Is only reason to buy MF just to get large prints?

<p>Marc, here is that Montana sky that we grew up under, shot with the Pentax 67. Add a good Morgan horse for local transportation of course.</p><div></div>

<p>Graham,<br>

I love the experience of using film and i like the look I can get out of the camera without having to use photoshop. Here in Europe universities use film for much of photography degree course because they hold the belief that over time it produces a better result in terms of compositional and photographic skills. The thread wandered into digital versus film but in the end its the photographer who makes the photograph , i see many film and digital people both making passionate arguments about which is better when really they are nowhere close to getting the best out of either medium so for me its a non starter.</p>

<p>I just like thinking things through as often as I can with film so that my photographic mind is well exercised when I pick up a digital camera. Not having the instant feedback of digital is for me in a training context very useful .. I have had many dissapointing days on a light table looking at rolls of nonsense or stuff that didnt work ..but I can tell you that I learned more about light looking at those than i ever did with the notion of " fiddle with the settings " untill the digital produces something that I like. Thus photographs I like are less of an "accident" and I can produce that level more consistantly. I shoot an average of 20 rolls a week but have access to practically free developing. I watched a behind the scenes video of a photoshoot where the photographer was using lots of big lights and expensive cameras and freely admitted during the course of his photoshoot as arranging a very important looking softbox that he " didnt have a clue how this was working or what would happen " and honestly to me you could see that in the end result ,, nice PP but not a photograph I would ever let see the light of day.. that given my personal makeup is a trap i wish to avoid. </p>

<p>I think also in a more artistic sense film teaches me more, there is also a growing trend i think towards film so some might want to be in front of it. That is based on reports from Kodak and Fuji finding it hard to meet demand at times here in Europe, some development places i have used on holidays around europe reported to me that they are seeing an increase in film development also, last year the biggest shop in Lisbon was doing 30 rolls a day now they do 250 or more , so i dont feel that Im part of a dying thing any more but do worry that the options for film will thin out over time. </p>

 

Back in the day, when I used to shoot film, I too, much preferred medium format. So much easier to work with in the darkroom, and it would make such fine images. Just for kicks, I once shot an image on 35mm Ektar 25 and made a 16x20 print from it. Compared to my 16x20 MF prints, you truly couldn't tell the difference! Of course, you were limited to a very slow ISO with that film.

 

But yes, I loved MF, but it all just got too costly for me. And I must admit, I like the speed of using digital. I do understand what you are saying though.

I am an amateur when it comes to assessing the technical differences between MF and digital. I have no real technical background to use to compare the two. What I do have is a load of experience shooting MF at weddings and for other commercial purposes (for money) both color and Black and White. I never knew the origin of the name Bronica until I read this thread. I had a real array of Bronica bodies, lenses and backs. I printed both in B&W(lots of TMax) and RA4. It was hard sweaty work in my darkroom particularly printing B&W under wedding deadlines as I could not find a good B&W printer in my area. I printed and developed lots of TMax for the paper I worked for. I thought my Bronica gear was great. I was good with it. I changed to digital in 2002. I, at times, yearn to have my MF gear back. Well then, why don't I go buy some? It's cheap these days. The reason I don't is because, simply put, I can make my digital prints better in Lightroom and PS in one tenth the time or less than it would take in my former darkroom with RA4. I think scanning is a pain in the butt. I have scanned some old Velvia slides and they have come great but no better in my opinion than what I can print digitally. Technically I don't know and don't care which is better as I have had good results from both. I don't often hang for exhibition but I have sold pictures on their merit and could not tell from two feet which is better on a 16x20 print. I agree that I put more time in taking MF pictures and my hit ratio was higher but today I don't pay for film. I agree that I could control my Vivitar 283s better than I do ETTL today. That's a good reason for me in favor of MF. I confess to taking great satisfaction out of a well done MF wedding set. I certainly don't thnk my 5D is any better in quality. It is just the baggage like scanning, loading endless film backs, outside processors screwing up my weddings, delays in developing(I could not have kept my business going while doing all my own processing, the B&W was enough) etc. As someone said whatever floats your boat. I still think, as someone said, it is the photographer not the hardware. Would I take some pictures if I had my old Bronica gear back? Sure. I had that Bronica gear for twelve years and it was still functioning well. How's that in the digital age where camera model life is not much longer that the human gestation period. That's a reason for owning MF.

<p>I like the shallow depth of field and wide perspective I can get with 6x7, shooting at f/4 with a 65mm or 80mm lens. There's a natural graciousness to the look which draws me in. I can approach but cannot duplicate the look with the Canon 5d2 and a fast wide-angle lens. It's the main thing I miss from MF.</p>

<blockquote></blockquote>

<p>Graham, following on from comment by John Walsh:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think also in a more artistic sense film teaches me more, ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree totally, and also in an artistic sense, I enjoy using my darkroom skills more. Everything about working in MF, from handling the camera, through the processing of film and making the print, whether a gelatin silver print or copperplate photogravure, is something about photographic art with more room to move than I feel with smaller formats. Mind you, the Leica M3 has it's place too and has served me well. The combination of MF magic, and Leica rangefinder technique is available with cameras like the Mamiya 7II, and it just seems to make a lot of sense (as an addition to, not a replacement for the Hasselblad) ... to have one. As I mentioned in my first post up near the top of the thread, the draw towards larger and larger format is the temptation now, for all the reasons stated by in the thread, ... multiplied by a factor of:</p>

<blockquote></blockquote>

<p>Sorry about the strange formatting above. The quote thingy simply wouldn't do what I asked it to do ... (Think I'll get back to the canvas I'm working on. No control problems in that department ;-)</p>

<p>A couple of points...</p>

<p>Nothing in a D3 manual says that you <strong>must </strong>overexpose and blow highlights. If you have bright snow on a sunny day, and want detail in the snow, then expose appropriately. The shadows will take care of themselves. If you blow highlights with a D3, the problem originates about 3-1/2 inches behind the sensor (depending on your hat size) ;-)</p>

<p>Secondly, you can't post an image, taken with B&W or otherwise, and argue with good conscience that the picture demonstrates how film works and digital capture doesn't. The post is itself digital. This relates to the previous paragraph, in that while it is easier to overexpose digital than B&W, it is not inevitable that you do so.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The shadows will take care of themselves</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That old chestnuss hey! Dynamic range is dynamic range, and no one can argue with good conscience that a D3 can approach Kodak Ektar or Fuji 160 Pro in that department. Some people want detail in the shadows too. </p>

<p>Ty,<br>

I agree, nobody would try. But, Edwards point was that to expose digital to maintain maximum detail you expose it just like slides, blowing it out is easy and final, but digital holds way more detail in the shadows than slide film. To realise the best dynamic range and detail for digital exposures, expose for the highlights, you can pull a huge amount of information out of the shadows, that is just a basic technique, not an old chestnut. Algorithms are improving all the time too, revisiting old digital images with current software realises much more detail in the shadows than previously. Would you expose slides the same as B&W film? No, well why assume the D3 doesn't need help for snow scenes.</p>

<p>Medium format to me is a whole different animal. I think a hell of a lot differently when I have a Rolleiflex in my hand that I only have 12exp per roll and there is no battery in the camera than when I am even shooting a Canon AE-1 Program. It's a whole different feeling and on top of the different shooting style, you have a larger negative which gives you more information. You also have the option of the square formats. The film is more fun to handle. The cameras are usually always built well. The images can be breathtaking when compared to smaller formats. The whole feel and mindset that it puts me into along with outstanding quality results is what does it for me. </p>

<p>Op, another great thing about MF (some like my RZ) is the ability to easily change the film/sensor by swapping backs. With 35mm film you can rewind and re advance rolls but it is a lot less convenient.</p>

<p>You can also rotate the back without touching the camera or affecting composition.</p>

<p>You may use the same film in two different backs (e.g. TMX) and dedicate one to high contrast midtones and the other to expanded dynamic range (say 15+ stops).</p>

<p>Additionally, if you print at 16x20 (or smaller), a MF prime lens can be used as a zoom. You may use only the center portion of the frame for the shot, and all the way to the entire frame.</p>

<p>It will hold from end to end plenty of detail for your print.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Additionally, if you print at 16x20 (or smaller), a MF prime lens can be used as a zoom. You may use only the center portion of the frame for the shot, and all the way to the entire frame.<br /> It will hold from end to end plenty of detail for your print.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I never thought of that. What a great idea!</p>

<p>Take any 36x24mm crop from a 56x56mm MF film and you'll get equivalent quality to a film image from a 35mm camera. Indeed to get similar resolution, it needs to be matched focal length and not 'standard' focal lengths. This is generally understated and a 50mm capture on 35mm will never match the 80mm on a Hasselblad, say.<br>

So matching an 80mm Hass with a 75mm Leica will show what a good lens the Leica is, but the capture will be a fraction of the size of the MF. In digital terms, you'd need to stitch 6 35mm images to match what is available from an MF file.<br>

Accepting what Scott says about 900x900 pixels being the same regardless of source; 810,000 black pixels with be exactly the same regardless; I do observe higher quality in images sourced from MF. I'm clear on that; so can only assume that the sheer quality of the original capture provides for better downsizing, less sharpening etc.<br>

Personally, I'm becoming tired of the volume of images created using a dslr and am concentrating on securing fewer, higher quality images. That's not a function of 35mm dslr per se, but is such an easy trap to fall into. We've moved towards a newspaper journalist/sports shooting style, rather than a considered landscape/portrait model. MF will silently encourage the latter, IMO.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Personally, I'm becoming tired of the volume of images created using a dslr and am concentrating on securing fewer, higher quality images.</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Gary, I agree with you 100% on this although I am very guilty of taking way more images than I need to at an event just because I can do so at no extra cost and don't have to worry about "running out of film" with its incremental cost. I too am trying to slow down the pace by being more careful about the shots I take with my DSLR.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Like the rest of you, I'm enjoying MF because of slowing down and the greater care it encourages. For whatever reason I have more "keepers" in the MF arena than in the 35 or smaller cameras. That said, there are reasons and purposes for each - and for the poetic snap, there are lots of easier and better solutions. <br />Yet MF seems to allow me to get the texture and grain that holds up under viewing. Somehow, the urge to capture what you see gets translated better - that is, if you see fine grain in the distance landscape, MF captures that (like LF does even better), and this is slightly lost in the lesser gear. Its not that the lesser gear (and I have a bunch of it as well) isn't good - there are many things that all that other stuff is far better at. I have shot birds with Rollei gear along my son's Canon setup (details can be provided) and as I am a bit limited in lens length, his longer reach, faster setup wins all day long.<br /> Given a landscape, something with detail that can make the image "hold up" that much more, MF takes the day. I wouldn't want to sell it to anyone who doesn't want it - its like the last 2%.... if you don't need it, lucky you. Your life is easier. After some 40 years of shooting, one's passions take one in certain directions. Such is life. <br /> I also enjoy the WLF in MF setup - and believe that the constant "compose and recompose" on that glass is a significant benefit, oftern not recognized. Operatively, one can achieve composition in a camera held up the eye, so technically it has only modest advantages....except that I don't take the same care in a camera held up to the eye. Maybe its the WLF, maybe its the size of the screen. I tried a Contax once, and it just didn't work at all.<br>

Seeing images "on the glass" gives one a bit of cognitive distance, and (IMHO) is the reason that one keeps working on making the better composition. Its a page from the LF ground glass guys, and I'm happy to use it. What you see on the glass looks like a composed image, and you rework it to make it better. The bringing the camera up to eye feels to me more like seeing a reality, not an image, and you move to capture that. Its a great thrill, but not the one I'm seeking. Rather, I prefer the compositional. Again, its a subtle point, and if brickbats start to fly over this, I'll pass on the discussion. <br /> Both film and MFDB have been used, with the same kind of gear and setup. Some of the results from the newer digital backs (on the Rollei lenses) have me staggered - the tonal range is rightup there, and the DR with color and highlights really is making me think it surpasses film. And I really like film. But processing, handling, scanning.... PITA. Archiving? Fantastic for film. The ease of retrieval from film is vastly underestimated. <br /> Sure there are better smaller packages than MF gear - but I look at it differently - that the MF is really LF gear you can carry around. So rather than feeling like a heavyweight in the 35 DSLR battlefield, I feel like a lean 4x5. We each have our own fictions, yes? <br /> One thing scanning showed me is that my wonderful film shots weren't so sharp after all - camera movement was an issue back then, and with digital, is a very serious issue. So above all else, I'd recommend care in the shot taking. Whether that's a well lubed Rollei D shutter, or a brace against a wall while shooting.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is only reason to buy MF just to get large prints?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here are some other reasons why I like MF - I don't think these have been mentioned yet:</p>

<p>- Waist-level & chimney finders on most reflex cameras: makes life <em>so </em>much easier for tripod-mounted shots with the camera tilted upwards (e.g. astrophotography). The maginfication and light transmission are also higher than with a prism finder, so you can see more detail, and focus better.</p>

<p>- More controls & more accessible controls: to take one example, my old M645 1000s has reversible mirror lock up, depth of field preview, variable self timer, and multiple exposure - all available directly on the body as dedicated levers and switches. I can set them in the darkness of night without even seeing them. Few 35mm film cameras or DSLRs offer all these controls, and when they do, they tend to be buried in LCD menus accessed by several pushes of tiny multifunction buttons.</p>

<p>- Wider, richer field of view with a given optic. Say you have a special optic like a fine telescope, or a classic medium/large format/aerial lens. If you can attach a MF camera to it, you capture more of its abilities and character than if you attach a smaller format camera to it.</p>

<p>- Greater light collection for astrophotography. Photography teaches us that focal ratio alone determines the focal plane brightness of <em>extended </em>objects - people, landscapes, and so on. So changing formats doesn't change sensitivity - a 50/2.8 shot on 35mm requires the same exposure as a 100/2.8 shot on 6x7cm. But this rule does not apply to <em>unresolved (point) </em>objects - like stars. The absolute aperture of the entrance pupil is what matters in this case. The 100/2.8 lens has 2x the linear aperture of the 50/2.8, and 4x the area aperture. It collects 4x more light and will therefore reveal stars which are 4x fainter (or somewhat less in a sky which is not perfectly dark).</p>