Is Medium Format Film For You? - The Benefits & Challenges
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 มิ.ย. 2024
- Head to squarespace.com/kylemcdougall to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code: kylemcdougall
Check out my new 'Medium Format Film Photography Course' on Skillshare (FREE with this link): skl.sh/3r7KLta
In this video, I’m sharing what I think are some of the benefits as well as challenges that come with medium format film photography. This video was inspired by some recent chats that I’ve had with photographers who were either thinking of getting into medium format or who recently made the jump and are having a few difficulties. IMO, there are some really unique benefits that come with it, but also some things that may just not be a good fit for you.
►Follow me on Instagram: / kyle__mcdougall
►Order my new book ‘An American Mile’: bit.ly/3Og6Z45
►*DISCLAIMER*
Some of the links below are affiliate links, where I earn a small commission if you click on the link and purchase an item. The money I earn helps me make this type of content consistently.
►SOME GREAT MEDIUM FORMAT CAMERA OPTIONS(*these are affiliate links):
Pentax 645: ebay.us/JwBbJK
Bronica ETRSi: ebay.us/OzwTnP
Rolleicord V: ebay.us/ykx7Tw
Pentax 6x7 MLU: ebay.us/AnAB7v
Mamiya RB67 Pro S: ebay.us/roqA1T
My '35mm Film Photography Course' on Skillshare (FREE with this link): skl.sh/2JrGhFs
My 'Medium Format Film Photography Course' on Skillshare (FREE with this link): skl.sh/3r7KLta
Where I source music for my videos (One FREE month with this link): fm.pxf.io/c/1953156/1347628/1...
Videos on this channel are filmed using the Fuji X-H2s: bhpho.to/3UEjFVs
►FILM PHOTOGRAPHY GEAR (*these are affiliate links):
My go-to medium format camera: ebay.us/GaK9Kp
My favourite 35mm film camera: ebay.us/82WyVI
My favourite 35mm film lens: ebay.us/u0V817
My favourite medium format travel camera: ebay.us/FVcfWk
My go-to light meter: ebay.us/QIFXF0
My favourite film stock: ebay.us/orbudp
My favourite 645 medium format film camera: ebay.us/ydY4HK
→Instagram: bit.ly/2GuYV21
→Website: kmcdougall.com
With film having such a resurgence, I’m surprised no one has come out with a new dedicated scanner like the Nikon Coolscans. It’s frustrating that I have to use a 20 year old scanner that may break any day.
it's pretty much the same with cameras.. they might break tomorrow and you have a nice shelf decoration
There is a medium format scanner available by Nikon if you can find it I scared my medium format on my Epson flatbed pictures turn out fabulous
@@andrefelixstudio2833 I have a Nikon Coolscan 9000 and an Epson V850 that I use for large format. I have used the epson for medium format to see it’s quality compared to the Nikon. It’s not even close, not by long shot. Scanning 35mm, they are miles apart.
@@whosjozikolnik There are plenty of places to get your camera repaired. Film or digital
Yeah, I still think that companies would be hesitant to invest the time required and money to design a new film scanner, even with the film resurgence.
The reason I love 6x6 format is:
1. Rolleiflex & Hasselblad 500cm are legends and only offer 6x6
2. Square ratio is super easy once you learn it. No need to rotate your camera for aspect ratio orientation
3. 12 shots per roll of film is the magic number for me personally. I don’t have to force myself to be creative for 24-36 shots. Just 12 great ones
But with 35mm you can still get 12 great ones but it's just multiplied by three.
I have always liked the idea of square and no portrait / landscape.
@@mrsusan893 yeah but you’re forced to use the same film stock instead of switching up and using BW or faster/slower film
@Mark Garcia Hasselblad have a 645 film back also
You can shoot square in 35mm, there are native cameras for it or modifications you can do easily to some cameras (adjusting the advance lever + a vignetting screen to only expose a square), not others. You'll get a about 40% more shots too
I shot 35mm happily for over 20 years before I bought a medium format camera. I still mainly shoot 35mm and 35mm is more than capable and with care you can make 20x30 prints and those look just amazing. Even bigger with drum scanning. With the advent of TH-cam, ironically I know, I feel there is too much emphasis on cameras instead of actual photography. Any camera no matter what format doesn’t make you into a better photographer. Shooting a lot and studying a lot does. Yes toys are fun and I’m just as guilty of it. For me though the reason I bought my Mamiya 645 Pro TL is its modularity and I wanted to purchase a medium format camera with great resale value. The real reason I bought the camera is I wanted to simply shoot some emulsions , some expired, which I couldn’t find in 35mm such as the Fuji Pro 160 NS. It’s fun to shoot the Mamiya and I agree with your video where you said that 645 is definitely worth the jump from 35mm in resolution. Those who say it’s not simply exercise snobbery. 645 is a beautiful but so is 35mm.
I come from film .i used to nail a portrait for a magazine in 5 rolls they expected that much . but for myself I can do a good portrait in one roll. The whole spray and pray digital thing seems crazy. On digital I treat it the same way. One big problem. People Don't get it. They think a portrait is done in 2 photos because of phone photography. That's the real challenge. Finding patient subjects.
The rise in prices really makes me second guess every shot I take.
6x6 is currently perfect for me as i like the aspect ratio and it gives me 12 shots.
Thank Biden and the dumb proxy war for the rise in prices . going get worse it was already expensive because if small batches but this will make it far worse.
I started a Pentax 645Nii and the 6x4.5 format gives 16 shots per roll. 😇
5:17 I know you get less shots, but 6x9 is a thing, you know. I dunno, I just figured that if you wanted the 3:2 aspect ratio, A Fuji gw690/ Mamiya Super 23 is the way to go.
Thank you for an insightful video that highlighted a couple of things to consider, especially around composition with the change in aspect ratio as well as the reason why.
Glad it was helpful!
Very good video to show all pros and cons of getting into medium format.
For me it’s all about getting inspired by the camera itself. Sold a Fuji GFX100S because it was not an inspiration. Bought a Bronica ETRSi and love it and 645. But I get the same inspiration by my Fuji X-Pro3 and Leica M2. Every camera for a different purpose.
Excellent insights. My big gripe with 35mm film vs 6x7 (or even 645) is bang for the effort. After acquiring the film, metering/shooting, developing, scanning, and final corrections, a finished MF image gives you so much more than what 35mm can give.
Great video, thanks for making it and posting it!
Love the medium format film cameras! such a fantastic format for my niche (landscape). thanks for the video!!
Cheers, Ryan. And yeah, medium format film is a nice step up from 35mm for fine detailed landscapes.
Thanks for the video, it really is insightful. I've just moved into the medium format with my Yashica, and so far it was an absolute bliss (when it comes to shooting at least, not so much when it comes to buying film).
Also, hate being the first one to say it, but "fewer images", not less)
Great video! You are spot on about the experience being really different and fun with all the different types of cameras and aspect ratios and all that! Medium format is definitely useful and fun, but I still do most of my work on 35mm and the smaller/lighter setup usually suits me best.
Cheers, Reimann. That's what's most important. Using the gear that suits your way of working the best.
Thanks! You summarized it quite well for me. Aspect ratio is, I think, underestimated. I have 645, 6x6, 6x9. For general and snapshot uses, I usually take the TLR 6x6. No rectangular aspect and relatively lightweight. As a bonus, I can bring along the wide(r) angle adaptor in cities As for high resolution, it's nice to know, but in practice not needed. With 400 ISO, I can stop down enough to compensate for shallower depth of field.
All very true I recently bought a Fugi gw690 iii absolutely love it there is definitely a learning curve from working primarily with 35mm and getting the specific shots I want. I’m learning to enjoy the trial and error and having patience and building on all of that, also being specific and thoughtful with my 8 shots.
Experimentation and practice are a bit part of what I enjoy most.
10:06 everything you said from this point on rang 100% true with me. I had about a year long flirtation with a Pentax 67II (shot some of my favorite shots I ever made with that camera too!) but ended up selling it for a few different reasons:
1) Shooting 6x7 was just getting too expensive.
2) This doesn’t go for all MF cameras but the 67II was a brick. A beautiful brick that takes very nice photos but still a brick.
3) most importantly, I just didn’t need all that resolution. I spent some time thinking about what cameras made some of my favorite photos and realized most of them were taken with 35mm Leicas and Nikons. Although I loved that 6x7 resolution, with all of the 67II’s inherent flaws I decided to just stick with 35mm. The great thing with Leica’s (and any other non-SLR camera) is that I can shoot lower-ISO film’s like Ektar or Portra 160 in lower lit places due to me being able to shoot at lower shutter speeds, so it brings back some of that resolution for me. Saves me lots of money too!
Well done...very insightful. Having relatively recently moved to medium format with a Mamiya 645 and just in the past 6 weeks or so to the Pentax 67, your observation about potentially overthinking shots with 10 frames per roll is something that I have experienced. I think some of my favorite images on 35mm were those more experimental or spontaneous exposures. Thanks again for this video.
Cheers, Gerard. And yeah, absolutely, it's a thing for me that happens quite often. Like I said in the video, it can be both a very good thing, and also at times bad.
I think sometimes people underestimate the quality of their images, I've been doing some 11x14s with a mamiya 645 and the grain is almost unnoticeable with delta 100. I'm sure you could even go to 20x24 with minimal drop in quality. I wanted more resolution than a 35 and I was concerned 645 wouldn't be enough but I've been blown away with how detailed and sharp the shots are even enlarged so much.
Here's my 5 Pence worth of experience with MF in Film, AND Digital: I started with 35mm Film back in the early 2000's. When you could still widely get film and have it developed. By that time, MF was already starting to drift out of fashion, and prices were low. I bought a Pentax 645. At the same time, I was also experimenting with DSLR's.
The Pentax BLEW ME AWAY. The sheer experience of even just looking through that massive viewfinder, and handling this hulk of a camera was completely different from a sensory experience, to anything I had tried before. That kind of "feeling" really stuck with me for almost 20 years (more on that in a sec...)
Shooting slide film on the Pentax was amazing. I still look at those slides today and go "Wow!". There's something very unique and very very beautiful about them. And handling this mechanical beast of a camera was an enjoyable, although challenging experience.
Now, let's get onto the negatives of MF Film:
- My P645 was BIG. And heavy. Not a casual photography camera.
- It was slow.
- The mirror slap was immense and unforgiving. No point in trying to treat this thing like an SLR and "be agile...".
- Lens selection was limited at the time. And I couldn't really find any proper wide angle lenses (eg sub 24mm in 35mm equivalent). I LOVE wide angle!
- MF Film was becoming harder to find, and even harder to have it developed. I had to travel 2 hours by train to London, to have it developed there. And it wasn't cheap. The situation only became worse as more and more labs started closing down...
- Scanning the film, for publishing on the web was very hard. I couldn't afford an MF scanner!
I eventually gave up on it, and sold the camera and focused on DSLR's for a while. And then also stopped with those.
Fast forward to 2021, and I felt the itch to get back into Photography. I missed that creative outlet. Whilst thinking about what camera I should buy, I reminisced about my experience with the P645. How I loved the size and clarity of the viewfinder. How I loved the quality of the slide pixs. What I had forgotten, was the negatives of the lens availability, mirror slap, and sheer bulk of these systems.
So I committed the atrocity and bought a second hand Leica S (Typ 007) for $5000 on eBay. And a bunch of lens adapters and mostly Mamiya glass. Twas not a cheap thing to do....
I very quickly realised what I had forgotten about the "darker side" of MF. The weight. The mirror slap. The lens availability and cost issues..... And whilst the Leica produced "reasonable" images, it just felt slow, and very hard to use. Not enjoyable. At the same time, I discovered that my Leica had an issue with the sensor. It was faulty. That gave me the impetus to return the camera to the seller on eBay, get my money back, and go and buy a Sony A7R3 and later a Sony A7R converted to full spectrum.
Very long story short: The Sony bodies will whoop the Leica's (andP645's) ass all day long. They're small, relatively cheap, very fast, have AMAZING image quality. Electronic shutter, Electronic Image Stabilization on ANY lens. No mirror slap. Lens availability is the best of any system out there, because you can adapt anything. I'm even using an old Leitz Colorplan Projector lens with the two cameras, and the results are superb.
The viewfinders are great! And one thing that is the most important for me: Focus peeking. I can finally nail focus every time!
All in all, for me MF (and film for that matter!) is dead. With how much DSLR's and Mirrorless systems have evolved, and how much the cost has come down, it just does not make any sense anymore to shoot MF Film.
I still enjoy watching your videos tho! :)
Thanks for sharing your experience. Definitely a good example of how everyone has their own journeys and preferences. :) I'm shooting with a GFX, which I absolutely love, but the process of working with film and the older cameras is something that will always appeal to me, and for that reason, I can see myself always working with both film and digital.
@@KyleMcDougall Thanks for not dismissing my somewhat "moany" comment outright. Once I had typed all of the above, it started to dawn on me that what you guys are doing is a fully conscious "embrace" of film, on top of all the digital options available. Not instead. :)
Thanks for the video.
I have been shooting medium format since I was 5-years old.
I also shoot 4x5 inch and 8x10 inch large format and 35mm small format.
I find 6x6cm, 6x7cm, and 6x9cm medium format a good compromise between large and small format.
Thanks for the video. Like you mentioned, for the entry level and occasional medium format shooters, film is great. I think film is good for those uses. The cost of shooting a 6x6 in estimation comes down to about .75 a shot at the cheapest price . Not too bad since instant and large format is even more expensive. Digital medium format is more ideal for the regular shooter or those making money with their gear. The cost of medium format are more about upfront gear cost (camera body and lenses).
There are alot of challenges with medium format. All depends on what one is trying to do. I recommend 35mm film or digital for nature photography, it’s fast and easier and lots of long focal lengths.
For street, 35mm or medium format (I prefer 35mm for this type).
For still photography, portrait and landscape, medium format shines.
In medium format, I only use 6x6 since that is all I have with the Bronica and Rollei. My solution has been to shoot Large format with anything larger (4x5 or a 6x9 roll film holder).
Medium format is so non-standard, same roll film but so many choices and sizes for the negatives. Honestly, 35mm is more than enough for most of my needs, it’s 80% of my work.
While I love the square 6x6 format, I have issue with it in darkroom printing, there is so much waste and if you print on 11x14” paper you have to crop to 10x10 to retain the square. I think square is nice when it’s a bigger size.
I am not a professional so I have no explicit need for medium format, BUT I ADORE MEDIUM FORMAT. It is my favorite way to shoot film just the huge amount of experimentation and different types of cameras you can use just keeps me giddy (and my wallet very empty). I use ancient folders etc when I am feeling experimental. And my Bronicas when I want good photos of family. So much fun. Love my Rollieflex 3.5t (so the cheaper Tessar not Plannar) TLR too
Good video as always!
Definitely a huge number of options to choose from!
great video as always Kyle
Thanks, Matt!
I am an amateur photographer and only use film for special locations and occasions. Other times just use my digital mirrorless or ricoh GR.
How film works for you no matter how expensive it is will depend on your mindset. If you shoot film like digital it will cost u an arm or a leg no matter what. I think that's the first thing beginners should consider before entering film photography - will they have the time and patience to learn film photography.
Nice videos
Used my Rolleicord VBII on Sunday at a classic motorcycle meeting in Scotland, had original Fuji Acros film in it. I develop my own colour and B&W film, but I dont have a scanner.
I've been waiting for someone to release a video like this! I've been keeping my eye on a Zenza Bronica ETRSI and a Kiev 6C.
you won’t regret a bronica! i shoot on an etrs and its phenomenal
As Ari said! Love my ETRS.
Bronica is a great camera. :)
Thanks for a informative and great video!
You're welcome. Cheers.
I have a Yashica Mat tlr, but I miss my Bronica EC with the Nikkor 50mm f4 lens.
I just compose using all the square image and make black and white 8x8 inch prints in the darkroom, using the wasted edge of the paper to make test strips.
If you go to a 6x7 you will have a much bigger and heavier camera.
I shoot medium format from time to time just because I never had to spend money on a camera. I have this ancient Ihagee camera that my great grandfather bought in the early 30s and I've been using that exclusively for film photography. It's either that or digital for me, so overall I don't spend a fortune on this stuff. The camera itself is nice too. The lens has some serious character. On the downside the only way you can focus is by guessing or measuring the distance to the subject.
I love you experimenting and appreciating that
Some really interesting observations. I personally am still struggling a bit moving from 3x2 to 4x3, both on my Mamiya 645 and Fuji GFX. I find it easier to compose 4x3 in portrait format. For landscapes I find 4x3 doesn’t give me enough “breathing space” and often end up shooting the GFX in 3x2 mode. I do like square though. Cost-wise (and this is going to sound weird) I find medium format is the same or cheaper than 35mm. My supplier of choice has a 5-pack of 120 Portra 400 for £5 less than the equivalent 35mm. Yes, I know per frame it’s more expensive, but for me 15 shots on a roll of 120 represents the ideal for going out and working a location for a morning. If I took out a roll of 36 35mm exposures, I’d probably still finish the whole roll, but I’d find myself firing off shots “just to use it up”. But that’s just me. The slow, deliberate process with lack of sponteneity is what attracts me to medium format, as an antidote to digital!
Thanks for the video. Maybe I missed it, but one thing worth mentioning is the weight. While the TLRs like the Rolleicord can be pretty lightweight and compact an SLR with a few lenses and multiple film backs and maybe a tripot can add to quite a few kilogramms. Not an issue in the studio, but if your into landscape you might carry a heavy backpack.
For sure. That's one thing that will be different for everyone. Just taking into account how you work with your gear. Personally, I always haul way too much shit regardless of how much it weighs. And often curse myself while out in the field, haha.
@@KyleMcDougall Oh yeh! My days of landscape tripping with a large Pelican case filled with Pentax 67 bodies and lenses started coming to a close when I hit 72 a few years ago. I have the Pentax stuff, but I've added Fuji 645 to lessen that load. I hesitate to sell off the Pentax gear, I think, only because doing so would openly admit that I really can't handle it much any more.
You've hit the nail on the head with this one 🥲
Cheers, Alexander. Partly inspired by our conversation we had the other day. :)
@@KyleMcDougall Just finishing an edit of the XA videoinspired by yours, from the seaside 🤘😁
Nice!
I sold my Mamiya 7 to get a GFX and ended up selling it and buying another Mamiya 7 (note this is not a sound financial decision, don't try this at home). There's something about medium format film that just looks so good right out of the camera. I was spending so much time trying to make my digital shots look more "filmy" that film is actually a shortcut. I can take or leave 35mm for the most part, but medium format just works for me. Never selling that Mamiya 7 again.
I got a Zeiss Super Ikonta for free and I actually like having only 8 frames to shoot, it means I can go out, shoot a roll, go back home and develop it. With 35mm I sometimes struggle to finish it. Another plus for amateurs is that it's easier to scan, i.e. you don't need a real macro lens to DSLR scan it.
For sure. I do like the spontaneity of 35mm (as mentioned in the vid), but yeah, there are times where 36 images takes forever to finish! I currently have a roll that's been loaded for a couple months.
Nice video, I will never sale my Hasselblad’s there have been all over the world with me, had them for all my professional career in photography I do shoot digital now but some of my memorable shots of my 30 year experience are on film!
I'll give you 20k U.S for the Hassy
My first medium format camera was the 124g and I loved it!! However I bought a Kiev 60 because I wanted a slr type of camera because I feel more comfortable composing with it!! I wanted a Pentax 67 but hey, the Kiev 60 is a soviet wonder!! Mechanical and slr type!! Plus I can match it with zeiss glass which is beautiful!!
Love the Kiev! I need to get mine serviced, as the only thing that makes me nervous is it breaking/not working properly. (frame spacing etc.)
I had a Kiev 60 and took many Sharp images with it. I regretted selling it.
film is the way
I've though about getting a medium format rig (digital or film), but you're certainly right about "resolution overkill" as it's now easy to produce large prints with well under 20MP (assuming a quality image of course). What I'd really like to see is a "shootout" with prints of the same scene recorded with various format cameras (film and digital), which should confirm to even the most ardent skeptics that imaging technology has reached the point where even mid-level, smaller format gear is more than capable of producing museum-worthy images. I know there are a number of people who'd disagree with that, but let's just try a "blind" (so to speak) comparison and see--the proof is in the printing. I shot film for decades and thoroughly enjoyed the experience (apart from the toxic chemicals), but not anymore. I can relate to Ansel's world, but I'm sure if he were around (and ambulatory) today, he'd carry something like a Lumix G9 (enabling him to get to places impossible with large-format) and love every minute (especially post--DxO, Capture One, etc. sure beat the darkroom)! I fully appreciate the mindset of composing an image when every shot counts (and you've only got a few left on the roll), but it just takes mental discipline to cultivate that when you've got virtually limitless "bites at the apple"--it still takes careful, thoughtful pre-visualization to make a great image and simply having more (or fewer) chances to get it won't make the difference.
Dpreview recently did a comparison video between 2x different Sony Mirrorless systems expressed in prints (12mpx vs 61mpx). To see how they stack up. Nice video to dispel some common myths about resolution :) th-cam.com/video/gAYXFwBsKQ0/w-d-xo.html
Great to see.. I'm borrowing a ETRSi and still on the edge but I've only shot expired.
Load some fresh film in that and see what you think.
@@KyleMcDougall I only have 220 backs, at the moment.
I'm so excited to load fresh film :)
RE: Aspect Ratios - The 'Barnack's Folly' aspect ratio of 3:2 has never been quite right if you print anything other than 4x6 postcards. it gets very annoying to do the extra post-production work to crop things out for 8x10/16x12 and larger sizes, and it starts to make sense why 6x7 became the de-facto 'standard' aspect ratio on medium format - it requires minimal cropping to print on 8x10.
This is one of the main reasons why I chose to skip full-frame digital and 35mm film cameras altogether and move from APS-C to Digital Medium Format and 6x7 Film. It was not easy and I had to make a lot of compromises elsewhere (lens lineup, portability, selling a kidney etc.) to get what I wanted. To Kyle's point - it does take a while to learn framing on other formats, but once it clicks - you'll find 3:2 very long/wide.
I'm someone that only uses 35mm and I feel it has a lot of limitations in terms of dynamic range and "look" in general. I WANT to get into medium format, but getting any worthwhile camera is going to be minimum $800+ due to the recent boom.
I think size and weight are also things to keep in mind
Because I use a Bronica ETR for medium format camera with a waist-level viewfinder and no light meter, the experience of shooting is somehow very different than my Nikon FE. A much slower pace, the waist-level viewfinder is quite a different experience compare to eye-level viewfinder. The absence of in camera light meter forces me to understand the light in a much better way, habilities that I can export to my digital photography. I did improve my digital photography because of my medium format film photography
For sure, definitely a different experience with a WLF and no meter. And yes, going from digital to a setup like that can make learn quite a bit when it comes to reading the light.
A little off topic here but I just found your channel & it's been great. Will you be doing the Portra 800 exposure test? I heard you mention it in one of your videos but didn't see it. Any chance of doing that with the new Gold 200 in 120? Thanks.
Thank you! And yes, I still plan on posting the Portra 800 at some point, and I'm shooting a Gold 200 test this week. :)
Great video and playing to my love of 6x6.
I was shooting my Agfa Isolette II yesterday on a hike with Portra 400 loaded. Shoot my Mamiya C3 every week. I develop the B&W myself and scan all 6x6 on an Epson V500 with Digitaliser holder. I even enlarge now in the darkroom.
It's a slippery road to Large Format I promise you.
Nice one Kyle.
Cheers, Morris! I eyeballed those Isolettes many times!
Kyle, I’ve been looking at getting a TLR. Would you say scanning 6x6 negatives with a Canon R6 (20mp) could give me nice results?
Since I shoot medium format a lot, I found out the 3:2 ratio is not my thing in most cases. And yes I have also a GW690 but don't like the ratio. I think I'll get a GSW680 one day.
I also want to try 6x8 - I feel like it would work well for how I like to compose certain scenes. 6x9 is sweet though, I adore the images I'm able to make with my GW690III.
I wish companies would start making actual film cameras again now that film is so popular. Like... why are we forced to use 20, 40, 60 year old cameras that are shooting up in price due to scarcity and could break at any moment with no replacement parts.
The ZONE SYSTEM. How about a video explaining how to place a metered shadow spot in a specific zone that was choosen for getting most of detail. In other words - how do you know in which of the ZONE be it Zone II / ZONE III / ZONE IV to place your shadow metered spot. To me it looks very very subjective. I am not a professional photograph. Thanks !
For me, yes medium format is *overall* the best: higher image quality than 35mm, but still reasonably compact/portable, unlike 4x5 or bigger.
And I intentionally embrace the slow thinking-process, so less frames are fine.
Some folks want the finest image quality, so nothing less than 8x10.
Some folks are already happy with 35mm.
Do whatever makes you happy.
Interesting except for mid-roll Squarespace ad which cheapened your brand.
I don't like to use 36 exp 35mm. I generally shoot 24 exp. Gives me earlier chance to switch film. My favorite camera is my Mamiya RB67. A beast but it seems to fall naturally for me.
Same. I barely use my Leica M3 besides for traveling
Have you don't switched film half way through a roll and just reused it again? It's super simple and saved you money.
@@mrsusan893 I have done that and forgotten that the roll was half used. Easier to just buy a brick of 24 exp rolls. Savings at 36 over 24 are not that great anymore.
Yeah, for some reason I never think about shooting 24. But I agree, sometimes it takes me a long time to finish 36.
I bought a mamiya C33 with a 105 mm lens for $150 in mint condition a 65mm mint lens for $185 ,made a copy stand for $100 and take photos of my film so I don't have expensive scanning fees.i develope my film so no developing fees I use cinestill single stage
That will develop 12 rolls of 120 for $20 with the cost of new film it's about $10 a roll so it isn't too expensive
If you want the film experience then do it all
My preferred medium format thing is 6x9. I like the 3:2 aspect ratio, and in all honesty, I often will just simply dedicate at least one 120 roll to working an idea or concept. I don’t shoot much landscapes, but when I’m just out and about to shoot stuff, I just don’t give a darn about what it costs and whether a shot is worth it. If I liked it enough to think of taking a picture, I’m taking that picture, and will often stay and work some variations. There’s no point in overthinking it, if you see something or have an idea, just zone in and create. If cost were really that big of a deal, then film isn’t for you. If you can’t make money and still shoot film, then film isn’t for you. Let’s be real here, shooting film in any format is a luxury. You can either afford to do it or you can’t. If you just wanna take pictures for nearly free, that’s what your phone is for.
I'm taking my leap into it shortly. I snagged a Pentax 6x7 and am waiting for the seller to ship it. Other than orienting myself with the image taking process+learning to use a light meter, I am more scared about the developing+scanning process. I want to get good quality scans but don't know whether I'm better off getting an Epson scanner or paying a photo lab to scan it for me.
To comment on the 6x7 - the internal light meter is actually very accurate and I have come to rely on it when shooting outside. However it of course cannot meter for bulb setting long exposure shots, making a light meter essential.
With a 6x7 negative you can get good scans from the Epson, when it comes to detail. Where the flatbeds can struggle is with dense negatives. So if you expose properly, you should be good. Scanning at home does allow you to really understand and get the best results from your film, unless you're working with a lab that has great communication and knows your preferences.
ngl I prefer 120 over 35mm because I find it easier to load into a camera, and easier to load onto a reel for developing lol
Fair enough.
Do you think you can get your hands on a Digital Back for Medium Format, Phase One are popular but Kodak also made few and there not much info on the web yet alone a shooting experience
Maybe something I could look at in the future. :)
thing for me is.. my dream camera is a medium format mirrorless camera, but I’m not trying to spend 4-7k on a camera just because I like the aspect ratio:/ I just wish fuji had a more affordable medium format mirrorless camera:(
You think a Pentax 6 by 4 5 is worth 500$ I used to use Mamiya got a old yashica that can even do multiple exposure. Testing it now. I like the square for portraits.
Although I used 35mm SLR for the first 20 years of my photography, mainly for economic reasons, I've used MF for the most part for the last 35 years. I make traditional B&W and color prints in a real darkroom, prints in the size of 8x10 to 16 x20 inches. MF makes that process so much easier and does not stretch the optical limits of the film or camera. If I were scanning film images, I cannot see why anyone would shoot MF. The uses such images are applied to would not exceed the capacity of 35mm film in 99% of the situations. Images headed to on-line posting or inkjet printing are stepped on electronically to such extent that any issues of grain or tonality in the final image are swept away by the process and final medium used for presentation. In this setting, the economies of 35mm format are unbeatable, and use of MF is done just for the person gratification of using that type of equipment.
I don't see how you can state that "scanning" doesn't exceed the limits of 35mm film, but you can turn around and say that you can't get the prints you like optically with 35mm? What, do you think digital isn't able to resolve more than what's possible on a 35mm frame? Where have you been in the last 10 years?
Very curious take. With a drum scan you can print massive from 35mm, this is true. But you may shoot medium format for the characteristics of the DoF in situational portraits etc.
Dark slides. One day I will remember to pull them before I push the shutter release.
Haha, yeah, been there many times!
I've been struggling with this but on the digital side. I have a Sony A1 and a GFX100s for me, I LOVE the quality from the GFX100s, but it so much easier and more versatile to shoot with the A1. I guess I just need to up my studio game :)
The trick a lot of people start realising is the magic trick of shooting in crop frame on GFX cameras, makes post processing and the actual speed of the camera much faster and if you really need the medium format ratio you just go for it.
When it comes to size... Good luck with that.Some people will argue that going for a full frame camera with the grip will be pretty similar to a GFX camera, but I don't know about that.
Good luck with your work and whichever workhorse you choose to stick with (at the end of the day keeping both is still an option I'd guess).
What lens are you currently using on your Bronica?
I have the 75mm and 50mm PE lenses.
10:44 so 6x7 film is equivalnet to 88mp digital camera output? Would it be correct to say an 6x7 film scan gives you about the same resolution as a 100MP fuji GFX camera? Or because of film grain and old lenses is is not as good? a 6x9 would be around 115mp. so an old fuji rangefinder is still better than a 100MP GFX digital camera?
It greatly depends on the scanner. Your estimate of 88mp would be close for a 6x7 on an Epson flatbed. Though the Epson touts a high pixel count, its lens quality does not resolve to that level.
If you use a Nikon 9000ED scanner you can get closer to 100mp. And the wonderful thing about the 9000ED is that it uses an LED light source that's very stable and reads a full RGB value for each pixel. This is much more data dense than the Beyer filter color pattern used by virtually all digital cameras. If you opt for a drum scan you can likely extract far more data from your 6x7.
No matter how you do it, scanning is an art and skillset all its own. Don't presume it will be easy. The ability to extract the best image from a given film frame takes a great deal of experience. Bulk scans from your developer are good for casual viewing, indexing, small prints, etc. But you will probably want a $$$ custom scan only for your few, absolute winner shots.
I did find this guy online, though I've never used him. I wonder if he's any relation to the late Danny Burke, landscape photographer who perfected the use of his drum scanner:
www.alexburkephoto.com/blog/2017/12/15/drum-vs-flatbed-scanner-side-by-side-comparison)
Does anyone still do optical enlargements anymore?
Okay, I'm a total newbee, and will be asking a total newbee question. I haven't owned a "real" camera (digital or analogue) for over thirty years. Last "real" camera I had was a Canon AE1 Program, a 305mm SLR... made before digital photography was "a thing". I was considering acquiring a Nikon F3 (also an analogue 35mm slr), but then I thought "maybe I should try medium format"?
Anyway, my newbee question is ... can I do this while avoiding all digitization in printing? I mean, can my entire photography experience be pre-digital these days... without my needing my own darkroom?
yes, look for Silver Gelatin and C-Print services. 4photolab and LTI lightside for example. Might want to try local highschools/colleges too, some have a photo lab or might know where a local one is
I sold all my MF film cameras and 120 film 12 months ago along with my Epson V850. The cost of film today makes it unviable for me to continue though I still have one 35mm film camera with several rolls of black and white film I'll finish off.
Understandable. It's definitely not a cheap endeavour. Will you keep the 35mm around?
@@KyleMcDougall I have the Minolta x-700 and will probably keep it as I can also use the Minolta lenses on my digital camera.
The X-700 is a great camera. One of my favourite 35mm SLRS.
film is cheaper than it was in the 50s in relation to wages sand expendable
income !!
I’m finding TLR’s expensive here even in the UK
Totally unrelated
Such a nice beard. Mega beard envy
🙌
I'm thinking of getting a MF camera for the most important images. I'd probably only use it for things I'd want to print large on a wall: a formal family photo, a magnificent landscape from a place I know will yield such a landscape (think national parks). For how much I would use it, I probably shouldn't buy one until I'm rich.
Me 645 super x ever
death before Digital ....... the hassle rules all !!!! :D 35mm ( 24*56) panorama , 645, 6*6, polaroid , pinhole
That 6x6 ratio is probably the no.1 reason to go medium format; it's so airy, so deep and I think also closer to our vision, in the sense we have quite a lot of vertical field of view too and our real world perception is more square/circular that rectangular. I often catch myself deciding what to include in the frame with a rectangular format, yo need to do some math, while 6x6 is like automatic to the brain; most of the time you point the camera and you just know...maybe it' just me, I'd really like to know if someone has this idea/perception.
I struggle to agree with the concept that 35mm has more than enough resolution compared with MF, but that’s actually more because I can’t get over how grainy 35mm is, and that MF just has that “look”. I think the reason us “MF’rs” enjoy MF over 35mm is because of the anecdotal idea of a look vs actual real resolution.
This also has to do with 35mm in digital format has surpassed MF film along time ago.
@@bngr_bngr I've been shooting full frame digital since the D3 and my best digital archival worthy shots are still not as good as my best Fuji GW690 Medium Format scans. I believe in the convenience of digital all the way, but never the look. It just can't do better with MF and LF film.
Yeah, as mentioned, I think it's really going to be different for everyone. Some people will want the resolution, and some will absolutely want the 'look'. Others will want both. I do think that if you use a fine grained colour negative film, and have it scanned properly, 35mm can be quite clean. But that also depends on the scene, how it was exposed, etc.
@@KyleMcDougall Well I shot Portra160 on an Olympus OM-1 recently that actually impressed me after I developed it. I may have a shot that's worth drum scanning to really see what the fine grain 35mm stocks can do.
My RB67 is so heavy and annoying to use, but the look is so worth it.
@@stoneofverbosity Yeah you're right, who cares how your photos look.
It was for me until i had to spill juice on my yachicaflex and now i cant change the shutter speed lmao
Damn! No juice around the cameras from now on.
@@KyleMcDougall Yeah..i learned my lesson.. a expensive one at that haha!
This insane proxy war is a hit on everything . but you had a great used market in Russia for medium format. Cheaper then all the crazies on Facebook market place and Craigslist that now think every old medium format is special and worth a premium.
Only thing holding me back is the initial cost. Minimum price for a decent medium format camera is $1000AUD.
What type of cameras are you looking at? Many options available for less than that. Happy to suggest some if you let me know which style of camera you want.
@@KyleMcDougall Preferably I'd like one that looks like a normal camera and not the box style ones.I was looking at maybe a Fuji GA645 but they're about 1500-2000 on eBay. Another one I was interested in was the Pentax 645, the manual focus lens one. That is probably closest to my price range in that I could get one for around 1K. I just don't see many options when searching eBay.
Honestly there almost are zero benefits, other than thinking it's "cool" or whatever experience. I mean technically speaking: The resolution is not needed for anything unless you print wall sized Where's Waldo puzzles that people will look at 3" sections of. The DOF is canceled out by the existence of much faster lenses available in FF coverage that just gain back the same DOF again. Similarly, the smaller grain is basically just gained back again by faster lenses letting you shoot at a lower ISO than you could with the slower MF lenses. The perspective of portraits are a little closer in FF for the same composition and DOF, that's about it. That's shouldn't be worth thousands of dollars, 3x the film price, and + lbs of weight for almost anyone.
Agreed. And less shots per roll. 35mm can be enlarged up to about 16x20in without losing quality and sharpness, that’s good enough for most people
Medium format is not for me, The C330 is.
For newish photographers I always give them 2 factors to this question. Is your yearly film budget over/under $1k and do you plan on pursuing a professional career in any capacity? If it’s under $1k, you’re wasting money and not shooting enough and if you’re not pursuing generating sales, what’s your rush? Obviously there’s more conversation involved, but that’s the crux of the conversation.
There is no point to photograph film if you scan film. Better buy iphon or samsung and shoot. It is better and simple. I photo film medium format, but only B&W and processing it to final photography on enlarger in darkroom. For everything else i mean social media, Phone camera is perfect. For exemple iphon 13 can compere with 5k digital camera. So.
The only issue is the ridiculous price of film!!
Please stop saying “ LIKE “ …..like every like third like you know, like third like word ..like …..okay “ Like “ ….🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Awe who cares buy a new one
Kyle thank you for putting this together. This is a topic very interesting to me and I think a lot of people value your input and your take. I have the Yashica-124 Which I love using but not the greatest for Portraits. Because of cost I invested in the Kiev-60 as well as the ARAX for an SLR type body. The 6 x 6 aspect ratio is definitely something I am struggling with. I just ran the first rolls through those cameras. Can’t wait to see the results
Cheers, Ruben. Yeah, 6x6 is potentially the biggest change if you're coming at this from 35mm. Going from a 3:2 aspect ratio to square takes time. I do enjoy square though, although I couldn't see myself committing to it for a large portion of work. Just my preference though.