Medium format bounce?

[marke_gilbert]

This is NOT a digital vs film thread.

 

<P>Just wondering if anyone else is noticing this...

<P> I caved in earlier this year and bought a 10D, and I have also

been making larger and larger prints, so I got a Hasselblad and a

refurb Nikon LS-8000. Through some astonishing deals I found, Ive

managed to put together a very complete Hasselblad system, really on

the cheap.

<P> Ive found that the 10D now just sits.

<P> Based on a few responses to an earlier thread, I thought Id ask,

is anyone else noticing, or anticipating a bounce in medium format

usage? I know, not necessarily with high volume pros, but with

artists and hobbyists? After trying digital, I really like it, but

it just isnt quite what I want more often than not.

<P> Just wondering who else has experienced this....

[valleye]

Going digital actually was the impetus for me to get a medium format camera. I am doing it for the art.

 

I really like the look of the chromes. I still shoot digital for eerything I get paid to shoot but often shoot with my Bronica's for myself.

 

-Em

[roger_shrader]

I skipped the 35mm film to 35mm digital move and went into MF about a year and a half ago. As a hobbyist, I am thoroughly enjoying the slower more contemplative style of shooting that MF photography promotes and, even at times, necessitates (I am using a Hasselblad system as well). Even when shooting 35mm, I find myself wanting to use a handheld meter. Not only because it makes me rethink what I am getting ready to shoot, but because the exposures are consitently more accurate than my EOS 3 ever produced (reflective vs. incedental metering). I guess what I am trying to say is this: digital or not, I have found that shooting with high-end AF/AE 35mm gear, be it film or digital, is a much different experience then shooting with an all manual, meterless MF system.

[kevin_hundsnurscher]

Personally, I've noticed that working with MF cameras tends to make me want to slow down a bit and take my time composing the shot. Especially with a waist level viewfinder.<br>

When it costs me 5 minutes per frame to make scans and at $3.50 per roll, I make sure to get worthwile shots, whereas with a 10D, I shoot like crazy and edit out the crap shots because I know it doesn't cost any money for the extra exposures.

[eric friedemann]

No, new medium format camera sales are off industry-wide. Though, as you note there are some sweet deals to be had on used MF stuff that is being dumped by pros and prosumers who are going digital.

 

Despite some issues with my LS-8000 scanner, if I know I'm going to print 11x14 or larger, I'll shoot Mamiya 7IIs and scan. It is more time-consuming, but I'm pretty selective in what I print anyway.

 

I use D100s for work I need more quickly and enjoy the immediacy of using the cameras. But the 6MP resolution leaves something to be desired when making bigger prints. Also, the D100s are indifferently-built and are not pleasant to shoot (e.g tiny, crappy viewfinder image and whiny AF).

[brian_keller]

I completely agree. I'm a hobbyist photographer. I have a Hasselblad 500 c/m and I love it. Printed black and white images are so nice with this camera. The tonality in skin and the detail in general -- Stunning camera for nice prints.

[FranzWeber]

I often think, that digital is nothing more than ex and hop.

[eric friedemann]

I'm pretty familiar with English; what are "ex and hop"?

[ranong]

well i moved to MF last year. not because i went digital but because i can now afford the equipment (and i can not afford the digital equip. well! not the ones i would want). the images are awesome. and i have a great time composing and shooting with my RB. i do own a PS digital ust to make friends with people when i am traveling the globe. the children love to see thenselves and watch the movies. and my friends love to see small uploaded images. but for my real pictures i use my trusty RB.

 

eddie

[andre_noble4]

Eric, I couldn't find it in dictionary.com, but a Google search turned up quote this from a site:

 

"A lack of commitment towards the cultivation of artists, and in general the ex and hop mentality geared to quarterly figures with which "content" is thrown onto the market, has led to a massive and lasting image loss in the music business on the consumer side."

 

Hope this helps.

[bas1]

With the recent falling of MF gear prices Hasselblad gear is now within reach of a lot more

serous amateurs then ever before. If your shooting volume is not extremely high it is

cheaper to buy MF then Digital and you get better prints, especially in B/W, then with

digital in return. With more and more people in digital and more and more people lacking

PS skills and restraint in retouching images like the oversmoothing of skin, oversaturation

etc, I expect more serious amateurs to develop a need to distinguish themselves from that

movement. So I feel your statement has some truth to it.

[mdanger]

I have been shooting MF since '82 and have to give it up because the weight and bulk of equip. especially combined with large flash and battery pack, have contributed to back surgery and arthritis. I'm going kicking and screaming back to a lightweight 35mm...oh, i got a Holga (they're plastic) so my 120 reels won't go to waste.

[claudia__]

yes the falling prices of MF film cameras is really great for those of us who couldn't afford quality ones before. in the long run, if you do commercial work and have to please clients digital is the way to go, but if you want to do something more "arty" this is a great time to scoop up some great tools cheap. i envision film becoming something akin to a litho stone. there will always be a small demand, but always a demand.

[doug_dolde]

I shoot 4x5 for it's high resolution and ability to alter the plane of focus with tilts. And I really enjoy the process and slower pace that it forces. <p>I tried a Nikon D70 for a short while then sold it. The resolution just isn't there especially after shooting large format.

[Spearhead]

<i>"A lack of commitment towards the cultivation of artists, and in general the ex and hop mentality geared to quarterly figures with which "content" is thrown onto the market, has led to a massive and lasting image loss in the music business on the consumer side." </i><p>

 

As someone who has worked on and off with the music industry over the last ten years, I'd say that there are some issues that this addresses, although the "hop" part is bs. On the other hand, this has nothing to do with photography.

[claudia__]

heh, there was one post that has nothing to do with photography and now thanks to jeff there are two. oh well.....thanks for adding to the ot.

[Andrew in Austin]

As a hobbyist, I've pretty much migrated towards medium format. It's a different look than digital or 35mm and I can easily finish a roll or two in one session. My workflow is pretty basic, develop a couple of rolls one night. Print the next and more often than not, reprint a few exposures on a third night.

 

I don't anticipate a medium format bounce. Except for Mamiya, manufacturers have pretty much abandoned the prosumer end of the medium format market. There is Seagull, but.... Anyway, most folks I know are technohogs. They truly love their electronic wonders. Legacy equipment very often gets equated with the Model T Ford, which is probably the reason some of it is let go so cheaply.

 

Time marches forward in this regard. At a wedding I went to recently, the wedding photographer was using a Canon 10D. She was able to shoot 100's of exposures without changing a single roll of film. It wasn't too long ago that I remember wedding photographers with both a medium format and a 35mm SLR.

 

One can only hope that a lot of the legacy equipment goes to good homes where they'll see some use. It may not be a bounce, but may keep film sale from hitting rock bottom.

[jonathan_bundick]

You make a good point in that digital is truly taking the place of 35mm, and when I can get an 10-11 megapixel Canon that takes all my current EOS lens kit for under $1000 it will be time to switch for and eliminate the cost of 35mm film and processing.

 

I skiped MF for the most part, execpt for a few folders and TLR's and moved to 4x5. I don't see a bounce in MF gear due to the digital craze. I hope more folks will try LF and recognize the quality obtainable there.

[francois_gauthier]

At the end of the 90s, the low end medium format (anything a pro would not consider) where even cheaper. Then came some flatbed scanners that made some folks discover these.

 

Now, most pros are switching their high end MF gear to high end DSLRs. The advent of this huge used market is making this equipment more afordable for the advanced hobbyist.

 

I don't perceive it as a MF bounce but a 'transfer' from pro to hobbyist. I too find MF gear more interesting than actual entry level DSLRs, for the artist. It has an 'artisanal' feel (and large format even more) that should make them live some more(i hope).

[stephen hazelton]

In order to have quality color lab services available for LF or MF, you have to have a certain amount of work flowing through a place. So while initially, the shift to digital may free up a lot of gear that would normally be used professionally, you can eventually expect to run into problems finding processing of corresponding quality. Ten years from now, you will find people still shooting MF and LR, but I'll bet 99% of them will be doing their own B&W processing.

[andy m.]

The latest issue of the British Journal of Photography reports the results of a recent professional imaging survey in the U.K.

The Prolabs surveyed are apparently still dependant on film development work as their primary source of income.

 

There is no doubt that digital imaging is a major growth area, but at the moment, film has obviously not been completely superseded for the average pro or serious amateur.