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

[roland_ehrlich2]

Jonathan: I am thirty and bought a Bronica SQ-Ai last year. In the meantime, I switched to Hasselblad because of Bronica`s quality problems. My only regret is that I didn`t go medium format earlier (had a 135 SLR for twenty years). But on the other hand, I couldn`t afford it earlier. The advantage of all medium format using pros going digital is that we as non-professionals get the equipment a lot cheaper than some years ago. But last week, as I wanted to have my E6 developed in Cologne/Germany, the shop was closed. The sign on the door read: "Due to vanishing demand in analog lab work, we have to terminate our services".

[shin_bone]

By the time film becomes so scacre that it is diffcult to use, digital will be so good that you will happily embrace it with enthusiasm.

[diegobuono]

I'm 32 and I use MF, I'm not interested i digital cameras. Young people did not ever seen a MF slide so they can't understand when we talk about quality (tecnical quality not artistic quality). They are happy about the picture the obtain from mobile phones!!!!!!

A lot of people tell the convenience to see the result immediatly, before the digital era they used the same roll for Christmass and summer holiday, why now they need this instant result???!!!

The new generations want all immediatly, they don't want quality because nobody educated to it. The marketing claims "digital is better" and the trust it if nobody show them the real quality or the advantage of having a tool that can serve you for many years to come instead that need to buy new stuff every now end then.

[larry_menzin]

The best way to go is to shoot both.

 

I shoot 35mm digital with a DCS 760 and MF Film with a Pentax 67. With a Zork shift adapter I use the P67 lenses on my 35mm camera for double duty.

 

Using the shift adapter and stitching together 35mm digital images, I can meet or exceed the quality available from the scanned 67 format. Hopefully, Pentax will come up with a MF digital camera that I can use with their lenses and the film body will be retired.

 

In the meantime, have fun with whatever is out there!

 

Larry

[lachaine]

Why worry? Photography is lenses and technique (plus talent), not cameras. I like film and I hate all things digital. However, as I said, why worry? If it ever comes to pass that there's no film or film processing, there will still be cameras. So chances are that whatever lens system you have will somehow be useable, and most of your current photographic knowledge will too. My guess is that film processing will in fact get scarcer. We have been spoiled over the past 20 years or so by easy local availability of processing for almost any film except Kodachrome and some Agfa. All that will happen, in my lifetime anyway, is that it will be like it was when I first started in photography. Back then, in the 1970's, I had to drop my 35mm film off somewhere, and I went back 5 days later to get it. In the meantime, just enjoy what medium format gives you, ie. terrific, rich, smooth tones - when that's what you want. No affordable digital can compete with that except maybe on a computer screen, which about as low quality a photo display method as there is. People still ride horses even though there are cars and bicycles. I think we will all find that the digital frenzy will abate after a while, and that technology cannot dictate hobbies or artistic endeavour. I would worry a lot more about 35mm photography though, as 35mm is has really always been about getting the shot, not necessarily image quality. So that might go all digital at some point - although I doubt it. Me, when all the "images" posted on websites like this and others are from digital cameras, I will relish the fact that I continue to use film. In the end, who will care? Eugene Atget, the famous photographer and documenter of Paris, continued to use his large format cameras despite other photogs at the time trying to get him to start using a Rolleiflex TLR. By that time, film technology had advanced to the point where 120 roll film could have given him the same or better quality that when Atget started, required a large format. When we look at his photos today - and we can because they weren't just digital, do we really care what camera he used? No, we just love the pictures. Atget remained happy, and we're happy.

[lucas_griego]

Jonathan,

Things will change - hopefully (and likely) there will always be a way to use your MF gear. Right now you can do both film and digital - err.. if you can afford a digital MF back. They're still astoundingly expensive. I still use mine a ton for work even though I do shoot quite a bit of digital.

 

A funny thing happened to me the other day. I was supposed to meet a client to show an image he requested (an older image I'd shot on MF transparency film) - so in my portfolio I have mounted this very very thin light box to be able to show off tranny's on the go.. I met the client at Starbucks (gotta have coffee) and I popped open my book, flipped on the light box - and I threw the tranny on. The client liked it...(even though he's seen a lot of my digital work he still does the whole 'ooh ahh thing when he see's a tranny on the light box... hmmm.. so do I) at any rate - after the client went on his way... several younger people (early twenties) that had been sitting near our table when I was showing the client this tranny on the lightbox approached me and said with this amazed look in their eyes...

 

"hey man, Wow, was that digital!? Cool."

 

LOL! What the fcuk!?!?!

[tim obrien]

You can talk all day about photography being the image, not the camera... but that's your opinion. When the day comes that I can't go down and find a roll of film to drop into my ancient 120 folder (or fill in the blank ____ (4x5)(135)(3x4)(etc.)) is the day I give up the image making process, at least photography based. To some of us, and I am hopefully middle aged (47), it's the process that gets our juices flowing. Somehow the few times I used a digital for work porpoises, I was uninspired. It's a damned point and shoot.

 

 

Before you pass on me being an old fogie, I spend my days as a software engineer, programing robots. I don't want or need to spend more time in front of a computer, making images. That's what my darkroom is for.

 

So will there be film when you get to my age? No idea. Decide what you want out of photography and go get it while the gettin's good. There be a whole lot of Tri-X (or fill in the blank ____) for you to burn.

 

 

tim in san jose

[lachaine]

Further to my post above, I would also just give up photography altogether and maybe take up painting, when all the film is gone (not that I think it will be in my lifetime, and I'm 50). I'm not a luddite either, since I've been pretty closely-involved with computers since before 1980. I couldn't do some of the things I do now without them. Heck, to be perfectly frank, I would already be six-feet under without the super high-tech computer-controlled hemodialysis machine I have to be hooked up to 3 times per week, so how can I be against technology? But when it comes to photography, it's just not the same passtime or hobby or activity when it's digital. Like I said above, technology cannot dictate hobbies or art, since the artist is free to choose whichever medium her/she wants. Like Marshall McLuhan said, it's the medium that is the message. Digital isn't "improving" anything in photography. It's just a fancier Polaroid, and one could even argue that it's not photography at all - even though it has usurped that word for itself.

[bob haight]

Gee. I didn't know there was only old and middle aged folks here. I should play with kids my own age.

[bob haight]

Gee. I didn't know there was only old and middle aged folks here. I should play with kids my own age.

[keith_laban]

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p> <i>"A funny thing happened to me the other day......"</i><p>Lucas, wonderful story! I showed some of my 6x6 transparencies to a digital age young couple recently and they were totally underwhelmed. "But they are so small, our digital camera takes much bigger pictures!" Such is life :-)

[lachaine]

My local experience is that kids, mainly teens, young adults, are buying cheap disposable film cameras, not fancy digital ones, unless their parents buy them a picture phone. I think there is an increasing number of people of all ages who are getting wise to this racket of expensive cameras plagued with instant obsolescence. What was a big Christmas present just a year ago is now basically a piece of junk compared to what the other guy just bought, and his will suffer the same fate in no time at all. These are all basically very expensive disposable cameras - too expensive to repair when something goes wrong, if repairable at all. Meanwhile, I would wager that the used camera market for cheap, simple 35mm and 120 film cameras has never been more active than it is now. So, somebody is using film!

[scot_murray]

I love these threads, they bring out the best in all of us, akin to going to the shopping mall on December 24th. ;-)

 

Jon, I'm a 30 year old guy that works in a (consumer) lab, printing digital images all day long. I can vouch for the fact that it's not just "the younger generation" that are diving into the digital pool. I am not going to comment on how the quality of consumer images have changed. I'm tryin' real hard.

 

Look at previous technology changes, paradigm shifts: Roll film didn't kill sheet film. 35mm didn't kill roll film. Why start worrying about digital imaging killing emulsion? Sure, 10 years from now you won't be able to get (insert your current favourite Kodak/Fuji/whatever film here), but film will still be available. You'll find new favourites.

 

For myself, photography is a hobby. I'd like for every shot to have the potential to be an 11x14, or 12x18. I don't shoot a roll a week, I can go months without picking up my camera. Would I invest in digital for my uses? Heck no. If I was to start professional wedding photography tomorrow would I use digital? Better believe it.

 

I'll stick with my Mamiya C220, Honeywell-Nikor System 6x7 enlarger and Nikkor lens. They don't need OS/RAM/HD/recording media upgrades. Still working great. I'm still having fun.

 

The issue of easily available E6 processing should concern you, if you shoot E6. The lab I work in runs a Noritsu E6 machine now, but will it in two years time? We send all our customers b&w film to a custom lab now, I can see E6 easily going the same way.

 

There... another lash at the horse that was dead 3 furlongs and 8 jumps back, with the end of the race nowhere in sight.

 

Let the dead horse race continue!

 

-Scot

 

As a PS: I wonder if artists that use paint to express themselves have such acrimonious disputes over oil vs. watercolour vs. acrylic? Going from what I know of human nature... probably.

[keith_laban]

Huh.....watercolours are for Sunday painters ;-)

[lex_jenkins]

"As a PS: I wonder if artists that use paint to express themselves have such acrimonious disputes over oil vs. watercolour vs. acrylic? Going from what I know of human nature... probably."

 

=============================

 

Nope. There are debates and disputes within each discipline and form, but watercolorists, oil painters, acrylic painters and those who still keep egg tempera alive all respect each other and let them be.

 

As an example of in-fighting, there are heated debates within the oil medium over whether one should use the ready-made, quick drying mediums or go back to the traditional mediums proven by time.

 

Watercolorists fuss over the importance of prominent membership in one of the more prestigious societies, as if attaching, for example, AWS to their signature will add value to their paintings.

 

Acrylic artists fuss over whether to accept mixed media artists into their fold or shunt them to another unique and distinctive discipline.

 

But none of 'em worry about whether digital art will make them obsolete. And they all learned long ago that oil did not obsolete egg tempura completely, watercolors were also done by oil painters and the ease of acrylics did not bring about the death of oils.

[db1]

Jonathan, being 23 years old makes you an adult. You should move out of your parents house already.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> I think there is an increasing number of people of all ages who are

getting wise to this racket of expensive cameras plagued with instant obsolescence.

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Obsolescence means something becomes obsolete. Planned obsolescence is purposeful

activity by companies to spur repeat sales by making consumer goods that break down or

wear out. That is not happening here. <p>

 

Computers and digital cameras are products which have a history of rapid change and

improvement. Old goods are not obsolete, only supplanted.

[donald_davis2]

Keith Laban writes:

<br>

<i>Lucas, wonderful story! I showed some of my 6x6 transparencies to a digital age young couple recently and they were totally underwhelmed. "But they are so small, our digital camera takes much bigger pictures!" Such is life :-)</i>

<br>

<br>

Keith, now that would have been funny to see! Of course, we will not bother to ask them about the size of their CCD/CMOS sensors. But...did you try to explain to them and did it even sink in???

<br>

<br>

Btw, I first got hooked into MF when I picked up a lackluster Ricohflex TLR and fired off my first roll of Vericolor III. That was way back in 1989 when I was but...<b>NINETEEN!</b> Two years later I bought a used Minolta Autocord and really began to see what it could do. A TLR is no 'Blad, but still, the results compared to 35mm were great. Now my Autocord is suffering from a sticky shutter, a stuck diaphragm blade, as well as a frame counter that will not reset automatically when I open the back. Ever crank a full unexposed roll of film onto the takeup spool because the frame counter did not reset and it still thought you were at the end? So now, at the age of 34, I recently acquired a Bronica GS-1.

<br>

<br>

My take on digital is that they will eventually learn to coexist happily. MY friend has a digital rebel and it takes some gorgeous photos. Granted he has not printed anything as of yet nor has he taken the memory card to get RA4 prints made. But like others have said, shoot what you like and enjoy what you do. Film will still be around for a while to come. I also feel that black and white will remain long after color goes the way of the dodo bird...which I do not think will happen anytime soon.

<br>

<br>

Some of our more active members will probably debate my next statement vigorously. And that is fine. But...digital has yet to kill Polaroid. Polaroid still makes plenty of MF and LF films for previewing. So if Polaroid can still weather the storm in the face of 22MP backs, I think color film will probably last about another decade.

[keith_laban]

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p><i>"Keith, now that would have been funny to see! Of course, we will not bother to ask them about the size of their CCD/CMOS sensors. But...did you try to explain to them and did it even sink in???"</i><p>Donald, I tried to explain but without much success. In the end I showed them some prints from my "small pictures" and they were totally overwhelmed, but looked much happier when I explained that the prints were in fact printed digitally.

[beepy]

<blockquote>

... That's why so many of you mutilate yourselves with tattoos and piercings, in a

desperate cry to get some feeling back from the numbness. ...

</blockquote>

And some of us view the results as additional opportunities and subjects for

photography.

<p>

Large format - make your own film and chemicals. It has been fascinating to read

about alternate processes/technology in some photography history books. View

Camera and other publications have articles on alternative processes. If you want to

do "film".

<p>

"Digital" is just a tool in the end.

[j_h]

hi Jonathan and everyone else, I'm 43 and 20 years ago i started photographing with a 4x5 inch linhof, now i work with several toy camera's containing 120 and 620 film and i love the pictures, (and working with plastic camera's) my oldest camera is 70 years old and uses 127 film (still available), enjoy the moment (power of photography) and don't worry about the future, greetings from holland, jelke

[jeffrey_abelson]

Hi Jon: look at the history of photography and see the fads and gimmicks that have come and gone - from mini spy cameras to 110 format to 11x17 banquet cameras to Polaroid instant film to the failed APS format. Even film has gone through many permutations - from B/W to slow color film to high-speed color film - and the film companies have strived to constantly improve the grain and sharpness of their product. Digital is here to stay, but you will see various technologies come and go - i.e. ASA for digital "film speeds" - it's just analogous to film, but it makes the photographer feel comfortable. Don't listen to fools who see digital as symptomatic of a problem with society - they're just mad that, along with Photoshop and a cheap computer, everyone now has the tools to create excellent photos. They're like the dinosaurs that bitched about CDs replacing records - and probably like the same fools who thought photography would replace painting. If film dies a final death, it, much like "flash cubes" and the 620 format will do so because the market no longer has a use for these anachronisms - so don't worry kid - that would be like worrying that cell phones may one day replace land lines or that the internet will replace television - if it happens, it's not evil forces at work, but common sense, a changing market place, improved technologies and blah, blah, blah - for the record, I shoot 645, 6x6, 4x5, 35mm, Polaroid Propack and, of course, digital.

[jeffrey_abelson]

"Somehow the few times I used a digital for work porpoises, I was uninspired. It's a damned point and shoot."

 

BS and nonsense - My first digital assignment I used a Kodak (F5 body) with my Nikon manual focus lenses - I used my Norman studio lighting and my Flashmeter III for exposure - how is that a point and shoot? My G2 is almost ALWAYS used on Aperture priority or manual mode - those who claim digital is point and shoot are probably the same people who keep their F100 on P mode - which is truely point and shoot. To make a good image - in either digital or film - one does exactly the same work - set up or find or recognize good lighting and make sure composition is good - aside from that, what's the difference: you don't drop the film cartridge at a lab? To all you filmies out there: aren't you a traitor to your art if you let a lab develop your film? I think that back in the day, pros developed their own film - I know that Adams did!

[g_allen]

I don't think you have to worry about MF dying out. I've just turned 20 and I'm a photo school reject, but apparently that hasn't discouraged me, because I'm about to go ahead and buy my first true (meaning not a Holga or a Brownie Hawkeye) MF setup-- probably a Rolleiflex 600x. It's true that the price thing is a big reason why a lot of younger people don't get into shooting this format; I had to sell a lot of personal possessions just to be able to afford a second-hand piece of kit, but seeing the results and watching myself grow as a photographer is worth it. I found that, for me, medium format was a natural progression from 35mm, which I still shoot often. It's hard to deny that feeling you get when you hold a 6x6 TLR or SLR in your hands. It just feels right.

[tim obrien]

Dear Jeffery,

 

1. I was shooting a Nikon Coolpix 900. A point and shoot. I was doing site surveys for equipment installations for the company I worked for.

 

2.) I don't shoot studio, will never shoot studio, don't care to discuss studio. I will never own an F5 with Kodak back. Don't want one, don't need one.

 

3.) I don't shoot any camera that even has a meter in it (except occasionally my FM2) much less a F100 (whatever that is). All my cameras, need an external meter, a focus setting, most need the damned shutter cocked individually. A few need the front movements adjusted for maximum DOF. Hardly point and shoot.

 

4.) The percentage of my film brought to the lab to be processed is about 3%. And that will be going down as I learn more about C-41 home processing. That means 97 out of a 100 rolls/sheets I shoot are classic silver based B&W films.

 

No nonsense in my post, how about yours?

 

tim