Any wedding photographers shooting medium format still?

Unless your client wants prints bigger than 16x20 inches is there any point

shooting medium format FILM anymore? I'm assuming Medium format with digital

back is too cumbersome in the field.

Yes, several that post regularly here do. I do. Film by itself has a different feel, let alone medium format film. There is still something very beautiful and different from digital, about a well done optically printed enlargement made from a medium format piece of film. Medium format was never too cumbersome in the field. I used to shoot PJ style with the cameras, and don't forget that Denis Reggie, one of the pioneers of PJ style, started the style using a Hasselblad and a Metz 60CT-4. Do a search. This question has been asked several times recently.

My Mamaya 645 hasn't been used much the last couple of years. I offer it but the clients are happy with 35mm and digital coverage on the basis of cost and the large wall prints that I have on my studio walls. I can easily produce good quality prints that go as much as 24x30.

Med format film still is the best thus far. Untill the 35mm digital 22meg comes out film

gives the best resolution. When you crop you need more resolution. I had thought that a

6 megapixel or 8 meg was enough for wedding but now i am convinced that we need as

much as possible. I think when a camera can produce a 20x30 at 300ppi right out of the

camera then we got enough resolution for those cropped pictures. It is all in the detail.

Now the med format backs in 16 bit capture is a real treat and there is no comparison, but

even the latest 39meg backs are not the answer. But again as you know digtal is about the

end use and the purpose. Unlike film you can purpose it for anything almost.

 

anyways to answer your question yes i still use film for my hasselblad

and remember flash sync at all shutter speed with medium format lenses with leaf shutter.

Marc Williams uses his H2D in the field as you can see in several threads. But a digital MF back is not the answer for the wedding photographer IMO. The back alone will cost you more than you will spend on film in 10 years and the quality will be about the same in prints. Plus, with film you won't spend your life in front of the computer. Which, unless you have a pc as much a monster as the digital back itself, will be the case.

Despite heavy use of a Canon 1DsMKII for weddings, I still use a Hasselblad MF with film

for many applications including weddings. The latitude film offers is nice when faced with

very contrasty lighting, and I use MF for repetitious wedding shots like the endless formals

... which I hate processing from digital files ... preferring to just drop those off at a lab and

scanning the 2 or three needed for the album.

 

"I'm assuming Medium format with digital back is too cumbersome in the field."

 

Nope, use one frequently. They may be too expensive, but not too cumbersome. Most are

now self-contained and shoot to a CF card just like DSLRs.

 

" ... even the latest 39meg backs are not the answer."

 

Really? Have you used one? Few people even have them yet since they just started

shipping. I get mine next week. It will be 1.78 X the resolution of my current H2D 22 meg

back and produce a 22"X32" 16 bit tiff file @ 300 dpi right out of the camera.

 

To give you some idea of the resolution performance, I've attached a recent test shot using

the H2D/22 ... the inset represents the whole image which would be an approx. 127 meg,

13" X 18" tiff file @ 300 dpi. The main pic represents what level of detail at that size you

can expect from the 22 meg ... now imagine what the 39 meg will produce ... : -)

 

None of this impinges on the argument that film produces a beautiful asthetic often

preferred by some photographers ... including me.

Sorry, grabbed the wrong file ...

 

Here's the right one ...<div></div>

That's amazing detail Marc!

 

 

My 645 cameras, still some wedding use, but my main cameras are 35mm. We do shoot a DSLR too, but mostly for candids.

We shoot medium format for our top wedding package and some commercial work, but that's about it. I prefer the crispness of medium format, by far, but when you weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each format for each job, DSLR typically wins overall.

 

Jen

I also use 100% med format for weddings. Can't beat the exposure latitude, DOF and

fleshtones. I am a photographer, not a lab, and I want to keep it that way. That said, I do

shoot digital for school work, tight commercial deadlines or when requested by a

commercial client.... But not for weddings.

I shoot MF because I like the detail it renders whether going big or not. I stick w/ one format at a time. For economy packages - F100 and Leica.

 

portraiture or street work its film exclusively. I like shooting w/ legendary film types, such as Kodachrome, Tri-x, ilfo B&W. Its sort of driving a ferrari or a kit car (digi).

 

I don't follow the latest fad - never have.

 

The other issue is do you want to be in front of the computer all the time in post? I certainly don't.

Marc,

 

That level of detail, albeit from a studio lighting, seems exceptional, or am I being fooled

by the computer screen? It's very 'clean'.

 

Is this prom material from Hasselblad, or did you shoot it?

 

I would anticipate film scans to display a level of noise & grain that would prevent such a

clean image being derived from MF film. As you have the source material, are you

confident that you can produce it to the same standard from film?

 

Can you demonstrate this with a similar subject and the same order of magnification from

a film capture. it's interesting.

 

I've just been using scans from 35mm film and it gets nowhere near this. It appears to be

a totally different product and from my screen I'd be surprised if my excellent Nikon 8000

scanner would pull it in, or even an optical enlargement.

 

A 'best of type digital example' from the 1Ds would also be fascinating, but the 120 film is

more important to me.

headshots are always impressive when you crop in as you can see from Marc's example. The

subject fills up the whole frame and there are thousands of pixels that make up that picture.

My concerns are images that are made up of fewer pixels like large groupshots or small

images in the frame. No i do not own a 39meg back but i have been told by one who does

that it just makes the comparison to 4x5 film. Granted that it all depends upon what your

final use or purpose of the file or what you shoot. My point is the more resolution the better.

I used to think i don't need such a large file or as many megapixels (16 at that time) but now

i am sold that the more the better for maximum flexibility. But film is still the most flexible

to date and has the largest latitude. I am a die hard digital shooter by the way.

Marc - that detail is astounding!

I still shoot primarily 645 and 6x6 for weddings. It is a bit heavy and cumbersome to carry

the MF around all day, but it's worth the weight.

Emmet, just wait ... The H2D/39 is now in my hands. WAHOOOOOOOO ! New software also.

Much better high ISO performance. Can't wait for the next wedding (had this Saturday off

'cause of the Holiday and family obligations.

 

WAHOOOOOOOOOOO !!!!!

"WAHOOOOOOOOOOO !!!!!"

 

oh man, I bet you're going to yell that every time you take a picture aren't you :)

 

not that I'm ever going to buy one but whats the battery life like on that camera?

Surprisingly good Lucas. With the H2, Hasselblad increased the life of the grip battery in

anticipation of these newer backs. It's a Lith Ion. In addition to the normal charger, they

supply a car charger ... which I've yet to use.

 

I did a commercial job last Tuesday and shot 250 images on the H2D/22 using the same

battery. I have 4 grip batteries, but I doubt I'll need them unless on an extended trip where

power is unavailable.

 

When using these camera in studio shooting directly to a computer, they are powered by

the firewire connection. I've already shot 800 images that way without stopping.

Michael Mowery, they probably meant 4x5 inch film (large format).

"That's amazing detail Marc! "

 

I get the same fine detail when I take a similarly tightly cropped 6x4.5 headshot on Fuji 160 and magnify it 12x with a high quality loupe.

 

Plus negatives are a lot more fun.

Yes, I agree Mr. Large Formatter. The cool thing about MF digital is that it's MF film in

about 30 seconds ... just swap backs : -) A nice option when faced with lighting that would

be better shot on film.

 

Been using the H2D/39 for some wedding applications, and the resolution is almost twice

that of my image posted above. The tonal gradations are much better with these MF backs

than with 35mm type DSLRs also.

 

We did a shot of a B&G in front of the Detroit Tigers Stadium at ISO 100 ... and on spec I

had a print made at 44" on the short side for the client that was sharp as a tack had

absolutely no noise even when viewed from a few inches away. When the client saw the

print it was an instant sale.<div></div>

Hi Marc. Great image.

 

Out of interest, if you were to crop it to the cat's jaw & paw plus B&G, would you be happy

with it at a 16x20 print size ?

 

Does the CFV capture images of the same quality as the HD, in your opinion ?

 

Pls post more MF's as they don't get much column space in these pages.

That guy Mark with his photograph and the crop of it showing us how wonderful digital is. I

mean, I can?t believe you call yourself professional photographers, it is a fraud! Please, if the

detail of the eye is a crop of the whole face of this subject, how could there be a soft focus in

the eyelash? That only happens when you do a macro shot!!!!! Please, digital can?t give us so

much detail from an eye if you shoot a whole face! Please examinate that picture again.

Thank you.

Marc Williams: I just hope you don?t try to fool your clients!