Do pros still use these?

<p>Hello,<br>

I have recently returned to shooting 35mm film as I enjoy black and white fine art photography nowadays. After doing some reading, I learned that medium format is much better for sharpness of enlargements and am interested in getting a medium format camera. I know that Hasselblad used to be the "gold standard" for photography and am wondering if this is still the case. I must admit there seems to be something really elegant about seeing someone shooting a Hasselblad. Also, their cameras seem to hold their value well (on eBay, etc...) but I can't find any information saying if pros still use them or not. Theoretically, I would think that a nice Hasselblad with a digital back would be better than any 35mm SLR on the market, right? Am I thinking behind the times? I came across a pro photographer's youtube video where he said that his Hasselblad has not been shot in years and that he uses a Nikon SLR. Is it possible to get better quality prints with a digital 35mm SLR nowadays? I really don't want to spend $6,000 on a Hasselblad if I am simply joining an obscure group of traditionalists, the image quality really isn't any better, and I will have to carry around a very basic "box". I guess what I am asking is this: by buying a Hasselblad am I just joining a dying breed? Do pro fine art photographers still shoot film? What about medium format? If you had to choose the best system for fine art b/w photography what would it be (Digital? Film? 35mm? Medium Format? Hasselblad? Nikon?) </p>

<p>Let's see. Will a negative 5x as large as 35mm produce an image with less grain and better tonality? Is film better today than, say, 40 years ago? What characteristics are considered "best"?</p>

<p>A larger negative will generally hold more detail than a smaller one. However an 8x10" camera (or even a medium format camera) can't compete with a 35mm (or digital) camera for the needs of most journalists. A Jeep runs better than a Ferrari across parking lot dividers or slickrock trails.</p>

<p>For high-quality landscapes, closeups and architecture, an Hasselblad represents a good compromise between image quality and portability. A 6x7 SLR is still reasonably portable and a 6x7 rangefinder very portable (but less versatile than an SLR). However, small-format cameras have a much wider range of lenses and are very portable (and cost about 1/3rd as much to operate).</p>

<p>Depends what the pros are doing. The ones doing fine art B&W are - look at what's showing up in publications and galleries. Most pros aren't spending most of their time doing fine art shooting, and a DSLR is great for sports, weddings, PJ, etc.</p>

<p>With careful raw processing you can get good results doing B&W from a DSLR, but there are some characteristics inherent to the larger film that you can't duplicate, like the shallow DOF you can get because your focal length is longer, and the larger the film the larger the print you can do without losing sharpness. With a good scanner or a real enlarger you can get a huge amount of detail out of a 120 frame.</p>

<p>Does it have to be a 'Blad? There are a ton of very nice Mamiya, Pentax, etc., cameras out there that are almost as good at a much lower price. Then all you need is some B&W film and a 120 spool for your universal tank. You do have a universal tank, yes? :)</p>

<p>A Hasselblad with a digital back would be more than good enough to meet any commercial needs. The DSLRs, at the higher end of pricing, will be called for in some commercial situations. Alamy, the stock agency, for instance, specifies that they only want images from certain types of camera models, and will not accept scanned films.</p>

<p>That said, for fine art work, I would imagine you could use any tools you want. I was blessed with securing a generous grant contract some time ago; all of the work that secured that contract was shot with a Pentax 645 and a Pentax K1000. I recently saw a museum exhibit done with a Holga. Half of that was shot in HP5+.</p>

<p>On the viewer's side of things, I believe the final image appearance is part of what drives their decision. Film does carry a certain weight with some viewers and purchasers. Larger companies that buy images will be inclined to top-end, latest equipment in digital. In face to face dealings with people, they ask about film; I see that they want mastery. If you've mastered film to a reasonable degree, that's a point in your favor.</p>

<p>Sometimes people will be inclined to be interested in film photography because it has more of an aura of finality about it. Yet, what I think the viewers who inquire are looking for is skill. Skill demonstrated in terms that they understand. Skill in terms that you can explain to them; and, often, purchasing decisions about what camera or media it was, those won't go over too well. It won't be about: I bought this camera, therefore, I made that picture. Instead, their questions will be more about, What can you do? What are you doing? How did you do this?</p>

<p>Like for the project contract, I noted what was used for what image, but I was never really asked directly "What camera?" I was asked about process; I had to answer other questions about other processes; I felt, overall, people want to know that they're making an investment in a person who is pretty much stable and proficient in what they are doing. They want to know the object is well made, durable, has some reasonable value to its structure.</p>

<p>So, for the camera choice in the arts applications, I would say, ground your investment in media that you have used successfully in the past. Continue to grow your tools and skills. When I purchased equipment over the past year, the purchases were mostly (I'd say at 80%) on film equipment and related supplies. However, in there, I also purchased a DSLR. At the time, I felt pushed and pressured and didn't like it. The people who cared about me basically told me that I was over-specializing, and that I needed to get at least some of the newer technologies, so I did. Months later, even though I use the DSLR infrequently, it is still helping me to communicate.</p>

<p>For example, there's an instructional aspect to my project; by including some DSLR based examples, I will be able to show people more how some of my project ideas can apply to what they may have on hand. In that respect, I was kind of able to turn the situation around. Once things were more exploratory and constructive, that's when I got more interested.</p>

<p>So, there are many ways this can play out. What's going to happen is that whatever it is, you will have to use it; use it a good deal; carry the projects through to completion, to those viewers. And, you're going to have to pick what you are going to use to get you there.</p>

<p>Few people ask what paintbrush a master painter used. With cameras, it's a little bit different; but, I think it's fair to say that you are going to encounter a fair number, probably a majority, of viewers who will not know and will not care what brand of camera that photo was made with. They'll want to know it was made well, but I doubt they'll be picky about the nameplate.</p>

<p>I kind of feel that was a wishy-washy answer about the tools; but, comparatively, it seems like any one of the CanNikons is, by itself, putting out as many kinds of camera models as they entire market seemed to have in it 30 years ago. The market is just flooded with a massive number of good tool choices. So, in there, part of it becomes, You just have to pick. </p>

<p>The answer depends also on where you want to spend your time. With a Hasselblad, which I use, I enjoy photography a lot, having control of almost everything, but spending a lot of time on processing, scanning, retouching and adjusting colour-balances etc. With a digital SLR, like Canon EOS D5 or up, it is so easy and fast to get the shots out to prints or costumers. And much easier to control colours from the moment of exposure. Below you have at shot made with Hasselblad, scanned (Imacon) and lots of adjustments afterwards, since the light was a mixture of daylight, flourescents and halogen.<br>

Best regards and good luck</p><div></div>

<p>John O'Keefe-Odom wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Alamy, the stock agency, for instance, specifies that they only want images from certain types of camera models, and will not accept scanned films."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For the record, Alamy most definitely does accept scanned films.</p>

<p>In many cases the decision professional photographers made which digital system they were going to use was not based on IQ but on economics.<br>

MF digital demands a large amount of money. That sum needs to be earned back in a much shorter time because digital equipment is becoming obsolete much faster than film.<br>

For instance there is no more service and spares for Kodak's Pro back.<br>

Even batteries are hard to find now. <br>

That investment in MF digital is only possible with larger volumes.</p>

<p>There are 35 mm based digital cameras that have a higher MP count than quite a number of MF digital systems.<br>

Still these MF digital systems provide better IQ.<br>

It is not only the number of MP but lenses, software and post production have a large influence on IQ as well.<br>

Except for high ISO values MF beats 35 mm based DSLR cameras anytime, no doubt about it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Brandon,</p>

<p>First of all if you are shooting " Fine Art " you should be shooting film on Medium format. File sizes can be generated to suit the finished print size, if you have a 10 20 mb file and you look to increase that the data that is put into the file is " Padding " and as such any resultant image will not or ever be genuine. </p>

<p>As regards cameras Bronica are a good step forward, they have an excellent range of accessories some of which are difficult to get hold of and many people are not aware that certain items actually exist. If you want to look at the top end MF then the FUJI GX680II is an excellent choice.</p>

<p>Good Luck,</p>

<p>Adrian Wilson.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For the record, Alamy most definitely does accept scanned films.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was wondering about that too. I almost went to their website to check!</p>

One great thing about medium format is, you don't have to worry about the cost of keeping up with the latest technology anymore.

 

Instead of having to buy a new DSLR every 1-2 years to keep up with your buddies, you can simply relax in the confidence that your MF investment is at its pinnacle - it doesn't get any better than this.

 

At the same time, you can take advantage of improvements in film emulsions, developing chemistry, scanner technology and outsourced scanning services at a fraction of the price. These improvements still happen quietly and at a steady pace, despite the decline of film.

 

If you feel like it, you can rescan your old negatives anytime in the future to get the then-latest image quality. On the DSLR side, images are final. Once shot, you will be stuck with their resolution and quality forever.

 

I have recently scanned a 40-year old 6x6 negative shot with a primitive Kodak P&S and it simply looks terrific with incredible detail. On the other hand, the images made by my first digital camera in 2000 suck by today's standards, and I can't do a thing about it.

<p>In weighing the advantages and disadvantages of medium format film versus digital photography in DX, FX or MF, factor in the ease and expense of film development and printing either film or digital images. In your case, in which you may be already set up to do processing and printing in b&w (except for a medium format enlarger??), the MF film could give you a maximum amount of control for fine arts work at minimum expense. The more steps in the process that someone else does, the more expensive and the less control you will have over the finished product. Assume shipping costs to and from distant labs to increase regularly in the future.</p>

<p>. . .just get one of these for b&w work</p><div></div>

<p>If IQ is your main concern then MF film will definitely give you better quality than shooting the equivalent film in 35mm. But if you're asking whether MF film is better than FF 35mm digital then the answer depends on how you have the film scanned. If you just plan on scanning your MF film on a typical flatbed then the answer will be "no," but if you can afford the best drum scans, which are very expensive, then the answer is "maybe" for 645/6x6 and "probably" for 6x7/6x9. Also the dynamic range will tend to be better with B&W and color neg film than with digital, especially if you get it scanned at 16 bits/color. But, of course, this ups the cost even more. So ultimately the key to your question is how much money you are willing to invest in this.</p>

<p>". . . I was wondering about that too. I almost went to their website to check!"</p>

<p>I saw this directly on their website. I cannot find it there now. I remember seeing this because I was shocked. They had a specific list of cameras, and there was one sentence there, before they listed the cameras that specifically said that they would no longer accept scanned film. </p>

<p>I know I saw this, and other people did, too; because there was some discussion about it; the list of acceptable cameras was narrow and inconsistent. I may be wrong about something, but I know I saw this. It ticked me off immediately.</p>

<p>Now as I look at those web pages, I see a longer list of "acceptable" cameras, and just an avoidance of a mention of film. I don't know why this is so, but I know I saw that reference. The way they worded it was, a little rude; my reaction was unprintable here. </p>

<p>FWIW, the day I saw this was on June 11, 2009. </p>

<p>Well, they're still accepting my scanned film images. My understanding was that they don't care what camera you use as long as the image quality meets their criteria. Maybe this policy has changed recently.</p>

<p>Easy way to answer that question: post the web site link, e.g. http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography-guide.asp</p>

<p>It includes sections on digital cameras and scanners, and the digital camera list is a "recommended" list, not a requirement.</p>

<p>Hi Brandon! You have asked a question to which you will NEVER receive a simple answer. YOU have to decide for yourself what works best for YOUR needs. I know, I've been there before. I can't tell you how many countless nights I spent wondering which camera I should purchase. However, once I made my decision there has never been any regret, no looking back, and I couldn't be happier. Think about your needs and your wants. I'm sorry, but in my humble opinion it doesn't matter what you use to take your photographs. Just get out there and shoot! Take as many photos as you can and look at as many photos as you can. After all (and we've all learned this at some point) it doesn't matter what camera you use!!! Again, it doesn't matter what camera you use. It's all in how you use what you have. I'm sorry, and again this is my humble opinion,but if anyone is asking you what equipment you used to take a particular photo then they don't really care about your photography. I would never think of asking someone such details if their work were hanging up somewhere in a gallery. What matters is the inherent beauty found in the photo itself. There is a time and place to discuss technical qualities and equipment, but I'm not going to do that once the photo itself is presented.</p>

<p>With that said, I use a medium format camera along with film. I process and print all of my black and white. My color is sent to Chrome Imaging in D.C. I work from hard copies and have started to scan some of my prints for presentation on the Internet and some other ideas that I have regarding what I enjoy doing. At the same time, though, I have a small point and shoot digital camera that I love to use when I want to capture various memories and events. I could care less if my camera will hold its value. I have lived long enough to know that the only thing that holds its value is gold. :) That feeling allows me to NOT worry about my equipment and its condition. Otherwise I would be a mess always worrying about a scratch here and a ding there. Good prices on good equipment can be had at KEH. They are wonderful to work with.</p>

<p>Good luck in your decision making process. I feel for you because I've been there before!<br>

Bruce</p>

<p>Thanks for all of the responses thus far!!! I got a Holga the other day just to play around with medium format a little bit. I REALLY enjoy the 120 roll film...it just feels so pro. I must clarify that I do not intend to sell many prints, this is just a serious, serious hobby for me. I would like to maybe sell some nice b/w prints at restaurants, etc. but my focus is on photography as a hobby. For this reason, quality takes priority over speed for me. I also really enjoy my time spent in my new temporary darkroom/bathroom (though I have been having some frustrations with light leaks, etc...) so the increased time of film over digital is not a problem. One concern I am having is with the expense of developer. I heard that once a working solution is mixed, it is only good for 24 hours. So that means that even though my TMax film developer is good for multiple uses, if I only have a couple of rolls to develop, I am just throwing it out anyway. I seem to be going thru a lot of developer because of this. Is there a better/cheaper alternative or is the working solution really good for longer periods of time? I guess that is a question for another thread though... Back to my post here: So the Holga is OK for what it is. I really like the size of the negatives with medium format, however I never realized how easy it is to load 35mm onto a developing reel until I tried with the MF. It took forever and resulted in much cussing, but I think I figured it out now. Oh, and what is that blue stuff that pours out when I pre-wet my MF film? I have never seen it with same emulsion (TX400) 35mm. It normally takes 1 or 2 tank fulls for the water to run clear before I pour in developer with MF. Back to the camera: So I'm 99% sure that I would like to plunge into MF. I am kind of torn between how I want to proceed. On one hand I want to get a completely classic, "old school" Hassselblad for the elegant look and amazing image quality. On the other hand, the Pentax 645N and the like are extremely tempting b/c I could shoot action shots with the included autofocus and they have good metering. I guess that ideally an H model Hasselblad would be my best bet, but I can't really afford it and I would loose the look of the classic Hasselblad body anyway. Any suggestions? Also, with regards to the Hasselblad, I noticed that Hasselblad made a fairly automated camera (205FCC) that seems to have more features than their current production 503CW. Why did they do this? Which camera is better? Do they still make the 205FCC and it is just not on their website? Regardless, I am sure it is out of my price range. I have about $2000 allocated if I decide to dive into MF. I am guessing I should go with the Pentax 645N for now and see what happens later. Any thoughts? </p>

<p>Andrew, I reviewed that page. It does not look like the one I saw. The QC guidelines I am referring to were posted in their fora, by an Alamy administrator, and it was specific. Maybe they changed, or had some kind of hiccup as they changed things around. But, it was clear; it had specifically stated, "no longer accept scanned film." And, the cameras listed was a much shorter list; it did not say the cameras were recommended, it said, they would only accept images from, and then their list. It was a very short list, and the DSLRs were pretty much the more expensive ones. </p>

<p>I remember this not only because it ticked me off, but also because it was conditional guidance; in management, giving conditional guidance to people without outlining a goal is usually bad news. All of this guidance was about the camera, and there was no information in there about the image itself, not even suggested data to size information (so many pixels by so many pixels yielding a file size of such and such, for example). It was a short list of expensive cameras, and that's what they were going to take. It wasn't worded as a recommendation then; it was, do this, or forget it.</p>

<p>Perhaps they have revised. Yet, even if they have schmoozed over their presentation, I feel like I was looking directly at what they really thought when they put that up there. </p>

<p>I cannot find that thread in their fora to show you; for some reason the search function is not working, and I've spent some time going through there looking for it. I'll leave all that alone for now; my point is, I believe that they and others will be inclined to refuse film work; but, that is not as much the case with the individual, smaller buyers. Sorry, I didn't mean to have my ire towards them over that point clog up the discussion or anything. </p>

<p><em>"I noticed that Hasselblad made a fairly automated camera (205FCC) that seems to have more features than their current production 503CW. Why did they do this? Which camera is better? Do they still make the 205FCC and it is just not on their website?"</em></p>

<p>They made the automated cameras (the 203 FE with average meter was much more popular than the spot meter only 205 FCC), because people had been complaining for ages that they wanted exposure automation.<br>

But automation is highly overrated. And the 203 and 205 cameras were highly overpriced. So they were discontinued (yes, they are no longer made. Haven't been for a long time).</p>

<p>The all-mechanical, no automation, leaf shutter 500 series remained popular. And it was continued. It still is today, though struggling in this digital, "my user manual is 465 pages thicker than yours, so there!" days of digital mayhem.</p>

<p>You can't say which one is better, since both 205 and 503 do what they are supposed to do equally well.</p>

<p>For US$ 2000, you can get a nice Hasselblad 500 set too.</p>

<p>I randomly came across a video of a Mamiya 645-AFD III. It looks really nice but is a littler bit large for my use and out of my price range. The features on it seem to be what I would like though. Is this camera a lot better than the Pentax 645N?<br>

Also, what kind of Hasselblad setup could I get for $2k? Which body? Lens? Etc...</p>

<p>Oh, and if I go in the Hasselblad direction are there any options for TTL metering? I really don't want to have to carry a handheld meter everywhere I go and meter every single shot. I think I saw an optional viewfinder for the 500 series that had a metering option. How does this work? Do you input f-stop and film speed and it gives you shutter speed?</p>

<p>'I really don't want to spend $6,000 on a Hasselblad if I am simply joining an obscure group of traditionalists, the image quality really isn't any better, and I will have to carry around a very basic "box".'</p>

<p>For about $6,500 over a two year period I purchased a Hasselblad 503 CX, a CF 50mm lens, a CF 80mm lens, a CF 150mm lens, a CF 250 mm lens, a 2x extender, close rings and the most expensive item a Hasselblad 903 SWC with the 38mm lens. That is still less that than the top of the line Canons or Nikons. For $1,500 you could pick up at CM, an CF 80mm lens, two backs and a 45 degree prism with a built in light meter.</p>

<p>Check out www.KEH.com or www.david-odess.com for prices. These dealers are very reliable.</p>

<p>Think of how much film you could shoot for the cost of a $30,0000 to $50,000 new digital back that will be obsolete in two years! Later if you want to shoot digital with a Hasselblad you can buy a digital back and shoot film or digital.</p>

<p>Developer and other chemicals last more than 24 hours. Kodak XTOL, a fine grain developer last at least six months undiluted. There are others that last longer. Stop bath is long lasting. Hypo goes bad about two months after it is mixed.</p>

<p>"Oh, and if I go in the Hasselblad direction are there any options for TTL metering? I really don't want to have to carry a handheld meter everywhere I go and meter every single shot. I think I saw an optional viewfinder for the 500 series that had a metering option. How does this work? Do you input f-stop and film speed and it gives you shutter speed?"</p>

<p>Check out the PME prisms. The light meters give the EV [Exposure Value] and you set the EV on the lens, then you can move the shutter speed and the aperture rings together to select the shutter and aperture that you want to use for that light reading.</p>

<p>I hope that this helped.</p>

<p>Steve</p>