What is the main reason you shoot film under medium format?

Discussion in 'Medium Format' started by RaymondC, Jul 1, 2017.

  1. Can see that point. For travel and general photo's I find digital is the way, even in the past I have shot film. I have taken my Nikon F100 overseas, left my dSLR at home, other times including once it was at the service center. I get the shots yes but for average Joe here, I don't have a dedicated scanner so it's a debate between spending $800US or a farm the odd scan out and pay for it. While many have quit scanning Plustek is maybe one option. Then again for the low volume I am shooting why not just farm it out. However, I certainly wouldn't be going on a trip and then requesting 10 or 20 frames to be professionally scanned and pay that. Then yeah ... most of the frames are jut thru my flatbed scanner and how they sit they aren't the best ....

    For me it is probably shooting film more occasionally, prob less likely on travel etc. I mean if a person was into, you could just take 2 bodies, on that night take that film body out but for travel I find it doesn't make much diff and there is the hassle of scanning or copying it with a dSLR. I have a Epson V700. Scanning 35mm slides then scaled to a 1920x1080 size, my former Nikon D2h (4MP) was more detailed at that size. I suppose at least C41 or b/w film provides a bit more different look than digital. I would probably get the better holder for my V700 for medium format just to round the corners out yeah ... Would prob venture into copying it with a dSLR also. Just need a lightbox.
  2. There are several reasons I shoot medium format film:
    1. I happen to think the very subtle granularity is beautiful. You can try to copy this with software but I don't find it convincing.
    2. Medium format because in spite of the grain, it can still be very sharp. Bronica529 copy 2.jpg
    3. There is simply something about the contrast levels and tonality that seems to elude digital. Even if it's scanned.
    davidscott and paul ron like this.
  3. I'm in the process of getting my fleet of RB67 Pro-S cameras and their lenses back on the track. I went digital back when the Pentax K10d first hit the market a few eclipses ago. At that time I was taking a two-month road trip to shoot Western Canada in lousy weather. My Nikons then would never have hacked it. No manufacturer offered weather-sealed bodies AND lenses except Pentax. So that's what I bought. I also snuck in a Pentax 67 with the 55mm F3.5 lens. Went back and eyed those 6X7 Chromes. WOW!! I've still got hundreds of 120 and 220 rolls of film in the freezer. I'm retiring soon and aim to get back to the old Black & White darkroom, chemicals and good music. I just don't like sitting at a computer. Never have. I'll be sending 3 bodies and a dozen magazines to get totally light-sealed and the camera mirror boxes done too. Gonna get two of the four Prism 2 viewfinders de-fogged, the 55, 90, 150 SF (I got two sets of the discs), 180, 360 and the 100-200mm lenses will have their shutters re-calibrated. Well over a grand but worth it to me.
    Wilmarco Imaging likes this.
  4. I shoot MF because of 3 points:

    - magic of depth and 3D pop on wide apertures (phisical and optical consequences of large negative)
    - crisp edges, high definition on narrow apertures
    - less grain, better tonallity - any type of negative gives fine results
    davidscott likes this.
  5. It's the feeling of loading a roll of film, it's the patience it takes to compose. Digital is slam bam thank you mam . Film you take your time and compose you know you've got 10 shots on that roll it's a much slower and careful process with digital you take 40 shots of whatever you're doing and one of them going to come out.

    Depends what you're doing with the final results to me digital still cannot capture that look of good film I don't believe it ever will digital to me has an artificial plasticky look to it.

    I grew up shooting film back when I was in college studying photography there was no digital . I've had several digital cameras good digital cameras and I just never liked the results I ended up selling all of them and I kept going back to film cameras and that's where I'm going to stay as long as there's film available.

    I think if you're a new photographer or you're in this day and age and you've never shot film you can't understand you have to try it you have to have a passion and a love for film.

    Film is alive and well and I will continue to enjoy the shoot it as long as it's still around.
    mikheilrokva likes this.
  6. paul ron

    paul ron NYC

    Its the quality!

  7. Projecting images.

    I have been shooting digital for all the years I've had photography as a hobby (some 20 years now) - until recently. Ultimately, you want to view the images - film or digital. I "project" my digital images on a 40" 4k LED TV mounted in the kitchen - a slideshow plays in a loop and is constantly updated with new images. Makes for excellent conversation around the kitchen table. The images up there are from all sorts of digital imaging devices owned by my wife, son and I - iPhones, dSLR, MLC and sent by friends/relatives/school. The ones shot with my Canon dSLR and some L lens clearly stand out and are a pleasure to look at.

    And then there is the 120" projector screen where I project 35mm and 120 slides. The size of the projected images on the 120" screen, color and contrast blow the digital projection system out of the water. I tried projecting digital images on the same screen with my 1080p projector but they look like horrible phone pictures on the big screen with only 1080p resolution.

    Maybe I could compare the two systems if I had a 100" LED tv and a 8k projector but then I probably would've to sell my first born :p

    Also, remember - you can scan your film to digital but not the other way around :)
  8. I haven't entered a DVF conversation in a very long time, like 3 years, and now minutes, but I'm pleased to see a DVF thread Civil! Generally there is a markable evolution in the perception of the medium chosen. It's Horses for courses and we're stuck with it. What a good problem to have!
  9. Frankly I'm not sure why I shoot medium format. I know why I shoot film - I'm trying to improve myself by limiting my frames, by trying to think over each composition, each shot.

    But I don't know what's with medium format gear... I bought mine because it was ridiculously cheap. It's hardly comfortable (a cumbersome box with shutter release in the worst place ever), heavy (all of my 35mm gear - Olympus OM-4 with 50, 28 and 135 mm lenses, 90 degree viewfinder and a teleconverter weigh less than my Bronica ETR with only a single lens) and expensive to use (34 cents per 120 format frame as opposed to 18 cents per 35 mm), not to mention scanning cost. And yet there's something about the way the final results look. Every time I decide to sell my MF, something is holding me back.
  10. paul ron

    paul ron NYC

    and that says it all. once upon a time just a new mf lens ran thousand$ but today... a lousey $100 will get you pro quality. many people just toss broken equipment away because repairs cost more than a replacemet.... thank you digital.

    btw, ill take your broken rb stuff? :eek:
  11. I hope it won't come to that at least for a couple years :D
  12. When I was building my RB system, I was in the local(used) camera shop and came across a 150mm C SF. I don't know how I'd previously missed it, but it was buried way back in the display case. In any case, I picked it up and promptly set it back down when I saw the $750 price tag on it.

    I couldn't help it, though-I asked the owner if people would really pay that much for that particular lens. His response was that 15 years ago, they would "and I didn't know I had one, so it's probably been in there at least that long."

    I asked what today's price was, and he said $150...so I bought the lens. BTW, I didn't get all three diffusion disks, but did get two.

    Another day at the same shop netted a 127mm pre-C, Pro-S body, metered prism(have yet to use the 2lb thing), and a 645 Pro-SD back for $200. The body and prism were shoved in a cabinet and forgotten about even though both worked fine.
  13. And here I am trying to find a tube under 40$ and a grip under 30... Because I paid 70$ for my 645 and I don't want accessories to cost me more than the system itself :rolleyes:
  14. In all honesty, I've found that often times you can do better on that kind of stuff if you buy a full kit that has pieces you're looking for in it. They usually don't drive up the cost of the kit very much, so you can pull what you want and then resell the rest at little to no loss. Heck, if you stick it on Ebay and present it better than the original seller, you might even make money.

    I paid $1200 for my Hasselblad kit-I bought it from the same camera store I mentioned above. It's all early stuff, but in addition to the 500C body I have a 12 back, an A12, and 50, 80, 150, and 250mm lenses(all chrome). I was glad, though, that it came with a speed grip(although I've yet to use it) and the little clip-on bubble level. I've found the latter to be an extremely useful piece and they run ~$50 when they come up for sale.
  15. I completely agree. My ETR-C cost around 70$ with 120 back and hand crank. Each of those items separately cost around 40$. I was just unlucky to get one without a winder, as for the tube, well, that's not something that every other seller would include in their bundle.
  16. For some strange and unexplained reason, there has been no digital back made for the Pentacon 6TL, to my knowledge.

    I love the cameras ( in fact, all cameras except the Kodak Signet 35) but my researches into early AF cameras has taken me to 35mm film. Also, it's too difficult to get 220 film these days and the 120 rolls are so short.....
  17. It would make the camera "fat", wouldn't it? And if Pentacon six is anything similar to Kiev 6, then it's fat enough already.

    That's why I went for 645. 15 frames on single roll is way better than 12. Well, less weight is also a reason for me.
  18. Get a Pentax 645 and you get 16 :) . If you go to the 645N, you even get autofocus.

    BTW, I've not noticed this so much on other cameras, but my Hasselblad easily leaves room for a 13th frame. I guess maybe it's just too close for a lot of them.
  19. Just as much as Pentax 67 is beautiful and elegant (sans wooden handle from Browning machine gun), is Pentax 645 utterly hideous. And costs more than Bronica or Mamiya 645 machines as well. Low "entry fee" is a main reason that I've found appealing when I made a step towards the abyss of hundredtwenty ;)
  20. The 645 certainly isn't going to win any beauty contests, but it's nice, compact, and reasonably automated for a medium format camera. To me, its biggest downsides are that it doesn't have interchangeable backs(only inserts) and you are stuck with the(dim) prism. Still, those are sacrifices made in the name of it being compact.

    I say that with the caveat that I've only run one roll through mine. I'm more of a 6x6 and 6x7 guy.

    BTW, I paid $250 for mine with a 75mm lens. I just sold an ETRS with a 75mm, one back, and a prism for $175.

Share This Page