Large & Medium Format Photography
by William Lulow
Herewith, a little photographic history:
Back in the “old” days of film images, there were view cameras. These were large, bulky cameras with bellows, a lens board and a film board. They were the original cameras other than just pinhole versions or the “camera obscura,” which actually did not make a permanent, fixed image. These “cameras” were basically used to help painters and other artists get more realistic drawings from which they could then do their paintings. Most early cameras produced images on any surface to which could be added a light-sensitive emulsion of some sort. And there were many.
So, from the beginning, the larger this “light sensitive” image was, the more detail it could render. When film was invented in the early part of the twentieth century, the same was true. Large format photography was just a logical extension of the process. I learned how to use a view camera with its film holders and film hangers for development before I began using what is now called “medium format” cameras such as the Rolleiflex and the Hasselblad regularly. When I was just starting out taking pictures, I had a Ricohflex which was a much cheaper version of the Rolleiflex. I knew about large and medium format films way before I started to use them almost exclusively.
I noticed right off that the actual material of the medium format Kodak Tri-X film was physically different from the 35mm version. The larger version really had one side on which you could actually do some retouching. In other words it had a bit more “grit” to it that would more easily accept retouching tones. That was one big advantage. One of the other advantages is that due to its larger size, it laid flatter after it dried. To be sure, 35mm film could be made to do that as well, but I remember processing many a 35mm roll of Tri-X that often had a bit of a curl to it. That happened especially when the film had to be dried in a hurry. Aside from the obvious advantages of using a slightly larger film that didn’t require as much enlargement, the difference in the material made it easier to work with in general.
In addition, medium format cameras could be hand-held whereas view cameras could not. (There were cameras called Speed Graphics which shot 4×5″ sheet films, but you had to be pretty strong to hand hold them successfully). As you can see from the illustrations above, the Hasselblad was even smaller and easier to hold than the Rolleiflex. I owned both cameras at different times and the Hasselblad became my camera of choice most of the time. It produced a square 6cmx6cm frame which was easy to see and easy to handle in the enlarger. (As a matter of fact, I am now in the process of scanning some of my old, square negatives and they make for really good scans). The quality was excellent and quite an improvement over the 35mm cameras. When you are shooting film, the actual emulsion and structure of the film itself becomes a factor in image sharpness.
Enter the digital age. With digital cameras, none of this is relevant anymore because sharpness and image quality are now a function of the resolution qualities of the digital sensors. I am now using a camera with approximately 20 megapixels of resolution in its sensor. That has been more than adequate for magazine covers and large blow ups. I have made excellent quality 16×20″ prints from many of my digital frames. That used to be my benchmark comparison test. If a negative could produce a really sharp print of that size, I knew all the elements that produced it were optimal. I try to use the same tests today for my digital images. If I can make an excellent quality 16×20″ print, then I know everything was done correctly.
Today, there is no real need for large format cameras. There are many photographers who don’t mind investing $50,000 in a digital Hasselblad, but these days, your studio needs to be making tons of money to justify an expense like that. The digital Hasselblad boasts a 50MB sensor as compared to my 20MB Canon. But I’m not sure that the extra resolution warrants the huge extra expense. With film, you had to produce an extremely sharp and large image if you were shooting for advertising clients. These days, you can get similar results from good, middle-of-the-lineup cameras. They don’t even need to be top-of-the-line anymore.
With all this said, believe it or not, I still think that film creates a better and perhaps sharper image with more resolution. The question is, does it justify the extra time, effort and expense? If you are a pure artist, maybe it does. If you just photograph every day for clients who want to use the images on a website or brochure, digital capture is quite sufficient for the task. One other thing to remember, these days, most images need to be digitized to be used in any kind of publication anyway.
