OT: Film cameras and photography comeback?

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by benb

I actually think what he is doing is one of the cases where it actually does still make sense. That is still a unique area of film, and digital either costs as much as a nice pickup truck or a starter house in that arena or still has major issues, and the view camera itself is still something most digital systems are not doing well.

But what I can't understand is why he is going to all that huge effort and then not developing the large format film himself like Ansel Adams, etc.. actually did back in the day. Sending it out for processing seems to defeat much of the point if you're going to such a huge effort and cost and then be dependent on someone else to do a critical step correctly.

The way those old masters fiddled with their development outside the manufacturer parameters and then did selective burning/dodging on individual prints completely in the analog realm was a large part of the magic. (Also the low magnification aspect). He is also just selling them all as inkjet prints also making his final work a lot less unique. I love the fine art way of calling fancier inkjets Giclee.. there have been some funny rants about that.

More power to him if he can make a living doing this. The whole thing is weird though, and more about personality and sales than anything. To me at least it feels like almost everything about landscape photography has become trite, we've seen it all a million times and tons of photographers have taken the same images to the point they become meaningless, and so few of them have conservation messages or a point to their photography like they did in the past.

This whole thread is just total Deja Vu of 20 years ago. It's amazing it plays out like this here in 2024.

"digital either costs as much as a nice pickup truck or a starter house"

Not really. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...um_format.html Of course, you'll need a few lenses which will get you close or over 10,000, but, still, just in film and processing savings alone.


"But what I can't understand is why he is going to all that huge effort and then not developing the large format film himself like Ansel Adams, etc.. actually did back in the day."

He's shooting color. Ansel only processed BxW in his darkroom. Color transparency processing is a whole different beast, and, I'm guessing, the most cost efficient way to do it on your own is to, basically, open your own lab as a side gig to both pay for it and keep the machine running smoothly, because, the more film running through it, the more stable it becomes.
It's also quite dangerous. I hand processed E3 in the 70s, not for long, fortunately. There's a stage at the end that uses formaldehyde. And you breath it. Yup, funeral parlor stuff.

[benb]

Originally Posted by Tony Edwards

IMO this is one area in which the new technology is clearly better, and the old tech both far trickier to use, more expensive, less convenient and yields worse results in nearly every real-world situation in the hands of a non-pro. I guess I don't get it, particularly since (as noted by others), pro-level film cameras are readily available for giveaway prices.

There was a gatekeeping with film that has basically gone away with digital and has kind of made everyone able to see that the emperor was not always wearing clothes.

Basically everyone can make a well exposed and in focus capture at this point. That was not necessarily the case back in the film era.

What it has done is stripped everything back to the point the only things that matter are:

- How creative is the photographer, do you take photos or make photos?
- People skills if you are shooting people
- How are the compositions and traditional art aspects of the photos
- Have you actually managed to find things to shoot which are novel and capture the imagination in an era where everyone is up to their eyeballs in images to the point nothing seems special anymore?

Realistically view camera movements are one of the last things that's technical that is actually unique at still has a gatekeeping element. We don't look at that many photos that take advantage of that even in this day.

[benb]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

"digital either costs as much as a nice pickup truck or a starter house"

Not really. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...um_format.html Of course, you'll need a few lenses which will get you close or over 10,000, but, still, just in film and processing savings alone.


"But what I can't understand is why he is going to all that huge effort and then not developing the large format film himself like Ansel Adams, etc.. actually did back in the day."

He's shooting color. Ansel only processed BxW in his darkroom. Color transparency processing is a whole different beast, and, I'm guessing, the most cost efficient way to do it on your own is to, basically, open your own lab as a side gig to both pay for it and keep the machine running smoothly, because, the more film running through it, the more stable it becomes.
It's also quite dangerous. I hand processed E3 in the 70s, not for long, fortunately. There's a stage at the end that uses formaldehyde. And you breath it. Yup, funeral parlor stuff.

Click through to the list though and some of the bodies on the list are $32k without a lens. You'll easily be over $50k to build a fancy system. Also not one setup in the B&H list is even a "Full Frame" medium format sensor. The most common format for Medium format was 60mm X 45mm but some format were bigger than that. None of those digital cameras are even 60 X 45.

Still it has gotten a lot better. My cousin is a commercial photographer that does a lot of studio/product work and I know his medium format digital setup is in the $50-100k range.

Lighting equipment gets crazy too, and for a lot of that work it's mandatory.

[jamesdak]

Originally Posted by Alistair

Here's a non-scientific blog about the large format film vs 61mp digital for large prints...

tl;dr - for a 48" print, they're close. But that's a 61mp camera, which isn't typical today.

https://www.mountainphotography.com/...on-comparison/

And of course, part of producing and buying art is the process/story. I own some art that looks pretty, but I don't know the back-story and don't feel much connection with - it's just aesthetically pleasing. I also own art where I know the artist, know the story behind the art, and feel a connection with the piece.

I quit the medium format stuff for good once I perfected my technique for crushing it with my Canon 5D. Basically, you take you subject view and then use a telephoto on the 5D vs a wide angle on the medium format. Break the scene up into 20-30 very detailed frames. Merge in the computer to give yourself a huge file that can approach on GB with a native image size of 10 feet by 6 ft (estimate) at 300 dpi. No medium format or large format image can compete.

This image was done with that technic using a Mamiya 645 200/2.8 APO lens adapted to the 5D. I have it downsized and printed at about 5' x 3'. In the full size image there are Elk in the bottom along the creek and each one is clearly detailed.



I resisted going digital for a long time but reality forced me too. Well, that and the fact that I was fully committed to Minolta for 35mm and they called it a day.

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by benb

Click through to the list though and some of the bodies on the list are $32k without a lens. You'll easily be over $50k to build a fancy system.

Still it has gotten a lot better. My cousin is a commercial photographer that does a lot of studio/product work and I know his medium format digital setup is in the $50-100k range.

Lighting equipment gets crazy too, and for a lot of that work it's mandatory.

I guess, but, the Fuji is fine for 99% of users.

Top photographers dumped the studio biz model some time ago and rent pretty much everything for the day, including techs and space. Doesn't make much sense to drop fifty grand on a camera that will be obsolete in five years. Annie Leibovitz probably still can't tell you what DIN means, but she's made quite the name for herself by hiring out, especially post processing, and her stuff is a good example of how retouchers save shoots.

Besides, print is dead. Why spend so much on the input side when everyone will be looking at the image on a phone or laptop?

[benb]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

I guess, but, the Fuji is fine for 99% of users.

Top photographers dumped the studio biz model some time ago and rent pretty much everything for the day, including techs and space. Doesn't make much sense to drop fifty grand on a camera that will be obsolete in five years. Annie Leibovitz probably still can't tell you what DIN means, but she's made quite the name for herself by hiring out, especially post processing, and her stuff is a good example of how retouchers save shoots.

Besides, print is dead. Why spend so much on the input side when everyone will be looking at the image on a phone or laptop?

I don't know, but my cousin has been doing this for 30 years and for some reason that's what they want.

Talking major major brands, but also utterly and completely non-glamourous work. It's all digital and none of it gets printed huge most of the time but for some reason they want it all medium format.

I am not sure the stuff actually goes obsolete as fast as you think anymore, but I'm also not sure he hasn't switched to renting stuff out.

I suspect he still owns stuff because it still pays off if you're shooting hundreds of days a year.

[.RJ]

Originally Posted by benb

Click through to the list though and some of the bodies on the list are $32k without a lens. You'll easily be over $50k to build a fancy system. Also not one setup in the B&H list is even a "Full Frame" medium format sensor. The most common format for Medium format was 60mm X 45mm but some format were bigger than that. None of those digital cameras are even 60 X 45.

“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.”

Even if you really really honestly need medium format, a used Fuji GFX + Lens would be under $3k. And unless you're doing big prints, something for half the cost will get it done for IG posts.

[benb]

Originally Posted by .RJ

“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.”

Even if you really really honestly need medium format, a used Fuji GFX + Lens would be under $3k. And unless you're doing big prints, something for half the cost will get it done for IG posts.

Definitely not disagreeing with this but there is more to format choices than print size.

There are differences in the look due to magnification differences, depth of field, differences in how cameras sync up to lighting systems, differences due to shutter mechanisms, etc..

I didn't think anyone was talking about instagram posts.

[.RJ]

Originally Posted by benb

There are differences in the look due to magnification differences, depth of field, differences in how cameras sync up to lighting systems, differences due to shutter mechanisms, etc..

Oh for sure and there's alot of great reasons to still use medium format, both digital and film.

I've been tempted myself, but, it just doesnt solve anything for me at the moment.

[JMT3]

I had a medium format camera. It now sits in my daughters home as a decoration. Also had two Canon T90’s that I got rid of before film died. I do have a Canon Rebel T2 that I have not touched in many years. I also used to have a black and white lab in my house. Gone too.

Fast forward to today. I snap just as many pictures as before. Now I use my iphone, my DJI Air3 and my GoPro 12, mostly film family, vacations and mountain biking trails. Did use my GoPro on a few road rides. Pretty boring to watch.

[gavingould]

I shoot a lot with a Fuji GFX 100S. guess where most of my images end up? Tiny squares on people’s phones.

after trying to make a career in photography right around the 2008 economy collapse, I’m glad to have it back as a stupidly-expensive hobby. once in a great while someone pays me for something.

[avalonracing]

Originally Posted by gavingould

I shoot a lot with a Fuji GFX 100S. guess where most of my images end up? Tiny squares on people’s phones.

after trying to make a career in photography right around the 2008 economy collapse, I’m glad to have it back as a stupidly-expensive hobby. once in a great while someone pays me for something.

My pro buddy likes to use Sony A7R5 cameras and shoots hundreds of 61mp raw images per shoot (4-5 days a week). In the last couple of years he has spent five-figures on hard drive storage and as you said 99% of what he shoots gets viewed on cell phones.

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by gavingould

I shoot a lot with a Fuji GFX 100S. guess where most of my images end up? Tiny squares on people’s phones.

after trying to make a career in photography right around the 2008 economy collapse, I’m glad to have it back as a stupidly-expensive hobby. once in a great while someone pays me for something.

Ha, yeah, I hear ya. I've reached out to local guild shows and received praise, but, that's it. But, it's fun. I don't think it's that expensive besides ink and paper, which ain't that bad, and a new Apple computer every five years just to keep up with OS revisions, therefore, Adobe software still works. Cameras and AI enlargement software have reached a level where I really don't need more for a large print.

Recent developments in AI in Photoshop, and, well, elsewhere, have taken the wind out of my sails. It's amazing stuff, and, one thing I learned, is to not fight the tech. It's a major shock to the whole concept of and development in photography. And the people who will take it to 2050 and beyond are young people in India and China.

[avalonracing]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

Recent developments in AI in Photoshop, and, well, elsewhere, have taken the wind out of my sails.

I hear you on that. And I hate that people have become accustomed to hyper-saturated, over-sharpened (or over-softened) images which just makes real vs AI images even harder to distinguish.

[jkbrwn]

Needs more film pics