MF Film

[Melodi]

In a separate recent posting several members noted how thier beginners mistake was not sticking or going with Medium Format film and going the scanner route for digital printing.  

If you've gone the MF film route, can you tell me a little more about your experience?  For example, was it pure ecstacy going to MF film from purely digital?  Would you, even now, with the latest digital and printing equipment still desire to go with MF film for its qualities?  

Thank you for your feedback.

[whawn]

...was it pure ecstacy going to MF film from purely digital?  Would you, even now, with the latest digital and printing equipment still desire to go with MF film for its qualities?

I did it the other way around.  Started w/ MF film, and then added a digital back.  I'm ambivalent.  I like some aspects of digital, but others I don't.  Film is often a joy to work with, but it's a pain to digitize.

The digital back is really finicky about over-exposure, even more so than Fujichrome, but, if you avoid over-exposing, the digital has a much wider latitude than chrome films.  It is said to be greater than negative films, but I haven't found that to be necessarily the case.  For sure, negative films are more forgiving of overexposure.  

As for ease of use, I'd have to go with digital, but... once you've scanned your film, everything is nearly the same.  The biggest difference is that with film, you have grain and with digital you have noise.  And you Always Have Noise.  In the shadows, the deepest blacks will never be BLACK, until you make them black with a photoshop adjustment.

Negative film is especially prone to a phenomenon which causes the scanner to enhance the grain. It has to do with the way the light strikes and reflects off the grain, enlarging its 'footprint' on the scanned image.  It shows up most strongly in wide areas of continuous color, like the sky.  It can be reduced, almost eliminated, by wet-mounting the film but that's a PTA.  I only do that for images I'm sure I'll be working with further.

With digital, you tend (or at least I tend) to shoot too danged much.  Instead of selecting a shot, I flail away at it.  And that ain't good.  On a recent trip I shot about 600 frames, and with film I would have done no more than half or even a third that much, and would have come out with at least as many good images.    

I probably should mention I shoot landscapes, and so my subjects tend to stand still.  If I was shooting wildlife, I'd be using a DSLR, exclusively.  As it is, I'll often shoot the same subject with both digital and film, it being very easy to swap the backs.  I'll even occasionally shoot with two types of film, as well as digital.  That is partly because I'm still learning digital and partly because I think it's cool to compare the various media.

In any event, they are separate media, digital, chrome, and negative.  I'm happy that I could dismantle and sell my dark darkroom, and work in the light now.  Digital processing of prints is far superior to the old way, but film is often a better place to start than digital for me.

I do have to add, I am very nervous about dropping the digital back.  Dropping a film back might be bad, but it wouldn't bankrupt me.

[wolfnowl]

I did it the other way around. Started w/ MF film, and then added a digital back. I'm ambivalent. I like some aspects of digital, but others I don't. Film is often a joy to work with, but it's a pain to digitize.

Good answer!

I shoot both film and digital, and I've had some but not all of my film images scanned.  I do like the latitude I have with Lightroom in terms of digital manipulation - I never achieved that in the darkroom.  That and there are no chemicals to deal with.  I do get nostalgic for the darkroom sometimes, though.

Anyway, I wouldn't say one is better than the other (others will disagree); partly it's whatever you're used to.  I've invested 35+ years shooting film, and a few years shooting digital.

Mike.

[Plekto]

If you've gone the MF film route, can you tell me a little more about your experience?  For example, was it pure ecstasy going to MF film from purely digital?  Would you, even now, with the latest digital and printing equipment still desire to go with MF film for its qualities?

I used MF(film) and then a DSLR and have come back to MF again.  

There was no ecstasy.  I traded processing and scanning and tweaking a bit in software for loading and processing and tweaking in software.  Printing was the same cost.   The learning curve of digital was much higher, and I think that really does detract from a new learner's abilities.  It's hard enough to learn to judge exposure and composition by eye and so on as it is without having to keep 20 pages of settings and manuals, plus Lightroom and other data all in your head.  Cost for both was identical as well, since printing was identical and software, batteries, and memory cars costs money, too.  The payback for Digital, especially with a DB factored in, versus film, is often nearly a thousand rolls  just to break even.  For a pro, this can be a year or two, but for an amateur, you'll never shoot enough to make a DB worthwhile.

I'd call it a wash.  There are only three real differences:

1 - Speed/ease of use of the camera and so on.  Stuffing 200 shots into a memory cars and having to not change backs and keep track of film and so on - big plus if you are on a job.

2 - Processing speed.  Digital can get you the raw image to your *computer* faster.  Of course, IMO, it takes just as long to do digital processing as film scanning, but it can be a big deal in the workplace to get the initial crude images in front of you(or even on the LCD screen) or the client quickly.  Having the ability to get into a "how does this look?" exchange with the client on the fly is an enormous advantage.

Note - to a non-professional, these two factors are very small and really most people who claim digital is easier are either taking family or similar photos which they just toss on their PC/don't actually process shot by shot, or are just into the tech.  Which both are good reasons, mind you.   There's nothing wrong with loving computers and digital just for the "geek" factor.  

3 - Noise versus grain.  Both are physical defects in the image.  Which one annoys you less you need to decide.  I personally loathe moires and noise a bit more, so I chose film.  I do have a small digital camera, though, that I take on trips.  1lb including all the gear(charger, battery, and two memory cards all fit in a tiny camera case)  I use this for probably 80% of my shooting as well, because it's cheap, light, and fits in my pocket.  Compared to my old 35mm rangefinder, this was a huge improvement.  The DSLR got sold and I went back to MF due to the simplicity and ease of use.  Sometimes low tech is freeing, in a way.   The upcoming 6x7 folding camera that Fuji is coming out with will probably replace my old Rollei.

[dalethorn]

I've never processed color film, but I've processed B&W in sizes from 8 x 11 mm to 2-1/4 x 3-1/4 inch.  The thing that impressed me the most, especially with smaller films, is if you control the grain well, the enlarger process can do a marvelous job of masking or hiding grain, while still conveying a sense of sharpness in the print.  I don't see that happening with digital, or with scanned negatives digitally printed.  I think the enlarger process is way underestimated.

[Melodi]

Thank you for your feedback.  It seems that for now I think I'm going to keep focussing on improving my digital knowledge, but I think my curiousity will push me, and I'm going to have to try film here soon.

[Plekto]

Well, one nice thing about MF film is that if you get a model that can in theory accept a DB, you can always get a 2-3 generation old one for a reasonable price later on and still keep your lenses and gear.  And yes, a lot, probably most of the industry still uses film or hasn't entirely moved to digital yet.  It's just not sexy and doesn't sell magazines or look good on online review sites