Worried that medium format will be forgotten by the time I am a true adult

[spanky]

Hi Jonathan and everyone else. I'm 33 and had to give some serious thought before I shelled out several grand on a Mamiya RZ67 Pro II with several lenses, prisim finder ect. I too am worried that film will one day become a speciality item. Right now I can go to any number of camera shops and pick up whatever I need in 120 film. How long before I have to order film, wait for the shipment to arrive? Right now I pay about $3.00-$3.75 for a roll. Will the scarcity of film go up to $10 or more per roll. I hope not. I would not hesitate to purchase a digital back (I'm not sure if Mamiya makes on for the Pro II) but I'm not going to spend the $$$ even if I had it. Most folks here agree that a digital print still cannot approach MF for detail, tone, and over all quality. So as long as there are photographers that value quality over speed and convenience, there will be film available.

As for older people using MF and film I find the opposite is true.

For instance my father started out in 35mm and then went to a RB67 then back to 35mm for years and years. Now he is Mr. Digital. He is constantly raving about not wasting money on film and being able to see pictures after they were taken. However, there is a very distinct drop in the quality of his photos. Now that he can shoot as much as he likes without stressing over getting his measly $3.00 worth for the roll of film, he doesn't put in the time to really look and think about what he's shooting. So he deletes most of his pics. Then he get's on the bandwagon for each new camera that comes out. So he has about 4 or 5 digital cameras sitting around since they become obsolete so fast. I don't see him saving money if he has to buy a new $500 camera every six months or so. So yes our instant gratification society we've become is partly to blame. So go ahead and have fun with your MF system. When your pictures are compared to those who shoot digital you'll have the pride that comes with producing something that you put your heart and craftmanship into. Such items always have more value in the long run.

Cheers,

Marc

[jonathan_bundick]

I'm 40, and though the only MF I use is an old 6x9 folder (shoot LF more) I think you should shoot what produces the results you want, and the rest of the world be dam....

 

Don't let what others are shooting influence your choices. Be yourself, and enjoy your photography.

[raymond bradlau]

"Part of the reason you see mostly "older" people using medium format is, I might

speculate, that the gear is generally more expensive. Your average college student

usually can't afford a whole lot of Hasselblad equipment."

 

Greg Jones,

Very good point I wanted a MF SLR for as long as I can remeber (probabley around the

time I first noticed my granfathers 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 slides and HUGE B&W prints) but

could not afford one for another 15 years, but with the price of used MF now being so

low, its a great time to get started

 

Funny now that Im 31 and can afford better gear they start practically giving it away

used, soon I will be adding a darkroom and film for me will be B&W and color will

handled digitaly (I think this should work great for me)

 

BTW Im surprised at such language from a couple of you MFers (Medium Formate

Users) at your age I expect better (:

[silent1]

Jonathan, you've heard, by now, an immense range of opinions.

 

I first shot film in 1966 or 1967, at six or seven years of age (born in 1959). I learned to operate an adjustable camera around 1969, age nine. I bought my first 35 mm SLR in 1972 -- just over $100 in Nixon era money for a camera that was then 27 years old, with a 50 mm and 135 mm lens (the 50 mm was f/3.5, the 135 f/4, IIRC), traded it for a Kodak Reflex II 620 TLR a couple years later, then sold that around 1975 or 1976. There hasn't been a day since 1970, however, when I didn't own some kind of film camera I could call my own, and there won't be such a day as long as I walk this Earth. Right now, I own more than a dozen functional film cameras (two 16 mm subminiature, five 35 mm, five 120 in various formats, one 9x12 cm large format) and six more in various states of awaiting repair. The oldest are about seventy-five years old, and I can still buy film for them (though not at the local camera store). The newest are more than twenty years old, aside from the 35 mm junk snapshooters. I expect to be able to continue to use all of them for the foreseeable future.

 

Even the sheet film cameras in the relatively obscure 9x12 cm format can, if necesary, use film cut down from a larger format, and I don't see 8x10 or even 4x5 film disappearing any time soon; despite protestations by the digital folks, even a $30k digital 22 mp back on MF won't give the level of resolution, critical sharpness, or color rendition that's available from an 8x10 chrome in a field camera with movements -- such a transparency is capable of producing 1.28 gigapixels at 32 bit color depth without exceeding the capacity of the film, given adequate scanning systems; for that reason alone, film will continue to be made for certain critical applications for many decades to come. A digital array capable of that resolution would currently cost well over a million dollars, compared to a thousand or two for an 8x10 field camera and high quality lens.

 

So, perhaps film will disappear before I die -- my family has a distressing habit of living long years (distressing because I wonder what condition I'll be in at 90) -- but I think it unlikely. And even if film completely vanishes, I can, if necessary, revert to wet plates contact printed to salted paper or albumen with my large format cameras, coming full circle to techniques there were obsolescent, but still practiced and the subject of concern as to their longevity when my 1920s vintage plate cameras were made. As long as people can buy plate glass, silver, and nitric acid (and if necessary, they can make nitric acid), silver based photography will live.

[joe_paulo1]

im 16, shot my first roll of 35mm in july/august last year. with in 2 months i brought

a rb pro sd and seconic meter, i recenly recived a reqest for a quote for a commision

that it looks likely will go ahead, so i treated my self to upgrading to a RZ Pro 2

because the seperate film advance lever on rb's drove me crazy. Dont worry about

medium and large format dying out i know for a fact the quality v price of digital wont

be good enought for most high end pros for a long time. Joe

[christian_kolinski]

Hi,

 

I'm 21. I'm a student of computer science and I don't own a digital, never have, and don't will in the near future. Just got my Mamiya 645 serviced to keep it fit for the next 20 years. Just got out today to take some shoots with my pre-war Rolleiflex.

 

I expect to get my 645 velvia slides back any day soon. Was shooting a steam powered locomotive who did service here for a few days.

 

Let the fools go for digital. Never have been able to buy MF-gear so cheap. Just got a Mamiya 150mm 1:4 lens from ebay. First shoots look promising. Cost? 55Eur inc. shipping (ok, that was a real bargain).

 

Film will be availiable for a long, long time to come. Maybe the big players like Kodak will drop film someday. There will plenty of companys which will be only too happy to fit the gap.

 

Raised with ignorance to history? Pah. I just have to look out the window to see witnesses of about 1000 years of history.

 

Chris.

[thomas5]

I'll be 32 in July and I shoot a clunky old Bronica S2A. I've got a lot of 35mm SLRs that I

could use (two of them fully automatic) that I hardly ever use. I've considered digital if for

no other reason, the ease of making images web-worthy. In the end though, it's the MF

kit I like best.

 

 

I understand your concern though, Jonathan. Just because you and I (and a whole heck of

a lot of the rest of the readers of this forum) like MF doesn't mean that we're likely to

always be able to find it. The instant gratification that comes with digital (nods to what Jay

had to say) is rampant. I'm hoping though, that the people who use the most digital stuff

are ones who are documenting things, like newspaper photogs. I think that for real "art"

photography, there will always be a niche for dorks like us who still like the magic of

watching the image solidify on the paper as we agitate the developer tray.

 

 

And for what it's worth, I'm an English teacher but a bunch of the boys at my private

school are bugging me to show them how to shoot film. I'm making them start with

Holgas. I think it'll be good for their sense of composition. Mostly it's because I want

them to know that there's more than digital cameras and 35mm available.

 

 

And last, who're you calling middle-aged, junior? :)

[keith_laban]

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p>Jonathan<p>Like you I�m hooked on medium format and film. I too salivate when I see a good transparency on the lightbox. But I live in the real world and accept that transparency film is going to become a minority sport (actually it will be the lack of good fast E6 processing that will accelerate the demise of these films). I don�t doubt that someone somewhere will carry on manufacturing transparency film and someone will still process it, but to all intents and purposes it will no longer be a viable option for many. How long will this take, well who knows, but I�d be surprised if we were having this discussion ten years from now.<p>However, I believe that medium format will live on and thrive. There is no doubt in my mind that the 22MP digital backs for medium format already outperform roll film and certainly outperform the smaller DSLR cameras, but this is good news for MF. You only have to look at the Hasselblad H1 to see the direction for our beloved format. Here�s to the future :-)

[steven_palow]

im 24 and love my contax 645 that ive had for about 2.5 yrs. my photography has improved a whole lot from working with this camera. if anything the constant cost and inconvience of ordering and dropping off/picking up film has taught me to slow the hell down. i wouldnt trade this experience for anything.

 

the romantic side of me used to be real anti digital a few years ago. "yuck" was a pretty good way of summing up my feelings too. the traditional processes just seemed so mysterious and special. something other people hadnt a clue about, esp when they saw you shooting with somthing that was anything but a point and shoot.

 

i was relating that to one of my photo teachers and he told me that doesnt really matter to a lot of clients. it might to some but probably not many. the ones it will matter to are just scared your work will look like their little 3meg point and shoot.

 

i took that to heart bc of something else he said to us as a class. your images have to be able to stand on their own. you cant be standing next to your pictures and explain what was so cool or fun or neato about what theyre looking at. if the image is really strong i dont think most people will care about how you made it. if its weak i dont think explaining how many hours you were in the darkroom, burning and dodging, and making test prints, will save it either.

 

whats my point? im a big fan of med format, but the romance of it all is quickly fading. i truely dont mean that to sound negative if it comea across that way.

 

there are two things im really looking forward to whenever it is that i "go digital." 1 is the instant gratification as some put it. i prefer to think of it as instant feedback for me and a client, but im just trying to be realistic. kind of hand in hand with that is all the experimentation ill be free to do at no cost. 2 is the total control of the image from start to finish. i really think that with digital ill still be able to give someone a piece of myself, maybe even moreso. just bc i dont understand the complex functions a program and a printer do to get my image on paper wont make me any less of an artist. off the top of my head im a little rusty on all the chemistry that take place in traditional photography. i dont think that really makes my work any better or worse.

 

im keenly aware of some of the big drawbacks of digital, i just think that sometimes the drawbacks of film are over looked, when the word digital enters the pic.

 

dont worry jonathan, i think film will be around for a long time. if your just shooting as a hobby, shoot whatever you want. if noone else has a clue what med format is then the better for you bc it adds to that whole romance thing.

 

i dont know about your future plans for photography are, but im hoping that i will make a good living with photography. i think digital will be a big part of that. i also wont hesitate to shoot film with my beloved contax if thats what the situation calls for.

 

even though its true, i hate it when i see people posts a messages to the tune of "cant we all just get along" so ill end this by wondering how we all feel about this in 20 yrs when film will almost certainly be an alternative process?

 

steven

[pete_andrews10]

To paraphrase another pontificating old fart that this current generation has neither heard of, nor cares about. "The medium is not the message."

 

Nobody should really care if an image was shot with a 20x16 view camera, a gold-plated Leica, or captured on a CCD inside a pinholed baked-bean tin. As long as that image either a) fulfills it's commercial purpose, b) grabs your emotions, or c) pokes you squarely in the intellect.

 

Nuff said?

[wayne_crider4]

Right on Pete!

[kelly_flanigan1]

The 120 format came out in 1901; with the Kodak Brownie Number 2 camera. The spools were wooden then. My dad had a darkroom kit as a kid that had a candle as the safelight light source. My grandfather shot 8x10 and made contact prints. The prints are super sharp.

[GerrySiegel]

Wise words from old owls. One out of ten shooters is a serious photographer and processes a roll a month or more. One out of 25 of those cherishes film and is not pouring a pile on digital SLRs nor will sell off the film gear at big loss. One out 50 of that stubborn bunch regularly uses/ puts up with the size penalty of MF. One out of ... of is worried about the future of MF film cameras. So worry about something uncontrollable if you will. Some follow the herd or lead it,-some still . Panasonic still makes a quality turntable and styluses for thos who follow a different analog drummer.But: Change running shoes every 6 months however for da feet! GS, sexegenarian

[scott_eaton]

I recently read that the entire score for the film 'Master and Commander' was mixed and compiled on a Mac G4. Gee, what happened to the gool old days where you used an entire room full of analog equipment and mixing boards. <P>

 

Good points, Keith. As somebody who MF shoots slides, color negs, *and* digital capture, I'm getting tired of heard this arguement. Going to be tough justifying a 120 format camera when you have no way to process E-6 film because the labs have all killed the lines.<P>

 

Next item of extinction; Medium format digital camera backs. The market trend for these monsters is very limited, and due to low demand the price will be high. Improvements in the 35mm dSLR will replace medium format, not higher tech/lower priced MF backs.<P>

 

It's amazing the number of people that obsess over this topic when they should be spending their energies perfecting their technique with the equipment they have. <P><I>I think if more folks my age saw velvia chromes from my 67 they'd be hooked like I am.</i><P>Today's younger crowd is materialistic and superficial as it is. In this respect I'm glad they aren't hooked on a universaly ugly and fake material as Velvia.

[andrew_c2]

Black and white films will continue to be produced. Where? Dunno.

 

Black and white processing is already exorbitantly expensive, and let's face it,

if you shoot that much b&w, you're probably processing it yourself or are (a)

pro or (b) rich, so costs (a) shouldn't get in the way of your product, or (b) don't

mean a damn thing anyway.

 

What this means, is that the film process, from the processing to the printing, is

going to become a real niche. Just like what shooting with plates or

daguerreotypes is like now. One roll of E6 a week don't cut it. Businesses

need to make profits to survive. Goodbye colour film. Unless you want to

process it yourself.

 

B&W, yeah, that's where it's at. Any medium that's basically been an artistic

niche since, hey, when did colour become popular among the mainstream?

The 60s? Yeah. Any film that's been an artistic niche for that long, comparing

to the rest of the disposable-wielding population, is still gonna be there. Or,

you can move outside of the Northern countries, where film is going to be the

mainstay until the Revolution.

 

But I think 35mm E6 is done. Oh, and medium and large format B&W? That'll

survive a nuclear holocaust, along with certain varieties of beetle. The lack of

processing facilities will kill medium format E6.

[andrew_c2]

"Black and white processing is already exorbitantly expensive..."

 

I meant, paying someone to do it for you.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> I meant, paying someone to do it for you. </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Even doing it yourself it expensive, if you shoot enough. <p>

 

A roll a day of b&w film plus processing costs maybe $25/week -- not including sunk costs

for basic hardware or the considerable time needed for processing, drying and necessary

scanning. <p>

 

That's $1,300 for 365 rolls in a year, not counting many hours of painstaking processing/

drying/scanning drudgery. And I value my time. <p>

 

For that money upfront (more or less, depending on your

choice) you could go digital, never have to buy a roll of film again, or buy chemicals, or

spend a moment in a dark bathroom, or a lit bathroom shaking a can of film or waiting for

film to dry, or slipping negatives into slide carriers and waiting for them to scan. Plus,

based on the experiences of people who've gone digital, it's likely that you would shoot far

more than a roll a day if so inclined. Plus there's the immediate feedback and ability to

reshoot if needed, the quick, easy viewing of images on a computer, the ease of

transferring and emailing, etc, etc. With Photoshop and some experience (and maybe a

good b&w plugin) you can get excellent images ... and have more control over images and

how they're printed too.

[Spearhead]

Here's something to think about.<p>

 

<i>Photographers</i> worry about things like when their project will be finished, what the next project is, how to get the next show, if they need to change their style, etc. etc. Commercial <i>photographers</i> worry about additional things like where the next job is, what does it take to market better, how to get the costs down, etc. etc.<p>

 

People who worry about what film will be around are, well, you figure it out...

[shutay]

Hi Jonathan, I am also hopeful that medium format film never dies out. I just turned 30 this month. The current fanatical craze with digital is a bit alarming, although I can understand it up to a point.

 

I spent a lot of years not really doing very much with my manual focus 35mm film SLR, then one day when the electronic circuit failed and I sent it off for repair, I went out and bought a Nikon CoolPix 995 digital camera. It helped me to rediscover photography (sad, I know, but nevermind!). I tended to shoot it at waist level (since it has a swivel body), so it reminded me about father's old Yashica TLR so off I went to look for it. I duly sent it for a CLA, shot some Fuji Provia 100F and I've never looked back. Then I bought a lovely Welta Weltur folder (apparently from 1936-1940 period) which is a joy to shoot - I just load it with black and white film and guess exposure.

 

Since then I have added a Bronica SQ-Ai system with classic 3 lens setup and a Graflex Super Graphic 4x5 camera with 2 lenses. People generally think I'm either crazy, rich & stupid or all the above, but nobody can argue with the results.

 

Although I still shoot digital sometimes (especially events or parties), I shoot medium format for everything else.

[shutay]

Ultimately though, I guess even if medium format film dies out, there'd be little I could do about it anyway, so I would just appreciate the chance I have now to enjoy the craft, learn something from it and have a good time making pictures!

[db1]

My prediciton is this...

 

Digital will kill color film. Black and white will live on for many more years. I believe the last film to go will be Tri-X.

 

I am in my mid 30's and use a Hasselblad. I use a digital camera for my point and shoot photos. Anything worth photographing (to me) will be in black and white and will be on film and will be on a tripod.

 

Why? Because I will always be able to make a print. My enlarger will never be obsolete. Because I do not need tech support and an 800 number to fix my equipment. Because I will always be able to make my own chemicals if I need to. Will the CD-Rom be around in 10 years? I doubt it.

[h_kan_th_rngren]

<i>For that money upfront (more or less, depending on your choice) you

could go digital, never have to buy a roll of film again, or buy

chemicals, or spend a moment in a dark bathroom, or a lit bathroom

shaking a can of film or waiting for film to dry, or slipping

negatives into slide carriers and waiting for them to scan. Plus,

based on the experiences of people who've gone digital, it's likely

that you would shoot far more than a roll a day if so inclined. Plus

there's the immediate feedback and ability to reshoot if needed, the

quick, easy viewing of images on a computer, the ease of transferring

and emailing, etc, etc. With Photoshop and some experience (and maybe

good b&w lugin) you can get excellent images ... and have more control over images and how they're printed too.</i>

<p>

 

Sounds very good, but I not so sure about everything in your happy world.

<p>

 

First of all, with digital you have to spend time making backups

over and over. There are also costs involved in this, labour time,

new media and backup devices. Compared to film where you put

them in a binder and are done for 100 years.

Film among other things is a storage medium, it is as simple as that.

<p>

 

I can no longer enjoy my transparencies on a lightboard, or project

them. (Well, I can get a digital projector and "enjoy" it at some

ridiculous resolution, but I think I will pass on that.)

<p>

 

As soon as I have scanned a picture, I get all benefits of digital

post processing (minus the backup headache), like easy viewing on computer,

emailing etc and I can work with Photoshop, I promise you that.

<p>

 

 

About instant feedback and retaking pictures. Well, I borrowed a

digital camera and I could not for my life tell if the pictures I

took were sharp or not. They looked sharp, until I downloaded them

to a computer and saw that they were not sharp. Rather useless

instant feedback.

When I get back a pack of slides taken with

my manual non-metered Leica, at least 95% are well exposed and

properly focused. Many times 100% are.

<p>

 

I think I can take the cost of film. I take about a roll per week,

that is a small cost for the benefits I get.

<p>

 

I can assure you that I value my time too, but I also value the

added possibilities with film and lack of digital backup headache too.

<p>

 

Besides, I get more satisfaction out of using a manual camera than

a menu driven digital camera or an expensive heavy DSLR with

noisy mirror that go obsolete in a couple of years.

<p>

 

I fear that you all-digital guys may get what you want, a filmless

world. Maybe for that reason, I should just get that Mamiya 7 and

a couple of lenses I am lusting for and use it while it is still

possible...

 

[christian_kolinski]

If you're not a serius pro, digtital is no alternative to MF, not yet. It's still too expensive. When you look at the price of a 22MP-back, how much rolls of film can you buy and develop for that amount? I bet more than most semi-professionals shoot during the next 2 to 5 years.

 

Second, digtial is not that much cheaper in running costs as film. When you calculate the "total cost of ownership" you have to look at thinks like the cost of the computer you need, the amount of CDs or DVDs to save the pictures (we're talking about 22MP raw, that means >120MB/picture. So you can save ca. 5 pics/cd or 40/dvd). And you have to copy the CDs every 2 - 5 years to prevent loss due to corrupted media or incompatible new equippment.

 

I remeber copy my first computer files

 

from tape to disk

from cp/m disk to ms-dos disk

from 5,25" ms-dos-disk to 3,5" disk

from 3,5" disk to 3,5 disk (because this 3,5" HD bastards die like flys)

from 3,5" to cd-rom

fron cd-r to cd-r (because I've got a bad batch the first time. Died after 2 years)

 

Now I think about DVDs. Or waiting till blue-ray disks are out? hmm.

 

Do you think "normal" people will do this with their digital images?

Or will they realise in maybe 10 years that their cd-r have died and they couldn't read it anyway, because nobody owns a cd-rom drive anymore.

 

How easy my slides are. Mount them, sort 'em, and don't have to care for the next 15 years (or 50 if using Kodachrome).

 

I've found a picture last week. It was in a box, hidden away in the attic for I assume more than 60 years. It shows my grand-grandfather in front of the post-office he worked at. Looking at the uniforms, inscriptions ("Kaiserliches Reichspostamt") and knowing a bit about my grand-grandfathers history I date it to 1900-1910. Do you think this would be possible with digital? What will my grandchilds find in 100 years?

 

Black and white film will never die. Never. Why? Because you can mix your own developer, fixer, even film.

 

Color will be a bit different, but I don't see it's death anytime soon. Maybe you woun't be able to send your E6 to a local lab anymore, but mail-order will be there for a long, long time. Or order your own E6-kit and DIY. It's not rocket-science 'ya know.

[andrew_c2]

"Maybe you woun't be able to send your E6 to a local lab anymore, but mail-

order will be there for a long, long time."

 

Maybe it will be there for a long, long time, but if E6 processing labs become

so few and far between, how many will really know that they are out there?

The few thousand or so that visit this site? That's not close to what is needed.

 

Furthermore, if there are less labs, chances are that the price of E6

developing will skyrocket. Do the cost-benefit analysis. It's not rocket

science, y'know!! ;)

 

But really, Jeff's right: it's fun to speculate, but not terribly productive. Me, I

just keep going on Ebay and try to find better deals on film than what's up

here in Canada (not too hard.). I'm sure I'll be doing that for a long, long time.

 

André

[christian_kolinski]

There six labs developing kodachrome on the whole planet! And I never had much difficulties to find one.

 

For the cost analysis: Velvia and Provia in 120 are less than 4Eur, development is 2Eur (if not included, depends on where I buy them). If doing myself less than 1Eur.

 

The Kodak Kodak DCS Pro Back 645H with 16MP is $11,000 at B&H.

Thats about 2000x Velvia incl. processing. Not included the price for memory-cards and harddisks to save the 30000 pictures. And the DCS 645H is one of the cheaper ones...

 

It will be a different story in five years time.

It IS a different story for a pro who needs his pictures ASAP.