uk

I was at a group meeting last year when Ilford stated that it was their most frequently asked question that they didn't have

an answer for.

They can make the film, but they can't package it and the source for the paper ends would only run a massive quantity

compared to their needs. Apparently, most of Ilfords research efforts are attempting to find alternatives the the raw

materials they need as suppliers are no longer interested in manufacturing the smaller quantities that the film makers

demand.

Ilford would consider offering separate 220 length film strips with supplied ends for self-rolling and external packaging, if

they could buy just 10 years worth of paper ends.

<p>QG, If you're right - they are finished. They will be remembered fondly along with Sunbeam bicycles and Humber cars.<br /> <br /> However, not to deny your opinion, I cannot imagine a photographic industry without Hasselblad leading the charge for quality and capability. Their leadership may be suspect at the moment, i have no knowledge of that,but they have personnel with terrific knowledge, capability and experience who will no doubt survive several management re-shuffles at the top.<br /> <br /> I believe that manufacturers can play with their own product and take on influences from Ferrari and Hermes for styling, but to re-brand others lower level products and have such massive premiums for the privilege is a massive risk, IMO. Leica managed the Panasonic relationship with a 50% premium, but 500% is simply not taking the piss, it's risking hard-earned credibility.<br /> <br /> It's said that any publicity is good publicity, but I don't see the upside of this. Association with Sony is no bad thing as their Brand is equal to Hasselblad, but IMV it should have been Sony adding value to Hasselblad in terms of electronic solutions in MF or panoramic, or communications, or the expected H adapted Mirrorless vest camera; not Xmas presents for the kids. I've not seen this new product in the flesh, but from what I've seen, it would go well with my grandson's Buzz Lightyear's outfit.<br /> <br /> I don't need their latest offering; what I do need is an adapter to rotate the CFV-50 into a portrait position, and/or an MF digital platform that suits being taken out of the studio.</p>

<p> </p>

I didn't/don't see it that way QG. My take on it is that the MF manufacturers wanted to draw the 35mm shooters into there

user camps by offering higher quality, not dumb down the full frame MF users. I've never known any 6x6, 6x7 user want a 645.

I was referring to MF users in the above post and especially Hass & Rollei owners. My reference to the 'market' was not

intended to be the total market. My father was satisfied with his Kodak Instamatic and he never yearned for an MFDB of

any size. :-)

The good news is that Hasselblad is unlikely to ever make this mistake again. Once burned ... Etc.

As above, the breakthrough in MF will be a 6x6 sensor. Will Hasselblad sit back and allow Pentax/Mamiya/Holga....... to

steal that opportunity ? The market never wanted 645 in film or digital, not since 1932, and it still doesn't.

Just to add myself to the choir. Was expecting so much more than this from the company I admire more than any other.

Can't understand the product, can't understand the pricing. Perhaps we've missed something in the detail, but it looks

like a competent point and shoot that would be a great successor to my wife's Canon G7.

<p>I had one of those and am still hoping to come across it on the street one day; along with the Japan Exposures magnifier stored inside a film canister I've misplaced. :-)<br>

Here's my black MP:

<p>"Gary,<br>

It is nice to hear such warm and assuring words for MP. Only I like the Black paint more than the Silver :-)"<br>

Well I do have two and the other is black paint x0.72 VF with a little brass showing along the edges. :-)<br>

I prefer one of each for quick identification and I find it so much easier to get critical focus with the x0.85. I use it with 35LuxA/50LuxA/90E lenses and the 24E on the x0.72.<br>

I did discover that whilst black paint is popular with users, the dealers want Mint condition ones with no brassing. Possibly because part of the market for them is collection/light use.</p>

My opinion is that the M7 is a much more useable camera body than the MP, but the MP is more beautiful and a pleasure

to own.

I shot both together at weddings and on the street. The M7 was much faster to use when under pressure of time; switch

to auto and then concentrate on the lens aperture and focus setting. When travelling light, the M7 was the body I took

with me.

Subsequently, I bought an M9 and an M9-P for my wedding work and decided that one of the film cameras had to be

sold. I sold the M7 because I thought that the remaining camera would be less used, would be with me for a long time,

would always fire-up without a stock of batteries and most importantly, would maintain it's value.

When I became somewhat disenchanted with the M9s, I considered a return to using film Ms for weddings and purchased

a beautiful silver MP with a x0.85 viewfinder.

Use an M7, cherish an MP. :-)

<p>Stuart said : "I don't think it is going to replace medium format any more than 35mm Tech Pan didn't replace medium format Tri-X."<br /> Nice way of summarising it. <br /> I've always struggled to achieve the MF look I want from 35mm, including my M9's. I'm currently uploading an MF project on Flickr : and it's a joy to be using the bigger format with wonderful bokeh and fine detail.</p>

<p>I'm continually wondering about going to a CFV-50, I had the CFV-16, but pricing is not attractive compared with the H system. The only reason for wanting an H is the AF system, but it's a hell of an investment for just that feature, especially as I don't like the form.</p>

Try an air line at a fuel station. Set the pressure to about 28 psi; no need to be calibrated.

The lubrication won't be sucked out. :-)

<p>In January, I decided to take my Rolleiflex 2.8F into the city to test if I could use it as a street shooter. Not surprised, flabbergasted ! It was a great experience and it's now frequently in my bag.<br>

Here, in the Rolleiflex 2.8F Set, are my TLR images: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rolophoto/</p>

<p>Finally changed from Canon 1D Mk IV's to Leica MP and M9, plus 75/1.4 or 50/1.4, 35/1.4, and 24/2.8 ; all in a Jessica Claire ShootSac.<br>

<br /> Extremely light & mobile, all the gear on me and never gets left by the church door as my Pelican 1600 did. For extremely dark church interiors, I'll carry a Leica Table Top tripod and leave it in the car as soon as possible. <br /> 35/1.4 does all the work as it's wide enough for everything but tight corners and the files can be cropped to 25% and still provide necessary quality for anything up to 8x6".<br>

Realising this made a big difference as it will basically match IQ from my Canon 24-70 at any focal length on album sized prints. With the 24, or the 75 on the MP I've got the rest covered.</p>

<p>Jon, "a master of painting will choose for each work". <br>

My understanding is that the square format hardly existed in art history until the 20th Century and the arrival of the Rolleiflex. Can you shed any light on that ?<br>

I thoroughly enjoy square images and square format cameras, possibly through years of conditioning from Hasselblad an Rolleiflex users. I currently have 3 6x6 camera, but my captures with a past Mamiya 7 definitely enabled me to have more flexibility whilst providing 6x6 whilst maintaining a higher quality with non-square frames.</p>

<p>Thanks Richard,<br>

do you use them with 35mm lenses and what's the compromise.<br>

I'm happy to use the viewfinder to 35mm and use an external finder for my 24mm Elmarit-M. Is that your practice ?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The Leica version is far less troublesome. The variable diopter one varies on it's own and provides a less clear view. You can lock it down with a rubber 'O', but even then you never can be sure it hasn't moved.<br>

In the end I took it off and fitted the Leica 1.25x. Not mentioned is the fact that the eyepiece protrudes and catches on bags and pockets. <br>

I've not tested a 0.85x and would be interested to know if it's as clear as the 0.72 VF on an MP. My departed M3 0.92x was excellent. Never had focus issues until I went to 0.72x on the MP then the M8, but it might be tired eyes having an effect. I suspect Stuart is spot on with his recommendation. Must try it myself and give up the 35mm frame-lines in exchange for the estimated VF surround and a better view.</p>

<p>Stuart,<br>

and here's the back of a Buick Riviera just like that last image.</p>

<p>This time, a 35mm Tri-X frame scanned on my Imacon 848.</p>

<p>Take any 36x24mm crop from a 56x56mm MF film and you'll get equivalent quality to a film image from a 35mm camera. Indeed to get similar resolution, it needs to be matched focal length and not 'standard' focal lengths. This is generally understated and a 50mm capture on 35mm will never match the 80mm on a Hasselblad, say.<br>

So matching an 80mm Hass with a 75mm Leica will show what a good lens the Leica is, but the capture will be a fraction of the size of the MF. In digital terms, you'd need to stitch 6 35mm images to match what is available from an MF file.<br>

Accepting what Scott says about 900x900 pixels being the same regardless of source; 810,000 black pixels with be exactly the same regardless; I do observe higher quality in images sourced from MF. I'm clear on that; so can only assume that the sheer quality of the original capture provides for better downsizing, less sharpening etc.<br>

Personally, I'm becoming tired of the volume of images created using a dslr and am concentrating on securing fewer, higher quality images. That's not a function of 35mm dslr per se, but is such an easy trap to fall into. We've moved towards a newspaper journalist/sports shooting style, rather than a considered landscape/portrait model. MF will silently encourage the latter, IMO.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Quite amazing that the difference in 35mm and MF is apparent in a 900x900 pixel web image. We take a 50 mb scan, trash 49.5 mb and it still seems to be possible to identify the MF image compared to a 900x900 image from a 50mb 35mm file.</p>

<p>Surely, there's little logic to that ? </p>

<p>Fully agree that 35mm DSLR's are more convenient. Whether the quality is adequate is subjective and somewhat application dependent.<br>

I tested a 35mm digital against a Hasselblad CFV and discovered that the quality could be equalled PROVIDING focal lengths were similar. 50mm on a 35mm did not compete with the 80mm on the MF, but 75mm on the 35mm provided a closer view and improved resolution. <br>

The downside of this was the 35mm view is tiny in comparison, when shot from the same position. The MF thus gets tremendous flexibility in image management at the time and after exposure. <br>

Film has lots of disadvantages, but image quality on paper is not one of them. Film imparts a 'look' to an image and that varies depending on film used and it's processing. It can't be replicated; digital can't match the character of Velvia 50, or Tri-X. if indeed that is what is wanted. If you prefer the digital appearance, then that's a big factor in your decision.<br>

An artist would hardly compromise his materials, because he commits great time and effort to his product. If our work matters we should make the choice based on the end product. If convenience is a significant factor then digital wins big time.</p>

<p>Jonathan,<br>

Love your images and your story. <br>

Keep on going and get a scanner, any scanner to start with. The film will still be there when you get your scanner of choice.</p>

<p>For the vast majority, that point is about 24 hours after you've been laid to rest. Ha.</p>

<p>Apart from a few family portraits, say 20 prints in total, the remaining 200,000 negs/images will be inserted in the environmentally friendly refuse bin, or in the case of digital wiped from the Mac to make way for more Tweets. Ignoring celebrity, the work of few will be treasured.</p>

<p>That's good of you for being open and sharing Dave. Many thanks.</p>

<p>It's particularly interesting for me as I'm about to update my dslr to the 1D MkIV.</p>

<p>Final questions for the time being. When do you pull the MF out and how many MF films are you shooting on a full day wedding ?</p>

<p>Regards</p>

<p>Dave,<br>

I'm with you on this. Would love for film to become an advantage in the wedding business. Until 3 years ago I was all hybrid, but the costs and EXTRA time it took me to complete the job caused me to switch. I have all I need and more to go back again.<br>

As it stands, I need to create digital files as my albums are designed on computer using PhotoJunction, or JAD.<br>

If free time is a goal, then surely sub-contracting the post processing of digital files is possible for the $600 you're paying, so that's a wash. Whether $600 is important, or not, depends on individuals circumstances and selling prices. There's also the opportunity to use GraphiStudio albums where they do the work against instructions - you just send files ex-camera. </p>

<p>I like to keep all the cash I can and avoid out costs as I want to be involved as much as I can. I'm also not of the mind that I want to take the money and do little in return. When I read - I cut the processing down to 2 hours and I take $7,500; I'm Great !!, I don't tip my hat.</p>

<p>But I am genuinely interested where you save time, ignoring the subcontracting for $600. When shooting film, preparing cassettes, going to the lab at least twice, importing the scans, sequencing the images (using two bodies) took me to the stage I was at within 5 minutes of arriving home and popping the cards in. <br>

Proofing, DVD and posting is a wash. <br>

Administering the selects is a wash, but then scanning the big film pics is time consuming. <br>

Post processing the selects is easier with film and printing is the same with either source.<br>

Album design and admin thereafter is the same.<br>

So Dave, without paying a subcontractor to do the work, where are the time savings ?</p>

<p>I did attend a lecture where a photographer shot 110 weddings a year, but she dropped the files in a bag and GraphiStudio collected and took care of the rest. I became interested in that approach because I saw it as the only way to 'up-scale' my business, but I didn't like handing over the album design.</p>

<p>My biggest time-waster is over shooting. I used to shoot 12 rolls of 36, but when I went digital, I immediately started shooting 1,000 images on a full day. Reviewing the shoot and lightly processing 600 images is where much of my time goes. Controlling the right hand would help. Shooting MF would be even more restraining.<br>

The Analog Photo Radio shooters do indeed have 35mm in tow, but from what they say in the interview, plus looking at their sites and Blogs, the MF film cameras are central to their style. I was almost unaware of the Contax 645 and the f2.0 80mm until I started listening to the podcasts. I'd go as far as saying that every interviewee shoots MF as the 'main' tool because that's where the big difference is to be found.</p>

<p>I'm not have a digital bias, but apart from Jose Villa, the names above are not as familiar as Yervant, Joe Buissink, Denis Reggie, Becker, Marcus Bell, David Beckstead, Damien Lovegrove, David Oliver, Jessica Claire, Neil Ambrose, Marc Williams, Bambi .. etc.</p>

<p>So David, or anyone, where are the time and cost savings if you have a hybrid approach ?</p>

<p>Regards</p>