MF Posts! Why so few?

[LenMarriott]

I haven't done a scientific study and I realize there are a smaller

proportion of photographers using Medium Format but 90% of the times

that I go to check out the portfolio of a MF user I see "0 posts".

I'm thinking it's because it's harder to scan MF than 35mm. Anyone

else wonder about this? Best, Len Marriott.

[carl smith]

Because they're busier shooting and not coming here to upload their photo to try to argue that Canon or Nikon are better. :)

 

I suspect there may be some issues in the time and work spent scanning them in. Also, perhaps they shoot less (well some do) because its more expensive, and slightly more cumbersome. But I would definately agree, the scanners that can handle MF are more expensive. You could be on to something there.

[johnelstad]

The lack of an MF scanner is definitely my excuse. Not that I have a lot of images worth sharing, but if I had any good MF shots, I wouldn't be able to share them with you all. Perhaps in a year or so if/when MF scanners break the $500 barrier we'll see more.

 

It's a pity too, because I think that the average MF photo is better than the average 35mm photo (flame war fodder). Just my two cents.

[edsel_adams]

Medium format equipment sees little of the changes that 35mm does.MF is mostly shot by pros and they dont buy cameras when a new model comes out!Most MF users are beyond the photo 101 questions asked in the other forums.You are correct about scanning.Decent 35mm film scannners cost $1000,MF scanners cost $5000-10,000 for a good one!

[scott_eaton]

I've worked with drum scanners costing more than $100,00 and you'd be stunned with what a $500 Epson 2450 can do with 120 film.

[gauthier]

Perhaps I'm a bit naive, but don't you guys have some prints you could scan? It won't be as absolutely sharp as a negative or chrome scan, but it should tell a bit about your photographic vision in MF.

 

By the way, I'm new on this forum. I just bought a 70-year old Zeiss Ikon, which is probably a *bad* way to begin in MF, but it looks fun and I don't have the money to spare for a Hasselblad anyway. At least the Tessar lens should give decent results.

[Spearhead]

I think some people like talking more than photographing. It seems to be a characteristic on this forum. When you ask about someone's pix, there's always a million excuses.<p>

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/cello.jpg"><br>

<i>Cello, Mexico, Mamiya 7 with 43mm, Copyright 2001 Jeff Spirer</i>

</center>

[Spearhead]

I might add that I'm not as enamored as Scott with the Epson scanners, but that was scanned with a sub-$3K scanner and I'm selling prints from scans I make with it.

[andrew_schank]

I have some images posted, and I think a few are from my medium format cameras. I use medium format for mostly for larger group portraits (does anyone really want to see those?), family, and landscapes. I do not have a quality medium format scanner for scanning transparancies, and the flat bed scans of the crappy 4 X 6 proofs I get of my color negatives do not do justice to the images at all. I tried to scan a few proofs of my best lanscapes to post, and they looked like they were taken with a disposable camera compared to the custom enlargements I have from the same negs.

[s_mccutcheon]

Perhaps more MF camera owners need to get cats. That way they can emulate many other posters and ask for critiques of an endless stream of mundane photos of their cat sitting on the window sill, on the couch, on the tv . . . . and we can all say "Oh my, isn't it cute."

[dave_bazzel1]

Don't have a MF scanner? No excuss -- Many local photo shops will do it for you for pocket change.

[scott_eaton]

<center><img src="http://www.mindspring.com/~wseaton/pictures/water1.jpg"><br><i>Can't you guys take pictures of things that move??</a></i></center>

 

Jeff,<P>

 

Not sure what scanner you are referring to, but nothing I've seen at 7x-8x the price is the worth the price of admission compared to the Epsons, and this includes Minolta.

[mark_crame1]

Scott,

 

How much of an improvement is the 2450 over the 1640 in real terms? I'm scanning Velvia 6x9's at 1600 dpi (at 100%) and really pleased with the resulting prints (off a digital minilab, 12"x8" and 12" x 18", and they are sharper and better than off the 35mm negs that normally go through). As yet I haven't seen the 2450 in the UK.

 

Thanks,

 

Mark.

 

(p.s. I have a couple of MF scans in my folder somewhere)

[peter_olsson]

I just have to ask Scott Eaton if this picture was intended as a self-portrait, with the aid of self-timer, and you just happened to take one step too much backwards?

 

Anyway, nice picture!

[mediumformat]

Having a decent scanner makes a huge difference, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with scanning prints on a flatbed to show on photo.net. How much resolution do you really need for an internet jpeg that you won't print from?

 

I'm about to buy the Epson 2450 also, and I'm really looking forward to the Firewire connection to my Sony pc (512MB RAM). I'll definitely be taking out my slides and scanning favorites over the holidays.

 

In my experience, my local pro shop, who supplies the Washington Post and much of the DC media with top notch rental equipment (500mm telephoto lenses, Hassy, Bronica, Mamiya, etc...), does a poor job of medium format scans. I guess there is just not enough demand here to justify the equipment, even though the store sells the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi (which does medium format). Jeffery Goggin's portfolio here shows the quality of the Minolta, but it's too expensive for me.

 

R.J.

[Spearhead]

<center>

<img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/aerolitoral.jpg"><br>

<i>Scott, was this moving fast enought for you?, Copyright 2001 Jeff Spirer</i><p>

 

</center>

 

I'm using a Sprintscan 120.

[Spearhead]

Whoops, that was scanned on a 1640, which gave me that banding you see in the sky area.

[david_daniel]

An expensive scanner is NOT needed to scan MF images to post on the web. Since monitors cannot resolve higher than 72dpi, the simplest flat bed with a transparency adapter will work. Now, if you want to make quality prints, thats a whole other matter. But scanning images to be seen on a monitor, easy.

[LenMarriott]

Summary of Reasons for Few MF posts:

 

-Takes extra time & effort to scan MF. (so show less but show something)

-MF photographers shoot less. (as above)

-MF scanners cost more. (scan prints)

-MF quality higher than 35mm. (show us)

-MF shooters more advanced than 35mm shooters.(show us)

-People like to talk about photography more than to photograph.(Busted!)

-Scans from small prints suck.(The content will show, no one expects high quality from print scan)

-David Daniel argues that for the screen there is no excuse.

 

My own views are that MF does little to improve the image quality other than that inherent in the larger negative or transparencey. It could be argued that the extra weight of most MF equipment requires more use of the tripod & therefore a more disipined approach is taken in photographing. Still, a great (mediocre) shot in 35mm will be a great (mediocre) shot in MF. The only difference is in the image quality once it gets beyond a certain size (8 x 10 for instance) I only asked this question because I often went looking for samples of work of those MF users that seemed to know what they were talking about & found very little posted. It's been enlightening, thanks to all. Best, LM.

[mike dixon]

I have photos posted all over the place, but I don't post here that often since my medium format setup is essentially complete, and I have no interest in "upgrading."<p>

<img src="http://mikedixonphotography.com/natbw03.jpg">

[mediumformat]

Len said: "My own views are that MF does little to improve the image quality other than that inherent in the larger negative or transparencey."

 

I have to disagree Len. I don't think the quality difference can be seen at all in a jpeg on the web, but I think there's a huge difference in terms of quality compared to 35mm, even at samll print sizes. At 8x10 and above, the differences are dramatic in sharpness, detail, tonality, etc.

 

If the size of the transparency did not make such a difference, we could all use the APS format (God help us). I think once you get used to looking at MF prints or slides, you will quickly find 35mm lacking in comparison.

 

That's not to say that 35mm isn't important for many applications. But for me personally, after using MF cameras for one year, I doubt I'll ever use 35mm again. I'm sure many others feel the same way once they got into large format photography. I guess it all depends on your needs, style, and expected results.

[LenMarriott]

Mike Dixon, surely you're referring to equipment upgrades & not visual upgrades? The quality of one's vision is what I was referring to & I'm sure we're all wanting to improve that. If you don't have it a larger format won't help. You just end up with larger poor images. The original question was 'Why so few MF posts?' We all just got off track a bit. Best, LM.

[johnelstad]

I was intrigued by Scott's comments regarding the Epson 2450 and found a review of the scanner's slide and negative-scanning ability elsewhere on the web. The results seem to back up Scott's claims that a good sub-$500 MF scanner exists. Here's the link:

 

http://www.virtualtraveller.org/epson2450p2.htm

 

Regarding the feasibility of paying a lab for MF scans (as someone suggested), my local lab (Custom Process in Berkeley, CA) charges $10 for one <=4.5MB MF scan--hardly a cost-effective solution. I think the cheap solution would be to simply scan $0.60 test prints on a flatbed scanner.

[audidudi]

Before I spent the bucks for a Minolta Scan-Multi earlier this year, I rented one several times first from a local camera store. The rate is $50/day or $75/weekend and I was usuallly able to do enough to get the cost down to $1.50 or so each, which seemed reasonable enough. In the end, though, I finally decided to buy one for the convenience of being able to use it whenever I want -- a lot of my digital darkroom work is done late at night, after the rest of the family has gone to sleep -- and on short notice.

 

Although this scanner's technology is outdated these days, with a very careful workflow and using Vuescan instead of the Minolta software, it can nevertheless scan images with enough resolution to print well on a cost-effective printer (in my case, an Epson 1270). I've yet to see a scan from the Epson 2540 but compared to the 1640, the Scan-Multi wins hands-down, even after allowing for the price differential.

[mark_hubbard]

I don't actually USE my medium format cameras. Running film through them could make them dusty. I'd much rather discuss enhanced tonality and look at chromes I took 30 years ago than go outside and try to find a subject to photograph today. Additionally, I don't like any of the pictures I've taken since 1970, so I certainly wouldn't share them with anyone. However, just carrying a medium format camera has a certain cache, even if it's not loaded. It's a bit like being able to pull a French horn out of your handbag after dinner in a fancy restaurant. Whether you can play or not isn't very important at that point.

 

And, despite the suggestion above, I ONLY use my medium format equipment to photograph my cat, on the rare occasion that I have a roll of 120 in the refer. And he is MUCH cuter in medium format than he is in 35mm. In fact, in 35mm, he looks a bit cheesy.

 

MH