While I have no doubt about the superiority of film, I began to wonder whether medium-format was worth the extra trouble, as compared to 35mm. In many cases, the results look much the same. This is partly because a fast, normal lens (say, 50mm, f1.4) typically has six to eight elements, while the taking lens on a TLR need have no more than four. A prime lens for a 35mm SLR may actually be sharper than the corresponding medium-format lens because, with the smaller negative, it needs to be.
When you consider the above facts, and you take into account that the medium-format camera is heavier and bulkier, it is easy to wonder whether medium format is worth the trouble.
When you further consider that the medium-format camera gives you only twelve exposures (I am finding only 120 film these days; I haven't seen any 220, and don't have the special back that my camera would need for it), while 35mm gives you 36 exposures, then you really begin to have your doubts.
But my mind kept going back to those 2008 camera tests, made when I first got the Mamiya C33. I knew that they were the highest-quality images I had ever produced without using a 4x5 or 5x7 camera. Now, though, I find that the medium-format images I make are roughly comparable to the 35mm ones. I needed to get to the bottom of this.
Here is one of the 2008 images:
It's just a test shot, made in our garden, but it has the characteristic smoothness, luminosity, and rich tones that I associate with medium format. Unfortunately, the file size is quite large: 7.25 MB.
I decided to compare shots of similar subjects, made on 35mm and on medium format. Here's the medium format:
It's sharp and detailed, but I wouldn't call it anything special. The file size is 9.04 MB.
Now, here is the same subject, shot (at a different time of day, and from a greater distance) on 35mm:
This is also sharp and detailed. Actually, the two shots are of comparable quality. If I had to make my decision based on these two shots, I'd have to say that there is no good reason to lug around a medium-format camera that weighs 4-1/2 pounds (not counting the weight of the tripod) and gives you only twelve exposures.
But what about those medium-format shots from 2008? Here is another one:
Here, again, we have the superior image quality that we associate with medium format. Why do we not see it in my shots of backyard foliage?
When I looked at small versions of all four images at the same time, I realized what the answer was. The first shot and the last shot above were made on 100 ISO Ilford FP4 Plus; the two middle shots (the backyard foliage) were made on 400 ISO Ilford HP5+.
I don't think Ilford FP4 Plus is made any longer. I will look for it. Due to the decrease in demand for photographic film, some manufacturers are offering only one film in black-and-white, and that is usually an ISO 400 film. In some ways, this is a good decision. For example, it allows me to do existing-light photography in 35mm with an f1.4 normal lens. This isn't true in medium format, where my normal lens is f2.8, but it allows me to use modern light sources, such as LED and quartz-halogen.
Even if I can't get FP4, there are things that I can do. I can control grain, to some extent, by using a different developer dilution or a different developer (I am using D-76 stock solution). But I don't think I can control the film's latitude or depth of tonality. Any ideas on this will be welcome.
[NOTE: Ilford FP4 Plus is apparently still being made. I found it on Amazon, and have ordered some in both 120 and 35mm.]
Shoot film, if you can!
(to be continued)
Text and images Copyright © 2022 by Donald C. Traxler aka Donald Jacobson Traxler.
