I have compared the advantages between 135mm and MF/LF and am listing them below: 135mm: 1. Light weight. 2. More accessories readily available. 3. By comparison, less costly. MF/LF: 1. Better print quality of enlargement Can any of you think of any other points to add? Is it worthwhile to take up MF/LF?

-- Raphael Wong (no@ddress.com), September 21, 1998

Answers

35mm is also much easier. Whether it is worth while to take up MF or LF depends on you and how you like to take pictures, or what you want to do with them. If you want to make a living, then you will be forced into MF or LF eventually. Personally, looking at a LF chrome on the light table has few equals.

-- Ron Shaw (shaw9@llnl.gov), September 21, 1998.

This has the makings of an interesting thread.

I'll tell you why I purchased a new MF system last year. I'd been shooting 35mm B&W for a number of years and had gotten to the point where I could produce an outstanding(for me) 11x14 B&W print by using tech pan 2415 as my primary film. I'm shooting primarly for camera club competition and exhibition as a non-professional. I'm also a fanatic about sharpness and grain. I'm using mostly top-of-the line Nikon non-AF equipment. I can produce decent 16x20 prints but when placed beside 16x20's made using MF equipment, there are not-so-subtle differences in tonality and sharpness.

I concluded that I needed(its really wanted, since I only have myself to please, no clients involved) a bigger negative. I thought about this quite a bit and was trying to convince my self that I really wanted to hassel with 4x5. I've worked with 4x5 before and I soon concluded that I didn't have the level of committment of time or the inclination to "fiddle" with a LF camera. My style is a bit more spontanous(sp?)(READ LAZY)

So after having a close call with a used Hassey,(I always thought I wanted a blad), I priced out a new three lens hassey system with eyelevel prism. I immediately decided that was a bit more than I was willing to commit to my move to MF. I also concluded that 6x7 was significantly larger than 6x4.5 or 6x6( I've used 6x6 off and on for years, but never got turned on using beatup old TRL's). So I decide that the Pentax 67 system fitted my pocket book better, I could get it all new for about the same as some well battered hassey's, and I would not be giving the camera professional usage (although I have found out from reading these forums and my experience that the pentax is as capable as any other MF system).

So I guess my answer is , compare your best 35mm work with the work produced by some one else using MF and who has a comparable skill level to yourself. Do you see enought of a difference to make you want to make the $ and time investment involved?

Other's add there thoughts and experience.

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@emji.net), September 21, 1998.

There is a rawness to 35mm that is irritating to me, especially in landscapes but also in environmental portraiture. I make up for that somewhat by avoiding those genres in 35mm and by using longer lenses to give a more intimate and even somewhat "macro" quality to the portraits I do in small format. It is hard for me to imagine a photograph I have taken in 35mm that wouldn't look vastly better in 6x7. Those who "can't see the difference" usually haven't been looking for very long. I know only one photographer who is so careful in his small-format work that he can fool some people most of the time. Otherwise, even when casually flipping through a magazine, it is painfully obvious to me what was shot in 35 and what was shot in MF or larger. There is just no comparison.

-- Mark Hubbard (hubbard@humboldt1.com), September 24, 1998.

I agree. I see few photos from 35mm that can really handle 8x10, say nothing about larger sizes. When I first started in photography, it was with 35mm, as it is for most. I became interested in MF and then LF as a result of seeing the difference. Some may claim they can make a good 16x20 print from 35mm, but dont forget the term good is subjective. A 16x20 from 35mm will be obvious next to a 16x20 from MF. For PJ, I marvel at 35mm. The latest emulsions available have made it a viable medium, but these new films aid larger formats also. If you are a sharpness freak, you will be drawn to larger formats.

-- Ron Shaw (shaw9@llnl.gov), September 24, 1998.

Mark Hubbard, glad to see you on this forum! Gene Crumpler sent me an e-mail asking me to tune in -- guess you guys need a whipping boy! I've already sent Gene an e-mail, so I may quote a few lines from it.

Basically, I think most everyone makes the 35mm/MF business just too difficult. In fact, I think most people, especially serious amateurs (of which I am one, though I make my living from photography) make photography too difficult. It's supposed to be fun! I use Canon EOS equipment with mostly consumer zooms, rarely use a tripod (only if there's absolutely no other way to get the shot), and never use Velvia. I'm much more concerned about what I put in my photos than what I put my photos on.

I really don't think 35mm and MF photos look the same, although they often do at lesser degrees of enlargement. Enlarge them enough and you'll eventually be able to tell the difference. The thing is, I like the 35mm look, even what might be called rawness. I don't think one is better than the other, just different. And with 35mm, I can bring photos into existence that I would never get with a larger camera.

There's also the matter of what I call excess quality. Why put a lot of time and effort into quality which will never be seen on normal size prints or on the printed page. One reason I did my book (Rock City Barns: A Passing Era, available from amazon.com or directly from me) on 35mm was because I wanted that look. I felt a super-sharp look would take away from the nostalgic quality of the barns. But even so, a number of pros have asked me if I used 4x5. One, when I told him no, said "Oh, 5x7?" So I guess I failed in my purpose! The truth is, 35mm is much more capable than most people imagine.

For me, the key to good 35mm work is proper exposure. I meter all serious work with an incident meter, and bracket from that. Everything else being equal, the right exposure will be sharper and have less grain. That's true in any format, but more crucial in 35mm. Reasonably good equipment, reasonably good film, and reasonably good technique can add up to extremely good photography.

Anyway, people are different, temperaments are different, and goals are different. So use whatever format you enjoy most, because if you don't enjoy your photography, what good is it? And don't get caught up in an endless search for technical perfection, because that just ain't where it's at, guys! Technique must be sufficient to give a voice to your vision. Anything more is just excess. And nothing exceeds like excess.

-- Dave Jenkins (ljenkins@vol.net), September 26, 1998.

Welcome Dave Jenkins. I and I hope the others are looking forward to your "voice of reason" in our ongoing written wars to defend our choices in equipment, and materials. Technique is important, but one hopes with time and experience, it moves to the background of our awareness and becomes the canvas upon which we can express ourselves, and capture the wonders of this planet that God has given over to our care, whether for our own satisfaction or to the satisfaction of many clients.

Thus speakieth nikonguy, environmentalist and photography buff.

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@emji.net), September 28, 1998.

If you really think 35mm is lighter you haven't shot with any big glass for sports or wildlife. Then the latest F5 isn't exactly lightweight either. As far as accessories go you generally don't need much in that vein with large format cameras as they take you back to the simplicity of the image without a 90 page manual to remind you of what all the electronic buttons & noisemakers are. But, in spite of all the sports work done with speed graphics I would sure hate to have to shoot NFL or Pop Warner football with anything but my 35mm gear. As to other points to add for LF use, try total control. Swings & tilts to correct perspective problems and manipulate the plane of focus. A ground glass large enough to accurately place 10-40 multiple exposures on the same sheet of film. The ability to shoot the same setup with 10+ different kinds of film simply by changing the film holders rather than changing camera bodies. The ability to process one sheet of film at a time. The ability to shoot with or proof with Polaroid films for either final output or exposure & compostion checks. The real advantage that on a light table a 4x5 chrome will get the reaction of an editor sweeping everything similar right off the table as he looks at the 4x5(or 5x7 or 8x10), point to it and almost yell "I want THAT one".

Total control of the medium with LF is a nice aspect of the bigger camera and makes up for the rest. If you shoot 5x7 the cameras aren't much larger than 4x5 and the negs are big enough to make contact prints as final output. If you shoot 5x7 you are using the preferred format for the Historical Architectural Building Survey. You have a format large enough to save you the cost of an enlarger set up if you want.

LF has a lot of advantages that make up for its size and working requirements. Then, you can put medium format backs on these larger cameras if you want. Some even use them for wedding photography, tho i only use them for the group shots nowadays.

As to whether it is worthwhile for you to take up the LF cameras, that is a personal decision you probably won't really be sure about until after you have tried it. Some try it and love it while others feel "earthbound" with the bigger cameras & the tripod requirements. One of the best aspects of trying it is the great availability of so many used cameras that you can re-sell if you really don't take to it.

-- Dan Smith (shooter@brigham.net), October 27, 1998.

Dan puts the case for large format so eloquently. While I also use 35 mm, one of the joys of large format is composing on the ground glass rather than squinting through a prism finder. Like a nice little TV screen instead of a peep hole.

For me, this combined with the precision and control attained in composition make it a wonderful meditative experience. Today's large format cameras such as Arca-Swiss, Canham metal etc. are compact precision gear.

-- (chettu99@tyenet.com), October 30, 1998.

Hi, Dave!

I'll freely admit that I haven't read your book. However, I have a guess as to why some people thought that you used a view camera. You used a telephoto lens, so the sides of the barns are straight!

Actually, from all of the photos in the books I have seen, I can't distinguish LF from half-frame. Unless it's something very obvious, like being right up next to a skyscraper and the top is even with the bottom, I'm clueless that a view camera was used. Most of the photos in books are maybe 5x7, and 8x10 is large for a book, and 35mm is quite nice at 8x10.

So why am I buying a Super Graphic? I can guarantee you that it isn't due to nostalgia or the camera's inherent charm. I am not possessed by the Spirit of Weegee the Magnificent.

I can do alternative processes with that camera, such as tintype and daguerotypes. I can use Kokak HIE IR film and 400 pushed to 3200 and have grainless results. I can twist, tilt, and shift, but not boogy- woogy. I'll never need a macro lens for it. Does a view camera take a while to set up? Yeah, sure. That's its nature. Can a Graphic be a viable alternative to a 35mm? With a six-shot back, sure. They've been used that way for decades.

So Raphael: Whatchawanndowithit?

-- Brian C. Miller (a-bcmill@exchange.microsoft.com), November 06, 1998.

Brian, about 80 percent of the photos in my book were made with the EOS 24 and the 28-105 at its wider settings. As a commercial photographer I use large format in my work when necessary, but I consider it a royal pain in the behind. I know how to recognize when perspective correction is necessary or the depth of field needs to be adjusted, and I can do it just fine. But frankly, most of the virtues of large format, of which Dan Smith sings so eloquently, are just not important to me, other than in their commercial application. Most of the photographs I care about would not exist without small format cameras--including many in my book.

-- Dave Jenkins (ljenkins@vol.net), December 04, 1998.

yyyeeeesh, ... if i'm gonna go to the trouble of humping around a tripod i'm gonna take my metal field, if the subject is static like a barn or if even if i need to pan i'm shooting 4x5 or larger. If i want to hand-hold I'm shooting a mf tlr or a rangefinder. Don't get me wrong, but 35 even with "prime" lenses i can hardly tolerate 8x grain with 100 speed film, I shoot 35 all the time and love my zeiss lenses and they do have their place,and pray nightly for the lf and mf gods to create 3200 delta or tmax for my bigger cameras,and if these guys can't tell the difference between half-frame and lf you need to hire another printing press. Maybe you have an inefficient field camera, maybe you are shooting for grain, i like grain also, maybe your 35 frees you of equipment burdens and in turn squelches your creativity. Or, maybe you could slow down,don't let the commercial side impinge on your creative fine art side to the point that you sacrfice quality, I completely understand the need for 35 and love it, but to say that at certain print sizes the difference is minimal is misleading. I would certainly hate to think someone who wasn't satisfied with their 35 work not try mf or lf just because they read that the difference is slight. I challenge you, dave, to go out with your most unencumbering large format gear and your consumer grade eos and take photos of the same subject and compare. You said print sizes so i'll hold you to it. and in fairness please use same film and developer. I have no problems with my lf gear it's definitely not lightweight but not difficult to handle or use and don't feel limited by it in any way. In fact there is not a single photo that i have taken in 35 that i couldn't take just as easily with my mf and with just a little more trouble to go lf. I can't imagine what kind of world mine would be if i didn't ensure everything i touched with as much "excess quality" as i could muster. In photography this means lp/mm or maybe print size. Grain is beautiful but no more so than a huge print with no grain, and i believe that certain scenes gain something when photographed with a photo-jounalistic style. I understand and agree with the importance of technique and personal style but maybe you could use your eloquence and influence at the same time to tell all the serious and amateurs just spying,to see just how smooth water can appear on large format, how chrome looks without any grain or how the wrinkles in an old man's face looks on 8x10 ortho. Sorry for whipping so hard. Tribblett son of Mumminton.

-- Triblett Lunger-Thurd (666@HELL.com), December 09, 1998.

yyyeeeesh, ... if i'm gonna go to the trouble of humping around a tripod i'm gonna take my metal field, if the subject is static like a barn or if even if i need to pan i'm shooting 4x5 or larger. If i want to hand-hold I'm shooting a mf tlr or a rangefinder. Don't get me wrong, but 35 even with "prime" lenses i can hardly tolerate 8x grain with 100 speed film, I shoot 35 all the time and love my zeiss lenses and they do have their place,and pray nightly for the lf and mf gods to create 3200 delta or tmax for my bigger cameras,and if these guys can't tell the difference between half-frame and lf you need to hire another printing press. Maybe you have an inefficient field camera, maybe you are shooting for grain, i like grain also, maybe your 35 frees you of equipment burdens and in turn squelches your creativity. Or, maybe you could slow down,don't let the commercial side impinge on your creative fine art side to the point that you sacrfice quality, I completely understand the need for 35 and love it, but to say that at certain print sizes the difference is minimal is misleading. I would certainly hate to think someone who wasn't satisfied with their 35 work not try mf or lf just because they read that the difference is slight. I challenge you, dave, to go out with your most unencumbering large format gear and your consumer grade eos and take photos of the same subject and compare. You said print sizes so i'll hold you to it. and in fairness please use same film and developer. I have no problems with my lf gear it's definitely not lightweight but not difficult to handle or use and don't feel limited by it in any way. In fact there is not a single photo that i have taken in 35 that i couldn't take just as easily with my mf and with just a little more trouble to go lf. I can't imagine what kind of world mine would be if i didn't ensure everything i touched with as much "excess quality" as i could muster. In photography this means lp/mm or maybe print size. Grain is beautiful but no more so than a huge print with no grain, and i believe that certain scenes gain something when photographed with a photo-jounalistic style. I understand and agree with the importance of technique and personal style but maybe you could use your eloquence and influence at the same time to tell all the serious and amateurs just spying,to see just how smooth water can appear on large format, how chrome looks without any grain or how the wrinkles in an old man's face looks on 8x10 ortho. Sorry for whipping so hard. Triblett son of Mummington.

-- Triblett Lunger-Thurd (666@HELL.com), December 09, 1998.

Triblett,

I've been a photographer for 30 years, 21 of them as a full-time commercial photographer serving corporate, advertising, and editorial clients. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. I have everything from 35mm to 8x10 in my studio, and I know how and when to use each format. I use 35mm because I like it. I LIKE THE LOOK OF 35MM!

-- Dave Jenkins (ljenkins@vol.net), December 10, 1998.

Your thirty years didn't afford you much confidence, but yes, I agree, I like 35 too, but why not argue both sides for the sake of the beginners. P.s. We've all just fallen off the turnip truck, you included.

-- Triblett Lunger-Thurd (666@HELL.com), December 16, 1998.