Jacking in digital for medium format film

retrogamer1990

retrogamer1990

Messages
986
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
No
I'm very seriously considering not bothering with digital anymore for serious photography and just getting a decent digital compact for messing about/snaps.
I'm only a hobbyist at the end of the day and find using film more rewarding, plus, the quality from 645 and above is frankly incredible.
Anyone else gone down this road? Recommend it?
 
Danny will be along very soon, as he very recently did something like this!
 
I have recently done this and have no regrets at all. I have moved to MF and LF work and find it so much more rewarding.

Mart
 
Well if an amateur or a hobby, it's all about doing something that you enjoy. For me I like taking photographs and cameras and lenses are just tools, and who knows if a 5DmkII was going for £50 I might use that :)
If I could find somewhere near that I could pop in to dev 120 negs for about £2.50 I'd use my MF gear a lot more and....... I used to do my own colour dev and printing for years, never really liked it and don't want to go back.
 
Last edited:
I have, over the last couple of years got and used a fair few medium format cameras and cetainly for the last 3 years shot 90% film on MF.

I love film and enjoy using it but sometimes digital does have it uses. I don't think I would ever go completly MF, 35mm or digital simply because each have there own advantages and disadvantages.
 
excalibur2 said:
If I could find somewhere near that I could pop in to dev 120 negs for about £2.50 I'd use my MF gear a lot more and....... I used to do my own colour dev and printing for years, never really liked it and don't want to go back.
Click to expand...

(assuming C-41 120)
If you shoot a lot, pile them up and then send them off to Genie Imaging I reckon that with postage between a lot of rolls it'll only come to about £3 a roll - a possibility?

Or perhaps Snaps Photo Services, which offer C-41 120 dev for £2.50? http://www.snapsphotoservices.com/page_2170585.html

Again, with the cost of postage between a few rolls, it might work out to about £3? If you are a casual shooter then I appreciate that it's not very viable after postage.
 
As much as I love shooting film I can't see a time when I jack in digital completely. I don't think that there is a film kit that can match my D300, 300mm f4 with 1.4 tc for birds/wildlife.

Andy
 
Turn off auto review and the rear screen. Use only the optical viewfinder and see how you get on. For the added film scanned experience add in bits of crap and hair to the image :D

Slow down. Take out an ND filter and a tripod. Maybe take a manual light meter too.

I've noticed digital makes me rush and just whizz off half a dozen sometimes when in film days I'd stop and think then probably only take two at most. Or try and resist looking at your efforts as soon as you get home. Leave them a week for further film-esque experience ;)
 
I couldn't not have digital either. My film stuff I love and am happy to go out without my 7D but sometimes digital is required, especially when I am out shooting wildlife/animals etc. Mind you I am not good at any of it!
 
I too shoot both digital and film - I find both have their place. I'm not sure why it's entirely necessary to limit yourself to one (aside from monetary issues, which is fair enough).
 
And once again, much as I love shooting on film, theres no way my digital kit is going anywhere.

If you can afford to put a roof over your head and food on the table without selling the digital gear, then keep it, and use it where its appropriate.
 
Thanks for the input everyone, I'll take your opinions into consideration :)
 
TheBigYin said:
And once again, much as I love shooting on film, theres no way my digital kit is going anywhere.
Click to expand...

This is the same for me tbh. I have been shooting film for a number of years now. I moved to MF about 18 months ago at a guess, and have in the last month added LF. I'm absolutely loving film. But I also absolutely love my D700. At the end of the day, if you can afford to keep the kit you have, then do that. If after a good long while you honestly find yourself never using the digital kit, then sell it. But only then. That's my advice anyway :)
 
Woodsy said:
This is the same for me tbh. I have been shooting film for a number of years now. I moved to MF about 18 months ago at a guess, and have in the last month added LF. I'm absolutely loving film. But I also absolutely love my D700. At the end of the day, if you can afford to keep the kit you have, then do that. If after a good long while you honestly find yourself never using the digital kit, then sell it. But only then. That's my advice anyway :)
Click to expand...

See that's the thing, if I have film to use, I'll never pick up my digital, and more often than not, I have film :p I do need to try LF!
 
I'm reaching that stage with my digi kit, I haven't taken it out for a serious session in almost a year now, I always go for the LF or one of my other film bodies. I've sold off a few bits but should probably shift the rest as there's too much cash :eek: tied up in it for it not to be used.

For the OP, if you go MF then you always have the choice of getting a digi back in the future provided you pick your camera right. For me the only 645 camera I would consider is a Contax 645, as the relatively small frame for the extra bulk/weight is offset by the amazing lenses (and ability to take a Phase One back in the future)
 
freecom2 said:
(assuming C-41 120)
If you shoot a lot, pile them up and then send them off to Genie Imaging I reckon that with postage between a lot of rolls it'll only come to about £3 a roll - a possibility?

Or perhaps Snaps Photo Services, which offer C-41 120 dev for £2.50? http://www.snapsphotoservices.com/page_2170585.html

Again, with the cost of postage between a few rolls, it might work out to about £3? If you are a casual shooter then I appreciate that it's not very viable after postage.
Click to expand...

Yeah thanks I know, but I'm spoilt by 35mm and Asda, they are a bit slack ATM and will do dev film to CD in 30mins....today finished the film up on some test panos (a row of tomatoes :LOL:) , drove to Asda in 20mins, film done in 30mins, back in doors 20mins later, switched the computer on and did the first pano in 10mins, and will post in the panos thread (it's not bad and worth a look :shrug:).
 
That's fair enough then, after all 35mm was the format that was most picked up by the masses rather than 120, so it makes sense that it's still the easiest and most hassle free.
 
im fairly similar to woodsy here, i use film and digital quite happily at the same time, if instant results and speed of the camera arent necessary, then i'll use my RB67 but if its something i need to be certain of getting or its tricky conditions, then digital wins hands down. could say i use film for fun and digital for convenience and volume. I couldnt not shoot digital and i think you would regret ditching digital IMHO
 
I'm really disinterested in digital, I feel like if the image can't be shot on film I'm not interested in the image.
This is not the same as a challenge to shoot something that is difficult to shoot on film, that would be like waving a red rag at a bull..:LOL:
I still have all my digital kit which only really amounts to a D200 body because everything else can be used on a film camera, its hardly worth dumping even though I haven't shot it in anger for years, but you never know when it might come in useful to provide files for someone slightly less interested than myself in their origins.
So for me, digital cameras are out, as are digital backs, what I can't seem to shake off is versatility, MF does not lend itself well to that, gotta have 35mm to cover all the angles.

:)
 
***I'm really disinterested in digital, I feel like if the image can't be shot on film I'm not interested in the image.***

erm not even for quick shots of gear bought at a boot sale :)
 
freecom2 said:
Danny will be along very soon, as he very recently did something like this!
Click to expand...

:D

I have indeed.

For all personal work and client work, unless otherwise specifically requested, I am now 100% shooting film. I've offloaded most of my digital gear, I just have my D200 remaining, which I used at the weekend for a client shoot as they specifically wanted tethered shooting.

Once I've gotten rid of that, I will still shoot digital, but only for clients, and only if their budget covers the equipment hire.

Best thing I've done in years photographically :cool:
 
excalibur2 said:
***I'm really disinterested in digital, I feel like if the image can't be shot on film I'm not interested in the image.***

erm not even for quick shots of gear bought at a boot sale :)
Click to expand...


Of course, but digital has fallen a very long way when the only time you choose to shoot it, is for crap you don't care about.
 
I use both film and digital, but the only advantage of digital is speed, convenience and no film/processing costs.
Looking at slides through a viewer is loads more satisfying than clicking through a load of flat looking images on a screen.
 
I can't imagine giving up digital but I do find medium format film tempting as a second camera for really speical shots given the price compaired to digital.

Its a bit generalised I know but compaired to say a 5D mk2 what kind of image quality/print size would I get from something like a Mayima 7?
 
well in very round figures - a mamiya 7 shoots at 6x7 - thats a actual field of 56mm x 70mm - scanned at 2400dpi, you'd get a file of around 5290x6614 pixels - call it 34.8megapixels :)
 
If you want to get serious (really special shots, after all) and get the negative scanned by a professional lab's drum scanner... let's say conservatively 6,000ppi (although wikipedia says that the optical resolution of the top ones goes towards 24,000ppi). That for a 6x7 would be 13,228x16,535 pixels, or just over 218 megapixels. If you shoot square format 6x6, that would be 175 megapixels.

Serious business! I'm sure by then you are testing the whole process from point of manufacture to point of scanning, with any point (developing, lens, metering) being possible failure steps. But it shows what is possible.
 
Last edited:
Just did one more calculation - this would be ridiculous, but at a 24,000ppi scan:

52,913 x 66,141 = 3500 megapixels, or 3.5gigapixels. The power of medium format, eh?
 
Is there a point at which such scanning resolutions become counter-productive?
Technically/IQ I mean.
 
Last edited:
Carter64 said:
Is there a point at which such scanning resolutions become counter-productive?
Technically/IQ I mean.
Click to expand...

Not to mention needing a medium sized render farm in the back bedroom to do anything more than crop the file... :LOL:
 
Good point! My clockwork ancient AMD 64 x2 struggles as it is with 2400dpi scanned 6x7's as tiffs.
I'm still curious about the technical bits, though, practically useless as they maybe. I'm like that :)
 
Carter64 said:
Is there a point at which such scanning resolutions become counter-productive?
Click to expand...

Keeping dust at bay, whilst improved with a wet drum scan and using stuff like ventilators and other such gizmos keeping the atmosphere as clean as possible, will be notoriously difficult with so many pixels to go through. Any developing issues at all - the slightest of finger prints/skin oil, even minute scratches from any part of the process, impurities in the water used to dry the emulsion, impurities in any of the liquids used to develop, fix and bleach film. Any problems in camera - little bits of dust/particles lodged in the film transport, causing marks as the film advances to the next frame. Any marks on the lens, if the film pressure plate doesn't keep the film absolutely flat, any dust on filters or internal elements...

I could go on for pages and pages and pages. With my bog standard flatbed-slightly-film-orientated scanner (Epson 4180), I scan my 6x6 negatives at 2400dpi giving me pictures about 5400x5400px, which is comfortable enough for me. Just using numbers to show what is possible, but practically would be a pain in the rear end unless you needed the absolute best from your work for large exhibition requirements et al.
 
I was wondering if one could wet-scan with a little DIY. Seal the glass surface of the scan-table with silicone and use ethanol to mount the negative?
 
Cistron said:
I was wondering if one could wet-scan with a little DIY. Seal the glass surface of the scan-table with silicone and use ethanol to mount the negative?
Click to expand...

wet scanning? :thinking:
 
retrogamer1990 said:
wet scanning? :thinking:
Click to expand...
Use a fluid between film and glass to avoid newton rings. The V700/750 I believe has an option for this, but from what I read and heard is rather messy because it uses (harmless) oils instead of volatile solvents.
 
As others have said, I wouldn't ditch my digital kit, but I'm loving shooting with my Bronnie ETRSi. Scanning is a bit of a pain in the bum though.
 
One of the things I'd be thinking about in this decision is the value of the kit.

I bought a Nikon D100 for work about 8 years ago for £1500 and if you look on Ebay you can buy one now for around £100-£120 - so it's now worth about 6-8% of its original purchase price. To us it does the job it's needed for so there's no need or desire to sell. Also highlights the 'real' cost of digital photography...

That might be an extreme example (maybe not, at least it is a well made camera, unlike most cheaper dSLRs which probably won't even work after 8 years), but it suggests that selling a digital camera is barely worthwhile unless you sell while it's still fairly current, or if you really don't have any use for it: otherwise I'd just keep it for the occasions it might do the job better.

Personally, I revived my interest in photography a couple of years ago after a long absence, digging out my old film kit, and started lusting after a dSLR. Since then, I've fallen in love with film again, and I'm left with almost no desire to get a dSLR. If anything I want to buy more film stuff.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top