hmmm medium format?

Started Feb 11, 2012 | Discussions thread
DrTebi
New MemberPosts: 9
Like?
Re: hmmm medium format?... I don't think so.
In reply to rlpruitt, Apr 12, 2012

I think you make it all sound much worse than it is. Especially if the OP only wants to experiment a bit with film, why discourage him? I have done the same about two years ago, and I got stuck with the amazing results I get from film, 35mm as well as medium format. It's a bit of a learning curve if you want perfect results, but it certainly is worth it.

One fascinating thing that cannot be replicated with digital equipment is slide projection. "HD" resolution projected (which is about 2 megapixels) doesn't do any modern digital camera justice. A 35mm slide projected with a decent projector will make you "re-live" your photos in full resolution.

My 2 cents about the negative comments:

Buying film

True, it can get pricey, and unfortunately the better films cost more money too.

Storing film

What's the problem with that? Sliding the strips into sleeves is not that big of a deal. And it also has a big advantage--no lost images due to a computer virus, broken hard drive, or accidental deletion (it does happen!). You will always have a physical backup.

Making sure your camera is loaded with film

Come on now, that really is not something difficult to do!

The inherent inconvenience of MF (larger/heavier bodies, larger/slower lenses, shallow DOF requires smaller apertures and longer exposures, etc.)

There are quite a few medium format cameras out there that are not that heavy or bulky at all. Especially the older TLR or folders. Shallow DOF is more often considered an advantage than a disadvantage.

Having to choose between B & W or Color, slide or negative film

True, but this can boost your creativity. You will think more about your composition rather than doing hours of post processing.

Being stuck with only 1 sensitivity level (ISO) at a time

Somewhat true. If you mostly shoot in good available light, this is no big deal though. And if it's too bright, you can always use an ND filter.

Developing film

The OP said he has a friend who would do it for him. I have a lab three blocks away. It doesn't have to be difficult, it does cost money though.

Dust on negatives (I spend 75% of my scanning time removing dust from negatives and/or the scanner glass)

Maybe you should try the ICE or other automatic dust removal functions that most scanners have. I have made direct comparisons, and even though once in a while I see a little spot where ICE was too aggressive, it does overall have almost no negative impact on the scans at all. Cleaning scanner glass and negatives does not take me more than a few seconds.

Film flatness (really hard with the supplied negative carriers)

I guess that depends on the scanner. I use a Minolta Dimage Multi Pro, and it's negative carrier is superb.

If you care to see some of my scans, all of my images on flickr are from film cameras, medium format as well as 35mm:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/drtebi/

Needless to say, I love shooting film, and prefer it over digital in most cases.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow