medim format: to buy or not to buy...that is the question

[fp1]

Hi. I know that many of us (myself included) are sick and tired of

the "film vs. digital" thing. I am having trouble deciding on a

course of action with respect to future purchases however. I ask

this question here because I find the responses tend to be

generally of a civil nature, unlike those on that other (digital)

website. In short, my situation is as follows:

 

I began taking photos digitally. I am an artist; I purchased a

camera for the purposes of photographing reference material for

painting. The photo thing got out of hand; people seemed to be

more impressed with (and willing to part with money for) my

photographic work. A relatively high end digital slr and several

very expensive lenses later, I was actually learning stuff like

aperture, shutter speed, dof and the like. I made the mistake,

however, of scanning (on a 3200) some 645 b&w negs. The

results were far more impressive with respect to detail and

dynamic range. So much so that I lost interest in shooting with

my dslr. I also lost interest in selling digital b&w as they simply

were not in the same league as scanned tmax film.

 

Long story short, traded my stuff away for a blad, a 4x5 and some

cash. I am considering the purchase of a film scanner (multipro

or microtek) and yet another film camera (panorama). Am I

about to make a financial error here? I plan on spending about

5k. I have made some contact prints of 4x5...and well....am

tempted to purchase dark room instead.

 

I do not want to be stuck with outdated equipment whose value

is continually dropping. I think the results I get with film just are

not attainable with cmos or ccd. Thoughts would be

appreciated.

 

F

[majid]

I would wait for the Nikon Coolscan 9000ED to come out and its initial reviews before buying a MF scanner. You might also look at the low-end Imacon Flextight.

 

So many pros are selling off their MF equipment, prices are really low nowadays. If you buy used, you are not taking such a huge financial risk.

[fotografpeterlundberg.se]

As to the financial side of it....

 

Buying into digital insted of film would probably mean a higher loss of value becuase of the ongoing development of new digital gear,

 

If you are happy with film - stay with it!

 

( But I am currently using more and more digital - I am a techno freak! )

 

Regards

Peter

[kevin_hundsnurscher]

As long as you're happy with it. I mean, do you plan on submiting your work to magazines or the web?<br>

If you're doing photography for (mostly) artistic reasons, then I really don't see why there would be an issue with using "outdated equipment".<br>

A lot of labs charge $5 bucks for developing unless you do it yourself and the scans would come relatively free so it sounds like you're all set.

[scott_eaton]

Personally I think you're wasting time with 645 or 6x6 (essentially a multi-axis 645), but anything bigger starts yielding images on conventional film that digital capture just can't match aethestically, nor should it.

 

If you were doing straight volume studio work I'd say you were on crack, but for artsy stuff where you have good control of the film processing, scans, and know what you are doing, it's a different story. I do extremely high quality scans from conventional B/W film from my 6x7 RB off an Epson 1640, and the final ink-jet prints are stunning. They beat drum scans from 35mm easily, and have a different look than digital capture. Not better, just different that some may prefer given specific subject matter.

[larry_mobbs]

I had an experience today that changed a lot of my plans. My processor has a new machine that will scan 6x6 negatives while preparing to print. The scans were mistakenly produced at 3000 x 2000 pixels and did not capture the full size of the square negative. They were taken with the earliest Rolleicord I own and presented the sharpest images I've ever printed at home. The cost of the scans on CD were $6.95 more than just buying small prints.

[Sandeha Lynch]

You just sold your D100 and bought a blad ... smart move, just imagine what each of them might be worth in 10 years time. Your D100 probably lost 15% of its value the day you bought it, and while s/h MF film gear may be going down in price now, that may not always be the case for the good stuff. IMHO, I'd say buy an affordable scanner, take your best shots out for a drum scan, and take your time building a darkroom.

[John Crowe]

If you are involved with colour at all it seems to me that for the price of a complete 4x5 colour darkroom you could set up a digital 4x5 "darkroom" ie.. more ram for your computer, mid range scanner, mid-pro printer. You could create high quality prints much quicker and with more repeatability for selling purposes. As an artist it would give you vast creative ability very quickly. Good luck!

[jonathan_brewer1]

I do not want to be stuck with outdated equipment whose value is continually dropping.'.......If you keep the gear, this is a non-issue, the gear is well made enough to be considered lifetime gear w/proper upkeep. The high mark-ups for this gear are gone, and if you keep this gear, you'll have only paid once, this gear needs no upgrade, just film.

 

I'd resist the impulses and wait a while, let the dust settle, you're less like to make a mistake if you take your time and think it through.

[kc4fox]

If you like the look that film is giving you, if it contributes to your work, your art, your

play, then... What's the question? Come on- you already know the answer! It sounds

like you are doing the right thing for yourself.

 

There are advantages for both media. Neither cross very well into the other in many

areas.

 

Personally, I like the depth of field effects my portraits on film have. I don't have to

pay multi-kilo-dollars to get those effects, too, and I do it with fairly long lenses, like

150mm (645, 6x7, 6x9, or even 4x5!). I like the evenness of highlights film offers. I

like the amazing amount of detail available to me with film, that digital, though

possible to imitate and capture, would be extremely expensive and time consuming.

 

I like developing my own black and white.

 

I also like digital.

I like the speed I can shoot and shoot and shoot and not worry about having to spend

more $. I like the instant feedback (though it's usually worthless for critical

judgement). I like scanning my negatives with my Epson scanner, printing them on my

2200 photo printer, and giving them to a friend sitting right there along side me (I

usually prefer Polaroids, but 8x10 is a very expensive Polaroid media indeed!) or

selling them.

 

I like the combination of the two formats- how about printing digital negatives for

printing out paper? Print that negative, put it on some amazing paper, set it in the sun

and in 30 minutes I have an image that requires some chemical processing, but looks

very unlike anything I could come up with digitally...

 

Don't limit yourself to either/or type statements. You are doing good by

experimenting. What you like will never go out of style- it'll just get harder to use.

Just like anything in life.

[db1]

First, you were very smart in buying a Hasselblad. Thirty year old versions are still selling for around $1000. Canon D30's are now selling for $500. Anything digital is going to take a beating. Film will always be here. Who knows what kind, but it will still be available.

As for a scanner, I am very pleased with my Epson 2450 and I've here great things about the 3200. And because it is "digital" equipment, prices will come down.

[andreas_carl]

Here is my story: I used Hasselblad for many years and loved it - then I got bitten by the digital bug. About 2 years ago, I auctioned off all my Hasselblad equipment and bought a Sony F717 and last year the Canon 10D. From a technical point of view, Canon 10D already comes pretty close to what I can achieve with my Hasselblad, still, I was not quite satisfied. In a short period of time, I filled my hard disk with tons of VERY GOOD photos, but non had quite the aesthetics I was getting from my very best Hasselblad pics. After some long and hard thinking, I auctioned off my 10D (fortunately it is still selling hot, so I didn't take a loss) and bought back into Hasselblad. I got a 503CW with CFi60 and CFi100 lenses. Used prices have come down quite a bit and you can pick up virtually unused, like new condition on that famous auction site for about 50-60% of B&H new prices!

 

To me, a very important aspect of photography is how the camera handles. I absolutely love the waist level finder. I can get much better compositions by looking onto that screen and observing changes in composition moving the camera around, than by looking through the camera and moving my body. But that may be just me ;-)

 

If you are color printing and want VERY HIGH, RELIABLE results, digital is probably the way to go. If you are into black&white, or if you aim for the highest possible aesthetics, I'd recommend the Hassie, but you will "miss" shots you could have gotten easily with a digital camera... Photography is about compromises... You probably will have to spend some time with MF and/or LF, before you can really tell if that is what you want. Finding out is a large part of the fun!

[fp1]

Thank you for all of the cordial responses. They are all

appreciated. Photo.net seems to attract a respectable lot.

 

You all seem to be confirming my thoughts before posting the

question. Film is much more difficult to master, yet far more

enjoyable than working with a dslr, in my opinion.

 

As for the scanner issue...I am completely puzzled as to why so

many seem to love the 2450...I was unable to get even a

reasonbly good black and white scan--even with 4x5 Delta 100!

I would like to know which scanner, i.e. Minolta Multipro, Microtek

180, Nikon 8000, handles BLACK AND WHITE NEGATIVE FILM

best. The local shops here generally do not carry them. The few

that do have no personnel familiar with their performance.

Before shelling out $2,500, I would like to have an idea of the

performance of the machine in question. Right now I am leaning

toward buying the Microteck 180, as the specs indicate an ability

to use digital ice with black and white film. Thoughts?

Suggestions?

 

Thank you for indulging me further.

 

F.

[._._z]

<i> A relatively high end digital slr and several very expensive lenses later, I was

actually learning stuff like aperture, shutter speed, dof and the like. </i><p>

 

If you're still learning as you shoot, you can shoot and learn far more affordably

(quicker and with greater ease) with digital. <p>

 

You don't seem to have any budget problems, so shoot whatever you like, and sell it

off if you want something else.

[godfrey]

<center>

<img src="http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/PAW3/large/

53a.jpg"><br>

<i>Calla lily, Pescadero, CA - Canon 10D+50/1.4</i><br>

</center><br>

In the past two years, I gradually moved my "day to day" shooting to digital cameras

and kept medium format film and scanning for when I knew I wanted to go with larger

print sizes.

<br><br>

For me, the Canon 10D has eclipsed most of that too ... I find the quality extremely

good and the camera suits my shooting style very well. I've now sold all MF except for

my Zeiss Ikon Super Ikontas and Hasselblad 903SWC; these cameras' lenses produce

images that are distinctly not approachable by anything else.

<br><br>

But the real answer is to do what seems right for you. Some people simply prefer the

aesthetics and workflow of the film medium and a darkroom print, I feel it's no longer

a matter of "better or worse" but "what is suited to your needs". I use an Epson 2450

to scan medium format film, not the best but adequate for my needs. A dedicated film

scanner would do well ... but if you really want to specialize on panorama and

darkroom process, spend the money on what works best for you there and don't

worry about resale value: the value of camera equipment is in what photographs you

can make with it.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[hendrik]

Hi,

 

Scan for now willbe a simple cost effective way to produce digital files. The Nikon 8000/9000 series with MF adaptor will be more than exelent.

 

In a while digital backs for MF will become nothing special and their prices will reflect that, dinamic range and low light ability will be up to parr as well. You will then need equipment that can handle these digital backs.

 

Regards

[Sandeha Lynch]

If you're scanning bw negs, what kind of file do you want to work with - greyscale or RGB? I can't say if this is valid for all scanners, but on the Minolta Elite scan a bw neg as a bw neg and you're given a greyscale file with relatively little info or tonal range - scan bw negs as colour slides and then invert in PS and you have an RGB file which contains far greater subtlety and offers you broader options for further work even if you do eventually convert it to greyscale. I'm not a technician, real techies might explain it in more depth, plus there are several important refining touches necessary to get the best out of this, but it works for me.

[lachaine]

You're an artist. So, use the medium you want to work in. If you're satisfied with digital, fine. If not, film is fine too. Personally, I find digital is a bit too technological and clinical, but artists have to choose their own tools and their medium. Have you considered using a scanner for web display purposes, but getting your quality prints done the conventional way? Photography has always, from the very beginning, been sneered at as an artistic medium, because it does involve some technology. But the technology of film is nothing compared to digital imagery. In terms of money invested, either way you lose, so it doesn't matter much. At least with film equipment, the value doesn't drop like a stone the minute a new camera is announced, let alone actually produced on the market - and there is no technological reason to upgrade film cameras all the time.

[john_fitzgerald1]

I've followed a similar path. Sold my D100 due to cash flow crisis a few months back, now shoot with a Bronica ETRS and get my trannies scanned at 4000dpi- big difference!

I imagine film will persist, digital cameras seem to be evolving in a similar way to PCs, i.e. doubling in power/halving in price every 18 months...

[andreas_carl]

Great picture, Godfrey, but honestly (hand on your heart) - don't you wish it were on film so you could make a gorgeous looking 16x16 inch silver gelatine print on fiber based museum quality paper, perhaps with a hint of selenium toning?

[john_wehlitz]

I've said it before in other threads, but film and digital aren't an either or thing. We can shoot both.

 

I'm sure that the Canon 10D is an excellent digital SLR, and I'd love to have one, but it's still a 6.3 megapixel camera. 6.3 megapixels isn't even halfway to matching the resolution of a fairly average grain 35mm film, and medium format goes way beyond 35mm.

 

As much as I like digital, it's not even close to the quality of Medium format.

[aricmayer]

Since you are using your photography for self defined purposes, you have completely made the right decision. Trust your eye.

 

In spite of all the technical advancements in digital, I don't think it will ever replace film. I say this after having spent thousands of hours working with both digital images and film images from their creation to their final color review in the printed version of magazines. I can often tell, even after an image has been reproduced on a web press, whether it was shot on film or digitally. I think in the end, digital and film will settle down much like video and film has. Video offers access and convenience, film offers greater tonal range and a warmer organic look. Television dramas are shot on film for the most part and transfered to video simply because chips can't get that same warmth and organic integrity across the image plane. News is shot on video because it is fast and convenient. If the technology to convincingly simulate film in video doesn't exist yet with the small chips used in video cameras, it is unlikely that it will be any different for the more cumbersome digital camera chips. Chip size is not the issue. The issue is color curves and dynamic range.

 

There is an ad for Canon with a model's face blown up to the size of the page. The ad copy reads "Can you tell it's digital? We can't either." But, anyone who has worked with a great medium format system like Hasselblad can immediately recognize the breakdown in resolution at the edge of each hair. You can even see the actual pixelation. I'm not a detractor of digital technology. It's making some amazing things possible. But it will always be a simulation of a conventional photograph.

 

I think your hybrid approach is the best with the technology that exists today. You can get amazing results from a good scan of medium format film. The film provides the dynamic range and the tonal curves. The scan provides the flexibility to do what you want from there. As an artist, trust your instincts and your eye. You can't go wrong.

 

As far as the scanner goes, it really depends on how many images you are going scan and what you are going to do with them. $5,000 will get you 50-100 large drum scans, maybe more if you can work out a good deal somewhere. These scans will outdo anything shot on scanners available in your price range. The scans can be used for book publishing etc. If you sink $3,000 into a new scanner, it will have its limitations but it will be available for more volume.

[larry_menzin]

I've moved entirely over to digital over the past year or so and sold off my film bodies over the summer. My results (Kodak DCS 760) have been superb and slightly outdo scanned Provia 100F from my Nikon N90s.

 

With the immediacy of digital, I've been able to compress about 5 years of refining techniques into one year.

 

To satisfy my curiosity, I'm renting a Pentax 6x7 and several lenses over the weekend to shoot MF film (I've never shot anything but 35mm) and to scan the chromes on an Imacon scanner at a service bureau near my office. I'll compare the results with my 35mm digital shots to verify if the MF film "mystique" really exists.

 

What's great about photography is that it's just fun.

 

Larry