120 film on it's way out?

Discussion in 'Medium Format' started by nathan_wittstock, Jun 20, 2008.

  1. I've seen quite a few messages to this effect. I sure hope not.... i just got into it!

    is this more conjecture or has there been actual signs of companies ceasing manufacture of 120 films? with my beloved polaroid having kicked
    recently, i'd really hope not to take another loss here. do you think we're going to be able to continue buying 120, or should i be stockpiling like it's
    going out of style?

    i haven't been able to find any real articles or anything on the internet, and it seems like some companies are still really committed to the cause
    (ilford). what do you think?
     
  2. Well, 220 may be heading toward extinction, but it's less certain that 120 is done.
    There have been discussions of this point. Here's just one example from the archives:
    http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00G8mW
     
  3. I suspect that 120 will be with us for a long time to come. Look at Super-8 film, they still make that, and there hasn't
    been a new camera manufactured in 25 years. The variety of films available is limited, and once they killed off
    Kodachrome 40, I knew I was done.

    I think we're looking at a similiar scenario for 120. It will be here for many years to come (after all, you can still buy
    new MF cameras), but the variety of film and paper will become more limited.

    I also believe that at some point, film's going to become "cool" again. Right now we're in the thick of a "film is
    obsolete" holocaust at the hands of digital. Of course, film will never return to the top of the sales charts, but there
    will be enough folks in the "cool" camp to keep some manufacturers interested.
     
  4. Film is already considered "cool" and catching on with the young, raised on digital crowd, evidenced by groups like this:
    http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/
     
  5. 120 will be around for a long time. And, Polaroid? It is still possible to buy Polaroid also Fuji instant print film.When digital first came on the market, most people had film cameras. So,the photo industry did what they could to sell digital. But, alot of people know that film has alot of advantages.
     
  6. Vinyl is still in and as a matter of fact Soundscan reported vinyl sales increased last month. I see a parallel between vinyl
    and film. Both are in constant danger of 'extinction' but always seem to thrive. Music labels still make and release vinyl.
    Even with vinyl there is a digital threat, Serato. We'll be able to shoot film until the next World War, which would make
    anything fun obsolete.
     
  7. Another parallel. The old tubes. They have better sound than digital. That's why Eric Clapton buys tube amps for his guitar. My early 50's Zenith radio has better sound than any digital sound system I've ever heard.
     
  8. As many have pointed out there are still 120 films cameras in production and plenty of people still use film on the whole so we are unlikely to see it disappear anytime soon. I agree that 220 will face cuts first. The less popular emulsions will go eventually but at the moment there is still plenty of choice. Don't forget Fujifilm still do an instant film for your polaroid back.
     
  9. Well, Kodak rolled out a new TMY-2 along with new versions of Portra 400VC+NC. I'm lucky to have easy access to film and pro lab services here in Toronto, so unless or until that changes, I'll not miss much sleep fretting about it.

    There is a certain cachet now around medium format, especially for b&w portraiture, but it's obvious(and certainly true in my case)that plummeting equipment prices are fueling the "old school" thing as much--or more--than the film "look" or technophobic sentiments.

    BTW, what's wrong with Fuji instant film?
     
  10. I think 120 is still ahead of the digital quality curve. The 20+MP digitals like the Canon 1DsMkIII may threaten, but for certain applications there's nothing like a big honkin negative or slide. Of course once they can routinely make 2 1/4 sized digital sensors for a good price, we might find ourselves with something the size of a Hasselblad with stunning digital image quality (and even more stunning file size -- at last a use for those 48GB compact flash cards).
     
  11. I think 120 still has a lot of life left in it. The fridge at my local photo store is still full of all my favorite 120's, so I'm not too worried. I would imagine
    the most we'll see immediately (in fact, I think it's already begun) is that it's likely to become more expensive as I'm sure production will dwindle
    some (or the film companies will just market the nostalgia of film and up the price). That said, I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling that for all of digital's
    advances, there's just something about film that many people are not likely to give up on. As for 220, I agree it's probably first to the chopping
    block...it will be interesting to watch.

    The biggest hit film will take (is taking) will be 35mm and smaller format consumer grade films. The people who use those have likely gone digital
    already, and honestly, why wouldn't they? "Film" to non-photographers is history I'm sure, and I can see the drug store stuff being a thing of the
    past before we know it.
     
  12. I agree that it may well be 35mm that goes first. I've found little reason to use it. My 6 mp dslr easily beats a Leica with 90
    Summicron on Provia. But it doesn't beat 6x6, though my next dslr certainly will. 35 may become an orphan size.
    Landscape and pros will use 120. But who knows? The next round of models may change everything.
     
  13. It all depends on how many people buy it. More and more people are edging towards digital because its edging towards the quality of 120. So the less people buy the film the more chances that it will go extinct. Add to that the less that people buy it the more the retailers have to charge to be able to justify keeping it in stock. As prices rise, people buy less of it and shoot more carefully. It's a viscios cycle. It has less to do with quality and more to do with the business aspect of it.

    To that effect, the less fish in the pond the more food for who is left. If all but 2 or 3 film manufacuters were producing the worlds film they would see a profit and find it viable to keep making it. So as consumers we should all buy the best film for our needs to ensure that it will still be here years to come.

    Just my opinion, take it or leave it
    Dan
     
  14. I just got into 120 film too, and I'm not worried at all. I see no reason why it will disappear. There's a lot of rumors and fear mongering...but that's all it is, just rumors. There are a ton of different 120 films available online, and in fact I can still get it easily from a camera shop. (I was actually surprised about that...I went there and asked if they had 120 film and they said "sure").

    As Roger said, you can still get Super-8 movie film. And not only that, but you can still get double-run 8mm movie film (the spool kind). I use it all the time and I have no trouble buying it. I have a collection of old 8mm movie cameras, and I can easily order the film online and get it processed. So what does that say? Also, I went ino a Virgin music store in the mall...and I can tell you that yes indeed they are selliing RECORDS. And these weren't re-released retro albums or anything, they were modern bands and new albums.

    I'm probably one of the younger generation that people are talking about, who has re-discovered film. When I was a kid, I used film cameras but I wasn't really into photography back then. Then after about 2004 I only used point and shoot digital cameras. I started filming in 8mm about 2 years ago, just because I was always curious about old movie cameras and I thought it might be something interesting to try. About a year ago, I became interested in manual film cameras and now 99 percent of the pictures I take are with film. I develop my own B&W film and prints. I love it, I'm having a blast with it. Also, my Yashica A blows away any picture I've ever taken with a digital camera.

    So, I wouldn't be worried. Film might not be the huge consumer product it once was. Yeah, maybe the average Joe Blow doesn't like film anymore...or people just looking for "kewl pics" for their MySpace page. But there are plenty of other people who are interested in film, and maybe it's for the same reason as me...because it's a challenge and they want to try something new. If anything, it seems to me that black and white film is making a comeback. Color film will too once all the hype and rumors die down.
     
  15. no way! 120 is making a HUGE comeback. A lot of people are realizing that if they're going to shoot film, they may as well shoot 120 - especially B&W. Wet photography is becoming an "art". People used to say that painting was on the way out when photography came into vogue...and you can still buy paint and canvas today. The industries are retooling, that's for sure. Big companies like Kodak and Fuji might get out of it, but there will always be boutique smaller companies making film. Some are just getting back INTO the film business...like efke, Harman/Ilford, and even a new, leaner AGFA and they're profitable. I've read that fotokemia (the company currently making efke and adox film) runs 24/7 and not keeping up with demand.
     
  16. There is only one risk in it disappearing: tooling to make film becoming impossible to obtain (or too expensive, it is the same). As long as someone that sees a way to make profit making film can obtain the raw materials and the tools (coaters) someone will make film. But when buying a new coater (or maintaining an old one) becomes impossible then it will disappear. Another problem might be knowledgable chemists and process engineers. This knowledge is becoming extinct if there isn't a new generation willing to gamble to take over. No use having a working coater if there isn't anyone around that can work with it and produce a usable film before you burned through your funds.
     
  17. According to these folks, for the exception of the slow ultra fine grained films, digital has over taken 120 in terms of image detail.I have to agree about the consumables becoming harder to get. I'm doing more and more mail order - my local stores are stocking much less film (sometimes all they have is one roll of a particular film) and getting 120 color processed is getting incredibly expensive.
     
  18. Who cares about this doomsday stuff ... I don't.

    Just buy it, use it, make history with it, and keep the medium format market moving with it! ... 120 and 220, and
    70mm too, if you've got the kit.

    We're all "on the way out". But I'm sure's hell going to have a lot of fun getting there!
     
  19. According to these folks, for the exception of the slow ultra fine grained films, digital has over taken 120 in terms of image detail.
    Well, of course it's the ultra fine grained films that do best! They show Velvia 50, but I think Velvia 100 is about the same, and ISO 100 isn't all that slow. They show Velvia 120 film with 645 format at around 40 Megapixels, which is going to cost you tens of thousands of dollars for a digital equivalent. And one could of course use Velvia 120 film with a 6x6 or 6x9 camera. I think there is no digital equivalent for that.
    Also, the article seems to have been written in 2002. Many films have gotten better since then.
     
  20. As Radford said, to get anything close to 120 in digital would cost thousands. Pros and the rich can afford that. Pros use digital because of the speed and having to keep up with the Joneses.But, amateurs don't have those restrictions.
    The only B@W film I've found in 220 is TXP 320.
     
  21. Nathan, I've heard a rumor that you're on your way out. Please confirm or deny.
     
  22. I never really started learning my camera until I got a Canon Digital Rebel. I then upgraded to a Rebel XT when it came out. I'm fairly happy with the color results from my Rebel XT but more about that later.

    I really like B&W photography so I had spent the last 2 years or so converting to B&W and trying to perfect digital B&W prints on my Epson P2200 which is supposedly a good black only printer. I got sick of it. I took one beginning B&W class last fall to learn how to develop and print. I started with 35mm and my very first absolute beginner print blows away all of my digital B&W prints even starting with a 35mm negative. I now develop B&W at home and am making a list of what I want to print when I get into a rental darkroom.

    I then bought a Mamiya 645 Pro that I thought I would use only for B&W but I figured I'd see what it could do with color. After scanning a few color rolls I started to notice how noise free and great the the shadow detail is with the scans of the 6x4.5 negatives. Maybe I'm not getting the best exposures with my Rebel XT but many times the noise in the shadows is killing me. I hate it. It's easier for me, but more costly, to scan a roll of color film because I rarely have to do anything other than scan it. I'm finding I'm spending way less time in Photoshop now even including the scanning time.

    I'm liking film so much that I sold the Mamiya 645 Pro, a couple of Canon lenses, and bought a Mamiya 7II. Yeah, there are limitations with film rangefinders but to me the limitations are worth it. Flash sync at all speeds, way lighter than a comparable 6x7 DSLR, quiet as a mouse, and the Mamiya lenses are awesome.
     
  23. "... and bought a Mamiya 7II."

    Great choice, Greg! If you can afford the entry fee, that's one great argument for shooting MF film.
     
  24. "If you can afford the entry fee"

    Heh heh, I'm not sure that I can, it was almost an impulse purchase.

    And if I really had the money I'd pick up one of the Fuji 6x9 cameras as a backup. And then start looking at 4x5! hahahah
     
  25. well, i'm feeling more confident in it, at the very least. i've seen some nice digitals, but still nothing that can match medium format, at least not unless you're a very well-to-do pro. myself, they're way out of my reach for now. and even if it was, i still like the feel, anticipation, and control of film.
    the low entry cost is great too, if you look around for it. i'm really hoping enough of my generation steps up and keeps everything alive; and i'm hoping enough of the older generation is willing to help us through it! i've got a great deal of passion, but very little of knowledge. digital helped get me a great start but i still need a whole lot more work.
    Nathan, I've heard a rumor that you're on your way out. Please confirm or deny.
    The rumors are greatly exaggerated.
     
  26. 120 will remain, but become a ' specialty " item. Its just economics, not worth the big photo store to stock an inventory of film items that appeals to a small sector. I went to Calumet today to buy some 35 mm film; I asked for XP2 and color neg; they had 2 rolls of XP2- no kodak color neg film, and some fuji 400- just a couple. The majority o shoppers are digital- so thats where the money is, and where a retailer must devote the resources.

    Next stop- my lab; they process and proof all B & W film, and will print accordingly. Paper left to print on is thin, basically Ilford. Kodak Ectalure G, my favorite paper, long gone, never to return. The lab also will scan negs or digital files, and print on " B & W " paper, such as it is. When the guys who now process and print on enlarger- the old way, either die or move on, the scan will be the remaining way. So, its out there but declining. If you are a professional photographer, or the joe consumer, digital makes the most sense, and from a business perspective, the only sense. For us hobbyists, film is still there. I went back thru my prints, saw some XP 2 studio stuff shot with my hasselblad and 150 lens, whow, they look wonderful. I follow the site of Sara Silver, a commercial photographer, wonderful images, and she has shot hasselblad with a digital back for forever, it fits her style and need. There is also a children- family studio chain, classic kids , and they shoot 35 mm B & W only, they have in house lab and printers. Whats the bottom line to this-

    follow your heart and the economics of the deal, if you do things right, you can go both ways.
     
  27. Why would 220 be discontinued when it is only a 120 film 2x as long?
     
  28. Michael,

    Probably because few people process it themselves, it is already almost gone in b/w. Tri-X 320 is it.

    I hope it goes nowhere in color neg/transparency, as I almost always use it instead of 120. With most people sending color to labs, it should be around a while. The problem, which will only get worse in coming years, is finding labs who know what in blazes they are doing. All the folks who know so much about pro lab work are retiring or dying, leaving the less informed younger generations who don't seem capable of ever answering my questions or doing quality work without being babysat. I constantly have problems, even at well-reputed labs.
     
  29. I sure hope not, otherwise i would have nothing to put in my RB67 or my holga :( I doubt 120 is going anywhere soon. Most 120 film and 220 film is identical to it's 35mm counterpart, it's just cut bigger, why would they discontinue it? I know that my local camera store sells almost as much 120/220 then 35mm. Most people go to wallmart or costco to fill their disposables and these are the same people that are buying digital point and shoots by the truck loads. I don't see digital back denting 120/220 film anytime soon (especially at $10 grand a back)
     
  30. My camera store has a lot of film, from 35 up to 8x10 and Polaroid. They process it as well. Slides in 2 hours. It's possible that 220 B&W is fading out because maybe alot of 120 B&W shooters are amateurs who have the older cameras that don't have 220 capability.My rb did come with a 220 back. Which is a hassle, since 99% of my picture taking is B&W.So, when I saw a new in box 120 Pro-SD back for $99.00. I grabbed it!
     
  31. I will go with films till I can find it.....

    It doesn't matter for me that whether the Digital or Film is better.....

    I love the output on fils come....
     
  32. Oh ya, films are the best. The results are just amazing. The most state of the art digital photography can't create things that my dad's Yahsicamat 124G can give me. I'd hate to think 120 can even be close to a threat.
     
  33. Hi,everybody saying ' Film is good',ok fine. So, why not say ' Seen enough Digital,now kick your back goodbye' ?
    That will bring the greatest joy to the film users. Go for it.
     
  34. Whenever I see a college-age kid with a good camera, it's usually a 120, not a high-end DSLR. And I'm constantly running into kids with Nikon F3s. Is this a trend?
     
  35. Edward,

    It might be a trend because they are professional cameras for affordable prices. With digital, you need to spend much more to get a similarly placed "professional" model camera. 120 is the ticket to even more IQ for your buck. With what RBs cost now, it would explain why so many college-age kids own them these days.

    I usually see college-age kids with Rebels, D40/50/60s, 10/20/30/40Ds, D70/80s. They are always on green box mode too.
     
  36. The only way film will die ,is if we allow it too, I use DSLR and I shoot with film , so 135mm and 120mm and other size films should hold up for a while, and I will in the ground before it Does: as someone said [ Use it or Loose it ] ::
     
  37. zml

    zml

    Most likely a few years hence there will be less variety, and less manufacturers and labs left standing making pretty much all still photography film, and esp. 120 and larger, a "retro", specialty item. Just like vinyl records and tube amplifiers film, - in any format - will remain a niche product from that point on. You may see periodical "spikes" in its popularity (you know, from .051234 to .075519% market penetration, a 50% growth!) but don't count on many choices. Yep, I would like to be wrong but I know I'm notナ
     
  38. 120 will be around. Amateurs may think film is going out, because they are perfectly happy with their little dslr. But to get into high quality, can you afford $40k just for a digital back (P45)? Digital has its place in the commercial sector (where high volume can justify a $40k digital back paid back in 1-2 yrs). It also offers time savings, instant feedback. On the other hand, a lot of pro landscape photographers shoot a few rolls a week (waiting for the right place and light), and depreciation is a killer. Both film and digital have their place. 120 is not disappearing. In fact low at the new mfrs coming to market ....Goaersi, Fotoman, Chamonix, and all are producing 612,617 as well as 4x5, 8x10. Even Linhof has updated their technica with a 2000 and 3000 in the last few years, as well as the technorama pano camera. That tells me a lot of guys are shooting film, and a lot of larger 120 formats. Only the smaller formats like 6x6 are getting hit by digital, because a cheap dslr is closely approaching the same quality output. Once the average consumer amateur is satisfied, the pixel war may be over in this market, but will likely continue in the pro market well beyond th 39mp P45 back to satisfy pro needs. But those prices will stay HIGH! Apparently pricing is based on amount in film/processing savings over a course of a year, and value added in convenience, time, etc.....not on actual cost plus profit margin approach.
     
  39. How much bandwidth has been wasted on this forum with "I hear a rumor film is dead". I heard a rumor the US economy is about to deep six, and no one is going to be able to afford to upgrade those DSLRs which die in 5 years anymore, or the new hard drives needed to store Gag-a-bytes of photos. So I heard a rumor digital photography is dead ;)
     
  40. "According to these folks, for the exception of the slow ultra fine grained films, digital has over taken 120 in terms of image detail."

    I think there is a Major flaw in the test & therefore, results are meaningless. It tested "Scanned" film with Digital.
    The test should be: (1) choose a particular format, e.g. 35 mm. film slr camera and a mid-level digital slr of about 8 mp. (2) use exactly the same lense and same exposure on both cameras; (3) a Print out of (say 8x10) straight from film negative (in traditional dark room way--NO Scanned) and a print out from Digital camera. Then compare the two Prints using criteria specified in the article. Otherwise, these comparisons are meaningless. Did any one of you conduct the test as I laid down above? What was the result?
     
  41. Before Kodapak'; ie instamatic the Brownie format was mostly for amateurs. Its started out as a kids format; ie little brother of 116. 120 and 620 was availbal in every drug store in the USA 50 yeras ago; its the film folks shot snapshots with. Today one cannot buy 120 even in Walmart; the largest store in the USa. 120 has become a speciality film; many of us have mail ordered it now for over decade. In the 1950's make4rs gave away to Boy Scouts and schools box cameras that used 120 film; today any kid is usually going to us a digital P&S; that goof around with a slow format that requires man ordering. The local junior colleges here disbanded with 120 and film about 5 years ago; the darkroom stufff went to the state auctions and thrift stores. 220 will go first; its used on radical subset of cameras; a subset of folks have 220 reels; a subset of labs like to process it. Products will "last longer" if its used; and not debated upon. Actual sales matter.
     
  42. "Why would 220 be discontinued when it is only a 120 film 2x as long?"

    Inventory levels are double if you carry everything in 220, too. And that costs money. And demand - more cameras (older) can use 120 than can use 220.
     
  43. "According to these folks, for the exception of the slow ultra fine grained films, digital has over taken 120 in terms of image detail."

    Only in the smallers format, and only if you can afford the huge price discrepancy, and only while both film and digital are outputting at 300ppi output resolution, after which digital starts interpolating while film just keeps on going and going (wins on large prints).....check out luminous landscape articles. So for a 10mp camera, I prefer my 6x7, and I can enlarge to 24x30 easily, while my D200 poops out.
     
  44. I do not think that 120 film is on the way out. Instant film may disappear so those Polaroid backs we have hanging around for testing exposure may become worthless, but 120 film will remain. At worst we will end up with a bunch of small brands selling their film. We might actually end up with greater variety as small companies jump in to fill the gaps left by the major companies.

    Environmental Laws might change my view on this, but that is about all. Also a 22 megapixal digital back for my Hasslblad that sells for 1,000 dollars might change my mind. But think about this.

    How many batteries, and how many memory cards would you need for a hike of the pacific crest trail? the continental divide trail? the Appalachian trail?
    How about a trip to Antarctica, a cruise down the Amazon, running the Back River or Coppermine in the arctic. And do you really want to have that 30,000 hasselblad digital camera in the dory with you photographing the nose burying itself in one of the wave in Crystal rapids.

    220 seems destined to oblivion although there are those who think 220 is better than 120 in laying flatter in film plane.
     
  45. At least locally in Texas in an area of 250,000 population, there is only one camera store and no sales of 120 or 4x5
    film of any description. There is no local lab that still processes either 120 or 4x5.

    I end up buying film from NY (Adorama or B and H) or California (Freestyle). I can process black and white in a
    pinch, but Kodak 120 processing is available for E-6 (through Target of all places). For 4x5, again I can only do a fair
    job of processing b&w,but color of any sort has to be sent 300 miles to Dallas, San Antonio, or Houston.

    Still, with all of those problems, I would prefer 120 or 4x5 over the digital cameras I can afford.
     
  46. I don't think Kodak would've went through all the trouble of creating TMY2 if 120 size film was going to be universally discontinued.
     
  47. Theres a pro lab here in Asheville NC that processes 1hr medium format at the same cost as 35mm. They will also do medium format slides in like 4 hours. They get lots of business from local pros still shooting film as well as the amateur crowd. They are one of two locally owned stores who both sell 120 film (the other one is a tad overpriced) and both sell darkroom equipment as well. Both stores also do sales of digital gear and prints. And yes, the prices on medium format gear is inspiring a whole slew of new users. For one thing, access to professional quality GLASS used to be a major issue, and if you look at prices on digital lenses, the price has transferred from the pro world into the amateur world. AF lenses are expensive, just flat out. I could give a crap if digital is better quality than film, but that test page listed is massively flawed in a variety of ways. There is no such thing as a megapixel equivalency with film. That alone makes tests like that rediculous. How can someone say 120 film is 40 megapixels when every single emulsion, and every single development technique yields different results? Also, how can you rate the resolution of the medium based on tests typically used for testing the resolution of the LENS? That should tell you something about the resolution of film... that typically the film itself is capable of much higher resolution than the optics are capable of delivering to it! It's just silliness.
     
  48. Film will never die out to digital because no new bride will ever risk having her wedding photos accidentally overwritten
    by another computer glitch.

    I like my film cameras. When I recently bought an old Bolex 16mm movie camera, I came across an interesting fact:
    archiving digital movies costs 11X as much as storing a film movie. The money may be in initial sales, but the
    overhead on the users will be crushing in the long run. If the digital tricks are impressive in the short run, who knows
    how long those printouts will last? Probably just long enough to print out a higher price tag, with more work for the
    customer and less responsibility for the company who marketed the computer product.

    I picked up a pretty nice medium format rig, though, because everyone else was going digital.
     
  49. david_henderson

    david_henderson www.photography001.com

    "Film will never die out to digital because no new bride will ever risk having her wedding photos accidentally overwritten by another computer glitch"

    What nonsense. From my own recent experience in searching for and appointing wedding photographers scarcely any of those we approached offered a film option, and IMO the bulk of this sector went to digital years ago. Why do you think Bronica no longer exists, why Hasselblad have only one film camera left in their range? The advantages of digital capture to a wedding photographer and their customers are huge. Check out the weddings forum here and see what those guys are using.

    If 120 survives longer term it will be mostly because hobbyists - some of whom are new to MF having speculatively picked up cheap equipment used- continuingly use sufficient film to justify its manufacture. If they don't, then processing outlets and range of 120 films will surely slip away. Frankly I think that the big problem isn't film- the range and variety of 120 emulsions available matters little to me since I buy only three of the most popular types, and the future of 120 is threatened far more if declining sales are spread across a wide variety of products than if all usage is concentrated in a few. The problem to me will come when E6 and b&w dev & contact services become a pain to find and access. This is going to happen before film is a problem for me I'd guess. Some people stress the advantage of self processing but it has no appeal for me at all, and indeed the more people that do their own processing, the more commercial processing sources (and therefore, indirectly, film) will be under threat. At that point the convenience argument for digital will be overpowering and I will (reluctantly) be off.

    I suspect I've a few years left at it though.
     
  50. Just a small nit. Hasselblad has two film cameras in their line. Both the H and the V series cameras can use either film or digital backs. Whether or not they are actually still manufacturing the V series rather than just selling off inentory I cannot speak to.

    The interchangable film backs are one of the features of medium format systems that makes them so attractive. You can carry multiple backs for your hasselblad camera to shoot multiple film types/speeds or even use the zone system and +1, +2, -1, -2 development.

    Of course the H series film backs are so exensive it would probably be cheaper to carry interchangeable 35mm film bodies.
     
  51. I've been into 35mm for most of my life, and must say that for those that like the 'brownie' point and shoot cameras, have gone to digital. Everything automated/preset and 'go'. And if your a 'pro' going digital, it's probably because the market is dictating the parameters. Wedding photographers are forced into digital because everyone want to have a DVD! Nothing is being said of software/operating systems twenty years from now. Film is THE 'hardcopy'. That being said, like many have said here, you will need alot of megapixel (and cost) to achieve medium format quality. Film will stay with companies like Fuji who are committed to the art. I still listen to my vinyl and tubes and love it!!!
     

Share This Page