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

[seb_seb]

Just Facts :

 

- You can still buy valves for guitar amps and for old Hi-Fi amps.

 

- Even if everybody is listening to digital music, records are still issued on vinyl lp's too.

 

- Analog tape to record music on are still sold.

[dano1]

I just bought my first MF camera at 23. It's a 1950's Yashica-A. I plan on upgrading to a Mamiya or other MF SLR as soon as I can afford it. Hopefully that will be in about 3 months.

 

I also develop my own 120 BWs in my kitchen. I then scan with an Epson 2450, but for big prints I have the lab print straight off the neg.

 

I started with digital, I must confess. At the time it looked like the way to go. Then I got very disatisfied with the results and found my father's 1972 Minolta SRT-101 in the basement. I shot exlusively with it over the next 6 months, and even gave away my old digital. Then I fell for all the nonsense on the net that you can get film quality pictures from a $300 digicam. I now regret buying that damn thing heavily. I shot with it for about 3 months, till it broke. While is was being shipped to Canon I picked up the SRT again. I then had some of my film scanned at my grocery store. I was completley blown away. I bought a used film scanner, a used Minolta XG-M, and haven't looked back at digital since.

 

As for only older people knowing what medium format is, my mother thought that medium format was what was shot in the first half of the century. She had no idea that people were still shooting with it.

 

I'm currently awaiting an 11x11 print at my local lab, I can't wait. It's going to be my first somewhat large print from MF. It will also be the largest print that I've had printed since I had my SRT. This is mainly because I'm on a tight budget.

 

So far, the Yashica has cost me less than $100. I spent $31.50 on the camera, $4 for the money order, $12 for shipping, $13 for a neck strap, $12 for a leica nipple.

 

I go on a lot of forums and I have to say that that a lot of the photos that are uploaded make me sick. This is because they use the same $300 digicams that I feel like throwing in the trash. The colors are unreal, the highlights and shaddows are blown, the tonal quality is terrible, and they call them "great shots." There are so many people out there that just don't understand the differnces between digital and film. They go out thinking that a $300 digicam will take as good of pictures as 35mm. They shoot everything in sight, but never "see" anything before they shoot.

 

Granted, the quality of digital pictures on this forum are good, but I would never convert a digital image to black and white. I have seen this done all the time even on these forums and it really drives me nuts. There is no digital method for achieving the tonal qualities of bw film, that's just the way it is.

 

Currently, all my family members shoot digital, except for my sister who uses a 35mm Powershot. Even my father has gone digital. He just bought a $240 digicam, and I can't stand it.

 

It seems that people who really know the differnces between digital and film are the minority. The vast majority are switching to digital, and will eventually cause the demise of film, I am afraid. I took a look at sample image from a Canon D300 and can honestly say that I didn't like it. It seemed to have all the faults that I've seen with $300 digicams if only to a lesser extent.

 

Well, I think I've ranted long enough,

 

Long live film!

 

Dan O.

[phillip_p._dimor]

To Jeffrey A:

Flame bait. Such tempting flame bait. Unfortunately, I'd rather not toss an incendiary into the burning flames.

 

BTW, since when did photoshop and a PC help anyone create a good photograph? I always thought that a good photograph started inside of you. Inside your heart or mind or soul..

 

Also, 'filmies' (nice term that helps divide those who use paintbrush A against those who prefer paintbrush B) don't all worship Ansel and the zone system. Diane arbus preferred drugstore prints early on in her career. National Geographic photographers don't develop their own color film for assignments out in the middle of nowhere.

 

I own a mechanical watch. I could have bought a quartz watch. Why do people spend obscene amounts of money on an IWC, Patek Phillipe, Rolex or Omega? Certainly not so they get to wind the damn thing and watch it lose 2 to 4 seconds every day.

 

I guess I fell for the bait.

[Spearhead]

<i> Diane arbus preferred drugstore prints early on in her career.</I><p>

 

All of the work that Arbus is known for was printed by herself, or, after her death, by someone else, usually Neal Selkirk. I believe her ex-husband printed some of her early work. But if she cared about it, she printed it.<p>

 

<i>Why do people spend obscene amounts of money on an IWC, Patek Phillipe, Rolex or Omega?</i><p>

 

Everyone I've met that has one of these ridiculously expensive watches is into the appearance of wealth. It's pretty simple. My wife points out that people treat her differently if she has expensive accoutrements, so she bought a boatload of Louis Vuitton purses in Vietnam for almost nothing. It makes her look like she's married to someone else, and it works.

[Spearhead]

I would add...<p>

 

<i>Worried that medium format will be forgotten by the time I am a true adult</I><p>

 

What I'm worried about is that magazines and book publishers that publish "serious" photography keep going out of business without replacements. I had a really big documentary series publication fall through last year because the magazine abruptly closed up. As a photographer, I'm a lot more concerned about the lack of venues that are available to photographers than about the materials, which I will use no matter what is available. But maybe I'm the oddball here, I'm really not interested in how much I can spend on a watch...

[simonpg]

Gee, it's amazing how a comment like JB's gets everyone out of the woodwork with cages rattling as if in a cyclone!! I think there are 4 key issues involved:

1. Digital and film can co-exist. Digital's continued development does not mean that film must die. Like someone said, it's about taking photos and creating great images. It's not about gadgets. View camera equipment still exists despite the development of 35mm.

Do keep in mind that all the developments in digital are about one thing - achieving the full capabilities of film!!! That's why Photoshop and so many other software applications thrive - manipulation of images, which even film owners can enjoy if they want.

2. There are 2 discrete buying groups for camera equipment - happy snappers and serious image creaters. Some start simply as happy snappers and fall in love with the "art" and become serious image makers - some do both. Some have equipment for happy snapping and for serious image making.

3. Digital is brilliant and continues to overcome limitations. It does offer amazing benefits of immediacy; low cost capture; and convenience. In these areas it has been adopted by happy snappers universally. It's also been adopted by serious image makers like professionals who benefit from those features.

But while film users may wait for processing; digital users have other issues involving computers to worry about. Many happy snappers who assumed digital meant cheap photos, now realise that home printing is no cheaper, time consuming and can be disappointing.

4. There is no one best medium or format. Each has its place - key benefits and features not shared by others. Just as large format has advantages over 35mm; 35mm has advantages over medium format; range finder 35mm has advantages over 35mm SLR - so too digital has advantages over film; medium format film has advantages over digital 35mm SLR etc etc.

Experienced amateurs and professionals alike may own multiple film format equipment and digital equipment - each having its role.

 

But all said and done, many try to argue that one medium must be superior to another - they insist on comparying apples to oranges!

For me, two years ago I replaced my 25 year old 35mm SLR kit with an EOS 35mm kit because there are too many features I need that are either not available in digital or are only available at 3 times the cost. I want 25-6400 asa; I want 10 fps; I don't want computers and software involved; I don't want battery and response time issues, etc etc.

Yes, when I just want to take lots of shots, film costs a lot, but gee when I get an 11x14 blow up from a good Velvia shot everyone takes notice.

Finally, digital made it possible for me to get even more serious about image making (rather than happy snapping) - I have just added a Hasselblad 501 CM kit with 80mm, 50mm and 180mm Zeiss glass. The dramatic price fall in the used equipment market made it affordable. So instead of worrying about pixels, bits and bytes I concentrate on composition and light!!

Yes, my guess is that medium format film will probably always have its place. And by the way, when an EOS 1Ds costs the same as my EOS1v, I'll certainly have one and who knows when the 1v will become redundant!

 

In answer to JB's original question: my view is that anyone that becomes serious about image making (rather than happy snapping) finds out or knows about medium format. But anyone who simply wants a camera for convenience and to simply record events fits into the category of those who swamped the market for fully automated point and shoot rangefinders that put Olympus back on the map - now they want digital.

[Spearhead]

<I>Many happy snappers who assumed digital meant cheap photos, now realise that home printing is no cheaper, time consuming and can be disappointing.</I><P>

 

Many "happy snappers" take their memory cards to the same place they got cheap prints before. Digital doesn't mean someone has to use a computer and print at home. <p>

 

What is it with the goofball arguments?

[jeffrey_abelson]

"BTW, since when did photoshop and a PC help anyone create a good photograph? I always thought that a good photograph started inside of you. Inside your heart or mind or soul.. "

 

I don't usually go for that kind of phoney and romantic artistic tripe - a good photograph is created by taking photos - just like good writing is created by writing and good painting is created by painting. I never meant to flame anyone - I just responded to absurd arguments made against a medium meant for capturing images. My friend is a reporter who covered the O. Winston Link trial (his wife stole his images and sold them) - in the trial, it came out that much of the creativity of a photograph is done in the darkroom - I guess the argument went that the prints are more valuable than the negs because Link did half the work in the darkroom and that just stealing the negs would not have meant as much as stealing completed prints- get it? for digital, the PC and Photoshop is the darkroom - and I think many folks are upset that mere plebeians can now create viable images without learning the alchemey and wizardry of the darkroom. Of course, PS is no walk in the park, but that's a different issue. BTW - I shoot more film than digital, but it's foolish to disregard a medium in it infancy...

[jeffrey_abelson]

"BTW, since when did photoshop and a PC help anyone create a good photograph? I always thought that a good photograph started inside of you. Inside your heart or mind or soul.. "

 

I don't usually go for that kind of phoney and romantic artistic tripe - a good photograph is created by taking photos - just like good writing is created by writing and good painting is created by painting. I never meant to flame anyone - I just responded to absurd arguments made against a medium meant for capturing images. My friend is a reporter who covered the O. Winston Link trial (his wife stole his images and sold them) - in the trial, it came out that much of the creativity of a photograph is done in the darkroom - I guess the argument went that the prints are more valuable than the negs because Link did half the work in the darkroom and that just stealing the negs would not have meant as much as stealing completed prints- get it? for digital, the PC and Photoshop is the darkroom - and I think many folks are upset that mere plebeians can now create viable images without learning the alchemey and wizardry of the darkroom. Of course, PS is no walk in the park, but that's a different issue. BTW - I shoot more film than digital, but it's foolish to disregard a medium in it infancy...

[phillip_p._dimor]

In regard to the 'Diane Arbus preferred drugstore prints early in her career' comment that I made: Read the (Somewhat inaccurate at times and horribly edited) Patricia Bosworth Biography of Diane Arbus. If I had it in front of me I would reference the page number.

 

I don't own a Rolex. Or an IWC. My mechanical watch cost about $150. It has no 'Ice' and it's not 'Blinging'. It was made in Switzerland. I like it. A watch tells time, sure. Am I vain for enjoying something with particularly nice craftsmanship?

 

I knew I shouldn't have posted..

[tim obrien]

Well Jeffery,

 

"I never meant to flame anyone"

 

You took one line, an opinion none the less, and told that person it was "BS and nonsense". That is what we in the industry call a flame.

 

You might have just wanted a sharp, witty intro into the point you wanted to make, but it disregarded my experiences as a photographer, an artist, a person, and denigrated them in lieu your experiences as a photographer, an artist, a person.

 

No hard feelings, let's keep the discourse civil.

 

And no, I haven't owned a watch of any kind since I was 11. What does that say about me?

 

I have a new theory, 'Never buy anything smarter than yourself'. That includes cell phones, cameras, PDA's, etc.

 

tim in san jose

[jeffrey_abelson]

"You took one line, an opinion none the less, and told that person it was "BS and nonsense". That is what we in the industry call a flame."

 

strictly a miscommunication: I was weaned on the virtual battlefields of the Usenet - where you're no one until you're a "mother-f*#kin' nazifacistlover..." or some such stuff. "BS and nonsense" is practically a kiss on the mouth (metaphorically and all that...) - no blood no foul :)

[simonpg]

In response to " Many "happy snappers" take their memory cards to the same place they got cheap prints before. Digital doesn't mean someone has to use a computer and print at home." That was exasctly my point and why I chose my words carefully ie "many happy snappers" and did not say "all happy snappers". Of course many also take cards or cameras to photo processing outlets as well. So clearly these happy snappers certainly find little cost savings too!!

 

But market research shows that the adoption rate (digital kiosks etc)is relatively low, while new photo capable printer sales continue to soar as do sales of consumables. My point was that no medium or format is necessarily better - they have specific purposes and benefits.

 

I also agree with the comment that photographs are basically made at the time of taking the shot and not necessarily in a digital or chemical darkroom. Both types of darkroom are where the shot is enhanced or manipulated to complete the idea. Film users in all formats also benefit from digital technology.

 

But, photography can also just be a part of a bigger creative idea where other skills are more dominant. Even before digital, Man Ray was proof of that - he did both.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> with digital you have to spend time making backups

over and over. </blockquote> </i><p>

 

How many backups do you need of a RAW file? <p>

 

How many backups do you have of a negative? <p>

 

 

<i><blockquote> There are also costs involved in this, labour time,

new media and backup devices. </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Relatively minor compared to film. I have a plug-in Firewire drive for backups. Takes mere

minutes and can back up unattended. DVD copies can be stored elsewhere. What do you do

if your negs burn?

 

<i><blockquote> I can no longer enjoy my transparencies on a lightboard, or project

them. </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Yes, a tiny minority of people on the planet today enjoy setting up projectors and looking

at slides. Good for them. Even Kodak has gotten out of the projector market, because it's

imploding. If that's a deal-breaker for some people, that's fine for them, but it is tangential

to my discussion of costs in time and money for processing film at home. Or do you also

process your own trannies? <p>

 

Funny how pro photographers, most of their clients today, as well as all stock agencies,

prefer to look at larger-than-slide-size images on monitors -- in the day or night,

anywhere a laptop's handy. Again, if some people prefer otherwise, fine, but that seems

more a holdover effect than a valid reason. <p>

 

<i><blockquote> As soon as I have scanned a picture, </blockquote> </i><p>

 

As soon as you spend time and money processing, drying, sleeving, cutting, scanning, and

then tweaking images. How much is your time worth? <p>

 

<i><blockquote> 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.

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Soured based on one experience with gear you're not familiar with, or with tools like the

histogram? Can't see why someone might find instant feedback more useful than you do?

Oh well. <p>

 

<i><blockquote> I take about a roll per week </blockquote> </i><p>

 

You <u>did</u> notice that I was discussing someone shooting a roll a day, didn't you?

You don't even seem to be processing your own film, it's not clear, so I don't know what

your costs are. I tried to be pretty clear though. <p>

 

<i><blockquote> I fear that you all-digital guys </blockquote> </i><p>

 

You really need to read more carefully if you think that anyone discussing digital benefits is

an "all-digital guy." It makes it easy for you to write off what people may be saying, but it's

not accurate. <p>

[jonathan_bundick]

"What is it with the goofball arguments?"

 

I'm wondering the same thing as those happy snappers you mention taking their memory cards to the same place they once had their film developed are paying $0.29 a frame to get prints. Thats $6.96 for 24 frames. about double what I pay for C-41 developing, and about 50% more than a roll of print film plus developing and prints, but if it still sounds cheap, go right ahead.

[._._z]

$4.50 for processing plus prints? I don't know of anyone who gets that deal. Who offers

that deal for you? What paper is used?

 

Still have to buy the film, so factor in that price. Do you buy the cheapest film too?

[q.g._de_bakker]

Jonathan,<br><br>The few labs in the small town i live in all charge one price for prints no matter what the "original medium" happens to be. And that not even at elevated price levels due to "digitalization" of their labs. No mark-up because you happen to bring in a CD or CF card or whatever instead of film. So i think your remark is a tad too much of a generalization.<br><br>By the way, i'm still a hybrid-photographer, scanning film, printing the digitally post-processed result. There definitely are advantages in the "digido", if only the results i get now from scanned MF film could be matched by digital cameras/backs at a reasonable price.<br>But the day will come. No doubt. Digital cameras are already more than good enough to replace anything that in the past you could get away with doing on 35 mm film, and it's only a matter of time before MF film based photography will be obsoleted.<br>The big question is how long we'll have to wait.

[jonathan_bundick]

Not a generalization, just what I pay when I shoot Gold 100 and have it processed with a 2-3 day turn around time. 3 1/2 X 5 single prints, compared to the Walgreens add running on local radio advertising prints from digital for $0.29 each. This is also the going rate for 4x6 prints at many on-line services geared to the happy snapper. (Ofoto for instance)

 

Kodak film printed on Kodak paper Mr. Seals, and if you want to include the cost of the film, thats about $1.50 a roll. So the total cost still beats prints straight from digital.

[._._z]

If you consider cheap-o local processing of consumer film with a 3-day turnaround to be a

better deal than the long-term economics and creative control from digital cameras, feel

free. I doubt many other serious amateurs will follow the Walgreens/Gold 100 route you've

bushwhacked.

[jonathan_bundick]

I suggest you read more carefully if you think anyone is suggesting this is the route to go for "serious" work. This price comoparison is for the ocasionaly snap shot. Nothing more. If you read Mr. Spirer's comment above, you will see his reference to the "happy snapper", most of which want as little controll over the process as they can get away with. For these, the price comparison, at least in my area, is relevent to using digital vs film.

[._._z]

Okay, but there are very few medium format happy snappers in the market compared to the

market, or compared to the past. Those left might be satisfied with Walgreens processing

for their 120 film, but I suspect that most MF shooters won't be. As you can see above, I

was discussing overall cost savings for those who shoot regularly, and who value control

over their images.

 

Also, when you bring a flash card in for printing, you've already done basic culling of

images, so the cost per keeper ends up being lower even compared to Walgreens, I suspect.

[marian_deaconescu2]

I'm 48 and started photography at the tender age of 40. After investing a small fortune (for my possibilities) into a Bronica SQ-Ai system, I'm worried, as many of us are, after hearing that this line is now discontinued, of what future could bring to us, film users.

 

Let's face it: the worries come first from the amount of money we invested in something seemingly without any future and from the fear that film will become less available and more expensive. For those working in colour, the worries are compounded by the need to find a good quality lab to process E6 in the 120 format.

 

These labs are rare enough right now and they usually rely on the professionals using this format. When the entire cohort of professionals will jump on the digital wagon, gone will be the labs and our ability to process those gorgeous large slides.

 

That's the bottom line. It's a mystery to me why on earth Bronica (whose users are in the hudreds of thousands if not in the millions) didn't think of arranging a long term collaboration with one of the back makers, as Hassy did. An adapter is no bid deal and when the prices will go down, very few people, faced with the extinction of film, will balk at spending an additional 3000 USD for such a back.

 

We are talking here about 2 billions in sales and probably half a bilion in profits.

 

These cameras are a low cost, but high quality alternative to the more expensive Rolleis and Hasselblads and many amateurs and profs still use them with delight. You could get a whole system at the price of a single new Hasselblad lens.

 

My letter to Tamron, about five years ago, a letter suggesting the urgency of the jump on the digital back business got no answer.

 

There is, however, a glimmer of hope: that is, somebody will realize the potential of the huge market for Bronica backs. And then we'll see for sure a revival of this nice brand. This apllies to the other brands too.

 

I just want to repeat here the argument that was repeatedly made here and elswhere: digital and film are different. It's not a matter of quality. It's a matter of pride. For you can't fake a slide and you need brains to do it right. B-W speeking, you feel, in the darkroom, that something got out *of your hands*. Something *manual*, like making a table or a chair. Something that *you* and not those (otherwise bright) programmers can be proud of.

 

So many of us are using computers in their day by day job and so many of us perceive their coldness as impersonal and alienating that film will still have a 20 years future. Not more. After that, the generation of my daughters will inherit this earth and *they didn't see the alternative*...

 

The argument that digital is more eco-friendly is fallacious. The chemical factories producing paper are at least as polluting as the heavy silver dumped down the drain. The difference is that these factories are not in plain sight... Everything in life comes at a cost.

 

I'm not so presumptious to dare give advice to others. But I contradict myself right away and say to you: enjoy film as far is available!

 

All the best to the forum buddies,

 

Marian

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> The argument that digital is more eco-friendly is fallaciou

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Regardless of the validity of your assertion, no one here made that argument, did they?

<p>

 

<i><blockquote> just want to repeat here the argument that was repeatedly made here

and elswhere: digital and film are different. It's not a matter of quality. It's a matter of

pride. For you can't fake a slide </blockquote> </i><p>

 

I guess anyone shooting with negs or anyone who burns/dodges in a darkroom should feel

a loss of "pride" then, according to you.

[david_seto1]

Yes, I'm near 50. I shoot MF for the high quality results it supplies.

Is film photography in danger of extinction - No. With MF cameras continuing to be made and sold there will be a need to support them for tens of years to follow. I'm sure there is a massive MF user base out there. If you can still buy film for obsoleted cameras eg Rollei 4 x 4 etc then I'm sure current MF users should have no fears about film / processing availability. Where there is a need there's always a supplier.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> I'm sure there is a massive MF user base out there.

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Define "massive."