How many people here use film?

Discussion in 'Film and Processing' started by tibz, Dec 11, 2008.

  1. I'm just wondering what the ratio of people who are using film to people who have switched to digital is.
     
  2. I'm a film and digital user but I'll be moving completely to digital in 2009.
    I went to Adorama and put 5 rolls of Provia 400x and a 5pack of Fuji mailers in my shopping cart and had over $82. And prices are going up in January. I can buy an *ist for $99 on eBay. With my used *ist, I expect to take over 100,000 pictures with it - using my film glass. $2.16 per slide or $0.00099 per digital shot. And I don't have to worry about scanning or any other expensive equipment for post process.
    If I bought a Hassalblad for $40,000, and with 300,000+ shots per back, that's $0.133 per shot - with a Hass. A Hass is actually cheaper per shot than my second hand Sears film camera or any film camera for that matter!
    Film is dead Fred and I stand by my numbers.
     
  3. Just digital now.
     
  4. Less and less, but still sometimes. The battery does not stop my Leica. No card to fill. A darkroom is simple vs complex monitor calibration and printer settings.
    If you like the process, use it. But if I did not have a darkroom, I would sell every film camera. My D200 was a close match for film. The new D700 definately is medium format quality.
     
  5. Still shoot, process, and print film. See my profile.
    Best regards,
    /Clay
     
  6. I enjoy using film cameras, now that professional grade 35mm and medium format gear is dirt cheap. Film of varying speeds and emulsions is cheap from B&H, Adorama, Freestyle and others, and I have at least three labs that I can mail my film to. A roll of 120 costs me about 18 between the film, processing, and postage, but that isn't much more than a movie ticket and is much more enjoyable.
    I used to have a Nikon D50, but I never enjoyed using it, so I rotate through different classic film cameras and have a lot of fun. I use a Canon G5 for snapshots that I expect to distribute through email.
     
  7. Add one more for film and one more for digital.
    You are probably going to get a lot of replies, but I don't think this will be a very effective way to get this information.
     
  8. Sure. Lots of B&W.
     
  9. Sometimes.
    Love film, don't love scanning.
     
  10. One thing some people who use digital don't get is that with film you take less pictures. If I know this MF slide costs 50 cents, I don't snap off 200 shots of my feet to test exposure. New digital cameras come out every 2 years, costing $5000 a piece. That's a lot of money. I get my Velvia or Fuji print 120 for $4.19 a roll whenever I make purchases online for something else. Processing costs a dollar because I process myself and a liter of chemistry will do 10 rolls of 120 per kodak specs. I could probably coax more out of it, but hey, I'm not that cheap.
    It's not horrifically expensive. I took 36 6x6 slides in death valley and 2000 digital pics. Many were "exposure checking" shots. I got 20 keepers from digital. You simply can't take as many 4x5 slides as you can digital snaps.
    Plus RA-4 paper is cheaper than Luster Inkjet for 11x14. I just figured that out and I find that kind of funny. 73 cents a sheet.
    I hate scanning too. So I print optically.
     
  11. Just purchased 35 rolls of 120 "New TMY."
    And a new scanner.
    Best to Your Success in 2009!
     
  12. I still use mostly film. If I didn't collect cameras this might not be the case. While it's true that KM and Panatomic-X and TP are gone there are still many good films and there has never been a better time to buy and use film cameras of that's what you like to do. Today I got a Canon Bellows FL for $21. Last week I got a Nikon MD-12 with fresh batteries and in very nice condition for a whopping $26. At some point my film shooting will be just b&w and the color work will be digital. I think that the extra security measures at airports after September 11th, combined with the dip in the economy through 2002 both caused film use to drop off faster than it would have. This time period also coincided with many improvements in digital cameras. Now the country is in more of an economic slump and I think this may serve to depress film use again.
     
  13. Have not shot film in a few years but I have a feeling I will shoot some film this year. It's sitting in the fridge...
    I miss shooting with the Leica M's but the hassle of developing film and scanning drove me to digital. I keep hoping that one day there will be a camera to replace my M's that is not as ridiculous as the M8. Crop sensor, outdated sensor locked in a golden box.
     
  14. To preface my answer, I am an amateur; I take pictures solely for my enjoyment.
    I use mostly film, and mostly black and white film, in a Nikon F100 and a medium format Bronica s2a. I process and print the black and white in my own darkroom. What 35mm color film I shoot, I scan on a Nikon Coolscan V, post process in Photoshop CS2, and upload for printing.
    I also have an Canon EVF digital camera that I use from time to time. I find it an extremely frustrating piece of gear. It is capable of taking superb images, when it decides to work properly. It does have a tendency to "think" about taking the picture when I push the shutter release. It will be the last piece of Canon gear I will own. Lest you think I have something against digital anything, I have been programming computers since 1962 (yes, I am an "old guy") and build my own PC when I want a new one.
    In the next year or so, I intend to purchase a good DSLR - probably Nikon so I can continue to use my current lenses. However, for black and white, I shall probably continue to use my current film cameras.
     
  15. I shoot all film, color slide and black and white. Oh, I do use digital to take pictures of things I sell on ebay...............
     
  16. Started out in film 30 years ago, but now 5% film, 95% digital. Film gear - 35mm rangefinders to 5x7 view cameras. Love the film rigs, but digi is just so damn fast and easy.
     
  17. Im 99.95% Film. 645, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 (very soon) & 12x20.
    Color Negative & Chrome & lot of B&W.
    The other .05% is digital. My D200 is relegated to shooting products that are up on Ebay.
    -ian
     
  18. I shoot film exclusively. No digital for me.
     
  19. I just went to London to visit my sister. I was raining most of the time and since I have some jobs coming up , I did not want to Get my Nikon D3 wet. I shot my Rolleiflex and a Nikon F3 Hp shooting tri-x. I use and shoot both digital and film ,but I will always have a special place in my heart for B&W film.
     
  20. When I want quality I use film. However, most of my pictures are taken on digital (D3) quality is acceptable printed large and of course convenience/speed is superb, especially when working fast. Being able to chimp the shots in difficult/odd situations is clearly the winner (no need for polaroid backs).
    I've moved back to film as digital left me wanting. I sold a D300 and bought a Mamiya 7II, which can easily deliver 80MP plus scans from it's huge 6x7 negs. I still wanted a 35mm backup camera, so picked up a second hand F75D for 50 bucks, it can use all my existing Nikon glass and interacts really well with the SB800 and wireless flash system. A 50mm 1.4D lens almost dwarfs it's tiny body and you get the full frame to deliver quality on par (or better than) the D3 in a tiny lightweight package. There's nothing digital that can compare size/weight/IQ.
    In the end you just can't beat good glass whether digital or film. Even the cheapest 35mm SLR will shine with a decent lens on it.
     
  21. I will forever be FILM ONLY! Long live Kodachrome!
     
  22. SCL

    SCL

    I probably shoot 80% digital and 10% film. But it is film which really holds my interest, especially B&W...and for those pictures which I anticipate will really matter, I choose film. Sort of like the stick shift in my car vs my wife's automatic, there's a place for each.
     
  23. I shoot mostly film. Getting a DSLR purged a lot of the rage against the machine I had for the digital stuff, but I have not really seen anything about it which was worth my time. It satisfied my curiosity. Product-wise, color-wise, I would have been better off with the dollar equivalent of the camera body in Ektachrome and processing. The whole thing was basically not worth it and totally overrated.
    Slide film shooters right here on photonet told me to just shoot slides. I didn't listen to them. They were right; I was wrong; the digital camera was the most unsatisfying camera purchase of my life. I probably would have gotten more satisfaction out of building a pinhole camera.
    I'll give the DSLRs points for reportage speed and bulk; maybe some points for CCDs in general, in astronomical cameras, for bringing some really good technology into the hands of people in the right way. But, overall, this was not worth the expense. That said, it was not worth raging against it either.
    I'll probably shoot more film in the future. The experiences I have had at retail print houses getting a basic medium format print out of them alone is enough of a reason to just handle it myself.
    Someone woke me up this morning wanting a digital image I made a few months ago; but they still wanted a print, so, you know, it was just going through the same process over again, but with different equipment and limitations. I take a lot of "Rocks and Sticks" photos. I don't think CNN and the BBC will be turning me out of bed demanding a copy of Gladiola IV right now; so, it's going to be more film.
     
  24. I shoot black and white films. No more colors since I can't find any lab that can give me decent color prints. I shoot colors and infrared with a digital camera (D70).
    I love film
     
  25. I'm an amateur, so I can afford to shoot film. I don't shoot many pictures, so the cost of film isn't much. I have a big investment in film cameras and in the Nikon 9000 film scanner. I'm still working on scanning my negatives taken over the years. I don't have a digital camera. The recent DSLRs, such as the Nikon 700 and D3, look like amazing tools, with their ability to produce excellent images at very high ISO. But I don't feel like droping 2,600 for a Nikon 700. I'm tired of spending so much money on myself. For now, I have enough toys. I recently got out my Hasselblad, took a little walk on a trail near my house, and took a few pictures of the fall colors. It was fun...no batteries, no menus. Just set the f-stop and speed on the lens, wind, and shoot. What could be simpler? I'll shoot film until it is not made any more.
     
  26. Real men still shoot film.
     
  27. Real men still shoot film.​
    I shoot 8x10, so I must be a real "real man"! I just wish I could get an 8x10 inch sensor (no scan back stuff) in a half inch thick self contained back weighing about 1 lb that I could just slide into my 8x10 camera backs. It would also be nice to get it for say $5,000 or so, but I could go up to about say $8,000.
    Yeah, right.
     
  28. I am another happy hobbyist who is also head-over-heels for black and white film photography. My happy ménage à trois with a Nikon F100 and F2 has recently been disrupted by the arrival of a battered Crown Graphic. I can hardly wait to see the difference a 4x5 negative makes!
     
  29. For prints large format film. For the internet digital.
     
  30. I still love film....digital is amazing etc.....but for me it just doesn't "look" right...film still has a ton more charisma to me
     
  31. To answer your question, I, like many others, use film and digital. Of course, asking the question on a forum devoted to film and processing is going to provide a completely meaningless data about the ratio of film to digital users. It's like going to a cooking forum and asking how many people there alway eat out.
     
  32. Looking for a certain ratio?
     
  33. Film only. Tried digital for nine months in 2004 then went crazy and started collecting film cameras. The collection is currently twenty two and growing....
     
  34. Pretty much 100% film,love the look ,too.With the world economy about to fall off a cliff I figure my film hardware will need to last a few more years.If things get that bad I can always develope B&W at home.No need for computers,software,printers,etc,etc.Things are going to get very ugly and the last thing I need to do now is spend thousands on a bunch of new equipment.
     
  35. 100% film 99% B&W 1 % color.. of that 1% 99% Slide film 1% negative film
     
  36. I don't exactly use film and digital, it has to be one or the other. Ok, I am talking about going on trips, I am a small man, I can't carry two bodies. I have settled on a Mamiya 7II with an 80mm lens. Ok, now I cheat a bit, I carry an LX3 and that is because it has 24mm on the wide side.

    Cost is also a consideration. Looks like MF can assure me of resolution and lattitude. And if I don't shoot I don't spend any money. I don't spend a lot of money up front.

    If I were to shoot professionally in the studio, then it is the turn around time that matters and a lot of low end DSLRs will do.

    I have a lot of digital shots but they don't give me the WOW as compared to MF film. Maybe I should get the A900 and the Zeiss lenses but they weigh a ton.
     
  37. 95% 35mm film - mostly color slides though I like messing with color negative and some B+W for family stuff. I use digital at work (ag research) and it's ideal for that, but I'd rather look at slides. From a practical standpoint film still lets me carry lighter, simpler equipment on hikes and trail runs.
     
  38. I am also small but I can carry my weight in Nikons.... :) It must have been my Milatary training.
    My Kiev 60 is always with me on a field trip along with the Nikon N90s and about 5 lenses.
    Film is a passion not a survival tool so I lift weights to be able to carry my passion. LOL
    I even keep a bulk loader in my bag and some empty cassettes in case I run out of film. I am crazy so I don't count in this.
    Larry
    00Rm9T-97045684.jpg
     
  39. I'm all film, Costs don't concern me as I don't mind spending money on my hobby. I just love the craft involved.
     
  40. I use and love both film and digital. Today my bag is packed with my Canon 30D with a 17-40 f/4L and a Nikon FE with an Md-12 and Nikkor 35-135...oh, and an Ansco Super Memar Solagon f/2.
     
  41. Film all the way... Got the finest Mamiya 645M lenses with two bodies, Mamiya 7II with 3 of its superb optics, just added a 35mm ZF Distagon for my old trusty F3 HP and thinking of ZF 100 Makro too... planing to upgrade to F6 some time in near future... Loads of finest films in my fridge, just shot my very fist two rolls of Kodachromes, need to figure out a way to send them to Kansas and then get them back...well, call it work in progress:)...
     
  42. Probably a lot, considering it's a film forum.
     
  43. Nothing but film. Mostly 120 and an increasing amount of 4x5. Once, I bought a $300.00 Digital to take photos of some of my cameras on ebay. Half way through installing the software for it, the installation stopped. Tech support and I couldn't get it to completely install. Camera sat unused for 2-3 years. One day I had to wipeout the harddrive, reinstall all of my software. Got the camera's software to install. Used the camera about 3 dozen times, then the on-off switch, which was made out of cheap plastic broke. I could buy a DSLR,but, why? I bought a 4x5 monorail, RB67 Pro-s, with lens and a film back, had money left over compared to what I could have paid for one of the cheaper DSLRs.
    I don't use alot of film, with about 99% being B&W. Process it myself, The only thing that digital saves in cost, is in the film and it's processing.
     
  44. Despite shooting digital is free I kept on shooting films. Despite it costs me some money for each roll of film I run through my camera I just don't have much desire to shoot digital still. One of the reasons is because I have access to really cheap processing, by myself. Over the years I invested little by little and have built up a setup that permits me to process my films cheaply. I shot mainly 6x7 with my Pentax 67-II. I plan to dig out my Contax 35 mm gears to shoot some new Ektar 100 soon.
    Over the years competition in the market had driven the film processing industry off the cliff. Quality has gone straight down. Once disappointed, and wasted money, very few people would want to shoot films again. Being able to process my own films I am able to render excellent quality images on my inkjet prints. I found no desire to shoot digital as a result. Of course this is just me. I am sure everyone is in different situations.
    00RmHk-97105884.jpg
     
  45. 100% film, 99% color slides
     
  46. I shoot film when I want the highest quality for fine art prints. I use digital primarily for work, when the highest quality doesn’t matter….and isn’t noticed.

    I’ve played with a couple of drum scans from Ektar 100 that were printed to 16x24. It handles that size superbly. Very little grain, and with good glass, beats most DSLRs out there. Ektar has prompted me to pull out my 35mm gear in preparation for it’s use. Now I get to play with color on my Minolta X700, Nikon F5, Konica T3n, and Bessa R2a.
     
  47. I went to Adorama and put 5 rolls of Provia 400x and a 5pack of Fuji mailers in my shopping cart and had over $82. And prices are going up in January. I can buy an *ist for $99 on eBay. With my used *ist, I expect to take over 100,000 pictures with it - using my film glass. $2.16 per slide or $0.00099 per digital shot. And I don't have to worry about scanning or any other expensive equipment for post process.
    If I bought a Hassalblad for $40,000, and with 300,000+ shots per back, that's $0.133 per shot - with a Hass. A Hass is actually cheaper per shot than my second hand Sears film camera or any film camera for that matter!
    Film is dead Fred and I stand by my numbers.​
    Don't forget the copy of Photoshop CS#, the plug-ins, that whizbang epson printer, the printer ink that is essentially $20,000 per gallon, the computer, and the monitor calibration unit + software. 100,000 shots? Pfft. 20% of those shots are guaranteed to be wasted on feet, blue sky, coffee spills that resemble states, squirrels, flowers in the backyard, or walls (white balance!). 75% are gonna be wasted on multiple, careless frames of the same thing before accidentally getting something halfway decent, because, well, "digital is cheap!" How are you gonna spend the remaining 5%?
     
  48. So film is dead is it? Seems strange that records arnt, neither are classic cars or bikes, antique furniture, muzzle loading guns, lovely wind up watches, grand father/mother clocks, pipe smoking, snuff, valve radio hams,steam fares,ploughing with horses,gold soverigns,classic planes (flying), spokeshaves,drawknifes,painting, to name a few.
    I have about 50 cameras (25ish of which I use). 2 of them are digital. Fair play to those who use only digital, I am sure they are wonderful things and are ideal for many situations and I dare say that a digital clock hanging on a screw would be more accurate and need less looking after than a "out of date" grand mother clock but people are still making them for those who want one.
    If you enjoy film get out there and use it.
     
  49. Uh oh. Here we go again.
    Here's what's going to happen...this topic is going to wind up on the home page on Photo.net as one of the "Active Topics" and it will draw people from the digital and Casual Conversation forums. And of course, they'll put their 2 cents in and they'll all be digital. Or you might get some new members who mostly lurk, and they will post their first topic just because they saw this one.
    As proof of that, let's rephrase things and ask the question a different way...how many of the people here who say they mostly use digital cameras are actually regulars on the Film and Processing or Classic Camera forums? I'll bet a lot of peole who answered this question only did so because they specifically wanted to say that they use digital or that they wanted to make comments like "film is dead."

    Doesn't it go without saying that if you answered that you DON'T use film, that you obviously wouldn't be a regular on the Film forum? So from very beginning, a lot of the answers are going to be biased. The mere fact that there is an active Film form means that a lot of people use film. All your going to do is draw people from digital forums, who of course are just going to say "film is dead" blah blah.

    What you're asking is like going to a bicycling forum and asking a question like "oh, so how many of you still like riding mountain bikes....or have you switched over to a scooter yet?"
     
  50. ...Actually, I take it back. It looks like most people like using film. On a film forum, imagine that :)
    And add one more vote for film. I only use digital cameras for snapshots, and I only became interested in photography when I learned how to use completely manual film cameras. I've been around technology my whole life, and I couldn't live without a computer. But I have no interest in digital cameras anymore.

    By the way, sorry about the double post. I got an error, and then when I tried to refresh the page, my reply got posted twice for some reason. I couldn't delete it.

    But my point is the same...I don't see what the reason would be for asking who uses film...in a FILM forum. It's just going to draw people from the digital forums. By this time tomorrow, there will be 300 replies on this topic and it'll end up like all the others.
     
  51. I probably shoot 80% digital and 10% film.​
    ^Apparently some people cannot add.
    I'm not looking to prove anything, I was just wondering if I surveyed a photography forum how many people shoot film. I do because digital is too robotic, and I like the look of fresh chromes. I was just wondering because my time at APUG has convinced me that everyone uses film. Long live RA4.
     
  52. I'm just wondering what the ratio of people who are using film to people who have switched to digital is.
    Are you a statistician or may be just a troll? Where the moderators are? I do not care how many people switch to digital. I did 10+ years ago and now I am back to film, classic manual cameras and Gossen lightmeter. It would be better to ask haw many people switched back to film?
     
  53. Only Film -- 99% slides
     
  54. I spent a good chunk of the "retraining allowance" that was part of my Kodak separation package on a D200. That has been my workhorse since then, but I still shoot a roll of Kodachrome now and then. I will also be shooting a few rolls of ektar 100 since this is a 35mm film that can beat the images from the D200.
     
  55. Thanks James for providing more comprehensive calculation. Seems to me that digital is all about money and spending. Not much of photography…
    I’m an amateur (may be advanced) and cannot afford to open second loan to buy a digital system. New Nikon 700 and D3 might be amazing tools but looking at their price tag I feel happy that I’m still in love with film. Digital bodies are dying like flies and come out every year like flies too. It’s total mess… And with this Global economy crisis this mess will be even worse.
    I’m shooting film 95% and have three 35mm bodies: primarily - F6, workhorse- F100 and elite one – FM3A w/MD12. For all 3 I paid less than D700 costs. The rest 5% of shots come to my only digital the P&S Canon A530. The main advantage of this digi toy is that it fits in a pocket of my T-shirt with 4X optical zoom! From this point my 35mm bodies definitely lugging behind.
    I’m shooting slide E-6 mostly and love to view my slides thru Leica projector on a huge screen. I also like to access my works without turning on a computer. And want to have them and store without any connection to computer. No matter how good the digital is – it doesn’t have sense since it cannot deliver pictures the way I like it.
    I guess Chris is right: it might be an "Active Thread" for a long time. But Nicholas didn’t ask how many people are using film on Film Forum. His question is about percentage of using film on any forum. And if we like to talk about photography (which is for me the Film only) why we shouldn’t?
     
  56. stp

    stp

    Both. Having lots of fun experimenting with color negative film, which I've never used before. Just bought three older Nikon bodies (FM2N, F3HP, and F100 -- o.k., the F100 is not so old), and my two all-time favorite lenses: 24mm and 35-70 f2.8D. They often share the bag with my Canon digital system.
     
  57. Well, I shoot film exclusively and can't remember when I last shot a roll of color film. Eventually I'll pick up a Canon G9 or G10 for snapshots, but it won't replace my film cameras. I simply enjoy using film and working in the darkroom. That's it really. I have no quarrely with digital gear, I just don't care for it much is all. What really annoys me though is when one of these weenie dweeb little punks who got his D something or other last week, and is out there taking pictures of brick walls because he likes the texture, has the temerity to suggest that I don't know what I'm missing by using film. Makes my hair (what's left of it) catch fire.
     
  58. I am an advanced amateur who is still a dedicated film shooter (35mm E-6 slides). I still enjoy shooting film very much. Yeah, it's annoying that same-day (or even next-day) developing is gone in most places, and I don't know how long my favorite films and the necessary processing will still be available at a reasonable price, but life is still pretty good right now. I picked up a nearly new Nikon N90s a few years ago for $100 and this camera with Nikon's lovely little 50mm 1.8 lens attached is a true joy to use. Provia 100 is a great film and readily available from B&H and Adorama.

    As for the 'If you go digital, you can take 10,000 pics’ stuff, that just doesn’t apply to some of us. Maybe I'd shoot a certain percentage more images if I had a DSLR, but for me film photography is still reasonably priced enough that I don't need to limit the number of exposures I take. The limit on my photography is time and available worthy subjects, not the expense of film.
     
  59. I shoot both, and rather than gripe about one vs. the other, I simple take them as different formats and the look I want. Digital is clean, fast and cheap and I shoot that all day in the studio, on assignment, or when ever I'm just walking around. Pixels are cheap.
    I shoot film when I'm seriously looking to create something special, need the wider DR, or just want the crungy/grainy look that we've all become so familiar with.
    I shoot through FD glass on canons, and I find many images as familiar, again because it was the look of many images I would see in ads and print as I grew up. I do shoot MF on Mamiya 645 for large prints and the huge DR it gives me. But I can sometimes get away with a tripod, F/8 pan and stitching digitals in PS.
    Current printer technology also helps in creating large, detailed prints from digital. Scanning film to digital and using epson prints is the real digital revolution.
    Pro films are harder to get locally, (unless I want BW and grainy). I have to visit more than one shop to get a few rolls of Reala or Kadak pro. Mail order is the way to go now. Speaking with folks at several Ritz's stores I get the impression that on a good day only a dozen rolls will be run through their machines. They only keep one or two rolls of Reala on the shelf, but can order some in for me. I am the rare customer for them anymore.
    Film will enventually go, and my only hope is that digital finally hits the holy grail of film and that is high dynamic range. The resolution is there already, and I'm reading that the new Sony A900 is hitting the mark, while also being inexpensive. Both Canon and Nikon will have to answer the call, and discussions like this will also go away as well.
    00RmdR-97267984.jpg
     
  60. I still shoot both - Pentax 645 medium format film and Canon 5D digital. Over the last year and a half there have been many occasions where I bring both cameras. The colors that you get shooting Velvia can be breathtaking and at times are difficult to replicate with digital. I am not going to be one of those guys dumping his film gear.
     
  61. I shoot digital for quality. I shoot film to take pictures of all the old film gear that I am selling on Ebay.
    Just joking. I love this type of question. It is so interesting to read the answers. I would think a psychology student could write an interesting paper based on the responses.
    I have shot and developed films in all types and in all formats for over 40 years. I have had a film darkroom for over 30 years.
    I added digital first for convenience and then for quality. For $600 you can get a DSLR with quality that is hard to match for a small format camera. The color accuracy and high ISO ability are unmatched.
    I now shoot mostly digital but also still love film. It is possible to take advantage of the strengths of either format. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
    Some people think that the glass is half-full. Some think it is half-empty. I think our cup runneth over with all the great possibilities.
     
  62. Film, Film, Film and only film.
     
  63. Peter, that's an absolutely gorgeous picture!
     
  64. contrary to popular belief, Film is not dead.
    Rollei Infrared, Pan, Techpan
    Fuji Reala 500D, 64D
    Kodak 5363
     
  65. If film was dead why would Freestyle still be making more money than Ford?
     
  66. Marc, I'm buying those film cameras off ebay for cheap :) Got a working T90 for $50.
    Andy, thank you. We had a wonderful fall season in Pennsylvania, after a few snap colds that sent the season into motion, we had a resurgence of very warm and wet weather, and this created a stunning set for fall shooting.
    Below is a digital sample.
    00Rmup-97365584.jpg
     
  67. I have read most of the posts here and already replied but something else has become interesting to me. That is the number of people who are saying that film and chemicals are getting harder to find and not cheap. Its true I use almost only b+w but here in the UK there are loads of companys selling all sorts of film in all formats and the chemicals for very little money. I went out last Sunday, spent 5 hours at a local street fair type thing and used 1 roll of MF and 1 roll of 35mm (and the 35mm was because I wanted to try the camera). The MF Fuji film is £2. Lets say another £2 for the chemicals and another £2 for paper to do one print. Total £6 inc one day out, one hour developing the film, couple hours to start to get a good print all of which many of us enjoy. I am not rich or anywhere near it but £6 cant be too bad for 3 photographic sessions and possibly a decent print can it?
     
  68. If film was dead why would Freestyle still be making more money than Ford?​
    Whoa, didn't know that.
    100% film. I do not own a working digital camera, but I have 2 dead ones. Model and make are not of any importance here. They cannot be repaired. I don't care. They were purchased new and broke within 5 years of purchase. I have one camera from 1934 that still ticks away like a beauty. Takes good shots in the right hands. Medium format to boot.
    I shoot 95% B&W with 5% color, of that 5%, 99% is color negative, 1% is slide. That Portra stuff is amazing.
    I can't find adapters for all my old glass. It's easier to use them the way they were designed and with modern film that's (literally) years ahead of what those engineers could imagine.
    B&W is my hobby, I have my own darkroom. I enjoy the time spent there as a labor of love. I give prints as gifts and people understand that I nursed that image from negative to print making all the choices for chemicals, storage, print size, paper type, film type, film speed, etc. resulting in a unique print. All those choices took forethought and shaped how I wanted to share the memory..
    More than that, I don't care much about what goes on in the digital world as long as I have a choice. I do mind the way that digital people check out my neck straps or camera face plates for brand names.
    Film to the last reel, be it Chinese or Czech.
    If you say film is dead, when will you say that cropped digital sensors are dead?
    00RmxY-97379684.jpg
     
  69. Just as a note, the camera is 40+ years old, not the picture. The Fuji stuff is new to my knowledge.
     
  70. fld

    fld

    I shoot both film and digital. Love both, but what I need to find is a source for 5x7 plates that I can use in my ca.1890 Cycle Poco no.5. It's about time I started using the older stuff!
     
  71. Current printer technology also helps in creating large, detailed prints from digital. Scanning film to digital and using epson prints is the real digital revolution.​
    Ain't that the truth. Just got back from an exhibit at The Brooklyn Museum showcasing large format film portraits printed out with Epson inkjets. The prints, at least 40 inches on the long dimension, were stunning. And yes, I was able to examine them very closely, from inches away.
     
  72. My local retailer is selling less and less film. They sell Ilford paper because of the local University has photography classes.
    It is sad but that is technology for you. Film is dead for me too. My little $99 POS camera that I got on sale has racked up over a thousand dollars (by film cost) worth of shots. Film is indeed dead, Fred.

    P.S. I can't believe Photo.net is keeping this thread alive so long....they must be desperate for ad revenue.
     
  73. FILM IS NOT DEAD!
     
  74. 35mm, prepackaged and bulk, 120, 220, DP 70mm and gearing up for larger format. Actually already using very large format in graphics applications. (and Super 8 on the shopping list! )
    FILM - yep - love it - and the way it works.
     
  75. I didnt read most of the comments left as there was just too many to read. I switched to digital only when the Canon 10D came out although I already had a digital camera at that point. I've been 100% digital until this year when I purchased a used Hassy 500CM and a few other old film cameras.
    Now? I'm not sure the percentage but I am loving going BACK to film. I went a little further yet - I went to black and white film (something I've never really done before). I even went further back - I started developing my own film. Again, something I've never done before.
    For me film is not dead - jsut really really hard to buy! I cant get real b&w film locally, nor can I get the chemicals.
    Costs? Yes, I feel digital is the way to go as far as saving money if you look at the cost of the photos vs buying film/processing the film. I dont add the costs of the camera as you would have had to purchase that regaurdless.
    I currently have (only?) 18 cameras, 13 of which are film - the newest film camera was made in 2002 I believe, my oldest cameras were made in in the early 50's. I'd never get rid of those old beauties. I'm now getting into actually using them. 35mm and 120.
    For me, film is NOT dead. It just took a bit of a holiday.
     
  76. Film is dead for me too. My little $99 POS camera that I got on sale has racked up over a thousand dollars (by film cost) worth of shots.​
    Not to pick on you, Sam, but your quote is a good example of why film being 'dead' for some folks does not equate to the end of film for all photographers.

    The situation you describe is pretty much where my wife is these days. She stopped using 35mm film two years ago when I gave her a point-and-shoot digital camera for Christmas. I checked the counter today and we have taken over 3,400 photos with it during this timeframe. Not every one is a keeper - in fact, I would say that maybe half are saved since she captures multiple images and saves the best ones. Still, this is a savings for us since she would have had to print all of these out in the past just to see how they came out, and the knowledge that she doesn’t have to pay to buy film and develop images has freed her to take as many pictures as she wants.

    My situation is different from hers. As I mentioned in an earlier post, my photography is more selective and is not currently constrained by the cost of film and developing - I shoot as much as I want. When the day comes that I make a serious foray into digital photography, I will be looking to obtain a DSLR outfit that is the equivalent to my current film SLR outfits. I value sharp images and frequently shoot in low light situations and love using my 50mm f 1.8 lens to achieve this, so I would want the digital equivalent of this fast prime lens (yeah, I know you can use image-stabilized lenses and higher ISO‘s to improve the images captured using a slower lens, but it‘s just not the same). For a Nikon owner, this means the $300 35mm F2 lens. This will also affect my choice of camera body and push me up into the more expensive options since this lens will not function fully with the lower-priced D40 and D60 bodies. I would also need to invest in at least one external hard drive to store my images, and if the digital bug truly takes hold I’m sure I’d want to get a decent processing/organizing software program like Lightroom. Long story short, I’d be looking at spending $1,500 to $1,800 to get the digital equivalent of the gear I currently own. The value proposition that would compel me to switch to digital is just not there right now.
     
  77. Im almost sorry to keep on about this but i just cant understand why so many people are saying film and chemicals are hard to get. Obviously I dont know where you all live but here in England it is a simple case of choosing one of many suppliers, picking up the phone and saying "hi could you send me 5 rolls of this, 5 rolls of that, 2 rolls of the other and 7 rolls of something else and these chemicals please". Three days later they come in the post. I dont think there are any well known films that couldnt be ordered. Is it much harder than that outside the U.K?
     
  78. Jim, I think what you're hearing is people feeling inconvenieced. It takes a bit of planning, but here in the states, I know 2 camera stores within 20 minutes driving that stock what I need at reasonable prices if I need film (B&W or color) same day. If the application is not very critical, I know a number of drug store films which meet my needs as well.
    If I know the holidays are coming up, for example. I know to order 5-10 rolls from Freestyle a few weeks in advance. I order most things I need to economize on over the Internet. Maybe that's a generational thing?
    This works well for me, forces me to plan.
    -Bonifaz
     
  79. Film is not dead..
    Film cameras have magic inside of them..Digital cameras do not..
    Both types of cameras require the same amount of thought, technique, and talent in order for a photographer to produce a high-quality image that has the capability to WOW!! its viewer..
    The cost of film is actually less when ALL factors are considered and weighed..
    Film bodies used daily have lifespans measured in multiple decades, usually 3-7..With regular CLA's, of course..Digital bodies and backs that are used daily have lifespans that average, at most, 5-10 years..CLA's for digital are generally not cost effective, or in many cases not available..According to the informal data that I have accumulated, most digital photographic tools used daily wear out between 3-5 years after purchase..
    Digital cameras are more convenient..They offer an immediacy that no film camera can..They encourage poor photographic technique by virtue of that convenience and immediacy..
    Film has never been what could be termed convienient, especially compared to digital..As long as there were local, easy-to-access labs that could process film at medium-to-high quality levels, the relative inconvenience of film was acceptable..Especially, when there were no other alternatives..
    To try and achieve the same colors and WOW!! factors in a print that a good color film, such as Velvia, has with a digital capture requires a stunningly huge investment in time, skill, and money..
    When you add up the costs for the FF digital camera; the best lenses to accompany that camera; the multiple computers; the best large-screen, high-resolution monitors; the monitor calibrating software and hardware; the various post-processing software packages (usually 3-5, sometimes more); the high-end inkjet printers, the custom calibrating RIP's and other software for these printers; the custom ink sets for these printers; the high-end, high-quality papers required for a near silver gelatin realistic print; and all of the other ancillary hardware, software, and materials that I have not mentioned; one ends up with a price tag that rapidly approaches 200K..
    I an not talking about your average inkjet print that simply looks good..I am talking here about inkjet prints done by a master printer that attempt to equal and fool the viewer into believing that they are a silver gelatin print done by an equally masterful wet darkroom printer..Two prints that viewed side-by-side would require close examination to tell the difference..
    This is the Holy Grail the all digital photographers are striving for..For the amount of money required to duplicate a high-quality silver gelatin print with a start-to-finish digital capture system, one can purchase , used and new, an entire film camera / lens/ wet darkroom / film / chemicals / paper setup..And, afford to shoot an extraordinarily large amount of film, as well as process that film oneself..
    What it will not be is as convenient, nor as immediate, as the digital system in the capture part of the equation..
    The two systems are not mutually exclusive..I have both..I prefer film, especially for black and white, which is my true passion..
     
  80. When you add up the costs for the FF digital camera; the best lenses to accompany that camera; . . . one ends up with a price tag that rapidly approaches 200K..​
    And how many photographers purchase the best of everything digital for their own personal use? How many film photographers purchase top-of-the-line film and print processing machinery, enlargers, lenses, etc. for their own personal use? In both cases, the answer is very, very few. Most photographers, whether they're using film or digital, have others do their printing.
    It's not difficult to get excellent quality prints made from digital files (printed on exactly the same types of paper and processed using the same chemistry as "optical" prints). I have $3 enlargements from digital files that are actually much better than $15 custom prints made from film.
    For some shooting styles (involving a relatively low quantity of exposures), film certainly can be cheaper than using digital. For other styles, digital can be much less expensive than using film, even when costs of storage, backup, processing, and software are included.
     
  81. In my town, the only black and white film you can buy is the c-41 stuff. If I want real B&W, I have to order it in - same with chemicals: none to be pruchased locally. So, yeah - inconvenient as all heck. There are 3 places here to get your colour film developed - an actual photography store, Wal Mart, and a gracery store. Wal Mart is getting out of developing film so that may just leave the two. Not that I care as I dont shoot colour film. Luckily the photo store still develops 120 if I need it.
    Must be nice to have a store locally to get b&w film at a moments notice! :)
     
  82. If I changed technology every time someone invented something new, there would not be enough time to master the new medium before someone markets a newer one. If someone were to decide that the best way to make pictures is to bounce waves off the moon, or to do some other crazy thing, am I supposed to learn that too? To those who say "film is dead" I say " I soon will be too." So what? Use whatever you have at your disposal to make your work. I once saw a gallery show of drawings made with soot and spit on scrap paper. Wasn't bad. The medium is not important. But I would rather use soot and spit than a digital Hasselblad. Do you see inconsistencies in these statements? Good. They are there. Life is full of surprises.
     
  83. About the quality of B&W prints using an inkjet. My 6 color inkjet gives B&W a magenta cast. Which, I heard is normal for a lot of printers. But, since I only use it for digital negs, that's okay. The lifespan of a film camera can be decades. I have a Kodak 116 that is about 90 years old. Still works fine. The digitals, I've seen comments from those who have at least one broken digital. Mine sure didn't last long!
    I saw an article in Photo techniques, that many schools use wet darkrooms because the enlargers,etc last for many years. While they said that with digital, software and other equipment, every 18 months. (their time frame)
    I can get any film from Kodak, Ilford and Fuji locally.They have slide developing in 2 hours. Also, chemicals. Untill recently, they stocked 4x5, 5x7,8x10 in sheet film,and Polaroid. They can order sheet film. When they had Polaroid, they supplied up to 4x5.
    My Epson printer, in very little time needs 3 ink cartridges at $20.00 a piece. Glad, I don't print color!
     
  84. I am in the middle of a project using a laser printer with scanned negatives in B&W. the look is something that I would call totaly weird. The printer causes things in the picture that defies even the thought that is it Film or Digital. Can't we all just get along and develop our art in our own way not wanting 1 or the other to be the best just be the best at what we do and use/Try.
    Larry
     
  85. Shouting matches aside, when you can no longer purchase film, then film will be dead.
    The entire issue is one of convenience and the systems available to the average comsumer. The biggest and most important revolution about digital technology has been nothing more than the relatively cheap $100 ink jet printer. Herein the adverage shooter can control the entire process and realize instant gratification without the hassle of film handling and processing. Even us pros have taken such advantage, and yes, our tools are bigger and vastly superior. However, the basic principle of do-it-yourself is the same.
    Why film is not dead is because digital technology has not yet fully matured. It's close, but not just yet. Digital has not been able to replicate the look of film, and just for the sake of it, some of us simply like to shoot with it, and also others have a huge investment in tools that use it.
    The original poster wanted to know how many of us are using WHICH technology, and I believe the answer is BOTH. :)
     
  86. I use both, but prefer film for black and white.
     
  87. Thank you. I see this is that Those who do it for a quick living use Digital.... I mean that as in those who do it for a living as their daily bread and butter.. and those who use film for the art of it ... use Film. I can't say that.... It just seems that another poll turned into something that is BS. We are all Photographers... I see many people using film and digital... I just don't see alot of them processing it like I do in my home.
    I am old school I always thought you had to understand the Masters before you could begin to understand yourself. I was wrong. Understand Yourself then study the Masters.
    Larry
     
  88. "My 6 color inkjet gives B&W a magenta cast."
    My HP 8450 printer has a gray ink cartridge that prints beautiful B&W. If you want to print B&W and color it is easy to find a printer that does a good job with both.
     
  89. rdm

    rdm

    I use only film , both 35mm and 120, mostly 35mm. All color and an occasional roll of B&W . I use lots of different classic and antique cameras too. In fact i always have a Kodak signet with me in my car, loaded with Kodak 200 gold film. and a tourist with Kodak portra 400 film. My camera of choice is my Minolta X700 and all the lenses i have gotten foe it over the years since middle school. Non costing over 20 dollars (unless you count the 12 dollar 1.4 Rokkor i had a CLA done for 50 after i purchased it). I have not yet gotten a digital camera and still look out for one, but i never have allot of money handy, being a poor college student makes it hard to save. And so it looks like unless there someone that wanted to donate me a DSLR I'm not gonna have one for a long time. But Since i just learned One can change the body flange on a cannon to accept Minolta lenses, I wish i could find somone throwing away an old digital rebel ... haha.

    Anyway, I use the schools scanners to scan my negatives and think i might have to invest in a scanner before i am finished with school. Because it sux not having access to one in the summer.
     
  90. Marc, I'm sure your printer does print great B&Ws. But, since my prints need to be contact printed from some type of negative. I went with my Epson, because it prints up to 13x19". The printers in that size that have the gray cartridge seem to be in the $500.00 and up range. At,least the ones I've seen advertised.
     
  91. My last 3 scanners combined did not coast 500 bucks... I must live in a low life lane. My Printer is from Big Lots. good enough for preview the rest I send out to print for Color .. I do my own B&W in my little dark room I built in the closet. Scanning and printing yourself adds up to just the same thing. Time investment and if you do it wet or dry.
    We can argue all day long but the fact is the tools are different but the results are the same. They are what you created.
    Larry
     
  92. If I had to take pictures for a living, I'd been digital. There are a thousand of reasons to prefer digital for business. Actually I am on the 4th digital camera for my business use, which means documentation of complaints.
    When my free time is considered, I am still shooting film. I went digital in 2003 and came back to film in 2005. It was not my cup of tea. Apart from having lost all my CDs (defective burner, I discovered five years later), I did not like all the post-processing, multiple backups, computer, printer, ... at the end I went back to my old slides. My post processing is throwing the slides on a light table, look at them, trash the bad ones, caption and file the good ones. And then arrange slide shows for my friends (which are shooting slides as well). I am a reflective photographer, I carefully plan my shots, visualize, compose, ... set exposure, shoot. This is the real joy. Sometimes I wonder I could enjoy nearly the same with a camera and no film inside. Since I don't shoot miles of film every year, I can still afford, and I have a good lab taking care of my rolls on the way between home and office.
    Today I just made a purchase of 200 Kodak Elite Chrome rolls, about 3$ each. Not all for me, I will keep about 40 of them (the amount I shoot in one year). All the rest are requests for my friend. Film is not dead, it has become something people use for the joy of it, not because they need to take a picture.
     
  93. Film all the way - practically ALL Kodachrome, with the exception of Ektachrome GX for springtime tulip-citiscape shots.
     
  94. i started photography shooting digital as a way to show the world i saw to my family and friends back home. it worked well till i got better and reallized that point and shoot cameras suck and are not very responsive when i want them to be and really hard to control. so i bought a canon a2, 24mm 2.8, 50mm 1.8, 70-200 f4L. i had gone out my first time using it and was able to take more pictures that i liked with the camera and i wasn't fighting with the equipment as much. i could see what i was looking at ( i love the larger viewfinder, would go to a bigger format if i could afford it), and upon developing i am thinking that my film stuff was sharper and handled better than my ps digital. since i bought a very used 10 that i like but i always take about 400 shots with it only liking about half those then i have to cut out 2/3 of that bunch cause its all the same stuff over and over again. it also has this odd color shift too it and my 24mm that i love doesn't really do a lot for me on the 10D. the raw files are hard to deal with on my computer as you have to open them one at time and process them and save as jpeg just so you know what is what incase you want to go back to them later. i started shooting slides and nicer print films and i am actually happier with film than i am with my 10D. in all reallity i got a hand me down camera for free that i put a 50mm f2 smc pentax lens on, that and a roll of fuji sensia made me happier than the 10D and i was actually liking my results with almost as much as i like the results of my friends 1D mkII in terms of color and contrast and every thing. the only thing is i cant make as big of prints and i have to wait for my film to come back. i would love to go all digital but at the same time the initial cost for results that are as pleasing to me would be alot more than i can afford to do. so i shoot film and put up with the high processing/ scanning costs cause it makes me happier. i have my wide angle back, have nice color that i dont have to mess with in photoshop on a screen that i am not totally confident in, when i want to see my stuff i can just look at it. but 18-20+ dollars for 36 exposures is pretty rough. which is nice makes me be quite a bit more selective about what i shoot.
    so anyway i guess i am in limbo but more and more every day i lean towards just shooting a lot of slide and black and white print even though i know that eventually i will run up the 2000+ dollars in film that i would have spent on a 5d or a used 1d mk 2 or what ever or the 600+ dollar 1.6x crop sensor camera and another 600+ on a wide angle that would only sort of replace my 24mm 2.8. for me its the difference between shooting and paying a little at a time or shooting with something doesnt' really do it for me and not shooting to save money for somethign that does.
    jason
     
  95. James G. Dainis

    James G. Dainis Moderator

    Luca,
    I think what you said amounts to - If you need to take pictures, use digital. If you want to take pictures, use film. Not a bad philosophy.
     
  96. James. Exactly my point, I need to take pictures for work and I do it digitally and i want to take pictures for myself, and I shoot slides.
    Actually a friend of mine said: "If I need to take pictures, I use film, if I need to make pictures, I go digital". But this is another can of worms.
    Anyway, I have friends who are living on photography: weddings, portraits, still life, some photojournalism, industrial image, catalogs, brochures, ... and the like. They have gone almost 100% digital, film is holding only in large format and black and white. Digital is the best answer in term of convenience and market standards. A photojournalist covering events with film will go out of the business quickly. A friend of mine shoots works for a local newspaper, he is always around covering local events, carries two DSRLs and each of them collects more than a hundred thousands shots per year. Usually the cameras die in 2-3 years because the shutter wears out or a knock sends them to heaven. Unmanageable with film. I also remember of an insurance agent shooting something like 50 rolls of film every week to document claims. He was always looking for the cheapest films and cheapest 1-hour labs. For him digital P&S were a blessing.
    But what makes me think is that the same guy, last time I met him and we had a good glass of wine, was off duty and he was walking around with a Rollei TRL loaded with BW film. This is the point to me. Digital kicked out film from the big consumer market: professional and casual (vacation) shooters. It remains a niche for advanced amateurs, people knowing what they are doing. We walked around chatting a little bit and he took 4 exposures in one afternoon, taking up to 30 minutes to compose one. That's photography for the joy of it.
     
  97. I still shoot film because I love different films color rendition and because film is... full frame! Then I scan my film and switch to the digital world. I'm an amateur and I don't want to shoot many pictures but the pictures that matter, so I prefer working on quality than quantity, and my mixed workflow gives me good results...
     
  98. Ever notice how many of the discussions with the most participants are in the film forum! Must be the passion.
     
  99. I shoot both, but film is precious and requires discipline. I do not blast away and hope that 5% will be keepers. And I carry that mind set over when I shoot digital. Who want to sort through thousands of images to find a small number of keepers?
     
  100. I use both film and digital, although I much prefer film - specifically transparency. I have not shot print film for many years. Transparency, however, has something almost magical about it, especially when projected. My whole picture taking process slows down when using film, and I make sure my metering and composition are as accurate as possible. There is something really enjoyable about working like this. I know I could adopt the same policy with digital, but it just does not 'feel' the same.
    Cheers, Steve.
     
  101. FILM ALL THE WAY. Check out my website and you'll see what I mean... www.sierralifephotography.com I am a pro and part of the experience of going on a photo shoot for me is GETTING AWAY FROM COMPUTERS and technology. Digitals seem just that, shooting a computer. When I shoot a film camera, I don't have the security of having hundreds of files on a memory card to store to. Nor can I take a picture and delete it if it's not to my liking. Nor can I accurately adjust everything via my digital camera. The bottom line is, when I shoot film, I have to work a little harder for the images I capture. I only have 36 shots to get it right the first time. If I make a mistake, there is no turning back. This forces me to retain that pure nature of photography skill, forcing me to expose my images right the first time to avoid wasting film. This means finding good composition and correct light exposure. The digital age has revolutionized photography for everyone, but unfortunately, has made things a little too easy for photographers. The digital train has yet to fascinate me and I don't think it ever will. Cheers everyone!
    00RodM-98145584.jpg
     
  102. ...good color film, such as Velvia​
    Now, there's an oxymoron....
     
  103. "I only have 36 shots to get it right the first time. If I make a mistake, there is no turning back."
    Isn't it possible to carry 2 rolls of film? Or would that add too much weight?
     
  104. I shoot film and digital, professionally.
     
  105. ..good color film, such as Velvia​
    Now, there's an oxymoron....

    Not really, Velvia is an excellent colour film, if you don't like its colour palette that would be your personal choice.
     
  106. Haha Marc you're right. =P I usually carry about 4 with me.
     
  107. Film...100%.
    Will never go digital.
     
  108. "Film is dead Fred and I stand by my numbers."
    :) I needed a good laugh this morning.
    Film is still superior to digital in almost every aspect, not least for enjoyment. I shoot digital for 90% of my work, but when it is time to shoot just for me, it is film. 135 and 120 film. Digital leaves me cold. I paid $500 for a ten year old Nikon F5, and the funny thing is, it will be worth more than my D3's in a few years.
     
  109. Well - I now have 20 cameras - of which 4 are digitals. So, 16 film cameras, one I cant use due to not being able to get film (camera made in 1957), 2 MF and the rest 35mm (actually the two 'new' cameras I dont know if they even work, just won two auctions on ebay, got several more I hope to win).
    I like to actually use my older cameras and since they are 'older' - they are film. So yeah I shoot 35mm and 120.
     
  110. Darn it, my math is out...3 mf cameras, not 2.
    Film is NOT dead in this house!
     
  111. While it is true that the numbers are in the digital arena, I am noticing a return to film, as Tom said, for the enjoyment.
    The lab I send my slides to told me that the number of slide rolls they process every day is increasing, after bottoming in 2005. The store where I look for used cameras, accessories and lenses has no problem selling good cameras and, surprisignly, another shop offered some new Nikon N80 leftovers. They wish they had more.
    All film users have a trait in common. They are amateurs or pros shooting for pleasure and not for business, they know what they are doing and keep shooting film not because of the lack of choices but because they want the look and way od shooting of film.
     
  112. I still use roll film in my photography, and I hope to continue using film for my cameras for as long as possible. Getting digital backs for my cameras would be quite expensive I would imagine, if not impossible to obtain!
     
  113. Me! Just MF (120/220) film, 99.9% reversal film. No digital at all.
     
  114. "Digital leaves me cold"
    What a great way of putting it Tom. Nothing beats feeling that slide in your hand when you get it back from the photo lab. =D
     
  115. seems like a waste of bandwidth to still be talking about this.
    BUT, FWIW i am a dedicated slide shooter. admittedly the few slides that really turn me on get scanned by color folio and are then printed.
    for a substantial remainder i have them scanned by scan cafe and do my own (much) less professional printing.
    i also have an extensive vinyl LP collection that I listen to on a tubed amplifier. so i guess i probably qualify as a luddite, but so far i haven't been seduced by all the hassle of digital.
    there is something intinsically satifying to me in analog output--be it audio or photographic.
    on a deeper and more philosophic level, there is basic truth displayed in a slide or a (film) photograph. yes i know there is/can be manipulation of the final image. but compared to the potential for digital manipulation, the analog photo represents what was actually seen/felt by the photographer.
    by continuing to emphasizing the ability to digitally manipulate our photos i fear that we run the risk of loosing our claim to the veracity of an image.
    FWIW, the object of the exercise is to make moving and enduring photographs--not to become expert computer manipulators/operators. so i am sorry to waste even more bandwidth.
    just one old curmudgeon's viewpoint.
    pete
     
  116. I'll second (or third or forth...whatever) the "Digital leaves me cold" saying. I find that there is a presence and depth to film images that I've never seen replicated with digital equipment.
     
  117. Since buying my D80 in November 2006 I shoot both. I really like my D80 as a camera and defintely shoot a lot more digital photos than film simply because there is no cost per shot, but when it comes to results I just don't think digital comes close to film, at least in my experience.
     
  118. Yep, film all the way for me. Sold my D70s(cheap) to my daughter in-law to take shots of my grandson. Gave my wife a digital point and shoot. Fuji film, slides and waiting to try out some ektar 100. My only issue, is which fixed lens rangefinder or slr and lens do I want to shoot with today. I felt so tied down to one or two lens with the D70s and the images had the same ole look. Plastic. I am way more selective and patient with film. Digital reminds me of the old war movies and machine guns. Keep putting the bullets out and you'll get one sooner or later.
    00Rpgt-98577584.jpg
     
  119. rdm

    rdm

    i use film. I cant aford a nice DSLR and i figure unless i can get one that i can use all my Minolta lenses with, like an Olympus or Canon, im not going to waste money on a Point and shoot. Besides i have plenty of Film point and shoot cameras. And i am sure a digital wont draw the attention i get every time i use one of my classic range finders
     
  120. I'll second (or third or forth...whatever) the "Digital leaves me cold" saying. I find that there is a presence and depth to film images that I've never seen replicated with digital equipment.​
    While young (22) compared to you old skool film heads, I had to use film at uni for crime scene stuff and I do agre that it has a better selection of colours... digital images are often quite flat. They need to be developed digitally. They stand out nicer if they are over saturated a little I find. However what I dont like is someone heralding a heavily manipulated average-ish photo as a great picture... its simple an average picture with bells ans whistles tacked onto it. That said my best images taken with digital haven't 'had'
    to be photoshopped at all. I think parto fo the issue is that each sensor chip is different so different cameras will be different. ITs not like if everyone is using ilford FP4 then the results are repeatable. But if 1 person has a sony alpha another a cannon EOS and another a D80 then even with the same lighting, lenses and settings the results will be different.
     
  121. Even if everyone used FP4, they'd have different cameras, lenses, developers, agitation methonds etc, etc, etc, not very repeatable.
     
  122. I bought a d70 with the 18-70 lens.
    I had a FE with 24 and 50 prime lenses and 75-150 lens.
    The d70 isnt as sharp because the prime lenses are better.
    To get the digital equivalent prime lenses for my d70 would cost me 800 or 900 just for the 24mm.
    The battery never runs out on my old FE.The FE weighs less.I take less useless shots.
    On my next trip to europe i think i will take the FE.I wont have to buy a voltage converter for the charger nor will the battery run out on a backpack...I find with digital i always have to upgrade.
     
  123. Both but like most Grumpy Old Men I prefer film.
     
  124. Film, primarily slide film.
     
  125. Without reading ther others and in short.
    I use film just because I enjoy it and I am able to get very cheap 35mm or large format cameras and get a new experience. I am not a pro and I do landscapes at trips so its not every week so cost can be managed and scan times for that can be managed.
    I do shoot mostly digiital but in due time when I do trips out, just maybe I shoot mainly film - larger formats.
     
  126. Up until 3 years ago, I was shooting film exclusively. I made the jump in 2005 to a Digital SLR, and upgraded to a Canon 5d recently. But after shooting with that for a year, I've decided I am going to buy a Hasselblad and split my time between my DSLR and a Hasselblad.

    Although the ease of shooting all-digital has been wonderful, I feel as though my work is less deliberate. If I don't like what I see in the LCD, I can just delete and fire off another shot until I get it right. There's nothing wrong with that, as you are almost certain to get the shot you want. But if you are pursuing photography more as an artform, I find it helpful to slow down your process and envision what you want to capture, rather than just capturing everything and then selecting the pictures you like.

    I also feel that while digital can undoubtedly lead to high quality images these days, it is more comforting knowing that you're capturing your work on the best gear available. I'd rather capture the shot of my life on medium format film than on a sensor that will be outdated in 6 months. For the best quality, it doesn't seem like you can beat film just yet...
     
  127. About 10 rolls of RDPIII 35mm and 10 120 a month, plus digital. Just ordered some of the new Kodak to try.
     
  128. There seems to be a consensus that for professionals, digital must be a major part of their business. But for the art form where speed and large numbers of images are not required or desired, film still holds an interest for many pros and non-pros alike. It is my belief that film sales will, or perhaps already have, stabilized to a relatively small market. Stability meaning that sales aren't dropping like a cliff. If there comes a point where all camera manufacturers abandon film cameras, then yes, over a few decades as more and more used cameras are retired, we might see the end of film. But that hasn't happened yet...although unfortunately there are now very few manufacturers of high quality 35mm cameras, and at least one MF manufacturer, Bronica, has bit the dust a few years back.
     
  129. There will always be a Holga and a Zenit... :) Film like the Soviet Union is not dead just downsized.
     
  130. Today I was talking about this with a friend. We were watching my last slides. I enjoyed his comment. "Yes, digital maybe is better, for sure it is cheaper and more practical. But film is A LOT MORE FUN!"
     
  131. About 95% film
     
  132. Like Luca's freind said "film is A LOT MORE FUN!". I think that we should encourage people to take that vintage film camera and slide projector out of their closet and shoot a few rolls here and there at family gatherings and what not just for fun. That would certainly help films sales a bit.
     
  133. 100% film, 95% b&w. Recently shoot a lot of Acros + Holga because of the clear winter air and low sun. Nice for street.
    [​IMG]
     
  134. For color Annie Leibowitz prefers digital, but what does she know!?!
    She does like B&W film, however.
     
  135. Dan,
    Clyde Butcher, James Whitlow Delano, Bruce Barnbaum, Charles Cramer, George Dewolfe, etc, etc prefer film. That of course, doesn't mean one is better than the other.....but very different. Annie can use what she likes....but I don't consider the resolution and latitude needs for portraiture to be very demanding.
     
  136. To be honest, I don't care what the others use. Until it disappeared from the market, I had been using an old slide film emulsion sold in Italy only. Why? Because it had those nice '60s colors that made my urban landscape more real. Everybody was telling me that Velvia was the way to go, brilliant colors, high resolution, no grain. And then everybody was astonished at the slides. To me there are only two things that matter, the fun in taking the picture and the result, the picture itself. The picture of Prague has been taken with 200 ISO slide film, required to shoot from a boat in the sunset light. It's grainy, and I am sure that somebody with a digital camera would had obtained a better technical result. But I had real fun shooting this picture and I like the result. For me this is more than enough.
    00Rter-100465584.jpg
     
  137. I'm a film guy for many yrs. I do have a digi but I love the developing and printing variation to make an outstanding pictures. It is an adventure selecting the proper film and what it should be shot @ next what to develop it with. Then comes the exciting part, Printing your negs, The different things I can do with my Beseler and then after toning the print. I feel cheated out of my hard selecting and use to turn it into a print that comes out of a printer.
     
  138. Should have a B & W pic down @ the bottom. FILM printed on Fine Luster 5 X 7 (in real life)
    00Rtle-100515584.jpg
     
  139. Film is great and enjoying...
    00Rttm-100591584.jpg
     
  140. Sure I use film... a lot of it; when I'm after something special.
    Otherwise, I'll tote a Canon EOS 20D (yea, I know... two generations old!... but it still works great), and use it when I'm in a big hurry, like recording progress during opera rehearsals, for example. I've got it set for automatic bracketing (three RAW images PLUS three sepia-toned black-and whites). Very little I need to do here, and at times I'm grateful for that; the quality of the images is great and the speed with which I can work is amazing.
    However... I'll use Leica M6 or Nikon F3T-HD (and even Canon A-1) for capturing the magic; espcially on quality films such as Ilford HP5-plus or Kodak Tri-X, or Fuji Provia. Right now, I'm after the sparkle mostly... the images obtainable are drop-dead gorgeous, and the extra effort and planning are well worth it. But I know I'll be picking up the digital again when I must. Supplies and processing? Never a problem!... Freestyle Photo and Swan Photolabs are top-notch.
     

Share This Page