Is it time to ditch medium format??

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"[...] but in black and white photography nothing is compared with film photography."</i><br><br>Be that as it may (don't want to join in that discussion), but if film and B&W, it's not a bad thing that B&W C41 film no longer is an option for the OP, since a real B&W film is much, much better. Silver grain beats dye clouds anytime, in any respect.<br>What's more, it's extremely easy to process yourself.

[juan_caballero]

<p>One more black and white film picture,and this is not the best film scanner.check how look!!</p><div></div>

[juan_caballero]

<p>Look the sample,black and white photography,the best!</p><div></div>

[sfcole]

<p> <strong>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.</strong><br>

What size were the final prints? Were the digital cameras able to make use of tilt and shift movements? Are students visually educated enough to trust their judgement?<br>

The claim that no one can tell the difference between a point & shoot digital (as described above) and a 4x5 is ridiculous. It would only be valid at a tiny size of print.<br>

There are also people who can't tell the difference between a million-dollar Stradivarius and a $500 Chinese piece of junk. So what does that prove?</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>I know how to settle this. </p>

<p>Those in this post who would like to sell their MF equipment, please post your items and price. Let's turn this into a productive thread.</p>

<p>I would like to see who is really willing to sell and what kind of equipment and who is just wasting time.</p>

[philip_wilson]

If it is a job shoot what makes commercial sense (usually digital) if it is a hobby shoot what you love. Personally I

shoot a lot with digital and own a very extensive digital kit. But I have more emotional attachment to my film systems.

[bill_dewberry]

<p>Go over to Kirk Tuck website, read why he is migrating back to the hasselblad.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Eric O, I really don't think myself or anyone else that mentioned losing money was being disingenuous or pretending anything. That's also really quite a speculation on your part to assume that the same people are investing in the latest digital upgrades. How do you know what specific equipment I have and at what price point I bought it. In the future just use my name and make your point, "some posters" doesn't cut it.</p>

[adamjohnson]

<p id="yui_3_2_0_13_131425054253116426">I think that as people have become accustomed to the look of digital, film has began to stand out as unique in look and feel. Is digital technically better: Yes, but I really don't care... I have been considering a digital SLR for years, but have yet to find a digital image that matches the color palette and warmth of Velvia RVP 50, which is why I still successfully shoot film and love doing so.<br /><br />Not only do I prefer the look and feel of film, but I absolutely LOVE the process! Digital cameras have no life in them, it's just a computer. And although a film camera is no more technically alive (in a living, breathing sense), my Pentax 67 is entirely manual, and it produces this exhilarating clunk every time I release the shutter. There is this process that is so much a part of film, and digital simply does not offer as much personal interaction between photographer and tool. Yes, digital does have its place in the [mostly commercial] world. But film is so much more alive.<br /><br />As a testament to film: I heard a couple of weeks ago that tpt (Twin Cities Public Television) was looking for photographs of Minnesota for a book. Being a Minnesota photographer, I felt a need to find out whether or not they'd want my contribution and initially submitted 7 photos. Out of 5,000 photos submitted in the first 2 weeks, 30 photos were showcased and 4 of those chosen were mine - all shot with film: <a href="http://www.captureminnesota.com/showcases/quick-hits-1"><strong>Capture Minnesota</strong></a>. 3 of the images were captured with a Mamiya M645 Pro, and 1 with a Pentax 67. The key ingredient was light, but film still made the images what they are.<br /><br />There is something about film that moves people. I have free will, and I still choose film.</p>

<p id="yui_3_2_0_13_131425054253116444">Adam Johnson<br />Minneapolis, Minnesota</p>

[frank_major]

<p>Hey Adam - congratulations!!!</p>

<p>I like your March Minnesota and Endless Sunflowers captures - well done!</p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>Adam- I could easily tell which images were yours. The Velvia look is very distinctive. Too bad the camera description in the captions of your shots say "unknown". It would be nice for people to know they were shot on film.</p>

[charles_h2]

<p>What has happened to civility? When I joined this group, I came in with the notion that fellow artist and enthusiasts would share their work, techniques, and get insights on improving. Yet almost every forum I've read turns into a pissing contest. This one was a no brainer. If you don't use it, and you don't see the need for keeping it, then YES, ditch it.</p>

<p>Many of the posters have addressed that issue and moved on, but some feel the need to turn this into a religious discussion. I looked at Adam's work and it's beautiful. I think it's great that his photos were chosen out of so many, however when you say it's a testament to film, I have to question your motives. You stated that (4) of your photos were chosen out of the 30, so were the other 26 film or digital?</p>

<p>The debates I have read are like a dog chasing it's tail. Film advocates use the computer to sell their work, websites to show their work, post their views, but criticize those who use the computer to create their work . To say that a digital image has no life, or it doesn't have the life that film does is ridiculous. You gain on one end by using digital, and gain on the other by using film. There should be a place for all the tools in the toolbox.</p>

<p>I have won awards for commercial and art photography, and in the end, no one has asked me if it was shot with a digital or film camera. BTW....I love them both, like having more than one child..</p><div></div>

[larry_s1]

<p>I started all this because I hadn’t been active in photography for a while and recently I was asked to do a portrait shoot. In planning I realized a lot has changed – better digital cameras, labs not processing film, pros switching to digital and some films not been made (in 120/220). <br>

I was thinking is there a reason for MF film these days? Is there an advantage with MF film? In the film only days MF meant better quality vs 35mm. The quality question is no longer a slam dunk. With MF the quality advantage maybe is still there for big blowups (landscapes) and maybe for B&W, but at least close enough where the advantages of digital play. After all, I didn’t get a lot of “better quality certainly” comments in the posts. Three to five years ago that would have been different. <br>

And to all those dumb posts wasting bytes complaining about the question saying useless stuff like “use what you want” or “whatever works for you.” I say gas, diesel, electric or hybrid all get you there but it is a fair question to ask about the pro and cons of each. I had a practical question. If you don’t have a direct response to a question don’t post. <br>

The discussion has been useful for me and I concluded that if I need the cash I probably won’t miss the system that much. That is, I can probably do most everything in digital just as well. </p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Phil, I think you're missing an important point here. The fact that no one asked what materials you use DOES NOT mean that those materials don't matter. I'll bet that even though there's no comprehensive index of what brands of paint and brushes Picasso used, he was very particular with what he bought.</p>

<p>I'm not about to tell people what they should shoot, but neither will I begrudge them their right to choose. Personally, I own DSLRs, 6x6, and 4x5. Technically I own a 35mm too, but it just sits on the shelf :) The point is that, just as an artist might use an 'inferior' hog-bristle brush for thick paint application, there are certain 'looks' that can only be achieved by film or by digital, or which are much more work with the other.</p>

<p>To that end, film advocates using a computer to sell their work is irrelevant. This isn't an either/or scenario. One could just as easily counter that digital shooters sell prints, often made by digital-c printers, which are remnants of a bygone era.</p>

<p>To me, there are only two rules:<br>

1) Don't use C41 BW. I'm mostly repeating it to be funny, but seriously that stuff hasn't been relevant since low-cost film scanners came to market. I hate it so much that sometimes I'll <em>give</em> a customer a roll of Portra to try instead, and almost everyone becomes a Portra customer. It's like crack that way.<br>

2) Everyone should try the other formats. If you shoot digital, you should rent or borrow a Yashicamat or Mamiya 645 or something. If you shoot film, borrow a DSLR. The fact is that just too many people on either side of the debate have either never tried both formats, or got bad results with the 'other' format simply because it was 'too different' and they never made an honest attempt to learn it. A photographer that hs never tried the other formats is no better than an oil painter that never once tried watercolours, or a rock guitarist that has never picked up an acoustic guitar. It displays a lack of curiousity which I can only assume will affect your abilities, if it hasn't already.</p>

[greg_campbell1]

<p>Can't say I see a worthy point to the OP's post.<br>

My short answers are: "Because I enjoy it!" and "Who are you to judge the media I choose to shoot???"</p>

<p>Biting at the lure, I'll also offer a longer rant:</p>

<p>Photography is not a resolution contest, and it doesn't care if your lens has a pretty red ring around the end. Photography is about the process and the 'seeing' and (hopefully) about producing pretty images. The camera you choose to use is completely irrelevant. </p>

<p>My Bronicasaurus gives me a slightly wacky square frame to fill. This is a good thing in that it forces a different way of seeing the world.</p>

<p>I get a HUGE viewfinder so I can actually see what the *bleep* I'm shooting at! (As opposed to peering into the soda straw masquerading as my Drebel's finder.) 90% of photography happens before you push the shutter, and being able to see the subject does help the effort!</p>

<p>The cost is just high enough that it discourages 'spray and pray.' Besides, changing the film is a minor PITA. This forces you to stop and think and fret a little - things that are necessary if you have any hope of producing a satisfying image.</p>

<p>Last but not least, there is no computer to fight. I never need to 'pull out' of the viewfinder and wade through a stupid menu system to select the one AF point (out of way too many) that will make the camera focus where the *bleep* I want it to. Observing others when on local field trips, I see that Joe Sixpack spends half his time driving the camera, trying to make it do (or stop doing) one of 5 bazillion largely useless functions. That is NOT photography.</p>

[charles_h2]

<p>Zack....did you even read my post...</p>

<p>I didn't state anywhere in my post that the two formats don't matter. You can play the devil's advocate all you want, but understand I was addressing Adam's claim that digital has no life. I stated that they both have their place, and that I love them both.</p>

<p>For you to suggest that people should try both is also ridiculous. People should use the medium they choose. If they want to try both, fine, but it's arrogant for any person to tell another how to travel their artist road. There are accomplished painters (since you brought up Picasso, from one of my previous post), that have only worked with watercolors, and sculptors who have never touched a paintbrush. That being said, there are artist who work with a variety of mediums.</p>

<p>Freedom of choice means exactly that. My post was about the pissing contests that seem to degrade intelligent discussion on Photo.net. When I look at the earlier work of many deceased photographers, and marvel at their technique, for most, their technique dies with them....My point being, as I stated in my post , the awards I have won were based on the content of my work, not the medium used to create them.</p>

[charles_h2]

<p>Zack<br>

After reading your post again, I wanted to clarify my point a little further. You and I agree that the use of the computer is irrelevant, that's exactly what my post stated. Adam made the comment that digital had no life and was computer generated. My point was that if film photographers use it, why is it not ok for digital photographers to use the same tool.</p>

<p>The more important point that you and Q.E., among others, fail to recognize is that regardless of the material used to create a work of art, if you had the same materials you couldn't produce the work they do. There are millions of hasselblads, 5D markII's, view cameras, etc., and the range of results varies from snapshots, to making a living, and finally recgnition for a body of work or an individual piece that just stands out. There is an individual stamp that makes the artist, "Primary", and the materials or medium secondary. Secondary, not unimportant.</p>

<p>I don't suggest or argue which equipment should be used or which is better. I have witnessed a pro pool player (shooter) take a broomstick and beat other pros with thousand dollar pool cues. At any rate, I believe we have more in common than what we try to prove we don't. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Phil,<br><br>If with "Q.E." you might happen to mean me, i must refer you to the sentiment expressed recently by someone, worded as the question "What has happened to civility?" and ask you to be so civil as not to try to build a case by putting words in someone else's (my) mouth.<br>If you have to assume people think wrong thoughts to make a point, better make those people as fictional as the thoughts you presume they might harbour.<br><br>Better still: if you want to prove a point, do that by pointing out the merrits of the point itself. Never has something become true, nor will it ever happen, because someone (assumed or not) has said or thought something else that was or would be questionable.

[charles_h2]

<p>Q.E.<br>

I was being civil. In a previous post, you attacked me about my Picasso comment. Zack brought this point up again. The importance of the materials (equipment) used. I used your name in reference to that post. Just as then, I have never and will never say that the choice of equipment is un-important.. I said it was secondary...and I stand by that...I didn't call you a pooh-pooh head, or question your intelligence. I said you fail to recognize my point, which is proven in everyday life. I would even wager that during Picasso's time, people debated on what the best materials were.....it's human nature.</p>

<p>You have your views, which by the way, I have never attacked. I will meet you on your field of choice any day, and discuss, debate, or whatever. Mouth or camera........</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Phil,there is a very large difference between your Picasso reference and mine, which is why I bought it up. You used Picasso as an example of why the materials are only tools that are used the create the image. While I agree, I brought it up again to point out that to some people, the tools are extremely important.</p>

<p>Since Picasso was fortunate enough to have premade oil paints available to him, let's use an older example. Classical artists such an Rembrandt either mixed their own paints from pigments, or had them mixed by apprentices. 'Lamp black' and 'mars black' are the two most common black oil paints. Lamp black was named so because it originally contained charcoal. There was also a 'bone black', which was made from charcoal created from bones. Many artists preferred it because it had a slightly different hue when mixed or lightened. There is also 'cadmium yellow' (made with cadmium - very expensive), and 'cadmium yellow hue,' which looks identical coming out of the tube, but acts differently when mixed with oil mediums or other colours of paint. One can argue that the material is irrelevant when viewing the final product, but making such a claim is very uninformed position. The material is not relevant to the viewer, but it is <em>extremely</em> relevant to the artist while he is creating the work, as it has a potentially massive impact on how he works. Rembrandt used a lot of colour washes and layers, so using a cheap, low-pigment brand of paint would greatly affect his work - thinning the paint might make it unusable. Lucian Freud had a very thick painting style, so a lower-pigment brand may have been fine, as much of his paint was used straight out of the tube.</p>

<p>As QG pointed out - and the fact that he and I agree here really should tell you something - you're putting words in people's mouth, and/or taking their statements wholly out of context. I did not say that all camera users should own and use several cameras. I said all <em>photographers </em>should do so. If you cannot distinguish between 'camera owner' and 'photographer,' then you ought to stop reading right now, because the rest of this comment is obviously not for you.</p>

<p>A photographer is an artist, commercial or otherwise. Anyone that considers themselves a photographer considers themselves an artist. Since there are several different mediums within the realm of photography, each with their own advantages and disadvantages, any artist owes it to themselves to try at least some of them to see what fits them best. By not doing so, the artist is limiting themselves. I never said 'not using multiple formats makes you a bad photographer.'</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It displays a lack of curiousity which I can only assume will affect your abilities, if it hasn't already.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is my original quote. In other words, only using one format, ever, means that you run the risk of using a format that is not ideal to your particular artistic style. Picasso started with drawing, then went to using pastels and coloured pencils, then some watercolours, and finally settled on oils. He didn't jump out onto the scene all oily-painty and cubist-like. He actually got the idea from other painters. Salvador Dali tried almost everything under the sun, uncluding holographic photography. Robert Mappelthorpe wasn't even a photograher originally; Patti Smith basically talked him into it, after years of other mediums.</p>

<p>Call me arrogant if you like, but the fact is that if someone fancies themselves an artist, then they're doing themselves a great disservice by not branching out and seeing what their own voice is. I'd rather be arrogant and a good teacher than be a nice guy that encourages others to stagnate.</p>

<p>Your milage may vary.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"Q.E.<br>I was being civil. In a previous post, you attacked me about my Picasso comment."</i><br><br>So, Phil, do you suppose you can find that post and point it out to me?<br><br>And now you have dragged me into this bit of silliness: do you really suppose some of us here are so ... uhm... stupid that we think that if only we had the same brush and paint as Picasso, we would be able to be Picasso? ;-)

[charles_h2]

<p>Zack<br>

I've read your post a couple of times, and I stand corrected. I see the many points you're making. With that said, I think you should look at the words you used after my post. You said, "Everyone should try different formats". These were your words not mine. Now you say photographers vs camera users. The fact that you and Q.G. agree means absolutely nothing to me. Who voted you two the keepers of the flame. </p>

<p>My post was directed at people with an agenda, who believed that film is superior to digital and vice versa. I mentioned a specific person, and directed my comments toward that issue. Nowhere in my post did I give the impression that equipment wasn't important. If anything, it centered on the fact that neither is more important than the other. They all have a place.....those were my words..</p>

<p>I made a statement about the fact that no one asked me what I created my images with. You then felt the need to correct me with a lame argument that it matters. Matters to who? The people who awarded me didn't ask. The only people who know how I created the images are my staff and I.</p>

<p>You could have very well made your points without any reference to my post, but in the spirit of the "good teacher", I'm glad you've shown me the error in my thinking. I'll start paying more attention to the tools other artist are using, and I'll use them all so I can be as well rounded as you. BTW: Richard Avedon felt that photographer's were craftsmen, not artist. I'm sure a few people agree with his position.</p>

<p>To make a point is one thing, to tell someone they've missed a point is another.....I can sense that you're a very dedicated person Zack, but so are many others here. </p>

[charles_h2]

<p>Q.G.<br>

June 13,2011 Deciding on medium format. Page 4. Sorry for the silliness, but you know I'd buy the first round of beer..<br>

Sorry about the Q.E. bit, I really wasn't trying to get you into it. I'm trying to get out of it myself. I do respect you both......</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

My reply "Picasso did" to your assertion that noone cares what brush Picasso used?<br>:-)<br><br>A far leap from that trivial truism to your (quite rude and, frankly, idiotic) assertion that i would <i>"fail to recognize [...] that regardless of the material used to create a work of art, if you had the same materials you couldn't produce the work they do."</i> Quite a bit too far.<br>And <i>you</i> wondered what happened to civility? Hmm... Keep buying.

[roman_p]

<p>I’m new on this forum and to MF photography and just lately acquired my Contax 645. I’m selling majority of my Nikon 35mm equipment to build an advanced MF system without thinking of investing money in the costly and to some extent primitive digital photography. And I agree with those folks who pointed that on a question formulated on this thread not possible to find any reasonable answer. If you satisfy with D70 why do you need D7000? If you think that the D7000 will deliver better result may be it’s time to ditch D70? You’ve compared art of film photography with a typewriter. Well if the photography for you is same as the mechanical typewriting what kind of artist are you? Convenience... If you’ve found that digital helps you to make you living and pay your mortgage you probably go for it. But don’t forget it’s just your personal approach and nothing else. You can find thousands members who'll tell you that for them it’s not convenient or at least not as convenient to consider ditching film completely. And after all I believe that “convenience” it’s not an appropriate word to justify art.<br>

I don’t see what else we can discuss here. Each of us has personal approach and professional approach is deferent from amateurs. We choose what we really like. I choose film.</p>