Am I doing an exercise in futility?

[dteesben]

Welcome to the dark side, and get used to a little cagey humor. Yes, everything you need
is still available, and if anything MF digital can equal a good darkroom print from large format film, I've certainly never seen anything close yet. But it all depends on your personal skill. But the analogy I've used often before is, turtles and crocodiles might seem
primitive, but they outlasted the age of fancy dinosaurs - there must be a reason.

One of my friends told me of his experience using a scanning digital LF Back. He says the take a long time to scan and are a hassle. Maybe they are better now. A used one for 4x5 used to be $15k. For my money I'll just stick to a negative. Maybe the processors in the scanning backs are faster and cheaper now. I like my turtles and crocodiles.

[dwross]

It is only an exercise in futility if you do nothing. Then you have wasted a lot of money on strange paper weights.

4x5 film will be available as long as any other film is available. When its manufacture stops, nobody really knows. And if that happens, then we can make film at home. (Not as good as Kodak, Ilford or Fuji, but serviceable enough.)

A while back there was a 80Mp to 8x10 comparison. As for quality of the print, that depends on you, since you'll be the one making them. Practice makes perfect, so start photographing and printing!

Homemade film will only get better and better as more people practice and exchange insights. And, the opportunities of a viable cottage industry should appeal to entrepreneurial types. Best of all, there isn't a need to fear that a vital ingredient will go missing. All of the chemistry used in basic, high speed ortho film is widely available, with crossover in many industries. Panchromatic chemistry takes a bit more paperwork, but it's there.

There are a lot of things to worry about in life, but b&w film and paper going away--ever--isn't one of them. Three cheers for Brian's last sentence.

,
d

[DennisD]

Film is great in many ways... as is Digital in others.

Choose whichever one suits you best and enjoy the process. Looking at "it" (whether large format or film) as an "excercise in futility" is terribly pessimistic !

I've chosen to do continue my 4x5 work (mostly B&W) as well as to get deep into medium format digital.

I love them both !

Dennis

P.S. I think I would avoid scanning backs unless you get some true hands on experience and are convinced the technology is right for you. It's a different world.

[Drew Wiley]

Scanning backs are best suited to tabletop studio photography, copying painting for reproduction, etc. I have a friend who uses one for photographing cookbooks - it's
a lucrative entrerprise, but has to be - his equipment investment is staggering. Not really
portable stuff, and not very immune from obsolesence per parts and maintenance, software
etc. Pays for itself when you can fire an entire art dept and just have a set designer and
cameraman, then straight to prepress. You're tethered to a Mac the whole time.

[Robert Budding]

I am new to this forum and want to get back into film photography and processing. Mainly 4x5 large format. I have been collecting large format darkroom and photography equipment for the past 10 years. I have a Omega D5 XL enlarger with all the bells and whistles and both a Super Speed Graphic and a Calumet NX view camera with several Schnieder lenes. I enjoyed 35mm color and black and white processing back in the 70's and have had my equipment in storage since then. I recently aquired space for a nice darkroom and photography studio basically for free and have begun to set up my equipment which now includes 4x5 large format. My wife is tired of all my storage boxes taking up space in the garage!! I always enjoyed working with the films chemicals papers etc. Its more fun than digital by a long shot for me. Am I starting an exercise in futility? Is 4x5 film still avaliable and will it continue to be avaliable. How about papers and chemicals. How do 4x5 film enlargements or contact photos and transparencies compare to digital quality?

I always acknowledge that photography is an expensive hobby. And then I take credit for not buying a little red sports car or chasing young women.

[Pavel+]

I always acknowledge that photography is an expensive hobby. And then I take credit for not buying a little red sports car or chasing young women.

Ummm ... seeing that I'm considering taking the plunge into LF film and am intimidated myself as to the cost to benefit ratio, I need to ask a technical question; Are you saying that, from your experience, photography is MORE fun than chasing young woman!? ??? .... and does that include "caught" woman .... or the way that sport works out at my age?

[Jody_S]

Ummm ... seeing that I'm considering taking the plunge into LF film and am intimidated myself as to the cost to benefit ratio, I need to ask a technical question; Are you saying that, from your experience, photography is MORE fun than chasing young woman!? ??? .... and does that include "caught" woman .... or the way that sport works out at my age?

I think that as groups of hobbyists go, only the model train people are more monogamous / less philandering than photographers. And that's only because there's a class of photographers who use cameras as a way to persuade young girls to take their clothes off.

I don't think it's a matter of choice, an 'either/or' paradigm, it's that people who don't go around chasing young girls still want to have some hobby that occupies their time. I don't know if the current hipster crowd will make a dent in this reputation, but then photographers do not think of hipsters as photographers.