What's te purpose of medium format without a high end scanner

[jorge_prat]

<p>Hi there. I don't intend to set up a controversy here. Is just that I love medium format and I have shot 120 for more than 10 years, after going digital. But I could not live withouth medium format, so I bought recently a brand new Bronica RF645 that I love. But the thing is, if you don't go the darkroom route, and intend to scan all your film, and of course you can't afford a Nikon or better scanner, is it worth shooting medium format? What I'm saying here is that one of the main reasons using medium format is it's quality, but if you can't print it's inherent quality , don't you feel a little frustrated? What do you think?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance<br>

Jorge</p>

 

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>if you don't go the darkroom route, [...] is it worth shooting medium format?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think not. YMMV.</p>

[nathan_wong2]

<p>I use an Epson V750 and I think it gives great results.</p>

[mark_ritz]

<p>As the negative size increases, the requirements for a great scanner decrease. You can get further with less. If they made a V300 with a 8x11 transparency lid, I'd bet it would turn out better results scanning a 4x5 than a minolta 35mm scanner.</p>

<p>But I still prefer optical prints :D</p>

[t._kim]

<p>Based on IQ alone, probably not. If you include the entire experience, then I would say yes, for some MF systems.<br /> There's also the associated cost to maximum IQ ratio. In MF, it's tough to beat.<br /> As was mentioned before, YMMV indeed.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>I a friends that still shoot weddings using film using a Mamiya 645 AF Pro. He sends the film to Costco to get some 8X10 prints and a CD. No scanning involved. </p>

[dumitru_dabija1]

<p>Hi,<br>

I was int he same situation as you, and asked myself the same question.<br>

For me, the answer was a decent flatbed (Epson V750), and finding a good lab with Imacon, in case I want to print (which is rarely the case). For web, the price for the scanner was fair. For print, the price for an Imacon scan is approx 30$, which again, I think it's fair, assuming one is not printing for the sake of doing it.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>If you want to print everything you take to its maximum potential then you have a point. Realistically most people don't want to do that, and if they do then a couple of years trying to store all those prints , and wondering what on earth to do with all those prints, should be enough to cure them of that.</p>

<p>As Dumitru Dabija points out, most scanning needs for most applications can be met by a flatbed. When there is a real desire to make a larger print then you can buy in scans to print from. I pay $10 (equivalent, I'm in the UK) for Imacon scans. If you buy-in sufficient scans, then there might be a rationale to buy a film scanner. But for me I'd have to be printing from a lot of originals to swap a $3000 and up capital cost, plus the grief of scanning, for a $10 a time variable cost. </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Jorge,</p>

<p>Too right - that is why I sold my Hasselblad kit. It is definitely worth it if you have your own darkroom and do black and white, but for me with a flatbed scanner it was not. It depends on how much you love the whole process of scanning and how much time you have.</p>

[JAPster]

<p>Of course it is worth it. Just get a hi-res full-color flatbed scanner (be sure it has drivers compatible with your operating system) and scan the MF print. Keep tweaking the scan process till you get the best setup for your style prints. Save the resulting image as a hi-res full color tiff file to avoid image quality reduction and to give you the most compatibility with widest variety of image editing applications.</p>

[frank.schifano]

<p>For me it's all about the darkroom anyway.</p>

[christoph_sensen]

<p>I still shoot slides and I do have a Hasselblad PCP80 (up tp 6x6) and a Mamiya ProCabin projector (6x7) for them. There is no comparison to any digital projection thus far, slides are still far superior.<br>

Christoph</p>

[stp]

<p>It was this logic that eventually led me to abandon large format (although I'm glad I had the experience). I looked at flatbed scanners as a very weak link in the chain, and I was unwilling to regularly fork over $50-$100 for a high-quality scan of a 4x5 transparency. I felt my own scan of medium format on a Nikon 8000/9000 would do just as well as a large format scan on a flatbed (and large format was a little slower to operate in the field than I prefer).</p>

<p>I have a Nikon 9000; if I didn't have this scanner, I wouldn't be using a Pentax 645 or Hasselblad 501cm; I'd be using only digital cameras.</p>

<p>In the end, I think the answer depends on the number of large prints that you intend to make. I can see an argument being made for using a flatbed for small prints and web photos, reserving a printing service for the few photos that you want to have printed large. On the other hand, some folks just want to be able to "do it all." I fit that category, which is why I have the Nikon 9000 and medium format. It provides the level of IQ at the print size I commonly make (16x24 vicinity). But medium format and a Nikon 8000/9000 might not be sufficient for others. There are many niches out there that serve different individual preferences and pocketbooks.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p><em>What I'm saying here is that one of the main reasons using medium format is it's quality, but if you can't print it's inherent quality , don't you feel a little frustrated? What do you think?</em></p>

<p>That's exactly what I went through nearly a decade ago. I had a lot of money tied up in Hasselblad equipment, but a flat bed did no justice to its potential quality. Commercial prints were hardly better, and took over a week to return. My decision was to buy a Nikon LS-8000, and I wasn't disappointed. Scanning film is still a lot of work, and color balance with C-41 emulsions is an ongoing problem. By 2007, I realized that scanned 6x6 film offered little advantage over the image quality of a D2x, at least up to a 16x20" enlargement. At that time, Hasselblad discounted the CFV-16 back by over $3000, putting it into a price range I could justify.</p>

<p>While that ended the hassle of finding film, a place to have it processed, and subsequent scanning, the competition from small-format is getting stiffer as sensors and image processing continue to evolve. Last weekend I used my D3 and a 300/4 lens to shoot a concert, without a tripod or VR, thanks to its incredible high ISO performance. The CFV still still beats the D3 for color and dynamic range, given enough light or a static subject. How long will that last?</p>

[saintelmo21]

<p>Good photography is a good photography regardless of what type of camera/film/sensor/widget you use. I you 'love' MF, then continue to use it. That is the justification you are looking for. If you want to use digital for it's quality and ease, then use it. If you are not a professional photographer, then you have no limits. The necessity of making money means you have to keep up with current technology go hungry.</p>

[gerald_di_giampaolo]

<p>I also have a PCP 80 projector. Projecting the glass mounted slides is the only reason why I continue to use my Hasselblad. I've yet to see anything yet that is as impressive as a projected 6x6 slide. </p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>If you couldn't afford a scanner for medium format you certainly couldn't afford a digital camera that could even compare to the quality either.</p>

<p>What was your budget for the scanner or a DSLR?</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Your question is like asking "what is the purpose of going from a 2MP camera to a 20MP camera if my printer can only do 4x6 prints".</p>

<p>If you don't want to print optically or buy a decent scanner, what answer do you expect from the forum?</p>

[christoph_sensen]

<p>There may be hope for the resurrection of the high-quality medium format scanner this year. See the information about the upcoming Pacific Image 120 scanner here: http://www.scanace.com/product/pf_120.html. So all may not be lost, especially once VueScan supports this new machine, which in Germany will be sold as a "Reflecta".<br>

But the real reason that I now have a Mamiya RZ 67II and a couple of Mamiya 645 Pro TLs is that I can. When I was a kid, my dad and I took a photo class in the evenings where the guy showed us how to do portrait photography with a Mamiya RB 67 in his studio. Ever since, I wanted to take pictures with such a machine, but of course, that was out of my reach for a long time. Well, times have changed, thankfully, and now I can.<br>

I don't care if digital creates technically better images, or if the workflow is faster, I don't have to, as I am not a professional photographer. I do use digital equipment as well, also of course just for fun. I am simply enjoying the taking of pictures with medium format cameras, which are truly modular. And with the prices for used equipment they way they are right now, it doesn't break the bank to try out another lens or different size back. And one can always sell things again for more or less the same...<br>

Christoph</p>

<p> </p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>Ditto. I shoot MF (and not 35mm) because it's so easy to scan.</p>

<p>Harry, I didn't know Costco developed 120 film. Are you sure?</p>

<p>I get mine done at Costco for dirt cheap, but I don't bother have them scanning it since every cheap develop-and-scan place is worse than my cheap V500 scanner.</p>

<p>Mauro, the answers are both yes and no. What did YOU expect from the forum? ;-)</p>

[flatulent1]

<p>I'm just returning to B&W darkroom printing after 25 years away from it, and so far it's been a blast. Results from MF far outpace anything I've done with 35mm, though I'm only enlarging up to 8x10. </p>

<p>I shoot color as well, but not often. If/when I have something color worth printing large (and I have neither scanner nor color printer) then off to the pro lab I will go. Yeah, MF is definitely worth the effort.</p>

[saintelmo21]

<p>sorry above should read: OR go hungry</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>How big do you want to print?</p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>... Mamiya 645 AF Pro. He sends the film to Costco ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wait, Costco 1hr can process 120 film?</p>

[photo5]

<blockquote>

<p>Wait, Costco 1hr can process 120 film?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not the Costco in Issaquah, Washington.</p>