I have heard many say medium format is dead but I simply don't believe it. Look at Ekar 100 just released. People think all film is dead. Heck, I still shoot 8mm movies.
Future of medium format film
-
A
- Thread starter Johannah Sentenn
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Recessed lens board
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale Leica M4-2
- Started by chriscrawfordphoto
-
For Sale FS: Toyo Sliding Back for 4x5 Graflok
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
This debate has become a bit digital Vs film -
I prefer to shoot film, but it has nothing to do with which results are best. I LIKE using film. No batteries to go flat (in my 120 roll film folders) no electronics to die in the wet, no fragile LCD screens, no plastic bodies to crack, no huge nested menu of options to try and remember where the hell the macro function is or how to stop it blasting off a firework display of red eye reduction flashes when I'm just trying to photo the sleeping cat (now awake). No computer to boot up and waste time on, no software to upload, update, crash and lose the manual for when you've forgotten how to do something, no printer ink to run out, no annoying lines down the print when the nozzles have blocked and need cleaning, no hard disk to get a virus and die with all your images on.
No one wants to steal my camera, no one wants to steal my negatives, no one wants to steal my darkroom - unlike a digital and computer...
I shoot film because I like it, it is fun. I don't like digital, it is agro and hassle... digi fans may think differently, I DON'T CARE. Why do we all have to do things the same way? All that matters is that people keep buying film - then manufacturers will keep selling it.
I prefer to shoot film, but it has nothing to do with which results are best. I LIKE using film. No batteries to go flat (in my 120 roll film folders) no electronics to die in the wet, no fragile LCD screens, no plastic bodies to crack, no huge nested menu of options to try and remember where the hell the macro function is or how to stop it blasting off a firework display of red eye reduction flashes when I'm just trying to photo the sleeping cat (now awake). No computer to boot up and waste time on, no software to upload, update, crash and lose the manual for when you've forgotten how to do something, no printer ink to run out, no annoying lines down the print when the nozzles have blocked and need cleaning, no hard disk to get a virus and die with all your images on.
No one wants to steal my camera, no one wants to steal my negatives, no one wants to steal my darkroom - unlike a digital and computer...
I shoot film because I like it, it is fun. I don't like digital, it is agro and hassle... digi fans may think differently, I DON'T CARE. Why do we all have to do things the same way? All that matters is that people keep buying film - then manufacturers will keep selling it.
Sorry misread the line < egg in my face:
I once had a whinge about holgas dominating MF exhibitions and flickr groups related to MF films. The friend I was talking to made an interesting point...
"I'll never criticize holga shooters because they are keeping 120 alive"
I thought this was an interesting point and I think the recent popularity of cheap plastic MF cameras such as Holga's and dianas are partially responsible for the widespread use of 120 because it's bought this film into the amateur market.
120 and larger formats are still alive and kicking in both pro and amateur markets (which I can't say for 35mm), I think it's likely to stay this way, at least until MF digital (or LF digital) becomes more mainstream.
"I'll never criticize holga shooters because they are keeping 120 alive"
I thought this was an interesting point and I think the recent popularity of cheap plastic MF cameras such as Holga's and dianas are partially responsible for the widespread use of 120 because it's bought this film into the amateur market.
120 and larger formats are still alive and kicking in both pro and amateur markets (which I can't say for 35mm), I think it's likely to stay this way, at least until MF digital (or LF digital) becomes more mainstream.
You know, I was thinking of that. I live an an area totally dominated by digital. I hardly ever see a true film shooter and out of a large camera club I am in I am the only person that LOVES film. I have, however, seen quite a few holgas roming around the streets.
Any discussion about the viability of film inevitably becomes film vs. digital. That's because the future of film is tied to the future of digital.
I love medium format film. The tones and subtlety of film are very different from digital and features that I find very pleasing.
Plus, I don't need to spend much time reproducing the look of film, because the real thing is right there.
I love medium format film. The tones and subtlety of film are very different from digital and features that I find very pleasing.
Plus, I don't need to spend much time reproducing the look of film, because the real thing is right there.
It occurs to me that since 35mm and 120mm film can be cut from the same master rolls and processed in the same lab equipment, there's little to suggest the imminent demise of film. Doubtless, there are good opportunities in keeping 120 film around as a boutique product forever. There may not as wide a variety of emulsion types as we've enjoyed, and there be diminishing R&D efforts for new emulsions, but even if new product development got locked down tomorrow, I could easily make do with just a couple of emulsions like Astia 100F and Ektar 100.
More at risk is with the rush to digital creating a large surplus of journeyman-level pro MF film cameras in the used market (likely enough rolling stock to supply amateur needs for the next 50 years, if not longer), is that a bunch of MF camera companies have already gone by the boards, with a number sure to follow.
More at risk is with the rush to digital creating a large surplus of journeyman-level pro MF film cameras in the used market (likely enough rolling stock to supply amateur needs for the next 50 years, if not longer), is that a bunch of MF camera companies have already gone by the boards, with a number sure to follow.
I agree to a larger degree. I think medium format will closely follow 35; with less and less variety as the years go on. What will really determine the future of film is the motion picture industry, IMO. They have already started going digital for many many productions (mostly low and medium budget ones), and it is only a matter of time........
I keep reading that the choice of film gets smaller every year, yet what I see in the real world strongly contradicts this notion. Given the extent to which digital has taken over I was quite surprized that new films actually hit the market - think of Provia 400X, Ektar. Even Velvia 50 was reintroduced! The B&W market is still so populated with products that its very confusing to new comers where to start from. Yes Kodachrome is gone, some say it was the nicest film in the world, yet I don't really care for a film that I couldn't even develop myself anyway.
The biggest difference to me is that I don't go to little stores to buy film any more (some still carry film, but only 135 size negative films) but order it online. Personally I'm quite happy about the digital revolution since it allowed me to get a mint condition Mamiya RZ67 Pro IID for the price of a Canon 50D
The biggest difference to me is that I don't go to little stores to buy film any more (some still carry film, but only 135 size negative films) but order it online. Personally I'm quite happy about the digital revolution since it allowed me to get a mint condition Mamiya RZ67 Pro IID for the price of a Canon 50D
Not so. The emulsions may be the same, but the supports for 35mm and 120 film are quite different. 35 mm. film stocks are usually coated onto thicker and stronger supports.
You know that you can use this camera without battery, too? You're limited to 1/400s shutter time which is kind of lame in winter, but for testing or madness prevention purposes this should work
I used to think that MF film would be the first to dissapear, but not now. I got into MF a couple of years ago and now shoot quite a bit in an RB67 as well as a holga and a couple of vintage folders. I think what we are seeing is a large number of folks who only shot 35mm now jumping into MF due to the availability of quality used gear for a few hundred dollars that new cost thousands. For using a hybrid work flow, MF is an ideal for making digital negatives for alternative processes bypassing the need and cost of a ULF camera and film.
I'm certain medium format film we be around for the rest of our lives. I mean, really, what other digital option do we have right now for equal resolution? I, like so many others aren't going to ditch our Mamiya's for a $40,000 digital Hassy H4D. Bang for the buck, medium format film is still king.
So, I agree with you, mostly. But resolution is not what people make money on these days... it's whizbang colours, emulated effects, cloned perfection... and instant satisfaction (=being able to get your output same day or next day printed to whatever size). It's up to us analoguers to re-assert film's merits, through example. And frankly I don't think we can do that by resolution or other technical arguments. People constantly bombarded with low-res images over the web or powerpoint or the common magazines already have a very low threshold of wow.
I really question whether 99.44% of the population can even tell the difference between traditional and digital images.... even though we all can name the usual key differences.Thanks for the advice on using the RZ67 at 1/400 without a battery. I went out to get a battery which kept me from going insane. Now what do I shoot? I'm going nuts! I want to shoot some nature but the camera came two days after all the red leaves fell. I do have a studio shoot lined up for Thursday where some friends agreed to pose.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2002
- Messages
- 3,215
- Format
- Large Format
And frankly I don't think we can do that by resolution or other technical arguments. People constantly bombarded with low-res images over the web or powerpoint or the common magazines already have a very low threshold of wow.
Not only that, but the image quality has improved so much that at least in terms of resolution, 8x10 digital prints can be made from full frame DSLRs which are indistinguishable from 8x10 contact prints from film.
Tonality? I don't know. I haven't seen any I like as well as contacts, but I'm sure I will someday.
They Chose Film 
I recently did some Aerials and shot 2 rolls of Provia 100F with my ROLLEI 6008i 80mm in Addition to 100+ shots with my D200 with a 12-24.
Film was processed and scanned next day....To my Joy both clients who had booked Aerial Jobs chose the Film shots over the digital with out knowing it was film !! They said the color was better on them...they were quite shocked when i told them it was film ! Both clients will use them to in Large prints for marketing multi million dollar properties - they were further pleased when they blew up a cropped version of one shot to 30 x 40 !
Yey Film !
p.s. I used the Rollei because the glass is MUCH better than my tokina 12-24 i would have used on the D200....what a difference !
Dennis
So, I agree with you, mostly. But resolution is not what people make money on these days... it's whizbang colours, emulated effects, cloned perfection... and instant satisfaction (=being able to get your output same day or next day printed to whatever size). It's up to us analoguers to re-assert film's merits, through example. And frankly I don't think we can do that by resolution or other technical arguments. People constantly bombarded with low-res images over the web or powerpoint or the common magazines already have a very low threshold of wow.
I recently did some Aerials and shot 2 rolls of Provia 100F with my ROLLEI 6008i 80mm in Addition to 100+ shots with my D200 with a 12-24.
Film was processed and scanned next day....To my Joy both clients who had booked Aerial Jobs chose the Film shots over the digital with out knowing it was film !! They said the color was better on them...they were quite shocked when i told them it was film ! Both clients will use them to in Large prints for marketing multi million dollar properties - they were further pleased when they blew up a cropped version of one shot to 30 x 40 !
Yey Film !
p.s. I used the Rollei because the glass is MUCH better than my tokina 12-24 i would have used on the D200....what a difference !
Dennis
You think the larger piece of film vs. a very tiny sensor might have had something to do with it?
So, I agree with you, mostly. But resolution is not what people make money on these days... it's whizbang colours, emulated effects, cloned perfection... and instant satisfaction (=being able to get your output same day or next day printed to whatever size). It's up to us analoguers to re-assert film's merits, through example. And frankly I don't think we can do that by resolution or other technical arguments. People constantly bombarded with low-res images over the web or powerpoint or the common magazines already have a very low threshold of wow.
Keith, I have asked this question several times and have never really received an answer. People often talk about the "look" of good film but can you help me understand how you can tell??? I am glad to hear that Dennis' clients chose the film over the digital.
This is a big topic... a book could be written!
Let me first say that I think people should experiment and guiltlessly use what makes them feel productive... whatever tool that may be. Whatever tool.
That caveat firmly in place... :rolleyes: ...
There are so many differences... I will just mention one. When it comes to prints in the hand, what I see in a trad'l print is an image that appears in the paper, rather than on it. This effect is most pronounced for matte fiber, my preferred paper type, but it's true of RC as well. Of course, handcoated papers make even more of a feature of the interaction between the image, the emulsion, and the paper texture. This is, to me, the most important overall difference in how the print looks.
Unfortunately, this "in the paper" appearance is completely lost in online imagery... and notwithstanding paper texture, it is also very hard to get decent scans of prints on matte fiber
So... we just have to show people these prints in person and let people get them in their hands. If we do that then they will get it. And all the technical arguments are just words.I don't want to turn this into a long, rambling essay, but I'll just offer one other point: analogue photography really entwines process with product through all stages. And the handcrafted individuality of the product is a big part of its value. A dust speck, spotting mark, rough edge, scratch, slightly different exposure or tone distinguishes one print from the next and is thus a kind of fingerprint of the art and the artist. The individuality of the analogue photograph is manifest at the molecular level... it's not a 'look' created in postprocessing that can be 'saved' and then used to generate multiple indistinguishable facsimiles. Ultimately value all comes back to supply and demand... and if there is no limit on supply of a identical copies of a print, well....
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2006
- Messages
- 858
- Format
- Multi Format
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. At that point, the film that is left in the world would last for at least two more years until expiration date, and most (colour) would still be usable for six more years. So if you can fashion a business plan for the next six years, then you are doing fine.
In reality, it is still possible to get alternative materials in use at the dawn of photography. While many of those are hazardous or toxic, they indicate what is possible. Consider that anyone can buy oil paint, canvas, and brushes too, yet those are niche products sold at very low volumes in very few places.
Another approach is transitional gear. If you go with medium format cameras, in a worst case possibility you could switch the film back off it for a digital back. Until you could afford one, there is the option of renting, or you can get a lease plan for your business. Personally I think this is the best option, especially that there are so many good quality medium format cameras.
I do commercial photography in the advertising and corporate realm. The vast majority of what I shoot originates on large format and medium format cameras, though sometimes I use 35mm. If that meteor ever hit, I could switch enough around to continue working within two years, though honestly I don't see a need for any changes in the near future.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat Photography
My girlfriend used to work for Unique Photo in their call center when they were located in Florham Park, NJ (they moved to their Fairfield, NJ, location after she and the company parted ways).
Based on her experience, there still exists a demand for film, and companies such as Kodak hit the panic button. "Oh, digital - let's jump on that bandwagon," and so the film lines suffer. Yet, she often got calls inquiring about certain films and chemistry, and she'd recount the callers' reactions when they were informed about the unavailability of a desired item, such as anything by Agfa (account the company's shutdown) or specific films and/or chemicals that were discontinued by their manufacturers.
On the consumer side, this makes sense, as people want the immediacy digital provides. Polaroid was the first in this, as the "instant" cameras satisfied that desire, and digital technology as a whole has practically overrun that market.
However, we APUG members (I joined literally a few days ago as of this post) look at photography and pursue that interest to a different degree than the majority of people. In some cases we're hobbyists (such as myself), or professionals. Therefore, our collective view is different than Joe Consumer's.
However, it is correct to say that, as long as we film shooters continue buying film, companies will continue to make it - simple supply and demand.
When it comes to pent-up demand for departed products, I just wish I had the cash to buy the assets of, say, Agfa Photo and make a whole bunch of people happy.
One thing I see regarding film is that, in the coming decades, film photography will become almost a niche market. While I expect film to be around for the forseeable future, such as for the remainder of my lifetime (I will turn 41 in three days), I would expect we film photographers to be a niche in a sense similar to when photography was in its infancy.
Back in Mathew Brady's day, given the nature of photography at the time, one did not get into photography on a whim. It required a considerable investment in education and equipment, making it the province of a small percentage of the population. Over time, due to evolution and incremental improvements, photography became more popular; with the Brownie camera, for example, Kodak's famous tag line was, "You push the button. We do the rest." It was a "democratization," if you will, of photography, and the shift to digital is similar.
Regards,
Dieter Zakas
Developer, NJ
There is one big unknown in this whole equation: how much film must a film maker make before a production line becomes profitable? Can a film maker do batch processing where a production line operates only when new stock is needed? If the production process requires legions of snap happy holiday shooters, a few dedicated film shooters who buy all the film they can afford still won't save the medium. It is quite noticable that while there is still a large number of independent B&W film makers, color film is only made by a few large companies.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |