Why not start with Med. format?

[Soocom1]

One of the biggest handicaps in digital is that compression rates and values, ratios etc. are different from one manufacturer to another.

years ago I had a flatbed scanner that was capable of producing a 110 Mb image that was scanned to a level mimicking a 100MP image.

The computer crashed.

Jpeg compression, bit rates, and visual images (dots per inch, and screen resolution) does a great deal of mismatch and gives missing information while doing the work. So images that are transferred from one system to the next and displayed on various screens will look good or bad regardless.

Try for a moment to look at an image off of a RAW file from an 80D on a CRT monitor.

Not that you cant, but I don't think it will look good.

IMO, analog records images and the film grain is the determining factor on best final image aspects.
Outside composure, exposure, and all other things done pre-shot, the grain size after development will hold the quality or lack thereof of the image itself.

 

[Ysarex]

One of the biggest handicaps in digital is that compression rates and values, ratios etc. are different from one manufacturer to another.

What? are you talking about?

years ago I had a flatbed scanner that was capable of producing a 110 Mb image that was scanned to a level mimicking a 100MP image.

The computer crashed.

I just used my scanner and it works great.

Jpeg compression, bit rates, and visual images (dots per inch, and screen resolution) does a great deal of mismatch and gives missing information while doing the work. So images that are transferred from one system to the next and displayed on various screens will look good or bad regardless.

Again, what does that mean?

Try for a moment to look at an image off of a RAW file from an 80D on a CRT monitor.

Not that you cant, but I don't think it will look good.

What do you mean look at an image off of a RAW file? All digital images include a raw file at one point in the process chain but we don't customarily look at those unprocessed. Do you mean look at the actual raw file? Why did you say CRT? I used to love my Sony Trinitron CRTs. I may still have a couple in the garage. They worked great.

Here's what a raw file looks like without processing:

Is that what you mean? If so what's the point? Yep that doesn't look very good because it's unprocessed. This also doesn't look very good because it's likewise unprocessed:

IMO, analog records images and the film grain is the determining factor on best final image aspects.
Outside composure, exposure, and all other things done pre-shot, the grain size after development will hold the quality or lack thereof of the image itself.

Grain size? Film has grain and some films have bigger grain and other's have smaller grain. Are you trying to say something about comparing film images with different grain sizes?

For a digital image the voltage charge read and digitized from each pixel in the sensor will hold the quality or lack thereof of an image. Those values are stored in the raw file. Sensor pixels come in different sizes too but it's a pretty esoteric topic that most photographers don't get concerned with.

What are you trying to say?

Joe

 

[Derrel]

FatBear, I looked through your earlier digital phase on Flickr. I _instantly_ recognized the location/shot of Cannon Beach. Since the early2000's, most people have come to favor punchier,higher-contrast digital images. Your photos LOOK as if they were shot and processed 15 years ago, with a softer,lower contrast look that was relatively common back then.

 

[Ysarex]

I am far from a novice at film photography. I do have a 20 step calibrated test strip (for which I am probably not using the officially correct name.) No, I've never had a photo with that anywhere near that spread, but I've had photos where I needed quite a few of those steps to figure where to print straight and where to burn/dodge and how much.

Nor am I totally stuck in the past. You can see a few of my early experiments with digital here: Fat.Bear (I was in a mushroom phase.) For some reason they all look a little dark on my current monitor.

While I like most of those photos at screen size, I never got a decent print from any of them. Yeah, technology has improved and it sounds like I would be happy with a more modern DSLR. But I have no desire to spend what little is probably left of my life fussing with the technology.

I have time yet to decide. It will be a few months before I get past current projects and have time to build out that room. But this discussion has been very helpful and I think I'll probably stick to hacking on marble and slate for my creative outlet.

Some nice photos there -- Anasazi mushroom is great and Dolceaqua likewise.

Joe

 

[Grandpa Ron]

If by medium format you mean cut film, it is a different world.

I have been working with a restored 1910 view camera. Lot of fun, I you like challenges.

• Yes you can successfully use one of those dreaded Yankee 4x5 cut film tanks. But they do have several short comings.
• You can also tray develop if you like working in total darkness.
• You are working with long focal length lenses. In my case 123mm and 165 mm. so you really have very little Depth of Field at the smaller f numbers.
• Set up for a shot usually requires a tripod, going under the hood with a loop glass for focusing, It is not as easy as the movies show the press photographer snapping away with their speed-graphics.
• Making a print requires an enlarger that can handle large format film or contact printing.

Start out with digital. You can learn a lot and the "film" is free.

 

[vintagesnaps]

You've been reading the Internet.

Well, yeah, there's plenty of misinformation out there...

Derrel, it's easy enough to dodge detail out of the dark and takes maybe 15-20 seconds while zapping light thru an enlarger. Of course to print you'd need access to a community darkroom or have your own set up at home, which may not be realistic or practical, etc. etc. etc. But it's not harder and not necessarily more time consuming if you know how to do it, at least it doesn't seems so compared to the hours many people seem to spend on the computer. The set up takes more time than ust turning on a printer obviously, but if you're skilled and practiced it isn't necessarily a lengthy process.

Or you can send film out, but it is more costly than it used to be. Depends on what you want to spend your money on, media cards or film chemistry, etc.

Good is good; I've had photos accepted into juried exhibits that were shot on film, digitally, on Polaroid pack film, etc. So I disgree that you need a camera that may get more dynamic range to be a good photographer or get good photographs; I think it's more about skill and talent. I'm not sure anyway how you compare photos recorded onto light sensitive emulsion in a camera to those exposed onto expired photo paper (lumen prints) to ones recorded on a media card or to images on photo sensitive treated paper/fabric since they're all different ways of recording images. How do you compare quality other than to the standards for each of those processes?

I didn't get into darkroom work til maybe the mid to late 2000's (although I've always shot film) so it's not for me an old process, it was 'new' at the time. I did some cyanotypes on fabric today, does it matter if I use an early photography method? If people want to shoot film or use alternate processes it's certainly possible to get something as good as done digitally. So if someone has questions about a digital camera or a film camera, I understand sharing the information, but I get tired of the comments that downplay using film when it can produce good quality results and for some it might be an option.

 

[Ysarex]

You've been reading the Internet.

Well, yeah, there's plenty of misinformation out there...

Derrel, it's easy enough to dodge detail out of the dark and takes maybe 15-20 seconds while zapping light thru an enlarger. Of course to print you'd need access to a community darkroom or have your own set up at home, which may not be realistic or practical, etc. etc. etc. But it's not harder and not necessarily more time consuming if you know how to do it, at least it doesn't seems so compared to the hours many people seem to spend on the computer. The set up takes more time than ust turning on a printer obviously, but if you're skilled and practiced it isn't necessarily a lengthy process.

Or you can send film out, but it is more costly than it used to be. Depends on what you want to spend your money on, media cards or film chemistry, etc.

Good is good; I've had photos accepted into juried exhibits that were shot on film, digitally, on Polaroid pack film, etc. So I disgree that you need a camera that may get more dynamic range to be a good photographer or get good photographs;

And no one here has made that claim. I certainly haven't said that.

I think it's more about skill and talent. I'm not sure anyway how you compare photos recorded onto light sensitive emulsion in a camera to those exposed onto expired photo paper (lumen prints) to ones recorded on a media card or to images on photo sensitive treated paper/fabric since they're all different ways of recording images. How do you compare quality other than to the standards for each of those processes?

I didn't get into darkroom work til maybe the mid to late 2000's (although I've always shot film) so it's not for me an old process, it was 'new' at the time. I did some cyanotypes on fabric today, does it matter if I use an early photography method? If people want to shoot film or use alternate processes it's certainly possible to get something as good as done digitally.

The tools are different and their capabilities are different -- it's OK to ask about and talk about those differences and compare them. Just as it would be OK to discuss what's possible using a film camera with a rangefinder versus a film camera with a pentaprism. There are real things that each can do that the other can't. Understanding the tools doesn't have to be a value judgment about using them.

Joe

So if someone has questions about a digital camera or a film camera, I understand sharing the information, but I get tired of the comments that downplay using film when it can produce good quality results and for some it might be an option.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Fatbear that's what I'm talking about, ability, skill... I agree some of your earlier Flickr photos look a little dark, just adjust/brighten them up a little. Don't stop taking photos whatever you do, and use whatever format and type camera you like and what works for you.

 

[Fred von den Berg]

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.

It seems to me that the kernel of this is the idea that making every shot count is better than spray and pray. Neither extreme is very good as a starting point for somebody that wishes to improve their photographic ability. On the one hand a hundred shots of the same subject is pointless nonsense that will very quickly get you bogged down, but at the other end of the spectrum a workflow that is so restrictive that it perhaps hinders experimentation is also unhelpful.

The cost of new digital equipment can be quite high, however, there's nothing wrong with shopping around for used cameras and lenses. After all, if you wanted to buy new MF or LF film equipment, you might have to take out a second mortgage on your home.

 

[FatBear]

Some nice photos there -- Anasazi mushroom is great and Dolceaqua likewise.
Joe

Thank you. The Anasazi mushroom would be almost impossible (for me, anyway) to do on film. Dolceaqua was as film-like as I could make it. One size does not fit all.

 

[FatBear]

FatBear, I looked through your earlier digital phase on Flickr. I _instantly_ recognized the location/shot of Cannon Beach.

We owned a store in Cannon Beach for 24 years and commuted from Manzanita. That photo was a scene I passed every day on the way to work. I rarely do landscapes, I leave them for everyone else. I just decided to stop and take that shot one day when I was trying to tell someone where I was from. There's another one farther down taken from the north with lots of sunsettie colors that I took for a graphic on our website.

The humidity is usually near 100% around there so it is a rare day when photos come out really bright and contrasty. But it would be misleading to shoot it on a day like that, anyway, because they are so rare. Nor would it be honest to punch up the contrast and saturation and make it look like it was taken on a day like that. I do admit guilt in emphasizing the sunset colors in the Ecola Viewpoint photo. Rules are made to be broken.

Since the early2000's, most people have come to favor punchier,higher-contrast digital images. Your photos LOOK as if they were shot and processed 15 years ago, with a softer,lower contrast look that was relatively common back then.

That was what you got from any digital camera that I could afford back then. Additionally, many of them were taken in very flat lighting. A sunny day is rare on the north Oregon coast, and overcast is better for many things, anyway. The ones taken in Liguria were in late October during one of their rainiest falls in decades. We drove up into the alps and actually drove behind a huge waterfall that arched out over the road. We drove down into one of the Cinque Terre villages and a mudslide sealed us in. Finally a guy in an Ape offered to lead us out over the sheep trails. (We followed him and made it.) As a result I got those moody shots where someone else might have taken a shot worthy of a postcard. I like them both, but can't see wasting my energy on a shot that you can buy for a dollar off of a rack.

The amount of work that goes into some of those mushroom shots might surprise you. I think of them as portraits of very patient subjects. Some work, some don't. My two best mushroom photos were taken on B&W film in the OM-1n with fill flash. One is sepia toned and one selenium. Neither of them is online.

Most of the mushroom shots were done with either two flashes or with reflectors for filling in shadows or both. You can see one of my diffusers behind one of those tiny mushrooms. I just couldn't get it to stand out, so I put a background behind it, just like any portrait photographer would do. Except most portrait photographers do not work in overalls and kneepads.

Why mushrooms and what does this have to do with MF? I like mushrooms because you can present an everyday object in a way that almost nobody has ever seen before. I started shooting them like this in 1987 and could find nothing like them in any publication. I scoured the Internet for mushroom shots before I took the risk of putting such weird photos on Flickr and found nothing like them. Now I do - in fact there are whole Flickr groups for mushroom shots and I see some that I wish I'd taken. I do not claim they are "copying" me, but I do take at least some credit for making them a popular subject. Of course that probably means I will have to move on to bryophytes...

And what it has to do with MF - to me, anyway - is that mushrooms led me to MF. First I bought a Baby Linhof with a couple of 120 backs and refurbished it. Then I used the movements and the amazing sharp lenses to improve my shots. But with mushrooms your camera is in the dirt, sometimes even down in a hole that you have to scrape away. And it was hard to get my face down there to look at the ground glass - the "underground glass" as it were. So I bought the Mamiya RZ-67 because it had a waist level viewfinder. Boy that was nice. If you've never used a waist-level viewfinder, don't. You will become addicted. Right now I think some of the modern DSLRs have articulated screens on the back. I would only buy a new digital camera if I could either 1, tilt the rear screen up to let me focus and compose from above; or 2, plug in a separate monitor on which to view my focusing and composition.

If there is an expectation that every photo must be punchier and higher contrast in this modern age, well I hope it is an affectation that passes. I think it is important to fit the characteristics of the image to the subject and to what you want to say with it. And sometimes you have to accept what you can get in the conditions. Doing the best you can with what you've got is becoming a lost art in America. Buying the best is the modern way. I guess I'm just old-fashioned after all.

 

[Derrel]

Derrel, it's easy enough to dodge detail out of the dark and takes maybe 15-20 seconds while zapping light thru an enlarger. Of course to print you'd need access to a community darkroom or have your own set up at home, which may not be realistic or practical, etc. etc. etc. But it's not harder and not necessarily more time consuming if you know how to do it, at least it doesn't seems so compared to the hours many people seem to spend on the computer. The set up takes more time than just turning on a printer obviously, but if you're skilled and practiced it isn't necessarily a lengthy process.

I find dodging shadows in Lightroom using auto-masking and a brush that's the "right size" far,far easier than relying on sunbursts of card-stock taped to coat hanger pieces far more-precise, repeatable, and easy. The full-daylight, numerically-adjusted ease of dodging a deep black that needs more texture, like + 2.3 EV, in three steps of 0.7 EV. I find a LOT easier than darkroom dodging.

Vignettes, and corner burn-downs and edge burns? So easy in the digital darkroom, and no wasted prints. No using four, five,six 8x10 or 11x14 sheets of expensive enlarging paper to get a desired enlargement out of a tricky negative.

No need for Farmer's Reducer, or an etching knife, of SpotTone inks and sable brushes. I find the "digital darkroom"

I find dodging shadows in Lightroom using auto-masking and a brush that's the "right size" far,far easier than relying on sunbursts of card-stock taped to coat hanger pieces far more-precise, repeatable, and easy. The full-daylight, numerically-adjusted ease of dodging a deep black that needs texture 2.3 in three steps of 0.7 EVI find a LOT easier than darkroom dodging. One can see the effect in almost real-time! And if the effect is not right, jut undo and re-try/

No need for Farmer's Reducer, or an etching knife, SpotTone inks, nor sable brushes. Or canned air and negative-cleaning brushes, etc.

I feel that the "digital darkroom" is different than the wet darkroom. Notice, I did _NOT_ say "better", but "different". The digital darkroom is aster, easier, cheaper, and more-repeatable than is the wet darkroom.

Silver prints are nice. Wet darkroom work is a 'process' that many find enjoyable, and it is extremely satisfying to shoot film, develop it, and either have a great-looking color slide, or a fine negative, or to have shot a good color negative that was printed as either a proof of a color print in a D&P operation. Watching a Polaroid come up was/is a thrill.

But INSTANT photos, in color positive, seen on the back of a Digital camera? A different experience in almost all ways. Modern digital is a lot like shooting "color negative" slide film! Sooooo easy to edit!, with dynamic range that makes so much difference in non-controlled lighting situations.

 

[Derrel]

Why mushrooms and what does this have to do with MF? I like mushrooms because you can present an everyday object in a way that almost nobody has ever seen before. I started shooting them like this in 1987 and could find nothing like them in any publication. I scoured the Internet for mushroom shots before I took the risk of putting such weird photos on Flickr and found nothing like them. Now I do - in fact there are whole Flickr groups for mushroom shots. I do not claim they are "copying" me, but I do take at least some credit for making them a popular subject. Of course that probably means I will have to move on to bryophytes...

And what it has to do with MF - to me, anyway - is that mushrooms led me to MF. First I bought a Baby Linhof with a couple of 120 backs and refurbished it. Then I used the movements and the amazing sharp lenses to improve my shots. But with mushrooms your camera is in the dirt, sometimes even down in a hole that you have to scrape away. And it was hard to get my face down there to look at the ground glass - the "underground glass" as it were. So I bought the Mamiya RZ-67 because it had a waist level viewfinder. Boy that was nice. If you've never used a waist-level viewfinder, don't. You will become addicted. Right now I think some of the modern DSLRs have articulated screens on the back. I would only buy a new digital camera if I could either 1, tilt the rear screen up to let me focus and compose from above; or 2, plug in a separate monitor on which to view my focusing and composition.

If there is an expectation that every photo must be punchier and higher contrast in this modern age, well I hope it is an affectation that passes. I think it is important to fit the characteristics of the image to the subject and to what you want to say with it. And sometimes you have to accept what you can get in the conditions. Doing the best you can with what you've got is becoming a lost art in America. Buying the best is the modern way. I guess I'm just old-fashioned after all.

I think that an 85mm tilt/shift macro (Nikon makes a nice,new one) would make a great mushroom rig,paired with aD800-series camera that would yield very high-quality results.

You wrote:"If there is an expectation that every photo must be punchier and higher contrast in this modern age, well I hope it is an affectation that passes."

Agreed, but I was observing that the majority of your digital output from 15+ YEARS AGO looks similar to a lot of the output of the period...low in contrast, and somewhat low in saturation compared against what today's cameras and software typically produce. That smooth, low-gamma look that used to be produced by Canon D30/D60/10D models, and earlier Nikon d-slr JPEGS. Today's cameras easily handle high-ratio sunlight, whereas the NikonD1 had about 7 stops (maximum) of DR it could handle, before something gave out.

IOW, your earlier digital experience dates to the formative period of dslrs;things have advanced/changed markedly since 2009.

 

[FatBear]

And since this thread was originally about shooting MF, I once knew a portrait and celebrity photographer whose most awesome candid shots were taken with a TLR. She said that when you put a camera to your eye and point it at someone, they feel like prey. When you are bending over fiddling with some antique-looking gizmo they ignore you. And even if they know you are shooting photos they still do not feel like prey and act much more naturally. I'm not sure about starting out in photography with MF, but if one has learned the basics and wants to get into candid, street, or location portrait photography, a TLR might be a very good way to go. Get a Rollei, they are less obtrusive than the massive Mamiyas. Again, one size does not fit all. And an awful lot of photography is not about the equipment but about understanding your subject.

 

[Harry Liston]

This thread has reminded me of a famous Canadian, Marshall McLuhan, who coined the phrase, "The medium is the message." So maybe photography itself has changed due to technological advances? I cannot understand why my enthusiasm for photography has waned, considering all the improvements in convenience and quality, affordability etc. Maybe that's the point - too much convenience leads to less appreciation? I used to love the high quality precision craftsmanship of my Rolleicord IV, but the Mamiya C330 which seemed more like an old Chevy in comparison, took better pictures. So much that is counter-intuitive. Photography is such a complicated thing, that it is impossible to quantify. Appreciated reading all your comments.