Hazards of shooting digital medium format

hpulley · Oct 20, 2010

What's wrong with white lenses? Who says you need to be a pro to use them? They work great for film too. I wished I could have afforded the green ringed original flourite 300mm f/2.8 back in the day.

Who's fault is it that they sell digital cameras? Where is the scam? People buy what they want, companies make what they want to buy or they don't survive. You need to look at why people have for the most part switched to digital. Sadly it seems that film companies are the ones who brought out the digital sensors and yet they are not the ones who have profited the most from them, or have they? How is the digital printing business going for them?

Jeff Kubach · Oct 20, 2010

That was great! I almost busted a gut laughing.

Jeff

bobwysiwyg · Oct 20, 2010

hpulley said:
Sadly it seems that film companies are the ones who brought out the digital sensors and yet they are not the ones who have profited the most from them, or have they?

Ask Big Yellow.

bblhed · Oct 20, 2010

I think people are missing the point that the video is funny!

"That will be $74,998.75", "we prefer cash"..............................."Sir."................."Sir?"

I do that when they say that will be $50.

Mainecoonmaniac · Oct 20, 2010

Commercial shooters are business people. I think they will weigh the cost of a digital medium format system and figure out the return on investment. This is my opinion of course, but some fine art shooters will stick to film and perhaps some very rich fine art photographers like David Hockney will shoot digital medium format cameras. I'm wondering if good old fashioned analog will be a fine art process like lithography and etchings? Commercial work for the most part, is disposable work which is digital cameras are well suited for.

hoffy · Oct 20, 2010

hpulley said:
What's wrong with white lenses? Who says you need to be a pro to use them? They work great for film too. I wished I could have afforded the green ringed original flourite 300mm f/2.8 back in the day.

Absolutely nothing. Maybe there was something lost in the translation between my brain and my fingers. The thing though about high end gear now, its not even the pros and the enthusiasts who are buying them.

Even general Joe Public who has gone from a Point and shoot to a 5DmkII which will never see nothing but Automatic are buying them. There is a pre-conceived notion that having the best gear will make them better photographers.

Pro gear used to be bought from Pro shops. Even in Australia, Canon L lenses can be bought from big box type stores (Harvey Norman, for example)

gregography · Oct 20, 2010

I don't know if everyone has seen the original that this references:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL7yD-0pqZg

I love film, but I love the digital workflow.

I think part of the cost of the big sensors is that it's hard to get a piece of silicon packed with sensors that big with no flaws. If you can cut it up into smaller pieces you're more likely to get a piece with no defects - so a lot of the manufactured pieces have to be thrown away.

M.A.Longmore · Oct 21, 2010

gregography said:
I don't know if everyone has seen the original that this references:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL7yD-0pqZg

.
Thanks Greg,

Art Imitating Life, Unfortunately ...

Ron
.

Snapper · Oct 21, 2010

Slixtiesix said:
What? You didn´t know that? Well, 12 year-olds do not seem to have any problem using medium format :-D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80K2fvIl-dY

Sorry, what exactly is a 'Harselblaard' anyway?

Q.G. · Oct 21, 2010

Snapper said:
Sorry, what exactly is a 'Harselblaard' anyway?

Actually, she says it way better than most do. Almost perfect.
The "blaard" a bit more like "blood", and it's there.

The things today's kids can do... 'ey?

jeckyll · Oct 21, 2010

2F/2F said:
<.. snip ..>

To me, the real scam is in the camera companies having convinced the average Jack and Jill photographer that an excellent-quality digital SLR, and a new one every few years, is more suitable to their needs than 35mm film. To these people, digital ought to be seen as exorbitant...but it is not! Therein lies the great digital scam/con, IMHO. It is not serious commercial/professional photographers who are scammed by digital, but the average consumer and amateur photographer.

I don't see it as a scam. The truth is people (many / most?) want digital. Period.

Too many are so happy with their crappy phone cameras that they can't even be bothered with a 'real' digital camera.

And the information is out there. You can point peoples noses at it. Again. And again. So, have they been fooled? Or are they happy with their thousands of images?

For myself, I shoot both. I've got (*thinks*) 5 film cameras of which 2 are MF. I develop my own film and scan it.

On a recent vacation I took my D300 and shot mostly with it. I did shoot a couple of rolls of medium format, still sitting in the fridge, waiting for developing. And realistically, I want images I can post shortly after returning. Without having to do a lot of developing. So, DSLR it is. I'm very happy to have the option of shooting in either medium.

People convinced themselves. They didn't need camera companies to do so.

EricO · Oct 21, 2010

That was a huge waste of time! Even worse is me replying to this thread. Worse yet is the second statement I just made. Not to mention I wrote yet a third line in response to this crappy video clip. What a waste of time!

hoffy · Oct 21, 2010

Eric, the Internet is a big waste of time....

Steve Smith · Oct 22, 2010

hoffy said:
Eric, the Internet is a big waste of time....

Someone should delete it.

INTERNET:\ DELETE *.*

Are you sure you want to delete 7346738378287676585368768757654644683787697859 files? (Y/N)

Steve.

clayne · Oct 22, 2010

jeckyll said:
On a recent vacation I took my D300 and shot mostly with it. I did shoot a couple of rolls of medium format, still sitting in the fridge, waiting for developing. And realistically, I want images I can post shortly after returning. Without having to do a lot of developing. So, DSLR it is. I'm very happy to have the option of shooting in either medium.

People convinced themselves. They didn't need camera companies to do so.

Pointing out that "the people have decided" based on numbers and popularity means squat. The general population are not photographers whatsoever. And even among photographers there are less than 1-5% even worth looking at.

So no "all my friends wear it, so should you" ain't gonna work. You need a bit more critical analysis of the situation.

Examine why you want your images so fast and immediately.

hpulley · Oct 22, 2010

clayne said:
...
Examine why you want your images so fast and immediately.

Because that's what clients expect these days, pictures the same day or next day for events. Not in two weeks nicely printed, they want web usable images today. Later than that and there is no reason to put the images up. We live in the age of instant gratification. Yesterday's newspaper... an hour ago is old these days.

People who want prints will generally wait longer.

EricO · Oct 22, 2010

clayne said:
...So no "all my friends wear it, so should you" ain't gonna work. You need a bit more critical analysis of the situation.

Examine why you want your images so fast and immediately.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS? That was the first casualty of the digital camera age!

michaelbsc · Oct 22, 2010

Steve Smith said:
Someone should delete it.

INTERNET:\ DELETE *.*

Are you sure you want to delete 7346738378287676585368768757654644683787697859 files? (Y/N)

Steve.

Only 7346738378287676585368768757654644683787697859?

You've clearly forgotten the Google archives.

jeckyll · Oct 28, 2010

clayne said:
Pointing out that "the people have decided" based on numbers and popularity means squat. The general population are not photographers whatsoever. And even among photographers there are less than 1-5% even worth looking at.

So no "all my friends wear it, so should you" ain't gonna work. You need a bit more critical analysis of the situation.

Examine why you want your images so fast and immediately.

I know why.

The question is: Why should it be any of your business

People vote with their dollars. Plenty of actual photographers vote with their dollars. I'm sure I'm not worth looking at according to your scale of 'only 1-5%' of photographers are worth looking at. I'm ok with that.

Are you worth looking at? If not, why does it matter what we decide?

I don't think I need a lot more critical analysis. The market forces are really making the decisions of what is available.

Personally, I've found plenty of photographers who's photos I enjoy looking at. Generally I couldn't care less how they produced the images.

Finally, your 'would you if your friends' point. I shoot both film and digital. I couldn't care less what my friends do. And I like both forms of photography, often for completely different reasons.

tomalophicon · Oct 29, 2010

hpulley said:
Because that's what clients expect these days, pictures the same day or next day for events. Not in two weeks nicely printed, they want web usable images today. Later than that and there is no reason to put the images up. We live in the age of instant gratification. Yesterday's newspaper... an hour ago is old these days.

People who want prints will generally wait longer.

I can have a nice picture printed on glossy paper less than a day after exposing the film.

bblhed · Oct 29, 2010

Instead of complaining about dig**** look at as a gateway, we train pilots in simulators, the army trains people in tank simulators, and no one complains about that, if you were teaching your kid to drive and there was a digital car you could train them in you would do it to save the risk and expense. Look at pixel cameras the same way, get a cheep one and learn to frame, get a better one and learn to use the settings, then move on to using film. Is that path right for everyone? No, is it a valid path? Yes.

The video of the bears is funny, and if you ever bought gear or spent time in a camera shop you know it's funny, I think we all get the concept of sticker shock. I laughed my a$$ off.

The kid with the Hassy, that was lame, I have a 3 year old that can shoot a Nikon N65 in P, and can actually get good photos with a Kodak Fun Saver, and I let her blow off a few hundred shots on a Dig*** pocket point and shoot sometimes too, I'm not making videos of that to show people.

Solarize · Oct 29, 2010

tomalophicon said:
I can have a nice picture printed on glossy paper less than a day after exposing the film.

If you are shooting fashion or advertising, good luck telling the client, AD, assistant and whoever else to wait a few hours. They want it within minutes, and not a print at that - but a digital file that can be pulled apart, e-mailed and altered. Even if you shoot film, commercially at least, there will likely be some digital step.

-Ciaran

EricO · Oct 29, 2010

tomalophicon said:
I can have a nice picture printed on glossy paper less than a day after exposing the film.

I keep hearing digital shooters talk about getting their prints back to the clients "in record speed" but I don't understand how they are doing it. When I shoot events (with film) I also get a disc of what I shoot and I'm never able to edit, crop, print, and cull those pics and get them back to the client much faster than the developers get the photos back to me. At the most it's a day (or maybe two days) difference but it takes time to do it unless you're working 8 hours a day at it. When photographers shoot digital I'd imagine that they shoot 3-4 times as many shots. How do you edit, print, and cull all of those shots and get prints to the client in such a record time that the client will notice?

hpulley · Oct 29, 2010

Agreed, sadly a day is too slow these days, an hour can be too slow. One day I forgot to shoot JPEG and then I had to scramble to convert my Raws to JPEGs really quick as many graphic artists can only work with a JPEG file and they expect you to simply hand the memory card over at the end of the shoot.

If you can process the film to the point where it can be scanned by the afternoon then you might get away with it but these days people expect a picture to show up on the back of the camera or, better yet, on the tethered laptop and they expect that they can work on it 5 minutes after the shoot. In fact the workflow has been fast for decades but it used to be either you'd shoot E6, process it right away and sit with the chromes at a light table with the art director or better yet you'd slap a Polaroid back on your Hassy so the director could see what the final shot would look like right away. Even waiting a few hours is too long when you need to know you have the right shot today rather than trying to call everyone back for a re-take. They'll wait longer for the final product as long as they know it will be exactly what they want which is what the Polaroid or digital image gives them, instant confirmation.

Today most of them don't want the photographer to do the final image manipulation anyways, they want a digital file in the graphic artist's hands 5 minutes after the shoot. Many pro photographers today are just workers, no longer artists IMO. Many of them are not even doing the camera setup, there are kits to lock down the digital cameras so that you can have an army of button pushers take care of hordes of school kids and sports teams. Their managers set up the cameras beforehand so you can only press the shutter and review the files. The files go straight to the processing department. The button pushers simply make sure they got enough shots with good smiles, no blinks and then it's "Next!" Amateurs are more artists than pros today unless you are an independent.

hpulley · Oct 29, 2010

And with digital shot straight to JPEG you can print it straight from the camera. May not be good but the expectations seem to be lower today. Cameras will let you do a bit of basic cropping before you print it but mostly they expect to get something usable straight out of the camera.

Hazards of shooting digital medium format

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency