MOZ Posted September 4, 2013 Share #21 Posted September 4, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi, I have bought a MM at the beginning of the year, really a great moove i made ! Shooting in b&w really suits me. I love it, the MM is an incredible tool. I really find some of the medium format textures in it. But i also wanted to keep some colour process and decided to buy a 503CW Hasselblad that i use with Portra films. I get different results, i love the film rendering and can make prints to 40' with the medium neg well scanned. I also made prints till 50' with MM files that are just stunning... I usualy print at 30' with MM files now, i find that's the best size... I also planned to get a 4'x5' camera (Travelwide 90). That will allow me to be able to shoot normal, medium and large formats... I find this to be a great range of possibilities. I believe you should keep your Contax, as you might miss colour some day (!). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 4, 2013 Posted September 4, 2013 Hi MOZ, Take a look here MM and Medium Format. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
algrove Posted September 4, 2013 Share #22 Posted September 4, 2013 MOZ I assume you mean 40 inch prints, etc when you discuss your print sizes? Hey, put a P45+ on that 503CW and look at those images. Just wonderful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOZ Posted September 4, 2013 Share #23 Posted September 4, 2013 Yep, definitively 40 inches... I like to use film for the moment and it's still way more afordable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick_S Posted September 5, 2013 Share #24 Posted September 5, 2013 I like to use film for the moment and it's still way more afordable. ??? I get 89 Monocrom images, each in both DNG and JPEG formats, on an Transcend 4GB SD card costing 5 euros. Unless that is you're referring to the cost of the camera. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOZ Posted September 5, 2013 Share #25 Posted September 5, 2013 I was refering to this of course... Hey, put a P45+ on that 503CWAnd talking about the price of the MM shots, well, don't forget to include the price of the body + lens... will be more than 5€... I believe :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 5, 2013 Share #26 Posted September 5, 2013 And talking about medium format film, don't forget to include the price of a drum scanner - about 30.000 $.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted September 5, 2013 Share #27 Posted September 5, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) And talking about medium format film, don't forget to include the price of a drum scanner - about 30.000 $.... A few observations: 1. The medium format film user might like traditional wet prints. Why would he/she need to buy a drum scanner? 2. There are plenty of labs that will do drum scans for you. Unless you are in a habit of drum scanning all your photographs, this is a far more cost effective option than buying a drum scanner. 3. There are plenty of other options for scanning medium format film than using a drum scanner. Sometimes the photograph shines through even when every last ounce of pixel level image quality hasn't been extracted. 4. If you feel that you really must own a drum scanner, they can be bought used cheaper than the price of a Monochrom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 5, 2013 Share #28 Posted September 5, 2013 And: what does a medium format wet print cost ? Or a lab drum scan? Can you buy a drum scanner for less than the price difference between an MM and a medium format system? And how does that work out after the film/processing costs are factored in taking into account the number of images made? Don't get me wrong, for me the preferred medium counts, not the costs, provided they don't go astronomical ( which means different things for different persons;)). However, the cost argument was brought up by the OP. I was only pointing out that this cost argument cannot be made simplistically.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOZ Posted September 5, 2013 Share #29 Posted September 5, 2013 That was my point too... Saying that 89 images from a MM cost 5€ is just a non sense. But assuming that we all have a body + lens here (and probably Leica ones), we might say that working digital is less expensive (the P45+ being way out of range in the case of the Hasselblad) Working with film has a cost. For me, shooting 12 views on 120 film, make them developped + scanned at 65M/image costs me 10€, here in Paris. I buy the Portra 120 film near 4€ (in packs). So this is something like 1€/image... This is not drum scanned but you can make very large prints anyway. That's a lot more than the digital files from my MM, but i don't shoot 89 pictures on the same day, i make them count "more" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted September 5, 2013 Share #30 Posted September 5, 2013 More film = better pics & no way around it. But the purpose of 35mm always was portability and spontaneity in the photos. It is a trade off we make. There has been a quest for better 35mm pictures as long as I can remember. We have fine grain film and developers and now 36 MP sensors and most of us have concluded it is "good enough." My M9 and Nikons make 11x14 prints better than I ever could with MF format film. That is good enough for me. If you do many kinds of commercial work, you need big film or big sensor. The cost of big sensor is cost prohibitive for most and film is dying and customers are not willing to wait for results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOZ Posted September 5, 2013 Share #31 Posted September 5, 2013 That's strange... i make a lot of prints and my MF prints and MM prints are both as good as it gets... I wouldn't say that the MM files are better (you can tweak them a lot more, that's for sure), they are different but not better in my opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick_S Posted September 5, 2013 Share #32 Posted September 5, 2013 That was my point too... Saying that 89 images from a MM cost 5€ is just a non sense. If you want to engage in constructive discussion, try not to rubbish other points of view. Your original point was ambiguous which is why I queried it and gave my own experience. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest badbob Posted September 5, 2013 Share #33 Posted September 5, 2013 Apologies if I shouldn't mention color, but Ken Rockwell published a technical and factual analysis of a high quality 35 mm color transparency, and concluded that to fully reproduce every aspect of the film would require 175 mp of data. I don't think he claimed that any given user would agree to the necessity of accurately reproducing all of that data, but that there are certain aspects of the film that aren't duplicated or matched by current digital cameras, and some or even most of those qualities may be desirable when digital technology is up to it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptZoom Posted September 5, 2013 Share #34 Posted September 5, 2013 I am skeptical of any claims made by K. Rockwell. From Rockwell's website: It [his website] is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination. This website is my personal opinion. To use words of Ansel Adams on page 193 of his autobiography, this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact." Apologies if I shouldn't mention color, but Ken Rockwell published a technical and factual analysis of a high quality 35 mm color transparency, and concluded that to fully reproduce every aspect of the film would require 175 mp of data. I don't think he claimed that any given user would agree to the necessity of accurately reproducing all of that data, but that there are certain aspects of the film that aren't duplicated or matched by current digital cameras, and some or even most of those qualities may be desirable when digital technology is up to it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest badbob Posted September 6, 2013 Share #35 Posted September 6, 2013 Even the devil can tell the truth occasionally, and Ken isn't the devil. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shade Posted September 6, 2013 Share #36 Posted September 6, 2013 I personally think you should keep/buy whichever camera you love the most. I always believe that a loved gear, will produce better pictures than the "technical" or "characteristic" aspects. Sure the MM and lens does draw differently, but does it make you "I'm gonna take my MM and take some photos today! I love using it and take it around with me". No? Then sell it. Yes? Then by all means keep it. There's no point in keeping a camera, no matter how astounding the details and characteristics are, if you looked at in, and you think "I'm gonna take pictures today, but I'm not taking THAT, way too heavy... I'm just gonna take my AAA camera with me...". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest badbob Posted September 6, 2013 Share #37 Posted September 6, 2013 I personally think you should keep/buy whichever camera you love the most. I always believe that a loved gear, will produce better pictures than the "technical" or "characteristic" aspects. Sure the MM and lens does draw differently, but does it make you "I'm gonna take my MM and take some photos today! I love using it and take it around with me". No? Then sell it. Yes? Then by all means keep it. There's no point in keeping a camera, no matter how astounding the details and characteristics are, if you looked at in, and you think "I'm gonna take pictures today, but I'm not taking THAT, way too heavy... I'm just gonna take my AAA camera with me...". Ironically, exactly what Ken Rockwell says - i.e. "Your camera doesn't matter, just the photographer matters". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted September 6, 2013 Share #38 Posted September 6, 2013 Apologies if I shouldn't mention color, but Ken Rockwell published a technical and factual analysis of a high quality 35 mm color transparency, and concluded that to fully reproduce every aspect of the film would require 175 mp of data. I don't think he claimed that any given user would agree to the necessity of accurately reproducing all of that data, but that there are certain aspects of the film that aren't duplicated or matched by current digital cameras, and some or even most of those qualities may be desirable when digital technology is up to it. KR is not factual, as he himself admits. For practical purposes, the 11mp Canon 1Ds already matched or exceeded the data in a medium format transparency back in 2003 ... State-of-the-Art 35mm Digital Vs. Medium Format Film Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptZoom Posted September 6, 2013 Share #39 Posted September 6, 2013 Unfortunately the camera matters. Extreme example: Try convincing some one to pay you (say the average market rate) to shoot a wedding, if all you have to shoot with is an iPhone camera. Mildly extreme example: Try getting a paid gig shooting a low light event when armed with a Holga, or an entry level point and shoot camera. Normal example: Try shooting children at play using any camera that doesn't allow for good manual control or doesn't have AF speed to keep up with kids. Will you get some shots that are keeper? Sure. But you'll a lot more garbage. I agree that having the right gear isn't going to make anyone a better photographer, but it sure does help in getting the job done correctly easier/more efficient. All if this before getting into specialized photography and inherent limitations due to camera design. Last I checked, the M series don't work very well for underwater photography. No amount of technical mastery will overcome physics- subject isolation due to narrow/shallow depth of field using a mobile phone camera. The list goes on and on. It's fairly easy to find holes in all encompassing blanket statements. But who knows, maybe in the near future smart cameras will arrive- where the photographer is responsible for being in the right place at the right time. The image capture device will do the rest. There are hints of this already in a few smart phones; some phones will sample all the photos and videos taken and arrange photo-essays. And by all accounts, the photo essays are much better than expected. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOZ Posted September 6, 2013 Share #40 Posted September 6, 2013 If you want to engage in constructive discussion, try not to rubbish other points of view. Your original point was ambiguous which is why I queried it and gave my own experience. Nick Sorry to have offended you (not my intention), but anyway try to explain to anybody you know (not involved in photography) that your 89 shots cost 5€ at most... And then explain them that they were taken with a 6500€ camera You see my point. Taking and printing pictures with high end gear is a "rich" sport, not everybody can afford that. As for my first answer i was responding to the idea of putting a digital Phase One back to my Hasselblad camera vs using film... A digital back is at least 10k€ (used ones and not even a P45+ !). Is it worst it ? Those are really good products but i find it easier, funnier and more economical to go the route of film in this case. I'm really enjoying the film way as well as the digital way my MM allows me. I think both can live together. Playing with both helps reminding you what made photography sometimes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.