WPF - World Photography Forum
Home Gallery Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Welcome to World Photography Forum!
Welcome!

Thank you for finding your way to World Photography Forum, a dedicated community for photographers and enthusiasts. There's a variety of forums, a wonderful gallery, and what's more, we are absolutely FREE. You are very welcome to join, take part in the discussion, and post your pictures!

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.


Go Back   World Photography Forum > Photography Equipment > Cameras


Cameras Discussion on Cameras of all types

Medium Format Film

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 26-03-07, 18:59
Jonathan Farmer Jonathan Farmer is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Barbados
Posts: 874
Default Medium Format Film

To those of you that think Digital is the best thing since sliced bread, think again.

Many of us have hung up our 35mm gear because we now have digital cameras that take just as good if not better images than 35mm film; but what obout getting REALY BIG, SHARP IMAGES WITH FINE DETAIL AND RICH, SMOOTH COLOUR AND CONTRAST. We have all heard the stories " My 12 megapixle camera and zoom lens are so good, I printed a 16x20 print and it's still sharp". I am sure many of these images are fairly sharp (from a distance), but what are these images being compared to. Right now you can go into many camera stores and find a heap of Medium Format gear at low, low prices, many of us will bypass this gear because we think it's out dated junk. Think again, to get the equivalent performance from Digital compared to from these old Medium Format cameras, you will have to spend $25,000.00 to $40,000.00.

I have attached two images, the full size image I have printed 16x20 inches and I consider it to be very sharp, not as sharp as large format, but very sharp all the same. The other image is a croped out section about 2.5 x 2.5 inches in size; see if you can fiend which part it came from. This should give you an idea of what kind of detail you can expect from Medium format film.

The images shown were taken with 120 Slide film (Fuji Provia F 100) and the slide was scanned using a consumer level scanner. If a drum scanner were used, the image quality would be even better.

Untill digital gets realy big and affordable, I will continue to crank the leaver of my trusted and durable MEDIUM FORMAT CAMERA when I want that BIG image. For the rest of my photos I have the convenience of digital.

Best regards

Jonathan Farmer

For the rest of my
Attached Images
File Type: jpg JF MF 001.jpg (205.7 KB, 26 views)
File Type: jpg Copy of JF MF 001.jpg (389.2 KB, 27 views)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 26-03-07, 20:09
Leif Leif is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Luton
Posts: 911
Default

I moved to digital 2 years ago and really I would not want to go back. I genuinely feel that my photography has improved significantly due to using digital. I had dreadful problems with reciprocity failure, film colour shifts at long exposures, colour shifts due to cold light, films destroyed by the processor (rare but it happened) and other issues. I can see an image the day it was taken, and reshoot if need be. This is useful for seasonal subjects such as fungi and flowers which disappear in a week or two. And digital has greater dynamic range than slide emulsions. Plus I can increase the ISO if the light is dull and the subject is moving. It's as if I had a whole pocket full of emulsions of various ISO speeds. Many people do trumpet the benefits of film, but I have to admit it is not for me, for numerous reasons.

I don't doubt what you say though. And scanners are much better than they used to be. But they are still the limiting factor unless you go to wet chemistry. Perhaps for landscapes MF and LF are the way to go for those who cannot afford to spend £10,000 on the best 35mm gear.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 26-03-07, 21:25
miketoll's Avatar
miketoll miketoll is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 7,477
Default

I have been released to do so much more photography by digital that I would not want to go back and seeing I can only print up to A4 at home I am not really bothered by the superior quality that medium format offers. Others may disagree but I am not tempted back. There is an unfinished film in my film SLR that has been there for about 2 years, I really must finish it sometime!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 26-03-07, 22:13
Jonathan Farmer Jonathan Farmer is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Barbados
Posts: 874
Default Only if I have to go big.

Before I go misundrestood; the only reason I will use MF is when the final product has to be big and it is important that detail is as sharp as I can get it. 95% of my work is done with digital.

For FINE ART printed up to 16x20, I use MF or for advertising shots requiring large images for fussy clients.

Regards

Jonathan
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 26-03-07, 23:37
Joe's Avatar
Joe Joe is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Age: 51
Posts: 1,586
Default

It's a big debate you open, but I understand your personal reasoning Jonathan.
I like many have the privilage to look at the film vs digital debate from an objective point of view too.
We still get a healthy number of hobbyists, semi and pro photographers coming into the shop buying film chemistry and processing 35mm, medium and large format alike. We also get a massive number of seriuos digital users in the shop too.
The reason for film;
Personally a like 35mm film, but not because I consider it better quality than digital. No, I actually enjoy developing those transparency films through my processor and seeing those results. It's an age old technigue by today's standard's, and it's certainly not the quickest or cost effective work flow solution. The point is tho, part of my hobby I enjoy is the film processing part of it all. I can then scan those images, knowing I can always go back to them at a later date as I have done with many of my images in my gallery.
Now to the reason for digital;
A prime reason behind the explosion of digital media can be seen using my wife as an example, but is common I'm sure for many many other users...
Up until recently, Jacky used Pentax based 35mm film kit, took pictures, normally colour print, finished the film, had them developed, got them back to sift through which prints she liked etc....I bought her a digi SLR for her birthday...she hasn't put it down! Reason being I don't think just that it's a new toy, but she is a heavier computer user than me, now enjoys taking photos and looking at them instantly, can see where she might improve a shot, retake it, upload it instantly....all with the enjoyment ultimately of photography. I don't consider her photography any lesser than mine, it's just she doesn't particularly get my enjoyment from siting upstairs in the spare bedroom with the processor going! (can't see why??!)
The photography hobby is different things to different people.

Regarding the quality and size aspect of film vs digital;
With limited budget, yes, film has the edge when considering the initial outlay price, particualrly where medium and large format is concerned.
However, with a larger budget possible, there is no quality argument for film...it is pure noncence to rule out digital totally, even for the big billboard advertising quality images. Companies like Leaf, PhaseOne among others specialist in large digi backs, 60 megapixel is the norm, software enabling larger file sizes to be made even bigger plus high powered hardware are now commonplace.
In an industry that requires freeflow work and fast results digital is beginning to come out tops. A company that can afford it will dump old obsolete digi kit and buy the new upgrade....we saw it with the big news and sports photo agencies, and we'll probably see it with many studios up and down the high street too.

However, my personal view is your 20+ year old film camera can be 'upgraded' every time you put the new emulsion in!....just as long as you don't mind using the older design lenses etc!

Ho hum...I could waffle on for an age....but I got to stop now!....the summary for me is both have a place, but one thing is...digital has meant more and more people have gotten envolved in photography.
that's only got to be a good thing
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 27-03-07, 10:54
gordon g gordon g is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Barnsley
Posts: 2,766
Default

Having switched to digital in October last year, I have found that I miss film. Essentially, I now have only one type of sensor, whereas with film, I could change 'sensor' at each reload. Undoubtedly digital is more convenient, more easily manipulated, quicker, and the ability to change iso keeps me shooting when I would have packed up previously, but I miss the suspense and surpise of getting prints and slides back from the developer. (Mind you, there was a fair dose of frustration inthere sometimes too!)

Overall, for me going digital has been positive, but I just cant shift that nostalgia.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 27-03-07, 12:09
Leif Leif is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Luton
Posts: 911
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Farmer View Post
Before I go misundrestood; the only reason I will use MF is when the final product has to be big and it is important that detail is as sharp as I can get it. 95% of my work is done with digital.

For FINE ART printed up to 16x20, I use MF or for advertising shots requiring large images for fussy clients.

Regards

Jonathan
I guess you do make a good point. Lots of digital users are dribbling at the thought of a Canon 1Ds II ... and yet ... they could in many respects get better results by buying an old MF camera, at a bargain price, and shooting slides. Mmmmm. Don't tempt me! I've spent too much already this year. I wonder how long before MF quality digital reaches the sub-£1000 mark?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 27-03-07, 16:31
Jonathan Farmer Jonathan Farmer is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Barbados
Posts: 874
Default Affordable and big

Big digital (22-60 Megapixle) is for the big guys like large advertising firms and high end magazines, but only about 5 years ago these same guys relied on MF film. For anyone who wants 3-5 times bigger than 12-16 megapixle (I think my math is correct once good scanning is done), there is 6x6 or 6x7 cm format. Yes you have to wait for the results with developing, you always have a dust problem (at least I do), no matter how clean I keep my D. Tank, there is alwayse dust present; your fastest shutter speed is around 1/500 sec. and maybe you have a choice of one zoom lens, all other lenses are primes; you also have to be very accurate with exposures. With all these challenges, I find I take more time when Using MF usualy resulting in better photographs. For all this bother, I only use MF for fine art requiring big images and for any image over 16x20 inches.

Best regards to all

Jonathan Farmer
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 27-03-07, 17:37
miketoll's Avatar
miketoll miketoll is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 7,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leif View Post
I guess you do make a good point. Lots of digital users are dribbling at the thought of a Canon 1Ds II ... and yet ... they could in many respects get better results by buying an old MF camera, at a bargain price, and shooting slides. Mmmmm. Don't tempt me! I've spent too much already this year. I wonder how long before MF quality digital reaches the sub-£1000 mark?
Don't hold your breath!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 27-03-07, 22:24
Don Hoey's Avatar
Don Hoey Don Hoey is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 4,462
Default

A thread I will return to. I will just throw a thought or two into the pot in the mean time.

I have used 5x4 and 6x4.5, 6x6 and 6x9 on 120. The most obvious difference in the use of these formats over 35mm/digital, is that with a bigger neg to show up poor sharpness, then a SOLID TRIPOD was ALWAYS used.

As far as MEDIUM FORMAT is concerned then we are ranging through 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8 and 6x9. With each size increase comes bigger and heavier kit if we are talking SLR. Tripods required go in the same direction.

I would not argue that a 6x7 - 6x9 image will amaze but a Mamiya 6x7 is quite a beast, and a Fuji GX680, IS A BEAST.

Don
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:24.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.