Shooting medium format with film today

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I really think that someone could make some money by releasing Instax backs for the 645 systems (Pentax, Mamiya, Hasselblad, Bronica, Contax - I don't think Fuji made a 645 reflex).</p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>I really think that someone could make some money by releasing Instax backs for the 645 systems (Pentax, Mamiya, Hasselblad, Bronica, Contax</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm curious, Karim - what would an Instax back give you, that the regular Polaroid backs for these cameras doesn't?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>- I don't think Fuji made a 645 reflex).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, sort of. They co-produced the Hasselblad H1, and released a version of it as the Fujifilm GX645AF.</p>

[mike_allen10]

Interesting thread. I grew up with film, tried digital for a while, but now shoot exclusively with film again (mostly MF and 4x5).

I am fortunate enough to have a darkroom at home. I process all my film (b&w, E6 and C41) myself and print b&w and color neg. optically.

I would print colour reversal film if only Cibachrome was still available. I love the manual aspect of all this, but I'm a hobbyist, not a

commercial photographer and maybe that's the deciding factor here for many, as much as artistic considerations or ultimate resolution.

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm curious, Karim - what would an Instax back give you, that the regular Polaroid backs for these cameras doesn't?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Regular Polaroid backs, AFAIK, use large film sheets, most of which are wasted. The Instax Mini format is only slightly large than a 645 frame, so there is hardly any waste. Instant film is never cheap, but Instax Mini is cheaper than FP-100C.</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>I agree with C Watson regarding scanning. I have an Epson 4990, which is the immediate predecessor to the V7xx series. It's a solid good scanner, but these days about the only time it gets used is when I scan medium format stuff.</p>

<p>But I dupe all my 35mm stuff now with a Sony NEX 7 (I don't use a DSLR) and a 55mm f/2.8 Nikon Micro-Nikkor. Yes, I still shoot film. Quite a bit, actually. Anyway, the NEX's 24.3 mp sensor provides me with 4000 x 6000 image files and that 55mm Nikkor is so dang sharp that it takes full advantage of the sensor's resolution. This performance is high enough to extract just about all the information there is in a 35mm slide or negative. I would like to begin using my rig with medium format film as well, but I'll need to cobble together some sort of setup for it.</p>

<p>I'm not a pro, so I don't have any of the concerns that they do, but I still do some freelance work now and again. And I find that a medium format film setup is often all I need. Most recently, I did a bridal shoot with my Bronica ETRSi and I developed the film, so the turn-around time was quick. There's a good pro lab here that I can use for quality prints, but she wanted digital files. So I just scanned the negatives on my 4990. The bride-to-be loved it.</p>

<p>I've always loved medium format, but I was never able to afford a good system. I made do with a couple of TLRs and a folder or two. Until all the pros dumped their MF gear and moved to digital, sending MF prices plummeting. So, not having the concerns the pros have, I took advantage of all the cheap prices, and have now put together two very nice MF outfits -- the aforementioned ETRSi with a set of lenses, grip, flash, and TTL flash module, and a Pentax 67 outfit with a small collection of lenses.</p>

<p>The pros can have their super expensive digital gear. I understand their reasons and I owe them a debt of thanks for dumping all their quality MF gear. I'm loving getting to use these great film outfits and producing simply stunning images. The variety of film emulsions available today may not be what it once was, but the emulsions that we have are the best they've ever been. So it behooves me to use as much as I can and enjoy using it for as long as I can and hope that it doesn't go away.</p>

[ed_lutz]

<p>This film vs digital stuff drives me nuts…<br>

<br /> First off, full disclosure. I shoot mostly film when it matters. Pretty much exclusively. I’ve been shooting since I was a kid, most of the pictures of me from back in elementary school have me wearing a Kodak Starflash around my neck, and it was a new camera back then a long time ago. This means I’m pretty well set in my ways, plus that I have enough experience to make rational decisions about the ways I want to pursue. I’ve also spent some time making money with a camera. Weddings, portraiture, sports (mostly motor sports), selling landscape prints, etc. I had a nice computer career going though and never wanted to drop that to pursue photography full time, preferring to keep it a serious hobby.<br>

<br /> That’s all just to let you know where I come from.<br>

<br /> Like I said, I shoot film. However, I don’t mind people shooting digital. Most of my photographer friends used to shoot film but now prefer digital. A couple who are fine art photographers with plenty of large and medium format film experience have said that they miss some of the qualities of those formats, but they really just like the convenience of digital and are willing to put up with its limitations in exchange for not having to deal with films different limitations. That’s cool, they produce lovely photographs with their DSLR’s. Really lovely in fact, and from an artistic sense I consider them both to be better photographers than myself, and I try to learn from them whenever I can.<br>

<br /> I personally prefer film for a number of reasons, reasons which really don’t matter at all as far as this discussion is concerned. What does matter is the pompous attitude that I hear from so many who want to proclaim that digital is “better”. Hmm… better… big word that. Really big in fact. Better, with no qualifiers, pretty much means just that. Better in all ways, no matter what, it’s just BETTER!<br>

<br /> We’re talking art here people.<br>

<br /> Who are any of us to proclaim to a fellow artist that our way is better, and they are less of an artist, and are wrong, because of the medium they choose to work in? Should Rembrandt have been told he was wrong, because pencils allowed higher resolution? I know a few painters and I’ve never heard a whiff of this kind of attitude from them. They each work in whatever medium they like and enjoy the work of fellow artists that choose to work in different mediums. I don’t think they’d ever dream of telling a fellow artist that they are wrong to choose the medium they use.<br>

<br /> I don’t understand. What is it about photography that causes so many of its practitioners to need to run down the methods used by their fellow photographers? And what has caused so many to feel that all that matters in photography is cold hard resolution?<br>

<br /> Marketing I’m sure plays a part. The camera manufacturers have touted pretty much nothing but resolution since digital cameras hit the stores, it’s the only way they can keep selling new cameras year after year.<br>

<br /> Maybe its fear of being wrong? Or a blind attachment to new technology? I don’t know but whenever I read something with the “if it isn’t digital it’s wrong” attitude it just comes across as ignorant of what photography is, where it came from, and what it can be.<br>

<br /> Shoot what and how, and in whatever medium and format you want. Create your art in your way, and do yourself a favor. Quit with the quasi religious proselytizing. It got old a long time ago.</p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>This film vs digital stuff drives me nuts…</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't see this thread as an argumentative "X vs Y" discussion. Everyone explained their own preferences and experience. If I say that I used drive a VW, but I drive a Ford now because it has more luggage space and a more responsive engine, that does not mean that I am giving vent to a verbal Ford vs VW deathmatch. I still miss some things about that VW :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What does matter is the pompous attitude that I hear from so many who want to proclaim that digital is “better”.<br>

Quit with the quasi religious proselytizing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I honestly didn't see any of that going on in this thread, Ed. Maybe Rodeo Joe did, a little, but his was more of a "big slow film beats small fast film" argument rather than anything about digital.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The camera manufacturers have touted pretty much nothing but resolution since digital cameras hit the stores, it’s the only way they can keep selling new cameras year after year.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now this, we can have a factual assessment of. The resolution/megapixel war really faded away 7 or 8 years ago. Since then, virtually everything new on the market has been between 12 and 24 MP. You have a few 36 and 50 mp models, but not many.<br>

What's actually been "touted" on digital cameras in recent years are qualities other than resolution - dynamic range, high-ISO performance, HD/4K video, mirrorless designs, touchscreens, wireless stuff...</p>

 

[ed_lutz]

<p>Ray, thank you for your calm, considered, response. It made me go back and reread the entire thread to see what you may have missed.</p>

<p>I couldn’t find anything.</p>

<p>Seems it was me. Overall upon rereading the whole thing, I have to say this thread is more pro film than digital, and not nearly as confrontational as my mind perceived it the first time through. Being the thoughtful introspective sort that I am I find this very interesting. The only real negative comments I could find were, as you mentioned, from Rodeo. I can only guess that he caught me in a bit of a mood and set me off.</p>

<p>So a big apology to all, this wasn’t really the thread for me to vent in.</p>

<p>My question at the end of my post however stands. Probably a discussion for a different thread, but I really do wonder what it is about photography that sets it apart from the other pictorial art forms and causes the divisive attitude I’ve seen in many other places.</p>

[donbright]

<p>Who could argue against a properly exposed 6x7 transparency, through great glass, in sweet light, scanned with a Heidelberg Tango Scanner at 600MB, printed on Fuji Crystal Archive Super Gloss 30x40, via Lightjet? If you insist on shooting Medium Format film today and you haven't experienced this formula, you need to see the possibilities. Cost? Expensive, but who shoots 10 frames of anything in any medium worthy of a 30x40? Who even prints 30x40? But that's the point. Medium format film Photography is about capturing that highly worthy frame that if technically inline, will print and show off tonality in a very special way that is so tasteful, so attractive, it is to justify the point and the point of the thread IMO. But you really have to have your ducks in a row to do this and accept some inconvenience and be dedicated to slowing down.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Don which lab do you recommend?</p>

[donbright]

<p>West%20Coast%20Imaging.webarchive<br>

<br /> Alan, That's West Coast Imaging in Oakhurst California.<br /> West Coast Imaging has the Heidelberg Tango Scanner, they also have a Chromira Lightjet Printer.<br>

<br /> Moebius Digital One in San Diego also has a Lightjet Printer, although I don't think they have the Tango scanner.<br>

<br /> I'm so not surprised you responded, as I've seen your work and its right inline for these services.</p>

[ondebanks]

<p>No problem, Ed - glad to see that on reviewing the evidence, you came to a different conclusion.<br>

You hadn't targeted anyone in particular, so I didn't think an apology was warranted, but it was big of you to do that as well.</p>

[m_allegretta]

I use film with the 500 c/m, during which, I imagine the resulting picture. After receiving and seeing the prints, I smile, seeing the result is better than I imagined. DSLR gratifies quickly, and images can be manipulated until they satisfy.

[Silent Street]

Really?

For years my production images were scanned on an Epson V700. Images are now drum scanned because I print very large (1 metre across) from 6x7. There is a difference, especially with the cost! But that is built into the presentation price of the finished work when going up for sale.

 

Film vs digital? This is not a competition (only the naive think it is), but a choice, and neither is superior to the other. Those with a solid grounding in classic foundation photography were brought up on and continue to use, as a preference, film — as in my case, there are legions of others. I don't use digital very often even though I have two digital cameras.