death of medium format

[philippartridge]

<blockquote>"this site seems to be moving towards a "Pop-Photo" type of place where Canon Digital and photoshop is the be all and end all of the photographic world and film is reserved for "nostalgia buffs" or poor people who can't afford Canon digital."</blockquote>

 

<p>The statement referenced above, on the site's front page, is a small but telling gem; it sits just beside the cluster of showy, often overworked (but sometimes quite good) images.</p>

<p>I see a deliberate, intrusive attempt to 'move with the times' in site policy; an embrace of consumer-oriented popular photography, to the neglect of, or occasionally, hostility towards, the broad church of traditional photography and its values. There is narrowing of opinion, and a decrease in tolerance. There are a lot more dilletante posters, more beginners, a lot of gee whiz ps 'image manufacturers', fewer really informative and unemotional threads. An equating of market dominance with quality, legitimacy and, most contentiously, <em>primacy</em>, almost as though photography commenced 4-5 years ago. A drift towards overly feisty verbal exchanges and superficiality has been apparent, corresponding with the departure of a large number of knowledgeable, experienced and expressive members. I am sure many of them dislike the death of 'community', in part a symptom of the general decline of good-natured behaviour on the web. Nothing last forever, fine websites included! There are so many good fora, and much for us all to do in our avocation...regards to all.</p>

[rwbowman]

In today's (11/7/2006) New York Times, there is a photograph of Imelda Marcos during a

fashion shoot in a Manhattan hotel. (She has launched a fashion collection.)

 

The photographer is shown facing Ms. Marcos with his back to the camera.

 

Within his easy reach are two Pentax 6x7 cameras.

[maddalice]

hi philip. i dont understand hardly anything you are talking about but it sounds liek awfully good english. thank you. alice.

[William Kahn]

Have you ever wondered why a post from a (alleged) troll generates more responses than the more mundane, technical posts? Sounds like a good topic for a master's thesis in psychology. Maybe even a government grant.....:-)

[dave_redmann]

Two worthwhile points have just been raised:<P>

 

<I>Comparing equivalent pixels in film to pixels in an image sensor array is also complicated by the fact that most image sensors use a Bayer pattern</I><P>

 

Yes, but there's even a further apples-and-organges issue. Your garden-variety 35mm-form DSLR does use a sensor with a Bayer pattern, and for that reason, Nyquist issues, and perhaps other issues, its real linear resolution is only about 80% of what the pixel count suggests, so its real total resolution is only about 60 - 65% of the pixel count. So in a sense, that "10 MP" DSLR really only resolves about 6 MP worth of detail, using the 50% MTF criterion. But DSLR response does not generally seem to slope off the way film response does. In other words, the DSLR can resolve detail comparatively well, right up to its limit, while film resolves detail progressively less well as the detail gets finer, until we semi-arbitrarily say it is no longer resolving the detail. So I would submit that a good 10 MP scan and a good 10 MP DSLR capture are not so dis-similar in real detail.<P>

 

And of course, let's not get too far into Foveon sensors and the Sigma DSLR's. Suffice it to say that the SD9 and SD 10, which had 3 MP Foveon sensors, which Sigma misleadingly sort-of called 10 MP, actually resolved about 3 MP worth of real detail, and were therefore comparable, resolution-wise, to 5 MP DSLR's with Bayer sensors.<P>

 

<I>So in relation to 645/mega pixel equivalants, you could pick up a Bronica ETRSi for about $250 and get the same or better quality images as from a digital SLR costig thousands of Dollars.</I><P>

 

Again, yes and no. With the DSLR, you can just upload your file to Shutterfly or Mpix or whatever and get good prints cheaply, or edit if you want on the computer, which you probably already have. With medium format film, to really get the quality benefit, you need to either (1) use a pro lab (relatively expensive), (2) have your own darkroom (expensive and difficult for color, somewhat laborious and not really cheap even for B&W), or (3) buy a dedicated medium format film scanner, the cheapest new one being I think the Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 ED at about $1800 (used of course is all over the map). Yes, there are inexpensive flatbeds that can scan film, but then you're not getting full medium format quality. If you accept the real resolution limit of the better Epson flatbeds as about 1600 ppi, a 645 scan gets you at most about 9 MP. And the color accuracy and grain will be appreciably worse than what a decent DSLR can give you.<P>

 

And of course, you can get a very decent 6 MP DSLR for under $500, and a very decent 10 MP DSLR for under $900.

[stephen_steele]

"If you accept the real resolution limit of the better Epson flatbeds as about 1600 ppi, a 645 scan gets you at most about 9 MP"....I told you that there wasn't any consensus on this issue!

 

I think one important point that Ken Rockwell makes is that an images taken with a 6mp camera is always a 6mp image. But an image taken with a film camera will increase its resolution as scanner technology improves. I think this is a very important point.

 

Stephen

[john_wire]

Exposing a piece of 6x6 Astia under an old Tessar and then scanning/printing (using the much maligned/antique Epson 4870/1280 stuff) is revealing. If you haven't tried it don't knock it. Old Kodak Portra 160 VC expands easily to 20x20 or 20x30 prints from the lab. You can waste much time/money chasing pixies. Of course, if you have the need to do it fast and have the "write off" that's great. Regards.<div></div>

[dave_redmann]

<I>"If you accept the real resolution limit of the better Epson flatbeds as about 1600 ppi, a 645 scan gets you at most about 9 MP"....I told you that there wasn't any consensus on this issue!</I><P>

 

I realize there is not complete consensus on what the Epson flatbeds will really do, which is why I prefaced my statement with "If you accept". Nevertheless, the considerable majority who have tested these devices seem to believe that they don't really achieve anything close to their nominal resolutions, irrespective of how many pixels they give you. And of course, resolution isn't everything; Dmax, noise, dust-handling, color fidelity, etc. are also significant issues.<P>

 

<I>[A]n image taken with a film camera will increase its resolution as scanner technology improves.</I><P>

 

That's only partially true. First, there's a relatively absolute limit, depending on the film-and-lens combination. E.g., if the film only resolves 45 lp/mm (Velvia's 50% MTF limit), then it doesn't matter how you scan it, you still only have at most 19 MP of real resolution from a 645 Velvia shot.<P>

 

Second, film scanners aren't likely to improve much in the near future. Professional and serious amateur use of color film (which is what scanners are primarily designed to handle) is declining rapidly, so the market is shrinking. Indeed, we've gone from many models to comparatively few, with very few new models coming out.<P>

 

Third, getting a scan on a top-end scanner is not cheap. I've spent $80 on having a lab do a drum scan of medium format film, but it's not something I'd want to do often. Remember, the premise to which I was responding is that you spend $250 on a used Bronica and beat multi-thousand-dollar DSLR rigs. That's only economic reality if you need a very small number of high-quality pictures; if you shoot in any volume from which you demand reasonably quality, the DSLR will almost certainly come out cheaper (putting aside any issues of 10 MP DSLR versus 645 etc.).

[stephen_steele]

Hi Dave,

 

To be honest I don't have the necessary knowledge to agree or disagree with you. However, I'm beginning to think this issue is pretty fruitless excise. For example, The amount of good or bad technique used in a digital image will also inevitably have an effect on resolution, as indeed will lens and cell types. Therefore, I think its probaby rare for any medium to be pushed to its theoretical limits.

 

The only other thing that I would say, is that the type of person who takes hundreds of snaps with their digital compacts and rarely prints any of them, is going to be very sorry in a few years time, when all their images have been lost.

 

The reason that I've not bought a DSLR yet, is that I take so few pictures, I wouldn't be prepared to accept the financial depreciation involed in buying something similar to my Bronica. Besides, the largest I'll be printing to is 13"X19", which is the limit of my printer. Having said that, I have no doubt that film will be become increasingly a minority interest.

 

Interesting debate thank you.

 

Stephen

[q.g._de_bakker]

Will it be cremated, or will we be standing around on a cold and wet cemetery?<br>Will any of us be taking pictures, or would that be poor taste?

[chromatic-aberration]

Hmmm...

 

This morning I shot a roll of 120 in a 77 year old Voigtlander, a roll of 35mm, and about

fourty shots on my digital. Does this make me a "true" photographer, or an infidel

wannabe. However shall I reconcile this paradox?

 

Am I the only one that finds this endless stream of quasi-religious yammering about the

true nature of photography as profoundly boring?

[stephen_steele]

However, I'm beginning to think this issue is a pretty fruitless excise".....Agreed!!!

[dangoldman]

Didnt everyone thumb their nose at 35mm when it came out? Though im far too young to have experienced that time in history, i have heard about it from my dad, and it seems to me that it seems to be a similar debate as to which is better. Perhaps not quite as extreme though.

 

I for one, having always been a digital photographer, am going to try and pick up my old A-1 (ok, a handme down). This is espicially true because im doing a lot more B&W than i ever did (some is more than none...). And im just a kid.

 

 

Digital and film both have their uses and purposes, so stop whining. Something cant be everything.

[dave_redmann]

I certainly agree that it's profoundly idiotic to argue that people using this or that device (digital, film, 35mm, MF, etc.) to capture images are or aren't 'real photographers'. Vision, composition, understanding light, etc. are fundamentals regardless of what sort of device one uses to capture them. And I certainly agree that there are quite a variety of capture systems that serve some useful purpose, and are perhaps the most useful device, for somebody.

 

But this discussion turned to being about which capture devices have certain capabilities and/or are subject to certain limitations--and that can be an important issue too. Insofar as it is an important issue, IMHO providing accurate information and debunking mis-information are useful functions of photo.net discussions. And the best way to get at the truth is through lively debate with presentation of information, references, and examples, right?

[maddalice]

i love pictures. i will use anything to make them as long as i like what i have done i am very happy. i dont always use a camera i often do a drawing or a painting or pastel so if sometihng new comes out diferent from a camera i will try that too. alice..

[bobbi_chukran]

I have numerous SLRs, point and shoots, an old and a new digital camera, and I started out with an instant Polaroid back in '66. I've been a "computer graphics specialist" and know my way around PhotoShop, etc. It's only been recently, though, that I realized none of those cameras could take photos that really satisfy me. It seems like the more advanced my equipment gets, the more dissatisfied I am with the photos I take.

 

I just discovered this site, and this forum,and am looking into the MF cameras for the first time. So take heart, there are people out there who are just now discovering the alternatives. Thanks for being here! bobbi c.

[Spearhead]

I like Alice's attitude. She seems to be one of the few that is more interested in what you can do than what you can use.

[james_porschen]

I may not like to admit it but I already see a huge difference in quality with my Canon 5d than any shot I can get with film on my Leica M6. With news that Canon will have a 20 plus megapixel camera within a year tells me that 35mm will soon create an equal quality to any medium format film. I do prefer the bigger viewing format that my medium format cameras have but with the price differential I can't believe that the medium format market will last much longer. With in five years a small digital camera will have the resolution of large format. You can't fight progress but it saddens me that all shots today seem to be photoshopped to the extent that it is graphic design on a computer rather than photography. Need proof pick up this months magazine of the two hundred top add photographers and find a picture that hasn't been manipulated to such an extent that a photographer can't tell what is a real shot with slight modifications and a completely new computer image.

[billysyk]

There is a review somewhere in photo.net that sais that MF is beaten by Canon EOS1MarkIID (if I remember correctly). So the question is when LF will be beaten by digital SLR's or anything, and in what time frame by the market "holders". Great discussion! (thanks for the tech ASPC MPix's VS MF)

[arie07]

"I have discovered photography. Now I can kill myself. I have nothing else to learn" Some people say Pablo Picasso said that... others say it was coined by Salvador Dali. In any case must have been about a century ago... did photography replace painting?... are the works of the great masters obsolete? Did painters stop to churn out tousands of beautiful inspiring work since then? NO!!! -- all this talk about the demise of film photography or the oposite - people prophetizing that the digital imagery will be lost because of rapid format and media changes, is nonsense. It is logical to think that neither film or digital will reign alone... what about newer technologies in the making.. will holography replace digital? How will a 45th century museum curator will translate today's digital files into images? Those are the real importand questions.

[chromatic-aberration]

If the problems of media and format can be worked out, which I'm sure they will, digital has the advantage. A digital image is essentially eternal, if properly cared for. The mystical properties of film aside, digital is information that can be exactly and perfectly replicated with ease. The same cannot be said of negatives or photographic prints. Silver based photographers have a responsibility to the future to ensure that they've taken all the appropriate archival measures to make sure that thier work will last as long as possible. Digital camera manufacturers have a responsibility to avoid quirky proprietary formats and forced obsolescence.

 

Film isn't going to go away, but it certainly isn't going to be readily available to the average Joe on the street. After all these centuries, you can still buy oil paints.

 

Relax, drop the quasi-religious definitions of what "real photography" is, and get back to creating photographs. History, will prove us right or wrong, not some smug ramblings on an internet forum.