Why not start with Med. format?

[Dave442]

I remember my sister telling me how surprised her students were when they saw the 4x5 sheet film listed in the supplies to bring to one of her photography courses. I think that was part of a B&W/darkroom course from a couple years ago, these days she tends to do more Digital photography and Lighting courses as those fill out with more students.

I know her students have a hard enough time doing the Digital photography course using a DSLR, I think it would be impossible for them to gain the same amount of photographic understanding in a semester long course if they were required to use an MF or LF camera.

In the end it could be a bonus for a very small percentage of the class, I think the majority would benefit from using a camera that does not get in the way of the learning process to any great extent.

 

[Derrel]

EXIF vs NO EXIF.

 

[ac12]

BTW, what is the learning difference between a fully manual MF camera and a dSLR set to Manual, a fixed ISO and autofocus turned OFF ? I can dumb down / simplify a dSLR to the level of my 1970s SLR.

 

[ac12]

EXIF vs NO EXIF.

I used the data recorded and attached to a Canon digital image to troubleshoot one of my students pics.
It was out of focus, and looking at the recorded focus points, showed me that the camera was in the wrong focus mode, offset to the side, and focusing on something other than what she thought she was focusing on. Could never do that with film.

 

[Derrel]

BTW, what is the learning difference between a fully manual MF camera and a dSLR set to Manual, a fixed ISO and autofocus turned OFF ? I can dumb down / simplify a dSLR to the level of my 1970s SLR.

Differences; 1) neckstrap. The 1970's camera probably had what is now called a "hipster strap" or a "hippie strap", while today's d-slr likely has a black and yellow-lettered strap that says "Nikon Dxxx or Nikon Dxxxx:, or a black and red-lettered strap that says "Canon EOS _ D" or "Canon EOS _ _ D".

2) weight. THE 1970'S SLR WEIGHED 15 TO 38 POUNDS due to solid metal costruction!!!! THE MODERN polycarbonate- skinned d-slr weighs 25 ounces. (kidding)

3) The 70's SLR was loaded with a 12, 20, 24, or 36-shot roll of film that had to be rewound at roll's end, while the d-slr has a 64-gigabyte memory card that allows you to shoot 3,400 medium JPEGs.


4) Better viewfinder screen for manually focusing in the 1970's SLR.

 

[petrochemist]

I guess I did start with MF. My dad gave me a box camera to use before my teens, but I later switched to a 126 instamatic. Both where very basic cameras but I wasn't allowed to load roll film. Back then processing of both film types was available everywhere.
The options are very different now : I've picked up working compact digital cameras that cost less than a single film, which will beat medium format in many of Smoke's disadvantages. (My MF bodies being fixed lens boxes can only tie with the compacts where they don't loose out)
For those who have reached the point of wanting to try a bigger sensor than APSC, MF & LF are sensible options. But most of the photographic world seems fixated on FF.

 

[petrochemist]

1975,1985,1995: (film)"I hope my pictures turn out good."
2005, 2015, 2019: (digital) " Ohhhhh, look at how well this turned out!"

As was mentioned above, digital picture-making offers pretty much INSTANT feedback regarding all aspects of the shots. Focus, shutter blurring, DOF, all of that..it is possible to get so many aspects RIGHT, based on reviewing the LCD.

For example, when striving for a SPECIFIC degree of blurring when panning...with film, it depends on the user's experience...with digital, it is easy to home in on the exact speed that produces just the right blurring. The difference between 1/15 and 1/8 and 1/6 and 1/3 second can make a HUGE difference between success and failure.

Yes the feedback cycle is significant.
Even when you're no longer a beginner if pushing the limits you can now know when you've finally managed to get the timing right. The digital comment often being 'not this time - try again' sometimes with an added tweak to the settings. With panning it can be yep got 1/125 nailed, lets see if I can go slower...

 

[Original katomi]

BTW, what is the learning difference between a fully manual MF camera and a dSLR set to Manual, a fixed ISO and autofocus turned OFF ? I can dumb down / simplify a dSLR to the level of my 1970s SLR.

Differences; 1) neckstrap. The 1970's camera probably had what is now called a "hipster strap" or a "hippie strap", while today's d-slr likely has a black and yellow-lettered strap that says "Nikon Dxxx or Nikon Dxxxx:, or a black and red-lettered strap that says "Canon EOS _ D" or "Canon EOS _ _ D".

2) weight. THE 1970'S SLR WEIGHED 15 TO 38 POUNDS due to solid metal costruction!!!! THE MODERN polycarbonate- skinned d-slr weighs 25 ounces. (kidding)

3) The 70's SLR was loaded with a 12, 20, 24, or 36-shot roll of film that had to be rewound at roll's end, while the d-slr has a 64-gigabyte memory card that allows you to shoot 3,400 medium JPEGs.


4) Better viewfinder screen for manually focusing in the 1970's SLR.

Re 3. The ability to change asa mid shoot with digital. Having to process a part used roll because you had to change mid roll was pia

 

[480sparky]

 

[smoke665]

Better viewfinder screen for manually focusing in the 1970's SLR.

You got that right. The split prism in the view finder was fast, accurate and easy to use.

 

[smoke665]

View attachment 172514

Not necessarily accurate. Yes there is a tendency to overclick at the start, but as you progress in your knowledge of photography and your camera you slow down. You learn in the processing stage that more is not better. Getting it as close to right in camera is just as important with digital as film.

 

[Soocom1]

I still hold that medium format and large format will still yield better results even from beginner photographers (and I do concede that if were digital and not faux LF stitched,) but a real MF or LF sensor (that was affordable, and yes they can be manufactured.) that it would be a game changer.


The end result I think would put photography back into a position it held before the iPhone.

 

[Derrel]

EXIF vs NO EXIF.

I used the data recorded and attached to a Canon digital image to troubleshoot one of my students pics.
It was out of focus, and looking at the recorded focus points, showed me that the camera was in the wrong focus mode, offset to the side, and focusing on something other than what she thought she was focusing on. Could never do that with film.

I still hold that medium format and large format will still yield better results even from beginner photographers (and I do concede that if were digital and not faux LF stitched,) but a real MF or LF sensor (that was affordable, and yes they can be manufactured.) that it would be a game changer.


The end result I think would put photography back into a position it held before the iPhone.

Ernest Hemingway felt that writing done with a pencil was better than writing done with a typewriter. SEE this web page for his reasoning: Palimpsest: Ernest Hemingway: Writing in Pencil

I seriously doubt that, no matter what we do, we can "put photography back into a position it held before the iPhone." No, not going to happen, cannot happen, we can not put eh jeanie back in the bottle, we cannot un-invent electricity or the telephone or gunpowder or jet engines, or reduce the permanent change wrought by multiple technological innovations or inventions. The photocopier, the scanner, the inkjet printer...all ways to create reproductions of photo-prints and to lower the rarity, the sanctity, the value, of photo images.

We now are almost two full decades into the 21st century, and photography has gone through multiple stages, of tin and glass plates that were exposed 'wet'; then 'dry plate photography, then rollfilm and film sheets instead of plates, then flashbulbs were invented in 1928, then 35mm film became popular from the 1930's to the 1960's, and so on and so on.

The way we use, store, and think about photography and photos can never go back in time. A Civil War soldier might have had two,or perhaps, three photos made of himself. Todays 20-something female may make 5 selfies of herself. I personally carry on my iPhone, just under 1,800 photos I have made over the last 18 months, (mostly) and a select few I have forward-migrated from the period 1977-2016. Old photos were viewed on metal, then on paper, and now on screens, mostly.

Nope. NO innovation will move photography back to the way it was pre iPhone, pre-2007.

 

[ac12]

I still hold that medium format and large format will still yield better results even from beginner photographers (and I do concede that if were digital and not faux LF stitched,) but a real MF or LF sensor (that was affordable, and yes they can be manufactured.) that it would be a game changer.

The end result I think would put photography back into a position it held before the iPhone.

IMHO, for the beginner, the convenience factor of the phone camera trumps everything.
It has all the advantages of digital and the small pocketable form factor.
The camera you have on you is infinitely better than the camera that is sitting on a shelf at home, because it is too big/heavy to carry.

Camera size was an argument back before the 1960s and ever since.

The Kodak Brownie box camera was MUCH smaller than a Speed Graphic or similar LF camera.​

The Kodak Instamatic was smaller and lighter than any SLR.

The MF camera was much larger than an Instamatic, and a LF camera was huge.
There are reasons why 35mm format film cameras took off and MF and LF did not; SIZE is one.
The bigger the camera the more difficult to carry, so it wasn't carried.​

The Pocket Instamatic was even smaller.
Some of the digital P&S were shirt pocket small.
With phone cameras, you don't even need to carry a separate camera. You have it with your phone.

Remember you said

Why is it that someone who wishes to learn photography or step up to a "better" camera shouldn't start with a medium or Large Format.​

and above

"from beginner photographers"​

So your target is the beginner, NOT the enthusiast, advanced amateur or pro.

If you want to put photography back to pre-iPhone, then you are saying everyone should not have a camera.
And if you want a camera you should buy a dedicated MF or LF FILM camera.

This is like saying ditch the cell phone, go back to landline and pay phones.
Or ditch the computer and the internet, and go back to typewriters and magazines.
And ditch the convenience of buying from Amazon/internet, you have to drive to the store or buy from a mail order catalog.

 

[ac12]

Ok.. Ill put my neck on the block here.
But just tell me something.

Why is it that someone who wishes to learn photography or step up to a "better" camera shouldn't start with a medium or Large Format.
Granted the film cost, but all in all, a MF or LF set up to start in many instances is far cheaper for equipment, and forces a person to learn the process and be more specific on their shots.

You are making an assumption (ass-u-me) on cost. Film camera are thought to be cheaper because of all the used gear out there. But most of that used gear is 30+ years old and needs a CLA to be brought back in shape. The foam on my old SLR is literally falling apart. And 40 year old dried grease/lube means your shutter speeds are probably not accurate.
The cost of the CLA will kill your "cheaper" argument. Here is are prices from one shop's web site.

Hasselblad lens Overhaul = $185 + parts
Hasselblad 500c and 500cm overhaul = $175 + parts
Mamiya RB and Rolleiflex prices are not much different.​

So your cheap Hasselblad or Mamiya RB will cost you an additional $360+ to CLA/overhaul the body and lens.

Copal Shutter Overhaul (LF shutter) = $95-150 + parts​

And a 30+ year old LF bellows is likely to have pin holes in the corners of the bellows, so budget a $$$ bellows replacement.

If you use a dSLR in full manual mode, I see little difference than using a MF or LF camera, to learn exposure.
You have to understand and use shutter speed, aperture and film selection/ISO level.