# Why not start with Med. format?



## Soocom1 (May 2, 2019)

Ok.. Ill put my neck on the block here. 
But just tell me something. 

Why is it that someone who wishes to learn photography or step up to a "better" camera shouldn't start with a medium or Large Format. 
Granted the film cost, but all in all, a MF or LF set up to start in many instances is far cheaper for equipment, and forces a person to learn the process and be more specific on their shots.


----------



## smoke665 (May 2, 2019)

Specifically for film medium format or large format vs digital Not necessarily in order but:

Initial outlay for the camera might be less, but film is expensive not only the film but the processing, unless you process yourself, and still it can be pricey.
Lack of local processing and/or film. You're pretty much limited to mail order only.

Lag time between snapping the shutter and seeing the result. For someone just starting out, it's easy to forget what you did between the shot and seeing the results.
Fear of experimenting (see first comment). You hesitate to try new things, for because of the cost involved.

Processing software and the skill required is the same for digital or film.
Availability of accessories and glass.
Availability of both Auto and manual mode. Someone new starting out may not feel comfortable jumping right into manual. Having the availability to shoot in Auto allows them to at least get a passable shot, building confidence and allowing them to work on other elements of the composition. 

Above all else, photography should be fun for someone starting out, and a learning process as they progress. They may or may not ever want to branch out into film, but regardless, digital will not hamper their progress in any way. Nor will it bog them down, in learning so much upfront that they get discouraged and quit.
Just a few that come to mind, I could probably think of some more with a little time. I first started in film, in the 60's and despite the nostalgic whim every now and then, I just haven't found a valid reason to switch back. I've got a roll of Delta 100 in a 35mm Pentax, that I've yet to finish up (been in there 6 months), and another half dozen in the refrigerator.


----------



## Jeff15 (May 2, 2019)

I agree with smoke..........


----------



## 480sparky (May 2, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> ........
> 
> Lack of local processing ......


Soup it yourself.


----------



## tirediron (May 2, 2019)

MF/LF tends to be a lot more technically complicated...  compare the operation of something like an RZ67 to a modern-era film or digital SLR. Dark slides, removable backs, shutters that have to be cocked...  the cameras are large and almost all have NO ergonomics whatsoever...  in my view, it would be like learning to drive on a twin-stick Mack as opposed to a Chevy Cavalier...


----------



## waday (May 2, 2019)

Smoke's response pretty much sums it up for me. I also agree with tirediron's intimidation/complication response. It's much easier to pick up a small camera and shoot handheld (where I can simply delete bad photos), especially with the person being new to the hobby and not sure if they want to continue it.


----------



## Soocom1 (May 2, 2019)

Forgive me if I disagree here. 
I grew up around small format, and didnt even know what MF or LF was until I hit about 20. 

I didn't have the money at the time and was unaware that the old Busch Pressman my father had was essentially a MF. 
But once I started exploring, I took to it like a duck to water and found it actually easier than small format. 
As for the mechanics of film v. digital, I understand what is being said, but IMO that is more a technical aspect of the market of film and has little if any bearing on the use of MF. 
Now with that said I do grasp that digital especially the consumer end is easier to use, but its like the argument of learning math on an abacus before using iPhone AI. 


But from a photographic standpoint, the only thing your doing is working with a larger area. The mechanics are the same. 

The LF only gets diff. when your talking about adjustments and movements. 
That requires a diff. approach. 

But I still beleive that (except for the inconvenience of the film side), MF and LF could easily be learned by any starting amature.


----------



## smoke665 (May 2, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> But I still beleive that (except for the inconvenience of the film side), MF and LF could easily be learned by any starting amature.



Most could learn, though I'd dispute the "easily" part. I grew up during a time when everyone had a simple film camera, basically the original point and shoot. Film was available in about every store you went into, and film processing was the local drugstore, camera store or mail in (where they sent you a free roll of film). Tri X 35 mm, 36 exposure roll was just over a dollar, and processing was only a couple bucks. Still people didn't take that many photographs - special events, family, etc. 

Compare that to today, and the cell phone camera........ The average cell phone users snap anything and everything. They don't want to wait for days to get a scan back to post on FB or other social media. I think your missing the point as to what actually comprises the average amateur.


----------



## Soocom1 (May 2, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> Soocom1 said:
> 
> 
> > But I still beleive that (except for the inconvenience of the film side), MF and LF could easily be learned by any starting amature.
> ...



Again, forgive me on this, but IMO the 'average" P&S user yes uses their cell phone or similar P&S, but they actually have not been formally trained in most instances in anything artistic, or basic foundational education. 
I get that. 
but I am not talking that. 
I am saying that starting photographers can just as easily learn MF or LF just as easily and IMO probably easier than a modern bells and whistle DSLR because of all the technical wizardry. 

But you and I are from an era where education was highly prized. 
today its regurgitated corporate least common denominator education all int he name of keeping the people stupid so they can be controlled. 
forget art and photography.


----------



## Derrel (May 2, 2019)

Yeah, medium format rollfilm and 4x5 sheet film cameras are not terribly complex machines. But film is a technology and a methodology firmly rooted in the past. For the beginning shooter, modern digital offers a fairly easy way to l shoot lots of shots in a day or week,at very little cost. And with instant or nearly so feedback not shoot wait to finish the film, then develop to see the results.  Speaking of seeing the results, digital images are instantly ready for viewing on the computer monitor, with no need for printing out or projecting.

Years ago I had a Fuji S2Pro, and a long time ago (in 2005 or 2006 I expect it was),I calculated that for its $2,400 price tag I was able to shoot the equivalent of $69,000 worth of Ektachrome 100 to 400, in about two years' time. I shot a lot of photos with that Fuji, like I said, at $6.99 per roll for film and $4.99 for a  36 shot roll of slide film development.  Compared with shooting film, my costs were vastly lower per image with the Fuji. If I took a bad shot with digital I was able to spot it right away, and to reshoot.

I came to digital with over 20 years of film experience. I knew a lot about photography, and about lighting, and about lens work. While I understand film completely, and can operate 35mm single lens reflex and rangefinder cameras, and medium format single lens and twin-lens reflex cameras, as well as 4 x 5" monorail and press cameras, and I have owned all of those types of cameras, I personally do not think that there is a better camera than a modern digital SLR, in term of speed and ease of operation, and for  ease of "getting the shot".

Film had a good 100 year run, before it was largely supplanted by digital imaging. The wired telephone had a similar run of success, but it has largely been supplanted by the cellular/mobile phone. There's nothing "wrong" with  older technology , but newer technology does bring with it some benefits that are lacking in the older technology. While I used to have a typewriter, I sure do not miss ribbons and white out, and the need to do every single thing with extreme care. I really prefer modern word processing  software, a computer, and inkjet printing. But, I speak from experience of a person who learned on one technology, and who then transferred to a newer technology, in a lot of areas


----------



## tirediron (May 2, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> ...But I still beleive that (except for the inconvenience of the film side), MF and LF could easily be learned by any starting amature.


True, and so could thoracic surgery, but in my mind, it makes more sense to start with simpler equipment. 

You rather make our case:  You say that you didn't get in to MF/LF until you had some experience, so by that time, you were likely comfortable with the basics, and understood the general principles.  Had someone just dropped a 500C/M in your hands as your very first exposure to photography, I can't help thinking it might have been a little intimidating.


----------



## smoke665 (May 2, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> I am saying that starting photographers can just as easily learn MF or LF just as easily and IMO probably easier than a modern bells and whistle DSLR because of all the technical wizardry.



Okay, lets narrow the user field to "only those new photographers". Now lets put an image on the screen taken with a medium format camera, and the exact same shot from APS-C camera. Both exposed properly, both processed the same. Then tell them that with the film, they can get a starting kit for roughly $500, but they'll have to wait days between the shot and seeing the image, and pay out roughly $.50/shot to develop the negative and digital scan. Now tell them that they can get a starting DSLR kit for the same or less, have instant access to their shots, at no further cost. 

Now ask them which one they want to start with????? I think you know the answer. Like Tirediron said above the old twin stick Mack can do things the Cavalier could only dream about, but unless you have the background  knowledge, you wouldn't know?


----------



## Original katomi (May 2, 2019)

I have to agree with Smoke, I come from that era of  film and the Kodak intamatac  do you peeps rem the disc camera and the think it was called 110. I later used 35mm Pentax k1000 and med format
Point is  whilst I to look longingly at film like my comments in another post I sat and weighed the pro,s &cons
I don’t have the space to have a dark room like smoke has said the shops that were about to process film or buy the chem,s/kit are long gone. Last time I looked I had 9 rolls of 35mm fp4 waiting to be developed! No one around this area does it anymore
I like to push the boundaries of what I do and for me at least digital is the way to go. I have even got to the stage of having hands on used med format and realised that given my lifestyle the even though I was being offered a very good deal me was not for me.
I am looking at ff canon 5d mk3 or the 6d both have advantages over my 600d and given that I future proofed my kid as in most most of my lenses are EF I am not going to loose much. The difference that ff will make to me at least is not huge, hence I am still waiting for a good used cam to be on sale. Ok one day I will upgrade but at the current time the advantage is not worth the cost


----------



## Soocom1 (May 2, 2019)

tirediron said:


> Soocom1 said:
> 
> 
> > ...But I still beleive that (except for the inconvenience of the film side), MF and LF could easily be learned by any starting amature.
> ...


Actually, the SLR's were tossing me around. 

When I was growing up I actually had little formal training and was winging it with instamatics and the occasional "allowed" use of the X370. 

When I had my first SLR, I did mostly the P&S and full program thing. 

When I walked into a camera store one day and saw this monstrosity called an RB 67, my interest piqued. 

So I started to read and found the MF much easier to use because I wasn't playing with the Auto this and AF point that thing. 
I get the instant feedback, and IMO that can easily be fixed provided one applys some thinking. 
But I am not advocating an ether or. I am simply stating that MF and LF are systems that are just as easily learned if not even more so than a DSLR. 
My 1Ds was one of the first pro-end DSLRs on the market and there is still way too much for me to use.


IMO if they were to bring down the cost of a digital MF sensor and provided that to the consumer market, all bets would be off, and again IMO, they could, they simply dont.


----------



## Soocom1 (May 2, 2019)

And moreover, there is an opinion that this is a film v digital argument. 
its not. 
Its simply a point made that MF and LF are the same thing, just immersed mainly in film.


----------



## jcdeboever (May 2, 2019)

I wish I would have started prior to digital. I only shoot film today because I like the process and the look of it. I also like that it helps me slow down which can translate to digital if I am disciplined. The one thing about digital is that it is so easy to pop off images, this can be a good thing and a bad thing. I own a medium format film and digital camera. I can say this, medium format is way slower, and the depth of field is thinner. In other words, there is a learning curve with each format, and it gets slower as the negative or sensor size increases. For a beginner today? Digital makes more sense but it doesn't hurt to experiment in both, if you can afford it. I have learned a great deal from film. I would say use digital and for film, maybe buy a Intrepid 4 x 5 or 8 x 10.


----------



## Derrel (May 2, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> SNIP>the old Busch Pressman my father had>SNIP
> .



busch Pressman - Yahoo Search Results Image Search Results


----------



## Derrel (May 2, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> SNIP> the old Busch Pressman my father had >SNIPbusch Pressman - Yahoo Search Results Image Search Results


----------



## Soocom1 (May 2, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Soocom1 said:
> 
> 
> > SNIP>the old Busch Pressman my father had>SNIP
> ...


Thats the one. 

He used it several times and I forgot about it for years. Then when I started perusing photography a bit more seriously, it came out. 
The impact of that camera didnt hit me until 2000 or so.


----------



## webestang64 (May 2, 2019)

Before digital MF/LF was the medium you worked up to after you learned the basic's with 35mm.


----------



## smoke665 (May 2, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> And moreover, there is an opinion that this is a film v digital argument.
> its not.
> Its simply a point made that MF and LF are the same thing, just immersed mainly in film.



Whether intentional or not it boils down to that because of $$$$$. How many people just starting a new hobby do you know that could or would invest in a digital medium format kit? For that matter how many pros would shell out the money for an 8x10 digital The World's First 8x10 Large Format Digital Camera is Yours for $106,000 ?


----------



## Derrel (May 2, 2019)

Press style cameras are kind of cool! I currently own a 1938 "baby" Speed Graphic.. roll film via a 1950's-era Linhof Rolfilm back, or sheet film, in film holders,coupled rangefinder possible, focal plane OR leaf shutter. The "Speed" part in *Speed Graphi*c comes from the REAR shutter...the 24-speed, cloth focal plane shutter, which is MASSIVE!!! It goes up to 1/1000 second in 24 closely-spaced speeds, whereas the FRONT shutter, inside the lens, is a delicate, quiet, vibration-free interlens shutter that tops out at 1/400 second. the FRONT shutter MUST BE OPEN when using the rear, focal plane shutter...or...there is no picture made.


----------



## Soocom1 (May 2, 2019)

Imagine someone converting a Speed Graphic or Pressman to digital....


----------



## Ysarex (May 2, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> Imagine someone converting a Speed Graphic or Pressman to digital....





 

Joe


----------



## smoke665 (May 2, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> Imagine someone converting a Speed Graphic or Pressman to digital....



That could be either a good idea or a bad one. You'd still have the mechanical issues of the old camera. More important is the glass. Granted some of the older lenses produce some unique and beautiful images, but just because it's old doesn't mean it was good or still is. They had their junk also.  And what of the digital back, sometimes making something bigger (like a sensor) doesn't work as well.


----------



## Derrel (May 2, 2019)

I think it could be done..such as by using a rollfilm adapter, 4x5 or 2.25 x 3.25", to one of the Hasselblad or Mamiya Backs. Capture One Integration in Atlanta could answer this question, I am sure.

"old"...it is quite easy to buy NEW lenses for these older cameras, and to buy new shutters, or to re-condition old shutters.


----------



## Overread (May 2, 2019)

I started with an interest in wildlife/zoo/nature/macro and honestly a medium format film camera to start out? Yeah it likely would not have worked for me if I was self-learning. With a mentor and strict program yeah maybe, but chances are it wouldn't have given me half the results I'd have wanted.



Also honestly when cameras were all film I had no interest what so ever -I only tried it out because they had specifically gone digital. It's a bit of a generational thing but I'm happier with electronics over chemical.



Sure if you're into posed portraits or landscapes a medium format film might be great to start with, but I can't see what makes it "better" than just getting any old decent digital camera to get started with. I don't see the advantage nor a reason to use a medium format specifically, whilst I can see many to using a regular digital camera (mirrorless, bridge, DSLR, whatever)

It just seems that some who learn photography seem to get hooked on how new people must "learn to be selective and learn the whole process" as if new people aren't learning it. Or as if there's some big fear that we'll raise a generation of photographers (not just happy snappers) who can't do photoraphy " correctly" whilst forgetting that during the film era auto-shots were all the rage. Heck even before auto many just used the "sunny 16" rule for their DSLR camera and were happy snapping away with that.


----------



## vintagesnaps (May 2, 2019)

Do it. Easy for me to say! 

More seriously, you seem to have some inclination for it so trust your instincts. I started out with an SLR and always wanted to learn how to use a rangefinder (and eventually did and still do). There was a learning curve...

I've learned how to use vintage box cameras and vest pockets, pinhole cameras, and of the plastic cameras found the Spinner to be the most challenging! and the Pop 9 is a favorite. I learned how to do lumen prints & cyanotypes; how to use vintage Peerless (powder) dye to hand tint a print done in the darkroom. I had the interest and figured it out and messed up and practiced and did it.

You don't need to preview if you learn to see what you're looking at in the viewfinder and think about how it will look as a photograph. If you shoot film learn how to frame shots well to get what you want in your pictures (and keep what isn't part of the composition out of the frame). If you don't want to waste film learn how to get proper exposures. Plenty of us learned photography shooting film and I don't see why you can't learn composition and exposure with medium/large format, I'd just try to figure out a way to do it and keep the cost reasonable. 

Look at Large Format Photography Forum and their LF Home Page for resources (top of the page); I've gotten darkroom info. there. Look up Mat Marash, associated with http://www.filmphotographyproject.com; I don't know his film photography experience before he got into large format but he's young enough it can't have been _that_ much!


----------



## ac12 (May 2, 2019)

First let's eliminate LF.  
LF is a PiA to deal with, especially for a beginner.  
Just the film, you have to learn how to load the film holder, then unload the film holder, then package the film for shipping to a processor.  All this in a darkroom or changing bag.​
If you send out film for processing, then 35mm or MF.
However, for a given cost of film and processing, 35mm gets you more shots than MF.  
This can be/is a significant advantage to a newbie.  I can afford to "try" something new, and "waste" a shot if it does not work.​
If you DiY B&W film processing.  

It is cheaper to process 35mm than MF.   Two rolls of 35mm 36 exposure film (total 72 frames) uses the same amount of chemicals as ONE roll of MF film with only 12 frames (120 film, 6x6 frames).

While a 6x6 enlarger is not too hard to find, finding a MF enlarger larger than 6x6 is significantly more difficult.

If you have to make it a temporary darkroom, where you have to break down and store the enlarger every time, it is a lot easier to setup a temporary 35mm darkroom than a temporary MF darkroom.  This is basically due to the larger size/bulk of the MF enlarger.
If you use contact sheets, a MF contact sheet is easier to use than a 35mm contact, simply because the frame (and image) size is larger.

BUT, IMHO as other have said, for a newbie, *it comes down to the feedback cycle.
Digital gives essentially instant feedback.*  Did you get the shot or not?  Just look at the screen on the back of the camera.
Shoot a roll of, and you should plan of it taking up to TWO WEEKS before you get it back from the lab; mail out, process, mail back.  How do you learn when the feedback of your performance takes two weeks to happen?  Most people can't remember what they did two weeks ago.  What did you do that one shot is better than another?
When one is learning, the FAST feedback is tremendously important, especially for correcting mistakes.
FAST feedback is also important in holding attention.
Gee the shot of that flower is good, let me try shooting another flower . . .​
BTW, Polaroid backs for most MF and LF cameras is a thing of the past.  So no instant feedback.
The Impossible Project is not there, from what I've seen.


----------



## Derrel (May 2, 2019)

1975,1985,1995: (film)"I hope my pictures turn out good."
2005, 2015, 2019: (digital) " Ohhhhh, look at how well this turned out!"

As was mentioned above, digital picture-making offers pretty much INSTANT feedback regarding all aspects of the shots. Focus, shutter blurring, DOF, all of that..it is possible to get so many aspects RIGHT, based on reviewing the LCD.

For example, when striving for a SPECIFIC degree of blurring when panning...with film, it depends on the user's experience...with digital, it is easy to home in on the exact speed that produces just the right blurring. The difference between 1/15 and 1/8 and 1/6 and 1/3 second can make a HUGE difference between success and failure.


----------



## Dave442 (May 3, 2019)

I remember my sister telling me how surprised her students were when they saw the 4x5 sheet film listed in the supplies to bring to one of her photography courses. I think that was part of a B&W/darkroom course from a couple years ago, these days she tends to do more Digital photography and Lighting courses as those fill out with more students. 

I know her students have a hard enough time doing the Digital photography course using a DSLR, I think it would be impossible for them to gain the same amount of photographic understanding in a semester long course if they were required to use an MF or LF camera. 

In the end it could be a bonus for a very small percentage of the class, I think the majority would benefit from using a camera that does not get in the way of the learning process to any great extent.


----------



## Derrel (May 3, 2019)

EXIF vs NO EXIF.


----------



## ac12 (May 3, 2019)

BTW, what is the learning difference between a fully manual MF camera and a dSLR set to Manual, a fixed ISO and autofocus turned OFF ?  I can dumb down / simplify a dSLR to the level of my 1970s SLR.


----------



## ac12 (May 3, 2019)

Derrel said:


> EXIF vs NO EXIF.



I used the data recorded and attached to a Canon digital image to troubleshoot one of my students pics.
It was out of focus, and looking at the recorded focus points, showed me that the camera was in the wrong focus mode, offset to the side, and focusing on something other than what she thought she was focusing on.  Could never do that with film.


----------



## Derrel (May 3, 2019)

ac12 said:


> BTW, what is the learning difference between a fully manual MF camera and a dSLR set to Manual, a fixed ISO and autofocus turned OFF ?  I can dumb down / simplify a dSLR to the level of my 1970s SLR.



Differences; 1) neckstrap. The 1970's camera probably had what is now called a "hipster strap" or a "hippie strap", while today's d-slr likely has a black and yellow-lettered strap that says "Nikon Dxxx or Nikon Dxxxx:, or a black and red-lettered strap that says "Canon EOS _ D" or "Canon EOS _ _ D".

2) weight. THE 1970'S SLR WEIGHED 15 TO 38 POUNDS due to solid metal costruction!!!! THE MODERN polycarbonate- skinned d-slr weighs 25 ounces. (kidding)

3) The 70's SLR was loaded with a 12, 20, 24, or 36-shot roll of film that had to be rewound at roll's end, while the d-slr has a 64-gigabyte memory card that allows you to shoot 3,400 medium JPEGs.


4) Better viewfinder screen for manually focusing in the 1970's SLR.


----------



## petrochemist (May 3, 2019)

I guess I did start with MF. My dad gave me a box camera to use before my teens, but I later switched to a 126 instamatic. Both where very basic cameras but I wasn't allowed to load roll film. Back then processing of both film types was available everywhere.
The options are very different now : I've picked up working compact digital cameras that cost less than a single film, which will beat medium format in many of Smoke's disadvantages. (My MF bodies being fixed lens boxes can only tie with the compacts where they don't loose out)
For those who have reached the point of wanting to try a bigger sensor than APSC, MF & LF are sensible options. But most of the photographic world seems fixated on FF.


----------



## petrochemist (May 3, 2019)

Derrel said:


> 1975,1985,1995: (film)"I hope my pictures turn out good."
> 2005, 2015, 2019: (digital) " Ohhhhh, look at how well this turned out!"
> 
> As was mentioned above, digital picture-making offers pretty much INSTANT feedback regarding all aspects of the shots. Focus, shutter blurring, DOF, all of that..it is possible to get so many aspects RIGHT, based on reviewing the LCD.
> ...


Yes the feedback cycle is significant.
Even when you're no longer a beginner if pushing the limits you can now know when you've finally managed to get the timing right. The digital comment often being 'not this time - try again' sometimes with an added tweak to the settings. With panning it can be yep got 1/125 nailed, lets see if I can go slower...


----------



## Original katomi (May 3, 2019)

Derrel said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, what is the learning difference between a fully manual MF camera and a dSLR set to Manual, a fixed ISO and autofocus turned OFF ?  I can dumb down / simplify a dSLR to the level of my 1970s SLR.
> ...


Re 3. The ability to change asa mid shoot with digital. Having to process a part used roll because you had to change mid roll was pia


----------



## 480sparky (May 3, 2019)




----------



## smoke665 (May 3, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Better viewfinder screen for manually focusing in the 1970's SLR.



You got that right. The split prism in the view finder was fast, accurate and easy to use.


----------



## smoke665 (May 3, 2019)

480sparky said:


> View attachment 172514



Not necessarily accurate. Yes there is a tendency to overclick at the start, but as you progress in your knowledge of photography and your camera you slow down. You learn in the processing stage that more is not better. Getting it as close to right in camera is just as important with digital as film.


----------



## Soocom1 (May 3, 2019)

I still hold that medium format and large format will still yield better results even from beginner photographers (and I do concede that if were digital and not faux LF stitched,) but a real MF or LF sensor (that was affordable, and yes they can be manufactured.) that it would be a game changer. 


The end result I think would put photography back into a position it held before the iPhone.


----------



## Derrel (May 3, 2019)

ac12 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > EXIF vs NO EXIF.
> ...





Soocom1 said:


> I still hold that medium format and large format will still yield better results even from beginner photographers (and I do concede that if were digital and not faux LF stitched,) but a real MF or LF sensor (that was affordable, and yes they can be manufactured.) that it would be a game changer.
> 
> 
> The end result I think would put photography back into a position it held before the iPhone.



Ernest Hemingway felt that writing done with a pencil was better than writing done with a typewriter. SEE this web page for his reasoning: Palimpsest: Ernest Hemingway: Writing in Pencil

I seriously doubt that, no matter what we do, we can "_put photography back into a position it held before the iPhone_." No, not going to happen, cannot happen, we can not put eh jeanie back in the bottle, we cannot un-invent electricity or the telephone or gunpowder or jet engines, or reduce the permanent change wrought by multiple technological innovations or inventions. The photocopier, the scanner, the inkjet printer...all ways to create reproductions of photo-prints and to lower the rarity, the sanctity, the value, of photo images.

We now are almost two full decades into the 21st century, and photography has gone through multiple stages, of tin and glass plates that were exposed 'wet'; then 'dry plate photography, then rollfilm and film sheets instead of plates, then flashbulbs were invented in 1928, then 35mm film became popular from the 1930's to the 1960's, and so on and so on.

The way we use, store, and think about photography and photos can never go back in time. A Civil War soldier might have had two,or perhaps, three photos made of himself. Todays 20-something female may make 5 selfies of herself. I personally carry on my iPhone, just under 1,800 photos I have made over the last 18 months, (mostly) and a select few I have forward-migrated from the period 1977-2016. Old photos were viewed on metal, then on paper, and now on screens, mostly.

Nope. NO innovation will move photography back to the way it was pre iPhone, pre-2007.


----------



## ac12 (May 3, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> I still hold that medium format and large format will still yield better results even_ from beginner photographers_ (and I do concede that if were digital and not faux LF stitched,) but a real MF or LF sensor (that was affordable, and yes they can be manufactured.) that it would be a game changer.
> 
> The end result I think would put photography back into a position it held before the iPhone.



IMHO,* for the beginner, the convenience factor of the phone camera trumps everything.*
It has all the advantages of digital and the small pocketable form factor.
The camera you have on you is infinitely better than the camera that is sitting on a shelf at home, because it is too big/heavy to carry.

Camera size was an argument back before the 1960s and ever since.
The Kodak Brownie box camera was MUCH smaller than a Speed Graphic or similar LF camera.​The Kodak Instamatic was smaller and lighter than any SLR.
The MF camera was much larger than an Instamatic, and a LF camera was huge.  
There are reasons why 35mm format film cameras took off and MF and LF did not; SIZE is one.
The bigger the camera the more difficult to carry, so it wasn't carried.​The Pocket Instamatic was even smaller. 
Some of the digital P&S were shirt pocket small.
With phone cameras, you don't even need to carry a separate camera.  You have it with your phone.

Remember you said 
Why is it that _someone who wishes to learn photography_ or step up to a "better" camera shouldn't start with a medium or Large Format.​and above
"from beginner photographers"​
So your target is the beginner, NOT the enthusiast, advanced amateur  or pro.

If you want to put photography back to pre-iPhone, then you are saying everyone should not have a camera.  
And if you want a camera you should buy a dedicated MF or LF  FILM camera.   

This is like saying ditch the cell phone, go back to landline and pay phones.
Or ditch the computer and the internet, and go back to typewriters and magazines.  
And ditch the convenience of buying from Amazon/internet, you have to drive to the store or buy from a mail order catalog.


----------



## ac12 (May 3, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> Ok.. Ill put my neck on the block here.
> But just tell me something.
> 
> Why is it that someone who wishes to learn photography or step up to a "better" camera shouldn't start with a medium or Large Format.
> Granted the film cost, but all in all, a MF or LF set up to start in many instances is far cheaper for equipment, and forces a person to learn the process and be more specific on their shots.



You are making an assumption (ass-u-me) on cost.  Film camera are thought to be cheaper because of all the used gear out there.  But most of that used gear is 30+ years old and needs a CLA to be brought back in shape.  The foam on my old SLR is literally falling apart.   And 40 year old dried grease/lube means your shutter speeds are probably not accurate.
The cost of the CLA will kill your "cheaper" argument.   Here is are prices from one shop's web site.
Hasselblad lens Overhaul = $185 + parts
Hasselblad 500c and 500cm overhaul = $175 + parts
Mamiya RB and Rolleiflex prices are not much different.​So your cheap Hasselblad or Mamiya RB will cost you an additional $360+ to CLA/overhaul the body and lens.
Copal Shutter Overhaul (LF shutter) = $95-150 + parts​And a 30+ year old LF bellows is likely to have pin holes in the corners of the bellows, so budget a $$$ bellows replacement.

If you use a dSLR in full manual mode, I see little difference than using a MF or LF camera, to learn exposure.  
You have to understand and use shutter speed, aperture and film selection/ISO level.


----------



## Soocom1 (May 3, 2019)

ac12 said:


> Soocom1 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok.. Ill put my neck on the block here.
> ...


done?


----------



## Derrel (May 3, 2019)

For the 'beginner' with a film camera it used to cost $2.99 for a 36-shot roll of 100-speed, and $10.99 for developing 36 color prints. (1982-1987 retail price).


For the 'beginner' with a film camera, three to four "good pictures" per roll were expected...Maximum...


With a smartphone camera, 'the beginner' can practice,practice,practice, with VERY low costs compared to $13.98 per 36 frames (in 1980's dollars,no less).


----------



## ac12 (May 3, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> I still hold that medium format and large format will still yield better results even from beginner photographers (and I do concede that if were digital and not faux LF stitched,) but a real MF or LF sensor (that was affordable, and yes they can be manufactured.) that it would be a game changer.



People have been asking for a true 6x6 MF sensor for the Hasselblad 500 series for YEARS, and nothing.
The only commercial sensors for the 500 series that I know of, were cropped sensors, never a full frame 6x6 sensor.  And the crop sensors systems were EXPENSIVE.  It is not just the cost of the sensor, but also the associated electronics.​The rules and reality of accounting, manufacturing and economics will prevent "affordable" MF or LF sensors.
The bigger the sensor, the less sensors you can make out of a single silicon wafer.  You are limited by the physical size of the wafer.
The bigger the sensor, the lower the manufacturing yield.   Here is a simple examples for a single wafer, with one bad spot on a sensor.
One bad spot on the wafer will ruin ONE FF sensor, but you will get 19 good ones.  
Presuming you can make 20 FF sensors out of a wafer.  This number goes up with the smaller APS-C and m4/3 sensors.​One bad spot on the wafer will ruin the ONE LF sensor and you get ZERO good ones.
So in this example we yield 19 good FF sensors and ZERO good LF sensor.​Can you make up for low yield?  Yes, with HIGH volume and/or HIGH selling price, to cover the cost of the failures.
We will not get HIGH sales volume, so the other option is HIGH selling price (cost to us).​


----------



## Soocom1 (May 3, 2019)

ac12 said:


> Soocom1 said:
> 
> 
> > I still hold that medium format and large format will still yield better results even from beginner photographers (and I do concede that if were digital and not faux LF stitched,) but a real MF or LF sensor (that was affordable, and yes they can be manufactured.) that it would be a game changer.
> ...


so you have manufacturing experience?


----------



## ac12 (May 3, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> > Soocom1 said:
> ...



Enough to know the issues of yield when making stuff from a silicon wafer.  Which I why I do not understand your statement
a real MF or LF sensor (that was affordable, and yes they can be manufactured.)​


----------



## Soocom1 (May 3, 2019)

FYI.. 

I worked in manufacturing for 10 years on various levels and exposed to R&D and also patenting and other layers of manufacturing D&D. 
Making a silicon wafer and making one to fit 6x7 or even 6x9 is not only not difficult, but has been done with even larger sizes. 

No not "stitching or "gluing" (whatever the hell that means) the wafers together, but actual single full sized wafers that would work with the 6x9 and even 4x5 LF. 

its not done because the ATTITUDE of those in manufacturing dont think there is enough ROI. 

In reality the cost isnt that high. its a simple matter of ROI and if people dont buy, whats the point. 

but this has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I originally posted.


----------



## smoke665 (May 3, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> The end result I think would put photography back into a position it held before the iPhone.



Afraid this will never happen. People in general are to accustomed to instant gratification, and the cell phone makers are only to eager to oblige. One of my pet peeves is the constant posting of snap chat images with rabbit ears, whiskers, etc. Seriously???? 



Derrel said:


> For the 'beginner' with a film camera it used to cost $2.99 for a 36-shot roll of 100-speed, and $10.99 for developing 36 color prints.



I predate that to the time when for $3 you get a roll of B&W developed AND they'd include another roll of film. It wasn't till the late 50's, early 60's that color became popular.


----------



## Derrel (May 3, 2019)

It is too bad there has been no "Yashica Mat 124" medium format digital.


----------



## Soocom1 (May 3, 2019)

The 44x33 is a size because it fits nicely on the silicon wafer. 
The size actually is irrelivant in the manufacturing process. 
There are wafers made that as stated before could cover a 4x5 or 8x10. 
its almost exclusively based on ROI and maximum return on the wafer itself. The ingot made is a standard size and can be made to any diameter they want. 

The big names right now are producing what you have because thats a "normal convention" for them. 
IMO and based ont he manufacturing side of things I was involved with in my Decade long carrer at Motorola is that the actual cost is microscopic, and like Snap-on tools, your paying mostly for name. 

When it comes to the digital side of things that everyone is stuck on, you can obtain a first class Med. Format setup for under 3K now. Granted used. 
And it has been repeatedly proven that a 3, 5 and even 10 Mp image even in MF still blows away any small sensor 24-40 mp image. 

Again its size, not Mp count.


----------



## 480sparky (May 3, 2019)

I know of a place you can get about a dozen Hassies for free.  Just lying there for the taking.  All ya gotta do is go get 'em.


----------



## tirediron (May 3, 2019)

480sparky said:


> I know of a place you can get about a dozen Hassies for free.  Just lying there for the taking.  All ya gotta do is go get 'em.


The "air" fare to get there might be pricey though...


----------



## Soocom1 (May 3, 2019)

480sparky said:


> I know of a place you can get about a dozen Hassies for free.  Just lying there for the taking.  All ya gotta do is go get 'em.


mmmm.


dunno...


----------



## 480sparky (May 3, 2019)

tirediron said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > I know of a place you can get about a dozen Hassies for free.  Just lying there for the taking.  All ya gotta do is go get 'em.
> ...



There's precious little 'air' between you and them.........


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (May 4, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> But from a photographic standpoint, the only thing your doing is working with a larger area. The mechanics are the same.
> 
> The LF only gets diff. when your talking about adjustments and movements.
> That requires a diff. approach.



I'm late to the party again...

A common misconception borne from a digital technician's viewpoint, one of understanding the numbers and how every camera can be made to take the exact same shot. That it can all be reduced to a simple total light/noise equation that somehow is the root of all photographic understanding...  

Well you've got FP4 loaded in the dark slides and the wind is gusting 25+mph out in the landscape under leaden skies. Nestled comfortably in the boot of the camper van, in the bag next to the Linhof, is the trusted D600 and the normal three lenses.

So which will give you usable results? Which one will do it easily and give you an idea of what the image will look like and if you're wasting your time or not? I know which one I'd grab, or when I'm wasting my time. It's alright being a hipster on the hillside with your big camera swaying not so gently in the breeze declaring to the world that, "anybody with a rudimentary knowledge will be able to produce similar results..." And when you examine the thin, flat and blurred images you'd probably be right...  

It's not a question of hard/easy but of limitations.



Derrel said:


> I personally do not think that there is a better camera than a modern digital SLR, in term of speed and ease of operation, and for ease of "getting the shot"



^^^^ This. The 35mm format has consistently proved itself to be by far the most versatile. From fashion to sport to landscape, from far away lands to a couple down Shepherd's Bush... It sits at a unique balance between compromise and capability which is why it was so popular in the film era and continues to be the benchmark in digital. I would go as far as saying that modern 45+mp FF cameras have largely made MF redundant. LF film still has a process and beauty that's unique, but it's so severely restricted by limitations of speed that I would hardly call it a beginners camera. Other than in the sense of, "I'm just beginning to be able to get an image out of it..."


----------



## limr (May 4, 2019)

Why is the assumption that most people are going to learn the same way? Or that one tool is going to be used in the same way by different people?

The truth is that no single method to teach/learn photography is going to work for everyone. Some people do better if they are given a bigger challenge to start with than they would with building up to a higher level of difficulty. Others would get overwhelmed and would do better easing their way up.

Edit: Also, medium or large format film camera doesn't automatically mean 'more difficult' depending on what a person's natural inclinations are. For example, it's easier for me to deal with something that operates mechanically than something that relies on dials and menus, whereas others would feel more comfortable with electronics and software than with dark slides and Waterhouse stops.

For example, expanding on Tirediron's analogy of learning how to drive a Mack truck before a Chevy Cavalier: my father insisted that it was better to learn how to drive in a difficult vehicle. If we could drive a temperamental old car, we could drive anything. (Except never drive a Cavalier. They are as boring as watching paint dry.)

That method backfired hard with my oldest sister. It was too intimidating and she would freeze. However, it worked beautifully with me, because I generally retain knowledge or skill more quickly when I am thrown right into the thick of a challenge.

Quite frankly, I think it's more a matter of someone finding the gear that makes it all fall into place for that person. That gear and process is going to look different for everyone.


----------



## otherprof (May 4, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> Ok.. Ill put my neck on the block here.
> But just tell me something.
> 
> Why is it that someone who wishes to learn photography or step up to a "better" camera shouldn't start with a medium or Large Format.
> Granted the film cost, but all in all, a MF or LF set up to start in many instances is far cheaper for equipment, and forces a person to learn the process and be more specific on their shots.


"Better for what?" has to come into the discussion. Has anyone ever thought, e.g., "If only Cartier Bresson had used a 4X5"? or "I wish Ansel Adams had used a small, fast dslr with a huge capacity memory card"?


----------



## Steve Fretz (May 7, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> Ok.. Ill put my neck on the block here.
> But just tell me something.
> 
> Why is it that someone who wishes to learn photography or step up to a "better" camera shouldn't start with a medium or Large Format.
> Granted the film cost, but all in all, a MF or LF set up to start in many instances is far cheaper for equipment, and forces a person to learn the process and be more specific on their shots.



I started photography with my dad's Kodak Medalist II.  I was eight or nine.

When I restarted with film about five years ago, it was with a Mamiya 645J, figuring MF negs had higher MP than my Fuji XPro1.  (I am also fortunate to have a local lab, Moto Photo in Paramus NJ, who processes 120).

Yes, start with 120, ideally 645.  A Mamiya 645J, for example, had aperture priority auto exposure and pretty much handles the same way a Nikon FE does, but with a much larger negative.  35mm is a VERY lo-fi format.


----------



## Streets (May 7, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> Ok.. Ill put my neck on the block here.
> But just tell me something.
> 
> Why is it that someone who wishes to learn photography or step up to a "better" camera shouldn't start with a medium or Large Format.
> Granted the film cost, but all in all, a MF or LF set up to start in many instances is far cheaper for equipment, and forces a person to learn the process and be more specific on their shots.


I now realize why I prefer "Ugly Hedgehog" to this forum.


----------



## FatBear (May 7, 2019)

We are humans.  Our ancestors put on clothes and lit fires because it was more comfortable than toughing it out.  They hunted with spears because it was easier and resulted in more food than hunting with a club.  They learned to distribute tasks because it required less brain power than doing and knowing everything themselves.  (Look it up: our brains have been shrinking for the last 40,000 years as we have become more civilized and spread the knowledge and tasks around.)

It just wouldn't be natural if most of us, and especially the serious ones, went back to running around naked, clubbing our photos with MF cameras and processing them ourselves, would it?

I actually started with MF.  It was a Kodak Brownie that shot 620 film (essentially the same as 120 but with a slightly different spool rim diameter.)  I bought it with my weeding money in about 1966 because it was all I could afford on the flea market table.  Film was painfully expensive when you had to pull thousands of dandelions to buy a roll and get it processed.  But it really forced me to learn about light.  Though at that age it was mostly about making sure there was enough of it, that it was coming from the right direction, and eventually to watch the shadows as much as the subject.  In 1968 I saved up $4 to buy an Instamatic.  With a flash cube!  That's when I learned about shutter speeds.  I read that the camera used a slower shutter speed when the flash cube was attached, so I peered into the socket and saw the little switch that caused the change.  I found that I could stick a broken toothpick in there and depress the switch and thus had a two speed camera without flash.  (Didn't occur to me until later that I could have just hung on to a used cube to achieve the same result.)
In 1975 I joined the Navy and bought an Olympus OM-1n.  With food and shelter paid for I had the cash to pay for plenty of shots.  So I brought back plenty of photos of Adak, Alaska.  The only ones I was really proud of were the B&W ones that I developed and printed myself in the hobby photo lab.  I went through a couple of other 35mm cameras, and other MF cameras and became very good.  I was able to shoot just about any photo I wanted with the composition, exposure, depth of field, everything the way I wanted it, but I was still mostly proud of the B&W shots that I printed myself.  I even built a nice big darkroom into my house in 1990.

Then along came digital.  Even the best digital cameras back then produced crap photos compared to film, but you could do so much with Photoshop (if you could afford it.)  I went through a few digital cameras, but eventually became disillusioned.  With digital, improving my photos became a matter of how much money I could spend on a new camera rather than how much brainpower I could apply to my shots.  I had moved and no longer had a darkroom, I could not afford the really high end DSLRs that promised to almost equal 35mm, and I was getting fat sitting on my butt in front of the screen.  I haven't taken a photo - other than cell phone shots - for 3 or 4 years.  Instead I have focused more on painting and mostly on sculpture.  I guess it's the caveman in me.

I've started reading about modern DSLRs with ISO equivalents in the hundred thousand range (!) and MF like resolution.  I need to learn if their dynamic range has caught up with film yet.  The thing I hated most about DSLRs was their very poor dynamic range.  I'm about at the point where I can build another darkroom in my current house, so this discussion is of great interest to me.  Do I want to go back to the club or go modern or should I let someone else do the hunting and keep sculpting?

Still deciding...


----------



## Soocom1 (May 7, 2019)

Think DoF.


----------



## FatBear (May 7, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> Think DoF.


DoF is always something to keep in mind - to control, but not always to maximize.


----------



## Ysarex (May 7, 2019)

FatBear said:


> .... I've started reading about modern DSLRs with ISO equivalents in the hundred thousand range (!) and MF like resolution.  I need to learn if their dynamic range has caught up with film yet.



Yes. And then passed it. This was always the issue for me. When I decided to take digital seriously and then eventually make the full switch it was because of the promise (now fulfilled) of more overall tonal data captured.

Joe



FatBear said:


> The thing I hated most about DSLRs was their very poor dynamic range.  I'm about at the point where I can build another darkroom in my current house, so this discussion is of great interest to me.  Do I want to go back to the spear or go modern or should I let someone else do the hunting and keep sculpting?
> 
> Still deciding...


----------



## Soocom1 (May 7, 2019)

Here is an exercise:

I remember this from Middle school. The purpose was not to emphasize format, but to emphasize composure and framing. format size was secondary.

Take a piece of cardboard. cut out rectangular holes the same size as an APS sensor, 35mm  and 120 frame.
Then pick an object to frame with each.
Say a vase or such.

Then look through each hole and frame the object.  Make sure to frame it the same way in each hole. Then, mark the distance from the object that each hole allows the object to be fully framed in on the floor with tape and measure the distance.

Remember that a lens will compress DoF regardless. Just that med. and large format compresses it to a diff. measure than a 35mm, and moreover, the closer, the more DoF one gets.

Plus reproduction/ enlargement ratios.


----------



## Ysarex (May 7, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> Here is an exercise:
> 
> I remember this from Middle school. The purpose was not to emphasize format, but to emphasize composure and framing. format size was secondary.
> 
> ...



*All else being equal* it is correct to say that DOF becomes shallower with increasing film/sensor size (and of course the inverse which for some is very desirable). But all else is not equal. So for example my little Samsung compact which cost new at about $400.00 came fitted with a maximum aperture f/1.4 zoom lens. What f/1.4 zoom lens (costing a few hundred $$$$) would you suggest for what medium format camera?

Joe


----------



## Soocom1 (May 7, 2019)

Well I could argue this all day. 
The aspect is actual image capture. 
The closer to an object one is, the more information captured. 
if a larger size, then obviously that will be more. 
If you try the exercise I point out and apply the enlargement ratios to film grain/pixle size, along with the various specs of the lens, then the size factor comes into play yet once again.


----------



## Derrel (May 7, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> FatBear said:
> 
> 
> > .... I've started reading about modern DSLRs with ISO equivalents in the hundred thousand range (!) and MF like resolution.  I need to learn if their dynamic range has caught up with film yet.
> ...




I think the newer 24-36MP Full-frame (what Nikon refers to as 'FX' format)( D600, D610, D750 all at 24 MP, D800 and D810 at 36 MP) Nikons are about equal to 125-speed B&W or 100-speed 6x6 cm E-6 slide film from the late 1980's-1990's era. The _relative granularity (I know, I know, a film metric!) _of modern digital is amazingly good up to ISO 200 in the above cameras, and ISO 800 from a D800 looks a lot closer to ISO 160 from a 6x6 rollfilm SLR shooting lower-ISO 1980's-1990's film.


Dynamic range of modern Nikons is around 12.7-13.7 stops.. AMAZING!

Digital cameras have made remarkable strides in the last 7,8 years.


----------



## Derrel (May 7, 2019)

I feel like the 36 MP D800 is the modern equivalent of a medium-format rollfim camera, except with a wider array of lenses and accessories available in F-mount than in _any_ MF lens mount, TTL light metering in SAMP modes, decent TTL flash metering, high-speed flash capability, a good big viewfinder,  good higher ISO performance,and the option for 2:3 aspect ratio and also 4:5 aspect ratio in-camera captures, plus APS-C size capture, and all the cropping options most people will ever need.

36MP and 42 MP and 47 MP 24x36mm sensors are available now,and when used with high-performance lenses in the f/1.2, f/1.4 and f/1.8  and f/2 regions, we now have amazing DOF (shallow) potential, and with tilt/shift lenses, we now have at least a little control for small product and landscape/macro/architectural work where lens tilt/swing is of benefit. 24x36mm is a pretty good image format for both getting shallow DOF, and for getting deep DOF, as desired. 24x36mm is an easy format to work with, in many situations, and things are fantastic today. THe Nikon D800 is from 2012, and is an amazing tool, far more capable than my 1990's Bronicas were/are


----------



## Derrel (May 7, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> FatBear said:
> 
> 
> > .... I've started reading about modern DSLRs with ISO equivalents in the hundred thousand range (!) and MF like resolution.  I need to learn if their dynamic range has caught up with film yet.
> ...





Soocom1 said:


> Well I could argue this all day.
> The aspect is actual image capture.
> The closer to an object one is, the more information captured.
> if a larger size, then obviously that will be more.
> If you try the exercise I point out and apply the enlargement ratios to film grain/pixle size, along with the various specs of the lens, then the size factor comes into play yet once again.



I remember this real-world example from 1987. Shooting a shot of my kitchen, from about 10 feet using a Fujinon-W 150mm f/5.6 lens on my 1950's Linhof Color view camera, using Ektachrome 64 Professional film and lighting with studio flash, using a Peak 8x loupe, it was _EASY to read the ingredient list _on a 2-liter bottle of Coca~Cola. Easy. On a 35mm slide, the same thing was not possible.


----------



## Soocom1 (May 7, 2019)

Another aspect that I point out here is this: 
The application of new technology is in all honesty astounding. 
No argument. 
Fire off a kodak Ektalite 600 110 against a 2019 Canon Sureshot and there is no comparison. 

But if your comparing that Samsung against a RB67 useing Kodacolor 200, the Samsung is going to be very much ahead in many respects except DoF but the RB67 will still take total quality while the Samsung will win in certain criteria only because of the new technology. 

Its like comparing a 1980 Corolla to a 2018 Nissan Cube. 

Apply the same technology of that Samsung into a new Med. Format and the MF will still take the prize.


----------



## FatBear (May 7, 2019)

RB-67 is more of a tank than a Corolla.


----------



## FatBear (May 7, 2019)

Well maybe it's time to sell off the contents of my "photo closet" and apply the funds to a new DSLR.  My wife will be happy, the room I was going to finish out to be my photo lab can be made into another bedroom and bath.  I've no idea what we need another BR & bath for, but there are a lot of things I don't understand.  Anyone want to buy an RZ-67 system with a bunch of lenses, extension tubes, cable releases, backpack, the whole 9 yards?


----------



## Soocom1 (May 7, 2019)

FatBear said:


> Well maybe it's time to sell off the contents of my "photo closet" and apply the funds to a new DSLR.  My wife will be happy, the room I was going to finish out to be my photo lab can be made into another bedroom and bath.  I've no idea what we need another BR & bath for, but there are a lot of things I don't understand.  Anyone want to buy an RZ-67 system with a bunch of lenses, extension tubes, cable releases, backpack, the whole 9 yards?


If for a song and dance, maybe.


----------



## Derrel (May 7, 2019)

FatBear,
   You will likely be astounded by how GOOD the technical image quality is, even with a mid-entry-level Canon or Nikon d-slr using an APS-C sensor from 20 to 24 megapixels. Choose wisely, and you may not want or need another camera for close to a decade. Gone will be the RZ-67 issues, replaced by a new world of issues.


----------



## Ysarex (May 7, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> Another aspect that I point out here is this:
> The application of new technology is in all honesty astounding.
> No argument.
> Fire off a kodak Ektalite 600 110 against a 2019 Canon Sureshot and there is no comparison.
> ...



How do you get ahead or behind in DOF? What are you trying to say? DOF is valueless -- different DOF isn't better or worse than other DOF.

With that Samsung I just made the point that lens types that are available on one format aren't available on another (all else is not equal).



Soocom1 said:


> but the RB67 will still take total quality while the Samsung will win in certain criteria only because of the new technology.



Total quality today goes to digital and for the very reason that FatBear noted as a concern. There are different technical characteristics of a photograph that weigh toward total quality. The most important of those characteristics is tone response in which digital now has the advantage.

Joe



Soocom1 said:


> Its like comparing a 1980 Corolla to a 2018 Nissan Cube.
> 
> Apply the same technology of that Samsung into a new Med. Format and the MF will still take the prize.


----------



## Ysarex (May 7, 2019)

FatBear said:


> Well maybe it's time to sell off the contents of my "photo closet" and apply the funds to a new DSLR.  My wife will be happy, the room I was going to finish out to be my photo lab can be made into another bedroom and bath.  I've no idea what we need another BR & bath for, but there are a lot of things I don't understand.  Anyone want to buy an RZ-67 system with a bunch of lenses, extension tubes, cable releases, backpack, the whole 9 yards?



Put it on display somewhere in the house -- your wife will love that. Then start looking for that new digital camera. Derrel's suggestion of an APS class camera is a good one. Unless you want to make wall mural size prints it'll outperform your old RZ and be a whole lot more fun. You noted a concern about DR. You could load up the RZ with Tri-X and Zone System hoop jump yourself into a knot and maybe scrape 8 to 9 stops of scene DR onto a darkroom print with skillful burning and dodging. Or scan the neg and you'll get less. I can pick up my little compact Canon G7 (1 inch sensor) and capture 9.5 stops of DR no problem and then use that data with ease.

Joe


----------



## FatBear (May 7, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> FatBear said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone want to buy an RZ-67 system with a bunch of lenses, extension tubes, cable releases, backpack, the whole 9 yards?
> ...


----------



## vintagesnaps (May 7, 2019)

I don't know why you need another bedroom and bath, send the relatives to Motel 6, they'll leave the light on!

Derrel you guys are breakin' my heart... okay, not really, but if someone likes shooting film or likes darkroom work, why keep trying to talk them out of it?? It's not like you can't do both or whichever you prefer, but let us darkroom rats enjoy the glow of a safe light.


----------



## Ysarex (May 8, 2019)

vintagesnaps said:


> I don't know why you need another bedroom and bath, send the relatives to Motel 6, they'll leave the light on!
> 
> Derrel you guys are breakin' my heart... okay, not really, but if someone likes shooting film or likes darkroom work, why keep trying to talk them out of it?? It's not like you can't do both or whichever you prefer, but let us darkroom rats enjoy the glow of a safe light.



The guy with the RZ asked a very specific question: "I've started reading about modern DSLRs with ISO equivalents in the hundred thousand range (!) and MF like resolution. I need to learn if their dynamic range has caught up with film yet. The thing I hated most about DSLRs was their very poor dynamic range." My responses address that question. He's trying to decide which way to go and he needs that information to make a decision. I understand the concern as it matters a lot to me as well. If you enjoy the darkroom work by all means carry on.

Joe


----------



## FatBear (May 8, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Dynamic range of modern Nikons is around 12.7-13.7 stops.. AMAZING!
> Digital cameras have made remarkable strides in the last 7,8 years.


As of a few years ago when I last made this comparison Kodak was publishing 13 stops dynamic range for most of their consumer films.  This would, of course, be with conventional processing.  I've read claims that it is possible to get up to 20 stops with some color negative films.  I have never had that experience myself, preferring B&W, but it would be handy sometimes.  B&W can exceed 13 stops, but it takes planning from the time you put the film in the camera.  I tried the zone system but found it to be to constraining for my more intuitive style.  I mostly just gave an extra stop of exposure and slightly shorter development if I thought the light was too contrasty.  Then fussed with problem areas in the darkroom.

Still, 12.7 to 13.7 stops is right on par with Kodak's claim for color film and far better than with my older DSLR - and you are talking image sizes much larger.  If you could actually get 13 stops on a 25 Mpx sensor that would certainly compete with a 6x4.5 camera.  (I spent a couple of months in Italy in 1992 with nothing but a Fuji GS-645 and was rarely disappointed.  But then I like details and intimacy - you can usually buy a better tourist shot at a postcard booth than you can take yourself on any particular day.)


----------



## FatBear (May 8, 2019)

vintagesnaps said:


> Derrel you guys are breakin' my heart... okay, not really, but if someone likes shooting film or likes darkroom work, why keep trying to talk them out of it?? It's not like you can't do both or whichever you prefer, but let us darkroom rats enjoy the glow of a safe light.


It's OK, I did ask.  I have learned something that will factor into my own thinking. But don't worry, I'll make my own decision.  I really do miss the ability to close that door and close out the world.  I cannot do that sitting in front of a digital darkroom and that will certainly also factor into my decision.  I do not do this for a living.  It has to be enjoyable and rewarding or I have other things I can do.


----------



## Derrel (May 8, 2019)

Digital processing software advances have made it extremely easy to recover both highlight details  and details in the shadows, with the slider easethat we used only dream about. My first digital SLR,the Nikon D1,blew out highlights pretty easily. Today's digital cameras offer much better  performance.
       In my opinion, the performance of 645 is easily bettered by today's FF digital cameras.


----------



## Ysarex (May 8, 2019)

FatBear said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Dynamic range of modern Nikons is around 12.7-13.7 stops.. AMAZING!
> ...



No. Kodak makes that claim for this film: StackPath

You won't be putting it in your camera. And even if you did Kodak will tell you that to realize that capacity you'll have to digitize the film and software process it. NOTE: When Kodak says digitize the film they of course mean by using your $80,000.00 Hell scanner. The films you may use in your camera have less DR and that's DR not usable DR.



FatBear said:


> This would, of course, be with conventional processing.  I've read claims that it is possible to get up to 20 stops with some color negative films.



You've been reading the Internet.  The various claims on the Internet about DR in film and digital are the guide documents Trump uses for inspiration before he talks to reporters about how much of The Wall he's completed.



FatBear said:


> I have never had that experience myself, preferring B&W, but it would be handy sometimes.  B&W can exceed 13 stops, but it takes planning from the time you put the film in the camera.  I tried the zone system but found it to be to constraining for my more intuitive style.  I mostly just gave an extra stop of exposure and slightly shorter development if I thought the light was too contrasty.  Then fussed with problem areas in the darkroom.
> 
> Still, 12.7 to 13.7 stops is right on par with Kodak's claim for color film and far better than with my older DSLR - and you are talking image sizes much larger.  If you could actually get 13 stops on a 25 Mpx sensor that would certainly compete with a 6x4.5 camera.  (I spent a couple of months in Italy in 1992 with nothing but a Fuji GS-645 and was rarely disappointed.  But then I like details and intimacy - you can usually buy a better tourist shot at a postcard booth than you can take yourself on any particular day.)



So there's lab-tested DR, ax-grinding tested DR and usable DR. You really want to skip the first two of those that comprise nearly everything you'll see on the Internet and focus on the third because usable is what matters. Here's the best source for usable DR info with digital cameras: Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

Film is a very complicated topic in this regard because usable DR with film is so dependent on how you're taking the image through processing to an end result. Are you going to scan it? Do you have that Hell scanner? You're going to scan it with some other scanner right? You get the DR the scanner is capable of delivering and that ain't not 20 stops -- ain't no 13 stops either. Are you going to print it in the darkroom? How good are you at burning and dodging? You're going to have to perform a burning/dodging dance that's jaw dropping amazing to get over 8 stops onto a piece of printing paper.

When it comes to usable DR today's APS class digital sensor is hands down superior to film.

Joe


----------



## Derrel (May 8, 2019)

It is now 2019, and digital photography has been the norm, worldwide, since about the year 2005. It is now fairly rare to encounter people who have no background in digital imaging, and I understand the reluctance to move away from film-based and liquid chemical-based (wet darkroom ) processes, but time moves on. I personally feel that digital imaging is different from photography, which is what I call the earlier craft, photography.  Some years ago Popular Photography magazine  renamed itself _Popular Photography & Imaging_,and in less than a decade, went out of business.

Magazines were the predecessor of the web-based photography sites like dPreview, Luminous Landscape, Sport Shooter.com, PetaPixel, etc. 

I have no idea where you got the idea of _any_ FILM with 12.7 to 13.7 stops' worth of scene dynamic range capability, since I personally find modern digital far in excess of _any_ film I have ever seen or shot. I shot my biggest amount of film since 2000 i the summer of 2014, in 120 rollfilm in &W and color negative. I was struck by how much _work_ was involved, not to mention money, shooting a 1938 baby Speed Graphic with a 1950's Linhof rollfim back, a 1960's Yashica 635 with 120 B&W film, and a Bronica SQ-A and 50/65/80/150 lens set. I had a lot of FUN, yes, and perhaps that was worth it all. 

I made very few photos with the TLR Yashica, and few with the Speed Graphic...and I remember MAKING the photos, and have fond memories of my outings and developing sessions. And that is the main difference between film and digital to me..with film, each click of the shutter is...an experience to be treasured... with a Nikon d-slr, it is just taking pictures...an entirely different experience.


Film is fine, and many great photos were captured on film, and film gives up its gifts to the diligent, and persistent, and the lucky. There were some gorgeous cameras made that took film, over parts of three different centuries. i have a lot of respect for film,and film cameras, and photos shot on film.But I realize now, 4 about 47 years (1972?) that I've left film behind me for the vast, vast majority of my future of my picture-making.  I prefer the digitized image and storage/retrieval/sharing methodology. I'm not saying I will never shoot another frame of film, but 99.999% of my future photos will most likely be recorded on a memory card and not on a product from Kodak, Fuji, or Ilford.


----------



## Derrel (May 8, 2019)

I've spent a lot of time in The darkroom, and I know it's a thrill to watch print come up in the developing tray,  and all I can say is that I don't miss it much, when editing digitally is so much more efficient and easy and I can create images so easily now that I have experience in digital editing. 
       It is now 2019, and digital photography has been the norm since about the year 2002. Is this fairly rare to encounter people who have no background in digital imaging, and I understand the reluctance to move away from film m-based and liquid chemical-based (wet darkroom ) processes, but time moves on. I personally feel that digital imaging is different from photography, which is what I call the earlier craft, photography.  Some years ago Popular Photograpgy magazine  renamed itself Popular Photography & Imaging,and in less than a decade, went out of business.
     These  days, I have less time for photography than I used to, so I prefer the speed and ease of digital. I want to see my results quicker, and I want to share photos more easily. I detest spending five minutes per image scanning film frames, what with the pre-scan,negative clean, and post-scan adjustments, five minutes is actually quicker than it really takes.


----------



## FatBear (May 8, 2019)

I am far from a novice at film photography.  I do have a 20 step calibrated test strip (for which I am probably not using the officially correct name.)  No, I've never had a photo with that anywhere near that spread, but I've had photos where I needed quite a few of those steps to figure where to print straight and where to burn/dodge and how much.

Nor am I totally stuck in the past.  You can see a few of my early experiments with digital here: Fat.Bear  (I was in a mushroom phase.)  For some reason they all look a little dark on my current monitor.

While I like most of those photos at screen size, I never got a decent print from any of them.  Yeah, technology has improved and it sounds like I would be happy with a more modern DSLR.  But I have no desire to spend what little is probably left of my life fussing with the technology.

I have time yet to decide.  It will be a few months before I get past current projects and have time to build out that room.  But this discussion has been very helpful and I think I'll probably stick to hacking on marble and slate for my creative outlet.


----------



## Soocom1 (May 8, 2019)

One of the biggest handicaps in digital is that compression rates and values, ratios etc. are different from one manufacturer to another. 

years ago I had a flatbed scanner that was capable of producing a 110 Mb image that was scanned to a level mimicking a 100MP image. 

The computer crashed. 

Jpeg compression, bit rates, and visual images (dots per inch, and screen resolution) does a great deal of mismatch and gives missing information while doing the work. So images that are transferred from one system to the next and displayed on various screens will look good or bad regardless. 

Try for a moment to look at an image off of a RAW file from an 80D on a CRT monitor. 

Not that you cant, but I don't think it will look good. 

IMO, analog records images and the film grain is the determining factor on best final image aspects. 
Outside composure, exposure, and all other things done pre-shot, the grain size after development will hold the quality or lack thereof of the image itself.


----------



## Ysarex (May 8, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> One of the biggest handicaps in digital is that compression rates and values, ratios etc. are different from one manufacturer to another.



What? are you talking about?



Soocom1 said:


> years ago I had a flatbed scanner that was capable of producing a 110 Mb image that was scanned to a level mimicking a 100MP image.
> 
> The computer crashed.



I just used my scanner and it works great.



Soocom1 said:


> Jpeg compression, bit rates, and visual images (dots per inch, and screen resolution) does a great deal of mismatch and gives missing information while doing the work. So images that are transferred from one system to the next and displayed on various screens will look good or bad regardless.



Again, what does that mean?



Soocom1 said:


> Try for a moment to look at an image off of a RAW file from an 80D on a CRT monitor.
> 
> Not that you cant, but I don't think it will look good.



What do you mean look at an image off of a RAW file? All digital images include a raw file at one point in the process chain but we don't customarily look at those unprocessed. Do you mean look at the actual raw file? Why did you say CRT? I used to love my Sony Trinitron CRTs. I may still have a couple in the garage. They worked great.

Here's what a raw file looks like without processing:






Is that what you mean? If so what's the point? Yep that doesn't look very good because it's unprocessed. This also doesn't look very good because it's likewise unprocessed:







Soocom1 said:


> IMO, analog records images and the film grain is the determining factor on best final image aspects.
> Outside composure, exposure, and all other things done pre-shot, the grain size after development will hold the quality or lack thereof of the image itself.



Grain size? Film has grain and some films have bigger grain and other's have smaller grain. Are you trying to say something about comparing film images with different grain sizes?

For a digital image the voltage charge read and digitized from each pixel in the sensor will hold the quality or lack thereof of an image. Those values are stored in the raw file. Sensor pixels come in different sizes too but it's a pretty esoteric topic that most photographers don't get concerned with.

What are you trying to say?

Joe


----------



## Derrel (May 8, 2019)

FatBear, I looked through your earlier digital phase on Flickr. I _instantly_ recognized the location/shot of Cannon Beach. Since the early2000's, most people have come to favor punchier,higher-contrast digital images. Your photos LOOK as if they were shot and processed 15 years ago, with a softer,lower contrast look that was relatively common back then.


----------



## Ysarex (May 8, 2019)

FatBear said:


> I am far from a novice at film photography.  I do have a 20 step calibrated test strip (for which I am probably not using the officially correct name.)  No, I've never had a photo with that anywhere near that spread, but I've had photos where I needed quite a few of those steps to figure where to print straight and where to burn/dodge and how much.
> 
> Nor am I totally stuck in the past.  You can see a few of my early experiments with digital here: Fat.Bear  (I was in a mushroom phase.)  For some reason they all look a little dark on my current monitor.
> 
> ...



Some nice photos there -- Anasazi mushroom is great and Dolceaqua likewise.

Joe


----------



## Grandpa Ron (May 8, 2019)

If by medium format you mean cut film, it is a different world.  

I have been working with a restored 1910 view camera. Lot of fun, I you like challenges.

Yes you can successfully use one of those dreaded Yankee 4x5 cut film tanks. But they do have several short comings.
You can also tray develop if you like working in total darkness. 
You are working with long focal length lenses. In my case 123mm and 165 mm. so you really have very little Depth of Field at the smaller f numbers.
Set up for a shot usually requires a tripod, going under the hood with a loop glass for focusing,  It is not as easy as the movies show the press photographer snapping away with their speed-graphics.
Making a print requires an enlarger that can handle large format film or contact printing.
Start out with digital. You can learn a lot and the "film" is free.


----------



## vintagesnaps (May 8, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> You've been reading the Internet.


Well, yeah, there's plenty of misinformation out there... 

Derrel, it's easy enough to dodge detail out of the dark and takes maybe 15-20 seconds while zapping light thru an enlarger. Of course to print you'd need access to a community darkroom or have your own set up at home, which may not be realistic or practical, etc. etc. etc. But it's not harder and not necessarily more time consuming if you know how to do it, at least it doesn't seems so compared to the hours many people seem to spend on the computer. The set up takes more time than ust turning on a printer obviously, but if you're skilled and practiced it isn't necessarily a lengthy process.

Or you can send film out, but it is more costly than it used to be. Depends on what you want to spend your money on, media cards or film chemistry, etc. 

Good is good; I've had photos accepted into juried exhibits that were shot on film, digitally, on Polaroid pack film, etc. So I disgree that you need a camera that may get more dynamic range to be a good photographer or get good photographs; I think it's more about skill and talent. I'm not sure anyway how you compare photos recorded onto light sensitive emulsion in a camera to those exposed onto expired photo paper (lumen prints) to ones recorded on a media card or to images on photo sensitive treated paper/fabric since they're all different ways of recording images. How do you compare quality other than to the standards for each of those processes?

I didn't get into darkroom work til maybe the mid to late 2000's (although I've always shot film) so it's not for me an old process, it was 'new' at the time. I did some cyanotypes on fabric today, does it matter if I use an early photography method? If people want to shoot film or use alternate processes it's certainly possible to get something as good as done digitally. So if someone has questions about a digital camera or a film camera, I understand sharing the information, but I get tired of the comments that downplay using film when it can produce good quality results and for some it might be an option.


----------



## Ysarex (May 8, 2019)

vintagesnaps said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > You've been reading the Internet.
> ...



And no one here has made that claim. I certainly haven't said that.



vintagesnaps said:


> I think it's more about skill and talent. I'm not sure anyway how you compare photos recorded onto light sensitive emulsion in a camera to those exposed onto expired photo paper (lumen prints) to ones recorded on a media card or to images on photo sensitive treated paper/fabric since they're all different ways of recording images. How do you compare quality other than to the standards for each of those processes?
> 
> I didn't get into darkroom work til maybe the mid to late 2000's (although I've always shot film) so it's not for me an old process, it was 'new' at the time. I did some cyanotypes on fabric today, does it matter if I use an early photography method? If people want to shoot film or use alternate processes it's certainly possible to get something as good as done digitally.



The tools are different and their capabilities are different -- it's OK to ask about and talk about those differences and compare them. Just as it would be OK to discuss what's possible using a film camera with a rangefinder versus a film camera with a pentaprism. There are real things that each can do that the other can't. Understanding the tools doesn't have to be a value judgment about using them.

Joe



vintagesnaps said:


> So if someone has questions about a digital camera or a film camera, I understand sharing the information, but I get tired of the comments that downplay using film when it can produce good quality results and for some it might be an option.


----------



## vintagesnaps (May 8, 2019)

Fatbear that's what I'm talking about, ability, skill... I agree some of your earlier Flickr photos look a little dark, just adjust/brighten them up a little. Don't stop taking photos whatever you do, and use whatever format and type camera you like and what works for you.


----------



## Fred von den Berg (May 8, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> Ok.. Ill put my neck on the block here.
> But just tell me something.
> 
> Why is it that someone who wishes to learn photography or step up to a "better" camera shouldn't start with a medium or Large Format.
> Granted the film cost, but all in all, a MF or LF set up to start in many instances is far cheaper for equipment, and forces a person to learn the process and be more specific on their shots.



It seems to me that the kernel of this is the idea that making every shot count is better than spray and pray. Neither extreme is very good as a starting point for somebody that wishes to improve their photographic ability. On the one hand a hundred shots of the same subject is pointless nonsense that will very quickly get you bogged down, but at the other end of the spectrum a workflow that is so restrictive that it perhaps hinders experimentation is also unhelpful.

The cost of new digital equipment can be quite high, however, there's nothing wrong with shopping around for used cameras and lenses. After all, if you wanted to buy new MF or LF film equipment, you might have to take out a second mortgage on your home.


----------



## FatBear (May 9, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> Some nice photos there -- Anasazi mushroom is great and Dolceaqua likewise.
> Joe


Thank you.  The Anasazi mushroom would be almost impossible (for me, anyway) to do on film.  Dolceaqua was as film-like as I could make it.  One size does not fit all.


----------



## FatBear (May 9, 2019)

Derrel said:


> FatBear, I looked through your earlier digital phase on Flickr. I _instantly_ recognized the location/shot of Cannon Beach.


We owned a store in Cannon Beach for 24 years and commuted from Manzanita.  That photo was a scene I passed every day on the way to work.  I rarely do landscapes, I leave them for everyone else.  I just decided to stop and take that shot one day when I was trying to tell someone where I was from.  There's another one farther down taken from the north with lots of sunsettie colors that I took for a graphic on our website.

The humidity is usually near 100% around there so it is a rare day when photos come out really bright and contrasty.  But it would be misleading to shoot it on a day like that, anyway, because they are so rare.  Nor would it be honest to punch up the contrast and saturation and make it look like it was taken on a day like that.  I do admit guilt in emphasizing the sunset colors in the Ecola Viewpoint photo.  Rules are made to be broken.



> Since the early2000's, most people have come to favor punchier,higher-contrast digital images. Your photos LOOK as if they were shot and processed 15 years ago, with a softer,lower contrast look that was relatively common back then.


That was what you got from any digital camera that I could afford back then.  Additionally, many of them were taken in very flat lighting.  A sunny day is rare on the north Oregon coast, and overcast is better for many things, anyway.  The ones taken in Liguria were in late October during one of their rainiest falls in decades.  We drove up into the alps and actually drove behind a huge waterfall that arched out over the road.  We drove down into one of the Cinque Terre villages and a mudslide sealed us in.  Finally a guy in an Ape offered to lead us out over the sheep trails.  (We followed him and made it.)  As a result I got those moody shots where someone else might have taken a shot worthy of a postcard.  I like them both, but can't see wasting my energy on a shot that you can buy for a dollar off of a rack.

The amount of work that goes into some of those mushroom shots might surprise you.  I think of them as portraits of very patient subjects.  Some work, some don't.  My two best mushroom photos were taken on B&W film in the OM-1n with fill flash.  One is sepia toned and one selenium.  Neither of them is online.

Most of the mushroom shots were done with either two flashes or with reflectors for filling in shadows or both.  You can see one of my diffusers behind one of those tiny mushrooms.  I just couldn't get it to stand out, so I put a background behind it, just like any portrait photographer would do.  Except most portrait photographers do not work in overalls and kneepads.

Why mushrooms and what does this have to do with MF?  I like mushrooms because you can present an everyday object in a way that almost nobody has ever seen before.  I started shooting them like this in 1987 and could find nothing like them in any publication.  I scoured the Internet for mushroom shots before I took the risk of putting such weird photos on Flickr and found nothing like them.  Now I do - in fact there are whole Flickr groups for mushroom shots and I see some that I wish I'd taken.  I do not claim they are "copying" me, but I do take at least some credit for making them a popular subject.  Of course that probably means I will have to move on to bryophytes...

And what it has to do with MF - to me, anyway - is that mushrooms led me to MF.  First I bought a Baby Linhof with a couple of 120 backs and refurbished it.  Then I used the movements and the amazing sharp lenses to improve my shots.  But with mushrooms your camera is in the dirt, sometimes even down in a hole that you have to scrape away.  And it was hard to get my face down there to look at the ground glass - the "underground glass" as it were.  So I bought the Mamiya RZ-67 because it had a waist level viewfinder.  Boy that was nice.  If you've never used a waist-level viewfinder, don't.  You will become addicted.  Right now I think some of the modern DSLRs have articulated screens on the back.  I would only buy a new digital camera if I could either 1, tilt the rear screen up to let me focus and compose from above; or 2, plug in a separate monitor on which to view my focusing and composition. 

If there is an expectation that every photo must be punchier and higher contrast in this modern age, well I hope it is an affectation that passes.  I think it is important to fit the characteristics of the image to the subject and to what you want to say with it.  And sometimes you have to accept what you can get in the conditions.  Doing the best you can with what you've got is becoming a lost art in America.  Buying the best is the modern way.  I guess I'm just old-fashioned after all.


----------



## Derrel (May 9, 2019)

vintagesnaps said:


> Derrel, it's easy enough to dodge detail out of the dark and takes maybe 15-20 seconds while zapping light thru an enlarger. Of course to print you'd need access to a community darkroom or have your own set up at home, which may not be realistic or practical, etc. etc. etc. But it's not harder and not necessarily more time consuming if you know how to do it, at least it doesn't seems so compared to the hours many people seem to spend on the computer. The set up takes more time than just turning on a printer obviously, but if you're skilled and practiced it isn't necessarily a lengthy process.



I find dodging shadows in Lightroom using auto-masking and a brush that's the "right size" far,far easier than relying on sunbursts of card-stock taped to coat hanger pieces far more-precise, repeatable, and easy. The full-daylight, numerically-adjusted ease of dodging a deep black that needs more texture, like + 2.3 EV, in three steps of 0.7 EV. I find a LOT easier than darkroom dodging.

Vignettes, and corner burn-downs and edge burns? So easy in the digital darkroom, and no wasted prints. No using four, five,six  8x10 or 11x14 sheets of expensive enlarging paper to get a desired enlargement out of a tricky negative.

No need for Farmer's Reducer, or an etching knife, of SpotTone inks and sable brushes. I find the "digital darkroom"

I find dodging shadows in Lightroom using auto-masking and a brush that's the "right size" far,far easier than relying on sunbursts of card-stock taped to coat hanger pieces far more-precise, repeatable, and easy. The full-daylight, numerically-adjusted ease of dodging a deep black that needs texture 2.3 in three steps of 0.7 EVI find a LOT easier than darkroom dodging. One can see the effect in almost real-time! And if the effect is not right, jut undo and re-try/

No need for Farmer's Reducer, or an etching knife,  SpotTone inks, nor sable brushes. Or canned air and negative-cleaning brushes, etc.

I feel that the "digital darkroom" is different than the wet darkroom. Notice, I did _NOT_ say "better", but "different". The digital darkroom is aster, easier, cheaper, and more-repeatable than is the wet darkroom.

Silver prints are nice. Wet darkroom work is a 'process' that many find enjoyable, and it is extremely satisfying to shoot film, develop it, and either have a great-looking color slide, or a fine negative, or to have shot a good color negative that was printed as either a proof of a color print in a D&P operation. Watching a Polaroid come up was/is a thrill.

But INSTANT photos, in color positive, seen on the back of a Digital camera? A different experience in almost all ways. Modern digital is a lot like shooting "color negative" slide film! Sooooo easy to edit!, with dynamic range that makes so much difference in non-controlled lighting situations.


----------



## Derrel (May 9, 2019)

FatBear said:


> Why mushrooms and what does this have to do with MF?  I like mushrooms because you can present an everyday object in a way that almost nobody has ever seen before.  I started shooting them like this in 1987 and could find nothing like them in any publication.  I scoured the Internet for mushroom shots before I took the risk of putting such weird photos on Flickr and found nothing like them.  Now I do - in fact there are whole Flickr groups for mushroom shots.  I do not claim they are "copying" me, but I do take at least some credit for making them a popular subject.  Of course that probably means I will have to move on to bryophytes...
> 
> And what it has to do with MF - to me, anyway - is that mushrooms led me to MF.  First I bought a Baby Linhof with a couple of 120 backs and refurbished it.  Then I used the movements and the amazing sharp lenses to improve my shots.  But with mushrooms your camera is in the dirt, sometimes even down in a hole that you have to scrape away.  And it was hard to get my face down there to look at the ground glass - the "underground glass" as it were.  So I bought the Mamiya RZ-67 because it had a waist level viewfinder.  Boy that was nice.  If you've never used a waist-level viewfinder, don't.  You will become addicted.  Right now I think some of the modern DSLRs have articulated screens on the back.  I would only buy a new digital camera if I could either 1, tilt the rear screen up to let me focus and compose from above; or 2, plug in a separate monitor on which to view my focusing and composition.
> 
> If there is an expectation that every photo must be punchier and higher contrast in this modern age, well I hope it is an affectation that passes.  I think it is important to fit the characteristics of the image to the subject and to what you want to say with it.  And sometimes you have to accept what you can get in the conditions.  Doing the best you can with what you've got is becoming a lost art in America.  Buying the best is the modern way.  I guess I'm just old-fashioned after all.



I think that an 85mm tilt/shift macro (Nikon makes a nice,new one) would make a great mushroom rig,paired with aD800-series camera that would yield very high-quality results.

You wrote:"If there is an expectation that every photo must be punchier and higher contrast in this modern age, well I hope it is an affectation that passes."

*Agreed*, but I was observing that the majority of your digital output from 15+ YEARS AGO looks similar to a lot of the output of the period...low in contrast, and somewhat low in saturation compared against what today's cameras and software typically produce._ That smooth, low-gamma look that used to be produced by Canon D30/D60/10D models, and earlier Nikon d-slr JPEGS_. Today's cameras easily handle high-ratio sunlight, whereas the NikonD1 had about 7 stops (maximum) of DR it could handle, before something gave out.

IOW, your earlier digital experience dates to the formative period of dslrs;things have advanced/changed markedly since 2009.


----------



## FatBear (May 9, 2019)

And since this thread was originally about shooting MF, I once knew a portrait and celebrity photographer whose most awesome candid shots were taken with a TLR.  She said that when you put a camera to your eye and point it at someone, they feel like prey.  When you are bending over fiddling with some antique-looking gizmo they ignore you.  And even if they know you are shooting photos they still do not feel like prey and act much more naturally.  I'm not sure about starting out in photography with MF, but if one has learned the basics and wants to get into candid, street, or location portrait photography, a TLR might be a very good way to go.  Get a Rollei, they are less obtrusive than the massive Mamiyas.  Again, one size does not fit all.  And an awful lot of photography is not about the equipment but about understanding your subject.


----------



## Harry Liston (May 9, 2019)

This thread has reminded me of a famous Canadian, Marshall McLuhan, who coined the phrase, "The medium is the message." So maybe photography itself has changed due to technological advances?  I cannot understand why my enthusiasm for photography has waned, considering all the improvements in convenience and quality, affordability etc. Maybe that's the point - too much convenience leads to less appreciation?  I used to love the high quality precision craftsmanship of my Rolleicord IV, but the Mamiya C330 which seemed more like an old Chevy in comparison, took better pictures. So much that is counter-intuitive. Photography is such a complicated thing, that it is impossible to quantify.  Appreciated reading all your comments.


----------



## petrochemist (May 10, 2019)

Grandpa Ron said:


> If by medium format you mean cut film, it is a different world.
> 
> I have been working with a restored 1910 view camera. Lot of fun, I you like challenges.
> 
> ...



Medium format is roll film - typically 120 type, giving 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12 (cm) negatives depending on the camera. Usage is much more similar to 35mm than large format.

Single sheet (cut film) cameras are known as large format with 4"x5" & 10"x8" being the most common. As you say they are a different world, especially if employing movements.
Depending on the film stock being used total darkness may not be required for developing. There are safelights designed to be used with orthochromic films...


----------



## Soocom1 (May 10, 2019)

petrochemist said:


> Grandpa Ron said:
> 
> 
> > If by medium format you mean cut film, it is a different world.
> ...


Dont forget the Med. format 2x3 and 1x2.


----------



## FatBear (May 10, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> Dont forget the Med. format 2x3 and 1x2.


2-1/4 X 3-1/4 (2x3) film is basically 6x9cm - a nice ratio for landscapes but with the same issue as 35mm when it comes to printing the full image.  Paper and frames did not come in that 2:3 ratio so you had to either crop down to 6x7 or use oversize paper and waste a lot.  (If you trimmed them first you could at least save the offcuts for test strips.)  

I had a Linhof Super Technika 23 in the 1980s and early '90s.  (With 8x10 ratio lines etched into the groundglass!)  Finding the sheet film was very hard even back then.  You had to cut your own from 4x5 or 8x10.  Developing it without the special tanks was a PIB.  And it printed exactly like 6x9 shots on 120 roll film.  And there were lots of options in 120 and developing was little different than developing 35mm - easy.  I was very glad that I had a 6x7 and two 6x9 rollfilm backs.  But even that was a pain as critical focus had to be done on the groundglass, then the backs switched.  They did register correctly or this would not work, but you had to have a rock-solid tripod.

Somehow I doubt that things have improved for 2x3 sheet film here in 2019.

I have never heard of 1x2 sheet film.  Tell me about it.


----------



## Soocom1 (May 10, 2019)

Film format - Wikipedia

_500 film pack 1911 1948 1¾" × 2⅜" 12 redefined 1921 as 1⅝ x 2⁷/₁₆ 
121 roll film 1902 1941 1⅝" × 2½" 
_
It hasn't been produced sense Laurel and Hardy, but there were various cameras that I was exposed to including an old folder my dad had that he traded in for a Minolta around 1971 or so.


----------



## Soocom1 (May 10, 2019)

Here is another link to other sizes. I remember them from my time as a wee bit 4 year old monster at Kurt's Camera Corral. 

Standard Film Sizes - Antique and Vintage Cameras


----------



## FatBear (May 10, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> Film format - Wikipedia
> 
> _500 film pack 1911 1948 1¾" × 2⅜" 12 redefined 1921 as 1⅝ x 2⁷/₁₆
> 121 roll film 1902 1941 1⅝" × 2½"
> ...


Oh yeah, those _really _old sizes.  I'm not actually that old.  I only remember watching Laurel and Hardy in reruns.


----------



## petrochemist (May 10, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> petrochemist said:
> 
> 
> > Medium format is roll film - typically 120 type, giving 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12 (cm) negatives depending on the camera. Usage is much more similar to 35mm than large format.
> ...


 I was sticking to sizes I know 120 film is used for the first 3 are quite common, and IIRC my 120 folding cameras that use the latter 2. Historically there have been many other film sizes which are pretty much impossible to get now. Some of the historical formats of roll film wouldn't be likely to be classed as medium format - My Voigtlander vito I was designed for 828 film only fractionally larger than 35mm, fortunately it can also be used with 35mm.


----------



## Ysarex (May 10, 2019)

FatBear said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > FatBear, I looked through your earlier digital phase on Flickr. I _instantly_ recognized the location/shot of Cannon Beach.
> ...



I know this is entirely off topic but much of the thread is now so WTH.

FatBear, start with this old thread: Xmas Present Growing

When the Xmas gift stopped producing and I went to dispose of it my wife said, "just leave it in the vegetable garden and we'll see." So an hour ago I was out starting to do some prep work in the vegetable section of the garden and hidden under the weeds I found:




 

I just finished eating lunch. Yum!

Joe


----------



## FatBear (May 10, 2019)

Mmmmm.  I do love to eat mushrooms, not just to photograph them.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (May 13, 2019)

I never did get a good definition of medium format. But if roll film is medium and cut film is large that is fine by me.

My enlarger has options for 35 mm and 120 film. So I have been scanning my 4x5 negatives and digitally processing them. Now that everything seems to be working, I have ordered the some photo paper and will be trying some contact printing.

In answer to the Ops question there is a lot to learn and a lot of mistakes to be made. So, the less expensive the better. That generally means 35mm if you do not want to go digital.


----------



## Soocom1 (May 13, 2019)

Medium format by definition is anything larger than 35mm and smaller than 4x5 sheet. 

But the original intent of the post is to point out that Med. format is still photography period. 
There is no real fundamental difference between 35mm, MF, or LF. 
Only the way the pictures are taken. 
i simply wanted to point out that if one starts someone on a MF camera (regardless of medium) that it will help underscore the spicific differences of format size and the capabilities of cameras as a whole.


----------



## smoke665 (May 14, 2019)

Wow this thread just keeps growing. Had a conversation about film vs digital last night with a fellow hobby photographer, who like me predates digital. Bottom line we both still share a nostalgic fondness for film. There's a certain hands on feeling you get from the moment you click the shutter to the point you first see the print coming alive in the tray, that's lacking in the digital world. However we both discussed the hassles that come with film. Unless you have the dedicated space to set up a permanent darkroom, the process of setting up, cleaning up and putting things away can quickly overshadow the fun part of darkroom time. 

Making the transition from film to digital was hard for me, but as Derrel mentioned above once I became versed in digital, I'd be hard pressed to go back to film.


----------



## Soocom1 (May 14, 2019)

Well I can only comment at this point because the thread went so outside the intent. 


As I posted earlier, the intent was and is still to point out that med. and Large Format are exactly the same mechanically as 35mm APS size and smaller formats. 
The ONLY difference is that Med. and Large format have certain ancillary advantages over 35mm. To whit I wont explore here, but include overall quality, depth (I am talking about richness of the image here) and specifically enlargement ratios (reproduction ratios) that exceed 1:1. 

But is STILL the same as 35mm.   hence why I comment that one could easily start with Med. or LF over 35mm any day of the week. 

That the mystic of MF and LF is all mental and in one's head. 

But everyone is stuck on the instant feedback of digital over film.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (May 14, 2019)

I guess I am stuck on cost.

If you are  beginner and cost is not and issue, then you can learn on any format you want. However a telephoto or wide angle lens for a 120 format vs. 35mm,  even on the used market is more limiting.

Personally, I have never bought into the idea that film makes you a better photographer. Having grown up with the old 127 format film since the late 1950's I find film discourages experimentation. With Digital I can try all sorts of weird angles and views that would have cost me a fortune even in 35 mm format.


----------



## Soocom1 (May 14, 2019)

When i see a complete Mamiya RB or RZ system with a back, lens viewfinder and body or a TLR that runs around $350-$750 with digital hitting the same if not more, I simply dont see that. 
Especially given that Mamiya glass sells in most cases under $200 and the most expensive systems are still hassys. 

but thats me.


----------



## Ysarex (May 14, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> When i see a complete Mamiya RB or RZ system with a back, lens viewfinder and body or a TLR that runs around $350-$750 with digital hitting the same if not more, I simply dont see that.
> Especially given that Mamiya glass sells in most cases under $200 and the most expensive systems are still hassys.
> 
> but thats me.



Grandpa Ron is right about the cost. Check out this thread: Thrift shopping: Ya never know...

It's much less likely that you'll find a used RB or RZ like that. Today I passed on a good-working-order and very clean Argus C3 for $7.00. In the last couple months I've bought a very nice and fully working Nikon FE for $10.00. 6 months ago I picked up an immaculate Pentax 150mm Takkumar for $20.00. If you want it right now from a used camera dealer the medium format film gear will be considerably more than 35mm film gear. It's too easy to verify -- just go to KEH's website and browse. Medium format: less choice for more money.

Joe


----------



## Derrel (May 14, 2019)

I realize that *within a couple of years, I can shoot $69,000* worth of Ekatachrome equivalent from ANY digital camera...in fact, I DID just that with my Fuji S2, back in the early 2000's.

Film and processing and chemicals,printing and/ or scanning..all tips the COST factor way in favor of digital.


----------



## Ysarex (May 14, 2019)

Derrel said:


> I realize that *within a couple of years, I can shoot $69,000* worth of Ekatachrome equivalent from ANY digital camera...in fact, I DID just that with my Fuji S2, back in the early 2000's.
> 
> Film and processing and chemicals,printing and/ or scanning..all tips the COST factor way in favor of digital.



 ^^^^ Yes. When I first began the process of seriously switching from film to digital and had to start spending money on digital hardware I sat down and did some math. At the time I was still full-time teaching and had some perks like free chemistry for all film processing. I did my own film developing so my only real cost was just the film. I figured on average that I was spending per year between $1,100.00 to $1,300.00 on just film. We were still paying a mortgage and still getting the boy through college so I told my wife I'd stop the film purchases and keep any digital camera/lens purchases at or below $1000.00 per year. When I purchased a Canon 5DmkII and a couple lenses for $5,000.00 I was able to unbox them in front of my wife and say -- check it out I just saved us $1,000.00. Add in the cost of chemistry or lab processing plus inflation and I've saved thousands over the years. I could pick up a new Fuji GFX with lens tomorrow show it to my wife and just say -- still saving money dear 

Joe

P.S. Yes I know, an enthusiast isn't going to shoot multiple rolls of film per week. But it still adds up over time. I've banked a new medium format digital camera in a decade and a half.


----------



## Dikkie (Jun 29, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> Making the transition from film to digital was hard for me, but as Derrel mentioned above once I became versed in digital, I'd be hard pressed to go back to film.


You don't have to go back. 
You don't have to choose between film or digital.
You can just do both if you want.

I shoot digital but from time to time I like to shoot a roll in a random old camera I have here.
It's just nice, gets me out to the photo lab in the city, and it makes life more varied.


----------



## texxter (Jun 29, 2019)

Is this a serious question?  MF for a beginner?  If digital MF we are talking thousands of dollars for a first camera.  If film MF, we are talking about obsolete technology and processes.   The way for a beginner to start is with a phone - learn to see photographically and produce better and more interesting photos with an iPhone without worrying about aperture, iso, or, horror, film chemistry.  Graduate from that to a used digital camera with a couple of primes for a few hundred dollars.  It is all about the images, and the easier the better. 

Edit: iPhone images can be amazing when the photographer knows how to see, e.g., IPPAWARDS | iPhone Photography Awards |   Winners’ Galleries



Soocom1 said:


> Ok.. Ill put my neck on the block here.
> But just tell me something.
> 
> Why is it that someone who wishes to learn photography or step up to a "better" camera shouldn't start with a medium or Large Format.
> Granted the film cost, but all in all, a MF or LF set up to start in many instances is far cheaper for equipment, and forces a person to learn the process and be more specific on their shots.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 30, 2019)

texxter said:


> ......  It is all about the images, and the easier the better........



If you truly believe this, then the medium used, nor how easy it is, is not relevant.

If one wants to 'start out' using an 8x10 view camera shooting Ektachrome, as long as they get the results they want, more power to 'em.


----------



## texxter (Jun 30, 2019)

> If one wants to 'start out' using an 8x10 view camera shooting Ektachrome, as long as they get the results they want, more power to 'em.



The original question was not whether it is possible or desirable for some, which it clearly is, but "why not start with MF/LF" and the solid arguments given above provide answers to that question.  That is why 99.9% of beginners don't do it.


----------



## Soocom1 (Jun 30, 2019)

texxter said:


> > If one wants to 'start out' using an 8x10 view camera shooting Ektachrome, as long as they get the results they want, more power to 'em.
> 
> 
> 
> The original question was not whether it is possible or desirable for some, which it clearly is, but "why not start with MF/LF" and the solid arguments given above provide answers to that question.  That is why 99.9% of beginners don't do it.


There are many multiple people I know who knew how to drive large diesle trucks for farm and ranch use long before they had a lerners permit for a car. 

Same equivilance. 

The "complexity factor" is acadimic in argument. And yes it is a serious question because while the elitest pro end ohotographers argue such remember that most folks like Ansel Adams and the like STARTED with LF. There WASNT 35mm in those days.


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 30, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> texxter said:
> 
> 
> > > If one wants to 'start out' using an 8x10 view camera shooting Ektachrome, as long as they get the results they want, more power to 'em.
> ...



Famous photo of O'Keeffe taken by Adams using 35mm camera:




 

Joe


----------



## Soocom1 (Jun 30, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> Soocom1 said:
> 
> 
> > texxter said:
> ...


did you read what I said?


----------



## Derrel (Jun 30, 2019)

The modern smart phone camera is a pretty good tool...multi-format ( 4:3 1:1, 16:9 wide aspect, in most examples), panorama mode, burst mode, rapid fire still + low frame rate audio (Apple calls it* Live* photo, 14 fps still with audio mode),time lapse, HD video, slow-motion video, affordable, small, light, easy to use. In today's world, I think the smart phone camera represents Oskar Barnack's original light, small,fast-handling 35mm camera (the Leica), which back in the day of single-shot bellows and press-type cameras of 6x9cm to 5x7 inch, was scoffed at by many. After a little more than two decades, the name "miniature" was shifted the "35mm" camera type, and the rest was history.

I still own a medium format film system, but have used it only once or twice since 1991...it has  for the most part, sat idle for the better part of three decades, except for a brief time in the summer of 2014.I personally see very few advantages to starting out with medium format film, as opposed to starting out with a cell phone cam or any other type of digital imaging device.

Of course, there are different reasons for doing photography: art, science, recreation, a simple desire to "have pictures", keepsakes, memories, documentation, and so on. The reasons and rewards are not universal..film presents challenges both logistical and technical, whereas most digital imaging is pretty easy, and we have HUGE technical advantages over film, which is of finite length (12,to 36 shots in most cases), fairly unforgiving of exposure errors, one time use, of one ISO rating for the roll or sheet,and increasingly difficult to locate at many retail locations... in the 1980's, almost any mini-mart or grocery store had at least a few rolls of 35mm color neg film for sale.

At the start of this thread, smoke665 wrote a pretty good rationale against starting out with medium format, at least for the "common person" who* just wants pictures*. For those looking for more of a rewarding _hobby or craft experience_, and who like a bit of a challenge, traditional "analogue photography" will never be beaten, IMO.


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 30, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Soocom1 said:
> ...



Yep.

From Adam's biography (my bold):

"Adams taught himself the piano, which would become his early passion. *In 1916, following a trip to Yosemite National Park, he also began experimenting with photography.* He learned darkroom techniques and read photography magazines, attended camera club meetings, and went to photography and art exhibits. He developed and sold his early photographs at Best’s Studio in Yosemite Valley."

From History 35mm camera (my bold):

"The first 35mm camera to go into production was Jules Richard’s Homeos camera, *which was sold between 1913 and 1920*. However, very few Homeos cameras were produced during this time period and they never became very popular.

The first 35mm camera widely available to the public was the American Tourist Multiple, *which was released in 1913.*

The Tourist Multiple cost $175 in 1913, an equivalent to $4000 in modern United States dollars. Because of its high price point, the camera was not accessible for most people.

Oskar Barnack, a development engineer for Leitz, *first created his compact 35mm in 1913* in order to use 35mm film for still photography rather than motion picture photography. However, production was delayed due to WWI."

Joe


----------



## Derrel (Jun 30, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> Specifically for film medium format or large format vs digital Not necessarily in order but:
> 
> Initial outlay for the camera might be less, but film is expensive not only the film but the processing, unless you process yourself, and still it can be pricey.
> Lack of local processing and/or film. You're pretty much limited to mail order only.
> ...



The very first reply to the OP pretty much said it all..


----------



## Derrel (Jun 30, 2019)

*Lag time between snapping the shutter and seeing the result. For someone just starting out, it's easy to forget what you did between the shot and seeing the results.*


----------



## texxter (Jun 30, 2019)

I think it was Henri Cartier-Bresson who said “Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst.”   There is truth to that.  With an 8x10 view camera it will take 10,000 sheets of film and an enormous amount of time to get to enough volume of work to have some level of competence. The cost of film alone would be $100,000.   Compare to getting 10,000 16 megapixel  jpegs on a 64Gb SD card for $30.  Shooting 10,000 images with an 8x10 on a tripod? Good luck, beginner!


----------



## Derrel (Jun 30, 2019)

A few years ago that first 10,000 of anything was a huge topic, discussed all over the Internet. I just divided 10,000 by 36 and 10,000 pictures is around 278 rolls of film. Since he was primarily a 35 mm shooter,and I have seen some of his contact sheets, let me say that I think he's exaggerating a little bit. But, back in the day in which he lived a person who had shot 270 rolls of film would probably be considered a pretty experienced photographer. I remember buying 100 foot rolls of bulk film in the 1980s as I recall you got about 18 rolls of 36 shots per 100 foot spool. I really can't remember for certain.

 As far as I can remember the biggest film assignment I have shot was about three days,maybe it was four days, at the Walla Walla,Washington balloon "stampede" in 1986, at which a friend and I each shot a brick or 20-roll pack of Kodachrome 64 Professional film. (720 Pictures ).   today about 700 frames is my normal days shooting over a full day, so I guess you could say that in a target rich environment I now shoot at roughly 3 times the total output they used to.That was quite a trip and I was able to make lots of really nice balloon launch and balloon in-flight photographs. I was about 22 years of age and had about 10 years of photography experience at the time.

As I recall, having started with 35 mm adjustable lens Photography in 1975, by 1985 I was pretty competent, but I would get better over the next 20 years. in short I feel like the first five years of film learning could be condensed now into about a year, with the low-cost and the immediate feedback resulting in quicker learning. Back in the film days it was really common to shoot something and then have to wait at  between four hours for E6 slide film at a high volume pro lab, to 12 days or so for a round trip to Rochester, New York and back for development of Kodachrome slide film.

I understand what HCB was trying to get at when he said that your first 10,000 photographs are your worst, but I think today with the immediate feedback people learn photographic technique,and nuances, and composition much,much more quickly than was possible back in the 1930s.


----------



## weepete (Jun 30, 2019)

Shouldn't the question be why has the 35mm format gained so much popularity?


----------



## Derrel (Jun 30, 2019)

weepete said:


> Shouldn't the question be why has the 35mm format gained so much popularity?



  The earliest 35mm cameras offered something that was not around at the time they were introduced. Compared to the current cameras at the time of introduction, 35mm cameras were smaller and lighter, and by 1935 Eastman Kodak's invention of the  standardized 135 factory-loaded film size made it possible for manufacturers to design cameras that no longer required a special cassette,which is a user-loadable metal holder into which bulk film is loaded. It was not too long after the introduction of the 135 factory load that 35mm cameras really took off. Early Leica cameras were designed to use reloadable cassettes but the cartridge format quickly was introduced and other manufacturers got in on the game.

In 1938 Argus introduced its C3 camera,which was manufactured in the USA until about 1968, making it the longest running American Production camera. I have owned two different C3 examples over the years.

The  tremendous beauty of 35mm cameras was first seen in the Leica models, and followed very soon after by the German-made Contax rangefinder camera. Both of these models offered really good lenses, fine workmanship,  and first rate results. as I recall in 1936 the Exacta single lens reflex camera was premiered. 

There were other much less expensive  35mm cameras as well when I was a kid I used to have a 1940 Bass Camera catalog,and I was extremely impressed with how very expensive Leica and Contax cameras were! At a time when  a new Ford car could be had for $350-$500,there were Leica and Contax cameras with high-quality 50 mm lenses priced at $400 and even $425! This was a tremendous amount of money in pre-World War II America. By comparison an Argus C3 outfit, complete with the flash gun and carrying case was around $65.

 Beginning around 1948 and 1950, and Canon and Nikon got into the 35 mm rangefinder market.

By the mid-1950s, the instant return mirror was invented and premiered in I believe 1954, in the Asahiflex.I have only used one 35mm single lens reflex without an instant return mirror and that was my old 1950s Zeiss Contaflex. 

By 1940 there was a large number of 35mm cameras available, and it was the up-and-coming new format of choice for people who wanted picturesand who liked the idea of lots of shots per roll,easy film loading, and a relatively new and exciting type of camera. Compared to a speed graphic with 4 x 5" sheet film that had to be loaded in the dark room into a two-sided film holder, 35 mm offered 20 shots in one pre-loaded cartridge. I'm not exactly sure when the 36 exposure roll was invented.  But compared to sheet film with one or two exposures and large bulky film holders,  the 35mm format offered very small film size, and required no darkroom to get the film ready for loading into the camera.

 Because the film was so much smaller than common at the time,Lenses did not need to be especially long,and lens designers fairly quickly came out with what were extraordinarily high speed lenses such as f/1.5 and f/2. 

For the creative types, 35 mm offered a good compromise between deep depth of field at Moderate Lens apertures, and  deep depth of field at small f-stops such as f/11, f/16, and f/22.basically The35mm camera was small and light and very mobile and fairly easy to shoot, even for small people, women, children, and the physically infirm . As film continued to rapidly get better and better it was less and less of a drawback to having a small negative and by the late 1950s the somewhat demeaning term of "miniature" was dropped from most photography books and magazines. In 1959 Nikon premiered its system camera the Nikon F, with a wide range of lenses and accessories. Within 10 years the Nikon would replace the Leica as the 35mm camera used by The vast majority of photojournalists worldwide.  Today Leica is no longer a working professional camera in most instances 

 Beginning in the 1950s, 35mm  Color slides became popular with many amateurs, and slide shows were popular across the world.  It was during the decade of the 1950s that the 35 mm camera swept into widespread popularity with the masses, and there were  many different cameras at many different price points

When we asked the question "why did the 35mm camera become so popular? " we only have to look at the ease of use,the wide range in price points, and the huge amount of offerings that industry decided to give to people, and we can see that it was a combination of demand and offerings. It's sort of a chicken and egg thing..in the post World War II era Japan started cranking out more and more cameras, and the new cameras like the Canon and Nikon rangefinder cameras began to be used by professional photo journalists.  Eastman Kodak company offered  relatively inexpensive 35mm cameras in the 1940s and 1950s as well as higher end offerings in the 1950s and 1960s. By the decade of the 1960s the  35mm camera was well established and for about 60 years it was one of the worlds most popular types of camera. But as we know, beginning in the late 1990s digital cameras appeared  on the scene.

And now here we are some 20 years later, and film is pretty much a memory for most people, Much like the typewriter, the phonograph, and the landline telephone.


----------



## weepete (Jun 30, 2019)

Yes mate, a very interesting history indeed. Thanks for taking the time to give us really good overview. 

Pesonally I think ergonomics plays a big deal too, 35mm in modern cameras. MF and LF format cameras are pretty big and unweildly, where the 35mm formmat is big yet ergonomically probably the biggest sensor that's been extensivley designed to fit in the hand too


----------

