Why do you shoot MF?

cny3123 · Feb 27, 2011

Ok, I really don't want to be considered a troll here and would like to explain why I am asking this. I currently own a Sony A850 and from the tests that I have seen, even 11 MP DSLRs out resolve MF (with the exception of drum scanning). The reason I am curious about this is I personally love film myself, and shoot 35mm B&W negs. I also have a Rolleicord and Holga, but don't shoot with either very much, though looking to start using the Rollei more often.

I recently had a look on ebay and other places and noticed how (relatively) cheap I can pick up a Pentax 645 A or Mamiya 645 manual focus variant. So I'm curious, with the costs of developing and scanning and everything else factored in, plus personal time, why do you still shoot medium format film? Or alternatively with digital MF becoming more affordable like the Pentax 645D once you again factor in film itself, development, scanning etc, is there still a benefit beyond simply liking the qualities film provides?

And I am sorry if this has already been beaten death here, I'm essentially new to this forum.

Edit: also it may or may not be relevant information, but I started getting seriously into photography with digital, and branched out to film later. I am only 21 after all.

Steve Smith · Feb 27, 2011

We don't all scan. Most of us print from our negatives with enlargers. In a scanning workflow, the scanner is always the weakest link.

Anyway.... we don't talk about this sort of stuff here!

Steve.

cny3123 · Feb 27, 2011

My apologies then, this thread can be deleted. I do have a more pertinent question to this forum then regarding people's thoughts on the Mamiya 645 Pro TL vs the Pentax 645 A or N models.

film_man · Feb 27, 2011

It just looks better. In a way that "FF/FX" looks better than "APS-C/DX". Plus comparing my digital and film usage, if I go out shooting for a day, I get

1. with digital 200-300 shots.
2. with MF, 2 rolls.

Somehow the keeper rate is still about 5 shots from the day. So that's 5/200 with an hour editing and post-processing and no prints or 5/24 with the lab doing all the work and 24 prints in hand.

ruilourosa · Feb 27, 2011

Hello

Resolution isn´t all, and after all you use what you prefer.

Chuck Close does Daguerreotipes
Sally Mann wet collodions

You can even paint with real brushes (lousy Mpix count!!!!!)

Do what suits you, i really do not like too much computers or digital thingy´s

Cumprimentos de Portugal

IloveTLRs · Feb 27, 2011

cny3123 said:
... Or alternatively with digital MF becoming more affordable like the Pentax 645D once you again factor in film itself, development, scanning etc, is there still a benefit beyond simply liking the qualities film provides?

The 645D is around 7 grand, and it's not full 645. That's not at all what I'd call affordable or real MF.

Recently I've seen the original Pentax 645 and 67 go for less than $200, and lenses the same if not cheaper. With the remaining $6,500? you can buy enough slide film to sink a ship

Personally I've been shooting lots of 6x6 recently. There's something fun & unique about seeing the world in a square. Plus the negatives are huge.

I can't print MF (only 135) but I sometimes do contact prints, and my flatbed scanner is more than good enough.

John G1NML · Feb 27, 2011

CNY3123,
In my experience, many such tests are done by those with a vested interest - usually in selling you something, so be wary of the results and what they 'prove' - usually not what the authors want.
Digital in anything like decent quality is silly expensive compared to film, and has a short life before 'upgrades' are 'needed' - how many 20 year old digicams are there? And they have been around much longer than that, just not where Joe Public can see them!
A transparency on a light box is so much better than a computer screen - a big transparency is truly outstanding.

Use what you like and are comfortable with - digits are different to film, some good bits and some not so good bits, I like my RZ67, and 35mm cameras so I use them!

MattKing · Feb 27, 2011

On your second question - Mamiya vs. Pentax - they are both high quality systems.

I made my decision (Mamiya) based on factors that included ergonomics and availability of cameras, lenses and accessories.

On your first question - unless you require very high volumes of product, film gives you relatively easily accessible low to mid quality resolution (via moderate cost scanning), plus high quality resolution (via optical printing or drum scans) at a much lower overall cost than MF digital, or even "full" format digital.

It probably doesn't hurt that I've been shooting and printing/projecting medium format since I was about the OP's age (1/3 of a century or so).

cny3123 · Feb 27, 2011

Thanks all for the replies, and I don't mean to stir up any emotions on it (not that it seems like I have thankfully) I was just interesting in hearing other people's reasonings. Like I said earlier, I truly do enjoy shooting film, in fact prefer the look of film to a digital file, and have found as of late that I have been attempting to process my RAW files so that they take on a more film like appearance.

Moving on however, I am personally in a bit of a confusion between the two as it seems the Mamiya, while more costly than a Pentax 645 A, would be more advanced, but then again if I go for a Pentax 645 N it would cost more than the Mamiya. Granted the Pentax 645 N has autofocus, though it isn't something I am entirely in need of for what I would be shooting with MF.

I feel like the Mamiya interests me more than the Pentax with the 80mm f/1.9 as I love natural light. I also like the concept of a far more modular system. That in itself I think I have answered my own question.. The reason I am mainly asking is I wasn't sure if I am missing out on anything between the Pentax 645 N vs the Mamiya Pro TL?

tomalophicon · Feb 27, 2011

The joy of using a rugged, well-made mechanical device that is still working as it was the day it was built 40 years ago by dedicated artisans.
The joy of being able to use light and simple chemicals to produce wonderous images on REAL surfaces like film and paper.

2F/2F · Feb 27, 2011

cny3123 said:
...from the tests that I have seen, even 11 MP DSLRs out resolve MF (with the exception of drum scanning).

Whoever did those tests was smoking crack. It takes a $3,000 to $8,000 24 megapixel digital camera to outresolve even a lowly piece of 35mm film scanned with a consumer Nikon scanner, not to mention that digital sensors use a bayer pattern while film has stacked color layers. Then you need a computer, and you need to pay for Lightjets (and if not Lightjets, then ink), etc. But we print by hand here, so this is a silly conversation anyhow. If you want to make a hand-made print from digital, an internegative is required (unless you have lots of money to buy a digital enlarger head).

Let us not get into expense, the details of the process, and ability to handle wide luminance ranges with a single exposure.

So, I shoot medium format because it is better in every way except for when a very quick turnaround is needed, or for shooting "clean" pictures in low light. 35mm too, for that matter.

cny3123 · Feb 27, 2011

2F/2F said:
Whoever did those tests was smoking crack. It takes a $3,000 to $8,000 24 megapixel digital camera to outresolve even a lowly piece of 35mm film scanned with a consumer Nikon scanner, not to mention that digital sensors use a bayer pattern while film has stacked color layers.

Let us not get into expense, the details of the process, and ability to handle wide luminance ranges with a single exposure.

So, I shoot medium format because it is better in every way except for when a very quick turnaround is needed. 35mm too, for that matter.

I was merely referencing a write up from LL. Did not mean to offend anyone.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml - it is an older article.

2F/2F · Feb 27, 2011

cny3123 said:
I was merely referencing a write up from LL. Did not mean to offend anyone.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml - it is an older article.

It's not offensive. It's just incredibly ill informed.

CGW · Feb 27, 2011

cny3123 said:
I was merely referencing a write up from LL. Did not mean to offend anyone.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml - it is an older article.

Reichmann was nearly incinerated for that 2003 LL piece. He's fond of contention and once fended off criticism as a Canon shill, though he's now all but dumped film and gotten more temperate. Happily, he's branched out from inane shots of the Toronto skyline.

Why MF? I like what my Mamiyas and Bronica do to a big piece of TMY-2 or E100GX. The 16x20 or 16x16 prints are sweet. I shoot by project. MF forces you to will a good shot into being. As long as film and lab services are affordable and operating locally, I'll still shoot MF.

The later Mamiya 645s are worth a look. Some people love their Pentax 645/645Ns but I find the lack of a film back limiting. Both have good glass. Neither will bankrupt you.

Franswa · Feb 27, 2011

Let's not forget the DOF that you get(or don't get) with MF vs 35mm

Joachim_I · Feb 27, 2011

I use medium format (6x7) because there are no convenient slide projectors for large format.

2F/2F · Feb 27, 2011

Joachim_I said:
I use medium format (6x7) because there are no convenient slide projectors for large format.

pinhole_dreamer · Feb 27, 2011

I have two medium format cameras...probably considered antique by today's standards. I just like to be square.

Hikari · Feb 27, 2011

cny3123 said:
I was merely referencing a write up from LL. Did not mean to offend anyone.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml - it is an older article.

It is interesting to note about half way down the page in the noise/grain example, the film resolves the windows on the right as two panes, but the digital as one. LL is very much or has been very much an anti-film site.

There is no offense. The film/digital debate has been a very personal one with each side pushing their views, usually by distorting the parameters and making claim about what they think they see. I doubt there have been many on either side of the fence that does not have scars. Personally, I find it sad we attack other photographers over a process. We should just be enjoying what others do and have fun with the process we use.

To answer your question. There are definite advantages to a large piece of film . As you increase size, you start getting a relative increase in detail and a smoothing of tones. You are also working with shallower depth of field given equal aperture and angle of view. This adds to creaminess of the format.

cny3123 · Feb 27, 2011

Hikari said:
It is interesting to note about half way down the page in the noise/grain example, the film resolves the windows on the right as two panes, but the digital as one. LL is very much or has been very much an anti-film site.

There is no offense. The film/digital debate has been a very personal one with each side pushing their views, usually by distorting the parameters and making claim about what they think they see. I doubt there have been many on either side of the fence that does not have scars. Personally, I find it sad we attack other photographers over a process. We should just be enjoying what others do and have fun with the process we use.

To answer your question. There are definite advantages to a large piece of film . As you increase size, you start getting a relative increase in detail and a smoothing of tones. You are also working with shallower depth of field given equal aperture and angle of view. This adds to creaminess of the format.

Thanks for the reply, again just to restate I don't mean this to be an attack upon anyones preference for photography. I enjoy both film and digital and don't see a huge difference personally, yes I see the different ways that film renders vs. digital and like both for different situations.

And to everyone else that has been responding, thanks! I always enjoy reading other peoples thoughts on the topic.

benjiboy · Feb 27, 2011

I use Medium format film in my Mamiya cameras because that's what they take .

film_man · Feb 27, 2011

All these 12MP or 24MP or whatever MP needed to outresolve 35mm or 120 or sheet film tests are all a bit duff. It really depends. You will always find someone arguing that a theoretical $500 drum scan of some super-slow-fine-grained-film-not-usable-in-most-practical-situations is 100MP and someone else saying that a practical scan of Delta 3200 on a cheap flatbed at home is less than 1MP. So the permutations in-between are infinite between film vs speed vs scanner vs software vs practicality of scanning vs logistics of scanning vs time consumed vs dSLR used vs lens vs JPG vs RAW vs post-processing vs actual scene vs practical application of a film/digital camera for that scene vs whether 10MP or 50MP actually make a difference when you print a portrait at 10x8 or A2.

Hikari · Feb 27, 2011

There is one other fun element in film, especially if you shoot full frame, that is the number of formats. In medium format alone, I can count 8 off the top of my head--6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, 6x12, 6x17, and 6x24.

Klainmeister · Feb 27, 2011

6x24....holy heck. That's crazy, where can i see one of them machines?

Hikari · Feb 27, 2011

Klainmeister said:
6x24....holy heck. That's crazy, where can i see one of them machines?

Both Art Panorama and Fotoman made a 6x24 camera.

Why do you shoot MF?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency