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.

On 12 Sep 2004 01:39:11 GMT, (Wilt W) wrote:

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.


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.

Dave

On 12 Sep 2004 01:39:11 GMT, (Wilt W) wrote:

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.


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.

Dave

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?

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?

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).

Ditto I carry both digital and film cameras for that very reason.

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).

Ditto I carry both digital and film cameras for that very reason.

Dave

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