Shooting medium format with film today

<p>Yup one of those questions. I do enjoy the slower planned style of photography, I shoot a dSLR off a tripod at the golden hour maybe with grad filters and as I do with my Nikon film bodies. I have now got into medium format film cameras and they are such a bargain.</p>

<p>The different style of photography or the analog look that is a bit different. Put that aside. From a general or commercial point of view, Imacon and drum scanners are probably out of the reach of most people and probably including the medium format dedicated scanners as well like the former Coolscan 8000/9000 and the current Plusteks retailing $2k+. So most people may be using a flatbed scanner or get them scanned economically at their lab. Maybe for big clients, big shoots and upmarket projects and inhouse services. For nowadays in terms of detail how does that stand with medium format film cameras for most people? Well I guess in the past, the common wedding photographer who shot medium format film probably didn't use a dedicated scanner for every print right. TA.</p>

<p>You can get a new 50 MP back for a 2xx or 5xx Hasselblad, or an Hasselblad X1 body for 1/3rd the cost of a new Imacon X25, or half that of an Imacon X1 scanner. From my own experience, even an aging 16 MP Hasselblad back is superior to color film from the same camera.</p>

<p>If $9K seems steep, it is the same or less than the cost of 400 rolls of film and commercial processing (without prints). I've done my time with film. It's time to move on.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the common wedding photographer who shot medium format film probably didn't use a dedicated scanner for every print right. TA.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No, of course not. They'd have used neg film and in all probability a specialist rapid process and print package at a local lab, though some may have done the darkroom stuff themselves. Either way, no scanner necessary. Then when the client had chosen their pictures, they were almost always printed again. And when the opportunity came along to switch to cameras that didn't require servicing; didn't require film; and didn't require processing and printing of any image that the customer hadn't already decided to buy, they left MF film in droves, & effectively paid themselves for post processing rather than labs for process & print. </p>

<p>@Edward, I agree with what you say. Nowadays if we take a common hobbyist many/most might spend <$300 per year on film expenses. :)</p>

<p>I own MF & LF cameras and darkroom gear. I'm sure it will be fun to use that stuff someday (again), but I'd do so <em>silver</em> prints in mind. - If those turn out great enough to end somewhere online, I'd simply use my digital cameras to reproduce prints or negs. I proudly don't own anything inkjet anymore. <br>

In the past I got bearable 8x10"s from pushed film in my 6x6s. I wouldn't use those cameras for a pre-press or online publishing workflow anymore because the world I know went cheap: People want files to display on their HD TVs and might color laser SRA3s or A4s. Digital seems good enough for that. <br>

Resolution? - My biggest cameras are 5x7"; assuming a 1200ppi flatbed scan, I'd expect 50MP or 29MP from the 4x5". </p>

<p>I shoot digital on vacations, at holiday and family affairs and turn them into slide shows with music, menus, narration, etc. and show them on my 4K UHDTV and give DVD xopies to others for them to play. In addition, I shoot MF film, usually landscapes, when I'm in the mood to slow down and just enjoy the process. I have a lab develop but then scan with a flatbed Epson V600. I'm not really printing currently so the scanner is good enough for the web on FLickr or on the 4K TV. You can see samples of both 35mm and 120MF here.<br>

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums">https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums</a> </p>

<p>Just do what you enjoy as a hobbyist.</p>

<p>This quote from Alan pretty well sums it up:</p>

<p>"Just do what you enjoy as a hobbyist."<br>

<br>

If you look at things in a purely practical manner, I simply see no need for film. Digital is simply SO good now, and a much better "fit" into the world today, that I said good-bye to my MF film gear years ago, including my Nikon 9000 scanner with glass carriers. I have found something to be true, or at least as far as I have seen so far, and that is this: All previous PRO photographers who spent half their life shooting film in the past have grasped digital with joy and glee. It seems to be only newer photographers or hobbyists who want to use film for the novelty of it. I, personally, use film in a pinhole and other "lomo" camera bodies purely for fun and the "artistic" look I can get from them, but that is a totally different world of photography aesthetic. When talking "proper" photography where quality and integration into current uses is considered, digital has it all over film. <br>

<br>

For film now, I would say using "The Darkroom" gives you the best bang for the buck. You can get very large scans, and quality is good. Scanning at home can get very old, very quickly. Also, however, the cost of film, postage, processing, and scans can get old quickly. As one other poster alluded to, eventually you reach a point with film costs that high quality digital is not as costly as it initially seems. </p>

<p>Even with digital, medium format photography is a relatively contemplative form of photography. My Hasselblad is a very manual camera, regardless of the image medium. The size, weight and slow operation gives you time to think about what you are shooting, and why. For nearly ten years, my vacation photos were taken with that Hasselblad and CFV16 back, with a tripod, care to minimize vibration, and usually with a hand-held spot/incident meter.</p>

<p>I have years of film, scanned with a Nikon LS-8000 (4000 ppi) for comparison. Although 16 MP seems small by modern standards, the CFV images are 4080x4080 pixels, which is comparable to 24 MP in a small format camera, not counting the size advantage, color and bit depth. For me, reverting to film would be a substantial expense and reduction in quality. I'm not sure the nostalgia factor is worth it.</p>

<p>If I had a darkroom, I would probably still be interested in MF black and white, as this remains a route to an alternative process, and the results are excellent and controllable by you. But if you want to take color and/or have no darkroom and you want to make prints or show online: then the expense, hassle and poor quality of most affordable scans just makes it a non-starter in my book. Good MF scanners are rare and even then offer nothing to a good 20+ MP FF 35mm digital system. Do it for the fun of it, but do not expect a quality improvement, unless you are printing your own in a darkroom: even then it is debatable whether the quality will be better or simply different. Different, though, is sometimes good.</p>

<p>Scanner technology is stagnant. When did you last see anything added to affordable, civilian film scanners that actually improved image quality? Look into DSLR scanning of 120 film materials.Many labs no longer offer scan service apart from pricey drum scans. DSLR scans offer speed and the ability to nail focus. Flatbeds? Not so much.</p>

<p>Most amateur types assume that digital is the only way forward and really put the screws to film. And it is not uncommon for them to make blanket statements about pros like Steve Parrott (irony?) did in saying "All previous PRO photographers who spent half their life shooting film in the past have grasped digital with joy and glee."<br /> <br /> So here is the reality of it from this full time pro, me....<br /> <br /> I did not grasp digital with joy and glee, it took decades of use of it for me to feel it was even up to par with the entire cradle to grave creative vision of using film. I happen to own and use a great CFV50c back for my Hasselblad system and a dozen film backs, both sets are equally important. Furthermore, there has been a steady niche resurgence in the use of film among pros, some color neg but mostly black and white. I don't shoot a lot of color film but do have several projects going on it and use a Nikon 9000ED to scan it.<br /> I like digital a fair bit, but it does not nor will ever hold a candle to the full experience, the freedom and the creative credit line of my making of fine silver prints in a darkroom. This is why I have invested around $75K into it thus far and my wife and I have taken over a year to find the right home to purchase so that I will have the room to fully realize this next chapter of my career. The home we are about to go under contract on is costing us at least $200K more than average because of the expansive work areas it will allow me in doing darkroom work in 35mm, 120 and 4x5 formats making prints up to 40x50 in size, that is how important this is to both of us.<br /> <br /> So shoot film if you want, shoot digital if you want. But please don't go down the pointless rabbit hole of which is better because all that matters is passion, vision and talent...not what it was done on.<br /> <br /> My passion, vision and talent is best realized in using black and white film and printing it in my darkroom, no digital technology will ever change that.</p>

<p>@Daniel. I am starting to think if b/w should be for film least it looks a bit different. I don't have a darkroom, the best I have is a flatbed scanner. I did buy a Coolscan 4000 once time second hand, scanned about 10 rolls and it broke, it was bought off a pro so maybe been used a lot. Now it turns on, doesn't get recognised by my comptuer including Windows XP. Have bought a new firewire cable to no avail and tried on a 2nd computer. When it is attached to the computer the lights turns off. </p>

<p>So for film - what now. Apart from say projection cos a slide projector still looks better than our 1080 TV. </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Look into DSLR scanning of 120 film materials</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><br /></em>IMO dont do so, DSLR use Bayer sensors, Scanners not</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em> </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I got hold of a 6x6 slide projector. But how likely are we to get our home equipped like a movie theater where a screen has no bumps and happens to be entirely inside the narrow DOF and focal plane of a projector? Most screens I have seen don't permit a controlled forward tilt but almost all projectors have feet that permit rising their front end. <br>

How to enjoy image resolution when it isn't in focus? <br>

How long and how much money will it take you to get the 100+x keepers that make projection worth it together? And how are you going to integrate your DSLR harvest into the narration?<br>

I prefer my 4K screen over projection by my seasoned consumer means.</p>

<p><em>So here is the reality of it from this full time pro, me....</em><br>

<em><br /></em>Just curious, Daniel, about what % of your money shots posted to your site are film?<br>

<em><br /><br /></em></p>

To me the workflow of shooting film and then

scanning it into a digital file is simply crazy, not to

mention slow and inefficient.

<p>

If you want to shoot film, then get a darkroom as

well, or less creatively, find a decent processor and

printer (good luck with that at any affordable cost BTW).

<p>

I agree that, sadly, the only way to get a good B&W print is to use a darkroom. I disagree that 35mm film has any place in the world today. Medium format is the very minimum needed for quality prints that stand comparison with a directly-shot digital image. And then only if wet printed.

<p>I have about $5,000 worth of Sony A7s and m-mount lenses, but for an upcoming trip to Norway, I'm seriously considering taking just a Plaubel Proshift with an adapted 6x7 back. I got hooked on slide film and Gepe holders many years back with a Mamiya 645, and last year, started doing 6x6 with a Fuji GF670. Maybe 10% or 20% of my shots are worth putting into Gepes, and with these, and a small home-made lightbox with a goose-neck magnifying glass, and the strongest reading glasses I can find, the results are stunning. And if I need to digitize something, I have an Epson V700 (and trial and error has determined that Gepe's with anti-Newton glass perched on Canadian two-dollar coins provides the correct focus distance).<br /> I just recently learned about dr5.com b&w slide processing, but it may be too expensive me to send over the border.<br /> I took the Sony on a recent trip, and a Sigma Merrill DP1 on trips before that, but found that I spent a LOT of time manipulating files with Nik Collection and Topaz Labs. Plus, I'm a Nervous Nelly about losing digital files. <br /> I also bring a small Fuji W3 stereo camera wherever I go, since in order to see if the digital file is any good, I'm forced to convert it to analogue 4x6 prints (2, of course) and view it under a stereo-scope. It seems to be the best of both worlds (digital and analogue), but it doesn't work well for shots of distant objects (not enough parallax). <br /> I went on my first ever non-film holiday last year (with the Sony and the W3 to Quebec City). I had some decent prints made, but it just wasn't the same. Perhaps I should have got one of those photo books made, which provide more than just a passing nod to posterity.<br /> In the meantime, I just hope that E6 processing doesn't disappear.<br>

On a recent trip to Cuba, I brought the Sony (with a single wide angle lens) and the GF670 (with its medium lens). Subject matter then dictated which (digital or analogue) I tended to use. But also I found the viewfinder and ergonomics on the GF670 was much more user-friendly when I wanted to get a quick shot in hot, humid weather.</p>

<p>C Watson wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just<em> curious, Daniel, about what % of your money shots posted to your site are film?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That was a good question so I checked. On my publicly visible page bearing my namesake ( 90% of my work is PW protected ) it is 27 images on film out of the 60 on the slideshow loop. I expect that to increase a fair bit in the coming years.<br>

<br /> Rodeo Joe wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I<em> disagree that 35mm film has any place in the world today.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, better not tell my editors that or better yet, Danny Wilcox Frazier of the agency Seven who shoots almost exclusively Tri-X in his M6......Pretty amazing what kind of blinders people insist on wearing...</p>

"..who shoots almost exclusively Tri-X..." - well, if

you're that indiscriminating of image quality.

<blockquote>

<p>"..who shoots almost exclusively Tri-X..." - well, if you're that indiscriminating of image quality.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I understand you correctly, you are trying to be entirely scientific about what you opine as "image quality". But you do realize that casts a blanket of insult upon the thousands who choose to use this particular medium in 35mm format for a desired outcome and or experience, right? It also shows a blatant disregard for those art directors, photo editors and gallery curators who otherwise find well seen and executed works in 35mm film to be held in high regard and worth their time. <br /> <br /> Is that your goal here, to assert that only science matters in photography and not the passion or art behind it as well? Because with no work to show, a stage name on this site and this type of statement....what value does anything you have to say even have?</p>

<p>There's nothing like Tri-X. Distinctive mid contrast and sharpness and a film for a variety of subjects. Tri-X may be the film that keeps the alive in film being alive. Tri-X=Beautiful film.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I recently went back to shooting medium format (6x6 & 6x7). I was a wedding photographer who shot 6x6 and did scan every negative with a Coolscan 9000, then went digital. Not having shot 120 film for years I've discovered most of the new emulsions are fantastic. I usually find myself sticking with ISO 400 B&W or color negative so I can shoot at 1/1000 & 1/500 and hand hold most of my shots. (I hate tripods). I sold my Coolscan 9000 after hearing from Nikon that they no longer had parts to repair it (last repair was $300+) and replaced it with a Epson V850 for MF and a Plustek 8200i for 35mm. They do a good enough job for me. I can't afford a Hasselblad (my first choice) so I went with several Bronica camera. I love the older Nikon optics.<br>

I created an album with only images taken since this past Fall and will keep adding to it. The photos are not contest winners, most only test shots with various lenses or bodies. My free time is limited so it is coming along slowly. http://www.pbase.com/rick_jack/bronica<br>

120 film is very alive. For me it has a magical feeling every time my shutter goes clunk.<br>

Hope your enjoying yours...and Happy Holidays!<br>

Rick<br>

</p>

<p>Daniel,<br>

You criticized people who</p>

<blockquote>

<p>make blanket statements</p>

</blockquote>

<p>- but then in the same post you go and make a blanket statement yourself:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>because all that matters is passion, vision and talent...not what it was done on.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have seen and heard this sentiment very often, and it is always from photographers who work in technically undemanding domains. They'll say: give me a Minox, a Holga, an M6, a Hasselblad, an EOS DLSR, a 5x7 view camera: the technology doesn't matter, I'll give you a great photograph from it!</p>

<p>Unfortunately, no amount of "passion, vision and talent" can coax photons to register detections at a high efficiency, suppress thermal noise, or eliminate off-axis aberrations without stopping down. "What it was done on" is the making or breaking of many types of photograph. For example, I can refer you to spectacular astro-photos which are so technically demanding that they could <em>only</em> have been executed with the equipment that they were executed with - that one camera, that one lens; nothing else has the necessary spectral response and light grasp.</p>

<p>Now it <em>also</em> required "passion, vision and talent" on the photographer's part to scout the remote location, be there at the right time, patiently polar-align the equipment, find the composition, nail the focus, judge the camera/lens settings, monitor for dewing in the freezing cold, take the dark and flatfield calibrations, and skilfully process it all at the end.</p>

<p>But none of that would be enough without getting the "what it was done on" choices right.</p>

<p>Trent Parke still shoots a lot of 35mm as well as medium format. Of course, his 35mm images are all rubbish, because they are 35mm. ;) I wonder why he bothers with it.</p>

I only play with film for the look, I know the resolution

isn't there. Gritty 35mm Tri-X, Velvia/Provia/Ektachrome

colors (the main reason I shoot film), and that super

clean TMY-2 look are why I keep a few film cameras

around