Medium Format vs. Full Frame Locked

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
This thread is locked.
DenWil
DenWil Veteran Member • Posts: 4,132
Re: Fujifilm 690s

Chris Dodkin wrote:

I shoot with a pair of Fujifilm 690s - also known as Texas Leicas, so can give you some first hand experience.

As you can see, there's a strong family resemblance between the latest GFX50R model

The camera is easy to carry and shoot, so makes a great street, architecture, walk about or landscape model to use. Film loading, advance, recovery is easy and trouble free.

I think these cameras provide a great intro into 120 film shooting, are robust enough to perform decades later without the need for major overhaul, and are most importantly enjoyable to use.

Plenty for sale online - I bought mine from Japan, and they were in mint condition, and have continued to perform flawlessly for a decade or so.

Prices range from $300-$500 for the models. So you can buy a pair for less than the cost of a single GFX lens.

Another potential point of interest-

If you are one of those people wanting to take their camera to restricted venues , Coachella for instance-  being a fixed  lens  camera gets you into places with the IQ of  a MF 6x9  that even a petite   M43 ILC  may not be able to go.

-- hide signature --

dw

Erik Kaffehr
Erik Kaffehr Veteran Member • Posts: 3,593
Some Ektar 100 images

Hi,

In the film era I did not shoot negative color film, as I was mostly projecting my transparencies, I happen to have one or two Götschmann 67 slide projectors.

Back in 2011, I did shoot some Ektar 100 and I also had those images drum scanned.

This is Ektar 100, scanned on my own CCD based film scanner at 3200 PPI.

I also had this image drum scanned at 6000PPI , the TIFF file is 2GB, so I cannot show the full image, but here is a small crop:

Best viewed at full size (link below).

Best regards

Erik

-- hide signature --

Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles

Hiphopapotamus Senior Member • Posts: 1,175
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

Velocity of Sound wrote:

Hiphopapotamus wrote:

I posted up a 30megapixel 12x24 shot. If you open it at print size on your monitor in Photoshop or Lightroom, if you have your monitor scaled correctly you wont see the grain at all at 300dpi. That's from a very early version of Fuji Pro film they no longer make anymore and the grain structure is about equivalent to ISO800 or 1600 but it's not displeasing.

I'm not sure what "scaled correctly" means - the thumbnail image in the post doesn't show noise, but I can see noise clearly in the posts when viewed larger, and if I pixel-peep (which is a bad habit, I agree) the noise is quite evident, as is lack of sharpness at the corners.

Granted, those are all factors that we've come to expect with the conveniences and advancements brought about by digital. I enjoyed the photo in spite of them. I think a lot of people (sometimes myself included) forget that there's more to an image besides how sharp it is, how noisy it is, and even if there are any blown highlights or unrecovered shadows.

I'm not sure about the look of film compared with digital, though. I can see it and appreciate it, but it can also be emulated pretty easily in digital, if it's what you really want. What are your thoughts on that?

I think the only film I've ever shot was with those one-time use box cameras that you'd buy from grocery stores, back when I was a child. What holds me back from film now is largely the limited shot count per roll, and the lack of immediate feedback. I don't chimp many shots these days but it's a nice security blanket. I still miss enough shots that I recover by redoing it, which is something I wouldn't have the chance to do with film. And yes, as cheap as rolls of film and developing may be, they can add up quickly and it's an expense that occurs every time you shoot. I like the idea of one up-front cost, and not feeling like I'm getting charged per shot (which is the case with digital, printing aside).

Granted, I've often thought that there would be a feeling of release with film. You're limited in your shot count, so you try to make each one count (whereas with digital I try to do the same, but sometimes I just end up mashing the shutter button because I become lazy, and sort it out in post later). You don't have the ability to see what you took until it's developed, so you just take it and move on, hoping for the best. And it's film, so absolute perfection is not as easily reachable as it is with digital, and perhaps you stop worrying about trying to make every single shot perfect. I can see the appeal.

I've only been in photography as a serious hobby for a little over ten years, at this point. Maybe in a few more decades I'll get into film.

When you look at all the print settings that photo is designed to be printed at 12x24 if you were looking at it at that size you would not see the issues you're describing.

If you were to open that image in Photoshop and view it at print size or actually print it, you wouldn't see any issues and that's half the point. A lot of people get on forums and particularly this forum and talk about the technical aspects of photography.

To be honest I don't get it, and that's another thing, I don't really care anymore. I came to a realisation a while ago I can take amazing photos other people like but then it's a bitt of whatever. A lot of people get caught up in the technical aspects to impress eachother but then forge what they're actually supposed to be doing which is taking photos.

We didn't check and chimp back in the 90s either, we tended to accept what was and think about it a little longer. I went out with another person on Tuesday who is a professional photographer. With digital I have a habit of taking photos and thinking later. It becomes an automated process where I'm not even thinking about the settings or what I'm taking photos of despite shooting in M.

When you're actually talking about things and you slow down for a second you start to bring yourself back to what it is you're doing. Having a mentor there to talk about what I was doing actually made me check my meter and exposure settings. It made me scan the scene and think about what sort of photo I wanted to take.

There used to be a thing back in the 80s and 90s. I was speaking to another pro who used to do high end commercial jobs. He was saying, you would be given one maybe two rolls for a big job, and you would be told you could have all but two shots that were "good" when you think about it in terms of limited resources you tend to not waste them.

This is the thing also... We live in a generation where we look at everything at 100% which is the equivalent at 50megapixels to looking at a 48inch print with a loupe.

No one actually does that.

 Hiphopapotamus's gear list:Hiphopapotamus's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 +5 more
Erik Kaffehr
Erik Kaffehr Veteran Member • Posts: 3,593
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

JimKasson wrote:

SrMi wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

thebbqguy wrote:

I like the idea of medium format and I drool over Clyde Butcher's landscapes. The medium format digital cameras are beyond my desired budget, but a used film camera seems like a viable consideration.

To this point I have kept my photography budget purposely conservative and dont see that changing in the near term.

Should I investigate medium format film or hold out for a full frame?

Butcher uses (or used) film cameras from 4x5 through 12x20. I don't think he ever used medium format film.

Butcher has been using digital cameras since about 2014 (Sony a7R with Cambo Actus). Here is a detailed list of his equipment (past and current):

https://clydebutcher.com/about-the-artist/technical-information/

Right, but the question was about film cameras. I don't think you're going to be able to do the kinds of things that Butcher does with film in medium format.

Hi Jim,

Sorry for asking, but what sets large format apart? The reason I am asking is simply because I lack the experience. What I have done stops at 6x7 cm on projected slide.

Two obvious answers are:

  • That resolution, sharpness and acutance thing that you sometimes write about.
  • The short depth of field.

But, it is also my understanding that large format lenses are very often stopped down to very small apertures, to achieve enough DoF. That would of course counter act the first factor.

Part of the reason that I am asking that I saw a video with Clyde Butcher shooting in Everglades on LuLa and Michael Reichmann and Clyde Butcher discussed DoF. Clyde Butcher said that he didn't use Scheimpflug, achieved DoF by stopping down.

After that they went into the wet darkroom and made a giant size print.

Best regards

Erik

-- hide signature --

Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles

Macro guy
Macro guy Veteran Member • Posts: 4,443
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

Hiphopapotamus wrote:

When you look at all the print settings that photo is designed to be printed at 12x24 if you were looking at it at that size you would not see the issues you're describing.

If you were to open that image in Photoshop and view it at print size or actually print it, you wouldn't see any issues and that's half the point. A lot of people get on forums and particularly this forum and talk about the technical aspects of photography.

To be honest I don't get it, and that's another thing, I don't really care anymore. I came to a realisation a while ago I can take amazing photos other people like but then it's a bitt of whatever. A lot of people get caught up in the technical aspects to impress eachother but then forge what they're actually supposed to be doing which is taking photos.

That's very true and we have hit a point of "good enough" quite some time ago.  However, people ask questions, which require technical answers.  For example, the OP asked a question that required that technical answer.  How do you answer whether or not someone should go with film or digital based on their needs unless you have a certain set of technical expertise and you can compare the two media.  We do tend to be mired in minutiae, but that's different than not caring about the technical aspects at all.

Furthermore, with so much marketing BS thrown at us from each and every direction, it takes some technical expertise to separate the real deal from the BS and all the obfuscation that goes along with that.  So, the technical aspect certainly has its place.  It's not the end all and it shouldn't be, but the technical is what allows us to achieve the artistic.

We didn't check and chimp back in the 90s either, we tended to accept what was and think about it a little longer. I went out with another person on Tuesday who is a professional photographer. With digital I have a habit of taking photos and thinking later. It becomes an automated process where I'm not even thinking about the settings or what I'm taking photos of despite shooting in M.

When you're actually talking about things and you slow down for a second you start to bring yourself back to what it is you're doing. Having a mentor there to talk about what I was doing actually made me check my meter and exposure settings. It made me scan the scene and think about what sort of photo I wanted to take.

Slowing down and actually thinking about the scene has nothing to do with the media you're using.  You can shoot with a motordrive like a machine gun with film and you can do so with digital.  By the same token, you can put your camera on the tripod, scan the scene, think about what it is that you want to say, think about how you want to say and then shoot.  You can do that with film and digital as well.

There used to be a thing back in the 80s and 90s. I was speaking to another pro who used to do high end commercial jobs. He was saying, you would be given one maybe two rolls for a big job, and you would be told you could have all but two shots that were "good" when you think about it in terms of limited resources you tend to not waste them.

The thing is that you have to shoot a LOT before you can get to the point of not wasting a shot.  You have to practice and practice and practice.  That's a lot cheaper with digital precisely because you don't have the limited resources and you can experiment, get instant feedback and become better quicker.  Ask the same pro how many rolls of film he burned before he became as good as he was.

Another thing to remember, that film and processing were A LOT cheaper in the 80s and 90s than now.

This is the thing also... We live in a generation where we look at everything at 100% which is the equivalent at 50megapixels to looking at a 48inch print with a loupe.

No one actually does that.

That's true, but that again goes back to the marketing BS.  How do do you determine what's good and what isn't?  We have gotten to the point where there is no difference in image quality between the same generation of cameras that share the same sensor size.  I think we're also fast approaching a point where there will be no palpable difference among different sized sensors (up to a point of course).  So, the way to determine whether X is worth the money over Y, we have to dig deep into the pixels.

 Macro guy's gear list:Macro guy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II +5 more
Hiphopapotamus Senior Member • Posts: 1,175
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

Macro guy wrote:

Hiphopapotamus wrote:

When you look at all the print settings that photo is designed to be printed at 12x24 if you were looking at it at that size you would not see the issues you're describing.

If you were to open that image in Photoshop and view it at print size or actually print it, you wouldn't see any issues and that's half the point. A lot of people get on forums and particularly this forum and talk about the technical aspects of photography.

To be honest I don't get it, and that's another thing, I don't really care anymore. I came to a realisation a while ago I can take amazing photos other people like but then it's a bitt of whatever. A lot of people get caught up in the technical aspects to impress eachother but then forge what they're actually supposed to be doing which is taking photos.

That's very true and we have hit a point of "good enough" quite some time ago. However, people ask questions, which require technical answers. For example, the OP asked a question that required that technical answer. How do you answer whether or not someone should go with film or digital based on their needs unless you have a certain set of technical expertise and you can compare the two media. We do tend to be mired in minutiae, but that's different than not caring about the technical aspects at all.

Furthermore, with so much marketing BS thrown at us from each and every direction, it takes some technical expertise to separate the real deal from the BS and all the obfuscation that goes along with that. So, the technical aspect certainly has its place. It's not the end all and it shouldn't be, but the technical is what allows us to achieve the artistic.

We didn't check and chimp back in the 90s either, we tended to accept what was and think about it a little longer. I went out with another person on Tuesday who is a professional photographer. With digital I have a habit of taking photos and thinking later. It becomes an automated process where I'm not even thinking about the settings or what I'm taking photos of despite shooting in M.

When you're actually talking about things and you slow down for a second you start to bring yourself back to what it is you're doing. Having a mentor there to talk about what I was doing actually made me check my meter and exposure settings. It made me scan the scene and think about what sort of photo I wanted to take.

Slowing down and actually thinking about the scene has nothing to do with the media you're using. You can shoot with a motordrive like a machine gun with film and you can do so with digital. By the same token, you can put your camera on the tripod, scan the scene, think about what it is that you want to say, think about how you want to say and then shoot. You can do that with film and digital as well.

There used to be a thing back in the 80s and 90s. I was speaking to another pro who used to do high end commercial jobs. He was saying, you would be given one maybe two rolls for a big job, and you would be told you could have all but two shots that were "good" when you think about it in terms of limited resources you tend to not waste them.

The thing is that you have to shoot a LOT before you can get to the point of not wasting a shot. You have to practice and practice and practice. That's a lot cheaper with digital precisely because you don't have the limited resources and you can experiment, get instant feedback and become better quicker. Ask the same pro how many rolls of film he burned before he became as good as he was.

Another thing to remember, that film and processing were A LOT cheaper in the 80s and 90s than now.

This is the thing also... We live in a generation where we look at everything at 100% which is the equivalent at 50megapixels to looking at a 48inch print with a loupe.

No one actually does that.

That's true, but that again goes back to the marketing BS. How do do you determine what's good and what isn't? We have gotten to the point where there is no difference in image quality between the same generation of cameras that share the same sensor size. I think we're also fast approaching a point where there will be no palpable difference among different sized sensors (up to a point of course). So, the way to determine whether X is worth the money over Y, we have to dig deep into the pixels.

It actually has a lot to do with the media and the medium... Explaining bad habits to people who didn't shoot before they fell into them is nuanced. The average photographer didn't have a polaroid back. We just accepted what was and dealt with what wasn't.

You can't lie about whether you're a capable or not as a photographer on film, the negatives don't lie and if you stuff something up then it teaches you. Or maybe you will learn once you've wasted a couple of rolls. You learn maybe once, and you learn quite quickly when you blank a roll, or get your exposure settings so badly wrong that the film you shot was useless not to do that again.

With digital you just delete it and go on with your day and pretend you're the world's most amazing photographer... Until... You get out on a job and you suffer the consequences of stuffing up someone's priceless wedding photos that tell the most important story of some people's lives...

"Hey there, err, can I have the bouquet back, I stuffed it up, Just wait a sec... While I'm at it can we redo the cake cut and the first dance?"

This is what happens with this mentality of shoot first and check later that has come with digital.

The problem is there are a lot of photographers who go out on a job with an attitude like that now because you can get a DSLR for under $500 with a kit lens and then charge someone $2000 for a wedding... Until your reputation as a human being is ruined thanks to Google Reviews or Facebook or what have you...

What I am also telling you here is that sometimes the technical details don't matter and the flaws are what makes it what it is. You've come to expect noiseless photos, whether that is a good thing or not is debatable... to some... But:

The very issue of noise is what leads people to cheat, and introduce Fuji and Sony sensors with baked in noise reduction and then you sacrifice detail for noise reduction and put up with smaller cameras for more convenience and then you tell me in this generation then why should I not just pull my iPhone out and pretend I'm a photographer...

If all it is is the smallest camera with the least amount of visible noise then camera phones have already won that battle, but the images often look like they're made out of plastic.

Yes but the grain structure is so important I'm going to sit there with my nose against the print just to check it out...

And this is the usual conundrum with dpreview.

 Hiphopapotamus's gear list:Hiphopapotamus's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 +5 more
Erik Kaffehr
Erik Kaffehr Veteran Member • Posts: 3,593
Texas Leica sounds to me like a good suggestion...

Hi Chris,

Sounds like an excellent suggestion.

Best regards

Erik

-- hide signature --

Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles

thebbqguy
OP thebbqguy Regular Member • Posts: 201
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

Hiphopapotamus wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

Hiphopapotamus wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

Hiphopapotamus wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

thebbqguy wrote:

I like the idea of medium format and I drool over Clyde Butcher's landscapes. The medium format digital cameras are beyond my desired budget, but a used film camera seems like a viable consideration.

To this point I have kept my photography budget purposely conservative and dont see that changing in the near term.

Should I investigate medium format film or hold out for a full frame?

How big are you going to print?

A 50mp digital camera (of any format) can be printed to about the same size, with the same quality as a 6x7 camera. Furthermore, given that practically no one ever prints chemically anymore, your film images are going to be digitized anyway and printed on an inket printer. Therefore, it makes no sense to shoot film if you're looking to get a 20x30 print at 300dpi.

As far as budget is concerned, you can pick up a Sony A7RII, a Canon 5DS r for around $1500.

If you're going to shoot film, you also have to factor in the costs of film and processing. A roll of 120 film, which will produce 10 shots on a 6x7, 12 shots on a 6x6 or 15 shots on a 645 will run you $5. You'll pay another $5-$10 to process, then you'll pay $25 PER FRAME to scan and whatever your printing costs are going to be.

So, when you start factoring in all the hidden costs, the money saved on a film camera doesn't seem as such a bargain anymore.

Umm you start at 4800 or even 7200dpi at the same pixel count and then you downsize to the print you want. Yeah...

You tell me how you're going to print that billboard at high resolution without a film camera without cheating and upscaling? Righto mate... To do the same job you could do at high resolution with film you end up going down to as low as 30dpi in sign printing.

As to lens resolution maybe, but when you consider the sensor size or film plate at 6x7 or 6x9 then it's not even a comparison. Not to APS-C or anything else this side of an A7 III and then you do the math on it, and add up the cost and its still far cheaper to shoot and develop film.

You can get a complete GL690 and lenses for under $500.

The real-world costs of film are about $3 - $4 a shot shooting slow film... You can buy Portra 800 or whatever at cost if you want it, but your gonna have grain coming out of your ears.

I was a late comer to digital. I held out until 2012 because I didn't think that digital was there yet. However, digital came into its own around 10 years ago. My 20x30 inch prints made from my 20mp Canon 5d2 are on par with the same size prints I had made with my Mamiya 645.

So, then what's the point of shooting film, going through the extra step of digitizing it and printing it with an inkjet printer? It just makes no sense. You'll get much cleaner files shooting digital to begin with. Furthermore, at $4 per shot, not including a high res scan is quite expensive. Those dollars will quickly add up to consume any savings you might have had.

If you want to play with an old camera and if you want to play with film development, that's fine, but I would never recommend a film camera to someone on a tight budget or to someone looking to print moderately large.

I think I said, $4 is a cup of coffee... I was born in the 80s, grew up in the 90s and was an adult by the early 2000s so film is my vibe.

It's quite cheap actually if you're on a tight budget you're not gonna go out and buy a ony A7R III. You might get a 5D MK III at this point or even a II which has had about 10,000 clicks on it, that the shutter or something else could fail on, which they're known to do at that point, particularly if they've had a hard life.

645 is not really medium format, it was kind of the small format of medium format and generally won't produce more than about 20megapixels worth of usable data before you start just enlarging the grain.

690 on the other hand, you will get 50-60megapixel quite easily, and with technical film you can still push that out to 80-100megapixel before you run out of usable resolution. But you're dealing with slow speed black and white at that point such as CMS20 which is designed special purpose for recording architecture.

$4 is a cup of coffee, but you're not shooting a single shot. A roll of 10 shots will run you $40 before you even print anything.

10 rolls and there's $400. So, where are the savings?

You may as well save and get a used sony a7r2 or canon 5ds r and get much cleaner files with less hassle and no consummable costs.

Btw, where are you getting your data vis-a-vis 645?

I don't shoot 645 regularly (although I shoot a Universal camera and so I can). My figures for 645 are off the top of my head from what I last remember. Re: the rest you either learn how to develop yourself and pay for the consumables or you pay someone else. Let's say you divide about $60-$70 by 8 you're still working out that 6x9 costs you $8 a shot.

There are other things... I can put up with film grain, it's not random noise caused by other electronic factors that makes it displeasing. Even Canon, Sony, Nikon, and Fuji are realising this and adding other factors such as baked in noise reduction to deal with the less pleasing factors of noise. Or otherwise X-Trans. This deals with the undesired random disturbance of useful information that is caused by signal gain amplification rather than the unique texture of film that is not only pleasing but replicable.

I posted up a 30megapixel 12x24 shot. If you open it at print size on your monitor in Photoshop or Lightroom, if you have your monitor scaled correctly you wont see the grain at all at 300dpi. That's from a very early version of Fuji Pro film they no longer make anymore and the grain structure is about equivalent to ISO800 or 1600 but it's not displeasing.

Maybe if you printed the same film at 24x48 (2ftx4ft) and hung it on the side of an average sized wall you will see the grain if you're standing in front of it. But who stands directly in front of a 2ft by 4ft print? With a 48inch print you should be at least standing about 5ft away from it or at a minimum 3ft.

Viewing things at 100% is a very bad habit anyway...

This thread has exceeded my expectations in every way. The insight has been helpful. I can see that my original premise/assumptions probably does work, but with several caveats.

The local darkroom is a nonprofit entity. For an annual membership fee they offer a lot of support to those wanting to learn film techniques.

I plan to join, take all their film, digital, lightroom and darkroom classes. They provide fellowships to young urban artists, support visiting artists for 3 month stays, sponsor critique events, artist reveals, etc.

They charge $12 for a roll of black and white 120 film and the following for enlargements:

8x10” - $8
11x14” - $15
16x20” - $32
20x24” - $48
30x40” - $120
44x55” - $242

Contact sheets:

RC Silver Gelatin 8x10” - $12/each
Digital Contact 8.5x11” - $12/each

Darkroom at $12 / hour.

Retouching at $60 / hour.

-- hide signature --

I learned a long time ago to stop trying to do what others do, because they're good at it. -- Do what you're good at. (B.B. King)

lewiedude2
lewiedude2 Senior Member • Posts: 1,681
Re: It's a Time Decision

thebbqguy wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

Moving to MF takes money. Lots of money. Money that you are willing to spend on camera gear. If you have it you have it and if you don't, there are so many other outstanding options.

You could buy a used GFX 50, but that still requires big money on glass, tripods, and computer power (both desktop and laptop), plus a big 32 inch 4K pro monitor in order to enjoy MF.

If I didn't have the money for the MF world I would be shooting Fuji APSC and be very happy.

Having it and being willing to spend it are two different things.

Unfortunately, many don’t understand this simple dilemma... it isn’t about cost, unless you are constrained for cash and are unwilling to chase your dream. Who knows, maybe you can make something really interesting that one of your friends wants to buy it.

The actual problem you are grappling with is the lack of a proper valuation of your time. How much is your time worth? I spent many hours, over years, in one of the best print / film labs in the world. And, I can firmly tell you that what you need is time if you want to work with film. And, the obvious time savings that comes with digital is unbelievable. You can’t make a quick reply to an email in the darkroom handling your gear and accessories. You also can’t make a small change to the print you are working on /analog and digital. Small changes lead to bigger changes and there is a trip to the printer from your enlarger. Let’s see, another 10’sh minutes. And it still wasn’t right. Darn!

Art is art. Maybe what you are doing is exploring something that will lead to an end and you will be pleased with your work product as you intended ... until some friend of yours comes over and say it look stupid.

I have color transparency prints all over my walls. They are beautiful. Plain and simple and can’t be replicated by digital manipulation at any step along the way.

My suggestion is to stick with digital and invest in better computing equipment - and don’t be afraid to send a piece of newly created film off for a real drum scan.

 lewiedude2's gear list:lewiedude2's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR
Velocity of Sound
Velocity of Sound Contributing Member • Posts: 889
Emulating the film look

Hiphopapotamus wrote:

Film has a painterly quality about it, because it's an organic process, it's like a canvas with brush strokes and a colour palette and that's half reason I use it. That shot was shot on motion picture film (Cinestill 800T/Kodak Vision 3 500T) which is a medium format stock they use in cinemas today.

Digital while it can be crisper, also has the inherent problem of being inorganic and can be cold and uninviting. I particularly like the way that shot renders its colour. It may not be wildly accurate but it has a certain aesthetic of it's own. If you want more accurate colour you would lean towards digital, or you would walk around with a colour swatch like we did in the old days and grade it later for colour, then make a profile in Photoshop for the film stock like we did in the good old days if you wanted more accurate colours and you cared. The art of colour grading is a process in itself though, I prefer to just let the colour fall where it may... mostly because I don't need accurate colour.

That's a medium-sized scan so it's not capturing the full resolution of the film, the first image I uploaded of the Pizzeria is a full sized scan from a different lab to the one I use that has a later model Noritsu, but it's interesting...

That shot would make a nice 8x12 at 300dpi or you could downsample it with the same pixel count to 150dpi and it would still come up nicely at 16x24. Although we printed at 150 in the 90s, I prefer not to do that for fine art prints.

You will either love or hate the grain structure but that comes down to personal taste also. I quite like the grain and texture of film, although it's not for everyone.

When I think about film there's the noise, a white balance that tends to feel a bit off, less contrast, and a softer image.  All of those things can be accomplished when you process digitally:

Processed in Capture One: changed profile to Fujifilm Velvia, altered white balance to give it an objectively warmer feel, used one of their preset styles to skew a few more things to a warmer look, decreased sharpness and clarity, maintained digital noise reduction but added "harsh" film grain with minimal impact and high granularity, cut back on contrast and further crushed highlights while lifting shadows even though little to nothing was falling off the curves... the only thing I couldn't accomplish with Capture One alone was further reduction of details.  Viewed large, the buildings still show too much detail, which would give this away as being digital.  I probably could have done a better job with the noise addition - I had one setting that looked like it matched yours up against the buildings, but seemed a bit too much for the sky, so I went for an in-between.  DPreview occasionally gives me problems with uploading the full 50-megapixel file so I exported this at a resolution of 90% of the original, but it's uncropped.  If you notice some weird artifacts, it's because this was shot through a double-pane window, which ruined parts of the image (of course) but may have worked to my benefit when trying to make it appear a little more film-like.  I'd note that Chris' film images appear pretty digital-like, though.

Granted, there's processing involved here that film does all on its own.

And as we agreed before, the look of the image is really only one part of the equation.  Working with film and a film camera is a very different process from a digital camera and the "digital darkroom."  I suppose you could modify a digital camera to prevent image playback, and shoot with a 256 MB (yes, megabyte) memory card to force yourself to have an extremely limited number of shots... but it's still not quite the same.

 Velocity of Sound's gear list:Velocity of Sound's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II Fujifilm GFX 50S Olympus 12-100mm F4.0 Olympus 25mm F1.2 Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro +10 more
JALComputing
JALComputing Contributing Member • Posts: 646
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

Hi Jim,

Sorry for asking, but what sets large format apart? The reason I am asking is simply because I lack the experience. What I have done stops at 6x7 cm on projected slide.

Two obvious answers are:

  • That resolution, sharpness and acutance thing that you sometimes write about.
  • The short depth of field.

But, it is also my understanding that large format lenses are very often stopped down to very small apertures, to achieve enough DoF. That would of course counter act the first factor.

Part of the reason that I am asking that I saw a video with Clyde Butcher shooting in Everglades on LuLa and Michael Reichmann and Clyde Butcher discussed DoF. Clyde Butcher said that he didn't use Scheimpflug, achieved DoF by stopping down.

After that they went into the wet darkroom and made a giant size print.

Best regards

Erik

It has been a while since I processed 4X5 negatives. What I recall is the ability to do N+1 or N-1 development as part of the Zone System. Of course, you can do the same with an entire roll of 120 or 220.

Jeff

 JALComputing's gear list:JALComputing's gear list
Sony RX1R II Sony a7R II Fujifilm GFX 100 Sony FE 85mm F1.4 GM Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM +9 more
JimKasson
JimKasson Forum Pro • Posts: 27,727
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

Sorry for asking, but what sets large format apart? The reason I am asking is simply because I lack the experience. What I have done stops at 6x7 cm on projected slide.

Two things: sharpness/clarity,and lack of grain. It's as if the pitch of a digital sensor stayed the same all the way from 35mm to 8x10. In some images, grain can add grit and immediacy, but not in the kind of images that Butcher makes, IMO.

Two obvious answers are:

  • That resolution, sharpness and acutance thing that you sometimes write about.
  • The short depth of field.

But, it is also my understanding that large format lenses are very often stopped down to very small apertures, to achieve enough DoF. That would of course counteract the first factor.

You are correct that diffraction limits the sharpness at equivalent apertures, but it's much easier to make a diffraction-limited f/11 lens than a diffraction-limited f/1.1 lens. A common 8x10 f-stop is f/45. On a full-frame camera, that would be f/5.6 or so.

Part of the reason that I am asking that I saw a video with Clyde Butcher shooting in Everglades on LuLa and Michael Reichmann and Clyde Butcher discussed DoF. Clyde Butcher said that he didn't use Scheimpflug, achieved DoF by stopping down.

After that they went into the wet darkroom and made a giant size print.

BTW, I love contact prints from 8x10 and 8x20 cameras, but I don't think BUtcher sells those.

Jim

-- hide signature --
 JimKasson's gear list:JimKasson's gear list
Nikon D5 Sony a7 III Nikon Z7 Sony a7R IV Fujifilm GFX 100 +2 more
Greg7579
Greg7579 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,240
Good Guy, But Missed on the Money

So Macro is right on the money when it comes to FF vs MF ? Well, maybe he is on his general film vs digital observations, and on photography in general.  He is very knowledgeable and I enjoy his posts.  But....

Trust me Teila, if what Macro thought about that subject (FF vs MF) were true, there is not one single human being on Earth that would own a new MF Fuji or Hassy camera. We would all own instead the alphasevenarefour and the alphasevenarethree before that or a Nikon high-res FF camera.

I really like my GFX 100 and GFX 50r, so I have to disagree with your observation that Macro is on the money in the FF vs MF subject.

Now it is possible that some of our non-native English speakers might not understand the expression "on the money."  It means you are absolutely correct on a matter.

Given that, Macro is in my opinion is wrong when he pushes the FF = MF narrative which he has done many times in the past year, then I would conclude he is not on the money when it comes to comparing FF vs MF results.

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR XF 90mm Leica Q2 Fujifilm X100F Fujifilm X-H1 +16 more
Erik Kaffehr
Erik Kaffehr Veteran Member • Posts: 3,593
Re: Good Guy, But Missed on the Money

Greg7579 wrote:

So Macro is right on the money when it comes to FF vs MF ? Well, maybe he is on his general film vs digital observations, and on photography in general. He is very knowledgeable and I enjoy his posts. But....

Trust me Teila, if what Macro thought about that subject (FF vs MF) were true, there is not one single human being on Earth that would own a new MF Fuji or Hassy camera. We would all own instead the alphasevenarefour and the alphasevenarethree before that or a Nikon high-res FF camera.

I really like my GFX 100 and GFX 50r, so I have to disagree with your observation that Macro is on the money in the FF vs MF subject.

Now it is possible that some of our non-native English speakers might not understand the expression "on the money." It means you are absolutely correct on a matter.

Given that, Macro is in my opinion is wrong when he pushes the FF = MF narrative which he has done many times in the past year, then I would conclude he is not on the money when it comes to comparing FF vs MF results.

Hi Greg,

If you check the thread it is essentially about film based MF compared to 24x36 mm digital.

The point that Macro makes is using film adds up in cost. That cost is not just film, but also development, scanning and printing.

Back in say 2006 film was cheap and so was development, but film needed also to be scanned to deliver images.

When digital was available, many photographers jumped on it, although costs for digital medium format cameras were typically in the range 25-35k$US. With any high volume work that would be paid off pretty soon.

So, Macro is on the money, regarding costs for film.

The other side of the coin, if anyone can produce very high quality images with say a Texas Leica bought for 350$US on a 3.2$ per roll film and paying like 10$ for development and say 40$/image for drum scanning, it is certainly worth trying.

Best regards

Erik

-- hide signature --

Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles

Greg7579
Greg7579 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,240
Re: Good Guy, But Missed on the Money

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

So Macro is right on the money when it comes to FF vs MF ? Well, maybe he is on his general film vs digital observations, and on photography in general. He is very knowledgeable and I enjoy his posts. But....

Trust me Teila, if what Macro thought about that subject (FF vs MF) were true, there is not one single human being on Earth that would own a new MF Fuji or Hassy camera. We would all own instead the alphasevenarefour and the alphasevenarethree before that or a Nikon high-res FF camera.

I really like my GFX 100 and GFX 50r, so I have to disagree with your observation that Macro is on the money in the FF vs MF subject.

Now it is possible that some of our non-native English speakers might not understand the expression "on the money." It means you are absolutely correct on a matter.

Given that, Macro is in my opinion is wrong when he pushes the FF = MF narrative which he has done many times in the past year, then I would conclude he is not on the money when it comes to comparing FF vs MF results.

Hi Greg,

If you check the thread it is essentially about film based MF compared to 24x36 mm digital.

The point that Macro makes is using film adds up in cost. That cost is not just film, but also development, scanning and printing.

Back in say 2006 film was cheap and so was development, but film needed also to be scanned to deliver images.

When digital was available, many photographers jumped on it, although costs for digital medium format cameras were typically in the range 25-35k$US. With any high volume work that would be paid off pretty soon.

So, Macro is on the money, regarding costs for film.

The other side of the coin, if anyone can produce very high quality images with say a Texas Leica bought for 350$US on a 3.2$ per roll film and paying like 10$ for development and say 40$/image for drum scanning, it is certainly worth trying.

Best regards

Erik

Yes I know it was about film and his point about film was a good one.  But when I saw that Macro is on the Money bit, my brain triggered its natural reaction because Macro is who he is with that whole FF = MF fantasy and he tried to talk me out of buying GFX a year ago by spouting all the anti-MF talking points.  But he has gotten less militant about it and is a good guy.  I should have left that one alone.  Sorry.

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR XF 90mm Leica Q2 Fujifilm X100F Fujifilm X-H1 +16 more
Erik Kaffehr
Erik Kaffehr Veteran Member • Posts: 3,593
Re: Good Guy, But Missed on the Money

Greg7579 wrote:

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

So Macro is right on the money when it comes to FF vs MF ? Well, maybe he is on his general film vs digital observations, and on photography in general. He is very knowledgeable and I enjoy his posts. But....

Trust me Teila, if what Macro thought about that subject (FF vs MF) were true, there is not one single human being on Earth that would own a new MF Fuji or Hassy camera. We would all own instead the alphasevenarefour and the alphasevenarethree before that or a Nikon high-res FF camera.

I really like my GFX 100 and GFX 50r, so I have to disagree with your observation that Macro is on the money in the FF vs MF subject.

Now it is possible that some of our non-native English speakers might not understand the expression "on the money." It means you are absolutely correct on a matter.

Given that, Macro is in my opinion is wrong when he pushes the FF = MF narrative which he has done many times in the past year, then I would conclude he is not on the money when it comes to comparing FF vs MF results.

Hi Greg,

If you check the thread it is essentially about film based MF compared to 24x36 mm digital.

The point that Macro makes is using film adds up in cost. That cost is not just film, but also development, scanning and printing.

Back in say 2006 film was cheap and so was development, but film needed also to be scanned to deliver images.

When digital was available, many photographers jumped on it, although costs for digital medium format cameras were typically in the range 25-35k$US. With any high volume work that would be paid off pretty soon.

So, Macro is on the money, regarding costs for film.

The other side of the coin, if anyone can produce very high quality images with say a Texas Leica bought for 350$US on a 3.2$ per roll film and paying like 10$ for development and say 40$/image for drum scanning, it is certainly worth trying.

Best regards

Erik

Yes I know it was about film and his point about film was a good one. But when I saw that Macro is on the Money bit, my brain triggered its natural reaction because Macro is who he is with that whole FF = MF fantasy and he tried to talk me out of buying GFX a year ago by spouting all the anti-MF talking points. But he has gotten less militant about it and is a good guy. I should have left that one alone. Sorry.

Well I think that there is a lot of good info coming from both Teila and Macro.

On the other side, we may also have both basic requirements and spending priorities.

Just as an example, when I switched to digital I was perfectly happy with two fixed lens cameras covering the 28-600 mm focal range in 24x36 mm. Image quality was good enough for my needs.

The reason I jumped on DSLRs was that I wanted to use old gear. Those images I took with those small cameras are still perfectly OK in 4K-projection.

If you are happy with what you have, there is very little need for change. Just as an example, I have a telephoto zoom that mostly does a decent job. It has some issues so I am considering to replace it, possibly with a Canon 100-400/4.5-5.6 zoom. But, I don't think it works that well with the AF on the A7rII. But, I seldom use AF on the A7rII.

On the other hand, I may consider switching to the Canon zoom and acquire a 90D or 7DII body for shooting bird and things like that.

With birds, an optical viewfinder is probably an advantage. The crop factor is also beneficial, so, in many cases an APS-C DSLR may make more sense than a full frame mirrorless. Horses for the courses as the late Michael Reichmann used to say.

Best regards

Erik

-- hide signature --

Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles

Greg7579
Greg7579 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,240
Re: Good Guy, But Missed on the Money

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

So Macro is right on the money when it comes to FF vs MF ? Well, maybe he is on his general film vs digital observations, and on photography in general. He is very knowledgeable and I enjoy his posts. But....

Trust me Teila, if what Macro thought about that subject (FF vs MF) were true, there is not one single human being on Earth that would own a new MF Fuji or Hassy camera. We would all own instead the alphasevenarefour and the alphasevenarethree before that or a Nikon high-res FF camera.

I really like my GFX 100 and GFX 50r, so I have to disagree with your observation that Macro is on the money in the FF vs MF subject.

Now it is possible that some of our non-native English speakers might not understand the expression "on the money." It means you are absolutely correct on a matter.

Given that, Macro is in my opinion is wrong when he pushes the FF = MF narrative which he has done many times in the past year, then I would conclude he is not on the money when it comes to comparing FF vs MF results.

Hi Greg,

If you check the thread it is essentially about film based MF compared to 24x36 mm digital.

The point that Macro makes is using film adds up in cost. That cost is not just film, but also development, scanning and printing.

Back in say 2006 film was cheap and so was development, but film needed also to be scanned to deliver images.

When digital was available, many photographers jumped on it, although costs for digital medium format cameras were typically in the range 25-35k$US. With any high volume work that would be paid off pretty soon.

So, Macro is on the money, regarding costs for film.

The other side of the coin, if anyone can produce very high quality images with say a Texas Leica bought for 350$US on a 3.2$ per roll film and paying like 10$ for development and say 40$/image for drum scanning, it is certainly worth trying.

Best regards

Erik

Yes I know it was about film and his point about film was a good one. But when I saw that Macro is on the Money bit, my brain triggered its natural reaction because Macro is who he is with that whole FF = MF fantasy and he tried to talk me out of buying GFX a year ago by spouting all the anti-MF talking points. But he has gotten less militant about it and is a good guy. I should have left that one alone. Sorry.

Well I think that there is a lot of good info coming from both Teila and Macro.

On the other side, we may also have both basic requirements and spending priorities.

Just as an example, when I switched to digital I was perfectly happy with two fixed lens cameras covering the 28-600 mm focal range in 24x36 mm. Image quality was good enough for my needs.

The reason I jumped on DSLRs was that I wanted to use old gear. Those images I took with those small cameras are still perfectly OK in 4K-projection.

If you are happy with what you have, there is very little need for change. Just as an example, I have a telephoto zoom that mostly does a decent job. It has some issues so I am considering to replace it, possibly with a Canon 100-400/4.5-5.6 zoom. But, I don't think it works that well with the AF on the A7rII. But, I seldom use AF on the A7rII.

On the other hand, I may consider switching to the Canon zoom and acquire a 90D or 7DII body for shooting bird and things like that.

With birds, an optical viewfinder is probably an advantage. The crop factor is also beneficial, so, in many cases an APS-C DSLR may make more sense than a full frame mirrorless. Horses for the courses as the late Michael Reichmann used to say.

Best regards

Erik

I have a friend who is one of the best BIF photographers in the world and also a renowned birding expert.  He likes Nikon DSLR FF and a very fast 10 grand 600mm lens!

You know, I almost bought my way into BIF equipment to give it a try.  But there is no way I can sit there for half a day tracking and shooting 5000 shots rapid fire at birds hoping to get a winner.

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR XF 90mm Leica Q2 Fujifilm X100F Fujifilm X-H1 +16 more
thebbqguy
OP thebbqguy Regular Member • Posts: 201
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

Hiphopapotamus wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

thebbqguy wrote:

I like the idea of medium format and I drool over Clyde Butcher's landscapes. The medium format digital cameras are beyond my desired budget, but a used film camera seems like a viable consideration.

To this point I have kept my photography budget purposely conservative and dont see that changing in the near term.

Should I investigate medium format film or hold out for a full frame?

How big are you going to print?

A 50mp digital camera (of any format) can be printed to about the same size, with the same quality as a 6x7 camera. Furthermore, given that practically no one ever prints chemically anymore, your film images are going to be digitized anyway and printed on an inket printer. Therefore, it makes no sense to shoot film if you're looking to get a 20x30 print at 300dpi.

As far as budget is concerned, you can pick up a Sony A7RII, a Canon 5DS r for around $1500.

If you're going to shoot film, you also have to factor in the costs of film and processing. A roll of 120 film, which will produce 10 shots on a 6x7, 12 shots on a 6x6 or 15 shots on a 645 will run you $5. You'll pay another $5-$10 to process, then you'll pay $25 PER FRAME to scan and whatever your printing costs are going to be.

So, when you start factoring in all the hidden costs, the money saved on a film camera doesn't seem as such a bargain anymore.

Umm you start at 4800 or even 7200dpi at the same pixel count and then you downsize to the print you want. Yeah...

You tell me how you're going to print that billboard at high resolution without a film camera without cheating and upscaling? Righto mate... To do the same job you could do at high resolution with film you end up going down to as low as 30dpi in sign printing.

As to lens resolution maybe, but when you consider the sensor size or film plate at 6x7 or 6x9 then it's not even a comparison. Not to APS-C or anything else this side of an A7 III and then you do the math on it, and add up the cost and its still far cheaper to shoot and develop film.

You can get a complete GL690 and lenses for under $500.

The real-world costs of film are about $3 - $4 a shot shooting slow film... You can buy Portra 800 or whatever at cost if you want it, but your gonna have grain coming out of your ears.

The problem is most people thought film was dead when the Canon 1D came out 20 years ago with a 10megapixel CCD sensor. But in the last 20 years film has changed a lot.

Ektar is a completely new stock and Portra uses Kodak Vision technology. With Portra you're getting the same resolution with a good lens as Holywood is getting for its latest films shot on film.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood for instance which is predominately shot in Kodak Vision 3, although with Tarantino and his budget he shot just about every type of film in that movie that Kodak produced that you can still get developed.

You're getting a lot more resolution out of film and Porta and Ektar are good for 13 stops of light when scanned digitally.

It's not even the same conversation you were having 20 years ago when most people gave up film. Scanning technology has also greatly improved over the years also. Scanners benefit from CCD updates also (for all intents and purposes the same technology as digital cameras). The latest Epson home scanners such as the V800 are now rivaling what you can get from dedicated Noritsu film scanners.

It's not the same conversation at all... and you can save a lot of cost by learning how to develop yourself using a Jobo (Patterson) tank which is a lot easier than the old way of doing things in a tin can the way you would have done it 20 years or more ago...

I found this interesting information today:

https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm

I have run across a fairly surprising number of film sites the past few days. Film may be less popular than it was 20 years ago, but there seems to be a niche that still embraces the nostalgic side of it. For me, I'm attracted to the nostalgia of it too. There are 1,000's of digital sites online and 3 or 4 at least at every art fair I attend. Adding my name to that list hardly seems unique.

It seems like competing against a smaller and smaller number of film photographers makes a little more sense.

As an example, when everyone I knew was buying Canon, I was buying Sony. When everyone was buying Apple, I was buying Motorola and Samsung. It's just how I am. I don't want to always follow the crowd for the sake of it.

Additionally, as easy as it is for someone to recommend that I spend money on the digital side, it is expensive. It's an endless pursuit, like almost any hobby. You can start at the high end and go higher, or start at the lower end and go higher. For a non professional like me, it seems starting at the lower end is a better fit for me.

But I still have to consider the cost of the bigger scans and that's it gets more difficult. A 30 inch scan and print is $148 locally and that's without any retouching.  So learning to do as much on my own as possible seems wise.  Buying a scanner of any real quality doesn't hold with my original premise either.

Maybe digital is unavoidable, but throwing in the towel and following the crowd just doesn't fit my usual tendencies.

-- hide signature --

I learned a long time ago to stop trying to do what others do, because they're good at it. -- Do what you're good at. (B.B. King)

Macro guy
Macro guy Veteran Member • Posts: 4,443
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

thebbqguy wrote:

I found this interesting information today:

https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm

I have run across a fairly surprising number of film sites the past few days. Film may be less popular than it was 20 years ago, but there seems to be a niche that still embraces the nostalgic side of it. For me, I'm attracted to the nostalgia of it too. There are 1,000's of digital sites online and 3 or 4 at least at every art fair I attend. Adding my name to that list hardly seems unique.

It seems like competing against a smaller and smaller number of film photographers makes a little more sense.

As an example, when everyone I knew was buying Canon, I was buying Sony. When everyone was buying Apple, I was buying Motorola and Samsung. It's just how I am. I don't want to always follow the crowd for the sake of it.

Additionally, as easy as it is for someone to recommend that I spend money on the digital side, it is expensive. It's an endless pursuit, like almost any hobby. You can start at the high end and go higher, or start at the lower end and go higher. For a non professional like me, it seems starting at the lower end is a better fit for me.

But I still have to consider the cost of the bigger scans and that's it gets more difficult. A 30 inch scan and print is $148 locally and that's without any retouching. So learning to do as much on my own as possible seems wise. Buying a scanner of any real quality doesn't hold with my original premise either.

Maybe digital is unavoidable, but throwing in the towel and following the crowd just doesn't fit my usual tendencies.

You pays your monies and you takes your chances.  So, in the end, you do whatever makes you happy.

However, if we talk about the practical aspect of things, it makes little to no sense to shoot film precisely because you'll digitize it anyway.  Furthermore, going digital doesn't need to be a never ending upgrade roller coaster.  You can get a camera that meets your needs and it can be a used camera for fairly little money and you can shoot with it for many, many years without incurring the cost of consumables.

If you think you're saving money by getting a great camera for a few hundred dollars, figure that every time you run a roll of film through that camera, it's gonna cost you anywhere from $15-$20 and that's without printing or scanning.  If you choose the scanning and / or printing option, that's $30-$40 per roll (which is 10 shots for a 6x7 camera).  So, you run 10 rolls through it and now you're $400 in the hole, so your $500 camera deal is now $900 and it never ends.

From my perspective, a camera is a tool to achieve the images you want to achieve.  The size of the prints you make dictates the film format or the resolution of a digital camera. That's it.  Nothing more and nothing less. If following the crowd meets your needs, you follow the crowd.  If it doesn't, then you don't, but it has nothing to do with the principle of following the crowd.  We're not talking about trends, just tools and their practical applications.

 Macro guy's gear list:Macro guy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II +5 more
thebbqguy
OP thebbqguy Regular Member • Posts: 201
Re: Medium Format vs. Full Frame

Macro guy wrote:

thebbqguy wrote:

I found this interesting information today:

https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm

I have run across a fairly surprising number of film sites the past few days. Film may be less popular than it was 20 years ago, but there seems to be a niche that still embraces the nostalgic side of it. For me, I'm attracted to the nostalgia of it too. There are 1,000's of digital sites online and 3 or 4 at least at every art fair I attend. Adding my name to that list hardly seems unique.

It seems like competing against a smaller and smaller number of film photographers makes a little more sense.

As an example, when everyone I knew was buying Canon, I was buying Sony. When everyone was buying Apple, I was buying Motorola and Samsung. It's just how I am. I don't want to always follow the crowd for the sake of it.

Additionally, as easy as it is for someone to recommend that I spend money on the digital side, it is expensive. It's an endless pursuit, like almost any hobby. You can start at the high end and go higher, or start at the lower end and go higher. For a non professional like me, it seems starting at the lower end is a better fit for me.

But I still have to consider the cost of the bigger scans and that's it gets more difficult. A 30 inch scan and print is $148 locally and that's without any retouching. So learning to do as much on my own as possible seems wise. Buying a scanner of any real quality doesn't hold with my original premise either.

Maybe digital is unavoidable, but throwing in the towel and following the crowd just doesn't fit my usual tendencies.

You pays your monies and you takes your chances. So, in the end, you do whatever makes you happy.

However, if we talk about the practical aspect of things, it makes little to no sense to shoot film precisely because you'll digitize it anyway. Furthermore, going digital doesn't need to be a never ending upgrade roller coaster. You can get a camera that meets your needs and it can be a used camera for fairly little money and you can shoot with it for many, many years without incurring the cost of consumables.

If you think you're saving money by getting a great camera for a few hundred dollars, figure that every time you run a roll of film through that camera, it's gonna cost you anywhere from $15-$20 and that's without printing or scanning. If you choose the scanning and / or printing option, that's $30-$40 per roll (which is 10 shots for a 6x7 camera). So, you run 10 rolls through it and now you're $400 in the hole, so your $500 camera deal is now $900 and it never ends.

From my perspective, a camera is a tool to achieve the images you want to achieve. The size of the prints you make dictates the film format or the resolution of a digital camera. That's it. Nothing more and nothing less. If following the crowd meets your needs, you follow the crowd. If it doesn't, then you don't, but it has nothing to do with the principle of following the crowd. We're not talking about trends, just tools and their practical applications.

I think I've reached that conclusion. The anomalies I've found are professionals in the business for multiple decades.

I've been taking photos for 35 years+ but I want to do more than that to see what I can do.

I'll just get more active in the local club, network, learn and go from there.

I've got a few 12 megapixel cameras and at this point it makes no sense to buy a 24 megapixel camera to upgrade. It makes more sense to step up to 50 megapixels or more I think.

I believe I saw Clyde Butcher say in one newspaper article that he was impressed with the 36 megapixel he used for a short time while recovering from his health issues. You just work within the limitations of the chosen tools.

Thanks for sharing the knowledge and wisdom in this thread.

-- hide signature --

I learned a long time ago to stop trying to do what others do, because they're good at it. -- Do what you're good at. (B.B. King)

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads