Photographer Kyle McDougall says that one question he is often asked is to shoot in medium format film, such as 645, is really ‘worth it’ compared to a 35mm film. In this 11-minute video, he explains why he thinks it is.
Although he is clear that there are no ‘bad’ formats, and that everyone is quite capable. What it really boils down to is the type of work you plan to create and the preferences you develop over time.
“If the format you are currently working on suits you and works for you, you should not feel that you have to upgrade just for the sake of it,” he says.
That said, he believes that in many cases the 645 is a large step of 35 mm. When working with a larger negative, you get finer details, less visible grains on similar image sizes, and smoother colors. At night to each other, 645 versus 35 mm is very different if you were to see the negatives side by side.
645 film also offers the aspect ratio of 4: 3, which many photographers – including McDougall – find particularly visually pleasing. If you go for medium format from 35mm, it is not too narrow than a 35mm frame, unlike other medium format film sizes that can be quite narrower.
McDougall also says that in his experience, he finds that the 645 cameras of the medium format cameras have the most compact and easily available cameras that can be found, and that the options are also cheaper than other medium format options.
In summary, McDougall believes that those interested in moving to 35mm medium-format films, 645 according to him, are the most positive. To answer the initial question, McDougall basically argues that the answer is yes: for many use cases, especially landscape and postage stamp work, it is better than 35 mm for many reasons. Image quality is not only improved, thanks to a much larger negative, but the compromises are less serious as compared to other medium format sizes.
Do you agree? Why or why not? Let us know in the comments.
For more information on Kyle McDougall, you can subscribe to his YouTube channel.
(via ISO 1200)