Is Medium Format Right for Me?

[dick]

Have not shot film in at least 10 years. I would be out of business. I don't personally know of anybody as a Pro that still does for commerce. It's just not a option.

This I can understand, but if a pro landscape photographer only takes 10 shots a week and thinks that nothing short of 10 * 8 film is good enough, what would he use?

For amateurs, and pros taking technically difficult shots, the advantage of digital is instant feed back... do you remember spending a day making several different exposures (using different light sources and filters) on one sheet of 5*4 sheet film, and not knowing if you had got it right till days later?

I agree that MF film has very little appeal to anyone.

 

[FredBGG]

Have not shot film in at least 10 years. I would be out of business. I don't personally know of anybody as a Pro that still does for commerce. It's just not a option.

I agree that MF film has very little appeal to anyone.

While film can be a pain especially depending on the area work in. Some places just don't have labs and reasonable stocks of film available.

I still shoot many of my preferred assignments on film. About 70% dollar wise...

Here are a few examples of other successful photographers that shoot principally film...

Vincent Peters Photography

La novia de Cristiano Ronaldo posa desnuda para "GQ" - YouTube

Ironically Vincent Peters shot a Sony Digital TV screen ad campaign using film..

He also recently shot for Italian Vogue, GQ UK, Vogue Spain, Guess Jeans.

VAUGHAN HANNIGAN represents Scott Frances, Julia Fullerton-Batten, Alessandra Petlin, Giles Revell, Martin Schoeller, Mark Zibert, Kyle Alexander, Braschler/Fischer, Gilles & Cecilie Studio, Floto+Warner and Erik Almas

Martin Schoeller for Time Magazine - YouTube

Some of Martin Schoeller's commercial clients include HTC, Lexus, Mercedes, CNN

Both of these shoot film and mainly MF.

Film quality while less of the market (dramatically) has increased considerably over the last 10 or 15 years.

Another interesting example is Gregory Crewsdon. Only film and a saggy 8x10 bellows.

http://apphotnum.free.fr/N2BE55.html

 

[GrahamWelland]

Hey Fred, I'd be careful about listing these guys as bastions of film because I know that at least one of them, let's just say someone with a big budget cinematic approach to images, does shoot MF digital too.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Hey Fred, I'd be careful about listing these guys as bastions of film because I know that at least one of them, let's just say someone with a big budget cinematic approach to images, does shoot MF digital too.

I would be surprised if not all of them shoot digital too, as do Fred. It's not religion. They are different media with different properties. Painting with acrylics doesn't mean that you can't make great oil paintings as well, or even do photography. Carl Lewis was the Olympic Champion of 100 meter and long jump.

One doesn't preclude the other. The challenge is that of mastering both, having fun with both. Different tools, different opportunities, different results... it's all good. With photography, one can have the cake and eat it too.

 

[Aryan Aqajani]

These are my favorite film shooters!

Vincent Peters shoot exclusively film (kodak Porta 160 most of the time) with his Mamiya RZ67 Pro II camera! Here is what he said in an interview;

"Can you tell us about your material, which camera and lenses you mostly use?

I never changed my camera since I was 17. I have a Mamiya RZ medium format. I always shoot film you know. I have some clients that say “you don’t shoot digital we don’t work with you” and I’m like okay no problem. But I don’t like digital. I think the whole process did a lot of damage to the industry and there isn’t a single photographer I spoke to who didn’t agree with that. So far I get away with it. I can hardly imagine Peter Lindberg’s career in digital. Or Mario Sorrenti, the king of the room. They would never have had that quality, that vulnerability. The technique defines the art so… If there’s a digital art it’s not my art. I think it does define the expression. Digital is not just a process of capturing images. Digital is a different concept. The shoot is different. Your relation with the model is different. Anyway, I hardly know how to read an email."

Jonathan Canlas shoot exclusively film with Contax 645, Mamiya RZ67 Pro II and Fuji GF670! He is the man behind, Film Is Not Dead campaign

Jan Scholz, amazing photographer in Belgium! Shoot exclusively film with Pentax 67 II, Deardof 8x10, Linhof Teknica IV, COntax 645!

And so many other still preferring that "look" over megapixels!

No one them (digital/film) has superiority over one another as each of them has compromise like any other tool! Just pick the tool that help you to bring your vision to the world!

 

[bumgardner]

In reguards to film. In college I shot a ton of film. I shot hundreds and hundreds of rolls of HP5 and Delta 100. I also shot a ton of medium format film though a Mamiya 645 1000s. After college I decided that I wanted to go bigger if/when I wanted to shoot film. I have two 4x5 cameras one of them is a Razzel which I love for more editoral looking PJ, and the other is a Toyo View with full movements. I am covered on the film front.

In that 5 years as a professional shooter I have shot maybe a half dozen jobs with film. I have worked with some of the big names in photography as an assistant and loaded up film backs for them. Overall though my experience with a lot of the big names is they shot a combo of Canon Digital and a medium format camera with a digital back I have been on very few big shoots where film was the primary medium.

Not that it matters....I am looking for a medium format digital system...

 

[wentbackward]

bumgardner, I hope this helps. Versatility is the hallmark of SF, MF is still not so versatile, but a lot has happened in 5 years in both formats. For example a Nex 7 in the studio is, even with a 18-200 zoom, a kick in the balls for Nikon/Canon. Whilst the ability to rattle off a few hundred shots in a studio and then walk out and shoot a bunch of usable available light images at ISO1600 can be done with MF. MF can definitely add something special to portraits and not just torso shots, but full length as well as popping super sharp details at a few metres distance against defocused backgrounds. The leaf shutter lenses on MF also add an extra dimension, as does the ability of the system to grow, for example sticking your digital back on a tech cam for interiors, super high quality product shots and more.

There's a devil in there, as Ben alluded too. The limited DoF might mean you have to change how you work, and that may just not be possible or not worth it. One thing is for sure, you'll not just switch formats in one easy click.

Rent, try on some relaxed jobs and show the MF files to your clients for feedback. Don't just try a few test shots and nothing else. MF is really special, but not everyone's cup of tea.

 

[bumgardner]

Thanks for all the help guys.

So here is what I have it narrowed down to.

AFDII and Aptus 75
or
H3DII39

I am testing a H3DII39 this weekend. I am also going to test out an AFDII but with a P20 back I can't get a hold of an Aptus 75 locally.


If money were no option I would get something newer with either an RZProIID body or the DF body and a few LS lenses.

If neither of these systems suit my needs I am going to re-evaluate. I really want a higher sync than the AFDII offers. However for 90% of my work 1/125 is plenty fast...

I talked to one of my friends who is a well respected commercial photographer that used to shoot MFD. He said that he had to do a reshoot once because of morie? Is it that bad?

 

[mediumcool]

I have never had a problem with moiré, but fashion and fabric are the problem areas, so you may wish to do some tests. Which software will you be using to process the results?

Moiré correction is available in Capture One and LR, and presumably on Hasselblad software as well.

Keep us posted, Nick!

 

[David Schneider]

One of my first uses of my H3D2-39 was a family session and I did have some moire' in a few images. Turns out it was rather simple to fix. More an annoyance than anything. Funny thing is, a year and a half later I don't remember it happening again. Go figure.

If you go with the H3d2-39, a nice addition is the BrightScreen split image view screen. When you autofocus and your subject isn't perfect when you half depress the shutter, you manually adjust the lens to line up the split image, then fully depress the shutter. It cuts down focusing errors greatly. Worth the $294, especially after they re-enforced the pins on the screen after I originally had a problem with it.

 

[dick]

bumgardner, I hope this helps. Versatility is the hallmark of SF, MF is still not so versatile, ...The leaf shutter lenses on MF also add an extra dimension, as does the ability of the system to grow, for example sticking your digital back on a tech cam for interiors, super high quality product shots and more.

MF is really special, but not everyone's cup of tea.

Very little has happened to LF/MF view cameras (not including the lenses or digital backs) in the last fifty years, but the Sinar is still the ultimate system for versatility... (Yes, many will disagree).

 

[FredBGG]

I would not consider the additional 68% area of a 33x44mm sensor “barely bigger” than 24x36mm!

Resolution a cod are functions dependant on linear difference,not are.

The % difference between 36 and 44 is 22%.

Mf manufacturers love to use area rather than linear differences

 

[FredBGG]

I find it interesting how many folk here and at LL espouse film as a viable MF alternative; I don’t think working photographers can afford to shoot film, unless it’s for their own amusement/pleasure/art. And the OP is a working photographer …

As has been pointed out, here and elsewhere, pro photography has become increasingly commoditised as cameras get more and more idiot-proof, so the cost of buying film, processing, scanning, and subsequent colour and tonal balancing cannot be worth it for most photographers struggling to survive in straitened times. There are of course exceptions to every rule!

Where I work, the capital of South Australia, I know of no pros who use film for commercial work—personal work, yes, a few.

I am a working photographer and I shoot film..... about 70% of my work money wise is shot on film.

It's not practical for everyone. I actually find it has huge advantages in its inpracticality (did I just invent a new word). I use going over contact sheets with the client a day or two after the shoot to network even more. Then there is e certain "je ne sais qua" about shooting film and little polaroid previews. I get calls from new clients and often one thing they say that interested them is that I shoot film. Almost no realtimne feedback durring the shoot means that the client has to trust me more. This has it's advantages.

But above all the look and feel is so different. IMHO one is far more empowered by a combination of high end Nikon or Canon and LARGE MF film than MF digital.

 

[FredBGG]

Lets spend a few words on the look of MF digital. Is it really that different?

If it were wouldn't MF manufacturers have side by side comparissons all over their websites???

 

[Shelby Lewis]

Lets spend a few words on the look of MF digital. Is it really that different?

I know from personal experience that the difference between the Aptus II 6 and the D800 are insignificant at best. I can't speak for other backs.

Above 40mp, I think the difference is there, but it's more of a smoothness that comes from greater resolution as well as the pros that come from processing programs designed specifically for the optics/sensors (ie. phocus).

A year ago I would have argued that the differences were greater than they are now... but times have begun to change.

 

[Mike203]

I think rather than resolution, the sensor size is the key difference, especially since the D800 was introduced. A D800 with an 85mm f/1.4 can nuke a background in a waist-up portrait, but MF digital allows for a sort of subtle subject isolation in something like an environmental portrait that I don't see as much in 35mm. I think that kind of look is much more realistic than a blur of colors and bokeh.

 

[SergeiR]

:watch:H

Lets spend a few words on the look of MF digital. Is it really that different?

If it were wouldn't MF manufacturers have side by side comparissons all over their websites???

Yes it is. Side by side shot from ancient 14 bit zd back and nikon d700 with 14 bit did show it. And not in depth of field or blurring. So even for same bit size it was there. For 16 its more.

 

[mediumcool]

Resolution a cod are functions dependant on linear difference,not are [sic].

I was speaking of area.

The % difference between 36 and 44 is 22%.

Your point? Nobody takes pictures in one dimension.

Mf manufacturers love to use area rather than linear differences

And why not? The number of pixels in a sensor is a function of area.

 

[Shashin]

There is a point of measuring resolving power as a linear factor as we perceive differences in resolution/detail that way. Using area is deceptive--the change in area does not really represent how we perceive the changes to the image. Even in logic, linear relationships are easier--if you double the area of your backyard your are only increasing the length of the boundaries by 40% and you don't really feel that doubling of the area. Also most folks are far more accurate in determining length by sight, but are really bad at estimating area.

So, using pixel resolution does confuse people and it allows manufacturers to overrepresent how we perceive the increase in spacial detail. Folks think making a jump from a 40MP sensor to a 60MP is a 50% increase in detail, but it is only perceived as a 22% increase (although file size increases by 50%). (I wonder when folks will get tired of file size outstripping resolving power?)

 

[Shashin]

I know from personal experience that the difference between the Aptus II 6 and the D800 are insignificant at best. I can't speak for other backs.

Above 40mp, I think the difference is there, but it's more of a smoothness that comes from greater resolution as well as the pros that come from processing programs designed specifically for the optics/sensors (ie. phocus).

A year ago I would have argued that the differences were greater than they are now... but times have begun to change.

So, are we going to see your camera and back up for sale?