Ahh Coney Island. The land of dreams.
After shooting medium format for awhile (aka 120mm), you get a little weary of the workflow. Let’s look at the list of inconveniences for 120mm in comparison with 35mm film.
- Number of shots per roll. 120mm gives me 10 images per roll (6×7 format). 35mm gives me 36 images per roll.
- This translates into a higher cost per image.
- Scanning takes a long time. I can scan 10 35mm images in the time it takes me to scan 3 120mm images.
- 35mm scans are smaller and therefore don’t take up as much space as 120mm.
- Medium format cameras are bigger, bulkier and heavier. 35mm cameras are more common, more mass produced, lighter and less expensive (speaking generally).
Of course, inconvenience is all in the way that you look at it. You could also say that these inconveniences are beneficial.
- Only getting 10 images per roll makes every frame more important and therefore worthy of more work per image (WPI).
- Film is expensive so there is more WPI.
- Scanning takes a long time… so there is more… WPI.
- Very large image sizes so very large image files… WPI.
- Bulky and heavy cameras… WPI.
So the pattern here is pretty obvious. Working in medium format makes you… work more. And that can be a very good thing. Not to mention some of the other benefits of medium format… which are shallower depth of field and larger image size (freaking awesome resolution).
But of course, putting more work into every image changes the style of your photography. You don’t see people wanting to shoot candid shots walking around with a big camera that shoots medium format do you? Of course not and that all has to do with the fact that shooting 35mm is easy and quick. Automatic modes take out all of the thought process in exposure and focus so you can quickly get that shot when it comes in front of you. If you like classic street photographers then a few of these names come to mind – Garry Winograde, Henry Cartier Bresson, and Joel Meyerowitz. These guys loved the Leica 35mm rangefinder because you could quickly compose, snap the shutter and capture what you need.
This kind of shooting opens up avenues that simply aren’t possible with medium format. When you see an image that is the quick snap, the reflexive shot, the instantly composed frame, you feel all of that in the photo.
On the flip side, photos that are painstakingly planned out down to the tiniest detail, when a lot of time and energy and patience has been sunk into that one image… you feel it as well. Which style is better? After soaking in the instant style for some time, I became convinced that the slower, planned out shots were the best. But now, I have been shooting only 120mm in 2013 and have now soaked in the slow style for a spell. So the pendulum is starting to swing back to the other side. Really, both styles have merit and can make great artwork.
So here we have setup a loose dichotomy between 35mm (fast) and 120mm (slow). But this portrait I have painted is not 100% accurate. Of course you can work fast with a 120mm camera and you can work slow with a 35mm camera. But what camera will allow you to work the fastest while retaining that buttery amazing DOF and resolution?
Enter the Mamiya 7.
I have yet to purchase this camera… and to do so would require disposal of some other pieces of kit. But this is the fastest shooting 6×7 camera in the world. And that is why I am seriously thinking about buying one.
Sure, I love my Pentax 6×7. The lenses are great, its inexpensive, its a solid camera. (Further Pentax 67 sycophancy linked here). But I would like the option of shooting faster, with automatic modes. Of course, I say the word option, because no doubt I won’t be using the automatic modes all of the time.
So the question is this (the sacrifice!!!) – should I trade in my Pentax 67 with 5 lenses for a mamiya 7 with one lens and save up for another lens (I only really care about the 80mm and the 65mm)?
This will take some deliberation…
I never really mentioned it, but I’ve changed some of the style of shooting I’ve done over the past couple of months. Partly due to the desire for new projects, partly due to the shooting of medium format. I have slowed down, caught less candid snapshots, and focused more on a series or body of work than I have in the past.
Previously, I would shoot anything came my way. This usually made for a bunch of shots on a roll that seemed to be randomly thrown in there. There was little rhyme or reason to it (the only consistency being black and white film most of the time, the locations and my style of shooting).
Not to say that everything I am doing now has a strict rhyme or reason. But one thing that has been a marker of my recent work is the shooting of fewer portraits. I always thought portraits were the best but now I want to get good shots of both portraits and landscapes. So I have focused more on landscapes.
Portraits are beautiful and I will always love a good one. But I feel like it’s almost cheating a bit. Landscapes are tougher to get a good photo out of because they require more interesting subject matter (in my humble opining).
The ultimate goal of course is to be able to grab both great portraits, landscapes and potentially the combination thereof?