If you prefer what you get with the rb use it every time you can and shoot 35 when you have too.I use Foma 100 in 35 and 120 both developed in diafine and there is a definite difference in tonality and grain. I can't call either one better but some shots are better suited for 35mm and some for my 645 , so I tend to carry both and shoot with one or the other sometimes both if I'm feeling indecisive.
That is what it's all about. Use the equipment you need to use to get what you want. Everything else is trivial.
Originally Posted by LarryP
1. Make sure you can get the shot you want - adapt and pick the equipment you need to get there.
2. Then work to get the best print you can from whatever format you chose.
I'm convinced that it's photographers only who agonize over what camera format was used to make that gorgeous 16x20. It is the print that matters. If you were carrying an RB67 around and it prevented you from getting the shot you want, well, then you have no use for it no matter how much you love it.
Take a look at some masterful photographers and printers work from the 1950s, 1960s and so on, and see what they were able to do with 35mm at that time. AND, I mean go look at the real prints, not some shitty scans on the internet. Find a museum. Find a gallery. Modest equipment by today's standards, but superior craftsmanship. Much too much attention is paid to equipment these days, and not enough attention on things like printing skills.
I assure you that you will be able to move the same audience with a 16x20 from 35mm that you can move with a 16x20 from a 67 negative, as long as they're not grain peeping photographers - if you know what you're doing in the darkroom.
"Make good art!"
- Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera".
- Yousuf Karsh
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit".
A politician is a man who will double cross that bridge when he comes to it.
Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh
Even your 4x5 cameras and negatives will begin to feel like a miniature format.
"Some photographers are the poets of purple mountains' majesty. Some are the poets of the placid suburbs. Weegee is the poet of small-timers who died face down on a city pavement at 3 a.m. in a pool of their own blood."
— Richard Lacayo, Photography: Dames! Stiffs! Mugs!, Time Magazine, January 12, 1998
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Maybe I'm an anomaly at apug, but I print for handholding images, small. My 35mm images are generally 5X7", and MF are printed to 6X6". If I'm feeling frisky I'll use MF to go all the way to 7X7". :-)
Either camera format will make excellent prints for how I like to view and display images, so it comes down to fun. I use whatever is fun.
Even at these small sizes though, I see some difference between MF and 35mm, although it's hard to describe exactly what it is. They're just different, but that could have as much to do with lenses, tripod, film, etc as format.
The key word is retain a really sharp image...The Canon 50mm f/1.2 at f/1.2 isn't anywhere near as crisp looking as the Zeiss 80mm
Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson
I am with Thomas. People pay way too much attention to trivial factors when the important ones, like printing skill (or image content) are given little attention. Someone with skill and knowledge in the darkroom will make a better print from a 35mm neg than someone who is sloppy or inexperienced printing from a 120 neg. From my point of view, technical matters are more important n the darkroom but I prefer not to think about them when making images. I know I am not in the majority on this, at least not in the forum world.
These threads about negative size always remind me of macho truck people-i.e. "MINE is bigger than yours so I am more of a man!" Whoop-tee doo.
I don't care what camera anyone shoots with, the size of their negatives, etc., just show me the beautiful images. That is WAY more impressive than how big the film is.
I am with Tomas also
Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson
When I used rolleiflex and other medium format cameras - I was getting nice prints without problem, and with 35mm I needed to get everything perfectly aligned, watch for every detail, use best enlarging lenses... But on the end I did sold my medium format cameras and kept nikons and leicas - final prints that I get with 35mm is more than satisfying for me, and medium format just did not worked for my style of photographing.
Thaks for the opinions everyone, this is a really useful discussion. I'm probably leaning more towards medium format now. I'm very fortunate to have had the time and cash to play with both. I've shot 35mm for perhaps 20+ years and medium format only four years or so, and still do 90% on 35mm. For me, it's a very different process. I'm not a naturally very creative photographer and I find the more measured approach to medium format helps me a great deal as I really have to think about every shot and look at all the possibilities. Looking back through a selection of my best prints there are very few that I couldn't have taken on medium format, and I think most could have been improved by having done so because I would have been more critical at the point of pressing the shutter. Of course I could just apply the medium format thinking to my 35mm shots, but I enjoy the process with the RB67. It is just a tool for getting the right composition/lighting/exposure etc, but it's a nice one.