The Right Tool for the Right Job
People are always boasting of their tools or asking which tools would be right for them. It is kind of like owning one screwdriver. You can turn one screw. Most screws are #2 Phillips. The 35mm format or the up-to-4-megapixel format is the #2 Phillips of the image capture world. What are these formats best for? In my experience, they are good for snapshots, fine art up to 11x14 if perfectly exposed and processed, 8x10 if marginally exposed and processed and almost always 4x6 prints or for display on a monitor. I have Genuine Fractals and I have heard people boast of how good their 16x20 35mm blow ups are but ALL the ones I have seen are lacking in sharpness, detail and often have grain the size of golf balls. That is a deal breaker for me.
So lets work the problem forwards instead of backwards. What do you want to end up with? My creative energy wants to wind up on the wall at 11x14 or 16x20 with the option of being much larger. I like B&W mostly. The grain in B&W is more obvious (yellow dots blur together better than black dots.) The shape and size of the grain can enhance acutance and I like the way certain films respond to different colors. I would defer those interested in acutance and grain discussion to visit Barry Thornton’s web site. I won’t repeat his well stated observations here. Since I want a certain grain size and a certain print size, I can now choose the film format size. But it is not quite as simple as this. I want to control the depth of field and the look and rate of how things soften as the focus area transitions to the background area (assuming I want a soft area.) I find that for landscapes and certain portraits, 4x5 is clearly the winner. Yes, 6x6cm would also work well and a 22Megapixel Sinar back would probably also do nicely but 4x5 will give me some goof room. If the exposure or development is ½ stop off, the negative will still print nicely where a medium format negative might start to become a challenge. (Those of you that never goof will not worry about this.)
I also need to be realistic when displaying my work. If I print a 16x20 in my darkroom, each cactus needle will be sharp and scary looking. When I post it here, someone will tell me the image is soft. That is just the reality of the medium. A frustrating reality of the digital medium. Images displayed on a computer screen must be simpler to have the same perceived quality.
OK, so which camera for which purpose? I carry a Minolta 16 or a Rollei 16 in my pocket for snapshots that I know will never print larger than 3.5 x 5” There is a use for little shots like these and It is fun to capture memories at an instant. If I like what I see, I can make a 5x7 and it will be grainy and have that retro look that is sometimes priceless. 35mm is usually overkill for a 4x6 snapshot when exposed and focused properly.
When I am setting up my lighting for a portrait shoot, I use an Olympus 3030 Zoom to check my balance. When imported into Photoshop and printed on an ordinary printer, the results are amazing. At 8x10, color portraits and misc. snapshots are very good. I know I underutilize this 3.4 Mega pixel system but my focus is in another direction. I would compare the results, loosely, to 35mm slide film. The dynamic range is not as great as film. The color saturation is similar to some slide films and I know I could do more with it. I am not anti-digital! In 1980, I built a robot and I am not afraid of innovation. I have just fallen in love with silver gelatin and have yet to see digital do all the things that can be done with different kinds of chemistry and technique. The converse is also true.
I do use 35mm. Of course the magic is not in the camera body, it is in the lens. I like the look of photographs made with Zeiss lenses. So I have a Contax and a Yashica camera body and a set of prime lenses. Why not zooms? Just in case. In case I do shoot too nice a picture on too little emulsion, the clarity of a prime lens from edge to edge is optimized at that focal length. All zooms have some compromises (even though most people will not notice) that will become apparent when the image is blown up. Lugging around my 16mm, 28mm Distagon, 50mm Planar, 130mm Sonnar and two camera bodies is like lugging a MF camera system around but if I want to take a snapshot, I have the Minolta 16. It is still lighter and easier to use then MF when I don’t expect to make larger prints.
The camera body is not totally unimportant though. It must have a manual mode. I need to control the depth of field and the shutter speed as well and chose exactly where I want to focus. Also, I double check these smart cameras and they still make mistakes. They don’t pre-visualize the image, knowing what the subject is and where middle gray should be. They are certainly getting better but I’ll go ahead and work the shot out myself, knowing what it is that I want to end up with. (If you don’t have an idea what the shot should look like on paper before you shoot it, an APS or disposable camera is the right one for you.) In addition to manual adjustments, I need a mirror lock up and a depth of field preview. When this kind of camera body is on a sturdy tripod, I can shoot with confidence. Motion blur is the major cause of negatives never making it to my enlarger. If I must hold a camera, I will always prefer 250th of a second minimum and shoot slower with reluctance. This applies to any SLR camera body.
I use 6x6cm for many of my shots. For the same size print and the same film, it can deliver greater acutance than the 4x5 on a 16x20 print. This choice has to be balanced with how I wish the smoothness of the mid tones to appear. I use a Rollei SL66 because I can tilt the lens up and down to bring the plane of focus to match my subject. I also use multiple film backs so I can shoot different films, once set up. Of course, like the Hassy, they are all Zeiss lenses; a 50mm Distagon, a 80mm Planar, a 150mm Sonnar and a 250mm Sonnar complete the kit. I can get near LF results with a system that is faster to set up and more convenient to use. If I think I will shoot something that will look good at 11x14 or 16x20 and need something that is faster to use than LF, I will take this system. It can be hand held if necessary and 6x6cm negatives can give amazing results.
My favorite system continues to be my 4x5 field camera. Pound for pound it lugs like the Rollei SL66 system and enlarging the 4x5 negative is a dream. Tiny imperfections remain tiny. Tones are rich and varied. On a large print, I can count each grain of sand or each strand of hair. There is nothing like the impact of a finely done LF print. I am working on several portrait series using LF and even thought they would all look great in MF, the way sharpness transitions into softness is completely different. The range of tonality is vastly superior and the aspect control allows the greatest amount of creativity. If I only had one system it would be the LF. With MF, I always wonder how much better it would have been in 4x5. That is not a good feeling when you think you have captured the one great image you were looking for. I use a Tachihara, a 75mm Caltar, a 150mm Symmar, a 210mm Sironar and a 300mm Teletessar.
Developer for each format is different to match the unique benefits of each. I use only PMK for my LF work. PMK yields a larger grain structure, giving superb acutance and a stain that masks the grain in the mid-tones. I use DiXactol for MF negatives. It is a pyro-catechol based developer that, like pyro-gallol in PMK stains the negative giving a near grain less look while tanning the emulsion causing highlights not to block up by inhibiting further development after a certain level is reached. Both developers are similar with DiXactol being finer grain. I still prefer PMK for LF because the tanning action is greater and the DiXactol in MF because it gives greater acutance. For cute little films, 35mm and 16mm, I use a split D23 with the first bath containing Metol, Sodium Sulfite and Borax. The second bath contains only Sodium Metaborate. It is bulletproof; just soak 4 minutes in bath A and 4 minutes in bath B from 68 to75 degrees regardless of film type. The first bath penetrates the emulsion with the developer in an inactive state. When immersed in the second bath, the developer turns on and quits when exhausted. You can’t really over develop the film because the developer gives up on the highlights first. The shadows get worked on for much longer because the developer stays active longer there. The acutance is not as high as with the tanning developers but the grain is much finer, which is needed in the smaller formats.
Because I am completely immersed in photography, I have all the tools and use them all, appreciating the unique advantage of each. For most people that can have one camera and try to shoot art and everything else, there is nothing wrong with a Cannon Rebel with a 28 – 80mm zoom or a 4 Mega pixel digital camera and Photoshop. Both these will take wonderful pictures and are practical and easy to learn and use. I will steadfastly maintain that for exhibition quality monochrome prints. Silver gelatin and large formats will continue to be the ones to beat for many years to come. The advantages will seem very subtle to most people but most races are won by 1/10 of a second margin or less and if it takes that much of an edge to win, the winners will still be using big negatives and wet darkrooms. It is in this arena that I find my greatest passion to create.