Too late for medium format?

I've been shooting slide film in my 35mm camera for several years now. I have no desire to go digital because film makes

me happier than anything else. I am a sharpness freak so I use the best equipment I can afford (prime lenses etc).

 

But I know that I would enjoy medium format. The only thing is that I worry that it will become

impossible to find 120 film soon, or find a place to get it developed. I travel all over the world and love to shoot

travel photos.

 

Is it too late to jump into MF to shoot film? I've been considering a Hasselblad 501CM and/or a Pentax 645Nii system for

some time now. I'm just worried about taking the plunge.

 

What are your thoughts?

I just sold off my 645N stuff for nothing. Depending on where you are, getting film and lab services is going to get harder and harder. I would seriously take another look at digital, it can also make you happy.

Is it too late to jump into MF to shoot film?

I don't think so. New films still being made. Readily available at least here in the USA. Traveling with MF is another issue altogether. Too much of a hump for me and getting film through customs in every country is a hassle. But I'm older now. In my youth I'd take an RB67 everywhere so YMMV. I'd say jump in and try it. The investment is not bad and if it's not your cup of tea sell the stuff or just use it at home. Thats what I do now. Shoot film in my Bronica's at home and travel with digital gear. It's just easier for me now. When I travel, I travel light. Best of Luck to you..................Lou

You like film and you like it sharp, jump in, even 645 will make you extremely happy and there will be film for years.

Hi Etef.

Professional studio photographers still prefer film, when it has to be really good. And if you prefer sharpness and

resolution there is no way around film. And it is still the cheapest to work with. I guess we will be able to get film and

labs in every big city for years. And it will take at least 5 years before the digital sensor can compete with the film.

You can always put a digital back on your MF camera, and you have so many great lenses to choose from. The

good thing about digital is that the manual film cameras and optics are so cheap now - and with a good scan you

have the best possible raw material.

I am using old Hasselblad gear on shooting ancient architecture, it gives far the best shots and the biggest range

concerning light and shadow. It is not as easy to work and travel with as 35 mm, but the slower process might add

something to your photos that you did not find before...Claus

I'm fortunate to have a pro lab 1 mile from my house. Dip 'n dunk processing only. But you can always mail out for processing.

Take a look at this site http://www.cbc.ca/arts/slideshows/sanchez_brothers/

 

I saw their works at an exposition in Laval where our photography club (APAL) meets every week. When you go to

the site, take a good look at the SIZES of the prints shown in the caption.

 

They had about 30 of their works exposed. Viewing them live in those sizes - almost all are at least 4 by 6 feet

- is simply amazing. You can be 2 inches from the print and and you can still count the hair on the eyelashes.

Their next exposition after leaving Laval (suburb of Montreal) is in Belgium.

 

The older brother is around 30 years old and his younger brother, 25 or so. They provided an interesting

presentation of their works, how they started, etc ... Lovely evening.

 

They use film in their 4x5 and 8x10 cameras !! They mentioned that they had been loaned state of the art

digital equipment but for their needs, it simply didn't cut it.

 

So is it too late for MF? I think it's whatever you make of it.

 

Like Ian, I have a 645N, lenses to go with it, large flash, etc ... I tried to see my equipment at a reasonable

price but no takers. So I'm keeping it ... who knows, film may become a "niche thing". So now I'm shooting

weddings in digital because most people are looking for DVD slide shows, want to print their own, etc ...

 

But I'm simply not going to see my MF equipment.

 

Ray

<i>Professional studio photographers still prefer film, when it has to be really good. </i>

 

<p>

That is just completely untrue. I don't know a single studio commercial photographer still shooting film. Commercial clients now demand digital.

<p>

Maybe there are a few holdouts, but I bet 98%+ of them are 100% digital. Probably more.

<p>

The pros who still shoot film are the fine art photographers who have their 'look' and methods down. I did a workshop a couple of years ago with Shelby Lee Adams and he was worried about his 4x5 supply chain as he used a lot of specialized chemicals. He also used special 20 packs of Tri-X that weren't manufactured anymore. He didn't know what he was going to do when his freezer ran out.

TOO LATE???? NO WAY! This is a perfect time to get MF equipment at rock bottom prices. THese mostly professional cameras were once selling new at thousands of dollars n you can have em for a couple hundred with lenses n backs.

 

As for film going extinct... I don't think so because there are enough hobbiests n serious enthusiests involved that there is a large enough market, despite the digital rage.

 

As you get more involved, you'll find developing your own film is a well worth effort. The demand for fine art B&W prints is thriving because silver gelatin prints are more in demand as "art" rather than a digital computer printouts. Waht is a printout worth?... how much will you pay for a silver gelatin? What is the longevity of the digital printout vs a silver photo? ummmm......

 

Yes digital has some advantage in the sence it is easier n has a cheaper perception... but when you start adding up the cost of ink n paper, you'll find it's not as cheap as you might think n wet prints will start seeming a better deal with such a low investment in top quality professional equipment.

Well put, Paul. You hinted at what I believe to be the intrinsic differences between film and digital, shelf life. Indeed, most commercial photographers now shoot digital. It is a decision based on convenience and economics, not quality. Their product need not survive beyond the life expectancy of an advertising campaign. Can one really expect to see a difference between film and digital in a two page spread in "The Journal Nature", or "Newsweek?"

Ian,

Speaking from personal (20+ years in the field), commercial work is an odd duck, are you talking catalog/product

work, or the commercial field in general (which also includes exec. protaiture, architecture, etc)?

 

I know that my clients don't care what I use, as long as they get their images within the time frame they need

them. The time requirement drives the medium used.

 

For most of the product and catalog work, I use a scan back on a Sinar, for shots involving people or some

special effects, for larger reproduction, or for longer term use, I use MF or LF film. I have a set of custom

Toyo lensboard/back that allows me full movements using RB lenses and film backs, as well as allowing one to use

LF lenses as well, so film size can be chosen based on repro ratio, from 6x7 to 8x10.

 

While many successful studios use Dslrs, the lack of movements is a big negative to me. Having been classically

trained in product work, in a real studio, not a school, I find a dslr's lack of movements too restrictive and

not allowing me to reproduce the designer or art director's vision accurately. For some client's, it's a non

issue, for others it's the main reason they use me for their campaigns.

 

There has been a predominant shift in commercial work lately, technical accuracy is becoming less and less

important to photographers, and the prevailing "fix it in post" attitude is, in my opinion, the sign of either

somebody who doesn't care to learn the skills neccesary to execute and image properly, in camera, or sheer laziness.

 

Typically the issues that often get fixed in post are easily just shot right in the first place, and if one were

to honestly analyze the time requirements, one would likely find that it's less expensive for the customer, and

allows the photographer to get more work done. My post workflow typically consists of a tiff-jpg conversion with

color profiles for emailing previews, for identification purposes to ftp files. The scan back takes 3 mins to

make an moire free, high resolution (105mb, if needed) file that is ready for use.

 

Granted, film is slightly more involved, I typically use Portra 160NC or Fuji 160S, processed and scanned in

house, the C41 process is kept in stirct control (tighter than Kodak's requirements), and with a fully color

managed workflow, color accuracy is as good as any digital source. Lots of work up front, but once your profiles

are in place, it's not a whole lot different. The end result can, in many cases, far exceed the digially captured

image, both in terms of dynamic range and resolution, as well as rendering some really intense colors better.

Yes, it costs more, both to the studio and client, but for some, it's worth it. So, in my case (and others I

know), film is the "high end" product, if you will.

 

Film is not going extinct, if it were, Kodak and Fuji wouldn't be introducing new products aimed squarely at the

pro market, would they?

If you can get film processed for a good price then don't worry about taking the plunge. I asked on another forum if I should get the latest and greatest digital to replace my Mamiya RZ and every single person said "NO". I think if folks are willing to spend the time and money on film and scanning etc. go for it.

It's not too late. Just do it. The more who use film, the longer it will stay in production.

 

People who have given me their "obsolete" darkroom equipment are now asking for it back - because they are BORED with digital. Story here: http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00Qxky

Hi,

 

A man I know who was high up at Kodak says Film is going to die out.

 

Maybe Fuji, Kodak, even Ilford will one day be gone.... but the Chinese will always see a market...

 

The Kodak man says that making film is expensive and dangerous and a "Niche" will not be enough to keep it alive....

 

Already there is 120 film from China available all over online. I assume it will be as long as there are any takers.

 

I recently moved to a Mamiya (About 2 weeks ago).

 

bought 4 rolls of Ilfors (EUR4.50 a pop), was told it costs EUR3.75 to develope a roll and 89c a print. OUCH!

 

I intend to learn how to develope my own negatives and scan them. The poor mans way to MF.

 

Best

Chris

No, it isn't. Only this year I bought yet another Mamiya TLR, the C330 f.

It actually is too late. You should have bought a medium format camera yesterday. So don't hesitate too much and

get into medium format before prices go up again.

But, Chris Boonzaier, if you could sell that print for say $500 framed, 89¢ is a small investment. Why do people think of their pictures as trourt? It's not the quantity nor the cost that matters, it's the quality that counts most.

I doubt it. It does a great job at a good price. To buy one of the best digitals, costs several thousands.When I want to shoot slides for a projector, I cut 120 chromes down to superslides. Since 127 slide film costs $12.00 a roll.

If film does die out, there will be alot of people still working in the oldest of all photographic processes.And, commercial work is different than the needs of others.Since sports photogs use digital, a person to compete would have to do the same. But, during the Monica- Clinton scandel, a Time photog was able to beat his competitors by have a picture of her on film. His competitors missed out by deleting their photos of her. Tey di that before she become a news item.

Like Chris I bought a C330f this year to go with my 3 other MF cameras and like Jenny said, the more using film the better. I dont want to get into a digital vs film debate but if film is your thing definately go for it and Im sure you will love the quality of MF. From here I can see my D70 and I think "I must put that away" I can also see my C330f and I think "I want to take it out".

I think film is going to be around for a while longer. Remember that older media often survive for a long time after a major

technological switch--radio is still here, even if it doesn't dominate popular culture the way it did before television. In my

commercial business, I have gone almost completely digital, although I still shoot color slide film for a few clients and

some people still like the look of real black and white film/fiber paper for portraits. Film is still the most cost effective way

to get the highest quality image for a lot of things, especially with the nose dive in the value of medium and large format

cameras and lenses. For my personal work, 4x5 film and fiber paper is still the way to go. I still haven't seen a black and

white inkjet print that I prefer to what I can do in my darkroom. Digital isn't evil, its just different. I guess my suggestion

would be to go even bigger than medium format if your subject matter works with a larger, slower camera.

I take my Bronica RF with the 45mm (28 equiv in 35) when I need the best in a wide view. I combine this with a Leica CL and 40/90 combination, or a film SLR with a 35 and an 85. The SLR may soon become a Canon or Pentax digital with a good lens that crops to a 50 equiv and some tele capability.

 

Either way, I will stick with my Bronica wide set-up. Distortion is minimal. The gradation in those big negs is fantastic, and they scan beautifully with an Epson V700 flatbed scanner.

 

Enjoy film to the fullest while we still have it. Buy film and have it processed. That's the best way to be sure it's still around. I'm continuing to shoot film with my Canon FD's and Leicas. Provia, Velvia, and Fuji's PRO series is great stuff.

You would lament to buy a Film camera, especially living in developing countries. Even in Canada, it is difficult to get darkroom chemicals in many cities. Choices are limited & not readily avilable even for commonly used 35mm Films. Things would become extremely difficult and expensive every passing day with Film cameras as digital is becoming universal, quality is multiplying, cost is falling & new format of digital cameras are develoing (like Leica S2). If you are living in Asia and travelling, a medium format Film camera would become a white elephant in terms of cost of using it.

Get the Pentax. Here's why: the Pentax 645 to K mount adapter ring. It runs about $200. Since all Pentax lenses ever made fit on the

newer Pentax bodies, the glass alone will be worth the price of your investment. I bought a Pentax 645, and I'm totally satisfied.

 

I don't know about Hasselbads, because they're out of my price range. Meanwhile, Hasselbad has long been the preferred camera of

astronauts. If they can put a Hasselbad on the moon, someone will want to purchase a body made by that camera company later. If

you're going to go digital later, the Hasselbad might be a better investment; they make medium format digital backs for some of those

cameras, but they cost about as much as a new, small car. Check your desired model for compatibility.

 

You are going to have trouble finding medium format slide film eventually. You need to be prepared to do your own reversal processing

to convert the negative print film into what you want. If you've been shooting slides for years, you're probably competent enough to do

your own labwork, if you're not already.

 

One other hidden cost of switching to medium format from small format is in the accessories. In 49mm filters, I could pick up a full

case of screw-on filters for about the price of two screw-on filters for my medium format camera. Further trouble is, there is more of a

range on the lens barrel diameters for the Pentax 645 lenses. This means, that unless you go to gel filters, you may end up having to

spend a bundle, and duplicating filter types to fit the array of lenses that go with the camera body. That said, I still think it is a great

investment.

 

You mentioned your love of slide film. Probably the best reason to do medium format is to enjoy sharper enlargement printing. There's

a huge increase in print quality for a modest increase in negative size, when going from small to medium format film. For slides, that

might be another story.

 

Let me say this; for less than $2,000, I picked up a used medium format film kit that a bunch of people will probably look down upon.

The glass alone is worth twice that, in my opinion. That glass, with the adapter ring, also fits on my 20 year old Me Super, and my new

digi-cam. And, because I stepped up to the larger format size, I have a fair collection of prints here that people around me like. The

clarity was a major jump, for me. I wish I had made the switch years ago.

 

The only way this could have been better is if I could have afforded the logistic support to move to a view camera.

 

In closing, let me say that sooner or later, you may have to face the digital bugaboo. It's not a big deal, in greatness, but it's not an

artistically destructive change, either. It is what it is. You'll win some; you'll lose some. If you're good enough, you could have used

anything from a Hubble telescope to a pinhole camera anyway. Good luck. J.

Etaf, I asked myself the same question about "too late" when I switched from a 35mm film camera to MF film camera a

couple of years ago. I decided not to worry about future film availability.

 

Switching to a Hasselblad has changed my life and my photography. If I have to switch to something else in the future, I'll

worry about it in the future.

 

I love shooting my MF film camera and am taking better pictures than ever. If you know you'd like MF, I say go for it!