End of road for MF/LF...

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yes, they call them sports finders because the cameras are bad at sports unless you use them.

Don't get me wrong I like my TLR but if the subject is moving in an unpredictable manner they're a pain unless I use the "sports finder" which is an approximation rather than an ideal view. I had the same problem with a Hasselblad of course, and when I got a mirrored viewfinder that corrected the reversed image it made all the difference.

When I got my Mamiya RB67, the reverse view on the waist level finder drive me nuts. So I immediately bought a mirrored viewfinder and haven't looked backwards, no pun intended. . I will use the waist level if I'm shooting something near the ground. I also have the sportsfinder, but it really isn't necessary if you have the mirror eye level viewfinder.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

this is true, however, I’ll still take a lower resolution image that has been compressed less over a higher resolution image that has had the daylights squeezed out of it in a heartbeat. There’s a lot more to image quality than raw resolution. People bag on canon cameras because their out of camera video files are high bitrate and not sharpened in camera, however, in the right hands, those video files often times end up looking a lot better than others in the distributed version of the video. I’d very much rather have a 300Mbps+ unsharpened 1080p picture coming out of my camera than a 120Mbps 4K picture that has a whole pile of in camera sharpening applied so that the cameras contrast AF system can work. That 4K image tends to look very video. Yes, it’s crispy and sharp, but it also doesn’t look as good because it’s way more compressed.

A high bitrate, fat beefy 1080p video with 4:2:2 color and appropriate output sharpening will almost always look better overall than a low bitrate 4K video with 4:2:0 color. People tend to focus way too much on the raw resolution and not so much on the other aspects that have just as big of an I a pact on the final output quality.

What display device are you looking at?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Not many still live in basements.

Well I wish I had a basement in my house. Then I wouldn't have had to build a separate building for my darkroom.

 

[BradS]

Note that I didn't suggest "death." Check out the price of CLA on your camera if you can find someone who will give you a quote. Check out ready availability of chrome films (without betting online), check out availability of good local E6 processing.

yes. You’re stating the obvious. This has been the case for at least a decade. Nothing new. and so.... so what? This whole thread, your whole on going vendetta against film and photography is pointless shit stirring. Why? Why do you persist with this childish trolling?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

yes. You’re stating the obvious. This has been the case for at least a decade. Nothing new. and so.... so what? This whole thread, your whole on going vendetta against film and photography is pointless shit stirring. Why?

Because that is what he does best.

 

[removed account4]

My day job is land planning, I own a land surveying company. Most of my day is spent in front of a computer running autocad preparing digital terrain models, land plans, etc.
The last thing I want to do when not at work is sit behind another computer screen, therein my preference to use film and a darkroom. I would say that I did give digital as well as the
digital workflow its due respect, effort and time to master. Oddly enough one of the best images that I have printed 11x17 came from an 8 megapixel Sony CyberShot.
At the time I was also a member of the local camera club. I had an extra office building with a basement that I let them use for a meeting / gallery space. They set up a small but
well equipped darkroom in the basement. The club moved on to other things and I inherited the darkroom. I sold all of my digital gear and have never been tempted by digital since.

understood - sounds like a great deal for you, a equipt darkroom ! i wouldn't totally give up on the "digital space" if you ever veer left ( or right ) and decide you want to start making cyanotypes or platinum prints or van dykes or other non silver type photographs digital is a great tool to have a little knowledge of, even if it is to scan a 3x5 print and invert it so you can go to the local xerox shop and get a clear film negative of it that you can use to make your contact prints. i've been having fun in that realm ezpz and cheepsy

 

[radiant]

Even if film suddenly vanished, I know how to coat acetate.

Film is not dead - just coate our own acetate! New motto!

if you have the mirror eye level viewfinder.

Oh man that viewfinder weights same amount as the camera. I have it but I'm still working on gym to be able to pick my RB67 with viewfinder

 

[removed account4]

I have to agree there. I'm up to my eyeballs in experience with teenagers at the moment for what it's worth.

LOL ME TOO ! and i heard they were called "perspective years" ...

Agree 90% .... As to "dektol look"...that's what so many amateurs liked about Velvia: inaccurate, unreal, theatric

no clue what the "dektol look" is but its not amateurs that liked classic black and white prints made with dektol, or the look of velvia, but plenty of professionals who developed and printed used dektol and did for 50+ years ( i worked for one back in the day ) and plenty of people liked the bluish uncorrected tint of ektachrome, and the cyan hue of kodachrome and the ability to mold a film based image any way one wanted if they had the capabilities and wanted to. there is greatness to film, and its unfortunate that in order for digital tech to assume its greatness it has to pull the chair out from underneath film while its changing the red light bulb, instead of just doing its own thing. granted it makes things easy to do, giant rezzed up files from small ones ( but that's been around for 15-20 years and is nothing new ) and we unfortunately have had the veil lifted so we know everyone's uncurrated life, so witness everyone's own personal truman show because everyone's a star and wants to be one ( or even better, an influencer ) and and others can make an uulesman style surrealist photograph or a nadar type portrait with the flick of a button and magic mouse .. its great times, but its a bit overwhelming to be drowning in a sea of mediocrity and has given me a hard core case of the shrugs.

I was responding to the assertion at the top of this thread that the ability to have a computer up-rez a digital image file would result in the death of medium and large format photography.

i know ! i can't wait to uplrez its files from. as soon as i can afford a computer from this decade im pretty much selling off everything i have that is bigger than my casio click, from the 1990s ( just wish it had the capability of holding more than 2 pictures in it ) and i had the right 25 year old plug and a windows 98 skin. then, i can finally free myself from the shackles of boring antique photography and maybe i'll even figure out how to make prints made from stills captured from my microwave oven ..

You’re stating the obvious.

sometimes the obvious isn't so obvious i thought i mastered the obvious a long time ago, but i guess was wrong.

 

[warden]

This whole thread, your whole on going vendetta against film and photography is pointless shit stirring. Why? Why do you persist with this childish trolling?

jtk can be an insufferable troll at times, yes, but he also produces some of the best, most thought provoking and challenging posts and threads on Photrio (artist introductions, hardware and software developments, industry opinions, wackadoo theories of every description that in the end start sounding reasonable, supportive comments in the same media section that he often derides, etc). This place would be duller without characters like him.

 

[BradS]

jtk can be an insufferable troll at times, yes, but he also produces some of the best, most thought provoking and challenging posts and threads on Photrio (artist introductions, hardware and software developments, industry opinions, wackadoo theories of every description that in the end start sounding reasonable, supportive comments in the same media section that he often derides, etc). This place would be duller without characters like him.

Yeah, I kinda agree. Which is why his apparent vendetta against film and photography is so puzzling. We've all adapted to the changes...and why can't everybody just accept that not everybody travels the same road and be happy?

 

[Prest_400]

Yeah, I kinda agree. Which is why his apparent vendetta against film and photography is so puzzling. We've all adapted to the changes...and why can't everybody just accept that not everybody travels the same road and be happy?

I'm active at a local photography club and there was a member that is very experienced and really pushing to do more digital workshops, with a similar argument. For which members didn't have an interest to carry out. In one way, it's an older generation that doesn't have the same perception as the new wave of youngsters. 20 year olds with a YT channel that's mostly film and 125K subscribers. Not APUG at all.
In practical terms, mobile cameras thanks to computational photography are eating some segments of digital cameras. No figures at hand, but compacts and entry level DSLR+Mirrorless have taken most of that punch. Why do you carry a large camera when your phone suffices?

But OTOH, as many have said here, MF+LF is a whole different thing and people are appreciating it. The enticing darkroom is because you get silver gelatin prints. Or perhaps you send out Portra to a lab and get those "airy film tones". It's not anymore about sheer convenience and technical quality.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If you shot for art directors or designers or catalogs or the real estate world you would...

If you shoot for art directors or designers or real estate, you're shooting digital because the turnaround is expected in hours. So what's your point?

 

[jtk]

If you shoot for art directors or designers or real estate, you're shooting digital because the turnaround is expected in hours. So what's your point?

Not often true. Today almost all clients want digital files and almost none have any relationship to color separation...and of course they need to see your work on a monitor, at least partially because most plan to use it online. ..
In fact a large percent also want videos, which all modern small cameras can make. As to camera movements, and I've used them heavily, the unfortunate reality is Photoshop.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Not often true. Today almost all clients want digital files and almost none have any relationship to color separation...and of course they need to see your work on a monitor, at least partially because most plan to use it online. ..
In fact a large percent also want videos, which all modern small cameras can make. As to camera movements, and I've used them heavily, the unfortunate reality is Photoshop.

You just contradicted yourself - I said that if you're doing commercial work, you're shooting digital. You said not often true, then went on to mention shooting digital for commercial work.

 

[Henning Serger]

That completely ignores WHY people use MF/LF cameras in the first place. Just upsizing my photos, regardless of how sharp they are at a given size, isn't going to give me a reason to switch to small format digital. No software package can replace the act of using a view camera in the field, nor can it replace using a 150 year old portrait lens. Yes, yes, you can always emulate those things in software, but it's an emulation, and there are definite limits to what corrections to perspective you can do in software without losing resolution and introducing distortion. Get it right in camera, rather than fix it in post. I'd rather take an extra 15 minutes before I click the shutter than spend an extra two hours doing the same thing but on my computer afterwards.

Exactly.
There are dozens of different reasons why photographers use medium or large format. Photographers are individuals, and each has his own individual reasons for the medium he uses.
What the OP has posted will not have any effect at all on medium and large format film usage.
Medium and large format film usage are increasing! Part of my job is market research in the photo market (both digital and film). Therefore I know for sure.
The number of LF camera manufacturers has increased recently, because of increasing demand the prices for lots of popular MF film cameras are increasing significantly, too.
Lots of photographers have "digital fatigue": They have to sit in front of computer screens on their job the whole day. And they don't want to continue that in their rare leisure time. Film photography is the perfect alternative.

No one in the photo industry is discussing a potential "end of road for MF/LF". No one.
What is really of a concern is the collapse in digital camera manufacturing: The digital camera market has lost almost 90% of its volume in the last decade. Here are the numbers: http://cipa.jp/stats/dc_e.html
The backbone of camera manufacturing - compact cameras - is already almost gone. The number of sold compact cameras is meanwhile even lower than that of ILC cameras.The first time in about 60 years. Dozens of Asian OEM digital compact camera manufacturers have already given up and left the market. Former big players like Epson, Casio, Kodak and Samsung have left the market, too.
And the big question in the industry is: Which digital camera manufacturers will be next?
Because all know that the strong decrease in demand will continue in the coming years. All the forecasts of the manufacturers indicate that the total number will fall below 9 millions units p.a. And that market size will be too small for all of the remaining manufacturers. Nikon expects the ILC market to collapse down to only 3 million units p.a.! Much too small for all of the current producers.

There will be one chance for some of them: Keeping above the critical level by adding film camera production again, because there will a future increasing demand again.
Fujifilm is already doing that very successfully: They are producing about 20x more instant film cameras than digital cameras.
The chance of film is possible for some manufacturers who can relatively easy add (further) film cameras to their portfolio: Leica, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Fujifilm, Hasselblad.
In 3-4 years the OP will pray for this additional film camera production because it can keep the manufacturers and the digital camera production alive.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Note that I didn't suggest "death." Check out the price of CLA on your camera if you can find someone who will give you a quote.

No problem. Lots of repair companies are doing it, and at very reasonable prices.

Check out ready availability of chrome films (without betting online),

We are living in 2020, you know? Everyone is buying almost all he needs online, both digital and film stuff. All you need for your household, gifts,even food online business is increasing.
Have you ever heard of Amazon, by the way ?
Why should buying chrome film online at B&H be a problem, but buying all other stuff for your life buying online being not a problem at all??
All current chrome film from Fujifilm and Kodak are easily available online at all film online distributors. And here in Germany even one drugstore chain has it on the shelves. And the local labs and photo stores have it, too.
Sorry, but your statement does not make any sense at all.

availability of good local E6 processing.

Despite the fact that an increasing number of local labs offer it, lots of excellent labs offer E6 mail service. You use just the same very convenient online business service you generally use for buying products. Done. Period. No problem at all.
And E6 processing at home is also an excellent alternative: Perfect results at very low prices, and very easy, too.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Sirius Glass]

yes. You’re stating the obvious. This has been the case for at least a decade. Nothing new. and so.... so what? This whole thread, your whole on going vendetta against film and photography is pointless shit stirring. Why? Why do you persist with this childish trolling?

Because that is what he does best.

It is he only hing he does.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ho hum. How did the idea get here that optical photography and printing is somehow less precise than digital workflow. It's just the opposite. It is true that the majority of commercial applications want results yesterday, and that speed is the priority rather than sheer quality. But the fact leaves distinct niches open for those who can fill the remaining demand for hand printed quality etc. The most successful portrait studio in this area does all film, all darkroom-printed black and white. No need to compete as a low bidder or to invest in all lot of soon obsolete digi equipment. I shoot and print in relation to my personal standards, and no longer commercially (which was never my main interest anyway), so don't even worry about such shortcuts. If many people simply like doing things digitally, as they apparently do, more power to them. But this is the world epicenter of Tech, and I run into a lot of career engineers and digital imaging experts who would truly covet a personal darkroom and doing things hands-on, rather than more of the weekly keyboard grind. Ironically, many of them have moved into neighborhoods so expensive that, even with very high incomes, they're remarkably cash-strapped at times, and can barely afford furniture, let alone a modest remodel including a darkroom (some of those very expensive houses are also quite small and run-down). I know someone who has a small darkroom inside his van; that might be an option : fleeing California with all your belongings strapped atop your vehicle. Steinbeck wrote a novel about it, called, The Chips of Wrath.

 

[Vaughn]

I thought it was Traveling with Grapes...some sort of winery guide or something for snowbirds...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Traveling with romaine lettuce and a horrific stomach ache ....

 

[blockend]

Being of catholic tastes, I get lost in a smudgy and desaturated 110 print as completely as a sheet film view of El Capitan. It's about curation, not resolution. Being lead through a picture world we peer uncertainly into is as beguiling as a monumental trail, if you trust the guide. My mother used to sometimes visit a café when I was a kid. Along one wall was a pine forest view that shouted American Pacific or Canadian. From the adjoining tables the landscape was mostly mush, but it was fascinating mush, out of register coloured dots against the Formica surfaces and plastic tableware.

Resolution is a mirage. Too much and never enough. A good servant but a bad master.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Such eloquent nonsense! If that's the case, there's no need to go out and buy a toy camera. Just get some axle grease and smear it on the lens of the camera you already have, and then you'll be a true artiste.