Duration 11:45

Premium photography on a budget

3 380 watched
0
222
Published 31 Dec 2021

I tried to take medium format wildlife and landscape photos on a fraction of the cost. Photography can be an expensive hobby. And whilst I am not the sort to claim that you don't need to spend money to get a certain level of image quality, I have always wondered if you can shop on a more realistic budget and get similar results to the kind taken with gear many of us aspire to own. So, I looked at film, more specifically medium format (a camera that uses film with a larger surface area than most consumer level bodies which tend to shoot with 35mm film). You can get some rather cheap (relatively speaking) medium format cameras for just over £1000 if you arent picky about how medium format is defined (man claim that tittle by only increasing the sensor size a fraction which means the end result can often be very similar to that of a full frame). But a more sort after and more accurately defined medium format camera would realistically set you back a few thousand. Though as a lot of what makes medium format so desirable can be put down to physics and so I decided to go for a second hand 6x6 medium format film camera and see if, for only a few hundred, you can get great quality wildlife and landscape photos for a fraction of the price. Scan advice from Dan: ‘Medium format is a much easier film format to scan compared to the smaller frame size of 35mm, as flatbed scanners will give you good results. (35mm film ideally needs a dedicated scanner with focus for high quality results). The photos on the video were scanned using an Epson flatbed and the standard Epson scan software, ideally software like Vuescan or Silverfast are the best ways to boast quality and control over film scans, and with more time and access could have made the images and eventual prints much better quality. Overall, however, I think it shows the quality you can still get from medium format film when a fairly standard flatbed and the included software gives such good results!’ Dan Dale: Instagram - @danofthedale Website - http://www.danieldale.co.uk/ Mystery Link: /watch/AyaYHeZ_0bt_Y Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/MattGould

Category

Show more

Comments - 45
  • @
    @debbiepierce30453 years ago Great video Matt, as always. Happy New Year to you. 📷 1
  • @
    @buchsg3 years ago Your out of focus issue maybe the foam under the viewfinder glass who is too old so what you see when you look in the viewfinder is not what you get on the film… on way to test that is to set a composition at a measured distance, camera on a tripod, no film back and you put a translucent paper instead. Do your focus and see on the paper if the image is sharp, if not I’m pretty sure it’s the foam who is deteriorated (common issue on bronica S) ... 3
  • @
    @claireandtimwest34802 years ago Well that is a bit of a surprise for the new year .Hope you enjoyed using the camera .The Square format makes you look differently and 12 photos makes you look must slower. Going to try Black and White next time? Happy new year
    Tim west
    ...
    1
  • @
    @buzzbeescraps88393 years ago So interesting to see you learning something new! I loved the relaxing footage of deer and Autumn colours. Great music too :) 1
  • @
    @alangauld60792 years ago I recently started using a Yashica TLR that was made the same year as me! I only expect to shoot about 4 rolls per year with it and process the negs myself. I then "scan" using my Olympus (oops, OM Systems!) camera in its HiRes setting to get a 50MP image. That keeps costs under control and gives me a hiDef image in situations that the Olympus couldn't handle (eg moving subjects). A lot cheaper than buying a 50MP digital camera for sure. I started in film so processing the film is no sweat but even using a lab it would cost in. ... 1
  • @
    @LuciaHewitt2 years ago Happy New Year Matt! Kudo's for this vid - great stuff! What app did you use to check exposure? 1
  • @
    @Markitosgm3 years ago Matt I think everyone should have a go at film whenever possible. It’s a great foundation for those starting at photography and getting the knowledge of how to expose and take correctly well balanced photos. You don’t have the endless numbers of exposures left on a memory card, so you better think thoroughly which will be your next photo and try to get it right. I remember my last day shooting film and I ended up with 27 rolls of exposed Velvia … I nearly went bankrupt when I took them to the lab 😜 ... 1
  • @
    @tacampbell922 years ago Loved this mate! 😁 made me really regret selling my old Bronica ETRSi 😭 beautiful shots as always bud! 1
  • @
    @paulm81572 years ago Unique content, amicably presented👍. Started w/photography in analog days, w/used gear and did my own “home” darkroom stuff. Film does make you slow down. Focus test chart runs in controlled (indoors) conditions should answer the off-focus issue. What kind of focusing screen was in use (split, matte, etc)? I recall there were also add-on rangefinder split screen focusing devices that might have helped.
    Pre-smartphones we used hand-held light meters. How would your app exposure reading compare w/reading in your DSLR?
    Scan of negatives equates to analog/digital hybrid to get final image. Staying w/analog through to prints would add to expense.
    Most importantly, IMO, your posts prove that you can get premium images w/less than premium (medium format) priced gear. Happy New Year, Matt!🎉
    ...
    1
  • @
    @JohnCooper-jl5nt3 years ago Great video I started on film and it was a great grounding and base to start from. 1
  • @
    @adamsmith65942 years ago I grew up with film. 110 and 35mm. Digital cameras may have existed but mobile phones did. You would often see them in London. A large briefcase with an aerial sprouting from it. So maybe what I thought was someone dragging a small skip around was actually a digital camera. The last film camera owned was a Pentax P30T. Cost me a month's wages and then some. Still have it and it looks brand new. If you want one they are available on ebay. 5 years ago I looked and you could pick one up with a lens or two for the eye-watering sum of £14.99 free postage. Now they are around £50.00. Bearing out this vlogs implication. Film is making a come back. ... 1
  • @
    @angelisone2 years ago Many employees from camera companies got the pink slip for Christmas.
    ATG pulled out of Costco, Walmart and many major printing stores. Film & DSLR are dead. They rather use cellphones.
    1
  • @
    @alternatereality7713last year I am so glad I don't have to shoot film anymore. Digital with solid AF is just so much more predictable.
  • @
    @maxencelemoine41902 years ago I mainly shoot on film, and I mean in a non reasonable way. 2021 was my year playing with a dslr (an old one). My best wildlife shots (birds) were on films, and I have more trust in my old pro film camera than my dslr (better autofocus, lightmeter, frame rate...). But playing with digital is very fun too. ... 1
  • @
    @lensman57622 years ago Kudos to you for trying analogue photography. Not exactly the correct film camera for your intended use, but all credit to you. Keep that lens if it didn't cost too much. That fungus could be cleaned by an expert. A huge dose of UV light will probably kill the damn thing. As for wildlife photography with film, I 'd think you be better off with a good 35mm SLR. Had it been two years ago, I would have suggested finding a Nikon F5, but not these days and not at the present crazy asking prices for anything analogue. Use the MF camera for static subjects. And no, you were not imagining things. You'd be pleasantly surprised at how much dynamic range a film like Kodak Portra 400 or Ektar 100 has, and if treated correctly how much information is held on a piece of film, and all analogue not a procession of zeros and ones. Then think about a 4X5 or even an 8X10 negative or transparency. NO wonder Fuji is so keen on killing film off. All the best. ... 1
  • @
    @glennhunt23753 years ago Had many frustrating years with film for wildlife ( no alternative at the time )when digital cameras came on the scene it became a total game changer for wildlife photography. I admire you for having a go with film - great for a change when doing a bit of landscape work but for wildlife if the prospective photographer is on a limited budget - economy digital gear everytime. Sorry to sound on a bit of a downer Matt but have worked with both 35mm and med. format cameras and now digital so have a little idea about the different complexities of the equipment. 👍 ... 1
  • @
    @zmerc19692 years ago Great video as usual. Do you always have to use a tripod with that camera though or is it possible to have it handheld? Happy new year to you all 1
  • @
    @Jessehermansonphotography2 years ago I have a Nikon F2 that I have had for many years. Would never sell it 1
  • @
    @faerphoto3 years ago Wow, this was not what I was expecting. I love film but don't have the option to go back to it. There are no premium photo labs in my state any longer, so to get the film developed correctly with no mistakes would cost a fortune to ship somewhere else, maybe NYC, I don't even know where. Medium and large format film cameras are still top of the line, though, still highly sought after, and still cost a small fortune if you want good quality gear. I don't think I could ever consider any of those types of cameras to be 'budget', unless it was being sold cheap because it had problems and possibly didn't even work. I'm glad you were able to find one in good working condition for relatively cheap. I'm not surprised by the amount of data in the images. As for the look of the images, you'll need to try different film stock, as they all have their own unique looks to them. I hope you have fun with the new camera. I'll hold off asking my question till your next video, since this one wasn't the topic I thought it was. Happy new year. Cheers from Maine, USA. :) Paula ... 1
  • @
    @michaelharmon71622 years ago Possible it was the lens but medium format wide open has a very shallow depth of field. 1
  • @
    @0action8473 years ago Gotta go with japanese sellers on ebay but that amount of fungus wouldn't effect the pic too much. 1
  • @
    @debbiepierce30453 years ago Great video Matt, as always. Happy New Year to you. 📷 1
  • @
    @buchsg3 years ago Your out of focus issue maybe the foam under the viewfinder glass who is too old so what you see when you look in the viewfinder is not what you get on the film… on way to test that is to set a composition at a measured distance, camera on a tripod, no film back and you put a translucent paper instead. Do your focus and see on the paper if the image is sharp, if not I’m pretty sure it’s the foam who is deteriorated (common issue on bronica S) ... 3
  • @
    @claireandtimwest34802 years ago Well that is a bit of a surprise for the new year .Hope you enjoyed using the camera .The Square format makes you look differently and 12 photos makes you look must slower. Going to try Black and White next time? Happy new year
    Tim west
    ...
    1
  • @
    @buzzbeescraps88393 years ago So interesting to see you learning something new! I loved the relaxing footage of deer and Autumn colours. Great music too :) 1
  • @
    @alangauld60792 years ago I recently started using a Yashica TLR that was made the same year as me! I only expect to shoot about 4 rolls per year with it and process the negs myself. I then "scan" using my Olympus (oops, OM Systems!) camera in its HiRes setting to get a 50MP image. That keeps costs under control and gives me a hiDef image in situations that the Olympus couldn't handle (eg moving subjects). A lot cheaper than buying a 50MP digital camera for sure. I started in film so processing the film is no sweat but even using a lab it would cost in. ... 1
  • @
    @LuciaHewitt2 years ago Happy New Year Matt! Kudo's for this vid - great stuff! What app did you use to check exposure? 1
  • @
    @Markitosgm3 years ago Matt I think everyone should have a go at film whenever possible. It’s a great foundation for those starting at photography and getting the knowledge of how to expose and take correctly well balanced photos. You don’t have the endless numbers of exposures left on a memory card, so you better think thoroughly which will be your next photo and try to get it right. I remember my last day shooting film and I ended up with 27 rolls of exposed Velvia … I nearly went bankrupt when I took them to the lab 😜 ... 1
  • @
    @tacampbell922 years ago Loved this mate! 😁 made me really regret selling my old Bronica ETRSi 😭 beautiful shots as always bud! 1
  • @
    @paulm81572 years ago Unique content, amicably presented👍. Started w/photography in analog days, w/used gear and did my own “home” darkroom stuff. Film does make you slow down. Focus test chart runs in controlled (indoors) conditions should answer the off-focus issue. What kind of focusing screen was in use (split, matte, etc)? I recall there were also add-on rangefinder split screen focusing devices that might have helped.
    Pre-smartphones we used hand-held light meters. How would your app exposure reading compare w/reading in your DSLR?
    Scan of negatives equates to analog/digital hybrid to get final image. Staying w/analog through to prints would add to expense.
    Most importantly, IMO, your posts prove that you can get premium images w/less than premium (medium format) priced gear. Happy New Year, Matt!🎉
    ...
    1
  • @
    @JohnCooper-jl5nt3 years ago Great video I started on film and it was a great grounding and base to start from. 1
  • @
    @adamsmith65942 years ago I grew up with film. 110 and 35mm. Digital cameras may have existed but mobile phones did. You would often see them in London. A large briefcase with an aerial sprouting from it. So maybe what I thought was someone dragging a small skip around was actually a digital camera. The last film camera owned was a Pentax P30T. Cost me a month's wages and then some. Still have it and it looks brand new. If you want one they are available on ebay. 5 years ago I looked and you could pick one up with a lens or two for the eye-watering sum of £14.99 free postage. Now they are around £50.00. Bearing out this vlogs implication. Film is making a come back. ... 1
  • @
    @angelisone2 years ago Many employees from camera companies got the pink slip for Christmas.
    ATG pulled out of Costco, Walmart and many major printing stores. Film & DSLR are dead. They rather use cellphones.
    1
  • @
    @alternatereality7713last year I am so glad I don't have to shoot film anymore. Digital with solid AF is just so much more predictable.
  • @
    @maxencelemoine41902 years ago I mainly shoot on film, and I mean in a non reasonable way. 2021 was my year playing with a dslr (an old one). My best wildlife shots (birds) were on films, and I have more trust in my old pro film camera than my dslr (better autofocus, lightmeter, frame rate...). But playing with digital is very fun too. ... 1
  • @
    @lensman57622 years ago Kudos to you for trying analogue photography. Not exactly the correct film camera for your intended use, but all credit to you. Keep that lens if it didn't cost too much. That fungus could be cleaned by an expert. A huge dose of UV light will probably kill the damn thing. As for wildlife photography with film, I 'd think you be better off with a good 35mm SLR. Had it been two years ago, I would have suggested finding a Nikon F5, but not these days and not at the present crazy asking prices for anything analogue. Use the MF camera for static subjects. And no, you were not imagining things. You'd be pleasantly surprised at how much dynamic range a film like Kodak Portra 400 or Ektar 100 has, and if treated correctly how much information is held on a piece of film, and all analogue not a procession of zeros and ones. Then think about a 4X5 or even an 8X10 negative or transparency. NO wonder Fuji is so keen on killing film off. All the best. ... 1
  • @
    @glennhunt23753 years ago Had many frustrating years with film for wildlife ( no alternative at the time )when digital cameras came on the scene it became a total game changer for wildlife photography. I admire you for having a go with film - great for a change when doing a bit of landscape work but for wildlife if the prospective photographer is on a limited budget - economy digital gear everytime. Sorry to sound on a bit of a downer Matt but have worked with both 35mm and med. format cameras and now digital so have a little idea about the different complexities of the equipment. 👍 ... 1
  • @
    @zmerc19692 years ago Great video as usual. Do you always have to use a tripod with that camera though or is it possible to have it handheld? Happy new year to you all 1
  • @
    @Jessehermansonphotography2 years ago I have a Nikon F2 that I have had for many years. Would never sell it 1
  • @
    @faerphoto3 years ago Wow, this was not what I was expecting. I love film but don't have the option to go back to it. There are no premium photo labs in my state any longer, so to get the film developed correctly with no mistakes would cost a fortune to ship somewhere else, maybe NYC, I don't even know where. Medium and large format film cameras are still top of the line, though, still highly sought after, and still cost a small fortune if you want good quality gear. I don't think I could ever consider any of those types of cameras to be 'budget', unless it was being sold cheap because it had problems and possibly didn't even work. I'm glad you were able to find one in good working condition for relatively cheap. I'm not surprised by the amount of data in the images. As for the look of the images, you'll need to try different film stock, as they all have their own unique looks to them. I hope you have fun with the new camera. I'll hold off asking my question till your next video, since this one wasn't the topic I thought it was. Happy new year. Cheers from Maine, USA. :) Paula ... 1
  • @
    @michaelharmon71622 years ago Possible it was the lens but medium format wide open has a very shallow depth of field. 1
  • @
    @0action8473 years ago Gotta go with japanese sellers on ebay but that amount of fungus wouldn't effect the pic too much. 1