's own benefits of portability, greater focal length choice , easier to hand-hold , more photos before roll change needed, wider film choice etc.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

If you want to start straight in with medium format, go for it.
It's an itch you're going to scratch and getting a 35mm camera is only going to be a step towards that medium format you want.
That said, find something with a good fixed lens like one of the Fujis and learn the camera plus the medium. Yes, there are more available film stocks in 35mm but the limitation of what is available in 120 is not something to care about, really. If you want to work in black and white, get a pro pack of Tri-X. If you want to do color, get Ektar. You can't lose with either of those emulsions. And they aren't really that much more expensive, especially considering you will be more contemplative with your 120 shooting until you get the hang of it and really comfortable. You'll take fewer photos but your ratio of keepers will be greater, so it's not more expensive per-shot when you consider you will most likely be making better photos with a much larger negative.
Have fun.

Phil Forrest

 

[ptpdprinter]

Personally, I can spot a digital photo from a film shot 99% of the time because film has much greater shadow detail and a more "natural" look. There have been impressive gains in digital imaging over the years, but you are still going up against a film process that has been improved and refined for over a century, and it shows. Just run a roll of properly exposed slide film through a 35mm camera and see the difference in image quality, especially in colour saturation and vibrancy. For B&W, something you can process in the kitchen sink w/o a darkroom, you will see a huge difference in deep blacks and bright whites, the tonal range and separation will be much greater than digital, and for the price of a scanner you can set up an enlarger w/ some trays and make wet prints on fiber that will be far superior to any inkjet print in permanency and quality. B&W is where film really shines against digital, which often gives you a lot of gray w/o the tonal range of film. Plus, B&W film grain can often be beautiful, while digital noise always looks like just what it is, noise.

I shoot both film and digital. Keep in mind that the above quote is highly subjective. You might come to different conclusions.

 

[ruby.monkey]

Unless you have a desire to use a particular small-format film camera, there's not a great deal you can do with 35mm film that you can't do with digital. At least a 645-or-larger negative will give you a distinctly different look.

I'd say stick with your digital cameras for small-format work and enjoy film in medium- or larger format, as God intended.

 

[Darthfeeble]

I'm in the go for it camp, mostly because I did. That said, KoFe's assessment is spot on. I have a hasselblad 500C and a Mamiya RZ67. The Hassy is awkward to carry around and the Mamiya is near impossible. However, the results from either are amazing. I was disappointed with the results from 35mm vs digital.

 

[narsuitus]

Yesterday a photographer friend recommended that, as I jump into film from digital, I skip over 35mm and go straight to medium format.

I really do not think there is a path for digital photographers who want to jump into film.

Feel free to jump into medium format, small format, or large format.


Film Formats by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[benlees]

I totally recommend MF. Digital cameras are so good now that 35mm is now an enjoyable activity rather than a means to high quality. MF cameras also come in a wide array of types: TLR, RF, folders, SLR, etc. An enjoyable activity and lots of quality, and quite affordable, on average. I have always had much more fun with MF.

 

[narsuitus]

My personal favorite medium format film/small format digital combo is the Fuji GW670III medium format rangefinder and the Fuji X-Pro1 digital mirrorless.


Fuji GW670III & Fuji X-Pro1 by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[narsuitus]

My personal favorite small format film/small format digital combo is the Leica M6 35mm film rangefinder and the Fuji X-Pro1 digital mirrorless.


Leica M6 & Fuji X-Pro1 by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[Godfrey]

Given that in High School, I used to shoot sports with a 4x5 Speed Graphic, I don't buy the notion that medium format is only for static subjects. I also used to shoot a Mamiya 645 at the motorcycle races once in college... 🙂

But I'll agree that 35mm cameras are better suited for fast action work most of the time.

If you want to get into medium format, you can't go very far wrong with a good condition Rolleiflex TLR or Hasselblad 500CM. Good lenses, reliable operation, etc ... Don't worry so much about what you can't shoot with them, think more about you can shoot with them. Which is a lot. Prices are so low for these cameras these days it's not like you're going to lose your shirt if they end up not working for you.

Medium format does have its constraints. With only 120 film being available now, really, square format cameras get 12 shots on a roll. So they will make you more choosey about when you press the shutter release. The bigger film format is generally much easier to handle in processing and definitely scans better.

35mm film quality is pretty much eclipsed by today's 16 to 24 Mpixel cameras. Get into that if you just love shooting 35mm film ...

 

[Deleted member 65559]

My opinion...go for it. MF is not pricey, certainly by comparison with Leica. The Mamiya 6 & 7 are moderate in size & fast in use. Not only for static subjects. Any medium format negatives 6x6,6x7,6x8,6x9 are immeasurably easier to work with in the darkroom if that's where you're headed. Check out Adam Jahiel's stunning cowboy photography done with a Mamiya 6. adamjahiel.com.
I've used a variety form Pentax 67, Mamiya RB, various Fuji GW rangefinders. Most of my work now is done with a Rolleiflex. Light, fast, great glass & utterly reliable

 

[oftheherd]

I feel a bit guilty asking for more feedback before I've offered anything constructive back to the community, but since the brains in this forum are second to none, I figured what the heck.

Yesterday a photographer friend recommended that, as I jump into film from digital, I skip over 35mm and go straight to medium format.

Here is his reasoning:

1. The digital camera that I have (X100F) is extremely flexible and capable in a wide variety of situations, and so it works wonderfully as a snapshot and travel camera for my purposes. He thinks I will be disappointed in a 35mm camera because it will be much less flexible and the results will look too similar to my little digital rangefinder.
2. He says that if I want to be wowed by my film pictures, it’s best to jump to a format that is less similar, ie, 645 or 6x7, and use something like a Mamiya rangefinder or a Plaubel Makina.
3. If I want to make myself slow down and pay more attention to the process of taking a picture, that can be done with a medium format camera just as well as with a 35mm, or perhaps better since it will take fewer shots per roll.
4. I don’t have access to a color dark room (yet), and his experience says that MF is easier to work with on a scanner.

Note that I am not printing (as of yet), but am enamored of the special “something” that I see in 6x7 negatives, and even halfway competent scans.

So what do you think of his recommendation? Does it make sense to jump into film photography and supplement a digital with a medium format camera?

I believe I’ve made up my mind, but it was an intriguing idea I've not seen promoted elsewhere, and I’d love to hear what everyone else thinks.

I don't agree that a 35mm camera will be less flexible than the digital you have. There are so many bodies, lenses and film combinations available that simply cannot be so. 35mm, especially negative film may give you a more pleasant "look," but only you can determine that. Notice I didn't say better; that is too subjunctive.

BTW I don't use digital except for a 6MP P&S my daughters bought me several years ago. It still does P&S quite well with its 6MP thank you.

But I tend to still like film. I learned to use it a long time ago, and I am comfortable with it and the results it provides me. The lesson there for you is that is what you need to look for; what pleases you.

35mm cameras, RF or SLR, are relatively inexpensive. So is film. And there are different types of film, b/w, color negative, and color slide. There are old folder MF cameras that return really nice results, such as the Nettars or Weltas, and many others. Experiment for yourself. Start with whatever format you think you will most likely enjoy. Then try the other.

There is nothing wrong with 35mm if you use it correctly and wisely. Unless you are looking for 20 by 24 feet prints. Of course if that is the case, even MF isn't going to help much. 😛

 

[Huss]

Here is his reasoning:

1. 
   He thinks I will be disappointed in a 35mm camera because it will be much less flexible and the results will look too similar to my little digital rangefinder.
   

1. 
   
   Nope. 35mm (or any) film looks nothing like digital. That statement kinda eliminates his opinions. 🙂
   Take a look at Michael Bialecki's Zeiss ZM thread. Gorgeous and 100% film.
   
   
   

   Here is his reasoning:

   1. He says that if I want to be wowed by my film pictures, it’s best to jump to a format that is less similar, ie, 645 or 6x7, and use something like a Mamiya rangefinder or a Plaubel Makina.
      

   1. 
      
      To be wowed you first need a wow subject. It will then be wow on 35mm, and more wow on MF.
      
      

      [*]If I want to make myself slow down and pay more attention to the process of taking a picture, that can be done with a medium format camera just as well as with a 35mm, or perhaps better since it will take fewer shots per roll.

      
      Believe me, with 12/24/36 exp per roll on 35mm, you will be slowed down!
      It will also make film more affordable as you can experiment more. The cost of developing/scanning is the same whether you shoot 12 or 36.
      
      
      

      [*]I don’t have access to a color dark room (yet), and his experience says that MF is easier to work with on a scanner.

   Note that I am not printing (as of yet), but am enamored of the special “something” that I see in 6x7 negatives, and even halfway competent scans.

   
   If you have a digital camera, you can scan the film w/o buying a separate scanner. Plenty of threads on that.
   
   Check out Michael's 35mm film thread here. It's inspiring:
   
   https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155622

 

[nightfly]

Color or B&W primarily?

Ironically I think medium format black and white and digital are actually closer to one another look wise (smoother, less crunchy, flatter curve) than digital is to 35mm black and white. For black and white I prefer 35mm film but I really like the crunchy Tri-X in Rodinal sort of look.

In color, I think medium format has an advantage. I personally can't get the look of 120 Portra in digital. There is something about the feel of it that is just lost in digital.

This sounds like a heart thing rather than a head thing. I would say grab a cheaper point of entry to medium format like a TLR and have fun with it for awhile. TLR have the advantage of being lighter and cheaper if you aren't obsessed with high end Rollei's. A Yashica Mat or a Rolleicord V will both take great photos.

If you're into it, look for a Mamiya 6 or 7 (depending on the format you like). Nothing touches my Mamiya 7 for color in my mind but I don't use it as much as I'd like because I've become addicted to the convenience of digital and the look of my M9 has it's own charms in color. I don't miss scanning.

 

[raid]

Unless you have a desire to use a particular small-format film camera, there's not a great deal you can do with 35mm film that you can't do with digital. At least a 645-or-larger negative will give you a distinctly different look.

I'd say stick with your digital cameras for small-format work and enjoy film in medium- or larger format, as God intended.

This is what I am doing; SWC and Rolleiflex TLR for film and M8 & M9 for digital.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Would someone with applicable experience comment on the image quality of scanning MF on an Epson V850 or equivalent (i.e. 2300 actual resolution) and a full frame digital image?