SeaRubi
Explorer
I've been hunting around for an old medium format folder to use as my primary camera for trips to the back country, and in learning more about medium format systems it's made me curious about something: why aren't more casual / amateur shooters shooting medium format film in the back country instead of DSLR?
Cost: MF cameras are inexpensive relative to a good DSLR rig, and a $200 Epson flatbed scanner will work pretty well for digital printing smaller prints and great for web.
Risk of damage or theft: anyone rummaging your truck for something to steal would likely toss a film camera aside as junk. If they don't, it'll certainly be less expensive to replace. As for damage, I know that with my old 35mm Minolta I worry much more about the object that was unfortunate enough to collide with it than I ever do the camera.
Ease of use: no zoom lens, no buttons means more attention on composition and perhaps a bit more forethought of subject matter.
Durability: using a dedicated meter keeps the camera simple and trouble free in operation. An old folder or Pentax 645 system is just about indestructible, and the smaller lenses are easier to protect in smaller casings.
Great black and whites: one red, one yellow filter and a ND gradient is about all you need for great B&W's most of the time. No photoshop required if you get it right in the camera.
Prints: a high quality optical print from a medium format negative is something to behold. My experience is sadly limited to viewing others in galleries and being left with huge feelings of inadequacy about my 35mm systems and crappy scanned digital prints.
Labor: sure seems like a lot of work to edit down 500 photographs after a trip, and then still have the task of touching up what's left. I find that when I'm working with around 12 / 24 / 36 shots per roll of film, it tends to slow me down and focus more on creating the image rather than capturing the image. There's a lot less effort in swapping between a velvia roll for a sunset and then over to something like Portra for portraits than all that photoshopping to create a similar look.
Seeing all these threads about portable digital darkrooms and the need for thousand dollar setups in laptops seems to have made the convenience for digital anything but! I'm not meaning to kick off a giant film vs. digital war or some kind of crazy pixel discussion. I'm just thinking that for a durable rig that packs easy, medium format film offers a reduced workflow, more ease of use, and potentially much less equipment and can offer an arguably comparative end result to something like a Canon 5D and L glass for thousands less.
Discuss!
cheers,
-ike
Cost: MF cameras are inexpensive relative to a good DSLR rig, and a $200 Epson flatbed scanner will work pretty well for digital printing smaller prints and great for web.
Risk of damage or theft: anyone rummaging your truck for something to steal would likely toss a film camera aside as junk. If they don't, it'll certainly be less expensive to replace. As for damage, I know that with my old 35mm Minolta I worry much more about the object that was unfortunate enough to collide with it than I ever do the camera.
Ease of use: no zoom lens, no buttons means more attention on composition and perhaps a bit more forethought of subject matter.
Durability: using a dedicated meter keeps the camera simple and trouble free in operation. An old folder or Pentax 645 system is just about indestructible, and the smaller lenses are easier to protect in smaller casings.
Great black and whites: one red, one yellow filter and a ND gradient is about all you need for great B&W's most of the time. No photoshop required if you get it right in the camera.
Prints: a high quality optical print from a medium format negative is something to behold. My experience is sadly limited to viewing others in galleries and being left with huge feelings of inadequacy about my 35mm systems and crappy scanned digital prints.
Labor: sure seems like a lot of work to edit down 500 photographs after a trip, and then still have the task of touching up what's left. I find that when I'm working with around 12 / 24 / 36 shots per roll of film, it tends to slow me down and focus more on creating the image rather than capturing the image. There's a lot less effort in swapping between a velvia roll for a sunset and then over to something like Portra for portraits than all that photoshopping to create a similar look.
Seeing all these threads about portable digital darkrooms and the need for thousand dollar setups in laptops seems to have made the convenience for digital anything but! I'm not meaning to kick off a giant film vs. digital war or some kind of crazy pixel discussion. I'm just thinking that for a durable rig that packs easy, medium format film offers a reduced workflow, more ease of use, and potentially much less equipment and can offer an arguably comparative end result to something like a Canon 5D and L glass for thousands less.
Discuss!
cheers,
-ike
