Nice video. You can make very high quality prints from 35mm negatives. For 20 years, I did so because I could not afford to get into medium format. I used the best 35mm lenses, the very finest, sharpest film. I sought out the most fine grain, sharpest developers. I shot everything on a heavy tripod. I made exhibition prints, which were often thought to be made with MF equipment, once accused of lying about it. But that is a terrific amount of work and extremely limiting in what you can photograph. Finally, the process was killing my enthusiasm for the hobby, so I switched to MF. Same results; much less work. I almost went to 645, but elected for 6x7, thinking that if I had to accept the relative limits of MF, I might as well get the best imaging return on the commitment. With ongoing improvements in film and developers, and still using my trusty tripod, at 75 and feeling the weight of the Pentax 67 system, I shifted to 645 to save my back. No regrets for any of those choices.
Thanks for watching and sharing your opinion Randall. A point well made about being able to achieve excellent results with 35mm. Would love to see your work from those days. Medium formats do make it easier for us photographers from a results perspective.
@@SathyaPeacock With so many people shifted from darkroom printing to digital scanning, I have reached the conclusion that format size doesn't mean much anymore. The scanning process tends to level all boats. Then, when you start digitally messing with the image, a digital print isn't going to show much difference between film formats. For the minority who stay in the darkroom from beginning to end, size clearly makes a difference. More by circumstance than plan, my future will test the print image differences between 645 and 6x7. (Fuji GA645Zi v. Pentax 67) My preference in print size has reduced from 16x20 inches to 11x14 inches. I am expecting to see no noticeable differences at rational viewing distances, shooting HP-5+.
645 is just enough of a difference for me to justify it. I've been enjoying shooting 645 over the last year - wish I had gotten into it sooner. Although I've been thinking about shooting with 35mm more due to just wanting to change it up.
💯 it’s a good amount of difference between the two. And 35mm is an often overlooked but quite capable format! I look forward to what you make with 35mm :)
A great video - thank you. I've been considering moving to medium format (from digital) for the "look". And this confirmed my suspicion that medium or larger format would be better.
Informative video! Curious to learn more about the MF "look" and the math it entails. Any resources you can share that go into it further? I think it could be something neat to make a separate video on.
thank you for watching and I'm glad you think so! regarding MF look, this is probably the best one I have found so far (not specifically to do with 35mm vs MF, but matching lens blur across formats) - www.yedlin.net/NerdyFilmTechStuff/MatchLensBlur.html#AoV
Thanks for the video. I'm interested in picking up a 645 camera so it's helpful. All else being equal it seems like a lot of 35mm quality comes down to scan quality. I'm really impressed with the scans people get with digital cameras at home so maybe I should look into setting that up.
Hi Jay, glad it was helpful. Scanning certainly makes a big difference for 35mm negatives, I would recommend a digital camera setup - even second hand if you don't already own one. Kyle McDougall has a video on this - ua-cam.com/video/9IBh8nO3dRw/v-deo.html
Great video. I never really understood the appeal of 645, it seems too close to 35mm for me. If you are going to shoot medium format then you might as well go all in and shoot 6x6 or something larger.
hey thanks for watching. I mean bigger formats don't always mean better for everyone right? the 2.5 times larger canvas compared to 35mm does offer tangible image quality advantages that I already went over in the video. Compared to other larger medium formats, 645 offers more choices when it comes to fully automatic cameras with some exceptional glass, more shots per roll. This isn't to say 645 is the best, or that everyone should switch to 645 - certainly not making that argument - but it does seem to offer a sweet spot in formats where you get some of the benefits of image quality that larger formats offer while also retaining a fully automatic shooting experience for those that need it. Thank you again for taking the time to comment, truly appreciate it :)
Nice video. You can make very high quality prints from 35mm negatives. For 20 years, I did so because I could not afford to get into medium format. I used the best 35mm lenses, the very finest, sharpest film. I sought out the most fine grain, sharpest developers. I shot everything on a heavy tripod. I made exhibition prints, which were often thought to be made with MF equipment, once accused of lying about it. But that is a terrific amount of work and extremely limiting in what you can photograph. Finally, the process was killing my enthusiasm for the hobby, so I switched to MF. Same results; much less work. I almost went to 645, but elected for 6x7, thinking that if I had to accept the relative limits of MF, I might as well get the best imaging return on the commitment. With ongoing improvements in film and developers, and still using my trusty tripod, at 75 and feeling the weight of the Pentax 67 system, I shifted to 645 to save my back. No regrets for any of those choices.
Thanks for watching and sharing your opinion Randall. A point well made about being able to achieve excellent results with 35mm. Would love to see your work from those days. Medium formats do make it easier for us photographers from a results perspective.
@@SathyaPeacock With so many people shifted from darkroom printing to digital scanning, I have reached the conclusion that format size doesn't mean much anymore. The scanning process tends to level all boats. Then, when you start digitally messing with the image, a digital print isn't going to show much difference between film formats. For the minority who stay in the darkroom from beginning to end, size clearly makes a difference. More by circumstance than plan, my future will test the print image differences between 645 and 6x7. (Fuji GA645Zi v. Pentax 67) My preference in print size has reduced from 16x20 inches to 11x14 inches. I am expecting to see no noticeable differences at rational viewing distances, shooting HP-5+.
Sounds like fun!@@randallstewart1224
Sathya, Excellent video and a very organized comparison between these two formats.
hey thanks for watching! glad you think so :)
Hey man, i just want to say your channel deserves more sub!
Thanks a lot for the compliment 😊 glad you think so!
645 is just enough of a difference for me to justify it. I've been enjoying shooting 645 over the last year - wish I had gotten into it sooner. Although I've been thinking about shooting with 35mm more due to just wanting to change it up.
💯 it’s a good amount of difference between the two. And 35mm is an often overlooked but quite capable format! I look forward to what you make with 35mm :)
thanks for making this! been looking for this exact comparison = ) concise and well done
Hey! Thanks for watching I’m glad it was useful. Were you looking to move up the formats or just curious about the differences?
THX. How did You made so lovely Colors like in video about 2:35 ? Greetings from Finland ;)
Hey, thank you for watching! I use @serr 's film vision powergrade as the base and then go from there with color corrections. glad you enjoyed it!
A great video - thank you. I've been considering moving to medium format (from digital) for the "look". And this confirmed my suspicion that medium or larger format would be better.
thanks for watching, I'm glad it was useful!
Informative video! Curious to learn more about the MF "look" and the math it entails. Any resources you can share that go into it further? I think it could be something neat to make a separate video on.
thank you for watching and I'm glad you think so! regarding MF look, this is probably the best one I have found so far (not specifically to do with 35mm vs MF, but matching lens blur across formats) - www.yedlin.net/NerdyFilmTechStuff/MatchLensBlur.html#AoV
Thanks for the video. I'm interested in picking up a 645 camera so it's helpful. All else being equal it seems like a lot of 35mm quality comes down to scan quality. I'm really impressed with the scans people get with digital cameras at home so maybe I should look into setting that up.
Hi Jay, glad it was helpful. Scanning certainly makes a big difference for 35mm negatives, I would recommend a digital camera setup - even second hand if you don't already own one. Kyle McDougall has a video on this - ua-cam.com/video/9IBh8nO3dRw/v-deo.html
Great video. I never really understood the appeal of 645, it seems too close to 35mm for me. If you are going to shoot medium format then you might as well go all in and shoot 6x6 or something larger.
hey thanks for watching. I mean bigger formats don't always mean better for everyone right? the 2.5 times larger canvas compared to 35mm does offer tangible image quality advantages that I already went over in the video.
Compared to other larger medium formats, 645 offers more choices when it comes to fully automatic cameras with some exceptional glass, more shots per roll. This isn't to say 645 is the best, or that everyone should switch to 645 - certainly not making that argument - but it does seem to offer a sweet spot in formats where you get some of the benefits of image quality that larger formats offer while also retaining a fully automatic shooting experience for those that need it.
Thank you again for taking the time to comment, truly appreciate it :)
where'd you get that shirt
haha, ebay ;)