Does anyone here shoot medium format film?

my girlfriend and i both love photography, i shoot with a digital SLR, she uses a film SLR.(not sure the size) neither of us will use eachothers cameras. she does take much longer to setup each shot but they come out really well. where as i will take a few shots and find the best. might be "too convenient" but i like it that way. i spose what i love about my DSLR is it will shoot 5fps which is great for racing and sports photography. (she likes still photography)

i think its great that he wants to go about it the old school way. it will teach him more about photography and what effects everything will have than digital.

 

I currently only shoot 35mm film, but would love to get a large format camera one of these days.

I disagree with the sentiments that shooting film better teaches composition. That you CAN shoot 1000 frames doesn't mean that you must. With restraint, you can limit yourself to x-amount of exposures. However, I don't recommend doing so. The way to learn to take photos is to take photos. The more the better.

I think that digital cameras are better teaching tools, as they provide instant feedback into things like exposure and DOF. You don't have to wait until you process your film to see whether you blew out the highlights or underexposed or whatever. And you don't have to remember what you shot, because the EXIF data will tell you (ISO, f/, shutter, focal length, etc.).

That said, I think film is great. I much prefer printing in a darkroom to looking at stuff in photoshop.

 

As far as learning photography, he may ultimately get more out of using a TLR than the difference between 220 and 35mm film.

I've shot medium format and 35mm film, though I sold my Hasselblad and lenses about 5 years ago. I honestly don't think there's a large difference between medium format and 35mm film styles for the mainstream cameras available. Cameras like the Blad or the Pentax 6x7 are frequently set up to handle like an SLR and that's the kind of photography you tend to take with those cameras. Granted, medium format will give you more resolution on a given negative and print and so allow for larger prints; but if you really want resolution, then a 4x5 or 8x10 view camera will be even more extreme AND allow you view camera movements (perspective changes not possible with regular cameras).

Camera types and size probably affect the photography more than the film size. Camera type such as SLR vs rangefinder vs TLR vs view camera will encourage different styles such as WYSIWYG, candid, semi-abstracted and very abstracted. And different camera sizes such as pocket size/unobtrusive versus handholdable/recognizable versus tripod-mounted monster body/lens will also tend to drive the photographer in different ways more than film size (except for the extremes).

Film vs digital is now a very old debate, with most photographers using each as the job/assignment demands. There are still a lot of reasons to choose film, but many of them are artistic versus practical - certain look, color rendition, etc; sort of like painters who like different canvases or brushes. Resolution is much less of a reason for the average photographer as 10-16 Mpixels is good enough for all except the most demanding and, for beginning photographers, the benefits of immediate feedback and unlimited shots (zero cost unless printed) in digital tend to support a faster learning curve than with film. Also a lot of film photographers didn't spend much time in the darkroom (cost, access, etc), their learning plateaued and so they only had half the tools available to produce a good photograph. While now digital photographers learn how to take a good original photograph and then can quickly learn how to render a print in Photoshop (which teaches them how important it can be to get the shot right in the camera) or lets them express a vision that may not have been captured in the original image (anyone who has read how much work Ansel Adams put into printing "Moonrise over Hernandez NM" can appreciate that the shot may be less than half the job).

These days, I think the ideal process is to encourage learning the rudiments of framing, composition, lighting, exposure, and so on, with a digital camera. Then learn about printing/post-processing digitally second. Then learn about film and darkroom third, to complete the education.

 

I know a lot of guys that shoot film, I've experimented lately by borrowing a mates FujiFilm SP-2000 and some Natura 1600. I really love the effects film gives, it makes a photo seem more special for some reason.

I'm definitely going to shoot both in the coming years, also want to get into Lomo and Holgas and try out some different types film. Just have to find the money, film isn't the cheapest thing.

And how does film help you learn?

Digital has helped me learn the critical stuff so I can use film without botching every shot.

 

i wish i had the money, experience, and passion to shoot medium format.

 

I don't shoot medium format, but lately I've strongly considered acquiring a Hasselblad 501cm or 500 C/M - I've compared dSLR pics with medium format ones, and there's really no comparison. The amount of shallow DOF you can get from a medium format, too, is breathtaking! The possibilities with medium format are much greater.

 

I started out with a 35mm SLR, and I hated using film, it was expensive and I did not know what I was doing, had no idea about shutter speeds, aperture, or anything. If I wanted to experiment with any of those I would take the picture and wait to use the rest of my roll and then take it in to get processed and if it comes out bad well nothing I can do about it now, where as with my DSLR I take the picture and when it is too overexposed, up the shutter-speed, not spending any money and get a great shot instantly.

 

Well, the answer may depend on what your final output and intent is. As a creative director,designer and film maker I fought the the emergence of the digital format initially in the late 80's. The original digital cameras needed multiple exposures with different filtrations and a lot of light, subtleties were lost in this process. Also I found and still do today some shooters got lazy and instead of concentrating on the shot, light, etc. they took the attitude of 'we'll fix it in post' i.e Photoshop.
Back to the medium format of 6x7 or 6x8 ( basically 2 1/4) professional photographers still prefer it over the 35 mm format for obvious reasons, grain structure/pixels. Reproduction of a 35mm image although better now still does not hold up to the larger format in as far as it's final output, be it magazine ad, outdoor board, etc. The tighter the grain structure the better unless of course you are looking for a grainy image for techniques sake.
Almost all of the professional shooters now have converted to digital. The new systems don't require gobs of light and most of the subtleties that were lost before can now be captured. You can shoot multiple images to capture the action in a very short window of time. You have more options as to your final select and most importantly of all, you know if you have the shot immediately rather than waiting to send out for exposure or snip tests.
Also remember in film you lose a generation everytime you reproduce the shot , be it color negative or chrome.
The digital post tools such as Photoshop have come so far in the last few years that creating the final image and making it magic is easier but still requires the 'Artist' within to make the creative decisions that differentiates the shooter from some "hack with a Mac" techno geek. The tools of the industry have changed and will continue to do so but the magic and passion come from the human element, the photographer.
It would be easier to shoot 35mm for all applications as the lens selection is much greater than the medium format, it's cheaper, somewhat lighter and and easier to hand hold although medium formats are getting really close in this respect. I'm sure there are new technologies and formats now being created that will make all it's predecessors seem prehistoric in comparison. Professional medium formatt cameras can be expensive 20-30K, you had better be committed to drop that kind of coin on a camera.
Both digital and film cameras have their own unique applications, advantages and disadvantages to be determined by the specific use intended and by the user, that's where creativitey superseeds technology everytime.
Now as far as motion picture film, at this point I'm still a film snob. So far the images generated by digital means still must be washed in post by filtration that adds grain back in to emulate film. Perhaps we've been conditioned to the film look over the years because that's what motion pictures have always looked like?
Anyway, heres a few pics from a shoot I worked on last summer for Toyota, all shot with medium format digital cameras.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

And, especially, dynamic range (for which most pieces of film are far superior to any digicam's imaging sensor).

 

I shoot medium exclusively for work gigs. Mamiya RZ67 Pro.

I also shoot with my Holga 120s often and for kicks I delve into 35mm for my Lomo Fisheye camera.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I knew Richard well, hell of a shooter.

As for the grain, I use PanF from Ilford frequently for art shows. At a rating of 50, I can blow up life size shots of people that look so fantastic it would amaze the casual observer. Too bad the 25 iso stocks are gone. Thanks to things like rasterbaters, genuine fractals, and other tools, you can take a 12mp and up image in print well large format, but you still have a hard time when it comes to paper stock. Nothing beats a good fiber print.

 

Dave I like the Saint Joseph's Sweatshirt!!
Erik

 

I haven't looked at them for a while but used to shoot Hasselblads almost exclusively in a former career. Medium format isn't quite as handy for action as a Nikon with a motor-drive but it teaches you composition. It will also teach you to pack your equipment cafefully to minimize the massive amount you tend to carry.

I shot a lot of difficult assignments and seemed like I lugged tons more gear than guys with 35mm equipment but the results were usually worth it.

If you really feel ambitious try 4x5. I shot a hot-air balloon meet (only ground shots here) with my Toyo-View monorail camera. I ended up with half a dozen good shots on Ektachrome 64 but medium format would have made more sense.

 

Stuff I just uploaded http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?p=137677989#post137677989

 

I started looking at Hasselblad's website a few days ago, just for the heck of it.
I am sorry for being an utterly complete idiot about medium format, but where is the shutter release?
Sorry, I had to ask.
Thanks

 

That little silver button on the bottom front, next to the lens.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Thank you

 

Most MF cameras have the shutter button down low on the body, there are grips on 6x4.5 that make them act like more of a 35mm. The Mamiya 645 it the most common, but Contact, and Pentax did it differently.

If one was to just be getting started, I would suggest the Mamiya 645AFD, or the fantastic vintage Pentax67. The Pentax 67 is the only 6x7cm body that is like an oversized 35mm body. Grips on 67 bodies are still cumbersome.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I shoot with MF with an old TLR Yashica.

Since my local shop stopped selling film I haven't played with it much. I really want to get back into it.

 

I do not really talk many pictures anymore but I love my Hasselblad 500 C/M...best camera I have ever had...truely fantastic photos.

I kind of want that digital back but I am not sure I want to drop $10k on one.