Your favorite analog format? Why?
If you luck into them and if they are close enough to pick up - both a matter of luck.
Because I plan to make my own 13" x 19" B&W Carbon Transfer prints, I settled on 6cm x 9cm roll film. It's much more convenient than 4x5 to shoot and much more 'enlargeable' than 35mm. Especially since I plan to develop my own film. Costs go up exponentially when you go over roll fill sizes. I also favor 6cm x 12cm, but I don't have a camera for that yet. I'll rely on my Fuji GSW 690 III rangefinder for now. It has a great lens.
'tis an ill wind that blows no minds...
This thread has turned out into a great read for me, especially since I'm newer to film. Keep it going and thanks guys!
35mm of course, but for mf I really like the square 6x6, and naturally 6x9 since its the same proportions as 35mm, and I am totally digging 4x5 right now. Hard question but if I had to choose out of all of them, most probably 35mm just because I am most likely to have a 35mm camera around with me at any time.
Although standard 35mm is the format I have shot more images with than any other (for cost, convenience and accessibility), my favorite format is 35mm Realist (a stereo format that yields 28 pairs of 24x23 mm images from a standard 36x roll of 35mm film), simply because I have always been enthralled by the image of a stereo slide as seen in a good transmitted-light stereo viewer with achromatic viewing lenses.
I've shot some MF, including 6x6, 6x9 and 6x6x2 stereo, and the images can be impressive, but it seems I have never had the "luck" I expected from it as I did with 35mm.
Now, people who know me know that I have a weak spot for two formats that most photographers just hate - 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 Polaroid (AKA 100-series) and 126 (I always liked how you could throw every 126 slide into the tray the same way, and every image would fill a square screen). Some 126 cameras actually could produce superb images.
I've loved to play with formats. I wonder if anyone else on this forum has used all of these formats, that I have used at least once:
Minox (in Yashica Ataron camera)
240 (AKA APS™)
35mm Half Frame
Agfa Rapid 24x24mm
35mm Nimslo Stereo (21x18mm x2)
35mm Realist Stereo (24x23mm x2)
35mm full frame
120 stereo (6x6 x2, on a Sputnik)
620 square (4x6)
Polaroid 20 (Swinger)
Polaroid Captiva (later called "95" - integral)
Polaroid 3 1/4 x 3 3/8 (80-series)
Polaroid 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 (Roll) (40-series)
Polaroid 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 (Pack) (100-series)
Polaroid SX-70/600 (integral square)
Polaroid Spectra (integral oblong)
Polaroid I-zone (integral miniature)
8mm roll movie
Super 8mm cartridge movie
Last edited by 1L6E6VHF; 07-30-2014 at 11:49 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
1. 6x6, Hasselblads and Mamiya 6, best combination of large negative and fast operation, my best images are made with it. I also use 120 film in 6x12 format with the 4x5, great aspect ratio and versatility.
2. 4x5, basically a "Giant" medium format with movements, easiest to enlarge, plenty of films available and still very economical. While I get nice images out of it and love to use it, pre-exposure dust is much more of an issue and it is much slower than 6x6.
3. 35mm, Leica, Nikon & Xpan, all for photojournalism, Xpan for landscapes sometimes, makes up less than 20% of my shooting. Plays exceptionally well with digital, swap glass.
12 camera bodies, 36 lenses, full darkroom that I can print up to 20x24, office for print finishing and a monster computer for scans, not much you can't do with the above....
I've only used 135 and 120 format before. I like 120 more because there's only 12 exposures so I can use them up faster rather than wait to get through 24-36 exposures. Image quality is better too, and I get to haul my TLR around.
Most of what I've shot in the last 40+ years is 35mm. I own and shoot with a few 120 cameras of various format and also a Crown Graphic for 4x5. I guess the convenience of the smaller cameras is why I favor 35mm.
6 x 6 - Camera size is within reason and the negative is large enough. I love the square format.
35 mm - I use it for slides (B&W and color). Convenient, easy and fast. A format for opportunities.
4 x 5 - I have built a LF camera. It is reliable but heavy and clumsy and I have a lot to learn before I really can use it.
I only have two formats that I use seriously. 35mm and 6x6. I love both for their qualities. A 12x12" print from 6x6 Tri-X or HP5+ looks so sublime when the stars align. I usually print them 8x8", though, and I love how that square looks with lots of room around it, slightly top oriented, on a 16x20" or 11x14" paper.
35mm I love because of its versatility. I still get really great quality out of the format, and the grain really adds something to the print. I print 6x8" on 8x10", 9x12" on 11x14", or 12x18" on 16x20" paper, and that inch border around the perimeter looks fantastic I think.
35mm is used when I might need to shoot hand held. While the Hasselblad can be shot hand held, it is less practical and nimble. But it can be done and handles wonderfully. The Hasselblad is what I use when the camera can go on a tripod and I'm doing long exposures, although I use some 35mm for that too, to add grain, but sometimes also to shorten exposure times due to the larger aperture settings available.
I can't imagine giving any of them up, and they both contribute equally to me having fun and enjoying photography. Can't pick a favorite among them.
"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank
"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh