Film revival?

Simply expose it give you no picture. What do you do with it after you expose it? And this is a serious question. I would like to know what a person using film does today?

I develop my 6x7 MF film. ( B&W) After it dries, I make contact prints in my darkroom. Then I view the contact print and make prints anywhere from 5" x 7" up to 16" x 20". I own a FF Digital camera and I use it for a lot of things, and it blows me away. It just isn't how I create. As an artist, I need to slow down, think about the subject matter, the final image etc. I have 40+ years working with film and maybe 5 using digital. I know I could learn to create with my digital gear. I just don't have the desire at this time. I also like not having to worry that it could vanish into who knows were. I don't need to shoot thousands of images a year. I like knowing that when I'm gone, my family will know were my important work is. Not that I expect it to be worth much! :)

My late Father spent hours, and hours scanning all of his work during his last few years on earth. Sadly, I'm the only one who knows how to open the files. His main computer crashed before I could move a lot of his work taking over half of his work with it!

Tools don’t control artists. Artists control tools.

That's what I was trying to say. I know I can create just as well with my digital camera, if that's what I chose to do. At this time, I use digital a lot, but not in the same way as my B&W film work.

I thought this was supposed to be about the revival of film?

Tools don’t control artists. Artists control tools.

Hmm... Man, the tool-losing

animal...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

I thought this was supposed to be about the revival of film?

I suppose, but threads go off in all sorts of directions. For instance, in this one, 5 people have now liked the silly pot shot taken at millennials. But I guess, what can you expect when a bunch of cranky old men get together? By the way, I hear negatives have been known to burn up in fires, wash away in floods, and get lost in moves across country. Ahh, the good ol’ days when we didn’t have to worry about hard drives and other body parts failing. Long gone, but we pine away for our relevance . . .

Hmm... Man, the tool-losing

animal...

And car keys, don’t forget car keys. Where did I put them this time? :)

I'm technically considered a millenial, although I'm on the early end of the spectrum(for a while I thought I was part of "Generation Y" but apparently that's not even a thing).

In any case, when I first a serious interest in photography in high school and decided I wanted an SLR, I had 3 options:

1. The first crop of sub-$1K DSLRs like the Nikon D70 and the early Digital Rebels were just coming to the market

2. Low end modern SLRs with kit zooms were readily available from Wal-Mart and other big box stores for $200-300

3. It was possible to get started with a great manual focus outfit for $100-200

I had a digital P&S but recognized its shortcomings early on, and knew that if I wanted to get serious in digital that I'd only be happy with an SLR. $1K was unfathomable to me.

The new film SLRs I played with seemed cheap and cheesy, plus at that point I'd read enough to understand the importance of maximum aperture and other considerations like the quality of cheap zoom lenses(then).

So, I got on Ebay and bought a Canon A-1 outfit for around $150. In those days, I could take a lot of photos with $7 per 5 pack Fuji Superia and $3 a roll send off processing(with 3x5 prints) at Wal-Mart. That also fit in my budget since it was a few bucks a week and not $1K in a lump sum. As money allowed, I moved to better glass, better bodies, transparency film for a lot of color work, and my own B&W processing. I also bought a Rolleicord, then a Rolleiflex shortly after and made my jump into medium format(I bought 60 rolls of outdated 120 Provia, and made pretty short work of them).

In any case, as a "millenial" film is second nature to me. My childhood was recorded on it, and it's where I went when I got serious about things. After college and then graduate school got in the way and I took somewhat of a hiatus from photography, DSLRs became a lot more affordable. Somewhere along the way I picked up a digital Rebel and used it. I also made a few purchases along the way-I bought a Bronica SQ-A outfit when I got my first "real" job, although I never really fell in love with it. About a year ago when I recommitted more seriously I made a system switch(as well as dug deeper into medium format and got into large format) mostly for better legacy compatibility across manual focus, autofocus film, and digital. I now shoot a lot of digital, but it's rare that I don't have a film camera handy.

Prompted by this thread, I am going through my own personal "film revival". Still had two B&W films in the freezer (expired some five years ago or even earlier) - now one of them is in an F100 and I managed to fill it about 2/3 - probably about 2 weeks ago. I can't say I enjoy the experience very much (actually, not at all). By the time I will finish this and the 2nd film, I am certain I no longer know what's actually on them, nor will I probably care much. I will have the film(s) developed and scanned and probably be appalled on how poorly I did. Or surprised that some images actually turned out decent.

I have to admit that I miss what was somewhat derogatorily called the "instant gratification of the LCD" in this thread - but it is indeed a lot easier to check for "blinkies" and/or look at the histogram than worrying if one got the metering and placing of zones correct on the film (not to mention whether or not what one shot has the correct focus). Sure experience here helps to gain confidence in that process but I do prefer the faster way of "chimping" when I am not sure I've got it nailed. Lots has been said about this "slowing down" in the image creation process - to me it is wasting time on tasks for which better, faster tools are now available. Carefully spot-metering zones and placing them isn't furthering my creativity, it's actually hampering them by distracting me; at least I can more fully concentrate on a subject when I am not bogged down with dealing with the tools of the trade. I have learned how to get a decent basis for later processing when shooting digital, I have ever enjoyed anywhere near that level of control with film (not the least because someone else was doing the processing).

Quite certain I won't purchase another film once this "revival" is over. I have shot film for some 30 years and am nearing half that with digital now. There's no way back for me; there isn't even the slightest chance of a coexistence (which I had been very keen on when I go my first DSLR "to shoot alongside my film SLRs). To me film will go the way of the VHS tape; it had its time in the past, but there's no future.

Tools don’t control artists. Artists control tools.

Tools inspire artists.

By the way, I hear negatives have been known to burn up in fires, wash away in floods, and get lost in moves across country.

I hardly think there are more negatives lost in fires, floods, and moves, than there are digital files lost to the Digital Twilight Zone.

I hardly think there are more negatives lost in fires, floods, and moves, than there are digital files lost to the Digital Twilight Zone.

Me too, which is why I didn't say there are!

Tools inspire artists.

. . . and gear heads.

I'm technically considered a millenial, although I'm on the early end of the spectrum(for a while I thought I was part of "Generation Y" but apparently that's not even a thing). . . .

Ben, thanks for allowing us to hear from an actual millennial instead of the imaginary, caricatured, projected ones often presented by non-millennials in these threads. I fear you will be heard and maybe even appreciated in this thread, but it will only last until the next thread like this comes along, at which point those who want to create millennial photographers in their heads instead of listening to them or getting to know them will go right back to their negative stereotyping about your generation, phones, cameras, and your understanding of and experience with photography. Much appreciated!

LMAO.....

Oooh, not really something I want to visualize, but thx 4 sharing.

This sounds like mythology. I know several Millennials who are either into photography seriously on their own or studying it in school and they each respect and understand film, whether they primarily use digital gear, film gear, or both. I don't find Millennials as stupid or shallow as most old geezers like to tell themselves they are.

Can't help what it sounds like to you Fred, it's the truth as I see it.

it's the truth as I see it

LOLOLOL! The truth as you see it IS NOT THE TRUTH. I suggest looking up the definition of "truth" and then looking up the definition of "opinion." I mean, anyone on Earth can spout a prejudice or opinion about millennials and call it their truth. That wouldn't make it any more true than 2 + 2 = 5.

LOLOLOL! The truth as you see it IS NOT THE TRUTH. I suggest looking up the definition of "truth" and then looking up the definition of "opinion." I mean, anyone on Earth can spout a prejudice or opinion about millennials and call it their truth. That wouldn't make it any more true than 2 + 2 = 5.

I don't think I'll be entertaining any of your suggestions, but thanks all the same.

So tell us Fred about all of your prejudices.

No wait, you just did.

I swear, this victimization crap does get old.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6s8XcZc6Tc

Ben, thanks for allowing us to hear from an actual millennial instead of the imaginary, caricatured, projected ones often presented by non-millennials in these threads.

Go back through the thread and review the graciously amusing videos and comments about young folks shooting film.

If you don't want to shoot film, don't.

But it's a bit unseemly to try to piss in the campfire because you don't like the company or subject.

Enjoyed watching the linked video below.

Interesting points.

I liked the comment about matching the film/ camera to the subject.

Film does seem to be making some of the youngsters enthusiastic about taking pictures, even beyond the hipster fad culture.

It's a great video. There's no doubt that digital is here to stay and for good reasons. But that doesn't mean you can't enjoy and get great results from film. One thing that struck me is that there's not really a digital equivalent of an instant camera, - one that produces prints. Although "instant" doesn't really mean instant. I still can remember my dad pulling a picture from his old polaroid then looking at his watch to wait the requisite amount of time before tearing the paper off to reveal the image.

By the time I was given my first camera, - a Polaroid One-Step, it had gotten a bit simpler and images didn't take so long to appear. There's a certain amount of magic in those chemical processes, - whether instant or not, that makes it fun. It's probably why you can still buy new instant cameras today.

One thing that struck me is that there's not really a digital equivalent of an instant camera, - one that produces prints.

Fujifilm Instax SQ10?

I remember Dad bought Mom an SX-70. Funny how that model number stuck in my mind. The instant photo thing was pure magic to us kids in the seventies. No girl on the beach was safe, LMAO.....

Polaroid SX-70 - Wikipedia

Pictures from the SX-70, by contrast, ejected automatically and developed quickly without chemical residue. Polaroid founder Edwin H. Land announced the SX-70 at a company annual meeting in April 1972. On stage, he took out a folded SX-70 from his suit coat pocket and in ten seconds took five pictures, both actions impossible with previous Land Cameras. The company first sold the SX-70 in Miami, Florida in late 1972, and began selling it nationally in fall 1973. Although the high cost of $180[2] for the camera and $6.90 for each film pack of ten pictures ($1,053 and $40, respectively, adjusted for inflation[3]) limited demand, Polaroid sold 700,000 by mid-1974.[1] In 1973–4, the Skylab 3 and 4astronauts used an SX-70 to photograph a video display screen to be able to compare the Sun's features from one orbit to the next.[4]