Large Format Displacing Your Old Medium Format?

[Ed K.]

Dear Abby,

Alas I seem to only shoot 8x10, a little 4x5 and the rest digital capture with different cameras. Even the 4x5 cameras get more lonely by the day. Especially since type 55 is gone, even the 4x5 will see still less use. Sad day indeed. The joy of that first 4x5 negative was surpased only by the first 4x5 color transparency viewed with a fancy loupe. After using the 8x10, even the 4x5 seems like an overgrown, expensive to use medium format when it comes to color work.

Poor old RZ. In perfect working order. Razor sharp optics. Poor old hardly used, like-new Contax 645. And the money they once cost! The sobs of loneliness all their kits and cases bring. And then the roll film backs for 4x5 cameras - even a much coveted 6x12 Horseman back at that! Dust to dust, what were once the fine and loved creations of Santa's elves sit idle. The stories they could tell of their glory! Today, nearly worthless, I cannot let them go, yet I know someday soon I will. I swear that the lens on the little Contax is better than any LF lens I've seen (I could be delusional on that point, but under a loupe it sure looks that way).

Has the medium format, the middle, dropped out of your shooting? Ditching the 4x5? If you still have your MF gear, do you at times feel that it would be more satisfying to crush the stuff or literally shoot it with a 44 instead of selling it for a fraction of a cent on the dollar? Is their any help for the anguish of parting with the trusted old MF friends? Does anyone care about MF anymore?


Signed - Forlorn in Photoland

[davidb]

I have not shot my Hasselblad in about 6 months, since diving head first into 4x5.

But I miss the ease and the beautiful negs.

I am planning a new project with my Hasselblad so hopefully
that will get things going again.

[Mark Woods]

An easy way to cure your sadness is to use your cameras. I shoot with a 2 1/4x3 1/4 Crown Graphic my father bought in 1937. I have a 120 back for it and I love to take it out. The Tessar lens is wonderful. I also have a Bronica that was given me. I don't use it much, but I do shoot with it. Then there's the 2 wooden cameras my father built (5x7) that I enjoy. And finally the different configurations of the P1 Sinar. Fun stuff. Oh, btw I shoot street photography with a 1938 Leica. Fun times!

[Brian Schall]

I have a fairly extensive Bronica SQA outfit, 2 bodies, 5 lenses, 3 backs, etc. I had the main body serviced by Bronica over 4 years ago and have shot 1, yes 1, roll thru it since. When I get a chance to go out, the 4x5 goes out.

Sold my extensive N90s outfit for a simpler D50 outfit. Use that for kids soccer and such.

I love my Bronica but am seriously thinking of selling it. Maybe replacing it with a 3 lenses 6x7 outfit or even maybe a 645 outfit for when I go hiking. But yet, I went out and bought a F3 and a FM recently.

[David Karp]

My Mamiya 645 sees little use any more. When I can go out to make photos, it is with a LF camera.

[darr]

... Especially since type 55 is gone,

:) Type 55 is not gone!:)

I still shoot a Pentax 67II and a Hasselblad. I also shoot a 6x9 Arca FC on a 50cm rail for macro work, so medium format is not gone from my tool box yet. I actually love the 6x7 format. But when Type 55 dies, I probably will hang up my 4x5 then.

[Daniel_Buck]

I haven't used my RB67 in a good while now! I don't use Polaroids, so slimming choice on Polaroids doesn't really affect me. My 1Ds2 gets use, however.

[Michael T. Murphy]

The Canon 1DsII is the best camera I have ever owned! I love it more than the Mamiya 7II, which *used* to be my favorite camera. :)

I have 3 4x5's that I use - a Toyo AII, a Cambo Wide, and a Fotoman. I just bought a Mamiya 645 this summer, but only 2 rolls of film through it, and I haven't even gotten the 1st developed yet!

Digital displaced medium format for me in 2002. I just stopped using it!

I am looking forward to the day when it replaces my 4x5. Too heavy, bulky, awkward (can't even see my composition on the GG with a 65mm and a center filter) too expensive, ($1,200 for 300 sheets of film in 3 months - the same as a years depreciation on the 1DsII.)

I have been doing photography for 30 yeras. I am delighted with the new tools. Much less expensive than the old - I used to spend $5K a year on film for my Mamiya 7 at $1 a frame. And I am aesthetically much happier with digital, than with all that base noise and lousy darkroom prints with film.

Sorry, don't mean to be offensive. But not crying here. I side with Kirk's "the best of times" 100%.

Do you remember that John Prime song "Dear Abbey"? The chorus was: "You are what you are and you ain't what you ain't. So listen up buster stop knocking on wood ... ...." (and i forget the rest that goes here?) "Signed, Dear Abbey"

[John Kasaian]

Yes!
The freezer is full of 120 VP that han't been touched in over two years. The Rolleiflex lives in the drawer with my socks and hasn't seen daylight in I don't know how long, nor has the mf enlarger seen use. I still play with 127 though, but 8x10 rules the roost with 5x7 coming in a distant second. I just added a GVII to the fleet, but only to justify keeping my D-II enlarger with which I have an unhealthy, mechanically perverse relationship with (no, not really!)

[sparq]

I still shoot with my beloved Rollei SL66 a lot; whenever a tripod is not practical. It is my "pocketable" hiking/walk around camera.

[BrianShaw]

For me it is the 35mm that is starting to gather dust. I shoot MF and LF about equally.

[Los]

someone please adopt my fuji rangefinder. see the for sale section. i know some of you print 8x10s to go in books and such. this is the perfect little 4x5 street camera for 8x10 prints. i have been taken with 16x20 prints from my 4x5. the little fuji has been in the bottom drawer for some time now....next to the dslr:)

[Uri Kolet]

Quit whining; get out and shoot all that film in the fridge before the fridge dies or the wife throws it away when you're on the other side of the world. Fix that Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta folder your Dad gave you (plus two others and a darkroom) when you were 6 in 1957, the one on which you produced the best roll you've ever shot, without even an exposure meter. Stop duplicating the junk in the photo bags, forgetting you've already bought it in HKG on your last trip. And file those negatives and slides.

[BrianShaw]

someone please adopt my fuji rangefinder.

It's tempting...

I've looked...

... more than once...

BTW, what part of Los Angles are you in: acute or equilateral?

[David A. Goldfarb]

I just posted about this subject over on Open Photography Forums.

I'd set up my 5x7" Press Graflex to make photographs of our now almost 1-year-old son around the house for most of September and exposed about 12 negs. Then I decided it would probably be easier to use my 6x6cm Bronica S2a with my usual portrait setup--a 135/3.5 with a short extension tube. It uses rollfilm and there is more inherent DOF, so it should be easier, right? Toward the end of the month, I was getting a bit frustrated with the fact that Melchi, our son, was moving in and out of the focus zone with the extension tube, so I switched the normal focusing helical for the Bronica's tilt-shift bellows, which covers the whole range from infinity to macro, and as long as I was reconfiguring, I changed the waist-level finder for a chimney finder--which is to say, I was unconsciously turning it into a 6x6 version of the Graflex. I made about 50 shots in the course of October with the Bronica.

We moved to a new apartment a few months ago, so it's been slow getting the darkroom up and running, but I can load and process film, so a few nights ago I made a dent into the last few month's processing backlog, including all the abovementioned film, and I made some quick scans the next morning. I got some good shots with both cameras, but definitely a greater percentage of keepers with the Graflex, and I like what I did with the Graflex way better than my best medium format shots. I posted one of the Graflex shots over in the Portrait picture post thread.

So I guess the Graflex is further displacing the Bronica. I have a pretty extensive Bronica kit with lenses from 40-500mm, backs, and some exotic accessories, but prices are so low, it doesn't make sense to sell it even if I only use it once or twice a year.

[Gordon Moat]

I do find I am sticking the Linhof Super Rollex back onto my 4x5 more than I am shooting medium format cameras (6x9 or 645) lately. Something about that 56x72 proportion just strikes me as better. However, I keep looking at a few other cameras in medium format . . . not like I need another camera (at this point I don't know how many I own). Definitely been shooting much more 35mm lately, and for the look and results, not the convenience.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Jan Pedersen]

Type 55 is not gone!

I still shoot a Pentax 67II and a Hasselblad. I also shoot a 6x9 Arca FC on a 50cm rail for macro work, so medium format is not gone from my tool box yet. I actually love the 6x7 format. But when Type 55 dies, I probably will hang up my 4x5 then.


55 is not gone yet but it will be by the end of the year.

For those of us fortunate enough to shoot more than one format it really is a great relief sometime after shooting only 8x10 or 5x7 to grab the 35mm or medium format camera and feel free. At least my way of looking through the view finder change depending on the format and gives me a sense of freshness and a desire to do more work with whatever (Hate that word) format that is current.

[Eric Leppanen]

I sold my beloved Mamiya 7II kit a year or so ago, as the DSLR has taken over the medium format niche, at least for me. It's a great relief and a lot of fun to just go out shooting quickly and spontaneously (often hand-hand, no less!) without worrying about tripods, darkclothes, loupes, manual focusing and all the other LF workflow hassles.

To my surprise, however, I have not sold the 4x5. I've actually expanded my 4x5 lens lineup since there are depth-of-field intensive shots that just can't be done with the 8x10, plus there are situations where I want LF capabilities while traveling light. If MF digital becomes more cost effective then I'll go that route, but for now I can't get too excited about paying $40-50K for a camera system with slightly less resolution than my 4x5.

[Kirk Gittings]

Actually the DSLR has replaced my medium format. The 4x5 gets the same usage it always has.

[roteague]

I love 4x5, and don't shoot it as much as I would like to; mainly due to work issues. As a result, I find myself shooting much more 35mm lately. I have a digital camera, but really hate the images it produces, so I mainly use it for my blog and illustrative purposes. I've started getting into shooting 6x12, but with my 4x5. I use a Toyo 45AII, but ordered one of the Chamonix as a replacement. My main camera other than 35mm is my Nikon F6 - what a fantastic camera!!!!!!!!!!!! I have a D200 as well, but find it just an expensive paper weight.

However, I am planning on ordering Mamiya 7II next spring.

[Nick_3536]

Not me. My MF setups have replaced my 35mm mostly. I only use 35mm for snap shot quicky stuff.

[Zach In Israel]

I seem to be mostly using my Rollei TLR. It helps that while I don't have a lot of cash right now I have about 15-20 rolls of 120 format film in the freezer. The 35mm comes out some of the time for some things. I am still working out the details of my LF rig. I just got a bunch of film holders but they need to be checked for leeks and I have not had time or money to do so.

[Sheldon N]

I just sold my beloved Hasselblad to simplify to a two format system - 35mm film/digital and 4x5 film.

I found that I used 4x5 for landscape and the DSLR for everything else. Medium format ended up being the "in between" option that never got chosen.

[Brian Ellis]

I finally sold my Pentax 67 system last year. Between LF and digital I hadn't used it in at least three years. At one time it was my favorite system, the one I used for many of my best photographs, the one I always took on trips. I loved the retro nature of the camera - needle-in-a-hole meter, auto nothing, electonic nothing, the loud "clunk-clunk" noise it made every time the mirror was locked up and the shutter was tripped. But I figured it was better to let someone else get some use out of it than have it gathering dust in a closet. I forget exactly what I netted, I think something like $1200 for the camera, metering prism, four lenses, and telextender, which is just a little more than what I paid for the camera alone when I bought it new in the early '90s. But that was o.k., I got far more than my money's worth out of that system in pleasure of use.

[audioexcels]

The Canon 1DsII is the best camera I have ever owned! I love it more than the Mamiya 7II, which *used* to be my favorite camera. :)

I have 3 4x5's that I use - a Toyo AII, a Cambo Wide, and a Fotoman. I just bought a Mamiya 645 this summer, but only 2 rolls of film through it, and I haven't even gotten the 1st developed yet!

Digital displaced medium format for me in 2002. I just stopped using it!

I am looking forward to the day when it replaces my 4x5. Too heavy, bulky, awkward (can't even see my composition on the GG with a 65mm and a center filter) too expensive, ($1,200 for 300 sheets of film in 3 months - the same as a years depreciation on the 1DsII.)

I have been doing photography for 30 yeras. I am delighted with the new tools. Much less expensive than the old - I used to spend $5K a year on film for my Mamiya 7 at $1 a frame. And I am aesthetically much happier with digital, than with all that base noise and lousy darkroom prints with film.

Sorry, don't mean to be offensive. But not crying here. I side with Kirk's "the best of times" 100%.

Do you remember that John Prime song "Dear Abbey"? The chorus was: "You are what you are and you ain't what you ain't. So listen up buster stop knocking on wood ... ...." (and i forget the rest that goes here?) "Signed, Dear Abbey"

So you haven't shot with the Mamiya 7II since 2002? Maybe you should pay a visit to it with film from today, a proper scanning of the film, and then your own post processing/printing and see how the look of the prints from both Canon and Mamiya compare. I have seen pics posted of the Canon from when it first came out (2002-2003?) and now. If you have a look at them, you'll see that the ones taken in 2003-2004, even 2005, etc. almost look outdated and old...but looking at pics taken in the recent year, they all look so clean and nice.

Check out the Fuji S2 images on Pbase...even the S3...they look old, even terrible...go to Flickr and look up "most recent images" from the same camera and they look clear, clean, as if it's not the same camera.

I don't think it's fair to compare a slide of film from almost 6 years ago to one taken today...It's like comparing slides taken in the 80's and 90's to those taken yesterday. Scene to scene, taking something that has gone unchanged since the 80's will still look like it is an 80's photo...whereas one taken today will look like an entirely different rendition.

[audioexcels]

I love 4x5, and don't shoot it as much as I would like to; mainly due to work issues. As a result, I find myself shooting much more 35mm lately. I have a digital camera, but really hate the images it produces, so I mainly use it for my blog and illustrative purposes. I've started getting into shooting 6x12, but with my 4x5. I use a Toyo 45AII, but ordered one of the Chamonix as a replacement. My main camera other than 35mm is my Nikon F6 - what a fantastic camera!!!!!!!!!!!! I have a D200 as well, but find it just an expensive paper weight.

However, I am planning on ordering Mamiya 7II next spring.

Curious what it is you do not like about the D200 vs. 35mm film and are you using a quality scanner for the 35mm film or just taking the film into a decent lab and getting prints from them and having the better ones scanned in properly?

[eddie]

I love 4x5, and don't shoot it as much as I would like to; mainly due to work issues. As a result, I find myself shooting much more 35mm lately. I have a digital camera, but really hate the images it produces, so I mainly use it for my blog and illustrative purposes. I've started getting into shooting 6x12, but with my 4x5. I use a Toyo 45AII, but ordered one of the Chamonix as a replacement. My main camera other than 35mm is my Nikon F6 - what a fantastic camera!!!!!!!!!!!! I have a D200 as well, but find it just an expensive paper weight.

However, I am planning on ordering Mamiya 7II next spring.

sounds like we are on the same road.

i too have a chamonix on order.....and i would love an F6. someday i will buy an F6 but not this year.

i find that i shoot a lot of 4x5 at home. i use my 8x10 also but not nearly as much. i shoot 100s of sheets of 4x5 pinhole images, the most film burning i do is with the pinhole. i hardly ever shoot mu 35mm any more. my Rb sees little use around here. BUT i went to Wyoming with all the formats and i found that i got all my best stuff from the RB. while the LF stuff was pretty good i was plagued with dust, scratched negs during processing and other minor difficulties. the RB was wonderful. i was able to shoot it easier and faster (probably why i got better shots than the LF) and it is super sharp. i also began shooting 35mm slide film again then. i was just thinking about taking it out this morning as a matter of fact!

basically i use what i got. and today it will be 35mm.

eddie

[audioexcels]

I've just sold a Rollei SLX to one of the nicest people here on the LF forums, but......

I also have:

Rollei 6002
Rollei 6006
Mamiya RZ67

Digitally, I have shot with a few point and shoots, DSLRS from Nikon/Canon/Panasonic/Olympus/Minolta. I have shot with Nikon and Contax for 35mm (Contax SLR and G system). For 35mm, in spite there is no macro'ing with the G system, seeing prints from it is really something. I look at my prints with my past DSLRs and they are very nice also, but they do not seem to have the similar level of sharpness and color accuracy/rendition as the Contax G w/good slide film and even print film like Reala or for super low grain, the 160 series from Fuji.

Problem with 35mm=Need a scanner=much more time than popping in the CF card and working even a little in photoshop..of course, scanning 35mm film also means having to photoshop...so there's develop, scan, process vs. pop card into computer, process.

Problem with digital=If we are after such high resolution full frame DSLRs, I see no point unless you shoot commercially or you want to be blowing up shots of wildlife and etc. "specifities" that nothing else would be capable of managing.

MF has a problem competing with the fast full frame DSLRs, but otherwise is the equal or better tool for similarly sized blowups.

So we come to the point of enlarging...at what size do people want to be printing? What is the majority of one's print size and also, can one see differences say, between their beloved 8X10 printed at a two time enlargement vs. a full frame DSLR or nice scanned MF print?...question can be similar to asking about a 5X7 or 4X5 shot...how are the enlargement sizes from these formats compared to the mega buck DSLR or a nice scanned MF shot?

And what about 8X10-11X14 prints? I am sure a 10MP DSLR like the Canon 40D that is MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE and has a beautiful coloration/quality about it can produce something with a good look at 8X10-11X14. So if most of our prints are at this size, again, what is the point of an expensive DSLR?

Lastly...I feel a quality 35mm cam can produce results equal to the 10MP cameras and will run into trouble against MF and the mega buck DSLRs when enlarged too much...maybe others disagree with me, but I feel that if print size is 8X10-11X14, even 12X16, a nice slide shot will from 35mm will be the equal of the 10MP DSLR...and it is VERY CHEAP to get a 35mm cam. Only issue I have with 35mm and even larger film is cloud grain that is not seen with the clean rendition of clouds via digital.

I think all these formats fit in somewhere, but one has to ask how large they want to go, if they see the quality differences in comparisons, what "specifically" each tool will be used for (DSLR or 35mm rangefinder would be best on action/wildlife/streetphotos IMHO), and then assess what camera/s will be needed.

I personally feel that MF even with the consumer flatbeds will produce a better print than any DSLR w/exception of the full framers...this is where the scan will become the difference. I could be wrong, but it's what I feel especially from seeing images off the 5D and the Rollei w/Planar lens.

But does one need to be printing consistently at such a large size "and" is it really that expensive to have a Rollei w/Planar lens for $350 shipped (what I sold my kit for) along with an Epson 4990 for $250 used or V700 for $400 used?..not really...especially iif one is already using the Epson to proof and even do prints from sheet film, your cost to have a cheap and extremely sharp Rollei system is nothing.

There's too many variables, though at the same time, it is really simple...

1) Get a "cheap" DSLR and use one zoom and manual focus lenses=$1000 OR get a Contax G2 w/28-90 lenses for $700-$800 I have seen them going for on Craigslist and just shoot print based film with an accurate meter or learn the meter inside the Contax. Then find a good lab to make a cd with your shots off the G2 and you have your web images. OR, scan that 35mm in with the same Epson used above...I have 8X12 prints that show ZERO grain and they were done at a local Fred Meyer (west coast shop/store).

2) Get a used Canon 5D for $1700 used nowadays and get one wide zoom, the rest nice Zeiss manual lenses and call it a $3K setup or so...this will give you prints in all sizes up to about what, 16X20? To me, if I had the money, I would go for this option "if" the 5D was more like $1500 for the cam w/lenses. 3K is way too much.

3) Use LF even for snapshots...get a Graphic and stick a cheap lens onto it and shoot like they did in the old days via hand-held. And use your primary LF camera/s for the more serious work...this can eliminate the need for ALL other cameras except maybe a cheapo digi-point and shoot for online photos and 4X6 prints...even a cheapo Pentax/Olympus w/zoom is only $400 nowadays and that will give fine 8X10's.

Talking way too much as usual...to me, it's think size of photo, reason to use (requirements of use), and find me a darn Arca Swiss Compact at a cheap price before hell freezes over!!!...oh, and a nice Whole Plate back is also acceptable to have on it along with a 5X7 and 4X5 back;).

[Former Member 8144]

A full frame dslr (canon 5d) with wide shift lens and other lenses does the job perfectly for 95% of my commercial interiors.
I also use it for stock work but would never make a print bigger than 16x12 inches from it and only do that rarely (I'd actually prefer a lighter M8 or similar for my kind of stock work but that's another story)

For my personal work (print sales and projects) I like to be able to print upto 40 inches wide.
Over the last decade I have used a variety of 5x4 and medium format equipment.
I have tried going back to medium format from 5x4 this summer (selling my large format field gear for a hasselblad setup that I had previousely used for much of the last ten years) and whilst it certainly is easier to use than 5x4 (quicker, cheaper, more variation in shots, etc (but not necassrily lighter) when I look at the images, although prints up to 20x20 inches are very good (drum scanned lightjet prints) I know when I make a larger print (and evena print at that 20 inch size) it will lack the detail etc I get from 5x4.
I also really like the movements on the 5x4.
So the hasselblad set up (like Sheldon's) has gone and I'm putting my 54 kit together again.
It is a slight pay off as there is a chance that I may miss the odd shot that I would have got with the hasselblad (perhaps I also need a very light one compact film camera with one lens only to go with the 54 on location for those shots, but as I already carry the dslr also for stock at the same time, that all gets a bit heavy!...that's where the M8 could come in) but more importantly every shot I have will be printable to a size as big as I require and will be framed perfectly with the cameras movements whatever the camera position restrictions.

Marc

www.marcwilson.co.uk

[Narcissist]

Since getting my Ebony my RB67 has sat used but I can't face selling it. The RB is probably my favourite camera to use and I do miss it (especially wlf and lack of dark cloth), but in the end the small dof with 6x7 combined with the lack of tilt for landscapes meant many of the photographs I wanted to take I couldn't :( Eventually this drove me crazy and forced my move into LF.

If I do shoot colour (rare) I use a roll film back though. The cost of shooting LF colour is crazy and I just cannot justify for the way I shoot. 10 shots on a roll means I feel much more free to take creative risks and try things rather than worrying about the cost which is important to me.

I am tempted to sell my mamiya 7 since I never really got on with it. It is a very nice camera but handheld use even using iso 400 for anything that needs more than shallow dof is limited. I am not enamoured by digital b&w and massive depreciation on dslr's is why it has not yet been replaced but it won't be long - handheld I'm sure a 5D would match it and is far more flexible with excellent high iso performance.

I still use 35mm a lot of street photography. I also sometimes take it out and shoot a roll handheld somewhere local to get a break from having to 'set up', tripods, dark cloths, and let my creative brain run wild.

[Patrik Roseen]

Since I started using my 4x5" Technika my 35mm gear has been more or less on the shelf.

However, I am using my MF Mamiya C330 system (65, 80, 105, 135, 180mm) for either a backup to my 4x5" or where the 4x5" would be impractical to bring with me. I shot both color slide film and BW.

I do like the result from the Mamiya system, i.e. very sharp when needed and possibilities for short DOF where appropriate. Short DOF was my main MF theme this summer.

[SamReeves]

I've sold off my Bronicas a couple of years ago. With the digi SLR and the Tachi, there was no reason to keep any extra cameras around.

[Frank Petronio]

The prolem is you pretty much have to get an incredible scanner to get the quality out of 120 wheras a cheap Epson will do a decent 4x5 scan because the enlargement factor is so much less... I still think 120 film has "headroom" but the scanning is the problem.

[Kirk Gittings]

The prolem is you pretty much have to get an incredible scanner to get the quality out of 120 wheras a cheap Epson will do a decent 4x5 scan because the enlargement factor is so much less... I still think 120 film has "headroom" but the scanning is the problem.

Spot on.

[Gene McCluney]

I started my historic bridge photography project a little over a year ago using 35mm Leica's. I would shoot Agfa APX-100 b/w, and Fuji Provia slides with separate cameras. I then started doing the b/w on 4x5 b/w, along with the color slides, then I started doing the b/w on 5x7 for bigger bridges, and 4x5 for smaller bridges, then just 5x7 for all bridges, and now I am thinking about doing the larger bridges on 8x10. I have an 11x14 camera waiting to be used for this project also. I am afraid that my shooting partner (who shoots digital only) will be quite frustrated with me, if I decide to shoot 11x14 due to the time to set-up. I am pretty fast with the 5x7. I can set-up and shoot a shot in about 5 minutes.

[roteague]

Curious what it is you do not like about the D200 vs. 35mm film and are you using a quality scanner for the 35mm film or just taking the film into a decent lab and getting prints from them and having the better ones scanned in properly?

There is just something about the look and feel of the images that doesn't look right - the closest I can come is sort of a "plastic" look. I shot about 600 images with the D200 on my last trip (before it broke - haven't gotten around to getting it fixed yet), and processing them was sure drudgery. OTOH, I shot 30+ rolls of 35mm and enjoyed processing them.

I vary my scanning, depending upon my needs. For a lot of 35mm stuff, I scan using a Konica/Minolta Elite 5400 II scanner - it is a very good scanner, but produces files around 200MB (16-bit), which can be a bit hard to work with. From time to time, I may have scans done on a Imacon or Tango. I rarely make prints from 35mm.

[walter23]

I picked up a fuji 645 awhile back and found I never used it. Digital was just easier, and since my colour workflow involves a lossy scanning step I found I got better quality straight from the DSLR than from scanning 645 transparencies. I sold the camera.

I still use a couple of TLRs for the novelty factor; I just like using them.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

I unloaded the Pentax 67 years ago- only use the 4X5 and 8X10 these days. Life is too short for small film- there are vastly more cameras out there than there are photographic opportunities to use them on.

[Brian Ellis]

. . . I have seen pics posted of the Canon from when it first came out (2002-2003?) and now. If you have a look at them, you'll see that the ones taken in 2003-2004, even 2005, etc. almost look outdated and old...but looking at pics taken in the recent year, they all look so clean and nice.

Check out the Fuji S2 images on Pbase...even the S3...they look old, even terrible...go to Flickr and look up "most recent images" from the same camera and they look clear, clean, as if it's not the same camera. . . .

With all due respect, IMHO judging a camera by photographs viewed on your computer monitor, and made by a variety of different photographers, isn't a very good way to evaluate anything related to the quality of the camera with which the images were made. FWIW, I've seen many original prints and projected images from 1DsMarkIIs purchased by friends in several different years and have never noticed anything like the differences you speak of. In fact I haven't noticed any differences at all in terms of consistent image quality. I also participate in several Canon forums and have never heard anyone suggest that there's a significant difference in 1DsMarkIIs based on their year of manufacture.

Unless you're looking at sites specifically devoted to testing the same camera model by year of manufacture, I don't even know how you can tell that different images you're seeing on your monitor from a 1DsMarkII came from cameras made in any particular year. Certainly the year of posting alone has nothing to do with the year of manufacture.

[Stuart Lane]

Medium format digital has replaced 35mm DSLR, and 35mm DSLR replaced 35mm SLR six years ago, but 4x5 gets the same use as always. I use MFDB on a RZ67 II D about 60% of the time, 4x5 about 30%, MFDB on a 645AFD about 10% of the time, mainly for family snapshots, and 35mm DSLR less than 1%. I only use the 35mm DSLR on trips when I must travel light.

[Peter Galuszewski]

Since when does shooting film mean scanning? All my celluloid goes under an enlarger, I simply don't see the point of digital output for somoene who is NOT making a living from their photos. I am sure if that were the case, I would have a digital kit to satisfy the "the man" and his "I need it yesterday" demands. All my film formats live happily along one another and get their use - I suppose the more familiar I get with my LF gear, the more work it will get, but I don't see any one format replacing another. I am on the lookout for the RB67 kit I always wanted, and have a number of TLR's now and will probably have several more simply becasue I love them. Different cameras put me in different moods, states of mind - they all have their own personalities and voices, and I find that those sing through the images I make with them.
And at the end of the day, I sit in front of a computer all day at work... I sit in front of it to pay my bills, even to contact friends... and the million and one times I need to be in front of one for some reason that came out of no where. I know I love photography, and by now I am pretty sure I don't like data processing. I would rather spend that time with the red light on, watching images come to life in a tray with the GraLab buzzing now and then to keep me company. Why would I ditch one format entirely and deny myself another excuse to go into the darkroom and make photographs?

[davidb]

Well said Peter, well said !

[Marko]

Since when does shooting film mean scanning? All my celluloid goes under an enlarger, I simply don't see the point of digital output for somoene who is NOT making a living from their photos. I am sure if that were the case, I would have a digital kit to satisfy the "the man" and his "I need it yesterday" demands.

Speaking for myself, it's primarily the issue of space, but also of time. Space is expensive, especially in metropolitan areas and for hobbyists like me, maintaining a dedicated room with plumbing and ventilation is simply not justifiable. So, that leaves two alternatives - a makeshift darkroom or a desk with a computer and scanner.

A makeshift darkroom takes too much time to set up and tear down and too little time using it, so it just doesn't cut it for me, except, maybe for LF given the volume and frequency.

That leaves scanning as the only viable alternative, especially since I already have a couple of desks and half a dozen computers set up, most of them running Photoshop anyway.

As much as I miss my TLR Rolleiflex from the old days - I still consider it the sweetest camera I have ever used - $2000 I would need to pluck down for a decent MF scanner could (and did) buy an entire DSLR setup along with memory cards. It also eliminated film and processing expenses, which could certainly add up over the lifetime of the camera itself, say next 4-5 years.


And at the end of the day, I sit in front of a computer all day at work... I sit in front of it to pay my bills, even to contact friends... and the million and one times I need to be in front of one for some reason that came out of no where. I know I love photography, and by now I am pretty sure I don't like data processing. I would rather spend that time with the red light on, watching images come to life in a tray with the GraLab buzzing now and then to keep me company. Why would I ditch one format entirely and deny myself another excuse to go into the darkroom and make photographs?

At the end of the day, it all really comes down to time and money, especially for amateurs, since we can't write it off as a business expense. While I can afford to spend more on film, chemicals and darkroom space, I'd rather do it digitally and save the money for something else.

[audioexcels]

There is just something about the look and feel of the images that doesn't look right - the closest I can come is sort of a "plastic" look. I shot about 600 images with the D200 on my last trip (before it broke - haven't gotten around to getting it fixed yet), and processing them was sure drudgery. OTOH, I shot 30+ rolls of 35mm and enjoyed processing them.

I vary my scanning, depending upon my needs. For a lot of 35mm stuff, I scan using a Konica/Minolta Elite 5400 II scanner - it is a very good scanner, but produces files around 200MB (16-bit), which can be a bit hard to work with. From time to time, I may have scans done on a Imacon or Tango. I rarely make prints from 35mm.


Ahhhh..ok. So you are using the D200 or the 35mm as your way of sending photos to friends/family/etc.

But you have compared the prints from the D200 on its best day w/photoshop to the 35mm w/film run through the Minolta 5400II (Excellent scanner btw)? Is this where you determined your dislike for the look of the D200 or was it basing it from what you see with the large format prints that has been your basis?

[audioexcels]

With all due respect, IMHO judging a camera by photographs viewed on your computer monitor, and made by a variety of different photographers, isn't a very good way to evaluate anything related to the quality of the camera with which the images were made. FWIW, I've seen many original prints and projected images from 1DsMarkIIs purchased by friends in several different years and have never noticed anything like the differences you speak of. In fact I haven't noticed any differences at all in terms of consistent image quality. I also participate in several Canon forums and have never heard anyone suggest that there's a significant difference in 1DsMarkIIs based on their year of manufacture.

Unless you're looking at sites specifically devoted to testing the same camera model by year of manufacture, I don't even know how you can tell that different images you're seeing on your monitor from a 1DsMarkII came from cameras made in any particular year. Certainly the year of posting alone has nothing to do with the year of manufacture.

I think you mis-understood me. I said the images on the websites, that clarify when the photo was taken by saying something like, "Mendocino Coast, 2003", look different than ones that say "Mendocino Coast, 2007". I don't care when the camera was manufactured since it is the same camera regardless and produces the same file regardless. But why the differences in the look between images, I don't know. Let me give you a "very clear" example.

Kodak SLR/N

In 2004: http://www.pbase.com/image/37570839
In 2007: http://www.pbase.com/image/84379866

Different context/DOF/subjects, but look at how old the studio shot of the kids looks and how clean and fresh the 2007 shot looks (also a studio shot).

My point here is that if that 2007 shot was taken with the exact same photographer back in 2004 and compared to this shot taken in 2007, is it the post-processing making one file look so much cleanear and up to date than the other OR is it???

[Gene McCluney]

Kodak SLR/N

In 2004: http://www.pbase.com/image/37570839
In 2007: http://www.pbase.com/image/84379866

Different context/DOF/subjects, but look at how old the studio shot of the kids looks and how clean and fresh the 2007 shot looks (also a studio shot).

My point here is that if that 2007 shot was taken with the exact same photographer back in 2004 and compared to this shot taken in 2007, is it the post-processing making one file look so much cleanear and up to date than the other OR is it???

I respectfully disagree with you. These photographs are different styles, and the 2007 photograph could have been taken in 1956 on 4x5 Ektachrome and have the same look. It is all a matter of a photographers taste and style, and "style" goes thru phases, and you will see styles repeated over the years if you look closely. Now scenics can look dated if they have man made artifacts in them such as automobiles, certain types of commercial architecture, etc. Shooting a suburban neighborhood (for example) with a TV antenna on every roof would certainly "date" the photo to a certain period, as would the same scene with lots of satellite dishes.

[roteague]

Ahhhh..ok. So you are using the D200 or the 35mm as your way of sending photos to friends/family/etc.

But you have compared the prints from the D200 on its best day w/photoshop to the 35mm w/film run through the Minolta 5400II (Excellent scanner btw)? Is this where you determined your dislike for the look of the D200 or was it basing it from what you see with the large format prints that has been your basis?

I haven't tried printing anything from it. I outsource all my printing to West Coast Imaging - although I am planning on giving Elevator Gallery more of my printing business. I keep both scanned images and D200 images in my Adobe Lightroom 1.3, and the differences are obvious. It is the color that I dislike about the camera, the rest of the camera is fine - except it broke while I was in Australia a couple of months ago.

[audioexcels]

I respectfully disagree with you. These photographs are different styles, and the 2007 photograph could have been taken in 1956 on 4x5 Ektachrome and have the same look. It is all a matter of a photographers taste and style, and "style" goes thru phases, and you will see styles repeated over the years if you look closely. Now scenics can look dated if they have man made artifacts in them such as automobiles, certain types of commercial architecture, etc. Shooting a suburban neighborhood (for example) with a TV antenna on every roof would certainly "date" the photo to a certain period, as would the same scene with lots of satellite dishes.

So we can do the same thing and make a 2007 shot look like it was taken in 1956, correct?

My point is only that when viewing photos from Pbase, where most of them are posted from when the camera came out, and then going over to Flickr and seeing the most recent examples, the ones on Flickr can literally make the ones on Pbase look as if the camera that the person used was an entirely different one. When I see 1000's of shots like this, why can't these "masses" take a good clean photo in 2002, but can do so in 2007???

Let me give you some more examples:

Pbase: http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sony/dsc_f707
Flickr: http://flickr.com/search/?s=rec&q=Sony+F707&m=text

Why do the ones on Pbase look so outdated by comparison to the ones on Flickr?

Now look at 2007 Cameras:

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/eos_40d
http://flickr.com/search/?q=canon+40D&s=int

I understand your point and agree with you, but cannot understand why even when looking at 1000's of shots that have zero artistic interest, look better when they were taken in 2007 than in 2002...Photoshop?

[audioexcels]

I haven't tried printing anything from it. I outsource all my printing to West Coast Imaging - although I am planning on giving Elevator Gallery more of my printing business. I keep both scanned images and D200 images in my Adobe Lightroom 1.3, and the differences are obvious. It is the color that I dislike about the camera, the rest of the camera is fine - except it broke while I was in Australia a couple of months ago.

I'd be very curious about how you like the prints from the 35mm analog vs. the D200.

[Gary Tarbert]

I've sold off my Bronicas a couple of years ago. With the digi SLR and the Tachi, there was no reason to keep any extra cameras around.Sam , I have done the same thing ,i now only have 5x4 ,8x10 (still getting aquainted) and a DSLR with nothing in the middle.Cheers Gary

[Maretzo]

I moved from film to digital about 5-6 years ago. Recently I discovered the LF and enjoy the view of the landscape on the ground glass. Since I travel frequently within the tropical zone, I indulged myself with an Hasselblad outfit. And the view through the lens is so beautiful.
I love the slides and the BW negative, it is something real. I recently scanned my 30-year old 35-mm slides but I have already lost track of my 5-year old digital files....I have a D200 with a Zeiss lens that is used mostly to document the movements of my Tachihara!
I make few prints, no larger than A3, and am looking forward the arrival of the Microtek M1. I will stick with the film, and maybe one day, I will get a digital back, maybe..

[reellis67]

Both large format and medium have their uses, and I wouldn't be without either, but I use my RB67 more and more every day. I always enjoy using my 4x5 and 8x10 cameras, but it's the RB that gets the most use on average. 35mm had dropped out certainly, replaced by the RB for most things except snap shots which I have a digital SLR for and stereo photography which my Realist handles with skill and ease.

That said, if I had room to keep my 4x5 enlarger setup all the time I would likely shoot an even mix of 4x5 and mf, but as it stands my 'darkroom' can only accommodate the smaller enlarger. Medium format is alive and well in my book!

- Randy

[Scott Davis]

I got tired of medium format a while ago, when I fell in love with alt process stuff. I've gone bigger and bigger, now shooting almost exclusively 5x7. I have a 5x12 as well, which replaced the xpan, an 8x10 which sees little use but is such a nice camera I think I'm going to keep it around anyway, and an 11x14. My poor little Shen-Hao 4x5 is starting to think I've abandoned it, and my 35mm gear gets dusted off once a year or so when I want to shoot something in color and don't want to lug the Shen-Hao around.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Took out the 35mm last night with a 50/1.2 for some available light snapshots of the family at Thanksgiving.

[Brian Ellis]

I think you mis-understood me. I said the images on the websites, that clarify when the photo was taken by saying something like, "Mendocino Coast, 2003", look different than ones that say "Mendocino Coast, 2007". I don't care when the camera was manufactured since it is the same camera regardless and produces the same file regardless. But why the differences in the look between images, I don't know. Let me give you a "very clear" example.

Kodak SLR/N

In 2004: http://www.pbase.com/image/37570839
In 2007: http://www.pbase.com/image/84379866

Different context/DOF/subjects, but look at how old the studio shot of the kids looks and how clean and fresh the 2007 shot looks (also a studio shot).

My point here is that if that 2007 shot was taken with the exact same photographer back in 2004 and compared to this shot taken in 2007, is it the post-processing making one file look so much cleanear and up to date than the other OR is it???

I would assume he gave the parents of the kids a traditional, soft focus portrait look because that's the type of portrait they wanted. And he did something different - different lighting, different type of portrait, etc. - for the adult because she didn't want that kind of look or he didn't think it was appropriate for the subject or the purpose of the photograph. I don't understand what seems odd or unusual about a commercial photographer making photographs of different subjects differently.

[George Stewart]

I have not used my Nikon F4 in many years, but hold onto it becuase I won't get much for it, in trade, or should decide to sell it. The Nikon D2Xs gets the most use now with probably near 7k frames on it in one year. My Contax TVS II (B&W) still gets used, as it rides around in my 4x5 (Wisner) pack. When a good quality digital P&S is introduced (with at least an APS-sized sensor), then the Contax will probably be replaced. My trips involve 8x10 shooting (B&W) with the DSLR.

I just finished shooting 28 rolls of 120 chromes, on fall foliage, through my Pentax 67. These will most likely be my last rolls of color film. I will continue to use the camera from time to time with B&W film.

[rob]

I took out my TLR loaded with delta 3200, and shot it at 6400 last night. Got to develop it now...

[roteague]

I took the Nikon F6 out yesterday, shot about a half a roll of Velvia 50. I've shot about 45 rolls with it since I got it - September. I'll finish the roll on the way home this afternoon.

[roteague]

Ahhhh..ok. So you are using the D200 or the 35mm as your way of sending photos to friends/family/etc.

But you have compared the prints from the D200 on its best day w/photoshop to the 35mm w/film run through the Minolta 5400II (Excellent scanner btw)? Is this where you determined your dislike for the look of the D200 or was it basing it from what you see with the large format prints that has been your basis?

I shoot the D200 for trivial stuff, but use the F6 (35mm) for shooting stock. I shot a couple of images of the Hawaii Superferry Alakai yesterday with the D200 for my blog (I'll be writing about it over the weekend). The D200 is going to Nikon on Monday for repairs (focusing issues).

[John Voss]

I think the final vestiges of the romances of my younger years are periodic 'crushes' on my various cameras. I'm sure it's an adolescent holdover to become reenamored with one of them to the exclusion of the others. But....decades of maturing have given me the wisdom to return to the charms of each of them in turn....AND....they're not jealous of each other....they don't hire lawyers.....and we always pick up where we left off before the embers flickered out last time 'round. :D

[Doug Dolde]

I only use 4x5 at this point. My main problem with it is the cost of getting a high quality scan.

I've also tried a Contax 645 system with the older Kodak DCS 16 mp back. I found the files far behind a high quality scanned 4x5 transparency. No surprise there to you or me. The Kodak files had pretty good detail but I felt like I was shooting with Astia. Poor color to my eye anyway; well maybe it was too accurate of color and didn't have the look of film that I like so mich.

But the digital world has come far since the Kodak backs. I know digital is in my future and hopefully not as a supplement but rather a replacement for 4x5 film.

I may try a new Nikon D3 or the Canon 1DsIII soon.

[Richard Raymond]

I am still using my RB system with my 8x10. I find that I shoot a few more frames per photo stop if using the RB. Also, I seem to use a bit more color with the RB than the 8x10. Perhaps it is in fast changing light situations and I still don't trust myself to take just that one best shot with the 8x10. Systems are a digital SLR, RB-SD and 8x10. I have older 35mm film cameras, Nikon F3s and such but they are mostly used by my kids.

[Uri Kolet]

Every car trunk needs a tripod; never sell unused photo equipment; keep buying more photo stuff: it's still a lot cheaper than a boat. You can never have enough expired film

[David A. Goldfarb]

Yeah, but I don't have a car. Maybe I can start leaving my extra tripods in other people's trunks for when I visit.

[Gary Tarbert]

I only use 4x5 at this point. My main problem with it is the cost of getting a high quality scan.

I've also tried a Contax 645 system with the older Kodak DCS 16 mp back. I found the files far behind a high quality scanned 4x5 transparency. No surprise there to you or me. The Kodak files had pretty good detail but I felt like I was shooting with Astia. Poor color to my eye anyway; well maybe it was too accurate of color and didn't have the look of film that I like so mich.

But the digital world has come far since the Kodak backs. I know digital is in my future and hopefully not as a supplement but rather a replacement for 4x5 film.

I may try a new Nikon D3 or the Canon 1DsIII soon.
Those 2 cameras are good , but will not come close too well scanned images from 4x5.
Cheers Gary

[PViapiano]

Nope...all my cameras get used: dSLR, Mamiya RZ and the Ebony 4x5.

Specific purposes for specific cameras, and none of them will replace another. Just doesn't make sense to me...

The only things I'd like to add are a Mamiya 7II and a 35mm shooter. My dad's ancient Praktica (for sentimental reasons and stored in another city since his passing) or a new Bessa would round out my collection nicely.

Also, I'm having too much fun in my new darkroom to spend that much time shooting digital. I want negatives to print!

[Andrew O'Neill]

My photography started in medium format...Mamiya C330. I then moved into an RB67 Pro SD. I switched to LF after about 3 years with the RB67 and never touched it. That was back in 93. All my gear was ripped off out of my house a couple of years ago but has all since been replaced, including the RB67 outfit. A body, 3 lenses (55mm, 127mm, 355), 2 holders, 1 instant film holder, and 1 bellows shade...all sparkling new. Never used. Just sitting there. I love LF too much.
I know "another guy" who has a Hasselblad outfit and it contemplating selling it. He says he'll get next to nothing for it.

[audioexcels]

I shoot the D200 for trivial stuff, but use the F6 (35mm) for shooting stock. I shot a couple of images of the Hawaii Superferry Alakai yesterday with the D200 for my blog (I'll be writing about it over the weekend). The D200 is going to Nikon on Monday for repairs (focusing issues).

I see you like to go wide quite a bit. Some even look like shots with a 65mm or smaller on the 4X5. There's some in there with other focal lengths, but curious, being a landscape shooter (as well as shooting other subjects), take that Oregon photo as an example where you are sitting atop the bluffs and want to take in that angle to get as much of the landscape into the photo, what focal length do you find is necessary on things like this? I'm sure you have been around the N. Cali coast, but trying to get a lot of context into the image on either N. Cali or Oregon bluffs is very difficult (at least for me, even with a 21mm lens on 35mm, I could have wanted smaller focal length).

There's some very nice ones in your site. Good stuff to see. Will follow your Blog for an update with some of the images from the Hawaii Superferry Alakai (what is this event by the way?).

[Doug Dolde]

Those 2 cameras are good , but will not come close too well scanned images from 4x5.
Cheers Gary

Yes but only in terms of resolution. Dynamic range is way better for one thing. Ease of use is another. Then there is always stitching to get the resolution back.

[darr]

Yes but only in terms of resolution. Dynamic range is way better for one thing. Ease of use is another. Then there is always stitching to get the resolution back.

Doug,

Not meaning to hi-jack this thread but I have been thinking about HDR. I have looked at a lot of shots that have been done nicely with HDR techniques (cartoonish color is not what I call nice) and since I have a D200 I will be trying it soon with CS2. I have given thought to a technique where one could shoot multiple 4x5" shots bracketed, and then scan and tone map. Is this just too much work, memory crippling, etc. to think about seriously? Would the results just be closer to stitching from dSLR shots? Thanks in advance.

Darr

[Doug Dolde]

Darr,

I haven't really worked with this but Uwe on digitaloutback.com has some good tutorials and examples of doing this with the Canon 1DIII. I like the effect personally; it breaks new ground in photography.

As far as doing it with 4x5 I think it would be tough to process.

[darr]

Darr,

I haven't really worked with this but Uwe on digitaloutback.com has some good tutorials and examples of doing this with the Canon 1DIII. I like the effect personally; it breaks new ground in photography.

As far as doing it with 4x5 I think it would be tough to process.

Thanks Doug. I will visit the link.

Darr

[Kirk Gittings]

Doug, darr,

Certainly memory and scratch disk space will be an issue, but more importantly I believe the scans will be an issue. It is really hard to get two identical sized scans, even sequentially, from the same negative unless you do high end drum scans where the mechanics of the system (gearing, step motors etc.) is first rate. So who is going to pay for that many drum scans? To do it right you need three to five exposures. Our everyday prosumer flatbeds have huge issues with this, because the mechanics are cheap, which is why there is so much softness and areas of off registration with multipass scanning. We have discussed this issue in depth a few times before. Ed Richards discusses a related artifact problem in another thread currently.

[roteague]

I see you like to go wide quite a bit. Some even look like shots with a 65mm or smaller on the 4X5. There's some in there with other focal lengths, but curious, being a landscape shooter (as well as shooting other subjects), take that Oregon photo as an example where you are sitting atop the bluffs and want to take in that angle to get as much of the landscape into the photo, what focal length do you find is necessary on things like this? I'm sure you have been around the N. Cali coast, but trying to get a lot of context into the image on either N. Cali or Oregon bluffs is very difficult (at least for me, even with a 21mm lens on 35mm, I could have wanted smaller focal length).

There's some very nice ones in your site. Good stuff to see. Will follow your Blog for an update with some of the images from the Hawaii Superferry Alakai (what is this event by the way?).

My widest lens currently is the Scheider 80mm XL. I used to use a Nikkor SW 90mm (which I used for the Oregon shot), but quit using it in favor of the 80. It has been many years since I regulary spent time along the N. California coast, or anywhere in the mainland US for that matter, so I don't have a real answer for you. Here, in Hawaii, I use either the 80 or a 135mm most of the time (or 24mm on the Nikon). I do like wide angles, as you have noticed. My site is pretty out of date at the moment, I'm working on two new sites to replace it, but they won't be done for another couple of months, at least.

The Hawaii Superferry Alakai is a local controversy. The ship was the first ferry designed for use in the Hawaiian waters - designed both to be environmentally friendly and friendly to the whales that make these waters home. However, the ship started sailing this summer, and was immediately halted by the Hawaii Supreme Court, by, for lack of a better term, a bunch of childish outer-islanders, under disguise of being environmentalists. Our courts here are very liberal in their interpretion of the law. This issue caused a special session of the legislature. Now the ship is ready to sail again, but still surrounded by controversy. Local opinion is 90% for the Superferry. I'm sure there will be some last minute court action to stop it again. The ship has lost $millons and almost had to leave the state.

Blog: http://visionlandscapes.spaces.live.com/

[Robert Hughes]

I just gave my not-quite-but-hopefully-soon girlfriend a roll of 120 for her to try out in a Hassie she bought 2 years ago (!) and has never run a roll through. She says she doesn't know how to load it. Come on over, dearie, I'll show you, and maybe we can see what develops... always wanted to use that line... Can't believe she's been sitting on it so long, I'd have had gone right to the photo store and asked them to load it for me. Today I dusted off the Busch Pressman 4x5 and got a couple shots of Lake Street in Minneapolis, so "MF or LF?" I'd say, Both.

[darr]

Doug, darr,

Certainly memory and scratch disk space will be an issue, but more importantly I believe the scans will be an issue. It is really hard to get two identical sized scans, even sequentially, from the same negative unless you do high end drum scans where the mechanics of the system (gearing, step motors etc.) is first rate. So who is going to pay for that many drum scans? To do it right you need three to five exposures. Our everyday prosumer flatbeds have huge issues with this, because the mechanics are cheap, which is why there is so much softness and areas of off registration with multipass scanning. We have discussed this issue in depth a few times before. Ed Richards discusses a related artifact problem in another thread currently.

Kirk,

Thanks for the info. I do not always get a chance to read through the threads. I appreciate your input.

Darr

[roteague]

Kirk,

Thanks for the info. I do not always get a chance to read through the threads. I appreciate your input.

Darr

Kirk makes many good points about that. There is also an issue that a transparency or negative isn't flat (unless you scan on a drum scanner, or wet mount). You can bring more out of your transparencies and negatives my multi-sampling them when scanning - I often sample at 16x - but, never what you would need for HDR techniques. HDR is really made for digital; one place where it excels.
Unfortunately, so often, HDR seems to be used where it isn't needed and the result is odd, at best.

[audioexcels]

My widest lens currently is the Scheider 80mm XL. I used to use a Nikkor SW 90mm (which I used for the Oregon shot), but quit using it in favor of the 80. It has been many years since I regulary spent time along the N. California coast, or anywhere in the mainland US for that matter, so I don't have a real answer for you. Here, in Hawaii, I use either the 80 or a 135mm most of the time (or 24mm on the Nikon). I do like wide angles, as you have noticed. My site is pretty out of date at the moment, I'm working on two new sites to replace it, but they won't be done for another couple of months, at least.

The Hawaii Superferry Alakai is a local controversy. The ship was the first ferry designed for use in the Hawaiian waters - designed both to be environmentally friendly and friendly to the whales that make these waters home. However, the ship started sailing this summer, and was immediately halted by the Hawaii Supreme Court, by, for lack of a better term, a bunch of childish outer-islanders, under disguise of being environmentalists. Our courts here are very liberal in their interpretion of the law. This issue caused a special session of the legislature. Now the ship is ready to sail again, but still surrounded by controversy. Local opinion is 90% for the Superferry. I'm sure there will be some last minute court action to stop it again. The ship has lost $millons and almost had to leave the state.

Blog: http://visionlandscapes.spaces.live.com/

Thanks for the info on the wides. It's interesting just how wide the 90mm looks. Maybe I don't need such a wide on LF afterall. I am always thinking in the terms of 35mm, but for some reason, it seems wide shots can be made to look like they were taken with a much wider lens.

That Superferry deal sounds outrageous, but very similar to many of the mainland US garbage that takes place over nothing. People trying to complain about nothing seems to have been a fad taking place since the legal structure and suing started to boost. How about this one...even in local towns...They won't put up a cell phone line in Mendocino because they feel it is too close to the local school and kids will be harmed. Better yet, a bench was wanted to be placed in Mendo for visitors to have a nice spot to sit and relax, enjoy a special view...local people said no. And they have this local legislation (a bunch of 90 year olds that live in the 20's) that are completely out of date/time.

One thing that bothers me a lot is when a Shark attack happens in Hawaii or somewhere else...take Hawaii for example and a kid is killed by a Tiger Shark. They then go out and mass slaughter a ton of Sharks only to find the tons of objects these sharks eat including trash and various interesting things...of course Turtles as their main target, but they can somehow get down a lot of human trash. But you see this picture on tv of tons of Tiger Sharks lined up trying to find that one that killed and would be the potential killer of another human...how on earth can anyone ever predict or know when this will happen and what are the odds...1 in a billion? They have done the same with White Sharks and of course the wonderful curses of the Wolf that is a perfect target for farmers to have motives to kill off when one person is killed by one (again, the most rare event possible for all the humans that inhabit the planet, but enough to give people the right to nearly extinct the species since they come in and eat their cattle).

I hope that ship sails and sails continuously without interruption. Sounds like a complete load of bs for the sake of biased incorrectness.

Ahhh...though there's way too many to speak of, I especially like the rules Fish and Game have set for the N. Cali and even Oregon/Washington? regions for fishing Rockfish. One can only fish the rockfish a few times of the year now because they have been nearing extinction in Southern California (an entirely different state and ocean IMHO). So the locals that want to make a life out of running boats and enjoying taking people fishing have to take on second jobs or find ways to make money since they have to now resort to getting all they can during Salmon season (hoping it's a good one every year now) and then there's some that are doing whale watching and bird watching!!! I mean, a guy that has been fishing the waters off Washington/Oregon all his life, comes down to N. Cali, fishes the same fish, and now has 90% of his operation tied into bird and whale watching...great idea, of course, but what he wants to be doing?...dunno about that one...

May the Ship continue to flourish and hopefully make back what it lost.

Cheers and will follow your site when it gets updated.

Best!

[Gary Tarbert]

Yes but only in terms of resolution. Dynamic range is way better for one thing. Ease of use is another. Then there is always stitching to get the resolution back.Stitching ,stitching ,stitching ,thats all anybody talks about these days when trying too get too LF res.
From my understanding it has limited uses as rapidly changing light would be difficult .
I saw a print last week printed on a Epson 1180 at 2.5mtr x 1.2mtr approx the image was taken on a canon 5D stitched30 times very impressive!!
But ease of use!!! i beg to differ thats 30 shots and you have to find the nodal point
i know there is special gear too achieve this .
Then you spend time stitching the shots on the computer if thats ease of use you can have it.
Yes ease of use is a strong argument for single frame shots Cheers Gary

[David Millard]

Ahhh...though there's way too many to speak of, I especially like the rules Fish and Game have set for the N. Cali and even Oregon/Washington? regions for fishing Rockfish. One can only fish the rockfish a few times of the year now because they have been nearing extinction in Southern California (an entirely different state and ocean IMHO). So the locals that want to make a life out of running boats and enjoying taking people fishing have to take on second jobs or find ways to make money since they have to now resort to getting all they can during Salmon season (hoping it's a good one every year now) and then there's some that are doing whale watching and bird watching!!! I mean, a guy that has been fishing the waters off Washington/Oregon all his life, comes down to N. Cali, fishes the same fish, and now has 90% of his operation tied into bird and whale watching...great idea, of course, but what he wants to be doing?...dunno about that one...


Since this thread is now completely completely off topic, I have no qualms about making the following suggestions: read the book "Cod" by Mark Kurlansky, or watch the movie "Empty Oceans, Empty Nets". Either of these may be available at your local library, and while neither is about rockfish, they may provide you with some insights about the global nature of ocean resources.

[Kirk Gittings]

HDR.....IMO

I played around with this quite a bit with digital images and my current opinion is that it is still an immature technique that results in obviously manipulated images, particularly for architecture. I can accomplish the desired result better, but with more effort, by going other routes right now. Perhaps in a couple of more software generations, this will be more effective.

[Michael T. Murphy]

HDR.....IMO

You might have a look around and check out Dan Burkholder's web site.

I heard him talk a few weeks ago about HRD and his Katrina work. He was using a 3rd party plug-in for CS3. He claimed to have great results, even hand held, with layering up to 9 exposures.

He was teaching a workshop the next day on HDR.

No personal experience.

[SchwinnParamount]

How funny.

As I was sitting at home and wishing my 8x10 B&J from Ebay would arrive, I killed the time by taking my RB 67 out to the local forest for fun. I think I got some good things in the limited sunlight remaining this afternoon. I was shooting TMAX 400 and forgetting about the bellows extension factor. I'll just give a little extra development and it'll be just fine.

The whole time, I was thinking about how much better the images would be with my new 8x10 which should be here a little later this week.

[Roy L Faverty]

Keep the medium format gear, when you get over the hill you will be glad you still have it (if filom is available), large format gets heavy after 60+years. But as a rule carry the largest format that you can carry. I still prefer the 4x5. Have you tried the Rollei Pan 25 in the larger formats. If so what is your impression. I only shoot B&W so my interests are limited.

[Kirk Gittings]

You might have a look around and check out Dan Burkholder's web site.

I heard him talk a few weeks ago about HRD and his Katrina work. He was using a 3rd party plug-in for CS3. He claimed to have great results, even hand held, with layering up to 9 exposures.

He was teaching a workshop the next day on HDR.

No personal experience.

I am aware of the third party plug in, have tried it and am very familiar with Burholder's Katrina and other HDR work. I HATE it. It is so obviously HDR'd, completely over the top and obviously manipulated.

http://www.danburkholder.com/neworleans/

[Gordon Moat]

Definitely agree with you on that Kirk; I am no fan of Burkholder's latest HDR works. He has been somewhat of a cutting edge technology advocate for a long time, so it does not surprise me that he is doing it.

All the HDR stuff was possible several years ago, through various software solutions. However, few people were using it. Now that it is very accessible, and more well known, it has become the latest fad. Of course, like many trends, by the time the average PhotoShop hobbiest is playing with it . . . then it is already past its' sell-by date.

I still recall the workshop I had with Burkholder in 1997. At the time he was hoping Epson inkjets would get to the point of being more convenient than using Service Bureaux. I remember he had an Apple Newton for an organizer, though we ended up talking more about motorcycles than technology. I recall him stating something about the simplicity and purity of riding a motorcycle, and the enjoyment of basic motoring. I felt his photographic work at the time fit concept too, though I think he is moving beyond that earlier idea. While it might get him more seminar or workshop attendance, I think it is a shame to see his work go that direction . . . despite that I am sure someone out there will be buying it.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Kirk Gittings]

Dan has made some wonderful images over the years and some vital contributions to te medium, but this stuff?????? I don't get it.

[Frank Petronio]

It's like Thomas Kincaid on acid, I think they are cool illustrations.

But OMG what a trainwreck of a website!

[Michael T. Murphy]

Dan has made some wonderful images over the years and some vital contributions to te medium, but this stuff?????? I don't get it.

I honestly don't know how I feel. But we all go "off the rails" into little cul-de-sacs now and then. It is just more visible when you are well known. :)

I think it is a technique and information we all need to have in our kit. Just like Gaussian blur. It is just that we don't turn that into a whole style.

[Scott Davis]

Ugh- I had the same reaction to it that Frank did - Thomas Kinkade on acid... AND crack. That's got to be about the worst dreck from a major talent I've seen. Makes Michael Jackson's "HIStory" seem like the Beatles "White Album".

[D. Bryant]

Ugh- I had the same reaction to it that Frank did - Thomas Kinkade on acid... AND crack. That's got to be about the worst dreck from a major talent I've seen. Makes Michael Jackson's "HIStory" seem like the Beatles "White Album".

I personally love Dan Burkholder's Katrina series. Who says that photography can't be over the top and non-representational.

Don Bryant

[ondebanks]

I am aware of the third party plug in, have tried it and am very familiar with Burholder's Katrina and other HDR work. I HATE it. It is so obviously HDR'd, completely over the top and obviously manipulated.

http://www.danburkholder.com/neworleans/

I agree fully. To me, that series is eye-catching but in a repulsive way. The images look like they have been Laplacian filtered from every angle. Weird and ugly.

[ondebanks]

Back to the original question...yes, I do seem to be migrating up the formats. I sold all my Minolta manual 35mm gear in 1992, swearing at the tender age of 21 to use only medium format from then on...with Mamiya 645 since 1992, Kiev/Pentacon 6x6 since 2003 [being sold off now], and Mamiya Universal 6x9/Polaroid added just this year.

But 35mm had a way of dragging itself back into my life, for its compact convenience, faster lenses, and being the standard for telescope prime-focus attachment - a Rollei XF35 in 1995, EOS 500n in 1998, Praktica VLC with various finders in 2006.

I hardly ever use 35mm now, and use the M645 less often than I expected even 1 year ago, since going to 6x9. That's probably as big as I'll go for the time being - because at 4x5 and up, the lenses get slower and there are no fast films.

When I add a DSLR, probably in 2008, it will probably be a used EOS 5D - for its clean high ISO and ability to take fast lenses; although I will start off using it with my M645 lenses which are no slouches either (e.g. 80mm f1.9, 200mm f2.8 APO). Then things will get interesting - will I ever shoot 35mm film again? will my M645 film-based rig come under threat of disuse? We shall see. I doubt I will ever sell my M645 stuff, though...I just love that system too much, even if I end up using it rather less!

[Jay W]

I think the final vestiges of the romances of my younger years are periodic 'crushes' on my various cameras. I'm sure it's an adolescent holdover to become reenamored with one of them to the exclusion of the others. But....decades of maturing have given me the wisdom to return to the charms of each of them in turn....AND....they're not jealous of each other....they don't hire lawyers.....and we always pick up where we left off before the embers flickered out last time 'round. :D

Boy you said it. There's a certain feel and sound to cameras that's hard to describe. I love the sound of my old Nikonos IV, but hardly ever use it. The Rollei 35S and backpacking across Europe, the Hasselblad...basically any of the cameras, all have a special place in my heart. I don't think I could sell any of them because they're like old friends with great memories....and I'd get pennies on the dollar. Large format? Yeah, the 4x5 is the first pick lately, but on vacation I bring 35, 120 and 4x5 gear.

Jay

[alec4444]

I have a Rollei 6008 series medium format SLR, which is not a cheap system. I sold a 40mm lens for it that purchased a Wisner 5x7, a 4x5 reducing back for it, and a new tripod to support it. I love my Rollei - it's SO sharp. Here's the problem I've found - with the built-in film winder and a few film backs and a couple lenses, the camera is darn heavy. Comparable to a large format system. I'm also having some battery issues...so when it comes time to pack up and shoot, I'm finding that I'm taking LF over MF.

I still love MF, though, and if I can find a lighter weight replacement for the 6008 I think I'd still be using the format. No, my Holga doesn't count.... But I'm having a hard time convincing myself to sell the Rollei. It's a phenomenal camera system!!

--A

[Ken Lee]

Like musical instruments, every camera has its own "mojo" or "personality".

I love my 6x6 and 6x9 folding cameras (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/tech.html#Folders), and use them now and then...

...not only because they are small enough to carry in one's pocket, but also because they have a special feel, and the images I make with them, I can't make with other equipment.

[ericantonio]

I wish someone was displacing their Hassy SWC for a large format. Or even a 40mm Distagon. Seen THOSE prices?!

[Scott Davis]

I wish someone was displacing their Hassy SWC for a large format. Or even a 40mm Distagon. Seen THOSE prices?!

I did. A while ago. My Hassy outfit bought me a Canham 5x12 and three AWB film holders. While I miss it from time to time, I really wasn't using it enough to justify keeping the beast around - they need to get used regularly or they gum up.

[Carsten Wolff]

audioexcels said it basically; I think the trick is to find out which gear serves your needs best. Looking at all my camera stuff/junk at home I have to ask myself whether I'm a magic bullet chaser or want to take good photos. So many decisions about the gear we end up owning (or want to own) are either based on personal sentimental bias/ego, or misinformation and market hype.
From the potential OUTPUT point it almost doesn't matter what (reasonably professional) camera gear you own as long as you're comfortable using it: A mix of a nice LF camera with 2-6 lenses and a more mobile kit of any MF or digital, or even 35mm ilk should do it, right?
Back to the original question: My short answer is: sort of :) I've sold most of my 35mm and MF gear, but have recently picked up a Pentax 67 with just 2 lenses for street work and portraits. The (4x5/6x17 and) 5x7 Arca is kept for the more demanding work and landscapes.....and I have drifted from 4x5 to 5x7, at least for b/w.

[Denis Pleic]

Has the medium format, the middle, dropped out of your shooting? Ditching the 4x5? If you still have your MF gear, do you at times feel that it would be more satisfying to crush the stuff or literally shoot it with a 44 instead of selling it for a fraction of a cent on the dollar? Is their any help for the anguish of parting with the trusted old MF friends? Does anyone care about MF anymore?



Back to the original issue of "ditching" MF...

I guess it depends on the type of photgrapher you are. If photography puts bread on your table, chances are that your MF will be gathering dust (if not already sold)... long ago replaced by the top of the line DSLR.

If you're an amateur with "disposable income", I bet all your MF gear is still with you, but probably not used much. Depends what kind of MF gear it is.

I shoot all formats I have - from 35mm to 5x7 (not equally, and not at the same time). One of the previous posters likened it with past love affairs. Yes, I guess it's something like it. For me, it goes in waves - for a month or two I'll mostly use a Leica + 50mm Summicron, then I'll be drawn back to LF for a while, to pursue an idea (or style) that seems worth doing in 5x7... Other times, it will be MF.

But, regarding MF, I did notice one thing - I have a 2x3 Speed Graphic, and I haven't used it in years :(
It's too bulky, and when I want to go slow(er) and apply more deliberate shooting style, I simply use the 4x5 Speed.

I also have a Koni Omega (6x7) - it doesn't get much use, despite excellent lens - the main reason being the bulk and weight.

But, I found a perfect use for my Rolleiflex - I take it on vacations. A couple of years ago I was agonizing on what kit to take with me on a family vacation on a beutiful island we go to every summer:

- Do I take the Leica plus 3-4 lenses? (Yes, it's portable, but those filters are fiddly, and it's not really well suited for landscapes... And I guess it will mostly be landscapes and seascapes.... And using a polarizer on a rangefinder is kinda masochistic...)

- Do I take the Nikon plus 3-4 lenses? (Some of my favourite color landscapes were done with 24/2.8 and a polarizer.... But the weight of that Nikon bag with the N90 and 4 lenses, spare batteries, etc.... hmmmm)

- I would die to be able to take the 4x5 Speed, plus couple of film holders and 2 lenses, but... (It's a pain to load and unload holders without a darkroom, and I'd have to buy a changing bag, and all that stuff IS heavy and fiddly to operate..... and being under the darkcloth under the scorching sun.... hmmmm)

Finally I decided to go simple and take just the Rolleiflex, a small and light tripod and a couple of filters. It turned out to be the PERFECT solution. Light enough to carry around in the heat, and the negs are still large enough to make satisfactory larger prints... And with the Rollefilex T lenses being 75mm, just slightly wider than "normal", suited for the kind of lanscapes (seascapes, cloudscapes) I wanted to do...
Some of photos I took that summer with the Rolleiflex were the best shots I took in a long while...

So, in short, yes, my MF does see use. But, it's mostly the TLR. The Koni-Omega and the 2x3 Speed Graphic, for all practical purposes, have been demoted to display pieces...

(But, I do intend to burn a roll or two in the Koni-Omega soon.... I just wish processing 120 color negs wasn't so complicated - I don't have a local lab which can do it... Well, it's B&W and darkroom, then...)

Denis

[bsimison]

Back to the original issue of "ditching" MF...

I guess it depends on the type of photgrapher you are. If photography puts bread on your table, chances are that your MF will be gathering dust (if not already sold)... long ago replaced by the top of the line DSLR.



Actually, I just did a couple of editorial jobs with my Hasselblad. The art directors loved the tonality of the scanned B+W film and said they'd like to see more in the future.

DSLRs are great, and I use my Nikons everyday...but there's a look to a nice MF neg you just can't (easily?) replicate in post.

That being said, anyone looking to offload any Hasselblad or Mamiya gear, cheap? :-)

[JPlomley]

I'm still using my Mamiya 7 with XP2, Tri-X, and Ilford Delta 3200 for street photography, and a 4x5 A/S for landscape. Have not seen anything digitally that can surpass the optics of this Mamiya rangefinder and the tonal range of B&W film, not to mention the ultra quiet leaf shutter. Sometimes I cannot even tell if the shutter has tripped, it is that quiet.

[macfly]

This is my first post here, and this question caught my eye. I've started looking around for a 10x8 camera in a gentle, rather longing manner. I used to assist many photographers who shot 10x8 as a kid. Back then everyone I worked with used heavy Sinar gear, and a large crew.

I have been my own photographer for over twenty years (feels like minutes!) now, and the last few years have taken me entirely digital. I love digital, it suits the deadlines of the kind of work I do, but there is a part of me that still dreams of sitting on a hill with a trusty plate camera waiting for the light to be just right. That's what brought me here!

I have two large cases of RZ67 gear that never gets touched anymore as all my work is done of that cheap and nasty feeling Fuji made Hassy H2 with the Phase One backs, and the glorious Canon EOS system (just got my Mklll - very nice indeed).

Anyway, I digress, back to LF - I'm looking for simple, easy, lightweight, ultra portable landscape cam. I've read about things I've never heard of before, Phillips, Ritter, Canam, Ebony as well as names I've know all my life, like Linhof, Arca, Toyo, Horseman, Wista and Sinar.

They all look like lovely implements, but the one I'll enjoy the most is the one that is easiest to use, and to that end the big Fotoman caught my eye. Looks like it might be an easy 'grab and go' camera that would be almost indestructible, but of course it will have a lot of limitations. Has anyone tried it? I did use the search function, but nothing came up for it.

[John Kasaian]

FWIW, since this thread started, I have shot eight (I think it's eight) rolls of Efke 127 in a Kodak Brownie! That's six and a half more rolls than the 35mm I've shot.

[Mark Woods]

Denis,

I love my 2x3 Crown Graphic with it's 120 back. I take it out all the time when I want to shoot in locations and don't want to put on a back pack for the Sinar. It's uncoated Tessar 4" lens is interesting. It can be contrasty or with a bit of flare very pictorialist. It can be both in the same frame. I really to like this camera. Did I say my dad purchased it new in 1938? I have the letter of receipt for the transaction. BTW, I have a 1938 Leica I also like, and a Bronica that was given to me: 2 bodies & 5 lenses with odds and ends. I don't shoot with it much since I don't feel connected to it. But it's a great camera. BTW I only shoot B&W for me. Color is the day job. :>

[mdd99]

Love the Mamiya 6, Pentax 67, and 6x7 roll-film holder for 4x5.

[Wayne Crider]

Hasselblad sold, RB sold, Rollei sold, still have a Yashicamat to sell and a leftover Mamiya 645; Probably will sell my 4x5 Graphic after a quick refinish and my 2x3 Graphic. Now concentrating on shooting my Nikkormat and a 3x4 Graflex.

[CP Goerz]

At one time I 'almost' wrote off my Yashica 124gs and my Rolleis but for a nice sized neg with a somewhat pocketable camera nothing can beat a TLR. Having a single lens really stops the camera bag from being filled with heavy and often unnecessary additional lenses and focuses the mind to one focal length/view which I very quickly find is all I need....now if I could apply that type of thinking to my other formats I could sell all the other lenses I have taking up all my cash. :-)



CP Goerz

[Darryl Baird]

Of all my cameras (I collect and shoot), the one camera I will not leave without on any serious trip (just back from New Mexico) is the Agfa Super-Isolette folder. It packs on my hip, is razor sharp, and a joy to use (only forgetting to cock the shutter from time to time :mad:). On my visit to White Sands, I took about thirty DSLR photos (for color only) and about 72 with the old mf folder. I expect there are some real winners with that mf Acros fine grain film... I haven't had the time to develop any film yet, but it's begging me to stay up late tonight.

On the other hand, I have sold two Fuji rangefinders in the last year to purchase more LF gear.... 8x10 primarily and roll film backs for the 4x5 (which replaced the Fujis).

[cotdt]

i have a question. does 6x9 cm count as large format?

[roteague]

Actually, I just did a couple of editorial jobs with my Hasselblad. The art directors loved the tonality of the scanned B+W film and said they'd like to see more in the future.

DSLRs are great, and I use my Nikons everyday...but there's a look to a nice MF neg you just can't (easily?) replicate in post.

That being said, anyone looking to offload any Hasselblad or Mamiya gear, cheap? :-)


Gorgeous work Brett.

[Michael andersen]

People of the world, reunit with your medium format camera. I now take it with me everywhere. Oh I use my 8x10all the time, but I now scan my 6x6 or 6x7 negs. Photoshop them and make very large negs (16x20) then make my palladium prints or even better azo or lodima prints. I have two enlargers and I like pt/pl printing a lot more than anything and this gives me the option of getting shots I would normally not get with my 8x10.

[jnantz]

i haven't had a mf camera since 1991...
when i want to shoot 120 film i taper a graphic 23 back
to the back end of my graphic slr.
i keep thinking of a koni omega though ...

[Donald Miller]

My medium format was stolen at the same time that the thieves lifted the rest of the stuff from my home. I don't intend to replace it.

[Robert Vigurs]

Well, the feeling here with the Anarchists in Santa Cruz is that if the poor person, who was only a victim of this terrible Capitalist system, needed your gear, he had some right to it. My 12 gauge feels different. All that aside, I love my Hasselblad Cm and lenses. I work with Native people up north, and there are times in a camp or a home that it works well. 4x5, and 8x10 are my best tools for recording the natural light outdoors.

[Sascha Welter]

i have a question. does 6x9 cm count as large format?

It depends. The definition used for the LF-forum seems to be that a large format camera (view camera or field camera) in the 6x9 format is considered large format, but e.g. a 6x9 folder without movements or something like that is not. So it's more answering to "was it taken with a view/field camera" then about the "largeness" of the format.

When people ask me about my camera (Arca-Swiss 6x9) I usually say it's "large format, but small large format". That's because almost all the hassles of large format apply, except I don't get to put sheet film into film holders. (I'd done plenty of that when I was working with Sinar's, so I don't need to re-live it.)

[Brian C. Miller]

Has the medium format, the middle, dropped out of your shooting? Ditching the 4x5? If you still have your MF gear, do you at times feel that it would be more satisfying to crush the stuff or literally shoot it with a 44 instead of selling it for a fraction of a cent on the dollar? Is their any help for the anguish of parting with the trusted old MF friends? Does anyone care about MF anymore?

LOCK AND LOAD, ROCK AND ROLL, BABY!

When I can buy an equivalent of the Hasselblad CFV-39 39Mp back for $100, I'll give up shooting medium format. For me, it is the 35mm that doesn't see action (but of course it was never a primary format for me). My Pentax 645 is just too convenient, and the quality is just too good. And of course I use my Pentax 6x7, mirror slap and all. On a good weekend I'll go through 20 rolls of film. I can use my 6x7 lenses on my 645 with an adapter, so it's all good there.

Me? A film junkie? Nope, I don't have a problem. Not me.

[Robert Hughes]

I've been using my 8x10, 4x5, 6x6cm, 35mm and cell phone cameras in the past few weeks. They all do their jobs just fine. If asked to choose which one I'll use for a given outing, I'd say my first consideration is - whichever one has film loaded, and is closest to the door. :)