The decision to move forward or not with MF format? Opinions?

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Same here Jack. I pulled out my Mamiya RB67 for some group shots at a wedding. The looks were incredible. "What kind of camera is THAT?" They were amazed. Setting up in parks, etc, with my 4x5 gear, people are amazed. What started me adding some film back into the wedding and portraiture was a couple who asked if they could have a few pics done in studio with the camera they saw in the corner (my Shen Hao 4x5). I agreed and fired off a half dozen sheets. One of those of themeselves and two kids was printed at 24x30 for the top of a stairwell. No grain, beautiful tonality and color, and remarkable rez. Compared to the digital shots (1Ds Mk2) it was night and day.</p>

<p>After that, I began showing more B&W film prints to couples. They loved the retro yet natural look. I started shooting a couple of rolls of B&W (Ilford HP5, souped up to 800iso in HC100 Dil B) with my Bessa R2a rangefinder at every wedding. That coupled with the odd shots with my Mamiya....well, people felt they were getting something different than "Every Joe Photographer" with their DSLR. You know what.....I agree with them....I think they were getting something different....and better!</p>

[mark_satola1]

<p>Recently acquired an XSi and a Bronica RF645. Guess which one feels better. Yup, the MF rangefinder. The DSLR is easier to use in a variety of situations, but I find I'm setting it to aperture priority just to control DOF and firing away like it was a point-and-shoot. In fact, I was more "conscious" using my old P&S Canon, a PowerShot A510, which I left on "manual" all the time.</p>

<p>Looking through all the pictures I've taken in the last 6 years I find that the ones I like best have all been taken with old film cameras: Canon FTb, Zeiss Contaflex, Yashica Electro 35, Mamiya C330S, Rapid-Omega 200, the aforementioned Bronica. Digital cameras seem to create a different mindset (in me, at least) that does not produce the best images. Still, it can be hugely convenient. I just don't always trust myself with digital.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>If you intend to do b&w white work and make your own prints then you will have a lot of fun with MF equipment. I will want to buy some of the new Ektar 100 in 120 size as soon as it comes out but color photography with MF equipment is very expensive. If you shoot color print film and have negatives and prints made or if you shoot slide film and then have prints made from scans there is a substantial cost. You could shoot color print film and scan it yourself. This can also run into money. By scanning film with flatbed scanner and transparency adapter you would get results which would not look any better than 35mm film scanned with a dedicated scanner. You could get a dedicated MF scanner but that would cost a lot more. If not for these problems I think more amateur photographers would shoot color MF film. The equipment sells for very little now but the cost of using it has only gone up. </p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Just go digital, you won't look back.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Ian, I think if you actually read this thread.....most of us went digital, only to be drawn back to film use. I'll let you figure out why.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>If you intend to do b&w white work and make your own prints then you will have a lot of fun with MF equipment. I will want to buy some of the new Ektar 100 in 120 size as soon as it comes out but color photography with MF equipment is very expensive. If you shoot color print film and have negatives and prints made or if you shoot slide film and then have prints made from scans there is a substantial cost. You could shoot color print film and scan it yourself.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You could make your own colour prints on an enlarger too and eliminate the scanner which is the weak link in a negative - scan - print process.</p>

[doug elick]

<p>I've never really considered doing my own color prints. I'd probably have to upgrade my enlarger and certainly would have to invest in equipment for the color work-flow. I used to take my color film to a little shop down the street from my house that catered to wedding and portrait photogs; they sold no equipment, they just did processing. Since I was an amateur but someone who'd hang around and talk (The Noritsu they bought used was the very machine I operated when I had a job at a processing shop. Small world) , they often worked with me on pricing, did simple retouch "pro-bono" and were generally helpful folks. They retired and passed the business on to their kids who promptly changed the place to a digital shop. I just noticed a couple weeks ago there's a realtor's sign outside their building.....<br>

I'd like to try color print again (Ektar), but short of mail order processing, I couldn't tell you who could do a good job processing MF in this town anymore.<br>

An RB with Ektar 100 loaded would be a potent system, wouldn't it?<br>

Doug</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>An RB with Ektar 100 loaded would be a potent system, wouldn't it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think so. As soon as I get some 120 Ektar it's going in my RB!</p>

[steve_mareno]

<p>I can understand your concerns. I have them myself. But since you and I shoot B&W is there any choice? I'm on the way to moving from a digital printing workflow for my film work to a home darkroom, so you know where my head is at. Truly, if digital could give me the look of a darkroom print I would go that route. But it doesn't and it isn't even close. Nor should it be. Two different mediums and two different looks. I shoot Tri-X mostly. If it went away tomorrow I would be ok w/ Ilford FP4 and if it went away I could probably find something else. This is something Ansel Adams was continually complaining about but he kept on shooting and making adjustments. It worked out pretty well I'd say. The wear and tear on old cameras is something that concerns me more. I have come to terms w/ that by shooting mostly old folders that I can actually fix (mostly) myself. No meter, patchable bellows, easily cleaned shutter. There just isn't much to go wrong.</p>

<p>I think it comes down to using whatever you need to use to get the photos that you like. Putting this Beseler 45Xl together in my bathroom is a huge hassle. Learning the ways and means of wet printing is going to be a big challenge and more hassle. Our local college doesn't even have darkroom classes so I'll have to figure it out on my own. But the first successful print that comes out of my darkroom/bathroom is going to make me feel like a photographer. Right now I am mostly an image maker that's tied to a computer monitor for ever increasing lengths of time.</p>

<p>Shooting 5x7 and doing contact prints has a lot going for it too.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Putting this Beseler 45Xl together in my bathroom is a huge hassle.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can always take it apart and post it to me!</p>

[doug elick]

<p>I was bad, stricken with gearhead syndrome. I have a complete RB67 w/90mm on the way; the price was too good to pass up. If I really enjoy it, I might acquire a few lenses and then maybe sell off my C330 kit; that's a tough decision. I'll always have the Rolliecord as a nice, light MF TLR though.<br>

I was all set to develop that roll of film last night, but for the life of me, I couldn't find the box containing my chemical concentrates. I found my jugs still containing working strength chems, but somehow I don't think I want to rely on 2 yr. old fixer.<br>

Doug</p>

 

[jack_welsh]

<p>Ian,I bought a digital several years ago. A $300.00 P&S. At first, the software wouldn't do a complete install. Sat for over a year. Then, when I did get it installed, the plastic on-off switch broke after about 3 dozen times. Never again!</p>

[ed_lutz]

<p>Doug, your going to love that RB man! I just got into MF myself by buying an RB system and it just blows me away. I've been a 35mm guy for many years and lusted after this excellent pro level MF gear but couldnt afford it. Now I have the RB and 5 lenses for a song. Life is good, enjoy it. I dont think film will dissapear any time soon and considering the cost of this fine equipment, what the heck! Buy what you like and have some fun.<br>

On that note I'm considering a Pentax 645N system too...</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<p><em>"On that note I'm considering a Pentax 645N system too..."</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Don't.<br>

Stick to a single system, and you'll be much happier.</p>

[doug elick]

<p>Just get a 645 back for the RB if you really want that format. But what's the point? Personally, I don't think 645 is a big enough leap over a good 35mm system to justify the slower lenses and semi-cumbersome camera. If you're going to deal with roll film, get the biggest (&*%! negative you can manage!<br>

Doug</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Douglas, what would you recommend for 6x9?</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Jack, you are basing your entire "digital is bad" argument on the basis of a crap P&S?<br>

I bought a Brownie. Photos were terrible. Film sucks.</p>

[akajohndoe]

A few years back, knowing full well that digital was going to eclipse film in 35mm, I bought into the Mamiya RZ 67 system. Amazing. I take only slide film. Wow. Not only are the results fantanstic, but it slows me down, makes me purposeful, allows me to savor every moment. And do not even get me started on the tactile gadget aspects of this camera!

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I was bad, stricken with gearhead syndrome. I have a complete RB67 w/90mm on the way; the price was too good to pass up.</p>

<p>I'll always have the Rolliecord as a nice, light MF TLR though.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have an RB and a Rolleicord too. As you say, nice and light. I don't bother with a camera bag for this one. Just put some film in one pocket and a lightmeter in another and I can walk for miles with it.</p>

<p>I do walk for miles with the RB too but I know which one is easier!</p>

[doug elick]

<blockquote>

<p>"Douglas, what would you recommend for 6x9?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can't recommend any 6x9 per se, because I've never used nor seriously considered one. I think Agfa made one, you can get roll film backs for view cameras, I think the Mamiya press did 6x9 and I've read plenty of positive buzz about the Fuji GSW690 series. However I said "get the biggest negative <strong>you can deal with"</strong> . In my case, going anything larger than 6x7 would necessitate hunting down a the right carrier for my ancient B8 or finding a new enlarger.<br /> If I need to go any larger, I think I'd consider a 5x7 view camera and enlarger to suit it. Maybe I will some day, but I think I'll get quite a bit of mileage out of the RB67 and my other MF gear. I should be able to enlarge 100 ASA b&w, 6x7 shots to levels higher than my capacity do deal with large paper (it starts becoming prohibitive beyond 11x14 and I'd have to reverse my enlarger and use the floor as an easel) or conversely, have a lot of room to crop, etc.<br /> I have an 11x14 color photo on my wall that was printed from a cropped 6x6 Portra 400 negative (taken with the Rolleicord). From a couple feet away, it looks grainless. The same shot with the 6x7 and Ektar 100 should be ridiculously sharp, quite usable up to poster size. A slow speed B&W film print from 6x7 should look milky smooth at any magnification factor I'm able to produce.</p>

<p> </p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Thanks Douglas. 5x7 is sweet....but I'll stick with 4x5. I've already got too many formats to choose from. ;-)</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>Ian, I'm not basing my no more digital on that one P&S. As, I know you are not basing your no more film cameras on a camera that was probably 40 years old minimum. But, I can buy a used MF camera for the same price (or less) than that P&S. Have it lasts for years, even decades. (Have several World War 1 cameras still working.) It would costs thousands to buy a digital that would equal medium format. The common belief is that when they compare digital to film. They are refering to 35.<br />About buying more than one film format. 6x7 and/or 645. Buying one doesmake it possible to buy more equipment of that model. In my case, I have a Mamiya TLR, Mamiya Universal and a RB67 with at least 2 lens of each, and 3 film backs with the last 2. So, I don't have just one lens and back of any of them. So, to have a larger than 35, but shoot like a 35 camera. I bought a Mamiya 645 Pro. Use each for different situations. The RB is better than the 645 on a tripod But, have used it handheld. The 645 better handheld. Using the 645 on a tripod in vertical mode, is like using a 35 the same way.<br />But, that decision depends on the individual.<br />Oh, yes. Bought a 4x5 monorail for almost $100.00 less than that $300.00 P&S.</p>

[dennismcarbo]

<p>Ian - Dont you think "film sucks" is a bit harsh ? I mean you used a Brownie....try a rollei 6008i and tell me film sucks...its like me using a Sony Maciva with a Floppy disk and saying Digital Sucks<br>

Anyway....Bad technique/ Sloppy shooting both Film AND Digital suck !</p>

<p>I think they both have uses and always will</p>

 

[dan_n1]

<p>One more vote for film MF or even 4x5. When my film gear was stolen I though that I won't coming back to film (at work I use DSLR day in day out), but I was not sure, so I keep my darkroom...Not long ago I picked up a full 6x6 gear and 2 Sinar 4x5 one for studio and one for the field (price are too good to resist)....<br>

good luck and let us know how much fun you have....</p>

[PatrickMP]

<p>Shoot with whatever you're comfortable with, and whatever currently suits your creative drive. Like you, I haven't picked up a camera in years, other than some occasional sport stuff for the teams I am on. My medium format gear? Haven't used it in about 7 years except to shoot a few frames off so that the shutters don't stick (Mamiya RB). I've recently started to take an interest again however, and I've just purchased a Bronica SQ.<br>

To Q.G. de Bakker's comment, I don't agree on sticking with a single system. You shoot as the situation demands. I wouldn't dream of bringing my RB to a sports event, that is more 35mm territory if I can get away with it. If I'm shooting for myself, I'd rather take my EOS-3 (built like a tank), but if people are expecting high-turnover images I bring the 10D. Either way, it's not a medium format system. On the flipside, if I am doing a walkaround, I'd rather take a medium format. There is something more magical in staring into a giant ground glass than into a tiny viewfinder on a 35mm/DSLR body.<br>

The creative need comes and goes, as you've discovered. Only when I was coaxed into going on a trip to Cuba did I consider bringing something other than my P&S, and then I remembered the joy of shooting the square format with a Mamiya C220 TLR years ago in school. That camera is long gone, and the RB, with its 6x7 negative, just isn't the same psychologically as a square when composing. This mindset is what prompted me to buy a Bronica SQ (I still can't afford a Hassleblad).<br>

A lot of comments in this thread have said that people will go back to film if switching to digital, and for very valid reasons. However, I stand by my comment: <em>shoot in what format/medium makes sense at that time!</em> As Yuri Huta said: follow your heart. You can't go wrong if you follow your gut. You might end up (like me) with 4 or 5 complete systems! But each one "has its place" for whatever image you feel like capturing!</p>