Why not start with Med. format?

[jcdeboever]

I wish I would have started prior to digital. I only shoot film today because I like the process and the look of it. I also like that it helps me slow down which can translate to digital if I am disciplined. The one thing about digital is that it is so easy to pop off images, this can be a good thing and a bad thing. I own a medium format film and digital camera. I can say this, medium format is way slower, and the depth of field is thinner. In other words, there is a learning curve with each format, and it gets slower as the negative or sensor size increases. For a beginner today? Digital makes more sense but it doesn't hurt to experiment in both, if you can afford it. I have learned a great deal from film. I would say use digital and for film, maybe buy a Intrepid 4 x 5 or 8 x 10.

 

[Derrel]

SNIP>the old Busch Pressman my father had>SNIP
.

busch Pressman - Yahoo Search Results Image Search Results

 

[Derrel]

SNIP> the old Busch Pressman my father had >SNIPbusch Pressman - Yahoo Search Results Image Search Results

 

[Soocom1]

SNIP>the old Busch Pressman my father had>SNIP
.

busch Pressman - Yahoo Search Results Image Search Results

Thats the one.

He used it several times and I forgot about it for years. Then when I started perusing photography a bit more seriously, it came out.
The impact of that camera didnt hit me until 2000 or so.

 

[webestang64]

Before digital MF/LF was the medium you worked up to after you learned the basic's with 35mm.

 

[smoke665]

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.

Whether intentional or not it boils down to that because of $$$$$. How many people just starting a new hobby do you know that could or would invest in a digital medium format kit? For that matter how many pros would shell out the money for an 8x10 digital The World's First 8x10 Large Format Digital Camera is Yours for $106,000 ?

 

[Derrel]

Press style cameras are kind of cool! I currently own a 1938 "baby" Speed Graphic.. roll film via a 1950's-era Linhof Rolfilm back, or sheet film, in film holders,coupled rangefinder possible, focal plane OR leaf shutter. The "Speed" part in Speed Graphic comes from the REAR shutter...the 24-speed, cloth focal plane shutter, which is MASSIVE!!! It goes up to 1/1000 second in 24 closely-spaced speeds, whereas the FRONT shutter, inside the lens, is a delicate, quiet, vibration-free interlens shutter that tops out at 1/400 second. the FRONT shutter MUST BE OPEN when using the rear, focal plane shutter...or...there is no picture made.

 

[Soocom1]

Imagine someone converting a Speed Graphic or Pressman to digital....

 

[Ysarex]

Imagine someone converting a Speed Graphic or Pressman to digital....

Joe

 

[smoke665]

Imagine someone converting a Speed Graphic or Pressman to digital....

That could be either a good idea or a bad one. You'd still have the mechanical issues of the old camera. More important is the glass. Granted some of the older lenses produce some unique and beautiful images, but just because it's old doesn't mean it was good or still is. They had their junk also. And what of the digital back, sometimes making something bigger (like a sensor) doesn't work as well.

 

[Derrel]

I think it could be done..such as by using a rollfilm adapter, 4x5 or 2.25 x 3.25", to one of the Hasselblad or Mamiya Backs. Capture One Integration in Atlanta could answer this question, I am sure.

"old"...it is quite easy to buy NEW lenses for these older cameras, and to buy new shutters, or to re-condition old shutters.

 

[Overread]

I started with an interest in wildlife/zoo/nature/macro and honestly a medium format film camera to start out? Yeah it likely would not have worked for me if I was self-learning. With a mentor and strict program yeah maybe, but chances are it wouldn't have given me half the results I'd have wanted.



Also honestly when cameras were all film I had no interest what so ever -I only tried it out because they had specifically gone digital. It's a bit of a generational thing but I'm happier with electronics over chemical.



Sure if you're into posed portraits or landscapes a medium format film might be great to start with, but I can't see what makes it "better" than just getting any old decent digital camera to get started with. I don't see the advantage nor a reason to use a medium format specifically, whilst I can see many to using a regular digital camera (mirrorless, bridge, DSLR, whatever)

It just seems that some who learn photography seem to get hooked on how new people must "learn to be selective and learn the whole process" as if new people aren't learning it. Or as if there's some big fear that we'll raise a generation of photographers (not just happy snappers) who can't do photoraphy " correctly" whilst forgetting that during the film era auto-shots were all the rage. Heck even before auto many just used the "sunny 16" rule for their DSLR camera and were happy snapping away with that.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Do it. Easy for me to say!

More seriously, you seem to have some inclination for it so trust your instincts. I started out with an SLR and always wanted to learn how to use a rangefinder (and eventually did and still do). There was a learning curve...

I've learned how to use vintage box cameras and vest pockets, pinhole cameras, and of the plastic cameras found the Spinner to be the most challenging! and the Pop 9 is a favorite. I learned how to do lumen prints & cyanotypes; how to use vintage Peerless (powder) dye to hand tint a print done in the darkroom. I had the interest and figured it out and messed up and practiced and did it.

You don't need to preview if you learn to see what you're looking at in the viewfinder and think about how it will look as a photograph. If you shoot film learn how to frame shots well to get what you want in your pictures (and keep what isn't part of the composition out of the frame). If you don't want to waste film learn how to get proper exposures. Plenty of us learned photography shooting film and I don't see why you can't learn composition and exposure with medium/large format, I'd just try to figure out a way to do it and keep the cost reasonable.

Look at Large Format Photography Forum and their LF Home Page for resources (top of the page); I've gotten darkroom info. there. Look up Mat Marash, associated with http://www.filmphotographyproject.com; I don't know his film photography experience before he got into large format but he's young enough it can't have been that much!

 

[ac12]

First let's eliminate LF.
LF is a PiA to deal with, especially for a beginner.

Just the film, you have to learn how to load the film holder, then unload the film holder, then package the film for shipping to a processor. All this in a darkroom or changing bag.​

If you send out film for processing, then 35mm or MF.

However, for a given cost of film and processing, 35mm gets you more shots than MF.

This can be/is a significant advantage to a newbie. I can afford to "try" something new, and "waste" a shot if it does not work.​

If you DiY B&W film processing.

• It is cheaper to process 35mm than MF. Two rolls of 35mm 36 exposure film (total 72 frames) uses the same amount of chemicals as ONE roll of MF film with only 12 frames (120 film, 6x6 frames).
  
• While a 6x6 enlarger is not too hard to find, finding a MF enlarger larger than 6x6 is significantly more difficult.
  
• If you have to make it a temporary darkroom, where you have to break down and store the enlarger every time, it is a lot easier to setup a temporary 35mm darkroom than a temporary MF darkroom. This is basically due to the larger size/bulk of the MF enlarger.

If you use contact sheets, a MF contact sheet is easier to use than a 35mm contact, simply because the frame (and image) size is larger.

BUT, IMHO as other have said, for a newbie, it comes down to the feedback cycle.
Digital gives essentially instant feedback. Did you get the shot or not? Just look at the screen on the back of the camera.
Shoot a roll of, and you should plan of it taking up to TWO WEEKS before you get it back from the lab; mail out, process, mail back. How do you learn when the feedback of your performance takes two weeks to happen? Most people can't remember what they did two weeks ago. What did you do that one shot is better than another?
When one is learning, the FAST feedback is tremendously important, especially for correcting mistakes.
FAST feedback is also important in holding attention.

Gee the shot of that flower is good, let me try shooting another flower . . .​

BTW, Polaroid backs for most MF and LF cameras is a thing of the past. So no instant feedback.
The Impossible Project is not there, from what I've seen.

 

[Derrel]

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.