Hi,

Of late B&W has become a serious hobby of mine. For years I have used only 35mm's (Nikon N90). Now I wonder if I should try a larger format. I regret that having concentrated on 35mm I know little about other formats. I will be trying a medium owned by a friend but wonder about other sizes. So I ask... Is 120 better? If one has a large format must they also invest in developing equipt? What other size/formats should I check into?

Thanks for any and all help.

JP

-- Jp Huller (taocats@mediaone.net), March 28, 1999

Answers

I dont know what camera you are going to be trying out, but I think you will like the results of the 120 film. I based my business around a Mamiya RB 67 for many years. Now I shoot all 6 x 6 using a Rollei, Kowa 6 and a Zeiss Ikonta.

If you already have a 35mm enlarger like a B22 or Beseler 23C you dont need anything but a new neg carrier. If you have one of the stainless tanks for your 35mm, all you need is an additional reel for 120. Everything else should stay the same. Good luck.

-- Tony Brent (ajbrent@mich.com), March 29, 1999.

If you're unsure about medium format, and it certanly sounds like you are, I'd suggest starting with a good twin lens reflex such as a Yashica Mat or Rollei 3.5. You can find excellent examples of the former for $150 to $300. Excellent Rolleis start around $300 for 1950s models and go up as they get newer. The advantages are low entry cost, light weight, and excellent resale value. Just be aware that you might get so hooked on the larger format that you'll crave even larger films, beginning your downward spiral into 4x5 and escalating your costs dramatically.

Seriously, medium format negatives will give you the results you've dreamed of in 35mm. If you buy a 4x5 camera you will need to invest in developing equipment, so medium format is a less expensive move.

-- Darron Spohn (dspohn@clicknet.com), April 01, 1999.

C-41 and B&W and E-6 can all be handled by labs in the larger cities, but you gotta find a lab that'll do it (phone book) and you must be willing/able to pay for it.

If you live outside of the larger burgs, you could contact the local pros and see if they would be willing/able to do your film on the side - assuming they don't ship their film to one of the big wedding labs - for a fee.

JP, see if any of the local pros would be willing to show you their book on a light table after work some day. The difference 'tween 120 and L.F. is really more of a mind-set/approach than just square inches or centimeters. 120 combines the portability and speed of 35 with the image quality of L.F. in a compromise that fills the bill for almost all pro situations. L. F. slows things way way way down at first, but it's easy to get hooked on those big negs...

The Mamiya Universal and Press can be had fairly cheaply with a lens or two. They aren't the fastest and most goof-proof 120's out there, but they are rugged and fairly cheap with flash synch at all speeds.

-- Sean yates (yatescats@yahoo.com), April 02, 1999.

JP;

Do you feel that you have squeezed all you can out of your 35mm equipment and technique? I spent several years learning all I could about the limits of B&W photography with 35mm. I learned to make outstanding 11x14's from 35mm. Only when I felt that I had explored the limits of lens, film, chemistry and technique did I make a serious move to MF in the form of 6x7. I had several 6x6 TLR cameras over the last 45 years, but never really got very excited about the results.

I used 4x5 many years ago, so I was not interested in dealing with the additional hassels of cut film. 4x5 use can lead to compulsive behavior, such as a buddy who shoots almost 100% 4x5, rcently showing us a print that he spend 45 minutes burning under the enlarger!

6x4.5 is not that large a move up from 35mm and 6x6 when cropped to rectangular size is 6x4.5. 6x7 or 6x9 is a major move in negative size, short of 4x5.

-- Gene (nikonguy@emji.net), April 09, 1999.

I just did the move as well. I shot primarily 35mm for 10 yrs (and still is my primary format). I'm now shooting Nikon (801s and a FE-2) with a 20mmAF, 28-70mmAF, 55mmf2.8MICRO, and 75-300mmAF Nikkor's. The flexability in 35mm is superior and the cost is minimal compared to MF and especially LF. I have used a Rollicord IV, and a Yashika 124G and they were both good camera's but just didn't do it for me. I just came accross a deal I couldn't walk away from. A C330f c/w a 80mmf2.8 in like new condition from an estate sale (the poor chap passed away)for $425.00 cdn (about $250.00 U.S.). I have shot a roll through it and the neg's were tack sharp! The nice thing about the C330f is that it has all the features and the accessories are relatively cheap. The TLR is not for everyone, but I like it because it gives me the back to the basic's feel and I am more careful of what I shoot because of the time/effort it takes to set-up. But I find that when I used my TLR's that more of the images were keepers. I now plan on getting a 105mm, and possible a prism finder and a Bettie interscreen. Even a complete system is cheaper than some MF bodies. Check e-bay out for some good deals.

Good luck, John www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Meadows/8847

-- John Wade (zaphod1@hotmail.com), June 01, 1999.