Is it time to ditch medium format??

<p>To the OP: I think if you are asking that question and you are unsure of the answer, then yes it is <em>definitely </em>time to go digital and sell the MF stuff. I did this in 2009, but probably should have done this in 2004 when I first wondered. There are reasons to shoot film, but if you keep asking yourself the "should I get rid of MF and go digital" questions then it will only get worse until you do it. The question will not go away. If you choose to get back into MF then the cameras will be really cheap. There will probably be fewer films but you can always process your own black and white. I have to say that for me the process is not important, I only really care about the final image, and I shed my MF kit with some sense of relief.</p>

<p>Phil, Richard Avedon was a fashion photographer, and not a fine art photographer. Outside of his glorious and amazing book <em>In The American West</em>, which I would own were it not a hundred-and-fifty dollars plus on the used market, he received far more critisism than praise from the art community. Even with that, much of the critical response was that he was a 'fashion photographer attempting to make art.' He succeeded with astoundingly bright flying colours mind you, but he was indeed more of a craftsman than an artist, and probably not the best example of fine art photography. Helmut Newton would be a better example from the fashion world, as he had a better reputation for art and perceived himself as such.</p>

<p>But you are correct that my wording was poor. I thought it was understood within the context of discussing art that I was referring to 'artistic photographers' and not 'all camera owners.' It looks like I was referencing what I meant and not what I actually said, and I apologize for that.</p>

<p>Nobody voted QG and myself 'keepers of the flame,' although if I really wanted to be a jerk I could point out that my degree in art education, NYS teaching certificate, excellent student work, and ongoing MFA degree from a highly competitive international school taught by Magnum photographers gives me just a little bit of credibility. I don't like to pull that card, but if you're going to poke at people and tell them that their opinion is irrelevant, that's how I would respond. Y'know - if I really wanted to be a jerk.</p>

<p>I mentioned the agreement because QG and I disagree a lot, and are very frequently on opposite sides of an argument. Having us <em>both</em> disagree with you is like Bill O'Reilly and John Stewart both telling you that your politics are screwy. It's just two people, but if two people of very different mindsets agree, then it ought to tell you something.</p>

And once again...<br><br>Gentlemen, here's a, perhaps novel, but very fine idea i hope you will learn to embrace: how about letting people themselves decide what they think, say, believe and agree or disagree with?<br><br>Zack, if you think i agree with your expressed views (which i'm not that sure about at all), why not say that <i>you</i> (!) <i>think</i> (!) that?<br><br>You'll be buying the rounds after Phil's money runs out.

<p>I worry more about what a photograph says, if anything , not what camera it was taken with.</p>

<p>Zack<br>

If we continue this discussion, it should be through another post or private e-mail..</p>

<p>I addressed the original post and you turned it into an art issue, and I allowed myself to follow you down this dead-end alley. I never implied that your views were irrelevant. You brought up the Picasso issue from a different post. You claimed that all photographers think they're artist, and then demote one of the greatest shooters of the 20th century down to a "fashion photographer", who was criticized.....So do you think he was criticized for the content of his work, or the equipment he used? Maybe he should have worked with different formats.......</p>

<p>I have to admit, I'm really starting to like you. You actually studied with Magnum photographers (were they art or fashion photographers?). You do know that standing next to the Queen of England doesn't make you royalty. Hell, it doesn't even make you English....with that said, I applaud you for your degrees, and your continuing education. We definitely need good teachers out there...but forgive me if I judge you and all other photographers for the content of their work, not the equipment used, or the number of degrees they accumulated along the way.</p>

<p>Your credibility is noted, and your opinions are relevant</p>

<p>QG, I didn't mean to imply that you agreed with everything I said. I meant that you and I both seemed to be in agreement that Phil's statement that 'material is irrelevant' was incorrect. In no way did I mean to make you tag along on any of my rants.</p>

<p>Phil, I'm not telling people what to do. I'm telling them that if they want to stretch themselves, then they <em>should</em> do something. I don't even tell my own students what to do, unless it's something obvious like 'come to class on time and hand in your homework.' No amount of formal education will make you a better artist or photographer unless you believe in it, and actively pursue it with some level of intellectual curiousity and vigor.</p>

<p>As far as Avedon, his critism was mostly because he was a fashion photographer. Pretty people looking pretty, and essentially the same fifteen photos over and over again. I'm a huge Avedon fan mind you, but this is why he got flak. This may also be why he refers to himself as a craftsman; much like Andy Warhol, his popularity is mostly a result of his consistency and breadth of work, and not because of anything new that he did. While they both did new and interesting work, that wasn't their main selling point so to speak. I don't agree with that thought, but that was the critical complaint. As far as <em>In the Merican West</em> goes, critics complained that here was the richest photographer in the world, exploiting the poor for more gain. Which is also silly, because people like Dorothea Lange were <em>paid</em> to photograph the poor, and we're pretty okay with that.</p>

<p>The Magnum professors are fine art. We're fortunate enough to have Alec Soth in the program, and the guy is absolutely phenominal in every way. Talented, consistent yet experimental, open to all sorts of wacked-out ideas, and extremely helpful in critique. The guy's an absolute riot too.</p>

<p>By all means, feel free to judge my work. I would rather have five honest comments about what is good or bad then fifty about how awesome it is. Do keep in mine that the work on this page is old though, and I don't update much. Right now I'm going a million different directions, and I probably won't post until I settle down.</p>

<p>As far as continuing the previous conversation ... I don't think it's necessary. You may or may not agree with me, but you seem to understand my points, and I have no desire to get into some sort of deathmatch where we try to argue the other into submission.</p>

<p>Lordy!<br>

I mistakenly tried to read-up and catch-up on all the news. It looks like film is alive and well and strikes passionate debate! Yay!<br>

Re: "Joe Sixpack" driving the camera . . . I would agree that if you want to have a people-watching moment, be at a wedding with several dozen digital P&S triggering and the pros scurrying about shooting; stopping; viewing; and missing the next tender moments of the bride & groom. At a recent family wedding, my G2 snaps filled in some 'treasured' moments that the others missed . . . but I honestly get too distracted by the technology sometimes and prefer my good ol' blads & 67s! I guess that kinda makes me sound old and more like "Joe Single-malt!" :-)</p>

<p>I'll never switch to digital for one simple reason: I don't really like computers. Yes, I use them when I have to, but I don't play with them for fun. If I was a commercial photographer with a workflow that required digital I'd probably hire an assistant. I recently built a wet darkroom-- perhaps the last one in North America, and I just printed a group of pictures I made last year with my Mamiya 7II. From my point of view they are spectacular. I'm very happy with film. </p>

<p>I'll never switch to digital for one simple reason: I don't really like computers. Yes, I use them when I have to, but I don't play with them for fun. If I was a commercial photographer with a workflow that required digital I'd probably hire an assistant. I recently built a wet darkroom-- perhaps the last one in North America, and I just printed a group of pictures I made last year with my Mamiya 7II. From my point of view they are spectacular. I'm very happy with film. </p>

<p>Arthur,<br />I think the people at apug.org will differ with you when you said you built, probably, the last one in North America. ;-)<br>

I'm actually seriously debating whether to sell my Hasselblad and my dry to dry darkroom/finishing equipment. I haven't used them in over 2 or 3 years and they're just taking up space. I just purchased a 180mm Hasselblad lens thinking I'd go out and take pictures and in the 2 months I've had the lens I took one photo with the lens...on a Nikon D700 with an adapter. My darkroom is as complete as any can be which includes heated baths for developers, drums, trays, Jobo Colorstar, dual dichro heads, saunders easel, 16x20 print washer, and 16x20 mounting press. I think, and I'm guessing here, I might be able to get $800 for my darkroom. That alone gives me pause because the Colorstar alone cost more than that when it was new.<br>

I didn't buy a digital camera until 2 or 3 years ago, using film up to that point. Since then, though, I've basically moved away from film. I still scan my old pictures and post them on Flickr, but that's basically all I do. Most of my new pictures are done digitally whether on a Nikon D700 or a Canon Powershot SD950. Even my beloved Konica Hexar gets no love.<br>

Years ago, before digital, my dilema was if I moved to medium format then I might be conflicted on what to use, 35mm or medium format. After I bought the Hasselblad I found I was right. I was conflicted at times on which format to use. Before I got the Canon digital p/s camera I knew I'd be conflicted with whether I would use my film gear any longer if I moved to digital. That's one of the reasons why I held out for so long. I wanted to make sure I used what I already owned. When I got the Canon SD950 my 35mm shooting dropped like a rock, though I still shot a few rolls. My medium format usage still was pretty good, until I got the Nikon.<br>

I did some comparison tests and in my unscientific test I found that film just didn't compare to digital in terms of resolution. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/4076598298/in/photostream">http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/4076598298/in/photostream</a> See for yourself. It was disheartening.</p>

<p>I recently bought two Mamiya m645's with 80mm lenses, prisms, waist level finders, film inserts and two Vivitar 283 flashes for $250. I also bought a Minolta Autocord TLR for $80 in excellent + condition.</p>

<p>I bought a 1951 Kodak Brownie Hawkeye Flash for 99 cents. In its original box and beautifully preserved.</p>

<p>Then I found a complete darkroom setup with two enlargers, lenses, turrets, trays, timers, the works, for less than $300.</p>

<p>I have a blast using all this stuff. It's a fun hobby that produces great results and keeps me out of bars at night.</p>

<p>I'm glad people have abandoned medium format film. Plus we should be able to get 120 film for a good number of years to come and there's freezers for when they do quit making it. I have already got my $700 worth out of all this stuff.</p>

<p>Now, I'm waiting for everyone to toss their Hasselblads in the bin - so I can retrieve 'em.</p>

 

<p>Well now bear with me here . . . I have skied since I was six, back in the day. We had all the powder snow to ourselves, as skiers. Then came snowboarding, and the 'boarders trashed our powder, or so it seemed. Eventually, snowboarding contributed to skiing, by buying lift tickets at ski areas, where sales had been flat, or declining. Then snowboard design contributed to the evolution of the modern shaped ski. Now, for the most part, everyone is happy, sliding down the slopes and enjoying winter. I have chosen to not snowboard, because I might tip over and break my wrist, after the additional gear expense.</p>

<p>But I do choose to shoot both film and digital. If I am careful with my choices, I am not going to break the bank by hanging on to my Pentax 67 system, and I'm surely not going to break my wrist. The 6x7 slides that I have archived are of great value to me, and I enjoy the process. I also shoot some 6x7 B&W, even though I have no darkroom. Despite missing out on the traditional zone system, I still like the results. As I wait for Nikon full frame digital to mature a little more, I am not missing out photographically. Yes, the medium format film needs to be scanned, but I have a cost effective way to have a local lab scan my slides with a Nikon Coolscan 9000.</p>

<p>Rather than considering selling my Pentax system, I am keeping an eye on P67 equipment for the future purchase of another body and lens.</p>

 

<p>What if technology marches on, and digital is replaced? What then?</p>