I had obviously taken a break with the Canon AE1 and spent the whole of December and January in hibernation, as most grumpy bears of my age do. Get Christmas over with, then go back to bed… I like my bed. No, I love my bed!!
Spring was just around the corner, and Kate had managed to awaken the beast and proceeded to tell me what she had planned for the day. It included me, a camera, and the Chateau de Clisson. I had just been “told” by my daughter, and off we headed to Clisson.
Now, the Chateau de Clisson is no small affair by any means. It dominates the centre of the town, sitting atop a hill as an imposing structure. I remember Kate having begged me on numerous occasions to actually go inside, and this time I acquiesced.
It was the perfect opportunity to not only document the inside of this historic site but also to let my playful daughter do what children do best: be cute, or as they say in French, espiègle. At that age, she was still content to pose for the camera, unlike the moody teenager she has become. Yet, sometimes, that same playful nature still manages to shine through.
If you’re curious to learn more about the history of the Chateau de Clisson, I’ve included a link for further reading.
After our outing in Clisson, I retreated to the quiet of my darkroom, where the real magic happens—transforming the captured moments into tangible memories. The familiar routine of developing the film, loading it into the tank, and watching the images slowly emerge never fails to captivate me. Once the negatives are ready and the scans are complete, I file them away in both my digital and analogue archives.
Then, a few years later, I get to share these memories with you. It’s a special kind of nostalgia—the kind that comes with taking time to slow down, reflect, and preserve what matters most. Thank you for joining me on this journey and for allowing me to share these pieces of the past with you.
I shoot both 35mm and medium format, and people occasionally ask which one they should pick up first. Here’s my honest answer, with the two side by side so you can see the difference for yourself rather than take my word for it.
35mm is the format everyone starts with. It’s the standard: easy to find, easy to get developed, and every camera shop from here to Nantes has a fridge full of it. Medium format is a different animal entirely, and the differences show up the moment you hold a negative up to the light.
The most obvious one is detail. A medium format negative is so much bigger than a 35mm frame that it just holds more information, more texture, finer lines, without trying. If you want a print that rewards someone standing close up and looking hard, medium format gets you there faster.
Then there’s the shape of the thing. 35mm gives you the familiar 3:2 rectangle. A lot of medium format cameras, mine included, shoot square, 6×6. That square forces you to compose differently. You can’t lean on the usual rectangle instincts. Vivian Maier shot almost entirely on a TLR in square format, and it’s part of why her street work looks the way it does, different balance, different eye. I won’t pretend I’ve got her eye, but the square format does make you slow down and actually think about balance instead of defaulting to the rule of thirds out of habit.
Depth of field is shallower on medium format too, which is handy for portraits or any shot where you want the subject to properly separate from the background. Get the composition right and your subject sits there against a soft blur that 35mm makes you work much harder for.
Size and weight go the other way. 35mm cameras are small and light, which matters when you’re moving fast on the street. Medium format bodies, mine especially (see my Mamiya C220 review for exactly how much of a beast it is), are bulkier and heavier, and that changes how you shoot. Less grab-and-go, more plan-and-wait.
Cost is the other real difference. 35mm and its development are cheap. Medium format isn’t. Shoot 6×6 and you get twelve frames a roll, not thirty-six, which changes your relationship with the shutter button fast. If you get twitchy shooting 35mm, wait until you’re down to twelve frames and every one of them costs real money. That said, no shot is wasted, even the ones that don’t work teach you something, and if you’re after gallery prints or paid work, the extra cost of medium format tends to pay for itself in the result.
35mm also just moves faster in daily use, candid shots, quick reactions, film that’s easy to get processed anywhere. Medium format asks you to slow down and actually think through a shot before you take it, which some days I love and some days I find a proper faff.
Below is the same rough scene shot on both: a 35mm frame on the Pentax ME Super with a 50mm lens, and a medium format frame on the Mamiya C220 with an 80mm lens (roughly equivalent field of view). Have a look and decide for yourself which you prefer.
The 35mm frame, shot on the Pentax ME Super. The standard format, the one everyone knows.
The square 6×6 frame, shot on the Mamiya C220. Judge the difference for yourself.
Same rough field of view, 50mm on the 35mm body, 80mm on the medium format body, and you can already see how differently the square frame reads next to the rectangle.
If you want to go further into medium format, a Mamiya C220 review is coming, where I’ll go into what it’s actually like carrying that thing around Nantes for a day.
There’s no correct answer here, whatever the camera forums tell you. I use both, for different reasons, on different days. 35mm when I want to move fast and not think too hard. Medium format when I’ve got the time to plan a shot properly and want the negative to reward it. Pick whichever one matches how you actually like to work, not which one sounds more serious.
