To get the best image quality in a given size of film, you simply buy the right film.
To get the same image quality of a Fuji GFX 100S, you basically need 4x5 film, which is roughly $225 per pack (100 sheets). 8x10? That's roughly $200 per 10 sheets.
No, you don't need 4x5 at all, drum scanned film medium format can be printed to any size you'd ever need for print.
If you wan to dip a toe in the past and drum scan, ok, let's go there - So you're saying a drum scanned print from the 6x7 is going to give me the same large detail as a drum scanned print from a 4x5 or 8x10?
No, because that would defy logic, I'm saying your contention that drum scanned medium format couldn't match 100mp is false, when tests show otherwise.
That being said, the reason for using medium format is for bigger prints AND tonality etc. The bigger the surface area the more light you're capturing and in turn, the better quality you get.
Most people don't print to huge sizes, so it's the tonality and other qualities that they shoot medium format for, and medium format film is more than good enough to satisfy that demand.
I shoot medium format mainly - I'm aware of the practical advantages however that's not what the thread is about. The thread is about Practical AND financially viable reasons to shoot film.
So you're moving the goalposts from the technical qualities (see above) to the practical and financial viability? Ok, well there are a number of high-end wedding photographers who would disagree with you. They save time and money by outsourcing the resource intensive bit to a lab, that ticks both the practical and financial boxes according to them
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/24748-REG/Ilford_1629181_HP5_Plus_4x5_100.html
So for every 500 photos, you've paid a pre-tax of $1,125, before scanning or dealing with your local service bureau... and that's 4x5.... try shooting at least 20 sheets of 8x10 monthly.. that's over $400 monthly - in just film alone you've purchased a Fuji GFX 100s after shooting (very lightly) for 18 months.
The most obvious factor that keeps most people from shooting the better, and larger films is cost.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...MIhsyInOyc9gIVfAytBh3nUgJCEAQYBCABEgJB2PD_BwE
This is a most fallacious argument, you do not need 4x5 or 8x10, that's just a personal choice, as per my comments above, and you certainly don't shoot hundreds of sheets a month.
By definition there isn't anything fallacious about my true and reasonable statement. There isn't an argument to be made of the simple math. It's not unreasonable for a hobbyist to shoot 500 shots per annum; 42 shots per month. It's definitely not unreasonable for a hobbyist to shoot 20 sheets monthly of 8x10. Some shoot more/less, but there's nothing unreasonable about my statement or inaccurate about my math.
Most film shooter don't shoot either 4x5 or 8x10, and when they do, it's definitely not at that rate, I say that as someone who shoots medium format, and very occasionally, 4x5. You're making a fallacious point to fit your argument.
Teila: "The most obvious factor that keeps most people from shooting the better, and larger films is cost." Do you really want to refute that statement?
Well you'd have to define what 'larger' is? If it's large format then I'd suggest the limitations of shooting them is as much a factor as cost. You can buy a 50 sheet box of 4x5 which will last years, I know, I have a couple of them. The problem with large format is that it's very limiting to shoot, the cost of getting into it has never been cheaper, and like I said, a box of sheet film will last ages, because no-one blasts away with it.
You can shoot medium format film cheaply once you have the camera and lenses, which can also be very cheap. If you home develop you can save time and cost as well.
Ok, now we're getting ridiculous. The OP isn't talking about a sliver of the film using demographic that is (1) willing to allot space, and buy chemicals or scanner to process their own film (2) who actually want to process their own film. The OP is talking
overall whether or not film is practical (most probably don't find it practical AND financially viable) to process film in their house (which they probably rent) or an apartment.
We're in assumption central now, developing film is easy and doesn't take up any more space than a box or a small cupboard for the equipment and chemicals, I do it so I can speak with some confidence on that. The practicality of it is no worse than baking a cake, which people do all the time. It's certainly financially viable, a bottle of rodinal will last decades, or you can make your own developer very cheaply. How you would even know the housing arrangements of the demographic who shoot film (which is extremely varied) I don't know? I do know it's varied because I'm in that community, before you make that point.
The main reason people avoid film is the time, inconvenience, and extra effort required, it's very easy to make it a cost effective endeavour if you want to, over time, you just don't shoot the volume you would on digital.
.... My point exactly. I can walk to all of my location shoots to safe fuel (especially in California) but it would cost me more time, inconvenience, and extra effort.... (here it comes) ... which makes it -- not practical --. The OP specifically asks about Practical AND Financially viable reasons to shoot film.
Well you'd better tell the wedding photographers who think it is, and earn handsomely doing it, that they're wrong, I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.
For pros? Maybe not. For hobbyists? Absolutely.
Aaron
Most people shooting film as much as a person would typically shoot a
comparable digital body, can't usually make a compelling case for the cost of film being more "practical" and "financially viable".. most of us know that.
People who shoot film these days accept the rigour it requires, and many will even cite that as a reason for doing it, it's more challenging, that's part of the fun, shooting digital can be a soulless experience in comparison. I shoot both, depending on conditions and how the mood takes me.
Which isn't relevant to the OP's question.
Like whether medium format film can match or exceed 100mp?
Digital can be equally expensive when you factor in software, computing requirements etc etc, but can also be done very cheaply with some effort.
Hmmm... So you're saying that someone shooting 120 film, the same frequency of someone shooting medium format digital, will come out cheaper than someone shooting a Fuji GFX 50s or Pentax 645Z? I'd like to see your math on that assertion and how it fits into the Practical/Financially viable bucket.
Inserted narrative time, no, I never used the claim 'same frequency', it's pretty obvious that if you're shooting thousands of images then digital can be more economically viable, but that isn't the point, the point is whether it can be economically and practically viable, and clearly it can, because some professional photographers do it.
It goes without saying that I can save money shooting large format by shooting 2-5 frames a month, but I don't think most shooting medium/large format as a hobby would consider that fun or even hobby-like.
That's where assumption gets you, I shoot both and very occasionally I shoot large format, but mostly 35mm or medium format, and I'd say I'm pretty representative of many of those who shoot large format. As I've already said, large format is very limited, forget low-light outside, forget windy conditions, forget high speed shooting, forget macro, forget a busy area etc etc.
Ultimately convenience wins for most people, who are inherently lazy. They'd rather be sat in front of a TV being brainwashed, than learning a craft such as Darkroom printing.
I agree that people are mostly lazy, but not in this case.. I think people are mostly keen on not doing the ridiculous. The average Joe isn't going to learn archaic dark room printing, when to most people, it does not seem to offer an aesthetic advantage over far quicker modern methods and or does not offer an aesthetic advantage worth paying for when compared to pigment ink prints.
I think your use of the term 'ridiculous' reveals your true motivation. You see it like that, many others do not, they enjoy it for many reasons, some of which I have explained. Your intransigence in accepting how others see it is quite telling.
Shooting film doesn't have to be prohibitively expensive, and for some, in the long term it can be cheaper, but it requires discipline and effort, that's the bit most people don't like.
Yes, kind of like walking or riding a bike to work daily. It
can be done, cheaply, and with more effort... but, you know.. that flies in the face of what most reasonable adults consider
practical... which nullifies the condition that the OP made clear in the title of the thread, which he tethered practicality and financially viable, at the hip.
See my previous comments, furthermore, for enthusiasts, it is financially viable, they wouldn't do it if they couldn't afford to, nor does it need to be an either or decision, I shoot both film and digital, as do most film photographers. This doesn't make us 'unreasonable', I think you need a mirror to understand where that fault lies.
