|
|
Future of MF
I consider myself an amature photographer. I used 35mm SLRs for many
years. About four years ago I became intrigued with medium format cameras after a friend of mine showed me some photographs he had taken with a 645 camera. The results were incredible. Soon after that I bought a MF camera. At the time it seemed like the right move for me, but now I'm not so sure this was a good move. Here is why: I got married about three years ago and became a parent soon after that. The family life was so demanding that I decided to put my hobby on hold for a couple of years. About a month ago I spoke with my wife about taking up my hobby again. She was thrilled. First thing I did before my come back was to read up on the latest advances. After a week or so of investigation I realized that digital photography had taken off. I had read about it during my three years away, but had no idea how far it had gone. Yesterday I went to visit a few friends of mine that work at local photography shops in town. I wanted to find out from them if everything I read was true. Every opinion I heard sounded like I should get rid of my MF camera. This shocked me beacuse some of these friends were really into MF format. The stories I heard were all the same. Digital is in and film is out. I thought this trend only affected the 35mm market, but interestingly enough I found out that it was also affecting the MF market. The trend among professional photographers seems to be away from MF and towards high end digital cameras. I didn't feel to bad when I heard this news because I thought they were probably sacrifising quality for convenience. However, after seeing some enlarged images taken with high end digital cameras, I wasn't sure this was the case. Still, what really got me worried was when I heard most shops in town were planning to do away with film materials (chemicals, film, etc.) within the next four to five years. I beleive that film will be in for a long time. My concern is at what price and inconvenience? Also, where is the nitch for MF camera? I would like to hear your opinion. |
The MF photos using 35mm digital now...so cheap to shoot many times as many
photos, relatively easy to alter screwups in exposure and light balance, and the buying public is too ignorant to understand the loss of quality. Yes, film use is diminishing and companies like Kodak are dropping film lines. But until digital can truly equal the tonality of MF, those who shoot 'art' rather than simply shoot to make a buck will appreciate the improved quality of large negatives and slides that MF and LF can bring without grossly large investments and even grosser file sizes per shot! Can you afford to make and store 60MB digital files that result with larger format digital backs? The larger the media, regardless of film or digital chip, the better the tonality and detail in the photo. |
|
|
Victor wrote:
The stories I heard were all the same. Digital is in and film is out. Blah blah blah, go buy a digital camera. They are way better than any ol film camera ever was. -- Stacey |
Wilt also look at how much the technology of digital has advanced in
just a few short years. With pixel size falling to the sub micron level and with an array size comparable now to a 35 mm frame at a fraction of the price of just a few years ago it is approaching the detail and tonal range of film. Is it competitive with film yet? For general photo use it is fine, for fine art not there yet. But it will be and probably sooner than we think. No dispute that technology will prevail at some point, especially now that continued advancement of technology in film emulsions is so reduced. I love shooting with my digital, but the film camera has its place (for now). One wonders how many digital photographs will be lost to history because they were stored with proprietary versions of RAW digital files, stored in obsolete media (it will be interesting to see how long the DVD continues to exist...just look at the 5.25" floopy, it's getting hard to find a new PC with even the 3.5" floppy!). We have silver negs over 100 years later, will be have the digital files of today accessible in 2103? This is a significant, yet ignored, issue that no one thinks about. Will future generations be able to look back and see what life was like? |
|
|
David Fouchey wrote:
Wilt Archival issues are a major concern for sure. With all the advances in digital storage libraries still depend on microfiche for archival works for the very reason of medial obsolescence. Dave On 12 Sep 2004 02:44:59 GMT, (Wilt W) wrote: Wilt also look at how much the technology of digital has advanced in just a few short years. With pixel size falling to the sub micron level and with an array size comparable now to a 35 mm frame at a fraction of the price of just a few years ago it is approaching the detail and tonal range of film. Is it competitive with film yet? For general photo use it is fine, for fine art not there yet. But it will be and probably sooner than we think. No dispute that technology will prevail at some point, especially now that continued advancement of technology in film emulsions is so reduced. I love shooting with my digital, but the film camera has its place (for now). One wonders how many digital photographs will be lost to history because they were stored with proprietary versions of RAW digital files, stored in obsolete media (it will be interesting to see how long the DVD continues to exist...just look at the 5.25" floopy, it's getting hard to find a new PC with even the 3.5" floppy!). We have silver negs over 100 years later, will be have the digital files of today accessible in 2103? This is a significant, yet ignored, issue that no one thinks about. Will future generations be able to look back and see what life was like? No doubt the market will prevail and digital will continue to reduce or even eliminate much of the film/paper business. Digital is great for commercial photographers shooting ads, church directories, etc. Fine for me too shooting snapshots to share with family and friends over the internet. But. . . I agree with David that digital imagery may be inaccessible within even a few years because of changes in technology or proprietary storage systems. Another factor is the storage media itself is inherently unstable; CD's begin losing data after five years. Hard drives fail or cannot be accessed by new generation computers. Part of photography's uniqueness as a medium for creating images is its ability to record a slice of time and preserve it-- admittedly not for as long as painting, but at least for several hundred years. Hence its value to historians and others who will need it to feed their knowledge of past cultures. Then, there's the issue of what draws us to photography to begin with. If the only consideration is the capture of an image and the ability to reproduce it, then electronic capture, manipulation via Photoshop, and inkjet printing are as good a way as any other. If, on the other hand, some of us love the photographic process itself-- from exposure on a piece of silver halide-coated acetate that we can then develop in formulas we devise and mix from scratch, to the final print that is the result of a hard-won mastery of darkroom craft, then, sorry, but digital just doesn't do it for us. And I don't know any digital cameras that give as much pleasure or have as much flexibility in the making of images as my Rosewood Wista view camera or my superbly engineered and built Rollei SL66. Digital has its place; it just ain't my place. Larry |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:16 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com