The demise of medium format

[Pieter 12]

Milli Vanilli didn't need no stinking' AI to be fake. They were the real thing, fake wise.

On the other hand, the lack of technical prowess has not prevented many to execute their own original ideas by using AI and other modern technologies (and I count autofocus, auto exposure and IBIS among those).

 

[lookbook]

One is Light
Two is Composition
Three is evering else ..

This statement, which I read here from @MGrayson, is the best thing I have ever read about good photography...
When it comes to good photography, medium format is just as important as any other format size, camera brand or anything else –
you need something, but it is not decisive for a good photo!

 

[drevil]

The conversation has headed off into a useful direction!

thats what i was hoping for

i am german, we solve problems(real or not) by talking about it

as i said, many people will feel that i am stepping on their feet, but i see a problem and i think we can do better.
as i said as well, the problems in this forum are small compared to what is happening in the mainstream social media.

 

[drevil]

Interesting perspective, @drevil. I’m not sure how this advances the art and craft of medium format photography—or photography in general. Can you explain how you see this helping the community produce better work?

I see a problem in our hobby, and I have seen many other community forums became irrelevant, for one reason or another.
For example a Kawasaki Ninja forum that I was active in, over the course of less than a year, the usage sank into meaninglessness, which is such a shame. Since the beginning of this year there was less than 25 posts made. In 2010 a member of the forum still organized a meeting in Hockenheim, were like 50+ people participated. And after that we had one or two meetings and it was over.

To answer your question, by talking about issues and stop denying that there are issues.

I think we have to motivate people to become better in every sense, i want to become better!

The founders were really big into workshops, that doesnt exist anymore.
I am not able to organize a workshop, but maybe someone else can?

 

[miriquidi]

What bugs me especially is that a lot of people use their MF setup as point and shoots.

Two thoughts: I read this forum quite a while. Two years ago the images in the "Fun with MF images" threads were more exciting to me like right now.
The second: Just like Henri Cartier-Bresson.

Small MF reduced one of the interesting points about MF, slowing down.

Might someone pay for a firmware update to reduce the image buffer to 1 image and slows down your card writing speed.
If you want to slow down your process, that has to come from within.

I think getting back to the roots what Medium Format is about(the best quality and result possible) is necessary.

That's absolutely contrary to "slow down".

Or you can just enjoy making photographs and not worry about it.

+1.
Besides that: What is a good photograph also depends on the time you ask that question.

 

[Thyl]

Back in film days, a significant portion of medium format cameras were sold to amateurs. This changed abruptly with the advent of digital photography. All at once, medium format could mostly be afforded by professional photographers (and even that was problematic), resulting in the demise of almost the entire medium format scene. Contax 645, Rollei, Kiev, Bronica, most of Mamiya systems, Hasselblad V, all gone. By using these small medium format (?), at least some manufacturers became able to offer cheaper cameras, ensuring their survival, because once again, amateurs are now able to buy those cameras. Getting lower quality images is a small price to pay for the survival of medium format. And as we can see with Pentax and Leica, even this remains critical.

 

[Godfrey]

(this post aims partly at this forum but mostly at the MF world in general)

For quite some time now, I have been observing what work has been displayed on this forum and the Medium Format Digital group on Flickr, which I am moderating.

I do have the feeling that the introduction of small medium format solutions, such as Fuji and Hasselblad offerings with 44x33 sensors, made quite a bad impact on our hobby and profession.

What bugs me especially is that a lot of people use their MF setup as point and shoots.
MF, imho, should be used on a tripod for best possible results, otherwise why not just use your cellphone’s camera?

I think the options from Fuji and Hasselblad did provide the MF world a bear duty, Bärendienst as wie say in Germany, a well-meant intention but ultimately hurting the cause.

Is it awesome that we can buy cameras with larger than 35mm sensors with 50-100MP for less than 10k? Sure but it lured also a lot of (excuse my language) wannabes into the MF world.

You wouldn’t believe how many pictures a month I must remove from the Flickr group every month, that dont meet my standards. Pictures with bad focus, motion blur, badly used HDR, bad exposure overall, too strong JPG compression. Am I hard in my judgement? Sure, but when it comes to MF, I think nothing but the best work should be published.

Can we say “hey many of those people are beginners!” Yes but MF shouldn’t be for beginner’s.

Just as you can see on Flickr(where many groups have been orphaned and abandoned by their owners and those groups are filled with garbage, that doesn’t even belong to the theme of the group) here at getdpi, the leaving of the original founders of this great forum have hurt the forum. I feel like the bearing has been lost. This forum was founded by people who wanted to interact with each other to achieve the best pictures possible, and they focused on MF as it is the best option in the digital world.

These days, it seems more important to talk about Phase One’s financial reports.

Am I stepping on a lot of people’s feet with this opinion? Most likely!
But I think this also needs to be talked about to prevent our beloved hobby to descent into mediocracy or worse.

Small MF reduced one of the interesting points about MF, slowing down.

I think getting back to the roots what Medium Format is about(the best quality and result possible) is necessary. Can MF be used for street photography? Sure!

But should it be used for that?

I am looking forward to your reactions.

My reaction is simple: bollocks.

• I don't care what format you're using. I care when I see craft and art being applied to making photographs.

• Medium format is not some 'exclusive club accessible only to those who qualify'. It's simply a type of camera.

• Medium format is not 'only for sophisticated photographers' ... nonsense. My first camera was a Rolleiflex TLR. It just happened to be what my grandfather gave me at age 13 when I started high school and signed up for the camera club. It's what he thought I'd like. He was right.

I bought a Hasselblad 907x/CFVII 50c because I already had a Hasselblad V system kit and felt the digital back would make it more useful to me once again at this time, in the digital era. I was right: it does. What I do with it is completely up to me, not up to some group administrator's notion of what I would, should, or ought to be doing with it. That group administrator's role, in this instance, is to be the editor of something other than my work, to wit: some online forum. Period.

A dear old friend of mine once wrote a book: "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" His name was Richard P. Feynman, one of the most amazing minds of the 20th century. Perhaps you should consider reading what he has to say. It's relevant.

G

Socks - Santa Clara 2021
Hasselblad 907x + XCD 90mm
ISO 400 @ f/5.6 @ 1/125​

 

[Geoff]

Yes, it's a format, and the cameras are just tools. And in one sense, they shouldn't matter. But... they do, somehow. I choose this pencil to draw with, not that one.

There is another issue here: the relationship of the new "ease and perfection" of newer cameras to the taking of photographs. Not to generalize, but I'm struggling with just how good these new cameras are. The X2D can go most anywhere and get good results. Remarkable, really good results, readily. Not sure how to put this, but some aspect of that is causing a wee bit of difficulty. Sometimes, is it too good? DoI feel more comfortable with older gear, where the controls are, what they do, and what the impact of certain decisions? Or gee, just grab the X2D and it will come out so well... In some way, with less sophisticated gear, you had to plan your approach, the situation, your gear, and apply your imagination. The X2D is like a modern car, and can do so much, that I kinda don't know where the limits are. And that has changed something. Not sure what that is. Someone said that getting the good shot isn't enough - anyone can do that. Now you have to think harder about the story you are telling.

Written down, perhaps these thoughts make little sense, but there is some connection to "use this tool for that". There were boundaries, imagined or not, which now seem lifted with the new gear of today. Don't know if that is related to the feelings of demise in the craft - it might be.

One could have this discussion about all sorts of technologies and the changes that happen from early crude and difficult versions to later fully refined ones. The discussion could fall into "it's the end of the art" as the gear got better/simpler/easier to use. I'm not suggesting we go back to glass plates, but using a view camera does have a different experience. Not trying to be a luddite , but is anyone else finding the expanded capabilities of the new current gear (which is just superb) having an impact on their shooting - either positive or negative? Or do we just grow into it? Any thoughts welcome.

 

[rdeloe]

Yes, it's a format, and the cameras are just tools. And in one sense, they shouldn't matter. But... they do, somehow. I choose this pencil to draw with, not that one.

There is another issue here: the relationship of the new "ease and perfection" of newer cameras to the taking of photographs. Not to generalize, but I'm struggling with just how good these new cameras are. The X2D can go most anywhere and get good results. Remarkable, really good results, readily. Not sure how to put this, but some aspect of that is causing a wee bit of difficulty. Sometimes, is it too good? DoI feel more comfortable with older gear, where the controls are, what they do, and what the impact of certain decisions? Or gee, just grab the X2D and it will come out so well... In some way, with less sophisticated gear, you had to plan your approach, the situation, your gear, and apply your imagination. The X2D is like a modern car, and can do so much, that I kinda don't know where the limits are. And that has changed something. Not sure what that is. Someone said that getting the good shot isn't enough - anyone can do that. Now you have to think harder about the story you are telling.

Written down, perhaps these thoughts make little sense, but there is some connection to "use this tool for that". There were boundaries, imagined or not, which now seem lifted with the new gear of today. Don't know if that is related to the feelings of demise in the craft - it might be.

One could have this discussion about all sorts of technologies and the changes that happen from early crude and difficult versions to later fully refined ones. The discussion could fall into "it's the end of the art" as the gear got better/simpler/easier to use. I'm not suggesting we go back to glass plates, but using a view camera does have a different experience. Not trying to be a luddite , but is anyone else finding the expanded capabilities of the new current gear (which is just superb) having an impact on their shooting - either positive or negative? Or do we just grow into it? Any thoughts welcome.

You raise a question that's always interested me Geoff.

I have noticed that in deciding (collectively and individually) what we think about a photograph, some people assign what I call "points for difficulty". The rationale is that we should determine the value of a photograph partly based on how difficult the process was, how hard it was to get to the location, etc.

I'm not picking on Thomas Joshua Cooper but some text in Ben Tufnell's essay for True is the epitome of this perspective to me. Tufnell explains that Cooper sails to Prime Head in Antarctica. It takes over 50 days at sea. The last part is through waters that are considered “uncharted dangers”, where your Lloyd’s insurance isn’t valid. He risks life and limb (literally) to set up his creaky old 5x7 camera. Shoots a frame, and then leaves. According to Tufnell, these are “extraordinary images”. His judgment, in my view, is definitely based in good measure on a lot of "points for difficulty".

I don't assign points for difficulty in art making. The photograph works, or it doesn't. It's sublime, or it's not. The implication for the evolving conversation in this thread is that in the same way that I don't assign extra points for how hard it was to get to the site, I don't assign extra points for how expensive, complicated or challenging to use the equipment was.

This is completely separate from whether a person does better work using one kind of equipment or another, or prefers one kind of equipment over another. For instance, I can tell from your post that some of the joy you receive from making photographs comes from the extra complications that flow from using equipment that is harder to use, or less likely to give excellent results.

I get that. I derive enormous pleasure from using equipment I built myself. But what I'm arguing is that nobody should pay attention to that in judging my work: it's either good, or it's not.

 

[Doppler9000]

I get that. I derive enormous pleasure from using equipment I built myself. But what I'm arguing is that nobody should pay attention to that in judging my work: it's either good, or it's not.

I agree.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

 

[Godfrey]

The process is important to me, the photographer.
The photograph is what should be important to the viewer, not the process.

G

 

[miriquidi]

But what I'm arguing is that nobody should pay attention to that in judging my work: it's either good, or it's not.

When judging of art in a one dimensional scale between good and bad, one has to think, that that scale is not fixed forever. We might judge different in 20 years.

 

[rdeloe]

When judging of art in a one dimensional scale between good and bad, one has to think, that that scale is not fixed forever. We might judge different in 20 years.

Of course. How we respond to art is complicated.

But what I'm saying is your response to my work, today, or in 20 years, should be based simply on how it affects you -- not on how hard it was for me to make the image, how much money I spent on the equipment, how large the sensor is, etc.

Hiking into this location was challenging. It took a couple hours, crawling through bush, and wading through swamps. I nearly broke my ankle when my foot got stuck in a crevice, and I nearly lost an eye from a branch. I was balancing over the edge of this vernal pool, one tripod leg sinking slowly into the muck. Locating the plane of focus where I needed it using tilt was tricky because the camera was sinking as I was adjusting. And I nearly fell into the swamp. In the middle of all this, I received a phone call from home about an emergency, and had to rush to finish so I could get back to help.

Is the picture better because you know these things? I hope not. It either engages you as a photograph, or it doesn't.

 

[jduncan]

(this post aims partly at this forum but mostly at the MF world in general)

For quite some time now, I have been observing what work has been displayed on this forum and the Medium Format Digital group on Flickr, which I am moderating.

I do have the feeling that the introduction of small medium format solutions, such as Fuji and Hasselblad offerings with 44x33 sensors, made quite a bad impact on our hobby and profession.

What bugs me especially is that a lot of people use their MF setup as point and shoots.
MF, imho, should be used on a tripod for best possible results, otherwise why not just use your cellphone’s camera?

I think the options from Fuji and Hasselblad did provide the MF world a bear duty, Bärendienst as wie say in Germany, a well-meant intention but ultimately hurting the cause.

Is it awesome that we can buy cameras with larger than 35mm sensors with 50-100MP for less than 10k? Sure but it lured also a lot of (excuse my language) wannabes into the MF world.

You wouldn’t believe how many pictures a month I must remove from the Flickr group every month, that dont meet my standards. Pictures with bad focus, motion blur, badly used HDR, bad exposure overall, too strong JPG compression. Am I hard in my judgement? Sure, but when it comes to MF, I think nothing but the best work should be published.

Can we say “hey many of those people are beginners!” Yes but MF shouldn’t be for beginner’s.

Just as you can see on Flickr(where many groups have been orphaned and abandoned by their owners and those groups are filled with garbage, that doesn’t even belong to the theme of the group) here at getdpi, the leaving of the original founders of this great forum have hurt the forum. I feel like the bearing has been lost. This forum was founded by people who wanted to interact with each other to achieve the best pictures possible, and they focused on MF as it is the best option in the digital world.

These days, it seems more important to talk about Phase One’s financial reports.

Am I stepping on a lot of people’s feet with this opinion? Most likely!
But I think this also needs to be talked about to prevent our beloved hobby to descent into mediocracy or worse.

Small MF reduced one of the interesting points about MF, slowing down.

I think getting back to the roots what Medium Format is about(the best quality and result possible) is necessary. Can MF be used for street photography? Sure!

But should it be used for that?

I am looking forward to your reactions.

Hi,
I have some solutions for you.

1. Instead protesting because you can't no longer use "special" hardware that only the "great" use, focus on the quality of your work, it has not go down because some dude buy a used Phase One. There is a bunch of people that don't know how aperture works and are shooting 35mm, but there is a bunch of high en photographers doing it so, at the top of sports, fashion (I just saw an international campaign for a very reputable brand shoot with Canons and Profoto, not Phase One, as if the photographer knew light is more important than camera, go figure) and wild life.

2. If you can't handle that other people can buy similar cameras to the one you shoot, move to film, in particular Large Format. I is not like MF even with 200 megapixels is going to surpass the raw resolution of low ISO large format film with good light.

3. If you want the ultimate flex and image quality shoot, large daguerreotypes. Almost nobody else is doing it. With good light quality wise it's unmatched.

I have to accept that in this forum we used to have some pretty high end photographers, but then the marker changed a lot, and people have to really focus on reinventing themselves and
have no time to be here, It was nice, in one occasion I interacted with someone that was shooting Bar Rafaeli during her heyday. Same for the Luminus Landscape.

I believe that the forums became contentions when Phase One decided to launch a campaign against Hasselblad, not to increase their sales (a perfectly good motivation) but to block
sales of Hasselblad cameras, hurting MF (it started with the hts-1.5-tilt-and-shift-adapter and then went worse),but that is water under the bridge.

Even so we still have some very good photographers in this forum, I still learn, not as much as before, but I do.
I will say, by the way, that what is hurting photography is not "some people can buy a camera like mine" it's AI.
Maybe in the future will open niches as people that want something real could lean to small cameras and photographers shooting film or digital.

Modern cameras are electronic wonders, the costs of designing, testing and designing chips is brutal, we need a large base of buyers.
Niche cameras, with funny sounding lens names that are not even that dog , no longer cut it. It's time to move forward, even if it's painful to some.

Best regards,

 

[jduncan]

Of course. How we respond to art is complicated.

But what I'm saying is your response to my work, today, or in 20 years, should be based simply on how it affects you -- not on how hard it was for me to make the image, how much money I spent on the equipment, how large the sensor is, etc.

Hiking into this location was challenging. It took a couple hours, crawling through bush, and wading through swamps. I nearly broke my ankle when my foot got stuck in a crevice, and I nearly lost an eye from a branch. I was balancing over the edge of this vernal pool, one tripod leg sinking slowly into the muck. Locating the plane of focus where I needed it using tilt was tricky because the camera was sinking as I was adjusting. And I nearly fell into the swamp. In the middle of all this, I received a phone call from home about an emergency, and had to rush to finish so I could get back to help.

Is the picture better because you know these things? I hope not. It either engages you as a photograph, or it doesn't.

View attachment 226662

Hi,
I agree in general, but it's more valuable than a smilar image generated with AI. There is historic value on it,
It's a moment that will never be duplicated, at the correct hour of the day.
Very good work and valuable image. I love the artistic part of it, but there is a valuable historic part.
and an economic part, this Is rare.
Best regards,

 

[Pieter 12]

The most important factor in making a photograph is not the format, lens, or degree of difficulty. It is the photographer's eye. No amount of "professional," exclusive or esoteric gear can make up for a lack of vision or imagination.

 

[BigBoy]

I’ll do my part to post more and do better. I have x1d but recently guy Panasonic s1r2 I’m having fun with it. I want the new medium format sensors when the 180mp comes out. Either s4 or x3d.

 

[miriquidi]

The most important factor in making a photograph is not the format, lens, or degree of difficulty. It is the photographer's eye. No amount of "professional," exclusive or esoteric gear can make up for a lack of vision or imagination.

With some fantasy: It's a matter of years, till we can buy AI-mashines for the hot-shoe. With a lens of wide field of view to the front. That thing will call the photographers smart watch, when the AI recognises a scene worth keeping and give proper instructions. The model will be trained on recent Instagram (or so) trends.

Makes me think of Eric Betzig: If something hypes, the signal to noise ratio in that field decreases significant.

 

[Knorp]

Let me see if I can follow the reasoning: since I very rarely use a tripod, therefore my photos can only be mediocre at best ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Maybe it's about time I ask for a donation refund ...

 

[Pieter 12]

With some fantasy: It's a matter of years, till we can buy AI-mashines for the hot-shoe. With a lens of wide field of view to the front. That thing will call the photographers smart watch, when the AI recognises a scene worth keeping and give proper instructions. The model will be trained on recent Instagram (or so) trends.

Makes me think of Eric Betzig: If something hypes, the signal to noise ratio in that field decreases significant.

AI cannot replace or approach the human imagination. AI is incapable of coming up with original material.