Show us your Medium Format film shots

gabruzzi

Active member
Messages
71
Reaction score
39
Since this forum is just starting off, we need our complement of format specific photo threads, so lets see some medium format shot--6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9 and so on. Heck, throw in the little 4x4 cameras as well.

I'll start this off with a few from my Bronica ETRSi and Pentax 67:

Bronica ETRSi, Zenzanon-PE 1:2.8 50mm, Kodak Ektar 100

ea2b86917d2c4ee591400daf8fd6de35.jpg

Bronica ETRSi, Zenzanon-E 1:3.5 150mm, Fomapan 200

eada1c315d4641c78cca4b1caa388d9d.jpg

Bronica ETRSi, Zenzanon-PE 1:2.8 75mm, Ilford Delta 3200

0c0336d2a96c4b8aa648c5a501ca8375.jpg

And for the Pentax:

Pentax 67, SMC Takumar 1:3.5/55mm, Kodak TMAX100

5be568e80f4c41dabbad3ed0fc01ca9f.jpg

Pentax 67, SMC Takumar 1:2.8/150mm, Kodak T400CN (Xpro in E6)

994ddbcbbe714b7d96a2ed419e0c6018.jpg

Pentax 67, SMC Takumar 1:2.8/150mm, Ilford Delta 3200

f926ee2efa2f4fb98ff044b44e2aedae.jpg
 
ab4f5e61e32140d58cd4b6c62066a4bb.jpg

Pentacon 300 F/4, Pentacon SIX, Scanned with DSLR Nikon D7000 and Tamron 90 mm lens.
 
Brómica etrsi 50 f 2.8 1/60 f 11 Kodak tx 100



e1083c021c2d4481a00bd49bfb1d6c8e.jpg






--
The Best Camera is the one that you have on your Hands.
 
These are all shot with the Bronica RF645 and Lomography Metropolis @ ISO 200





3fd1e6abba8b4ad7b056988f7e6d013e.jpg



a78538af574d4eccbb50d730927ab068.jpg



41ab40f827c54f598fc7f7ab0bf06bd7.jpg
 
Rollei 2.8C with Rolleinar

This was on a roll of 400 Portra that I had in the fridge, early 2000s date.

9461db83b8d44c71a886123afd19629f.jpg
 
Pentax 645 with 75mm lens, HP5+ developed with HC110, dilution D, scanned with Epson v550.

c8966948037d48c6837bfad689f08533.jpg

Pentax 645 with 150mm lens, HP5+ developed with HC110, dilution D, scanned with Epson v550.



Daiichi Zenobia 6x4.5, HP5+ developed with HC110, dilution D, scanned with Epson v550.

 

Attachments

  • 4033777.jpg
    4033777.jpg
    6 MB · Views: 0
  • 4026908.jpg
    4026908.jpg
    5.8 MB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Bronica ETRSI with PE 50mm f 2.8 developed with cafenol, Tmax iso 100

89f07d722bdd433b8e0d94c89a8fad8a.jpg



c5f0271cffed480f88668165c9907233.jpg



4701b08c7dde47ccbed48b8fac59c813.jpg



--
The Best Camera is the one that you have on your Hands.
 
Some frost and fog on HP5 rated at 1250ISO and developed at 1600ISO with DDX
Those are wonderful.

The ability to use wide latitude film developed with even greater latitude is the chemical equivalent of Photoshop.
 
Last edited:
Some frost and fog on HP5 rated at 1250ISO and developed at 1600ISO with DDX

0413c952265c4428abdb3330c0a57976.jpg

3f9e22008f6e4f99a92810ad13f0be9c.jpg

8e453c5c9ca04998b61689bd41f1aad9.jpg
I've not used HP5 for decades, but it's rated ISO 400 out of the box if I recall, so you shot it at ISO 1250 - underexposing by 2 stops, right? Then pushed development by 3 stops @ 1600 to build up the density. What does that do in effect? Does it give the shadows a kick and lift your mid-tones while retaining detail in the highlights? Just trying to contrast (excuse the pun) versus if you had shot it at ISO 400 and developed it normally @400. I'm guessing you effectively expanded the dynamic range for such a high contrast subject.

MFL

--
The one thing everyone can agree on is that film photography has its negatives. It even has its positives and internegatives.
 
Last edited:
Some frost and fog on HP5 rated at 1250ISO and developed at 1600ISO with DDX
That's some pretty cool ice. You're not going to tell us what gear you used?
Fuji GW680III + epson V600 + silverfast
Some frost and fog on HP5 rated at 1250ISO and developed at 1600ISO with DDX
Those are wonderful.

The ability to use wide latitude film developed with even greater latitude is the chemical equivalent of Photoshop.
It really is. I'm really happy with results.
Some frost and fog on HP5 rated at 1250ISO and developed at 1600ISO with DDX
I've not used HP5 for decades, but it's rated ISO 400 out of the box if I recall, so you shot it at ISO 1250 - underexposing by 2 stops, right? Then pushed development by 3 stops @ 1600 to build up the density. What does that do in effect? Does it give the shadows a kick and lift your mid-tones while retaining detail in the highlights? Just trying to contrast (excuse the pun) versus if you had shot it at ISO 400 and developed it normally @400. I'm guessing you effectively expanded the dynamic range for such a high contrast subject.

MFL
To be honest I just did something that I saw someone did here on forum. It was my first time doing that and I just started developing few days ago. But I like your explanation :)
 
Last edited:
Rollei 2.8C TMax100



61a75f1fe9f54352a733f0679867e398.jpg
 
great shot....interesting perspective....
 
Some Bronica 6x6 action.

Zenzanon PS 80mm 2.8,  Ektar 100 expired
Zenzanon PS 80mm 2.8, Ektar 100 expired



Zenzanon PS 50mm 3.5, Fujifilm Pro 160 NS expired
Zenzanon PS 50mm 3.5, Fujifilm Pro 160 NS expired



Zenzanon PS 80mm 2.8, Ektar 100 expired
Zenzanon PS 80mm 2.8, Ektar 100 expired
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top