Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,954   Posts: 1,522,796   Online: 995
      
Page 1 of 8 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 80
  1. #1
    gr82bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Culver City, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,224
    Images
    37
    This is a great site I came across.

    I have been a 35mm user since my first camera - a Pentax ME given to me for my 12th birthday. Many cameras later; last year I bought my first Hassey - a yellow 503CW. WOW! What a gorgeous camera. I haven't been able to put this feat of engineering down.

    I find it forces me to go through the process of taking a picture - letting the creative juices flow - so to speak. I am discovering that this act appeals to me greatly.

    So where am I going with this?

    I feel the medium format is a dying breed, despite my personal rejuvenation. Everyone is going digital (for the worse in my opinion) and even Hassey went that way with their new H1. Unfortunately, the only saving grace for the medium format may be significantly less expensive digital backs. Currently at the $12-$20k range and at only 6 mpixels they are priced in the stupid area. If MF digital backs were less expensive, I think more people will go MF and in turn the format itself will live.

    What do you all think?
    Visit my website at www.ArtLiem.com
    or my online portfolios at APUG and ModelMayhem

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Southern Cal
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    485
    Images
    14
    Medium format is not dying. Don't believe all the hype. Not everyone is going digital. If anything, many people are going back to film because they know what looks good, and got a huge letdown when they jumped to digital. Don't believe the jacked up tests in the magazines either. Sure if you shoot a picture and then scan/print in on junk "consumer grade" equipment, then digital looks better. That's just what they do, to skew the results in favor of their advertisers and sponsors. Film is cheaper to shoot and print and looks better. If you want different "response curves" use a different film. Even professionals are starting to realize digital is not the gravy train they envisioned. Instead of taking pictures and dropping the film off at their lab. they are up in the wee hours of the morning Photoshopping, and not getting paid for that time - time they might have been shooting other projects. Medium format, small format, and large format don't need digital to survive. The bottom line is, why spend as you say, stupid money for a bad to mediocre picture, when an entire roll of film still only costs chump change and gives better, more flexible results??? The other thing to worry about is, after you pay the huge prices to get in, you can expect to pay that and more every few years, thanks to planned obsolescence.

  3. #3
    Les McLean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Northern England on the Scottish border
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,610
    I don't think that MF is dying but I don't totally agree with Steve's view re: the jacked up tests in the magazines. Yes it does happen but not all reports are untruthful.I have just returned home after working for Ilford at Focus the UK Photoshow demonstrating digital and printing on their new range of papers. The results are stunning and I don't use the top end scanners and other kit although I do have access to it if I want it. I scanned 35mm, MF and LF negatives on a moderately priced Linoscan flatbed scanner. The show was just about totally digital and yes, there is always a lot of hype, for example Canon and their S9000 printer. The prints look good initially but are likely to fade within weeks unless you use Canon paper. I used the S9000 for the show and tested the inks using Ilford paper at the beginning of January, the black and white print faded in 6 days and Canon where really not interested when I spoke to their technical people at the show. That is certainly the down side of digital.

    On the other hand I have recently been given a Canon D60 by a client who has purchased the D1S and have made excellent 20" x 24" digital prints on Fuji paper using the Epson 7600. The prints from the D1S are amazing, I have not yet made any larger than 20 x 24 but it's clear that they will go bigger.

    Until 2 years ago I felt the same as Steve but have to say that the progress made in the digital field since then has changed my mind. I have no intention of giving up the darkroom for I love the process and believe that a silver print is still far better than a digital print but, the digital process does offer different tools and materials to the image maker.

    I also had a long talk with the Marketing Director of Kodak UK who told me that black and white sales are increasing. Interesting times and perhaps we are about to have the best of both worlds.
    "Digital circuits are made from analogue parts"
    Fourtune Cookie-Brooklyn May 2006

    Website: www.lesmcleanphotography.com

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Amongst the cornfields & rednecks of central Indiana
    Posts
    116
    MF ain't dyin'! Magazines print whatever garbage is going to pay them the most. You almost never hear a magazine say that "So and so gave us this camera to test and ... we'd like to say that it's a piece of sh*t..." Many of the "reviewers" have to sign an agreement that says that they'll print *at least* a neutral comment about a product before they can get it...

    So many people are not willing to enhance or further their education, but rather find a simpler solution..."photoshop can fix it all...". With that same comment, that explains a lot of things...like the wedding hacks I mentioned in another thread.

    MF and film in general, require the user to slow down and learn a bit. It also requires that one's discipline in their craft be honed, LF even more. With digital, all one has to do is pick up "Photoshop in 24 hours" and they think they can be just as good as the guy who spent years learning how his film behaves, the quality and "defects" of his lenses, darkroom tricks.

    I'm not gonna get too deep into this, but as with anything..."to find the root of any evil (not saying that digital is evil), just follow the money". The money comes a lot from the consumer, so for magazines to make money and get readers, they have to show what the consumers want to hear...digital.

    It's like that idiot Reichmann. He's overhyping the digital thing "digital was more sharp and blah, blah, blah than a 6x7 chrome..." Ok. Whatever. If all the digital users jumped from a bridge, he'd be the second in line...

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (docholliday @ Mar 1 2003, 03:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> MF ain&#39;t dyin&#39;&#33; Magazines print whatever garbage is going to pay them the most. You almost never hear a magazine say that &quot;So and so gave us this camera to test and ... we&#39;d like to say that it&#39;s a piece of sh*t...&quot; Many of the &quot;reviewers&quot; have to sign an agreement that says that they&#39;ll print *at least* a neutral comment about a product before they can get it...

    So many people are not willing to enhance or further their education, but rather find a simpler solution...&quot;photoshop can fix it all...&quot;. With that same comment, that explains a lot of things...like the wedding hacks I mentioned in another thread.

    MF and film in general, require the user to slow down and learn a bit. It also requires that one&#39;s discipline in their craft be honed, LF even more. With digital, all one has to do is pick up &quot;Photoshop in 24 hours&quot; and they think they can be just as good as the guy who spent years learning how his film behaves, the quality and &quot;defects&quot; of his lenses, darkroom tricks.

    I&#39;m not gonna get too deep into this, but as with anything...&quot;to find the root of any evil (not saying that digital is evil), just follow the money&quot;. The money comes a lot from the consumer, so for magazines to make money and get readers, they have to show what the consumers want to hear...digital.

    It&#39;s like that idiot Reichmann. He&#39;s overhyping the digital thing &quot;digital was more sharp and blah, blah, blah than a 6x7 chrome...&quot; Ok. Whatever. If all the digital users jumped from a bridge, he&#39;d be the second in line... </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    Wouldn&#39;t it be neat if you found a magazine that did say...this product is crap&#33;?

    So who do you think would be first in line to jump?

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    France
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    357
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (gr82bart @ Mar 1 2003, 06:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Everyone is going digital </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    I beg to differ. Not everybody is going digital. The Pros are going digital, because it offers significant advantages for their daily business. They have specific requirements and emphases that differ from that of an amateur. The main difference is: they don&#39;t have time. They buy time with money. The amateur can save money by investing more time (and usually does). Moreover, the amateur has usually a higher quality claim than the customers of the Pro.

    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (gr82bart @ Mar 1 2003, 06:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Unfortunately, the only saving grace for the medium format may be significantly less expensive digital backs. Currently at the &#036;12-&#036;20k range and at only 6 mpixels they are&nbsp; priced in the stupid area. If MF digital backs were less expensive, I think more people will go MF and in turn the format itself will live.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

    Things look different for the amateur. He now gets stunning technical picture quality for a fraction of the (original) price. The MF second hand market is today better than ever. Even if digital backs get cheaper by an order of magnitude (and reach true 6x7), it is still just an alternative for someone who doesn&#39;t shot a 1000 rolls a year and not a must. Moreover, the depreciation of a second hand MF gear is for sure less than that of a comparable digital one.

    And last but not least: all good things will have a revival some day.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    France
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    357
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (docholliday @ Mar 1 2003, 10:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> It&#39;s like that idiot Reichmann. He&#39;s overhyping the digital thing &quot;digital was more sharp and blah, blah, blah than a 6x7 chrome...&quot;
    </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    I don&#39;t think he is an idiot. He is on the contrary a clever businessman. He is currently selling his own digital learning process.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Southern Cal
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    485
    Images
    14
    "Wouldn&#39;t it be neat if you found a magazine that did say...this product is crap&#33;?"

    Now that would be a refreshing change. I am just so tired of this "film is dead&#39; everywhere I turn. People, all of you, this is a place to hang out, have fun, and talk about film and such. It is not to convince us that we have to repent and convert, just so Madison Avenue suits can line their pockets every so often at our expense, to replace what was the newest greatest best just last year, at &#036;20K a pop. I don&#39;t want to play that game and will quit photography completely first. Some of us came here to get away from "digitalitis" and all its Resistance Is Futile arguments. I&#39;ve made my own comparisons between traditional and digital prints of many sizes, and digital doesn&#39;t do it for me. It&#39;s pixelated, posterized, aliased, jaggied, oversaturated, overmanipulated, and I just don&#39;t like it. It looks fake. Too many of the "art" pictures used to promote it are just garbage. The sensors are by and large, very poor. No dynamic range, too small, too noisy, blown out highlights, too little latitude, etc etc etc. Even if I liked it, it is far too expensive for what it is worth to me. For the price of the better backs (Leaf, etc), I can buy a gang of Deardorffs and more film than I could live to use up. Maybe I speak for others, maybe I don&#39;t, I don&#39;t really care. I didn&#39;t start out anti-digital. But getting the same message over and over, at every turn, and sometimes being talked down to by someone who started last month and is helpless without auto-everything made me that way. As far as Reichman, he takes lots of pictures and probably makes good money; there&#39;s nothing wrong with that. But come on, how objective are you going to be when all that free equipment is supplied by your sponsor / employer? You can&#39;t say it isn&#39;t as good/better than, or you get fired. Other than a few pictures, his site is really just a multipage Canon advertisement. If the equipment is so great, why on earth does he keep changing and replacing it? Oh. I forgot. It&#39;s because he doesn&#39;t have to pay for any of it himself. Sorry about the sarcastic tone, but I came here to get away from digital.

  9. #9
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    ..

  10. #10
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    I really doubt that medium format is dead... but, if anyone should want to "knuckle under" to the latest hype, I am always ready to accept free donations. If someone has an extra Hasselblad Arc Body or two that they don&#39;t want cluttering up their studio... or extension tubes, bellows - Softar filters....

    What has been going on in the Commercial studios, with the exception of some of the "captive - Funding Unlimited" areas is "Capture on film, scan to digital ... and go on from there.

    The COST of digital backs, humungously LARGE PCs with tons of RAM, excruciatingly expensive printers -- is a tremendously important factor, especially considering the fact that all of it will probably follow the pattern of the usual PC - they will be obsolete before you can push the shopping cart out of the door.

    I use Hasselblads - not for the"snottiness" value, but simply for the fact that Hasselblad has, and if they have any sense they will continue to, avoid making their equipmet with the idea of planned obsolence. Hasselblad lenses made in the `60&#39;s will WORK on the cameras made today.

    Digital Back technology has improved. The lastest ad I got in the mail described a whiz-bang back capable of capturing 104 Megabyte (no typo - 104MB) files. Those files will, no doubt, be capable of producing images with quality comparable to what I can do with the &#39;Blad, film and my Omega D5500 Enlarger. Unless I am &#39;way off on my math, the average CD-R disk can save ~ 700MB. That means ~ 6 whiz-bang images per CD. I save twelve images on one roll of 120 film.

    Add to that one anomally I am experiencing here - so far I have LOST all the images I have written to two CD-R , and one CD-RW disks. I have tried *everything* here to restore these images with NO success. My next shot would be to send the screwed-up CDs to a commercail restoration lab - for &#036;90 each - which just won&#39;t happen.

    So ... I&#39;ll continue to "limp" along with outmoded technology. [Sacastic Key ON] Yeh - outmoded.

    Someday - when I win one of those &#036;200 million lotteries, I&#39;ll build a Studio/ Teaching Facility with dualism - both Film Cameras and Chemical Processors - and Digital Cameras and Great Big Whumping computers.

    When I do, I will not expect the vision and skills needed to produce really Fine Art, or "Fine" images of any stripe, to be one whit different in either area.

    My opinions - your mileage may vary.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

Page 1 of 8 1234567 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin