Future of MF

(Victor) wrote in message . com...
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.


Thanks for all your comments. I've gain a whole different perspective
since reading them.

Victor

(Victor) wrote in message . com...
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.


Thanks for all your comments. I've gain a whole different perspective
since reading them.

Victor

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:


And here's me thinking we "creatives" think in terms of images, not rolls.

I'd rather think in terms of keepers and not images-) More keepers per the
dollar with 120-)

Nick

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:


And here's me thinking we "creatives" think in terms of images, not rolls.

I'd rather think in terms of keepers and not images-) More keepers per the
dollar with 120-)

Nick

Nick Zentena wrote:

And here's me thinking we "creatives" think in terms of images, not
rolls.

I'd rather think in terms of keepers and not images-) More keepers per
the
dollar with 120-)

I detect a fundamental difference between our approaches to photography.

I think in terms of images, not keepers. Whatever it takes to get the image
the way i want it is whatver it takes to get etc.
If it takes, say, five attempts, five frames, it will take five frames.
What format is used is not a factor.

In theory, of course.
In real life i too am too optimistic too often, and many images i thought i
had, are not "keepers" after all.
So in the end, i too am counting "keepers". ;-)

But still, format does not determine how many/few frames are needed. No more
"keepers per the dollar" with MF.
More expenses per image with MF.

Of course i like "keepers" made using MF better than "keepers" made using 35
mm format. But that's another issue, isn't it?

In article ,
"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

Nick Zentena wrote:

And here's me thinking we "creatives" think in terms of images, not
rolls.

I'd rather think in terms of keepers and not images-) More keepers per
the
dollar with 120-)

I detect a fundamental difference between our approaches to photography.

I think in terms of images, not keepers. Whatever it takes to get the image
the way i want it is whatver it takes to get etc.
If it takes, say, five attempts, five frames, it will take five frames.
What format is used is not a factor.

If you want the shot thats how it has to be.


In theory, of course.
In real life i too am too optimistic too often, and many images i thought i
had, are not "keepers" after all.
So in the end, i too am counting "keepers". ;-)

If every picture you took was crummy by your own standards you would
probably give up at least eventually..... my goal is all perfect pictures
all the time on every format and especially on 8x10 film.


But still, format does not determine how many/few frames are needed. No more
"keepers per the dollar" with MF.
More expenses per image with MF.

I think the more or paid work one does the more willing one is to discard
slightly off exposures, badly composed etc.


Of course i like "keepers" made using MF better than "keepers" made using 35
mm format. But that's another issue, isn't it?

Not really it depends what your wanting to ultimately do, wall size
murals? or just 4x6 postcards? Thirty five 35mm is the most fun I think
even more so than digital...when I shoot digital I can't enjoy the
free part enough to get past the "I am doing something which is leading
to the demise of the craft I love part"

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

In article ,
"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

Nick Zentena wrote:

And here's me thinking we "creatives" think in terms of images, not
rolls.

I'd rather think in terms of keepers and not images-) More keepers per
the
dollar with 120-)

I detect a fundamental difference between our approaches to photography.

I think in terms of images, not keepers. Whatever it takes to get the image
the way i want it is whatver it takes to get etc.
If it takes, say, five attempts, five frames, it will take five frames.
What format is used is not a factor.

If you want the shot thats how it has to be.


In theory, of course.
In real life i too am too optimistic too often, and many images i thought i
had, are not "keepers" after all.
So in the end, i too am counting "keepers". ;-)

If every picture you took was crummy by your own standards you would
probably give up at least eventually..... my goal is all perfect pictures
all the time on every format and especially on 8x10 film.


But still, format does not determine how many/few frames are needed. No more
"keepers per the dollar" with MF.
More expenses per image with MF.

I think the more or paid work one does the more willing one is to discard
slightly off exposures, badly composed etc.


Of course i like "keepers" made using MF better than "keepers" made using 35
mm format. But that's another issue, isn't it?

Not really it depends what your wanting to ultimately do, wall size
murals? or just 4x6 postcards? Thirty five 35mm is the most fun I think
even more so than digital...when I shoot digital I can't enjoy the
free part enough to get past the "I am doing something which is leading
to the demise of the craft I love part"

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:


I detect a fundamental difference between our approaches to photography.

I think in terms of images, not keepers. Whatever it takes to get the image
the way i want it is whatver it takes to get etc.
If it takes, say, five attempts, five frames, it will take five frames.
What format is used is not a factor.

In theory, of course.
In real life i too am too optimistic too often, and many images i thought i
had, are not "keepers" after all.
So in the end, i too am counting "keepers". ;-)

But still, format does not determine how many/few frames are needed. No more
"keepers per the dollar" with MF.
More expenses per image with MF.


For me it does. The other day I was looking at a negative page deciding
which one to print. I noticed quite a few negatives were very similar. I
only do that with 35mm. It's great if I manage to screw up a negative but
it's really not something I need to do. But 36 frames on a 35mm roll I burn
more frames. Back ups. Slight angle changes.

Nick

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:


I detect a fundamental difference between our approaches to photography.

I think in terms of images, not keepers. Whatever it takes to get the image
the way i want it is whatver it takes to get etc.
If it takes, say, five attempts, five frames, it will take five frames.
What format is used is not a factor.

In theory, of course.
In real life i too am too optimistic too often, and many images i thought i
had, are not "keepers" after all.
So in the end, i too am counting "keepers". ;-)

But still, format does not determine how many/few frames are needed. No more
"keepers per the dollar" with MF.
More expenses per image with MF.


For me it does. The other day I was looking at a negative page deciding
which one to print. I noticed quite a few negatives were very similar. I
only do that with 35mm. It's great if I manage to screw up a negative but
it's really not something I need to do. But 36 frames on a 35mm roll I burn
more frames. Back ups. Slight angle changes.

Nick

In article ,
Nick Zentena wrote:

For me it does. The other day I was looking at a negative page deciding
which one to print. I noticed quite a few negatives were very similar. I
only do that with 35mm. It's great if I manage to screw up a negative but
it's really not something I need to do. But 36 frames on a 35mm roll I burn
more frames. Back ups. Slight angle changes.

Nick

Camera made dupes, sure is easier and less expensive than having them
done.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918