Travel photography: medium format film the best choice?

[dzeanah]

Background: over a decade ago I shot primarily with medium format equipment.  I eventually moved to a Fuji S2, then to a Fuji S5 Pro for wedding work.  I'm now doing more personal work and I'm finding that the S5 simply isn't meeting my needs, but before I go out and spend a bunch of money and effort I wanted to get some opinions here.

The issue: I'm looking for image quality comparable to what I used to get from medium format back in the day.  I have some 40x60 inch prints that I printed from 645 negatives that are wonderful, but I'm not using the same processes that I used to.  Back then it was carefully processed B&W negative film that was printed by professional printers for anything larger than 16x20.  Now my workflow has moved to digital and I've been happy with the switch, except that I find that 16x20 is really pushing it for the images that come out of my camera.  I want to be able to print to 40x60 for those (unfortunately very rare) images worthy of large printing again.  Most won't get this treatment, but I don't want to be disappointed with an image that I'm really pleased with because it can't be printed as large as I would like.

I still "see" in black and white, but I'm no longer at a point in my life where I wish to process everything myself, and I'm reasonably happy with B&W conversions and digital printing (I'll likely depend on professionals for big prints for the forseeable future.)

The decision: Do I go back to film?  I'm looking at KEH's web site and I see some amazing prices on quality gear.  Good 645 kit from Mamiya and Pentax can be had for $1,000 or so for a complete system, the Fuji rangefinders are very affordable at sizes from 645 to 6x9 (though are limited to a single focal length, with all the advantages and disadvantages that implies), and the Bronica RF is even affordable.  Unfortunately the Mamiya 7 is quite pricy, so that's probably out in the short term.

I have no idea who does good processing though (ideally with scans of the images for post-processing indexing and planning), and I don't really know what price to budget for per roll of 120 film.  To be honest I don't even know whether I should be shooting slides (which I still love) or negative film if my intent is to send the film to a lab to be scanned and printed at their facility.  When I was last shooting weddings with film (with Leica and Mamiya rangefinders, which in hindsight I should have never sold) I was budgeting about $1 per frame for film, processing, and proofing.  Is that still a reasonable price point?

I'd love to hear that something like an A900 can produce the kind of image quality that would allow for big enlargements, but I doubt that's the case other than for portraits (something I'm moving away from.)  The digital backs likely can, but the cheapest point of entry seems to be Mamiya with a $9,999 entry fee.

Can someone give me some guidance?

Are there any reasonable projections that would indicate when digital alternatives will be viable (even used)?  I'd love it if someone could say that "for this image size you need a capture xxx megapixels in size, and following the history we can predict that these will be availeble in 20xx, and the used market tends to show a xx% reduction in value over 3 years, so you ought to be able to do this with used equipment in 20xx for less than $x,xxx in today's dollars."  I seriously doubt this kind of analysis is available, however.    

To the moderators: this seemed like the best place for this.  Please feel free to move it if there's a better spot.

[DanielStone]

Shooting film is always the way to go .

well, as you've already priced out a "system" through KEH or ebay, then it seems like you're already looking hard into film.

the nice thing about the Fuji RF's is that they have no batteries, the problem is that they have no internal meter, and non-interchangeable lenses.

if you were to get say, a Mamiya 7/7 II, you'd pay some more $$$, but you get interchangeable lenses, a nice, light kit, and probably the best lenses in a MF rangefinder there are.

the camera 'sips' batteries, and has an internal meter(although I use a sekonic handheld 90% of the time).

great cameras, the Pentax 645's are tremendous too. And being that they take AA's, makes them all the better!

-Dan

[michele]

How many photographs per year are you planning to take? In around 18 months i took about 10.000 photos with my p45+. 1,8 euros per shot. 39 megapixels are considered equal to a 4x5 sheet drum scanned. Just for developping the film you need 3,10 euros, italy prices. 10.000 photos is 31.000 euro just to have your film developped, but first you have to buy it and perhaps also scan it. With a good 21/24 megapixels camera you can print as large as 6x7 film can go.
If you want something cheap, digital is the way to go.
Now, if you like the film look, the grain, the good old fashioned look of the film process, it's a different story. But is going to cost you a lot more then 1.000 dollars. I love film, but it's too expensive for me, and i get great results from digital
I guess in september we will see some news about 30/40 megapixels camera from canon...
Just my thoughts
Michele

[fredjeang]

Shooting film is always the way to go .
-Dan

Daaaaaannn  

Okay: Am I the only one on this forum who noticed that had a much higher rate of keepers when shooting film than now ? (with any camera)

Curious no?

[Rob C]

Daaaaaannn  

Okay: Am I the only one on this forum who noticed that had a much higher rate of keepers when shooting film than now ? (with any camera)

Curious no?

Fred, no, you are not alone.

Not only did I get more and better pictures with film, I actually shot more than I ever do now. Two digital cameras and they just sit; but then, so does the remaining film one...

I think the truth is in what Terence Donovan said and I have often quoted, it impressed me that much: "the greatest problem for the amateur is finding a reason to take a photograph," and as I am effectively an amateur now, I can only agree.

There is a problem here - both Donovan and I worked to commission. Take that motivation away and there is precious little left. There is no excitement for a pro in shooting an image and seeing it 'come out well'; of course it comes out well, that's taken for granted. What can not be taken for granted is that the amateur shares that sense of security - of certainty, so perhaps the self-surprise lasts for ever.

Without wishing to hurt anybody at all, that problem shines through most of the stuff that I see outwith professional situations; take away the purpose for the photograph and it generally just sits there doing not a lot to account for itself.

I was watching a show on the Baroque last night - painting and architecture - and it struck me that, take religion out of the equation and all those products, which is exactly what they were and are, have no meaning whatsoever. Some of the greatest art ever seen would instantly have vanished had patronage not continued, had the assignments stopped. Is it accident that all of those grerat works were commissioned?

And before anyone throws up Vincent, I love the guy and even copied his work as a teenager swept up in the glamour of the tragedy (wasn't it ever so? - another person's artistic tragedy is cool) but you have to make the most enormous act of faith to continue in that faith when you grow up. Or to have too much money to leave in the banks and so you and your chums create your own, personal/group ethic and set of artistic values where you can happily hedge your bets and rest your funds. If enough of you say it's good, then good it jolly well becomes. Look arond the modern world if you doubt me.

Rob C

[gss]

I can certainly see the draw of inexpensive film cameras and lenses, but for the title of the thread.  If indeed you plan to travel by air a lot,  then I would hesitate to bring film rather than digital, simply because the airports are making it harder and harder for film to survive a trip.

[dzeanah]

I can certainly see the draw of inexpensive film cameras and lenses, but for the title of the thread.  If indeed you plan to travel by air a lot,  then I would hesitate to bring film rather than digital, simply because the airports are making it harder and harder for film to survive a trip.

That might be a good point -- the last time I took a bunch of film overseas was 1997.  I'd hope there wouldn't be much impact on 100 speed film, though I haven't kept up with the increasing level of paranoia in airports...

[Dick Roadnight]

The yardstick with film was always that it was adequate for 10 times the film size, so 6 * 6 cm (2.25") is good for excellent 22.5".

Good MF digital, IMHO, is critically good for 360 or 240 original camera pixels per print inch, so 60Mpx gives you excellent 18 * 24" or adequate 24 * 36", and for 40 * 60" I would shift and hex-stitch...

¿Would you be happy with 645 today... or might you think about 6 * 9 or bigger?

[fredjeang]

Maybe I need to shoot film again to convince me that digital is whao.
And big huge films! the ones that would be extremelly expensive to get the digital equivalent  

But it surprises me that people like Edward Burtynsky still shoot film and do not use backs.
Just a question of conservatism? Or there is something else.

Yes, maybe I need to shoot film again to apreciate digital.

[dzeanah]

¿Would you be happy with 645 today... or might you think about 6 * 9 or bigger?

I don't know.  I've shot with 645, 6x6, and 6x7, but the only images I've printed really big were from 645.  I'm impressed with the quality every time I see the images, however, so that's a reasonable benchmark.  If I recall correctly the images were probably shot on Ilford FP4+ and developed in XTOL or Ilfasol (it's been a long time since I was in the darkroom, so I don't remember for sure.)

How does that compare with color process film?  Probably grainier with a sharper look.  Versus digital?  You've got me -- 20x24 portraits are as large as I've printed from digital, and I wasn't all that impressed.  Of course, my camera while producing 12 megapixel images is generally compared with a 6-8 megapixel camera, so I don't know what something like an A900 or D3X could do.

I haven't done non-people work in a long time.  If I were shooting weddings and portraits into the future I'd choose a D700 and be happy -- larger images would lose something, but that's not all that important in portrait work where too much detail is objectionable in all but young children.  Landscapes?  Seems like it would lose something important.

But again, by your yardstick is 645 is really pushing it for 40x60, so my standards might not be up to yours (or my viewing distance is assumed to be greater, or something.)  Or, possibly, I'll feel different about large images and quality when people aren't the subject matter.  If that's the case I won't know until I get there, I suppose.

[MichaelEzra]

I used to shoot usually 40, in rare cases 100 6x7 frames with RZ. With digital MF it is 300-400 images per session.
I had about 20-80% of keepers with film. On digital there is a lot of repetitive frames, it seems that I offload some of the the selection effort from the shooting session to post.
This somewhat relaxed my demands to models during the session, which I cannot approve after I review the results.
It takes greater self discipline to be a very critical shooter. Sometimes you only need to capture less than 10 frames; the rest is a thought process.

On a side note, I managed to shoot human body in panoramic stitching, certainly only in very stationary poses. This allows for very high resolution if needed:)

[fredjeang]

I used to shoot usually 40, in rare cases 100 6x7 frames with RZ. With digital MF it is 300-400 images per session.
I had about 20-80% of keepers with film. On digital there is a lot of repetitive frames, it seems that I offload some of the the selection effort from the shooting session to post.
This somewhat relaxed my demands to models during the session, which I cannot approve after I review the results.
It takes greater self discipline to be a very critical shooter. Sometimes you only need to capture less than 10 frames; the rest is a thought process.

On a side note, I managed to shoot human body in panoramic stitching, certainly only in very stationary poses. This allows for very high resolution if needed:)

Yes Michael, I think that's the key and chalenge with digital.

[fredjeang]

I used to shoot usually 40, in rare cases 100 6x7 frames with RZ. With digital MF it is 300-400 images per session.
I had about 20-80% of keepers with film. On digital there is a lot of repetitive frames, it seems that I offload some of the the selection effort from the shooting session to post.
This somewhat relaxed my demands to models during the session, which I cannot approve after I review the results.
It takes greater self discipline to be a very critical shooter. Sometimes you only need to capture less than 10 frames; the rest is a thought process.

On a side note, I managed to shoot human body in panoramic stitching, certainly only in very stationary poses. This allows for very high resolution if needed:)

Michael, I went for a visit in your web and really enjoyed your latest site evolution.
That's greatly implemented. Congrats!

[Dick Roadnight]

But again, by your yardstick is 645 is really pushing it for 40x60, so my standards might not be up to yours (or my viewing distance is assumed to be greater, or something.)  Or, possibly, I'll feel different about large images and quality when people aren't the subject matter.  If that's the case I won't know until I get there, I suppose.

One theory is that if a viewer likes a picture, they may be drawn in to view detail at a closer distance.

Pictures like townscapes and group portraits would routinely be viewed close up as well as at a distance.

...either way it is nice to be able to print everything so that it looks good close up with reading glasses - even if this is not a requirement for all pictures.

[BernardLanguillier]

How does that compare with color process film?  Probably grainier with a sharper look.  Versus digital?  You've got me -- 20x24 portraits are as large as I've printed from digital, and I wasn't all that impressed.  Of course, my camera while producing 12 megapixel images is generally compared with a 6-8 megapixel camera, so I don't know what something like an A900 or D3X could do.

For what it is worth, I have B1 (roughly 30x40 inch) canvas prints of Japanese hotsprings hanging on my appartement walls that were shot from single D3x images and 24mm T/S lens. Those were up-resed with Genuine Fractals before printing on an Epson 9900.

Most people who see them seem to find them pretty impressive. The lack of noise and detail in the shadows coupled with the tremendous DR of varnished Lyve canvas prints is worth a look.

This is IMHO definitely 645 quality or better (I used to shoot with a Hassy H1).

Cheers,
Bernard

[sojournerphoto]

They're very different beasts.

A 5D2, 1Ds3, D3x, A900 can all do stuff that medium format film simply can't. However, I prefer the big prints I get from my Mamiya 7 for the sort of image you're talking about - I also favour monchrome.

FWIW a 4,000dpi nikon scan of a 6 by 7 neg prints out to just over 22 by 27 inches at 400dpi. True the pixels aren't as clean or 'good' as those from the digital cameras, but there is a lot of useful information there and the prints are excellent.

If you do go the MF film route, particularly 6 by 6 or bigger, you should be aware that a 500Mb+ image file can slow down normal photoshop operation... but so can a great big digital stitch. Also, scanning will be either time consuming or expensive (particularly in the UK!)

In terms of cameras, I like the Mamiya 7/7ii and find it nicer to use than the Fujis. Smaller neg though and different aspect ratio. I'm not really convinced that 645 is the way to go for film when 67 is so easily available.

Good luck

Mike

[fredjeang]

They're very different beasts.

A 5D2, 1Ds3, D3x, A900 can all do stuff that medium format film simply can't. However, I prefer the big prints I get from my Mamiya 7 for the sort of image you're talking about - I also favour monchrome.

FWIW a 4,000dpi nikon scan of a 6 by 7 neg prints out to just over 22 by 27 inches at 400dpi. True the pixels aren't as clean or 'good' as those from the digital cameras, but there is a lot of useful information there and the prints are excellent.

If you do go the MF film route, particularly 6 by 6 or bigger, you should be aware that a 500Mb+ image file can slow down normal photoshop operation... but so can a great big digital stitch. Also, scanning will be either time consuming or expensive (particularly in the UK!)

In terms of cameras, I like the Mamiya 7/7ii and find it nicer to use than the Fujis. Smaller neg though and different aspect ratio. I'm not really convinced that 645 is the way to go for film when 67 is so easily available.

Good luck

Mike

This is not easy. On the other hand, a Contax 645 could be used with digibacks later if required with no need of accessory. Just plug and play if I might say.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I spent some effort comparing Pentax 67 and Velvia with my Sony Alpha 900 (24.5 MP full frame)

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.ph...-sony-alpha-900

That comparison is probably not perfect, but it is what I have found.

Best regards
Erik

For what it is worth, I have B1 (roughly 30x40 inch) canvas prints of Japanese hotsprings hanging on my appartement walls that were shot from single D3x images and 24mm T/S lens. Those were up-resed with Genuine Fractals before printing on an Epson 9900.

Most people who see them seem to find them pretty impressive. The lack of noise and detail in the shadows coupled with the tremendous DR of varnished Lyve canvas prints is worth a look.

This is IMHO definitely 645 quality or better (I used to shoot with a Hassy H1).

Cheers,
Bernard

[Dick Roadnight]

Travel, photography, medium format film and medium format digital capture...this is what I've done and do, but can foresee absolutely no circumstance whereby I'd actually choose to return to using the film option.

...I should add that I can think of no advantage in using the film option.

I am a fan of MFD, and would not want to use film again... but the advantages of (LF) film are obvious:

Hi-res single shot on a budget.

If what you do is shoot a landscape or two a week, 60Mpx digital is not a cost effective option.

[fredjeang]

That makes sense. The real interest of film now is the large format.
It can be consider as a bargain in this niche.

Too bad the gigabitfilm is not available in those sizes.
What would it be equivalent to, 200MP digital?