Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Theodoros on May 14, 2016, 07:53:16 pm
-
It is official, Ebony won't be making anymore cameras after the 1st half of 2016 ends... http://www.badgergraphic.com/opencart/index.php?route=product/category&path=2
-
It is official, Ebony won't be making anymore cameras after the 1st half of 2016 ends... http://www.badgergraphic.com/opencart/index.php?route=product/category&path=2
Wow, to bad. I have one of their 4x5 cameras and it's a beautiful instrument. To bad it's time has passed with everything being digital and much more convenient to use. It has been getting a lot less use since I switched to the Pentax 645D and Z cameras.
-
Very sad to hear this, but I have to confess that my 45SU has been very little usage these past years.
I still think those are the best LF cameras!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm sad too, but I think more makers that only have "traditional designs" in their line will follow... It's like "history repeats itself" as it happened in the past...
It is a tradition with the view camera market, that whenever a smaller image area appears which can offer enough image quality yet causing a significant reduction in costs with only insignificant to consider reduction in image quality, the makers that can't adapt their designs as to integrate the smaller image area to vanish... It has happened with sheet film when 5x4 arrived and dominated the market, it has happened with 120 film which caused current cameras of 2x3 image area size to be the "standard" of the market, it will happen again now with the mirrorless DSLRs offering 36x24 image area and shutter included...
Those makers that have provision in their designs as to be converted for 35mm image areas and offer an upgrade path on their line for one to upgrade into larger image areas in the future, will make it. The makers who ask for one to start a level higher (with MFDB or 120 film) which with digital is Top end, won't make it IMO...
It seems that photographers value higher the (huge) benefits of use that the view camera offers than the quality benefit the image area might offer... IMO, they are right to think this way... The benefits for one to (correctly) use a view camera is irreplaceable for one to miss, the (further) improvement of the light sensitive area can then be a future upgrade plan.
-
Still quite a few makers left, I counted to seven different brands on Badger Graphic's web.
What eventually will kill off large format I think is that the suppliers of film, shutters and lenses will stop manufacturing. Companies that do those things are larger and have other more profitable business, so they can just decide to cut that odd branch, like Schneider recently did with large format.
The camera body itself can be realized with low tech, and thus a small shop of only a handful of people could work at a niche worldwide market. However lenses, shutters and film(?) require higher tech and larger company backing.
But when will this happen? I would not be surprised if large format film is still around in ten years from now. In artistic photography it will not grow old, so I think there will be a demand. The question is if it will be large enough for the bigger players to continue producing the necessary raw materials...
-
Still quite a few makers left, I counted to seven different brands on Badger Graphic's web.
What eventually will kill off large format I think is that the suppliers of film, shutters and lenses will stop manufacturing. Companies that do those things are larger and have other more profitable business, so they can just decide to cut that odd branch, like Schneider recently did with large format.
The camera body itself can be realized with low tech, and thus a small shop of only a handful of people could work at a niche worldwide market. However lenses, shutters and film(?) require higher tech and larger company backing.
But when will this happen? I would not be surprised if large format film is still around in ten years from now. In artistic photography it will not grow old, so I think there will be a demand. The question is if it will be large enough for the bigger players to continue producing the necessary raw materials...
Very well pointed... I fully agree on the above, I guess though that most people out of those that use film, use up to 6x9 120mm film anyway... which makes a lot of sense with todays films quality as larger areas of sheet film have little more improvement of quality to offer than it used to be in the past, especially if one uses a multishot MFDB along with an even lightbox to digitise the film after developing it, instead of scanning it.
I believe at the end 120 roll film will be the only one out of all other formats that will make it in the future...
-
I believe at the end 120 roll film will be the only one out of all other formats that will make it in the future...
An interesting speculation. It does seem that 120 roll film cameras are going to outlive 35mm film SLRs, since of the latter, only the Nikon F6 and the Cosina-produced Nikon FM10 are still on the market (and I am fairly sure that the F6 lives on only though stocks in the warehouse). But at the university where I work, I still see lots of photography students carrying 35mm film SLRs, so simple mostly mechanical cameras that be made in small volume could live on.
Another cause for optimism: so long as a photographic emulsion is still in production, it seems fairly easy to coat it in small batches onto uncommon film formats, like 5"x4" and 10"x8" sheet film, and even the more exotic sizes that Ilford lets people order once a year: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20163291435591962.pdf
So I predict or hope that the artistic and hobbyist market will keep various film formats alive, even if all the professional uses move to digital.
-
An interesting speculation. It does seem that 120 roll film cameras are going to outlive 35mm film SLRs, since of the latter, only the Nikon F6 and the Cosina-produced Nikon FM10 are still on the market (and I am fairly sure that the F6 lives on only though stocks in the warehouse). But at the university where I work, I still see lots of photography students carrying 35mm film SLRs, so simple mostly mechanical cameras that be made in small volume could live on.
Another cause for optimism: so long as a photographic emulsion is still in production, it seems fairly easy to coat it in small batches onto uncommon film formats, like 5"x4" and 10"x8" sheet film, and even the more exotic sizes that Ilford lets people order once a year: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20163291435591962.pdf
So I predict or hope that the artistic and hobbyist market will keep various film formats alive, even if all the professional uses move to digital.
Its not a speculation its an estimation based on the following:
1. Out of all makers that ever made a 35mm camera, only Leica bothered to make a new film release of the m camera from 2000 after (the ones you mention out of Nikon are both past designs). Obviously, Leica's release is more aimed to support Leica's image and tradition than provide profits to the maker.
2. The latest releases of Hasselblad, all support film and then there is a wide base of Medium Format cameras that are not compatible with modern MFDBs, or difficult to support, or financially unwise to do so... Much of this equipment is both capable, but makes sense as a choice for users of DSLRs as it is easily accessible and cheap to invest on if purchased S/H, but gives access to film, ability to familiarize with MF to young photographers and high resolution access if scanned. So, many think of it as an alternative as to have instead of MFDB next to their DSLRs...
3. The view camera has turned to 120 film as the major media used on them many years ago... The 6x9 cameras are the main force for all makers lines and additionally most view camera users of view cameras have added 6x7/6x9 120 film backs for them...
4. 120 film is used on many later HQ film releases from major cinema studios because of the looks and tradition...
All and all, 120 film seems a good compromise for quality/resolution, it is much cheaper than sheet film to use, not much more expensive than 35mm, easy to develop, offers much better quality than 35mm film if scanned, doesn't give away much as far as IQ is concerned to sheet film, it is easily accessible, easy to develop, it is compatible with many excellent lenses and thus makes more sense than the rest.
-
which makes a lot of sense with todays films quality as larger areas of sheet film have little more improvement of quality to offer than it used to be in the past, especially if one uses a multishot MFDB along with an even lightbox to digitise the film after developing it, instead of scanning it.
As I understand it, the photo of the film with the multi shot digital back provides better quality than a scan?
-
As I understand it, the photo of the film with the multi shot digital back provides better quality than a scan?
No need for multishot (most high-end cultural heritage digitization moved away from multishot many years ago). We've compared to many legacy systems like Tango and Imacon. It's not really even that close anymore. If you carefully control the environment (alignment, parallelism, focus accuracy, focus stability, temperature, shutter vibration, external vibration, lens quality etc etc etc) as we do in our DTDCH Film Scanning Kit (http://dtdch.com/film-scanning-kit/) you can easily outperform even the "gold standard" systems of a decade ago (the last time any meaningful R+D went into legacy scanning systems).
-
As I understand it, the photo of the film with the multi shot digital back provides better quality than a scan?
My experience says that it does... It is visibly better too if done right.
What is even more important however, is that if one scans film this way and also stitches so that 1:1 (equal surface of film - for equal surface of sensor digitized and then stitched - 4 16x multishot shots for 6x8/6x9 film, 9 shots for 4X5 sheet film) scan is done and 120 film is compared to larger sheet film.
1. The information extracted out of film is maximized to an impressive extend never experienced before,
2. Scanning larger than 120 film seems to loose the additional benefits of resolution/noise that one expects out using a larger (than 120) film area... Obviously this is because the resolving power of the method is so good, that the handicap in per area resolution of the larger image circle lenses with respect to MF lenses is exposed...
It is impressive the amount of information that is hidden (and remains unknown unless one uses the best scanning method possible) on the film surface... Clearly Gursky and many more out of TOP artists (and some top cinematographers too) have a reason to insist in films for what they do...
-
No need for multishot (most high-end cultural heritage digitization moved away from multishot many years ago). We've compared to many legacy systems like Tango and Imacon. It's not really even that close anymore. If you carefully control the environment (alignment, parallelism, focus accuracy, focus stability, temperature, shutter vibration, external vibration, lens quality etc etc etc) as we do in our DTDCH Film Scanning Kit (http://dtdch.com/film-scanning-kit/) you can easily outperform even the "gold standard" systems of a decade ago (the last time any meaningful R+D went into legacy scanning systems).
You can share files like this? (Drum scanner vs MFDB) Let say 4x5"
-
No need for multishot (most high-end cultural heritage digitization moved away from multishot many years ago). We've compared to many legacy systems like Tango and Imacon. It's not really even that close anymore. If you carefully control the environment (alignment, parallelism, focus accuracy, focus stability, temperature, shutter vibration, external vibration, lens quality etc etc etc) as we do in our DTDCH Film Scanning Kit (http://dtdch.com/film-scanning-kit/) you can easily outperform even the "gold standard" systems of a decade ago (the last time any meaningful R+D went into legacy scanning systems).
Try replacing the single shot back you are using with an old 16X multishot back and then talk... You want a bet? I'll bet you anything.... It is true that single shot backs have been improved (due to latest software more than due to tech advancement), it is also true that the difference with multishot backs varies (but always in favor to the multishot back) depending on the complexity of the subject (the more complex the subject, the more it shows)... Well, guess what... shooting film at 1:1 image area is the most demanding out of all situations... As I said before, do you want a bet? Will you loose the equipment that you will use for the job if I beat it? I will.... ;)
-
Tim Parkin's excellent film vs digital test:
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/
Pixel peep all you want:
http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html
-
Film is still big among artists, at least here in Europe. I don't know about the younger generation though. It's a difference if you when you started you had to learn film, today it's optional...
-
Film is still big among artists, at least here in Europe. I don't know about the younger generation though. It's a difference if you when you started you had to learn film, today it's optional...
Thanks for the post... it matches with my own observations too... However, it is unfair for multishot backs as there is a danger that one may conclude that IQ-180 is some "exeptionally resolving devise" (as many believe it is...). Of course one can't use a multishot back and do the same (landscape) test, but it does show the capabilities of film and why so many artists insist on it... Heck... I can even remember some trolls posting here some (false) information that Gursky ...changed to ...a Phase One back! ;D :o :-X :P
My (up to now) conclusions are, that stills and film digitization (which -of course- is a still capture) are best done with multishot and an extremely good lens and then there is room for MFDB (but of medium and lower resolution) for less demanding applications and then it should be film for the most demanding of photographic applications... Never the less, multishot shouldn't be put in the same "box" as single shot backs, nor it is comparable... Only the complete absence of digital artifacts is enough for one to understand the superiority of multishot with respect to a single shot MFDB (or other device that uses interpolation) for scanning negatives...
That's why Doug will never accept the bet call and will prefer to sit aside and work on the "who ever questions P1 for their choices is an enemy" idea... ;) 8)
-
Hi,
(https://scontent-amt2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13263811_1311952495485919_9115018216158025851_n.jpg?oh=0e401b621d2335e257f2418adf715378&oe=57C79280)
She has a doctorate in reactor physics and an RZ67.
Best regards
Erik
Film is still big among artists, at least here in Europe. I don't know about the younger generation though. It's a difference if you when you started you had to learn film, today it's optional...
-
Gregory Crewdson did change from 8x10" to a Phase One digital back (a recent interview here, good read if you like Crewdson's work: http://petapixel.com/2016/05/18/interview-gregory-crewdson/). So not all famous artists use film, and Gursky does have a digital post-processing workflow like most film shooters have today.
-
Hi,
She has a doctorate in reactor physics and an RZ67.
Best regards
Erik
RZ 67 with film... Wiser than many here that want even smaller pixels and more resolution out of their (already full of problems due to interpolation and Bayer pattern) sensors... I don't oppose the use of an MFDB by no means... (to the contradict, I believe that DSLRs have even more problems with their tiny pixels) but having people that spend fortunes to downgrade instead of upgrating? ...why? ...it is still a mistery to me!
Keep your 22mp back people (and if it is a multishot version never let it go) and buy some film backs, A GOOD OLD view camera and tons of film instead if you really want to upgrade... Just my two cents... ;) Think of it this way instead of looking at what web trolls say... You'll be doing the same as world's best photographers do!
-
That's why Doug will never accept the bet call and will prefer to sit aside and work on the "who ever questions P1 for their choices is an enemy" idea... ;) 8)
It's too bad you never travel to NYC. You have some impression of me that I don't think is correct and I think a couple pints of beer could clear it up.
We could even do your desired test (it's one I've done many times) so you can see why these Cultural Heritage Digitization teams (http://dtdch.com/our-clients/) (and many more) use high-res phase systems :).
-
Gregory Crewdson did change from 8x10" to a Phase One digital back (a recent interview here, good read if you like Crewdson's work: http://petapixel.com/2016/05/18/interview-gregory-crewdson/). So not all famous artists use film, and Gursky does have a digital post-processing workflow like most film shooters have today.
Of course Gursky has a digital post processing workflow... A very advanced one too (which is pretty much secret as he usually uses two film cameras with different focal length on each for one capture) ...they all do!
Obviously what Gregory is doing (awesome job by the way) is very different to Gursky's demand for detail and (primarily) targets to record lighting in a manner that it maximizes the impact on social subjects... I guess his average picture requires a technique which involves maybe 50 or 100 shots in different lighting each as to create one... Very different to what people (usually do) with digital backs don't you think? I can't see any of the advantages that MFDB makers promote for their backs in his pictures... Neither they promote 20-25 stops of DR, nor the "plastic" look that his images have... (to the contra...). Obviously it is a product of visualization that involves less demand for detail and easier workflow manipulation...
-
It's too bad you never travel to NYC. You have some impression of me that I don't think is correct and I think a couple pints of beer could clear it up.
We could even do your desired test (it's one I've done many times) so you can see why these Cultural Heritage Digitization teams (http://dtdch.com/our-clients/) (and many more) use high-res phase systems :).
Doug... don't make laugh please! ;D Where is the comparison with an MFDB there? It's another advertising video of yours with people holding cameras in their hands, talking about Phase one etc... You are a minority in the area (to Hasselblad and Sinar multishot) and you know it! It is of course under business laws for one to convince (mostly ignorant) institution representatives as to sell (and then use the stuff to advertise himself) but was there competition present when you did the demo? Was there any comparison? ...don't make my laugh please!
Just tell me this... why don't you arrange a test through P1's representative here where one can use alternative stuff and compare? Why did Yair refused the comparison with the Leaf 12RII back three years ago when he suggested (I still have the mails) to bring a back for me to test (with respect to my -at the days- 528c 16x imacon back) and at the last minute he refused the call and suggested for me to travel 50 miles away (to the P1's distributor's place) and only have some shots with the back without comparing it? Do you know what happened when I tried the same back (the 12RII) a few months later from another of your customers that bought it? Do you want to know? ...i'm sure you don't! ;)
Please Doug, either provide some comparisons with a multishot back for scanning film, or leave us in peace, or take the call for a bet... You loose your equipment, I loose mine!
P.S.
I'll be using the following for the bet...
-A sturdy old view camera
-One standard with frame removed and Rollei 6008 (MF) fitted instead
-Schneider 150mm f4.6 APO micro lens fitted on
-Rear standard frame replaced by self made film carrier
-Diffusor glass behind film frame
-Fluorescent 5600K lighting (CRI >97 Osram Dulux L valves) behind the diffusor (and film)
-A self made bellows mounted on the lens on one side and on the film carrier on the other side
-The sinarback 54H back mounted on the Rollei
-Sinar's old Capture shop 6.1.2 software with my own profiling
You use whatever you want...
I'll be shooting the film at 1:1 magnification in 16x multishot mode and do the scanning by moving the standard's side shift and up down shift mechanisms... you do whatever you want... I'm all yours... ;) ...or leave us in peace and go sell some (rubish for the job) single shot stuff elsewhere!
EDIT: The standard I will be moving for scanning on the film surface is the one that the film carrier is on... Camera will be kept constant for the whole process... Film to be scanned size choice is yours, whatever you want! Focusing on mine will be by using LV through Sinar's software with the focusing aid scale it provides.
-
You are a minority in the area (to Hasselblad and Sinar multishot) and you know it!
Your information is around a decade out of date. At least in the US. I can't speak to Southern Europe.
-
Doug... don't make laugh please! ;D Where is the comparison with an MFDB there? It's another advertising video of yours with people holding cameras in their hands, talking about Phase one etc... You are a minority in the area (to Hasselblad and Sinar multishot) and you know it! It is of course under business laws for one to convince (mostly ignorant) institution representatives as to sell (and then use the stuff to advertise himself) but was there competition present when you did the demo? Was there any comparison? ...don't make my laugh please!
Just tell me this... why don't you arrange a test through P1's representative here where one can use alternative stuff and compare? Why did Yair refused the comparison with the Leaf 12RII back three years ago when he suggested (I still have the mails) to bring a back for me to test (with respect to my -at the days- 528c 16x imacon back) and at the last minute he refused the call and suggested for me to travel 50 miles away (to the P1's distributor's place) and only have some shots with the back without comparing it? Do you know what happened when I tried the same back (the 12RII) a few months later from another of your customers that bought it? Do you want to know? ...i'm sure you don't! ;)
Please Doug, either provide some comparisons with a multishot back for scanning film, or leave us in peace, or take the call for a bet... You loose your equipment, I loose mine!
P.S.
I'll be using the following for the bet...
-A sturdy old view camera
-One standard with frame removed and Rollei 6008 (MF) fitted instead
-Schneider 150mm f4.6 APO micro lens fitted on
-Rear standard frame replaced by self made film carrier
-Diffusor glass behind film frame
-Fluorescent 5600K lighting (CRI >97 Osram Dulux L valves) behind the diffusor (and film)
-A self made bellows mounted on the lens on one side and on the film carrier on the other side
-The sinarback 54H back mounted on the Rollei
-Sinar's old Capture shop 6.1.2 software with my own profiling
You use whatever you want...
I'll be shooting the film at 1:1 magnification in 16x multishot mode and do the scanning by moving the standard's side shift and up down shift mechanisms... you do whatever you want... I'm all yours... ;) ...or leave us in peace and go sell some (rubish for the job) single shot stuff elsewhere!
EDIT: The standard I will be moving for scanning on the film surface is the one that the film carrier is on... Camera will be kept constant for the whole process... Film to be scanned size choice is yours, whatever you want! Focusing on mine will be by using LV through Sinar's software with the focusing aid scale it provides.
Sure Doug... whatever... how about talking on the bet instead of avoiding what gets you in the corner? ;)
-
Sure Doug... whatever... how about talking on the bet instead of avoiding what gets you in the corner? ;)
Glad to do a test with you whenever you're in NYC. No need for a bet – I don't have much need for a 12 year old Sinar back.
-
Glad to do a test with you whenever you're in NYC. No need for a bet – I don't have much need for a 12 year old Sinar back.
LOL...... why don't you present some comparisons then with one of the thousand Sinarback 54H that are in N.Y.? Or aren't there? ;D
-
Listen Doug... It may be good policy for P1 to address their stuff to amateurs and then some fashion pros (which is what the backs are best for) as to do the same thing that they do with DSLRs (but better).... But this doesn't give you the right to make claims in a ground that your products can't cope with by creating impressions that "a better than a D810 back on what a D810 does is a the better back for any job".... The truth is that for what a D810 (or other) is rubbish.... equipment that is designed to improve on the D810 will be better for that only... It will still be rubbish for what it can't do... As simple as that...
Ask the other thousands of pros that do different than what DSLRs do if I'm not enough to tell you, or POST COMPARISONS that will prove me wrong... Never the less, it's not good marketing to create an "army of trolls" that try to turn "the day into a night" or "white into black" in web forums... It maybe temporarily an income provider... but in the long term it can be the "death" of you... Just my two cents... ;)
By the way... I used to think more of P1 before the incident with Yair (and me testing later myself the 12RII with respect to my -at the days - 528c) happened... It's then when I realized that P1 doesn't care at all for photographic quality or advancement but only to sell (by using all unethical methods (respect above all) with respect to competition possible) then the incident with Rollei came (which proved the luck of respect to photographic history) and then the "spit on the face"/blackmail to their older users (and on film users too) that completed the picture...
it's strange Doug... How can a company claim to resolve film better than others... if THEY DON'T ALLOW USERS TO USE FILM THEMSELVES? ...is that a joke? Is that logic? Are Gursky and the rest of today's masters that only use film as to maximise detail foolish Doug?
...and after all, what difference does it make if one uses another maker's single shot back for digitizing film? Why do the rest propose multishot for the job although they have hi-res single shot? Aren't you using the same (Cmos) sensors? Are CCD sensors better Doug? ...are the CCD sensors that P1 uses still made?
Please ignore no more real questions and only respond "on the surface" as to "cover" the conversation so that fewer look at it (usual tactics)... If one can respond to arguments, then he can respond to all arguments... and you already have left hundreds non answered back up...
-
Its not a speculation its an estimation based on the following:
1. Out of all makers that ever made a 35mm camera, only Leica bothered to make a new film release of the m camera from 2000 after (the ones you mention out of Nikon are both past designs). Obviously, Leica's release is more aimed to support Leica's image and tradition than provide profits to the maker.
That was my point with the "only two Nikon SLR's" comment – though at the fringes, several brands of 135 film rangefinders are still going, and the inventory available second hand is huge.
2. The latest releases of Hasselblad, all support film and then there is a wide base of Medium Format cameras that are not compatible with modern MFDBs, or difficult to support, or financially unwise to do so... Much of this equipment is both capable, but makes sense as a choice for users of DSLRs as it is easily accessible and cheap to invest on if purchased S/H, but gives access to film, ability to familiarize with MF to young photographers and high resolution access if scanned. So, many think of it as an alternative as to have instead of MFDB next to their DSLRs...
Yes, I almost mentioned that the modular back-body design of some MF system means that it is relatively easy to keep making backs for bodies that are kept economically viable mostly by their use with digital backs. Unfortunately the MF market has moved to a very low volume, high price situation, so buying a body and a few lenses to go with those film backs is too expensive for a lot of the artists and hobbyists who want to work with film. The more affordable MF film options - integrated bodies like the Pentax 645, and all the non-AF systems – are long out of production.
4. 120 film is used on many later HQ film releases from major cinema studios because of the looks and tradition...
Some movies are still being shot on 65mm ("120" or close enough) film, but I am quite sure that far more of the movie productions still using film at all are using 35mm film stock (as in "super 35mm"), so that part of the film market is if anything a factor in favor of 135 over 120. Here is what is still available from the only remaining provider, Kodak: http://motion.kodak.com/KodakGCG/uploadedFiles/Motion/Products/Product_Information/Kodak-Motion-Picture-Products-Price-Catalog-US-Prices_May_2016_V5.pdf
All and all, 120 film seems a good compromise for quality/resolution, it is much cheaper than sheet film to use, not much more expensive than 35mm, easy to develop, offers much better quality than 35mm film if scanned, doesn't give away much as far as IQ is concerned to sheet film, it is easily accessible, easy to develop, it is compatible with many excellent lenses and thus makes more sense than the rest.
The choice of best "compromise for quality/resolution" is very personal. Clearly for you 120 wins, but in the film era, the vast majority even amongst enthusiastic, dark-room printing hobbyists had come to use 135 rather than 120, so I do not see that it would be reversed now. As far as cost: as noted above, equipment cost has become even more massively in favor of 135 gear.
I am not arguing that 135 will in fact outlive 120; just pointing out that the evidence and arguments are not so clearly on the side of 120 as you make them sound. It might instead come down to how long the supply of affordable second hand gear persists.
-
As I said before it's an estimation... IMO, film will continue providing the "exceptional look" it does, but it needs larger areas to really expose it to the degree that detail is "enough" out what is required for the "exceptional look" to be presented... 35mm cameras where a necessity during the past as there was no alternative, but I can't see enough balance of "real photographers" with respect to "just users" which would care to keep using film today (IMO/judgement)... To the contradict, I can recall from the past the "real photographers" starting with 35mm film, but then advance to 120 as soon as they could... I believe the digital MF market shrinkage is irrelevant, there is a huge wide base of older (S/H) stuff that can support the advancment by itself...
By the way, I also believe that the (new) MF shrinkage isn't real... It has a lot to do with the past (and some of today) policies of MF makers to "trade" older digital equipment and then vanish it from the S/H market so that there is no accessibility to it... This has had a direct effect in shrinking the "market base" considerably and also, to keep selling prices higher than they should be, which had a side effect for the market to shrink...
If makers would have kept prices down to real profit and wouldn't announce "false prices" that include a "discount" for trading older equipment... which of course would lead to equipment cost as much as it does "with the trade discount", but without one have to trade anything... then by now, the MF market would be up to 50,000 units a year...
I guess MF makers have developed the bad habit to "tear their own eyes off" for some reason... The (stupid) "golden boys of marketing" (crap) they hire, don't even know how important "market base expansion" is... Basic laws of marketing... go figure!
-
I have no intention of getting involved in fights. All I'll say is that I used both 135 and 120 film formats all my professional life, but the choice of format was always based upon the needs of the job I had to do.
Straightforward stuff was best handled on a Hasselblad if only because it required fewer shots, and so a single roll would nail it; if it was a more complicated set of images such as a fashion shoot, I'd usually opt for the Nikon because shooting thirty-six exposures to get a maximum of two or three wasn't hard to do. And so much easier to process. Multiply that logic over a dozen dresses and it makes even more sense to shoot 135. And a bonus: not having to change film so often added the value of continuity to a shoot.
Roib C
-
I have no intention of getting involved in fights. All I'll say is that I used both 135 and 120 film formats all my professional life, but the choice of format was always based upon the needs of the job I had to do.
Straightforward stuff was best handled on a Hasselblad if only because it required fewer shots, and so a single roll would nail it; if it was a more complicated set of images such as a fashion shoot, I'd usually opt for the Nikon because shooting thirty-six exposures to get a maximum of two or three wasn't hard to do. And so much easier to process. Multiply that logic over a dozen dresses and it makes even more sense to shoot 135. And a bonus: not having to change film so often added the value of continuity to a shoot.
Roib C
Well... nobody is fighting here (other than Doug who thinks that whenever one criticizes P1 or its policies and backs it up ...he is under penalty for heretical behavior), after all subject has changed...
So, do you think there is a resemblance with the past? Isn't the difference that while in the past 35mm images could "pass" (because there was no alternative for the price), these days DSLRs can improve on detail? My point is that 35mm film doesn't cope with today standards of required detail (yet has some advantages in the looks - but customers don't care on that), but 120 film, can add the detail that 35mm is missing... (and even be used for very large prints if digitized properly). And additionally, I find an excellent balance of "detail to presentation ratio" with 120 film, which I think is a more "photographic approach" than the "over-detail / over - contrasty" photographic approach of DSLRs (or MFDBs with a similar to DSLRs approach on what looks should be like) that some tend to praise for being important... IMO, there is too much "compression" happening with 35mm film, 120 seems just right to both get rid of the compression and offer an excellent combination of looks & detail...
-
Well... nobody is fighting here (other than Doug who thinks that whenever one criticizes P1 or its policies and backs it up ...he is under penalty for heretical behavior), after all subject has changed...
So, do you think there is a resemblance with the past? Isn't the difference that while in the past 35mm images could "pass" (because there was no alternative for the price), these days DSLRs can improve on detail? My point is that 35mm film doesn't cope with today standards of required detail (yet has some advantages in the looks - but customers don't care on that), but 120 film, can add the detail that 35mm is missing... (and even be used for very large prints if digitized properly). And additionally, I find an excellent balance of "detail to presentation ratio" with 120 film, which I think is a more "photographic approach" than the "over-detail / over - contrasty" photographic approach of DSLRs (or MFDBs with a similar to DSLRs approach on what looks should be like) that some tend to praise for being important... IMO, there is too much "compression" happening with 35mm film, 120 seems just right to both get rid of the compression and offer an excellent combination of looks & detail...
If you've noted some of my posts in other threads you'll know I am a very keen fan of film - always was and probably always will be, even if I never again find the opportunity to use it. I usually try to 'degrade' my digital pictures precisely because I wish to avoid the unreal look of digital (when compared with the look of film) knowing, the while, that both are unreal. It's just a matter of the false reality with which one grew up, and still finds comfortable, compared with the newer version which I do not appreciate very much.
What I do appreciate, now that I am no longer a working photographer, is not having to spend any more money on film and chemicals in order to pursue what's now no more than a time-passing hobby. A different world.
On your second point, no, I don't agree that I see that effect as a matter of principle. However, I do see differences with all film formats when the degree of enlargement is high enough in each case.