photographic film - alive and kicking

<p>Now if only someone-- anyone-- would make 220 B&W film again I'd be very happy. Carrying several loaded A12 backs to the shoot or into the field is so much more trouble than using 220, IMHO. </p>

<p>+1 for film, too. I personally don't understand the "either/or" mentality. I made 900+ frames on my D3S shooting football yesterday. I just picked up a Canon A-1 for less than $100 and run TMAX through the superb, old, chrome-nose FD lenses. I'm heading out for my annual walk-about in September and will be running TMAX and Pan F through my RZ extensively. I run Ektar/Portra/Velvia through my Nikon F6 nearly every week. Tomorrow morning I have a group shot I'll use the CLS attributes of my D3S for and it'll look great because of the ability to tweak and modify light on the spot.<br>

Tools in a tool box. Passion for them all.<br>

There's never been a better time to shoot film, in my estimation. Emulsions are better and more sophisticated than ever before. The new Portra was specifically designed for a digital work flow (scanning), not darkroom printing. I'm much for comfortable with the idea of investing money in a long-term tool, like a film camera and great glass - not dependent on the whims of the sensor technology business - and then shooting the package forever. Superb lenses are superb lenses, no matter when they were made. Film is film - from one camera to the next. It sickens me to have spent over $5K on a digital camera that has "a life span." Yes it makes me money, yes it's a fantastic camera, but like it or not, it's consumer electronics and it's probably gonna die at an inopportune time, long before my F6 will. Then I'm going to have to drop another $5K to be as functional.<br>

Digital & film are two sides of the same coin to me. Both have their purposes; one doesn't preclude the value of the other (but I love shooting film).</p><div></div>

<p>Now if only someone-- anyone-- would make 220 B&W film again I'd be very happy. Carrying several loaded A12 backs to the shoot or into the field is so much more trouble than using 220, IMHO. </p>

<p>JDM, nothing about photography is objective in the end. No amount of scientific measurements make a photograph work for all people. It is my view that film is better for me because that is so. If it does not look the same for you I don't care.</p>

<p>And the part aboud sacrificing quality for convenience is true in more areas than just photography.</p>

<p>The OP sounds like a description of me. Shot digital only for several years and then discovered the joy of MF film after going through all my dad's medium format stuff from the 50s and 60s and digitizing it. Now I own a whole bunch of film cameras, mostly MF and love them dearly, but of course still shoot digital for a lot of things too.</p>

<p>John Crane, well said. And, beautiful work in your portfolio!</p>

<p>Lubos, I agree with your point, the bottom line is what the imagemaker likes. I shoot both, I treat each exposure in a digital as I do on a film camera. One shot, one kill. I'm not one to want to spend time on a PC going through tons of digital images. Not for me. I'd rather spend that time composing. I carry that workflow dicipline of the past getting 24/36 exposures on 35mm and 10/20 exposures on 6X7 format with digital. I strive in making each exposure count as if it was the only one left. There are times when a small band will do performing a favored tune (digital capture) and then there are times when an orchestra (film) is mandatory. I'd rather hear the depth and dynamics of true musical instruments being played by their masters (film) than hearing that produced on a synthesizer (digital). I know of shooters who converted totaly to digital capture and most agree that they spend too much time going through the many images on the PC. I've got 4 decades shooting film and know what it will do for me and the way I capture and present images. No worries about archival issues either. Lubos, you're right 100%. I don't care what anybody has to say about who, what, when, where, why and how I make my images! I capture and make mine with film BECAUSE I LIKE IT over digital when push comes to shove. If anything, I use digital when scouting locations and commit the final image to film. Why? Because I like it!! It works for ME!!</p>

<p><a href="http://www.habsphoto.com/2/artist.asp?ArtistID=14047&AKey=E4VXE478"><strong>Stephen Schäfer</strong></a> explains why his clients require him to photograph using film.</p>

<p>Yes, John Crane, "well said" and another +1 for me.<br>

This is especially true:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There's never been a better time to shoot film, in my estimation. Emulsions are better and more sophisticated than ever before.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And I've tried to tell this again and again to various friends as they have handed me their unwanted Pentax SLR, Minoltas, Kaiser and Leica enlargers, new Nikon F100 etc etc ...<br>

Many gauge the future by the rate at which Kodak and Fuji have discontinued a whole bunch of film emulsions. Consolidation had to happen and it has. John Crane mentions that the Portra films are now optimised for scanning, which is just as well, because as far as I know, there is no darkroom colour print that can match the best ink jet for colour stability, quite aside from other image qualities. I sorely miss the results my local lab was getting from Reala, but that's out the window. History. The colour negative > scan > print allows us the best of both worlds, and will be around for a while. Sales of used medium format gear on eBay seem steady, which in addition to all the gear is use, and whatever new sales there are will keep the coating rooms at Fuji and Kodak in business for a good while yet.<br>

Kodak's discontinuation of some B&W products has been good for the B&W specialists such as ILFORD and ADOX. It's all good for me, and I'm using anything and everything I can lay my hands on in B&W, in all formats including 70mm, both fresh and out-of-date.<br>

The core of my income is from printmaking, etching and engraving, using tools methods materials which were rendered obsolete centuries ago. 'Obsolete' that is in the commercial printing industries. But there are sufficient artists around the world doing the same to keep alive several competing manufacturers of <a href="http://halepress.com/">etching press</a>, <a href="http://www.legionpaper.com/Our-Collection/By-Brand/Somerset.htm">paper mills</a>, <a href="http://www.lawrence.co.uk/acatalog/American_Etching_Ink.html">etching ink</a> manufacturers, as well as makers of <a href="http://www.eclyons.com/">fine engraving tools</a>.<br>

There was no Internet in the mid 1800s, but when the first viable photographic cameras and processes appeared, there was no shortage of doomsday discussions about the certain disappearance of all this stuff that myself and thousands of others use today.<br>

I don't care about whatever anyone else achieves from B&W digital systems, I really don't. Do whatever works for you, .. go for it. But I also know that there are enough of us photographers who use film for it's intrinsic qualities, for the love of it, who know it, who appreciate what it's about, and simply enjoy darkroom work and do it well, that there will be film around for a long time to come. And whilst a few old Bronicas, Hasselblads, Mamiyas, Linhofs etc eventually grind to halt, for lack of parts, there are new film cameras coming out all the time, and I wouldn't mind betting there'll be a Chinese manufacturer of Hasselblad C lens components to revive your chrome paper weights. They already produce a range of lens caps and lens shades for Hasselblad (I use them).<br>

AS Bogart said to Bergman: "We'll always have Paris", I say to you we will always have film.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I'm new to this forum and have not posted before, but I had to comment on this topic. <br>

In my arsenal, I currently have 9 film Nikons and about a dozen other 35mm cameras that all get used, some more than others and none as much as they used to. I also have 4 digital Nikons that are constantly earning their keep. I prefer film both for the look and the permanance, but my instant gratification clients require the digital.<br>

That said, I have recently dusted off my medium format cameras: an RB67, a Rollei 3.5E, a Yashicamat 124G, a Graflex XL, a Mamiya Universal, a Fuji GW670III and a Fuji GS645S and loaded them all with either TMax 100, Ektar 100 or Neopan Acros 100. That has also meant digging out the heavy tripods along with my hand-held meters and re-learning how to use b&w filters and cable releases. <br>

All of this equipment weighs almost as much as I do and fills up the back of my car, but you know what? I'm having a ball! I'm finding that my old eyes don't like dim rangefinders quite as much as they used to and that ground glass finders haven't gotten any brighter with age and that I don't hike as far as I used to with a 25 pound bag and a 16+ pound tripod, but the enjoyment I'm getting from these old cameras far out-weighs the weight of the equipment.<br>

I'm not so sure about color, but for me, black and white film still has a depth and tonal range that digital has yet to approach. I no longer have a darkroom (that's subject to change), but I've found a lab that will give me 4815x5902 pixel scans from 6x7 negs and 4832x4760 scans from 6x6. Can your DSLR do that? I can't wait to see how the Rollei's Planar performs at that resolution!<br>

There is room for both and I don't think that digital will replace film any more than television replaced radio. Our film choices will become smaller, but as stated earlier, better.<br>

Whatever your choice, keep shooting and keep enjoying!<br>

Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts.<br>

Gary (aka: Geezer G)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>According to <a href="http://snd.sc/sVE2CF">this recent interview</a> with Scott DiSabato from Kodak’s Professional Film Division, film sales in october 2011 exceeded whole previous year mark. Maybe it's the turning point, and we'll see stable or even somewhat growing sales in the future.<br>

So I'm not worried at all. Best thing we can do is just keep shooting. Film is alive as long as we want it.</p>