Medium Format vs Digital for a fashion photography student.

I am going to London to study Fashion Photography at the London

College of Fashion. I am looking for the format that will not

compromise quality in my pictures. I am looking at the Canon 1Ds and

a Medium Format like a Hasselblad or a Contax (this ones only for

the sake of the Zeiss lens). I have reasoned the following as an

answer to a previous article (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-

fetch-msg?msg_id=00896S):

 

I am looking so far to make the cheapest way of time and money to

make images. With this you have to focus on what is more important

to you and what market you aim to. I am on the fashion photography

market. Requires extreme detail in all cases but it also requires

you to have the images on time. Here also comes another problem.

Anyways the negatives will be SCANNED! so digital saves you time on:

developing (lets say dropping your film at the nearest pro-lab) and

scanning (with the pro-labs extreme good quality fast film scanner).

 

Lets have the points on this:

 

*Film = Get out of your lazy ass and buy film, stock film, time to

drive or take the subway to the nearest pro lab + at least 2 hours

for them to give you back your negatives and plus the CD/s in which

you will have all your images and that will cost you extra $$.

 

*Digital = Charge the powersource, take pics and transfer them to

your Mac or PC and play.

 

I have taken the time consuming task of finding out what might be

more convenient for as fas ar my academic and professional career

will go. I am so far thinking of short term (3 years) expenses. I

have calculated the following with the following Cameras:

 

Digital

 

Canon 1d Mark II camera (when it comes out) $4500 4 Lens (wide

angle, telephoto, normal and zoom) $5000 Extra Battery, Memory Cards

$1000

 

Film

 

Hasselblad 503CW body $2100 2 Lenses (100mm and 50mm) $6900 2 Film

Mags and finder $3000

 

So we can to have something close to $10500 for the Canon digital

and $1200 for the Hasselblad. But here we go again, the Canon camera

is $1500 cheaper and will bring 2 more lens, and Canon lens are not

bad at all. But compared to Zeiss lens they are not as good, indeed

not. The Hasselblad is a long standing tool. It can take the use and

abuse of years to come. Canon's camera will outdate with time faster

than film because digital always goes better.

 

One thing is for sure though, film is the difference here. I only

counted film as the solely difference for this because both of them

will be making prints anyways and the cost should get close to the

same per final print because with film you need to make contacts,

and many prints untill you are finally happy with one.

 

So having in mind that I might spend around 10 rolls of 120 film per

photoshoot (which not high nor low) and will have to spend the money

in developing and scaning the film we come out to something like:

 

20 rolls of film * $4.00 = $80 developing the film and scanning it

in RAW format = $20 per roll * 20 = $400

 

So we end up with $480 on film everymonth plus transportation (those

like me who dont have cars) which will become $4800 per year of

shooting 10 months (2 month break right?). After all photographers

never stop shooting.

 

We have in mind Canon's not elite digital camera (8.2mp against 1Ds'

11) that is not as good as Hasselblads 6x6 film camera. But in 2

years of constant use, Canon's camera becomes free with all lenses

and battery and memory cards. Hasselblad's camera will cost $9200

more expensive in 2 years.

 

Canon's camera has more of an appeal to the pocket in the short run

of only 3 years.

 

 

Now the above is mentioning the Canon 1D Mark II camera. I have

figured out that if I want more quality I will get the 1Ds.

 

As I said before, the digital one has more appeal to the pocket

because it turns out to be free in 3 years. But thinking about the

future, what would magazines want? what its better in the long run?

Or should be thinking only in my academic term of 3-4years? wouldnt

then Canon or anyone bring something better by then?

 

One more to already develop that classic meaningless fetish for Zeiss without owning it.

No offense, but it's quite pathetic.

 

Anyhow, I'd say Canon. I read between the lines that you'll move around and not be

commited to studio fashion photography, possibly doing catwalk and outdoors

photography (since you say you need a telephoto lens as well). Well that's not far from

sports photography, and Canon beats a Hassy here.

 

1) Getting there with bags full of equipment is much easier with DSLRs

 

2) you'll lose good positions and good spots while politely imposing your place in a crowd

of photographers and moving around with a Hassy

 

3) as I said, it's not far from sports photography. 12 frames per roll, winding film. No way.

>>>>>> But compared to Zeiss lens they are not as good, indeed not.

 

Really?

 

So tell me... What's the Achille's heel in L-series primes ?

3-4 years to learn a limited area in photography?

I have to be honest... I stopped reading half way through the intial post... <p>

I would think ANY photography student should start off with a film camera (shooting slides)...<br>

Just my opinion.

I'm not into all that number-cracking, but having been a photography student myself, who has at one time also ventured into fashion photography in a.o. London, this what I think.

 

I don't wish to make a value assesment of film over digital or vice-versa, I think both are great and have their value and appliancation.

 

Bur from a practical point of view I would always go for the DSLR over the Hasselblad, even if the latter has theoretically a better technical performance.

 

Let me say first I have a Hassie too, well over twenty years now, but professionally I only have used it sparsely, and hardly ever in my free time. I love the tonal representation of a well developed Tri-X negative, and clarity of a beautiful print.

 

But as far as fashion is concerned, I think it's a disaster. Too big, too expensive, too little shots in one magazine, and too difficult, for me anyway, to position it right for the picture I have in mind. Great for studio on a tripod, for Avedon or Penn like shots, but a drama for shooting fast and much.

 

A 35mm slr, or digital variety, IMO lies better in hand, smaller, more versatile (ever tried shooting catwalk with a Hassie), and is easier on the wallet (which is a consideration when you are a poor student) even if you would only shoot film.

 

I think you should also realise that as a student the first few years the pictures you make are junk (hard to admit when you're in the middel of shooting them, but an insight when you look back on your earlier work later in your career. Been there!!)

 

I have literally spent thousands of what are now Euro's on film, developing and prints, which was most of the time a waste. As I was in the proces of learning, which meant that I regularly discovered that the shots I made six months earlier, and spent my heartblood on to get printed perfectly, basically were rubbish and a passing stage, so were tossed out and replaced. You can imagine what sums I've spent.

 

So why blow hard needed cash on expensive, but eventually replaced pictures made with a basically expensive, cost-inflaming set of equipment? (I didn't see you mention the Pola-ack another essential but cost-driving have-to-have)

 

Digital will save you much of that money, although the costs of setting up are immense, and when going digital you should keep in mind that if you want to keep up with the Jones's, you can replace your gear at least one a year.

 

I worked nearly ten years with my first set of Nikons, then upgraded to AF, which with Nikon is easy as much of my old stuff could still be used with the AF gear, and recently into digital. So I have my experience wth the D1 and D1X, and despite the limitations I love digital for the pictures it allows me to make, even if I every now and the run into the technical limitations of the technique.

 

Admittely though, when shooting film no one sees whether a picture was shot with my F2 or my F100 ...

 

But trying to predict what the magazine will want in three years it a big gamble, as no one knows what aces the big DSLR players still have up their sleeves, and if that may really rival film and maybe even MF.

 

But I think you can be sure that both the 1Ds and the 1DMark2 will be by long overtaken by newer more capable bodies (you can trust Canon for that)

 

I wouldn't worry so much about the technical 'superiority' of film , especially MF, over digital, try shooting the ultimate picture first, let alone the one that really makes you regret you didn't shoot it on film.

 

my two cents

These posts were a bit long, but the short answer is you need to go digital. I recently attended a seminar conducted by fashion and beauty photographer

<a href="http://www.douglasdubler3.com/flash_content/douglasdubler3.html">Douglas Dubler</a>, and he said unequivocably that if you want to do fashion, you've got to do digital because that is the future (as well as the present). And as you've already noticed, film is already being scanned because magazines and clients want a digital file. So you might as well start out with a digital file.

The lenses for the Hasselblad H1 are as good as any ofthe Zeiss lenses for

the Contax 645. Not only that but the H1 is a far better camera to boot. I've

enough experience with both, shooting film and digital to make that statement

which is based in reality, not prejudice.

 

film vs. digital

 

When shooting film you pay an ongoing cost for the technology and for the

skills ofthe person doing the lab work.

 

If you go digital you pay a higher cost of up front and you need better quality

than what any ofthe 35mm based digital cameras can give you to rival

medium format film. This statment is also based in my fairly extensive

experience wit h these digital systems, including EOS 1Ds. For Fashion, right

now I'd recommend either the Imacom 825C Xpress, the Leaf Valeo 11, 17 or

22mp or the Phase One P25 digital back )-- so you have to pay a pretty stif up

front priceto get the quality you seem to be looking for. But there is another

cost as well: the time you spend in front of a computer processing the "raw"

images. You become the lab, you also become to a large degree the film

manufacturer. So that is time & energy spent training to become a competent

technician and then being the technician.

 

The Digital approach is a long way from being free in three years and that isn't

even consideringthe ancillary hardware you'll need in aseemingly un ending

stream; two high powered computer, additional hard disks, CD-R & DVD

disks, monitors, monitor calibration/profiling tools, RAM, flash cards, UPS

sytems to etc. , and let's not forget a back up camera body!

 

Unlike other "experts" and touts, I am not sponsored by anyone so I feel free

to candidly point this out to you.

 

These factors are what business wonks call "opportunity costs".

 

Frankly, my advice to you since you are a student, is to shoot film and

concentrate on learning how to light, ditrect and style a shot: To put it another

way: learn the craft and art of seeing.

 

Unlike other "experts" and touts, I am not sponsored by anyone so I feel free

to candidly point this out to you.

Find out FROM THE SCHOOL what sort of equipment you'll need for your studies. They'll tell you.

<i><blockquote> These posts were a bit long, but the short answer is you need to go

digital. I recently attended a seminar conducted by fashion and beauty photographer

Douglas Dubler, and he said unequivocably that if you want to do fashion, you've got to

do digital because that is the future (as well as the present </blockquote> </i><p>

 

This seems reasonable. I've heard that some students who've tried to intern in some

fields (photojournalism and event photography for two separate cases I remember last

year) were told they <u>needed</u> to own digital SLRs for their internships. <p>

 

Remember, after the fixed costs for your gear, incremental costs for shooting as much

as you want as negligible in digital, but considerably more than that for film. <p>

 

You ought to contact a teacher or two at the school you're about to attend and see what

they recommend.

<i>The Digital approach is a long way from being free in three years and that isn't even consideringthe ancillary hardware you'll need in aseemingly un ending stream; two high powered computer, additional hard disks, CD-R & DVD disks, monitors, monitor calibration/profiling tools, RAM, flash cards, UPS sytems to etc. , and let's not forget a back up camera body!</i> <p> Two high-powered computers? It definitely isn't necessary to have two computers. <p> Like it or not, you're going to find that those same items and costs are going to be incurred with film, anyways. I don't know many people who don't have a computer in their lives. And if you plan on scanning your film images and working on your images digitally, you're going to have to have this computer stuff. So the argument that you're going to save tons of money with film because you don't need computer equipment is simply bogus. Your film is going to enter the digital stream eventually, and you'll need the hardware to support it. The only question is if you want to start with an emulsion-based source that needs to be scanned in, has a per-shot cost, as well as a longer turn-around.

What Al Kaplan said.

Ellis

 

I read your answer and looks good. The only thing is that I already own a film camera and I've been working with it for about year and a half. Its an N80 and it has worked well with me since I've taken basic photography and gone through adv b&w and an independent study. If you would like to see my portfolio you can go to http:\\maximilianovonbraun.deviantart.com

 

What I am trying to do is to prepare not only for my academic career in phoography but also for the future. So far seems to be that for the academic career I will acquire a 1Ds and later on a 'blad. Still keeping my N80 though just in case.

 

Although I must disagree that digital will cost that much. Its just simply not that costly as it looks. You dont need 2 supercomputers for sure and you are offering a digital back which costs $25,000 +, just for the back. Now those are indeed costly backs but they offer the best that digital can give these days, no question. But that is for someone who is already making a living out of this, and a good one I must add. I am barely starting and you slam me with around $30,000 + with the camera.

DON'T BUY ANYTHING!

RENT RENT RENT

USE YOUR MONEY FOR YOUR CREDIT

ALL THIS DIGITAL STUFF IS CRAP!

THINK LONG TERM, RENT

Did you think about a P&S camera ? A lot a good pros use them...<br>

Seriously, it is the photographer who takes the photo, not the camera. And all this quality

blabla is unimportant. If you really are lost, ask your future teacher what you should get.

Maybe the shool has cameras to lend ?<br>

Another detail in your post : you do count 20 rolls of film per month ? In a 6x6 this is 240

frames per months... In fashion, you could shoot this in a day ! Do not forget that even in

a shool, you will learn through trial and error, and you need to shoot a lot to make all the

possible mistakes while you are still a student.<br>

Lenny<br>

<a href="http://afimage.com">AFimage.com</a>

<I>Although I must disagree that digital will cost that much. Its just simply not

that costly as it looks. </I> Excuse me but I have a lot more experience in this

thjan you do. I have been shooting professionally (as in full time and making a

good living at it) since 1984, have been working with digital imaging as far

back as 1982, and pretty much shooting 90% of my work with digital cameras

since 2001. The 1Ds is barely better than the Leaf 6mp back and not as good

as any ofthe 11mp, 16mp or 22mp digital backs for medium format cameras.

Going with a medium format camera over a 1ds : a.) does not lock you into

any one digital imaging system and lets you switch back and forth between

film and digital as your desires or client needs change. <P> If you get one

1ds you are going to need two because it is essentially a computer and

computers crash. it is also last years camera already and as something better

comes out you wonder why you are still using such an old machine. This is

human nature, <P>From your response it appears that you didn't want advice

from the real world, you wanted someone to nod their head in agreement and

say that sounds like a fine plan. Okay: your plan is a fine one. (short sighted

but fine, especially for the camera stores and who ever is charging you

interest on your student loans.) Arre you happier now?

Ellis, calm down. At this stage, I don't think Maximiliano is going to be dropping $30K for a Leaf Valeo 22, or even a $12K for a Valeo 11. I would even back off on the need for a 1Ds. It really depends on just how large he needs his file sizes to be right now. It is likely that the 1D MKII may be more than adequate for his needs. After all, he's a student right now. Sure, it might not hold up to a medium format digital back at 200% magnification, but those are academic arguments. And as for criticizing his decision as being "short-sighted", I think he's being very rational. Tell that to the countless studio, fashion, and editorial photographers who are working with (and making good money with) the 1Ds as we speak. And depending on the output size, the 1D MKII is solid, too. I went to a seminar by celebrity, beauty and fashion photographer <a href="http://www.avenaim.com/fashion2.html ">Jerry Avenaim</a> (this was all at the recent PhotoImaging and Design Expo, by the way) who is currently shooting a lot of his work on an Olympus E-1! Tell him he's being "short sighted". If it works for the task, it works for the task. Besides, down the line, who knows what a 1Ds MKII, or MKIII is going to offer? But by then, hopefully Max will have all the resources to get whatever he wants. No need to blow all your money right now.

One can invest in alot of capital equipment such as lights; refectors; strobes; color tempterature meters; spot meter too. This stuff is important in the long run of doing photography. One can have the best camera and lens; and poor lighting; and turn out so-so images. An ancient Kodak Medalist from 6 decades ago and decent lighting equipment can trounce a wazoo new setup; with poor lighting.

Use a film camera and a digital camera. Dont assume that XXX brand of lens is always the best. Digital is not free either; there is alot of computer work; file storage; and hell to pay when your only digital file is lost when a drive crashes. Film is not free either. In the real world their is alot of dues to pay; color corrections to be done; lighting settups to adjust; and demanding clients that want results. Many clients dont care beans about whether you shoot film or digital; they just might want a digital file; or print.

I need to agree with Peter. He is right that I am not going to blow $30k in a camera right now. As I said before I am looking at the closest part of my career, the academic one. Also Kelly is right, most publishers want a digital file and do not care wether film or a sensor made the image. After all, all images are scanned.

<em>"Two high-powered computers? It definitely isn't

necessary to have two computers." --Peter Phan<br>

</em><br>

When you produce for a customer who expects you to deliver a

product when you say you will you must have at least one backup

for every necessary piece of equipment. For equipment that is

prone to failure you need more than one backup. This means two

high-powered computers.<br>

<br>

<em>"So far seems to be that for the academic career I will

acquire a 1Ds and later on a 'blad." --Maximiliano Braun<br>

</em><br>

For a lot less money than a D1s and to get a toe in the digital

waters Id buy a D2H and pair it with an F100 or a used F5.

For learning one can backup the other. You can use the film

camera when you need super wide angle lenses. In a few years you

could drop both cameras in the trash and still not loose any more

money than you would on a single D1s.<br>

<br>

It appears to me that you are putting equipment ahead of learning

the art, the craft and the business of photography.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

That is a nice point David. I like your point of view hence I will ocnsider your advice. What if we put canons in instead of nikons?

David, in a sense, you are correct. I have a desktop, and laptop, and everything backed up to external hard drives so that I can easily hot-swap between them as needed (as well as work archived to optical discs for safe storage). Plus, my laptop can run an external monitor. And I can plug my external hard drives into anyone else's computer, too. But it doesn't mean you need two identical $4000 workstations in your den. It's actually a lot less expensive than it sounds. My desktop is fairly modest, but with plenty of storage. My laptop is more high-powered, and serves me well on the go. And having my work backed up to an external drive that you can plug in to any other computer running Photoshop should be sufficient to keep me going in a jam. Anyone else can do the same, and it doesn't have to cost a fortune.

 

People are making this too complicated. If you buy one 1Ds, it doesn't mean you immediately have to buy another 1Ds for backup. (That's a pretty hefty investment for most people.) Just rent the other one for back-up purposes whenever you feel you might need to! Same with any other piece of equipment. It's just not practical to buy double of everything to protect you from every possible scenario. As a previous poster stated, rent!

<i>What if we put canons in instead of nikons?</i>

<p>

Yep, 1D MKII is definitely worth the extra money if you're considering a D2H. It'll give you more resolution, cleaner images across a wider ISO range, and offers a broader span and range of usability over the long term. Check out the Kodak SLR/c, Canon 1Ds & Canon 1D Mk II comparison at Digital Outback:

 

 

<a href="http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/kodak_SLRc/shootout.html">here</a>.

since you wantto go Canon, get a Canon 10D right now, better yet get two. Are you

going to be in a situation where you will be shooting 8 fps? Do a test run to see how

much of a real world resolution difference there is between 8mp and 6mp and

whether or not simple interpolation in 10% increments (set the Photoshop CS

interpolation scheme to bicubic smoother for "up rezzing") can make up the

difference. Spend the rest of your money on additional hard drives, models, props,

etc. <P>Peter Phan wrote"<I> " Just rent the other one for back-up purposes

whenever you feel you might need to!" </I><P> Peter, please let me know where you

get your equipment failure predictor. I'd like to get one, No make that two, of them.

My professional experience is that equipment tends to break down mostly at awkward

times.