Why not start with Med. format?

[Soocom1]

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.

 

[smoke665]

Specifically for film medium format or large format vs digital Not necessarily in order but:

• Initial outlay for the camera might be less, but film is expensive not only the film but the processing, unless you process yourself, and still it can be pricey.
• Lack of local processing and/or film. You're pretty much limited to mail order only.
  
• Lag time between snapping the shutter and seeing the result. For someone just starting out, it's easy to forget what you did between the shot and seeing the results.
• Fear of experimenting (see first comment). You hesitate to try new things, for because of the cost involved.
  
• Processing software and the skill required is the same for digital or film.
• Availability of accessories and glass.
• Availability of both Auto and manual mode. Someone new starting out may not feel comfortable jumping right into manual. Having the availability to shoot in Auto allows them to at least get a passable shot, building confidence and allowing them to work on other elements of the composition.
  
• Above all else, photography should be fun for someone starting out, and a learning process as they progress. They may or may not ever want to branch out into film, but regardless, digital will not hamper their progress in any way. Nor will it bog them down, in learning so much upfront that they get discouraged and quit.

Just a few that come to mind, I could probably think of some more with a little time. I first started in film, in the 60's and despite the nostalgic whim every now and then, I just haven't found a valid reason to switch back. I've got a roll of Delta 100 in a 35mm Pentax, that I've yet to finish up (been in there 6 months), and another half dozen in the refrigerator.

 

[Jeff15]

I agree with smoke..........

 

[480sparky]

........

• Lack of local processing ......

Soup it yourself.

 

[tirediron]

MF/LF tends to be a lot more technically complicated... compare the operation of something like an RZ67 to a modern-era film or digital SLR. Dark slides, removable backs, shutters that have to be cocked... the cameras are large and almost all have NO ergonomics whatsoever... in my view, it would be like learning to drive on a twin-stick Mack as opposed to a Chevy Cavalier...

 

[waday]

Smoke's response pretty much sums it up for me. I also agree with tirediron's intimidation/complication response. It's much easier to pick up a small camera and shoot handheld (where I can simply delete bad photos), especially with the person being new to the hobby and not sure if they want to continue it.

 

[Soocom1]

Forgive me if I disagree here.
I grew up around small format, and didnt even know what MF or LF was until I hit about 20.

I didn't have the money at the time and was unaware that the old Busch Pressman my father had was essentially a MF.
But once I started exploring, I took to it like a duck to water and found it actually easier than small format.
As for the mechanics of film v. digital, I understand what is being said, but IMO that is more a technical aspect of the market of film and has little if any bearing on the use of MF.
Now with that said I do grasp that digital especially the consumer end is easier to use, but its like the argument of learning math on an abacus before using iPhone AI.


But from a photographic standpoint, the only thing your doing is working with a larger area. The mechanics are the same.

The LF only gets diff. when your talking about adjustments and movements.
That requires a diff. approach.

But I still beleive that (except for the inconvenience of the film side), MF and LF could easily be learned by any starting amature.

 

[smoke665]

But I still beleive that (except for the inconvenience of the film side), MF and LF could easily be learned by any starting amature.

Most could learn, though I'd dispute the "easily" part. I grew up during a time when everyone had a simple film camera, basically the original point and shoot. Film was available in about every store you went into, and film processing was the local drugstore, camera store or mail in (where they sent you a free roll of film). Tri X 35 mm, 36 exposure roll was just over a dollar, and processing was only a couple bucks. Still people didn't take that many photographs - special events, family, etc.

Compare that to today, and the cell phone camera........ The average cell phone users snap anything and everything. They don't want to wait for days to get a scan back to post on FB or other social media. I think your missing the point as to what actually comprises the average amateur.

 

[Soocom1]

But I still beleive that (except for the inconvenience of the film side), MF and LF could easily be learned by any starting amature.

Most could learn, though I'd dispute the "easily" part. I grew up during a time when everyone had a simple film camera, basically the original point and shoot. Film was available in about every store you went into, and film processing was the local drugstore, camera store or mail in (where they sent you a free roll of film). Tri X 35 mm, 36 exposure roll was just over a dollar, and processing was only a couple bucks. Still people didn't take that many photographs - special events, family, etc.

Compare that to today, and the cell phone camera........ The average cell phone users snap anything and everything. They don't want to wait for days to get a scan back to post on FB or other social media. I think your missing the point as to what actually comprises the average amateur.

Again, forgive me on this, but IMO the 'average" P&S user yes uses their cell phone or similar P&S, but they actually have not been formally trained in most instances in anything artistic, or basic foundational education.
I get that.
but I am not talking that.
I am saying that starting photographers can just as easily learn MF or LF just as easily and IMO probably easier than a modern bells and whistle DSLR because of all the technical wizardry.

But you and I are from an era where education was highly prized.
today its regurgitated corporate least common denominator education all int he name of keeping the people stupid so they can be controlled.
forget art and photography.

 

[Derrel]

Yeah, medium format rollfilm and 4x5 sheet film cameras are not terribly complex machines. But film is a technology and a methodology firmly rooted in the past. For the beginning shooter, modern digital offers a fairly easy way to l shoot lots of shots in a day or week,at very little cost. And with instant or nearly so feedback not shoot wait to finish the film, then develop to see the results. Speaking of seeing the results, digital images are instantly ready for viewing on the computer monitor, with no need for printing out or projecting.

Years ago I had a Fuji S2Pro, and a long time ago (in 2005 or 2006 I expect it was),I calculated that for its $2,400 price tag I was able to shoot the equivalent of $69,000 worth of Ektachrome 100 to 400, in about two years' time. I shot a lot of photos with that Fuji, like I said, at $6.99 per roll for film and $4.99 for a 36 shot roll of slide film development. Compared with shooting film, my costs were vastly lower per image with the Fuji. If I took a bad shot with digital I was able to spot it right away, and to reshoot.

I came to digital with over 20 years of film experience. I knew a lot about photography, and about lighting, and about lens work. While I understand film completely, and can operate 35mm single lens reflex and rangefinder cameras, and medium format single lens and twin-lens reflex cameras, as well as 4 x 5" monorail and press cameras, and I have owned all of those types of cameras, I personally do not think that there is a better camera than a modern digital SLR, in term of speed and ease of operation, and for ease of "getting the shot".

Film had a good 100 year run, before it was largely supplanted by digital imaging. The wired telephone had a similar run of success, but it has largely been supplanted by the cellular/mobile phone. There's nothing "wrong" with older technology , but newer technology does bring with it some benefits that are lacking in the older technology. While I used to have a typewriter, I sure do not miss ribbons and white out, and the need to do every single thing with extreme care. I really prefer modern word processing software, a computer, and inkjet printing. But, I speak from experience of a person who learned on one technology, and who then transferred to a newer technology, in a lot of areas

 

[tirediron]

...But I still beleive that (except for the inconvenience of the film side), MF and LF could easily be learned by any starting amature.

True, and so could thoracic surgery, but in my mind, it makes more sense to start with simpler equipment.

You rather make our case: You say that you didn't get in to MF/LF until you had some experience, so by that time, you were likely comfortable with the basics, and understood the general principles. Had someone just dropped a 500C/M in your hands as your very first exposure to photography, I can't help thinking it might have been a little intimidating.

 

[smoke665]

I am saying that starting photographers can just as easily learn MF or LF just as easily and IMO probably easier than a modern bells and whistle DSLR because of all the technical wizardry.

Okay, lets narrow the user field to "only those new photographers". Now lets put an image on the screen taken with a medium format camera, and the exact same shot from APS-C camera. Both exposed properly, both processed the same. Then tell them that with the film, they can get a starting kit for roughly $500, but they'll have to wait days between the shot and seeing the image, and pay out roughly $.50/shot to develop the negative and digital scan. Now tell them that they can get a starting DSLR kit for the same or less, have instant access to their shots, at no further cost.

Now ask them which one they want to start with????? I think you know the answer. Like Tirediron said above the old twin stick Mack can do things the Cavalier could only dream about, but unless you have the background knowledge, you wouldn't know?

 

[Original katomi]

I have to agree with Smoke, I come from that era of film and the Kodak intamatac do you peeps rem the disc camera and the think it was called 110. I later used 35mm Pentax k1000 and med format
Point is whilst I to look longingly at film like my comments in another post I sat and weighed the pro,s &cons
I don’t have the space to have a dark room like smoke has said the shops that were about to process film or buy the chem,s/kit are long gone. Last time I looked I had 9 rolls of 35mm fp4 waiting to be developed! No one around this area does it anymore
I like to push the boundaries of what I do and for me at least digital is the way to go. I have even got to the stage of having hands on used med format and realised that given my lifestyle the even though I was being offered a very good deal me was not for me.
I am looking at ff canon 5d mk3 or the 6d both have advantages over my 600d and given that I future proofed my kid as in most most of my lenses are EF I am not going to loose much. The difference that ff will make to me at least is not huge, hence I am still waiting for a good used cam to be on sale. Ok one day I will upgrade but at the current time the advantage is not worth the cost

 

[Soocom1]

...But I still beleive that (except for the inconvenience of the film side), MF and LF could easily be learned by any starting amature.

True, and so could thoracic surgery, but in my mind, it makes more sense to start with simpler equipment.

You rather make our case: You say that you didn't get in to MF/LF until you had some experience, so by that time, you were likely comfortable with the basics, and understood the general principles. Had someone just dropped a 500C/M in your hands as your very first exposure to photography, I can't help thinking it might have been a little intimidating.

Actually, the SLR's were tossing me around.

When I was growing up I actually had little formal training and was winging it with instamatics and the occasional "allowed" use of the X370.

When I had my first SLR, I did mostly the P&S and full program thing.

When I walked into a camera store one day and saw this monstrosity called an RB 67, my interest piqued.

So I started to read and found the MF much easier to use because I wasn't playing with the Auto this and AF point that thing.
I get the instant feedback, and IMO that can easily be fixed provided one applys some thinking.
But I am not advocating an ether or. I am simply stating that MF and LF are systems that are just as easily learned if not even more so than a DSLR.
My 1Ds was one of the first pro-end DSLRs on the market and there is still way too much for me to use.


IMO if they were to bring down the cost of a digital MF sensor and provided that to the consumer market, all bets would be off, and again IMO, they could, they simply dont.

 

[Soocom1]

And moreover, there is an opinion that this is a film v digital argument.
its not.
Its simply a point made that MF and LF are the same thing, just immersed mainly in film.