Migracer
"MigRacer&amp ;qu ot; AKA Miguel
I use all the formats but you cant beat MF
I use all the formats but you cant beat MF
The larger the print the more obvious the difference. I have been compiling images of old wooden structures for a book I do my test with digital to pick out the ones I think have great potential. I print the 8mp to 16x20, I then shoot the selected images again on MF Ektachrome 100. As a backup I am also shooting 35mm Kodachrome 64. The larger format wins most of the time, every so often I will give up some detail for the color of the Kodachrome.
the clarity makes it through time. The image of me at Boy Scout Camp is a scan of a 45 year old 4x4 print that was taken by my Dad in 1963, using a Hasselblad 80mm Zeiss lens Kodachrome 25.
I use all the formats but you cant beat MF
The larger the print the more obvious the difference. I have been compiling images of old wooden structures for a book I do my test with digital to pick out the ones I think have great potential. I print the 8mp to 16x20, I then shoot the selected images again on MF Ektachrome 100. As a backup I am also shooting 35mm Kodachrome 64. The larger format wins most of the time, every so often I will give up some detail for the color of the Kodachrome.
the clarity makes it through time. The image of me at Boy Scout Camp is a scan of a 45 year old 4x4 print that was taken by my Dad in 1963, using a Hasselblad 80mm Zeiss lens Kodachrome 25.
Attachments
Nikolai
Member
Because I look/sound like a badass racking my 12ga...er KO 100.
TimM
Member
For me it's a question of feeling.
I just feel more comfortable using a MF camera - maybe because i like the 6x6 Format more!
I just feel more comfortable using a MF camera - maybe because i like the 6x6 Format more!
R
ruben
Guest
To my opinion we photog have all an uncounscious desire to make "the picture of my life", like soccer players seek after the goal of their life, or like the most seasoned artists in history wanted to make the creation of all creations.
It is within this frame and for this end that we purchase and try different technical gear, including Medium Format.
Each of us wants the best. That simple.
Cheers,
Ruben
It is within this frame and for this end that we purchase and try different technical gear, including Medium Format.
Each of us wants the best. That simple.
Cheers,
Ruben
Leighgion
Bovine Overseer
I use the same slop-class technique on both my 135 and 120 when I develop it and scan it. Long as I was having reasonably equal slop days on both, the 120 still renders finer detail.
Shooting 120 is just straight up fun, any technical advantages of resolution and tonality aside. My Mamiya Super has an almost steampunk appeal when decked out with its power winder grip. Big negatives just feel good too.
Even smeary MF shots are richer looking than smeary 35's...
colker
Well-known
because a "normal" lens on medium format is a 75/80/90/100mm.
you shoot w/ tele compression but still have lots of stuff happening in your pic.
you shoot w/ tele compression but still have lots of stuff happening in your pic.
Ducky
Well-known
Well said, Ruen, well said. I am still waiting for that lifetime shot but I have kept paypal busy trying.
Ducky
Well-known
With my aging eyes most of this discussion is moot. I have used each format, I scanned and had scanned and my primary conclusion is that BW is nicer to look at than color so I use it.
My digis don't get printed much except in 4x6 so my wife can take them with her.
My next venture is a return to wet printing after 60 years. My father taught me how but I was not interested at the time. An enlarger is on the UPS truck as we speak.
My digis don't get printed much except in 4x6 so my wife can take them with her.
My next venture is a return to wet printing after 60 years. My father taught me how but I was not interested at the time. An enlarger is on the UPS truck as we speak.
Beemermark
Veteran
The larger the format the greater the tonal range captured. Doesn't show up on the monitor but it sure does on the print.
Brian Levy
Established
I love the results from MF, the tonality and ability to do 8x10 without blowing it up as much, less cropping. Also, transparancies have less enlargement to cover the same screen retaining more contrast and saturation and less loss of detail, especially the B&W negatives.
Also, having a ETRS, if for some reason I decide not to do MF, I simply pull the back and slap on a 35mm back and have one of the best 35mm slr cameras out there with soem of the finest optics.
Also, having a ETRS, if for some reason I decide not to do MF, I simply pull the back and slap on a 35mm back and have one of the best 35mm slr cameras out there with soem of the finest optics.
ishpop
tall person
Someone earlier touched on this, but, for me it is a mixture of quality and feeling.
I was shooting digital first, then discovered film, and that was a strange transition, I was wasting lots of pics from each roll, still in my digital mode. But I remember really loving my OM1n viewfinder and eventually slowing down enough to get a higher keeper rate. I always felt the clarity and sharpness of my digital equipment was clearly better, but the nuanced aspects of film were preferable to me.
Then I picked up a Rolleiflex TLR, and that was a huge awakening, much moreso than going digital to 35mm. But it was an awakening on several levels. Firstly, the WLF experience of framing photographs, to me, blows away 35mm viewfinders. It feels more like I am seeing the photograph right then and there, directly connected wth the scene in a way that no 35mm viewfinder has ever made me feel. It is the 3D aspect of it also, I almost feel like I am holding a movie camera, haha. Secondly though, in using my Epson 4490, sorry to say, the MF scans blow away the 35mm scans, no matter which combnation of techniques I use. I claim not to be an expert, so will not try and convince anyone of what I speak, as it is simply my experience.
Nowadays, if I could have it my way, I would have the viewfinder experience of my MF cameras, the negative experience of my MF cameras, and the size and portability of my smallest 35mm cameras.
The Mamiya 7 looked interesting, but of course, rangefinders and WLFs are a completely different experiences...
I was shooting digital first, then discovered film, and that was a strange transition, I was wasting lots of pics from each roll, still in my digital mode. But I remember really loving my OM1n viewfinder and eventually slowing down enough to get a higher keeper rate. I always felt the clarity and sharpness of my digital equipment was clearly better, but the nuanced aspects of film were preferable to me.
Then I picked up a Rolleiflex TLR, and that was a huge awakening, much moreso than going digital to 35mm. But it was an awakening on several levels. Firstly, the WLF experience of framing photographs, to me, blows away 35mm viewfinders. It feels more like I am seeing the photograph right then and there, directly connected wth the scene in a way that no 35mm viewfinder has ever made me feel. It is the 3D aspect of it also, I almost feel like I am holding a movie camera, haha. Secondly though, in using my Epson 4490, sorry to say, the MF scans blow away the 35mm scans, no matter which combnation of techniques I use. I claim not to be an expert, so will not try and convince anyone of what I speak, as it is simply my experience.
Nowadays, if I could have it my way, I would have the viewfinder experience of my MF cameras, the negative experience of my MF cameras, and the size and portability of my smallest 35mm cameras.
The Mamiya 7 looked interesting, but of course, rangefinders and WLFs are a completely different experiences...
oldoc
oldoc
Admittedly, the MF camera is superior in even moderate enlargement. It is SUCH a trade off, especially if you live in a small town, if you don't or can't do your own development and printing. I sold my MF equipment, because it just does not fit my lifestyle. The equipment is generally very heavy, relative to Leica or other rangefinder equipment, and unless you are unfazed by carrying 30 pounds of camera and lenses. It limits you if you do landscape and outdoor photography. If you are independently wealthy, and can pay someone to carry the gear, then fine. Otherwise, I found that the weight and issues involved meant I ddn't shoot as much. Leica is the best of both, with image quality which, I believe, is exceptional, and which won't require you to carry a massive weight. The rangefinder type MF cameras are just not competetive.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I sold my Hasselblad and lenses a few years ago. It wasn't getting enough use. Same with my 4x5 Graphic View II and its lenses. I kept a Rollieflex T and a Minolta Autocord. I had a Rollie F hood on the T which allows focusing with a secondary mirror when using the sportsfinder. I mostly use the sportsfinder. With the Autocord at f/8 or smaller I'm pretty adept at focusing by just feeling where the lever is.
When I just have a quick shot or two to do I like using the 12 exposure roll.
When Singer Graflex folded I picked up a couple of RH-10 roll holders, a Rodenstock 180/4.5 Rotelar a 65/6.3 Angulon and a 47/5.6 Super Angulon at close-out prices. I already had a 127/4.7 Rodenstock Ysarex friom my Polaroid 110-B. Back then there was a cute little 6x9cm monorail view camera made by Galvin with a unique ground glass panel which opened enough to slide in a Graflex or Mamiya roll holder. It did everything that I needed a view camera for, then I decided to cut back on photograhy and sold the kit at a tidy profit. Now I'm just shooting the occasional roll of 120 in one of my TLR's. I do plan on unscrewing the front group from the Autocord's lens and experiment once more with something I did back in the mid 1960's: put a pin hole aperture where the diaphragm is located. It required really long exposure times but the depth of field was unbelievable and I loved the diffraction effect from the tiny aperture.
When I just have a quick shot or two to do I like using the 12 exposure roll.
When Singer Graflex folded I picked up a couple of RH-10 roll holders, a Rodenstock 180/4.5 Rotelar a 65/6.3 Angulon and a 47/5.6 Super Angulon at close-out prices. I already had a 127/4.7 Rodenstock Ysarex friom my Polaroid 110-B. Back then there was a cute little 6x9cm monorail view camera made by Galvin with a unique ground glass panel which opened enough to slide in a Graflex or Mamiya roll holder. It did everything that I needed a view camera for, then I decided to cut back on photograhy and sold the kit at a tidy profit. Now I'm just shooting the occasional roll of 120 in one of my TLR's. I do plan on unscrewing the front group from the Autocord's lens and experiment once more with something I did back in the mid 1960's: put a pin hole aperture where the diaphragm is located. It required really long exposure times but the depth of field was unbelievable and I loved the diffraction effect from the tiny aperture.
Last edited:
ishpop
tall person
dang Al, that sounds coo, got any Autocord pinhole shots you could share? )
raid
Dad Photographer
I am getting back to using Rolleflex TLR cameras. Their lenses are amazing in all aspects.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Ishpop, the only two prints that I still have are too big for my scanner. One is about 11x11 and the other is 11x14. Both are framed. I'll see if I can find somebody with a big enough scanner.
There are two ways to do the pinhole thing. In either case use thin black paper. Hold a needle with a pair of pliers and heat the tip a glowing red hot with a butane cigarette lighter, then burn the hole through the paper. That makes for a clean hole with no little fibers around the edges of the hole. If you don't want to open up your lens to begin with then trim the paper to a circle the right size to be held in front of the front element with a filter. The pin hole should be touching or nearly touching the glass. Leave the diaphragm in the lens WIDE OPEN. You still might get a bit of vignetting though. With the pin hole inside the lens you shouldn't get vignetting. You'll have to experiment a bit to get a good exposure. Even if you calculate your exposure based on needle diameter film suffers from reciprocity failure at very long exposures and you'll need still more exposure. A hole of 0.25mm diameter on a 75mm lens is f/300. You'll need a tripod for sure.
There are two ways to do the pinhole thing. In either case use thin black paper. Hold a needle with a pair of pliers and heat the tip a glowing red hot with a butane cigarette lighter, then burn the hole through the paper. That makes for a clean hole with no little fibers around the edges of the hole. If you don't want to open up your lens to begin with then trim the paper to a circle the right size to be held in front of the front element with a filter. The pin hole should be touching or nearly touching the glass. Leave the diaphragm in the lens WIDE OPEN. You still might get a bit of vignetting though. With the pin hole inside the lens you shouldn't get vignetting. You'll have to experiment a bit to get a good exposure. Even if you calculate your exposure based on needle diameter film suffers from reciprocity failure at very long exposures and you'll need still more exposure. A hole of 0.25mm diameter on a 75mm lens is f/300. You'll need a tripod for sure.
Last edited:
Wiyum
Established
I didn't vote, but I either just get back negatives with a contact sheet or just the uncut chromes. I've gone back and printed from the negatives after selecting from the contact sheet. Thus far, my slides have just sat on the lightbox and been explored with the loupe. I still can't get enough of that.
I know that I could print very big from scans (I've calculated that 60" x 48" should be no problem), but scans are expensive and prints of that size are very expensive.
Why did I get the MF camera? I got an RZ67 because it presented a fundamentally different way of working, from handheld metering to the waistlevel viewfinder, to the rack and pinion bellows focusing. It demands that I contemplate more.
That and I love big chromes on the lightbox.
Something's gotta give though. I just can't afford to use it as much as I'd like, and when I do, I can't afford to do all the things with it that it can do that my D700 can't. Meanwhile, the D700 stuff I do is free until I print, and even the 18" x 12" prints I've been doing aren't that expensive. Plus, I only have so much wall space. I have yet to take an image with the RZ that wouldn't look a little strange hanging on my wall in a 60" print.
I know that I could print very big from scans (I've calculated that 60" x 48" should be no problem), but scans are expensive and prints of that size are very expensive.
Why did I get the MF camera? I got an RZ67 because it presented a fundamentally different way of working, from handheld metering to the waistlevel viewfinder, to the rack and pinion bellows focusing. It demands that I contemplate more.
That and I love big chromes on the lightbox.
Something's gotta give though. I just can't afford to use it as much as I'd like, and when I do, I can't afford to do all the things with it that it can do that my D700 can't. Meanwhile, the D700 stuff I do is free until I print, and even the 18" x 12" prints I've been doing aren't that expensive. Plus, I only have so much wall space. I have yet to take an image with the RZ that wouldn't look a little strange hanging on my wall in a 60" print.
joachim
Convicted Ektachome user
djonesii
Well-known
I have a great big point and shoot MF fuji GA654I, I just ordered a Mamiya RF645 becasue I miss the RF working ways with the Fuji. For me, there is just something magical about the look of MF film as compared to 35mm or digital. I use it a lot in the studio to do nude figure work, and the grain/detail/sharpness combination of even the lowly regarded BW400CN I find special.
Check out my threads in the modern RF format for pics ...
Dave
Check out my threads in the modern RF format for pics ...
Dave