Is it time to ditch medium format??

[mark_l6]

<p>Well, after over thirty years of using 35mm, 4x5 and a for six years using digital alongside both, I've pretty well settled on medium format as MY ideal compromise.<br>

I love using a waist level finder, love the square format and am currently seriously thinking of selling everything except a rolleiflex, as the less gear I carry, the better my photos seem to be. This all assumes home brewed black and white, can't stand colour personally.<br>

For YOU however, well, you seem pretty set on going digital, so why not, it's not life or death either way is it?</p>

[malcom_knight]

<p>Here's an interesting read from professionals that still shoot film. http://annawu.com/blog/2011/03/film-vs-digital/<br>

Points out a few interesting reasons some still like film.</p>

 

[pete_ferling]

<p>Horses for courses. It's a personal decision that none of us can answer on your behalf. </p>

<p>We (the company I work for) gave up on film from 645 up to 8x10 sheets due to the speed, cost and convenience of digital. In the advertising world, and again, just my personal experience and whom I deal with, there is a level of quality from digital that is good enough. A compromise in return for keeping under budget and meeting deadlines. That was almost a decade ago, believe it or not (we sold our Cambo's for 1Ds'). </p>

<p>Today, those folks whom snubbed digital at the onset, or put up with it are no longer employed here, or involved in the pipeline. I'm now dealing with younger designers whom expect a yousendit download within a hour after the shoot wraps. A shoot that was conducted live online via a goto-meeting session. Going back to film would be bad business decision. I've converted my film changing room into a sound booth.</p>

<p>Despite that, I still like film. Not too many folks have a 44" Epson printer to play with like I do, and I know for a fact that when I've shown some size able prints from my M645 using 160VC Kodak Portra. The images, compared to digital counterparts have a 3D and more life like appearance. But hold on. It also much to do with that Mamiya glass, and having a dedicated film scanner (with upper and lower scan beds) to extract a significant amount of data.</p>

<p>Fact 2, I know all to well about pan stitch and bracketing with digital. I've had to do it, and found that it's easier to take a one shot approach with with my Mamiya. I'm spoiled though. I'll experiment with a digital first, then follow up with the film shot. :)</p>

<p>In favor of digital. It's much cheaper. Ever time I press the shutter I'm not tossing a quarter into the street. </p>

<p>Fact 2, a good majority of my shots or scenes would have not benefited from either format. Just those few the require big prints or extra dynamic range. Even then it's hit or miss, (and usually user error). Film is unforgiving. Digital lets me know when I have a shot good enough to walk away with.</p>

<p>Rather than hating one over the other, I use them both.</p>

[nealcurrie]

<p>I enjoy it and I much prefer the look I get from it. I use my K7 for technical coaching (video playback frame by frame) and pictures of my family/holiday type. For my 'serious' photography, I use my 645 and 6x7 and Nikon 9000. I could probably sell my scanner & film gear and get a digital that would give me similar results, but I don't have enough money for both, and I already have something that works for me...</p>

[mlg28]

Yes. Please send me a complete hasselblad set. It is no longer able to make photos, so get rid of it. I will be happy

to dispose of it for you.

[dhbebb]

<p>One further small point - I have found that MF film is harder to scan than sheet film on my (rather elderly) Epson Expression 1680 Pro flatbed, simply because the film base is thinner and MF film does not of itself lie flat the way that sheet film does. Had I not gotten out of MF, I think I would find myself looking for a more sophisticated scanner that tensions the film somehow and thus achieves better flatness (as is the case I believe with Imacon).</p>

[ian_gordon_bilson]

<p>At the risk of stating the fairly obvious - If convenience is a primary concern , why would anybody own medium format ?.<br>

As for processing - conventional B & W film is no harder than making soup. Or good coffee. The stuff you need would fit in two shoeboxes. Too hard? - Kodak and Ilford make C-41 B & W films.</p>

 

[zack_zoll]

<p>There's no reason to use C41 BW films, ever. Yes, I know many people have had good results from it. Many people have also had good results with disposable cameras. Since C41 BW film is literally just a roll of colour film with a different (but similarly thick emulsion) layer, there's absolutely nothing that it can provide that you wouldn't have gotten from desaturated colour film. The grain structure is the same, the tonal range is the same, and since you need to bring it to a lab, the quality of developing is the same. Shoot ... you're even still going to need to desaturate it, since it has a colour tint!</p>

<p>Why anyone would shoot XP2 over Portra 400 is beyond me, unless it's a cost issue.</p>

<p>As far as film in general, I think if you want colour, digital is awesome. I'm a diehard film guy, and I still prefer digital for colour work. For black and whites though, I don't. Digital black and whites usually lack the 'pop' of film, and you can't exactly use the Zone system to full extent with a digital camera. Then again, you can't exactly use the Zone system to full extent with colour film either, as it usually causes a pretty ugly colour shift.</p>

<p>So I'd say that if you shoot black and white, keep the MF stuff and study up, because my Hassy images look WAY better than my D7000 images. But if you shoot colour, toss it and just use the digital.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Why do painters continue to paint when they could have a photograph? Why do sculptors continue to sculpt in stone when they could have it cast in concrete or injection moulded in plastic? It's about the medium itself. I continue to use film because I love the process. </p>

[stuart_richardson]

<p>If you are asking whether digital cameras can now produce large prints with excellent quality and greater ease than medium format film, then the answer is yes. I run a small photo lab and exhibition printing service. I print in both film and digital, and use both myself. <br>

Recently I printed an exhibition for someone using a D7000. The prints were portraits sized at 50x70cm (roughly 20x27.5"). They looked fantastic -- the color was great, the prints were very sharp even with your nose in them -- I was very impressed. Film in the larger formats (645/6x6 and above) still has the edge in resolution, but digital is good enough for anyone these days. As others have said, it is a matter of preference and convenience. Film still does have a different look that is not that to replicate in digital (whether or not one should is another valid question!), but if shooting film is inconvenient for you and does not excite in a way that incites you to keep using it, then you should not! Digital certainly isn't going to hold you back in any way! </p>

[ken_wayne1]

<p>Chris Waller,</p>

<p>I commend your comments. Very well said.</p>

[frank_major]

<p>Yes, if you're more into digital than sell your film gear and enjoy the Nikon D7000. If the convenience of digital is preferable to the "inconvenience" of film, again, sell your film gear.</p>

<p>I have both digital (p&s and dSLR) and film (35mm, 6x6 and 6x7) gear and have been thrilled with developing my very own b&w. I can post-process either digital images (digi sensor or scanned negatives) so i loose nothing. However, if i want i can move into wet-printing and exponentially increase what i'm able to do w/my negs.</p>

<p>I prefer using my RB67 Pro-S and Minolta Autocord to my digital cameras for when i'm making images *for me*. When i'm at partys or events, digi can make more sense. Right (for you) tool for the job....</p>

<p>They're your toys, play with what you want.</p>

[kparratt]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2348768">Ken Wayne</a> , Aug 24, 2011; 06:27 a.m.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Chris Waller,<br /> I commend your comments. Very well said.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And the same goes for me. I use each medium for it's intrinsic qualities. I am a painter using oils on linen canvas, a copperplate etcher and engraver using methods and materials rendered 'obsolete' by industrial printers centuries ago, .. including variations on Fox Talbot's photogravure. As more film cameras lay orphaned on the auction sites, and also handed to me for $0 by friends, I am enjoying a wealth of gear I could only dream about years ago. For as long as there is film, I will use it. I buy it new from current suppliers, and out-of-date stuff in various lots around those auction sites. Whilst so many are going for the hi-tech digital kit, I'm going the other direction into large format, but still with the Hasselblads as the primary outfit.<br>

That said, I'm no Luddite. Whilst mostly content with the Gossen analogue meters, Q.G. de Bakker recently advised, with good reason why I should consider the digital alternatives. (Thanks Q.G.) I also carry a digital camera for quick reference images, and for speedy uploads to the Internet. Back to film, I live far from supplies of everything, so it takes planning, and stocking up whenever the opportunities arise. But it is worth it for the pleasure derived and quality of results achieved.<br>

As others have said, do what works for you. Cheers, Kevin</p>

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>"Is it time to ditch medium format?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The question is based upon a dilemmatic way of looking at film and digital. There is no dilemma. The "film versus digital" debate is almost dead, if only because digital has firmly established itself in terms of quality and convenience..</p>

<p>I see no reason to choose, if only because the price of medium format (and other film) gear has fallen so much. Selling my medium format gear is not going to make me enough money to matter in the long run. Since almost everyone is going to be using digital for at least some applications, the only remaining question is how many will continue to use film--and especially medium format film--as well as the extent to which they will use it.</p>

<p>That is, there remains the question as to how many will keep going to the trouble of shooting medium format film. It is not the most convenient medium, but it is far from the most inconvenient. Even so, you did not ask the "crystal ball" question as to what will happen in the future. You seem to see a choice to be made RIGHT NOW rather than opportunities to be embraced in both directions for the indefinite future.</p>

<p>Raising the issue of the D70 almost trivializes the issue. It is no longer 2004. Digital has come a very long way in the seven years since the D70 first appeared, and it will continue to improve and do marvelous things.</p>

<p>I embrace digital. I use it. I own the Canon 5D II, among others. I am quite enthralled with it and what it can do--and the speed and convenience with which it can do it.</p>

<p>I still don't plan to get rid of my medium format film gear--or at least not all of it. (I also still have my Nikon F3HP in 35mm film format, too. When I want to shoot manual focus, I have the 50mm f/1.2 as well as the 600mm f/4--both in manual focus. What a luxury? Well, yes it is, but at a bargain basement price.) I just see no compelling reason to get rid of very much of it unless I am in a pinch. They are there when I want them. I still have film in the freezer for when I want it. Film gear is a small imposition on time and space. I can use the lenses for digital as well--and I do. Sometimes I use some of my medium format lenses on digital cameras. I like the options that the present situation affords me.</p>

<p>I still want as much convenience as possible in both realms. Today many more than ever can afford to have precisely that. The dilemma is dead. May it rest in peace. No one out here is really crying that so much medium format gear is up for sale, unless they were planning to sell their own and are appalled at the price drop. The rest are happy to be able to afford that which they could only dream about before--and to be able to buy backups for the foreseeable future.</p>

<p>As long as they keep making film, some of us will keep shooting it at least some of the time. There are a lot of us in that category. Most of us are not old and will be shooting for quite a while yet. A new generation gets the opportunity to see both, and to become proficient in both. Many will embrace the possibilities.</p>

<p>Look for the price of medium format gear to go back up when this economy takes off again, as it will. Those who unload now will be kicking themselves later--for good reason. I am not talking about collecting or investing for the sake of dollars. I am talking about hanging onto medium format for the creative possibilities that it affords us--and will continue to afford us.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Anyhow, it's too late. You will not get enough for your MF equipment to even balance the bother of having to put it up for sale.<br>(And i do not expect the price of it to ever go up again.)

[spanky]

<p>I know a high school photography teacher who wanted to settle the film vs digital debate for her class. She set up a still life in the studio and photographed it with a 4x5 view camera. Then she had the students take pictures of it with their digital slrs and point & shoots. According to her, she and the class could not tell the difference between the digital images and the one from the 4x5. Hmmm I wonder what the agenda was here.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>I think the only reason to stick with it is if it's still an artistic medium that you want to use. Other than that, like you've eluded to, digital is working well for you and suiting your needs. Currently, I am using my Hasselblad's less than ever, but they're staying for now. I will never get anywhere near the money I paid for them, I'm sure I'm into $20,000. So I shoot some black and white, process myself and store the negatives. Most are not printed, and I don't have a scanner, but I still make them. Eventually I will either wet print or buy a scanner. I also think part of it is that itch to use the bigger negative and experience the results.</p>

[jim_gardner4]

<p>Marc, it sounds to me like the "teacher" is more like a "teller".<br>

The question of film vs digital is so old now and it cannot have an right answer. Its like asking which is better? BMW or Mecedes? - Kindle or hard back book? Mechanical watch or quartz? Trainers or shoes? Its up to you what you use, when and why. Personaly I use both film and digital. One of them once or twice a year and the other once a week.</p>

[ericophotography]

<p>I agree with you Ingermar. I don't even know why I let myself get sucked into this discussion. Perhaps out of curiosity. I hope some people do feel like it's time to give up MF. That means there will be more equipment made available for enthusiast like me as well as first time users. </p>

[eco_foto]

<p>IMHO it takes a huge investment dollar wise to even get close to the results achieved with MF,</p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>Since C41 BW film is literally just a roll of colour film with a different (but similarly thick emulsion) layer, there's absolutely nothing that it can provide that you wouldn't have gotten from desaturated colour film. The grain structure is the same, the tonal range is the same, and since you need to bring it to a lab, the quality of developing is the same.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But one thing is not the same - the spectral response. Colour film has sharp peaks and dips; C41 BW, like regular BW, has a much flatter, more uniform response. This might not matter to most people, but it makes a difference in the rendering of certain scenes, especially where there is monochromatic lighting involved, or colour filters are being used. So you can't say there's "absolutely nothing" different about it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>my Hassy images look WAY better than my D7000 images.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course they do - the D7000 has only a little APS-C sensor. But would they look WAY better if you had a D3X? Hmmm...might be a lot closer.</p>

<p>My own view on the original question is that I think I've found the best compromise for most situations - an older untethered medium format digital back. Gives me the benefits of digital and medium format in one package, and I can still use film with that "modern" MF body or with my older MF bodies that take the same lenses.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Those promoting an argument that its not worth selling MF equipment because it's just not worth the effort might be interested to know that I'm just passing the $6000 mark, after shipping and fees, from the sale of my 3 lens Mamiya 7 equipment and an extensive array of Bronica bits plus associated ancillaries I have a few items yet to go.</p>

<p>Now $6000 won't change my life but I think its hard to dismiss it as inconsequential. Indeed at todays B&H prices it would, for example, be enough to pay for the Canon 5D Mk2 plus 3 L zooms that I'm now choosing to use instead, leaving enough left over to buy the larger filters and new QR hardware I needed for the Canon. </p>

[ericophotography]

<p>Good point David. I think it's so disingenuous for some posters to pretend that they are worried about taking a loss on the sale of their MF equipment when they continue to pay inflated prices to have the latest digital equipment and upgrades. What are those items going to be worth in two years? They can't be seriously concerned about money.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

It's not a worry about money, not a worry about losing money, Eric. It's an observation of the fact that what at one time would have cost you well over US$ 10,000 nowadays will barely bring in US$ 1,000, if you're lucky (the key words in David's post being "and", "extensive array" and "plus"). Barely enough for a consumer grade DSLR.<br><br>And seeing things the way they are, you can in fact stop worrying about money (what money?) and instead recognize that the only significant value of the stuff is in the use you can still get out of it.<br><br>But, of course, if you do not and will not use the stuff anymore... sell it!

[juan_caballero]

<p>Black and White digital picture not look like Film Photography,nothing is compared with the film texture,digital photos converted to black and white no look real.I have a Canon 5DII and look like a toy compare with my medium format camera.<br>

Digital is easy to work but in black and white photography nothing is compared with film photography.</p><div></div>