mark-medium format vs. 35 mm

can you explain the difference between using medium format film vs. 35 mm? Is it worth the extra money? do most photographers charge extra for it's use? and if it is used is a lighting assistant needed? thanks for being so helpful!!

medium format vs. 35 mm!

Ooh! One of my favorite subjects. Got a minute? Yes, medium format uses larger film and produces a larger negative than 35mm. That means that there is more detail and you can sfely enlarge to larger sizes. It used to be that 'professional' photographers HAD to use medium format (larger film) to be 'professional.' When I started adding 35mm to my work 10+ years ago, I was considered a renegade and 'unprofessional.' Now everyone has added 35mm because they understand the benefits (although there are still a few holdouts.) #35mm is simply faster and more versatile. Autofocus and long zoom lenses and a variety of specialty lenses and films has made 35mm the way to go for the so-called 'photojournalism' style of wedding photography. I frequently blow up to 20x24, 14x14, 12x12, 11x14, etc. with excellent results. The films and lenses of today are extraordinary. The medium format camera is simply too heavy and bulky to be fast enough for the intimate immediacy of 'photojournalism.' I think that medium format is a hindrance to this style. And lighting! I never use extra artificial lights (besides on camera flash) because it also gets in the way of doing this work. You have to hold still, be just so, and REALLY pose! Not what I do, but if you prefer the more traditional approach and don't mind intense posing then it sure is an option. i prefer to work with the environment and natural lighting rather than replicate a studio setting on location. I think that it is too artificial. Good luck!