Future of medium format film

[Ektagraphic]

Well, I believe that smaller places such as ADOX make film in small amounts...and they seem to be doing well....I think it must be much larger with Kodak.

 

[Rudeofus]

Well, I believe that smaller places such as ADOX make film in small amounts...and they seem to be doing well....I think it must be much larger with Kodak.

Adox makes only B&W film, though. It the color film products I'm mostly worried about in the long term.

 

[Steve Smith]

If you imagine a worst case scenario, then you can plan accordingly. Imagine that a meteor struck the Kodak headquarters, then bounced and struck Fuji headquarters.

That should ensure Ilford's future!


Steve.

 

[Leighgion]

Imagine that a meteor struck the Kodak headquarters, then bounced and struck Fuji headquarters. Gordon Moat Photography

If that happened, my attention would be off photography and focused completely on the uproar in astronomy.

 

[Q.G.]

If we can't use film, we use what is available. If that would happen to be digital, so be it.
For me at least, and as much as i like film, making pictures is more important than how i have to do it.

But when did you say (did anyone?) was that meteor due?

 

[DanielStone]

But when did you say (did anyone?) was that meteor due?

2012 according to the movie LOL !

 

[Q.G.]

Oh, rats! So soon already.
I wish they wouldn't announce it so prominently. They made a film about it?! Who's going to buy my then useless analogue gear now?

 

[Joe Grodis]

Jumping on the "Digital band wagon" in the medium format department isn't logical for myself at least. My primary studio camera is an RB-67 followed by a Mamiya 645-pro. When on foot I'll take my Mamiya-7. Now, what digital could replace any of these without costing 13 times more? Plus... I'd gladly take the Pepsi challenge and compare the performance of the Mamiya-7 to ANY digital costing 10 times more. I'm not anti-digital, I'd surely run out today and buy a MF digital if the cheapest one wasn't $15,000!

 

[Darkroom317]

Jumping on the "Digital band wagon" in the medium format department isn't logical for myself at least. My primary studio camera is an RB-67 followed by a Mamiya 645-pro. When on foot I'll take my Mamiya-7. Now, what digital could replace any of these without costing 13 times more? Plus... I'd gladly take the Pepsi challenge and compare the performance of the Mamiya-7 to ANY digital costing 10 times more. I'm not anti-digital, I'd surely run out today and buy a MF digital if the cheapest one wasn't $15,000!

I calculated the price of a digital Hasselblad (39MP) compared to rolls of medium format film. I could shoot and have processed 4,2866 rolls of Velvia 50. I shoot with an RB67, so that is 42,866 photographs.

 

[Alan Johnson]

My mid-range flatbed scanner only resolves about 45 line-pairs/mm so when I use that for output I use 120 film. 645 gives approx 20 m-pixel and 67 about 30 m-pixel.The cost of using 120 film is much less than equivalent digi for low volume applications.
The flatbed scanner is the friend of 120 film and will help keep it available for traditional darkroom work.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Yes indeed, true being the quality of the photo is not dependent on mpx.
In my eyes, it would be ideal if photographers concentrated earnestly on a solid foundation grounding in traditional photography i.e. film-based and then move to digital as an alternative, rather than a wholesome panacea. Visual literacy, composition, technical proficiency, post-production (printing, matting, framing, etcetera) all have bearing and are missing from the new-age photographers who have embraced the immediacy of the alternative method. There are still some wonderful pros about producing exquisite images on 35mm, MF, LF and ULF. I predict film will hang around for a decade more yet (a bold prediction I know), but let's just see if digital burns itself out, hm?

 

[viridari]

I'm sure this topic has been tackled somewhere on APUG, but I can't find it. I've returned to my Rollei and Hasselblad after years away from the camera, and I don't want to go digital. In fact, I want to add 4x5 and 8x10 to my portrait work. But before I go too deep into this world and invest money into equipment that I may not be able to use in a number of years, where can I find solid information about what is happening to the availability of medium and large format film? I was crushed to find out that I could not use Polaroid 55 with a 4x5 anymore.

We're seeing consolidation, some attrition, but also some new films coming out as well. If you find something you can't live without, buy it cheap & stack it deep.

My greatest hope is that Kodak will release something like Kodachrome (silver based color slide film) based on the technological advancements that went into TMY-2. (hey if we spread this rumor around maybe they'll do it)

 

[DanielStone]

I'd surely run out today and buy a MF digital if the cheapest one wasn't $15,000!

Leaf just brought out the Aptus II 5(22mp). at a price of something like $8k. meant to compete with the high MP digi slr's.

i know, I speak blasphemy. but I'm a photo major, so I'll have to shoot digital one day for jobs. but I can wait a little longer. save some more pennies .

www.leafamerica.com for the info on the AII5

-Dan

 

[keithwms]

Guys, there are plenty of other places on the web to discuss digital. This is our little refuge from pixels and bits; kindly respect that.

 

[Bruce A Cahn]

I refuse to believe that 4x5 tri-x 320 is discontinued. It is easy to get in 5x7 and 8x10 as well. There are many thousands of LF film users. View Camera Magazine sells around 20,000 copies a month. Most LF photogs don't even read it, and the magazine does that well. I think it highly unlikely that 4x5 film will become unavailable in the coming 10-15 years at least. When there is a demand there is usually a supplier. Rumor is that even Polaroid will be produced again by another company. I wish I had the same confidence about 5x7 that I do about 4x5, but a lot of people do use it.

 

[DanielStone]

I refuse to believe that 4x5 tri-x 320 is discontinued. It is easy to get in 5x7 and 8x10 as well.

bruce,

where did you here that about 320txp?

 

[thebanana]

Medium format film is DOOMED! Send all your medium format film to me asap for proper disposal.

 

[removed-user-1]

I have a digital SLR I'm about to sell so that I can *gasp* buy another lens for my RB67, lots of film, and some additional film processing equipment. Ultimately I want to set up that Omega D2 I picked up a few months back, but for now I will have to stick to the Epson flatbed scanner (a V700) and inkjet prints. Long live medium format!

By the way, people still make oil paintings and still play acoustic guitars... both of these arts were expected (by many but not all observers) to die a quick death with the arrival of, respectively, photography and the synthesizer.

 

[viridari]

I have a digital SLR I'm about to sell so that I can *gasp* buy another lens for my RB67, lots of film, and some additional film processing equipment.

Stop reading my mind.

 

[Q.G.]

Medium format film is DOOMED! Send all your medium format film to me asap for proper disposal.

You have it the wrong way round.
Maybe we'll dispose all of our then useless hardware by sending it to you as soon as we have finished the last film available.
How big is your back yard, and would you get into trouble with your neighbours?

(By the way: if there were no hypothetical questions, there would be no hypothetical questions. )

 

[Davesw]

I think the fact that "The Great Yellow Father" Kodak's sales are 70+% digital says something. Kodachrome was only 1% of the remaining 30% so it went away. I am going to support companies that want our business and need our business to stay alive. Fuji looks like the best bet in color slide flim and HP5 is looking like a good replacement for Tri X.

I could not agree more. People ask me why I have moved away from Kodak film and my answer is simple, nothing against Kodak at all, I am just putting all my money with a company with a lot of skin in the game. for me its Ilford film and paper. The company just seems committed to film and being there for people like us. As JayB. would say "we are not alone " and we should all remember that. Ultimately we as film and Photo supply consumers, we will determine what products are available for us to use in the future.

 

[KarnyDoc]

I calculated the price of a digital Hasselblad (39MP) compared to rolls of medium format film. I could shoot and have processed 4,2866 rolls of Velvia 50. I shoot with an RB67, so that is 42,866 photographs.

There was an error in your math.

Being a Hasselblad shooter myself, with twelve square images on a roll of 120, I'm not familiar with how many images one gets with an RB67, but use my numbers as an approximation.

Assuming twelve images per roll, you'd have 514,392 images, based on 42,866 rolls of 120, with twelve images per roll.

Dieter Zakas

 

[Darkroom317]

Found the error. I meant 4,286 rolls. The RB67 gets 10 images per roll. Either way medium format film is currently more cost effective.

 

[Lukas Werth]

Don't know whether someone said this already, but, regarding the original question of the thread, I think sticking to analogue is rather likely to improve your business. I am not doing what I am doing to make a buck, but I notice that doing something else than all the others it what people makes to turn people's heads around. A statement that you keep to strictly analogue procedures in these days is likely to give you a headstart, if your results are quality. After all, a trained monkey can do a sort of picture with a cell phone. Creativity is not where the industry says it is.

 

[Steve Smith]

Being a Hasselblad shooter myself, with twelve square images on a roll of 120, I'm not familiar with how many images one gets with an RB67

Ten (sometimes as many as three of them are good!).


Steve.