Future of MF

Stacey wrote:

Victor wrote:



The stories I heard were all the same. Digital is in and film is out.


Blah blah blah, go buy a digital camera. They are way better than any ol
film camera ever was.

Indeed. And since that recent EU ruling worldwide that mandates that each
person must only possess one and only one camera, or suffer the death
penalty, it certainly would be the wisest choice.
--
Ian Tindale

David Fouchey wrote:

Wilt Archival issues are a major concern for sure. With all the
advances in digital storage libraries still depend on microfiche for
archival works for the very reason of medial obsolescence.

I guess you'll be surprised then to find to what advanced degree
institutions having large archives (and adding lots to them on a daily
basis) have already switched to digital documents and digital archives.
It improves availability, reducing both time spent retrieving and replacing
documents (whether on fiche or paper). And it reduces the quite considerable
space the archive occupies.

The archival issue is one of time: how much time can you spend (regularly)
to copy your archive, perhaps reformatting to different format and/or
substrate at the same time. With computers doing the work mostly
autonomously, it's not (!) a big issue.

We poor photographers having to copy our CDs, one by one, all by
ourselves... well, that's a different matter. ;-)

As far as I am concerned (and others with better credentials than me,
including pros) the winner at this moment in time (and, presumably, for
some time to come) is MF/LF plus a good scanner in the Nikon 8000/9000
league, or something like Imacon. So, if you want to enjoy your hobby,
you must persuade the wife that in addition to the price of MF and film,
you should invest in a scanner as above. (Of course, purchasing also
Photoshop CS is a must). A good prosumer printer of the Cannon i9950 or
Epson variety would then do justice to your images. The irony is that
thanks to the scanner, the superlative quality of inkjet printers, and
Photoshop, digital has not killed film, on the contrary, it gave it a
new lease of life (for those for whom photography is more than
recognising aunt Mary in her red dress on a 6 x7 inch photo).

Another aspect of the problem is that pictures taken with a digital
camera do have significantly less noise and are shaper than film, and
for some this is the winning factor. But there are no free lunches.
The "cleaner" or "neater" image given by the digital camera suffers
from lack of detail, a somewhat clinical and artificial look and
inferior tonality, which may not be pleasing to others. Its final size
is also generally limited (of course, depending on the subject). For a
more natural look, which admittedly does have more noise, and might be
less "crisp", and for size (which you generally need, in particular for
cropping) you still cannot beat a MF/LF image obtained from a negative
(eg. Reala), scanned with a good, what am I saying, very good scanner.

as you americans, say, my 2cents' worth.


In article , Victor
writes
I consider myself an amature photographer. I used 35mm SLRs for many
years. About four years ago I became intrigued with medium format
cameras after a friend of mine showed me some photographs he had taken
with a 645 camera. The results were incredible. Soon after that I
bought a MF camera. At the time it seemed like the right move for me,
but now I'm not so sure this was a good move. Here is why:

I got married about three years ago and became a parent soon after
that. The family life was so demanding that I decided to put my hobby
on hold for a couple of years. About a month ago I spoke with my wife
about taking up my hobby again. She was thrilled. First thing I did
before my come back was to read up on the latest advances. After a
week or so of investigation I realized that digital photography had
taken off. I had read about it during my three years away, but had no
idea how far it had gone. Yesterday I went to visit a few friends of
mine that work at local photography shops in town. I wanted to find
out from them if everything I read was true. Every opinion I heard
sounded like I should get rid of my MF camera. This shocked me
beacuse some of these friends were really into MF format.

The stories I heard were all the same. Digital is in and film is out.
I thought this trend only affected the 35mm market, but interestingly
enough I found out that it was also affecting the MF market. The
trend among professional photographers seems to be away from MF and
towards high end digital cameras. I didn't feel to bad when I heard
this news because I thought they were probably sacrifising quality for
convenience. However, after seeing some enlarged images taken with
high end digital cameras, I wasn't sure this was the case. Still,
what really got me worried was when I heard most shops in town were
planning to do away with film materials (chemicals, film, etc.) within
the next four to five years.

I beleive that film will be in for a long time. My concern is at what
price and inconvenience? Also, where is the nitch for MF camera? I
would like to hear your opinion.

--
nobody

David Fouchey wrote in message . ..
On 12 Sep 2004 02:44:59 GMT, (Wilt W) wrote:

No dispute that technology will prevail at some point, especially now that
continued advancement of technology in film emulsions is so reduced. I love
shooting with my digital, but the film camera has its place (for now).

No doubt that digital has it's place - in someone else's pocket...

Ditto I carry both digital and film cameras for that very reason.

Where as I have my Iskra that I carry everywhere instead. By the time
I get done uploading, tweaking and printing a digital shot I can take,
develope and print a roll of 120 6x6's and have more fun doing so.
Your milage will vary.

Dave

Kodak and Fiji and the rest of the big companies will, no doubt, stop
producing film sooner or later. So? As long as demand exists, someone
will produce light sensitive silver coated celluloid. That's all that
matters to me.

William

In article ,
says...
I beleive that film will be in for a long time. My concern is at what
price and inconvenience? Also, where is the nitch for MF camera? I
would like to hear your opinion.

Since you already have an MF camera just continue to use it. You will
probably be able to by extra lenses, used, at favorable prices, if you
need them.
For your baby pictures go buy a modest digital camera and shoot lots
of pictures while your child is young. Get them processed at your
local one-hour and if you want to keep the originals ask for a
photo CD at the same time.
Don't worry about MF and film becoming "obsolete". Your camera is
not going to stop working and film will be around for many years.
While your getting back into photography read the trade magazines
and the online forums and you'll start to decide what type of
digital "darkroom" you might want.

--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:

just simply think about the 1.8" microdrive have 20/40Gbyte capacity now
"David Fouchey" ???
news
Wilt Archival issues are a major concern for sure. With all the
advances in digital storage libraries still depend on microfiche for
archival works for the very reason of medial obsolescence.

Dave

On 12 Sep 2004 02:44:59 GMT, (Wilt W) wrote:

Wilt also look at how much the technology of digital has advanced in
just a few short years. With pixel size falling to the sub micron
level and with an array size comparable now to a 35 mm frame at a
fraction of the price of just a few years ago it is approaching the
detail and tonal range of film. Is it competitive with film yet? For
general photo use it is fine, for fine art not there yet. But it will
be and probably sooner than we think.

No dispute that technology will prevail at some point, especially now
that
continued advancement of technology in film emulsions is so reduced. I
love
shooting with my digital, but the film camera has its place (for now).

One wonders how many digital photographs will be lost to history because
they
were stored with proprietary versions of RAW digital files, stored in
obsolete
media (it will be interesting to see how long the DVD continues to
exist...just
look at the 5.25" floopy, it's getting hard to find a new PC with even
the 3.5"
floppy!). We have silver negs over 100 years later, will be have the
digital
files of today accessible in 2103? This is a significant, yet ignored,
issue
that no one thinks about. Will future generations be able to look back
and see
what life was like?

just simply think about the 1.8" microdrive have 20/40Gbyte capacity now
"David Fouchey" ???
news
Wilt Archival issues are a major concern for sure. With all the
advances in digital storage libraries still depend on microfiche for
archival works for the very reason of medial obsolescence.

Dave

On 12 Sep 2004 02:44:59 GMT, (Wilt W) wrote:

Wilt also look at how much the technology of digital has advanced in
just a few short years. With pixel size falling to the sub micron
level and with an array size comparable now to a 35 mm frame at a
fraction of the price of just a few years ago it is approaching the
detail and tonal range of film. Is it competitive with film yet? For
general photo use it is fine, for fine art not there yet. But it will
be and probably sooner than we think.

No dispute that technology will prevail at some point, especially now
that
continued advancement of technology in film emulsions is so reduced. I
love
shooting with my digital, but the film camera has its place (for now).

One wonders how many digital photographs will be lost to history because
they
were stored with proprietary versions of RAW digital files, stored in
obsolete
media (it will be interesting to see how long the DVD continues to
exist...just
look at the 5.25" floopy, it's getting hard to find a new PC with even
the 3.5"
floppy!). We have silver negs over 100 years later, will be have the
digital
files of today accessible in 2103? This is a significant, yet ignored,
issue
that no one thinks about. Will future generations be able to look back
and see
what life was like?

i started to use MF just a couple of months, and was thinking about digital,
if and only if the film is stop production, i think the digital back for MF
will be affortable for amature while.
just keep going, film is more concert indeed.

"Victor" ???
om ???...
I consider myself an amature photographer. I used 35mm SLRs for many
years. About four years ago I became intrigued with medium format
cameras after a friend of mine showed me some photographs he had taken
with a 645 camera. The results were incredible. Soon after that I
bought a MF camera. At the time it seemed like the right move for me,
but now I'm not so sure this was a good move. Here is why:

I got married about three years ago and became a parent soon after
that. The family life was so demanding that I decided to put my hobby
on hold for a couple of years. About a month ago I spoke with my wife
about taking up my hobby again. She was thrilled. First thing I did
before my come back was to read up on the latest advances. After a
week or so of investigation I realized that digital photography had
taken off. I had read about it during my three years away, but had no
idea how far it had gone. Yesterday I went to visit a few friends of
mine that work at local photography shops in town. I wanted to find
out from them if everything I read was true. Every opinion I heard
sounded like I should get rid of my MF camera. This shocked me
beacuse some of these friends were really into MF format.

The stories I heard were all the same. Digital is in and film is out.
I thought this trend only affected the 35mm market, but interestingly
enough I found out that it was also affecting the MF market. The
trend among professional photographers seems to be away from MF and
towards high end digital cameras. I didn't feel to bad when I heard
this news because I thought they were probably sacrifising quality for
convenience. However, after seeing some enlarged images taken with
high end digital cameras, I wasn't sure this was the case. Still,
what really got me worried was when I heard most shops in town were
planning to do away with film materials (chemicals, film, etc.) within
the next four to five years.

I beleive that film will be in for a long time. My concern is at what
price and inconvenience? Also, where is the nitch for MF camera? I
would like to hear your opinion.

Ian Tindale wrote:

Stacey wrote:

Victor wrote:



The stories I heard were all the same. Digital is in and film is out.


Blah blah blah, go buy a digital camera. They are way better than any ol
film camera ever was.

Indeed. And since that recent EU ruling worldwide that mandates that each
person must only possess one and only one camera, or suffer the death
penalty, it certainly would be the wisest choice.


I'm going to sell everything I have from 35mm to 8X10 so I can own one of
these newest greatest things. I can't wait till I finally take some
-digital quality- pictures!
--

Stacey

Ian Tindale wrote:

Stacey wrote:

Victor wrote:



The stories I heard were all the same. Digital is in and film is out.


Blah blah blah, go buy a digital camera. They are way better than any ol
film camera ever was.

Indeed. And since that recent EU ruling worldwide that mandates that each
person must only possess one and only one camera, or suffer the death
penalty, it certainly would be the wisest choice.


I'm going to sell everything I have from 35mm to 8X10 so I can own one of
these newest greatest things. I can't wait till I finally take some
-digital quality- pictures!
--

Stacey