Medium Format: The cost of processing.

[amarkin]

I have an opportunity to pickup film medium format camera. I am curious about

the cost involved in getting images in digital format. The cost of good quality

film plus precessing it and scanning it in a Photo Lab.

 

Any comments will be very much welcomed.

 

Thanks

[johnw436]

The cost of processing varies and if you shop around it really is not bad. You will discover that you shoot much fewer pictures with medium format.

 

For non-critical images I send the film off at Walmart. They charge $1.80 per roll for color and about $3 for black and white. Slides are about the same. You are looking at a ten-day turnaround from Walmart. (They send the film to Fuji.)

 

For anything critical (i.e. paying customers) I send the film to a pro lab and that runs about $8.

 

Scanning prices will vary on what kind of scan you want. The pro lab I use will scan my negatives for $5 a roll if I order the scan at the same time as developement. Those are fairly low-res, but in MF that means I can print a decent 8x10. The next step up in scanning costs me $5 per frame for a 39Megapixel image from which I have made 20x30 prints that look acceptable depending on subject matter. For $10 per frame I can get a 150Mb scan that will produce a sharper image at poster size.

 

For $78 I picked up an Epson 3170 flatbed refurbished model that does fine for anything I want around the house and for the web. Opinions vary on flatbeds. My personal opinion is scanning technique is equally responsible for image quality as the scanner. If I want a scan to produce a high quality image I can buy a lot of $7 scans for cost of my own dedicated film scanner.

 

I would also add that if your main goal is to get to a digital workflow you're probably better off beginning with a digital capture. Medium Format to me is awesome, but it's a very deliberate workflow. I enjoy the process. If the end result is all that mattered I'd shoot digital for the convenience. If ultimate quality is what mattered I'd shoot Large Format. I like MF because it gives me all the quality I need, is handholdable, and the prints blow me away. I really don't care about the digital result except when I scan for large prints. As I said, I let a pro do that for $7.

[amarkin]

John, Thanks for lengthy answers. I am not a pro photographer. I like the pictures

captured by MF cameras, so there's an oportunity for me to pick up MF camera,

I thought I may buy it to experiment, if I don't like it, I could always sell it later.

 

The only concern for me here is how am I going to pay to buy and process quality film. Getting cheap, used flat bed scanner could one option. If it's $5 for 36 exposures plus $3 to develop it -- that's acceptable.

[harvey_trautenberg1]

Not many of us get 36 exp on 120 film. The usual number is between 8 and 16 depending on the format. 36 exposure is what one gets from long roll 35mm.

[j_m32]

Alex,

 

if you plan on shooting medium format on a regular basis I think a flatbed is the best choice. I have an Epson 4990 and am very happy with the results. Of course, it would be much more convenient to have the lab scan them but after a while this can get quite expensive.

 

I don't fully agree with John on the digital workflow argument. A lot of (if not most) people that use film nowadays have a digital workflow. This is no reason for not using film. If you like the look of mf film, go for it. A perfectly exposed 6x6 slide is something beautiful to look at!

[Ed_Ingold]

You can get an used medium format kit relatively cheaply these days, due to the glut on the market. With medium format, you can get results comparable to or even better than the high-end Nikon and Canon DSLRs. This comes, however, at a price.

 

On the average, your material costs for medium format will be about three times that of 35mm. You get 1/3rd the images on a roll, and often have trouble finding a place to process it.

 

Scans you get from a minilab are not that good. Mine produces 2000x2000 pixel scans from 6x6cm film, greatly compressed, oversaturated and full of JPEG artifacts. These scans are good for 6x6 inches and little else. You get a little better quality from a good flatbed scanner like an Epson V750, but still no cigar. To make medium format worth while, IMO, you need a dedicated film scanner like a Nikon LS-8000 or the newer LS-9000, which will give you grain-sharp, 8500x8500 pixel scans, good for a 24x24 inch enlargement without resampling. You could print them yourself, or send the files to any minilab that has a large format inkjet.

 

If your largest print is going to be 8x10 or even 11x14, don't waste time and money on medium format. Get a DSLR and be done with film.

[studor13]

I don't often disagree with Edward, but on one point I must. Medium Format is not just about the print size. For me it is just pure joy to spend a few hours with a 500CM. What I've learned using "Victor" flows onto my digital knowledge and in time I hope that I will have an edge on those who only shoot digital.

 

So, don't even think twice about getting a Medium Format camera if one comes your way.

[amarkin]

I am using DSLR and modern fast AF lenses. As well as cool applications on a computer when and if needed. I like the pictures of 6x6 format which I found on flickr and pbase. After, evaluating the cost of getting quality image in digital form from 6x6 film. I think it's expensive; I'd probably give it a miss.

[tarashnat]

Alex,

 

Medium Format gives you 12 exposures per roll of 120 film (220 film gives you 24, but

film choice is less) if you are shooting 6x6 (square) format. 645 gives 16 (or 32)

exposures. Processing costs are usually about the same for a roll of 120 film as a 36 exp

roll of 35mm film, as they are about the same amount of film area, so they use about the

same amount of consumables (chemicals) for each as a 6x6 frame is about 3 times the

area of a 35mm frame.

 

One thing one finds with MF is that one is more deliberate in ones technique, and each

frame is composed more carefully (your milage may vary though), so one usually shoots

fewer exposures, but one usually has more "keepers" than with 35mm cameras.

 

Taras

[j_m32]

Alex,

 

I think you should at least try medium format to see if you like it. I can't agree with Edward on the quality issue. You can get very good quality from flatbed scanners.

I can't agree with Edward on the quality issue. I get a 150mb file from a scanned color 6x6 frame with my Epson 4990 and I'm more than happy with the prints and on screen quality. Would a dedicated scanner be better? Probably, but then again, a real drum scan would probably beat the result of the dedicated film scanner.

The thing is that you don't need the absolute best resolution possible for every single frame you shoot. If you want to do really big enlargements you can still get a lab scan for a specific photo and have them print it professionally.

 

Also, Taras is right when he says that with medium format you shoot less frames but get more keepers. A lot of it has to do with the groundglass view. If it looks bad on the groundglass there's not much sense in pressing the shutter.

 

Besides...if all you currently use is a dSLR autofocus body you might like to shoot with a fully mechanical camera every once in a while. It makes photographing much more fun (IMHO).

[Ed_Ingold]

Andy,

 

I'm with you on the pleasure of using such a precision piece of equipment as the Hasselblad. I'm not going to dump them in the foreseeable future. I also agree with Jean Avila that you can be satisfied with results from medium format film and a 4990 scanner. However, even with an LS-8000 scanner and a glass holder, medium format is not noticeably better than a D2x - at any print size. It's not the camera, it's the film.

 

A drum scan has better depth for scanning transparencies than the LS-8000, but does not yield significantly more detail. What you get at higher resolution is sharper grain. Consequently, many drum scans are done at about 3000 ppi on reversal film. You can see some drum scan comparisons at http://www.luminous-landscape.com

[scott_kinkade]

Alex...

 

I have to throw this out, just on general principle: you could shoot black and white and process the film yourself. The gear and chemicals for a couple dozen rolls would cost you around $50.