Medium-format workflow

I shot MF film (at weddings) well into the digital era, and did basically what you are suggesting. Only with Mamiya 645 gear, not Hassy. My main film for people was Portra 400NC. But all of the Portra films scan well. The advantage for me was that I was shooting the same film that I knew.

My lab made me low res scans on CD's for proofing. And now days things go from negative to paper digitally. So hi-res scans are unnecessary, unless you plan to print your own.

The obvious advantage is the cost of that Canon 5D. A pair of used Hasselblad kits can be had for one third the cost. But of course the 5D hasn't any film,processing,scanning costs.

As to your technical questions, my workflow doesn't differ all that much from yours. I'm shooting 6x7 (mamiya + pentax) and either editing from the negs or scanning for proofs on an epson flatbed. I then do high-res scans on a Nikon LS 9000 for delivery to clients or my agency, or for portfolio and exhibition prints. I wouldn't advise buying an expensive scanner right away, it would be smart to wait until you're sure that the MF gear is working for you. In the meantime it may be best to outsource your high-res scans as you suggested.

I'm a big fan of the portra films, I use the 160NC and 400NC for virtually all of my work, with the occasional roll of 800 if it's needed. The films have very consistent color across the speeds and they all scan very well.

As for your question about the viability of film for commercial and/or editorial work, it's definitely possible to do what you intend but there are a lot of factors to consider. Your choice of the hasselblad implies a certain style of work--as you said fine-art/documentary and portrait work. For those kinds of work, if you have a portfolio that knocks the socks off of the editor or art director, they'll want to hire you to do work using your own style and technique.

You'll certainly run into some clients who, for various reasons, will want digital. For me these are usually smaller clients with lower budgets or newspapers with tight deadlines, so I shoot with my Nikon digital gear in that case. If a high-budget client wants digital, I'd rent a medium-format digital rig because it suits my style better and delivers great quality.

In some circles you'll definitely find clients who want digital. But really it all comes down to your portfolio. If you work is good enough, clients will hire you and trust you to do the job your way. But it's a very tight market these days and you may need some time to to make a name for yourself in the industry before that kind of work comes along.

Martin,
Well if you look at Hasselblad's web site they are pushing one thing - digital. They do this because that is where the market is today.

For your personal work there are no issues. But for commercial work no one wants to wait for you to drop off your film, get it processed, get it scanned & edited, and then see the results two weeks later. Well, if they are paying you they don't that is.

Don't expect to rent a digital back and pop off a few shots and be done with it. You need a whole different skill set woking with a digital back. It takes some practice. And then there's the crop factor The back only sees the center portion of what the lens normally covers. Your 80mm becomes a 120mm. A lot of the backs have rectangular sensors so now how do you take a vertical shot without a 90 degree prism?

Depending where you live you could shoot 120 E6 (or possibly C-41) film, get it processed in 4 hours, then have them scan it for you. How much does this cost? How long before a $14,000 back will have paid for itself? It's quicker than you think. If you depreciate the back over 5 years that's $2800 per year or $234 per month. With 22 working days per month that is $10.60 a day. How may jobs per month will you get? How much do you need to get paid to cover your expenses?

Film and scans are expensive. And you don't know what you got until much later. With digital you know right away.

Or you could invest in your own scanner for 2 1/4 negs - a Nikon Coolscan 9000. That with the glass holder will cost you $2,500. See why the pros gravitate to a Canon or Nikon DSLR?

You can still shoot film for weddings - a lot of pros still do (and charge extra for it). But for daily commercial work with tight and demanding deadlines I don't see how film is as effective as a digital capture system.

I don't do commercial work anymore. But if I did I would find out what resolution images my clients wanted and then get a digital system to create them, most likely a DSLR. I use my Haseelblads for my personal work.

Thanks for taking the time to answer fellas. Any more comments or suggestions on medium format film workflow much appreciated.

If you're shooting colour and then scanning the negatives or trannies, then why bother with film in the first place, really? A full-frame DSLR will easily equal the image quality you'd get from medium format film, especially at higher ISO speeds and provided you use good glass. I'm convinced that most differences seen between MF film and a DSLR are down to the fact that most MF work is done using prime lenses, whereas zooms are the mainstay of smaller format DSLR photography.

IMHO MF film only has a real advantage when shooting B&W or when it's directly enlarged onto photographic paper. Once you introduce the scanning process, then you've got a digital image that you might as well have shot directly in the camera.

You're obviously not considering processing and enlarging B&W film yourself, which also poses the question of why you want to shoot film. Half the artistry of using B&W film is in its printing, and once the film is scanned, you're limited to nasty giclee printing that you have some control over, or expensive lightjet prints produced by someone else.

As far as workflow with film is concerned: you shoot the film, pay for the processing and hope that the film manufacturers idea of colour is the same as your own (if using reversal film). For Black and White: you shoot the film, develop it yourself and then spend half a lifetime in the darkroom learning to print it the way you envisioned it. Colour negative film gives you a pick and mix of the above, except you have slightly more control over colour.

Thanks for taking the time to respond Rodeo Joe. I don't plan on shooting transparency at all. The range is too narrow for what I'm doing and I've rarely seen scanned trannie stuff that I've liked. Unless the light is soft/overcast, it's just way too loud. B&W might be something down the road if i can do most of the work myself, but my main concern right now is to use MF to shoot colour negative.
Why bother with film? Everyone who does has different answer. For me, film is much more appropriate to the personal work I have in mind. I've seen work done with a Hasselblad that I've really liked: the square frame, the range, the subltety, the optical depth, the entire effect just sits really well with me. Used well, it seems to have a personality that sets it apart from other formats. And and for me this personality is worth the extra time spent scanning. Also, my understanding is that I'd probably have to spend three to four times as much, to get from a digital SLR what I can get from $1000 Hassy, a tripod and some Portra 160. (I'm leaving the door open to large prints further down the line.) Leaves me a little bit of scanning budget, for a while anyway! On top of this, from my limited expereince of shooting with a Hassy ( I borrowed one for a couple of days), I find it calls for a different kind of response from the photographer, what some might call a different set of photographic values. I think this comes from a combination of composing for the square, holding the camera lower than one might hold a digital SLR, or perhaps choosing to stay on the tripod, and the way the operator evaluates the subject in the Hassy's viewer before pressing the button. It slows me down and i see things differently. Here's to seeing things differently.

Very true Martin. The experience of using film and a MF camera is completely different. Your shooting style will be completely different. Some people try to claim that you just need to shoot digital as you would the film camera.....I've heard a good explanation as to why this doesn't happen: If you place a 2"x6" that is 10 feet long on the beach, everyone will walk along it without an issue.....place that same 2"x6" between two buildings 20 stories high and you'll find no one wants to. Why? The risk. The 2x6 is the same...but the experience is very different....you slow down!

The point is the whole process is different, and for some, that makes all the difference. Now as to workflow, I scan some of my personal work, but when using MF film for weddings and portrait sessions (which look completely different, and in my opinion better than digital capture) I send my film off to Richard Photo Lab in LA. They process and scan. All I do is download via FTP and I'm done.

I use Fuji materials Pro 160S and 400H as I find the Portra series a bit on the warm side and too magenta.