MF - How much?

Woodsy said:
Well, I thought I'd add my 2p... The RB67 is a stunning camera and built like a tank. I now reach for this before my Digital when opening my camera bag on location. 67 format for me is an absolute winner, like mohain said; crop-able to most of the popular ratios.

Oh, and 67 format gives 10 frames to a roll, not 8 as someone said earlier.

Feel free to PM if you have any specific questions chap :)

EDIT: with regards to your filters question... Grads on B&W can have adverse effects on the image. I personally suggest learning the zone system for exposing when shooting in mono. Colour filters can be useful, though I would suggest researching the frequency response curves for the film you are using and then using the appropriate coloured filter. Personally, I never use CPL's on film, as I tend to shoot slide file such as velvia which needs no saturation boost! Grads on slide is practically a necessity.
Click to expand...

Just been reading up on the zoning but am now confused...:lol: Do you need to do the zoning when processing/developing the film or just when shooting? And I take it with film it's best to overexpose slightly and bring it back in developing/processing than to underexpose? Or is that for slide and film is the other way round?

As for classcams cameras... It's my thread so I should get first dibs!:p:lol:
 
Amp34 said:
Just been reading up on the zoning but am now confused...:lol: Do you need to do the zoning when processing/developing the film or just when shooting? And I take it with film it's best to overexpose slightly and bring it back in developing/processing than to underexpose? Or is that for slide and film is the other way round?
Click to expand...


You're obsessing........:lol:
 
:(

I'm bored... and you know what boredom can do... Unfortunately my bank balance is quaking... :p
 
shoot some 35mm instead then, its cheaper, work your way up to m/f

i know peeps that went straight to 5x4 after 35mm though....:lol:


:exit:
 
Amp34 said:
Just been reading up on the zoning but am now confused...:lol: Do you need to do the zoning when processing/developing the film or just when shooting? And I take it with film it's best to overexpose slightly and bring it back in developing/processing than to underexpose? Or is that for slide and film is the other way round?

As for classcams cameras... It's my thread so I should get first dibs!:p:lol:
Click to expand...

I personally wouldn't worry about the zone system yet if I was you. To make any use of the zone system you need to know your film stock, how it behaves, how it reacts etc etc. It doesn't really work for MF unless

a)You've got half a dozen film backs on the go so that you can pick the right back for a particular scene

or

b)You're going to shoot scenes with exactly the same tonal range on one film if you've only got one back.

The easiest explanation of the zone system and why you'd use it that I have seen is in a book b Les Mclean called Creative Black and White Photography.

I'm inclined to think that the zone system is more suited to the LF guys where each individual frame is processed to it's own requirements unlike roll film where every frame on the roll is processed the same.
 
joxby said:
shoot some 35mm instead then, its cheaper, work your way up to m/f

i know peeps that went straight to 5x4 after 35mm though....:lol:


:exit:
Click to expand...

Haha, tbh though I'm not remotely interested in 35mm, partly because I have the (perhaps wrong) belief that there isn't really much difference between 35mm and standard digital... MF on the other hand seems to be a different proposition.

Also (and I hope I don't get any backs up with this...) one of the reasons for MF is a step up in quality (hopefully) but going from digital to 35mm seems like a step down.

Kev M, ah ok, thanks for the interesting inpt. :)
 
Depends how you define quality I suppose. I wouldn't say that the quality of my MF stuff is better than digital but a lot of that is down to the photographer and which digital you compare it to. Don't be fooled into thinking that MF is some sort of silver bullet, it isn't but there is a definitely a certain "something" about it.
 
s'right, quality is hardly the point.
the objective is to make pictures using a different medium.
can't make the same pictures with a digital camera because one is 1's and 0's and the other is a real physical thing, they couldn't be more fundamentally different...:shrug:
 
I'm not expecting a silver bullet, far from it in fact. Quality wise all I'll say is looking in the film photos forum you can tell the difference between the 35mm shots and the MF/LF shots. Anyway as I said that was only a small part of why I'm interested in it... :lol:

EDIT: Bear in mind I'd love a 5D Mk2 and a couple of wide L lenses for landscapes, unfortunately I can't afford it so something like a 16mm zoom will be compared to a 50mm prime on a MF camera.:p
 
It's fair to say film doesn't show its advantages through a digital medium like the internet. On a silver print larger formats are easily differentiated, as you'd expect when comparing an image from a 36 x 24mm neg to a 60 x 60mm or 60 x 90mm negative, never mind a 125 x 98mm (5 x 4") one.

To these eyes the nicest thing about medium format is smooth tonality in the middle greys and lack of grain in normal enlargements. It's almost always at some handling expense but that's for the individual to decide.
 
True that. :)

If they did square digital (without cropping) then I may be tempted to try that as well. :D
 
There must be something in the air... I discovered last night that my brother has just bought a Hasselblad 500 C/M to complement his Rolleiflex T.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top