I'm done with film.

Discussion in 'Medium Format' started by michael_radika, Jun 17, 2018.

  1. I don't shoot enough to justify film (I know...)
    Mix up developers, finish 36 exposure rolls, make sure the chemicals didn't expire, shoot film (color) before they got too expired, etc.

    I still love my film gear, and I still have some 35mm provia 400x (expired back in 2014, and it's anxiety inducing trying to figure out how how not to waste it, but knowing I have to use it soon), but I think I like other people's results with film better than my own
  2. Silent Street

    Silent Street Silent Street Photography AUS

    Well...36 exposure rolls of film were the worst thing ever thought of for photographers. It is a waste. It does induce anxiety.
    Shift up to 120 and start by getting 10 exposures. A couple more for each change of format on the roll. Great stuff.
    leo_tam|1 likes this.
  3. Vincent Peri

    Vincent Peri Metairie, LA

    I briefly used a Hasselblad 500CM back in the mid 80's, and loading those film backs was a royal pain. Give me 35mm 36 exposure rolls any day of the week.
  4. It's all in practice.

    I'll take loading a Hasselblad over a Barnack model Leica any day :) . For that matter, when I'm out in the field with a Nikon F, I always find myself looking for a place to put the film back.
    OMG and Ed_Ingold like this.
  5. Many are asking why one should scan film in the first place. If you just make a digital file, why not shoot a digital camera, right?

    The answer is, in my experience, even a scan of film retains certain qualities of film that are very difficult to duplicate with digital. The particular granularity and contrast are just not the same. There's nothing like a fiber-based darkroom print, even if Epson or Canon will try to convince you otherwise. If you just don't want any grain, don't use film.
    To me, grain, especially the very tight but sill visible grain of MF, is what is beautiful about film. Anyone who jumps into MF expecting large-format results is barking up the wrong tree. If all that matter is zero grain and eye-bleeding sharpness just get a digital camera. MF was eclipsed by even the cheapest ones two decades ago.

    The Nikon 8000, which I use (I don't currently have the space for an enlarger), can be had for under $1000. Just look at completed listings. Mine has chugged along for years. Not perfect, but I know its limitations, and it produces a sharper corner-to-corner image than a darkroom print (even with expensive enlarging lenses).
    Trying to use Nikon scanning software is a waste of time--just get Vuescan. I have a new iMac and the adapter works perfectly.

    This whole argument is similar to those arguing over whether you should play an acoustic piano or an electronic keyboard. The former has LOTS of disadvantages: it needs tuning and maintenance by someone like me (I'm an RPT). It's more expensive and takes up room in your house. Bu tin the end, as many people discover, an electronic keyboard is not an acoustical instrument. Either you want an acoustic instrument with its imperfections or you don't.
  6. Simple.
    Because I am a negative person......
    Vincent Peri likes this.
  7. Vincent Peri

    Vincent Peri Metairie, LA

    Film forever!

    Hmm... I'll let that slide...
    paul ron likes this.
  8. LMAO.....
  9. I don't blame you. I can do everything and more with my 46mp DSLR that I did with MF. Many will argue that film is cheaper, if you add in a $2000+ film scanner or $100 per negative high res scan it is not.
    I will still use my film cameras on a limited basis, mainly just for fun. Given the choice of taking my Bronica and 400mm nikkor for a shoot vs my D850 & 400mm Nikkor, guess which one wins...its a no brainer. I get very clean noiseless frames to ISO6400 with my DSLR. I would typically pack 3-4 film backs with ISO 100-800 loaded. It is a lot to carry.
    My local labs stopped processing film and I hate mailing it out. Besides cost I can't stand waiting. I will keep my darkroom for B&W and enjoy it, but everything I can do with B&W film I can duplicate.

    Your making the right move, move ahead and don't look back.
  10. I have been shooting film for about 10 years after a few "spray & pray" years of shooting digital.
    I still shoot digital for it's own advantages
    For fast changing OR technically challenging scenes
    I went to film for two main purpose
    1. It is inherently a more contemplative process because you are forced to slow down (LF for sure)
    2. There is a unique look to an image shot on film. Not necessarily better but different.
    While I want to "wet print" just for the experiences, I have no problem with a hybrid process and why should I.
    On a decent large printer, I get some nice prints.
    The film is a "different" sensor and lends it's personality.
    I use both DSLR & Scanner (Epson 4990) to digitize. One is an easier workflow, the other can get you more detail & dynamic range.
    I find that for 35mm& medium format, the image quality form a 4990 scan is quite good. Certainly good enough for 16x20.
    I have had good success with large format on certain image with the scanner.
    As far as cost goes, I buy about 50/50 new & expired film and have had almost zero problems.
    I process all my own B&W and could do C-41 but send most out.
    I still enjoy the process as it's still rewarding. Sometimes fun
    I guess it all about what floats your boat.
    Moving On likes this.
  11. Yeah well I ditched the film idea wasn't able to get a dark room too much hassle too much trouble don't have the space like others have said anywhere from $50 to $100 to get a good high res drum scan of something that you like another thousand to $1, 500 scanner constantly buying film in the long run digital way cheaper, even though the initial investment and digital is more to start out not in the long run you count up all the five the $8 rolls of film you're burning how many times you sit there and pay $75 to have a drum scan.

    I say it again love film love medium format film cameras love the look of wet Prints do not like the look of scanned images. They do retain some of the film look not a whole lot of it but some of it. I can shoot a Fuji xt2 in Arcos mode simulated black and white mode and put it up against anybody scanning film.

    it's very realistic looking there are some very good presets or some very good software out there that helps you simulate film it's not perfect but it looks pretty darn good and while you sit there and try to roll film around your 120 canisters to process them I'll just push my little 32 gig card into my camera and I'm good.

    I don't regret leaving film at all in fact it's the smartest thing I probably could have done it's i just too much of a process to shoot to shoot it to develop it to have it scanned. Now if scan film look like a wet print I'll drop my digital gear in 5 seconds and go back to a film camera.

    I'm very happy with the switch to digital No Doubt I'm still learning how to process my images better and print them but that's all part of photography.

    and I'm not knocking film you guys that shoot film and scan it and are happy more power to you.

    Exactly like the previous poster said it's whatever floats your boat.
    leo_tam|1 and john_sevigny|2 like this.

  12. “Your making the right move, move ahead and don't look back.”

    There is no reason to ever take a photograph if there is to be no looking back.
    Looking back is what photography is all about.
    Without looking back it is pointless.


    stuart_pratt and jason_withers like this.
  13. Vincent Peri

    Vincent Peri Metairie, LA

    Once you start getting scans, you've gone digital, so that's a digital expense. Digital equipment is way more expensive than film equipment, then there are software expenses, computer/printer expenses, having to read 500 page manuals in order to use the cameras, then there is the time to edit the extra hundreds/thousands of digital images shot compared to film, etc etc.
  14. paul ron

    paul ron NYC

    digital is cheaper as long as you arent taking it too serious. to just get pix, photoshop them, then take them to wallgreens for prints on their million dollar machines for a couple bucks is the way to go cheap. software can get expensive but there is enough shareware and outdated stuff available for cheap. i have an ancient version of photo elements 6.0 registered copy i got at a garage sale for $1. works great on my old windoze Xp machine. good printers n paper n ink can add up... oh and lets not forget the time involved in archiving digital pix. external drives, clouds, raid systems etc. but since im not taking my digital stuff very serious, i dont care if i lose it all because my hard drive droped dead. i do put my pix on those memory sticks you get for a couple bucks.

    film can be expensive but you can cut costs just as easily. make your own rodinol n fixer using household chemicals. scan your negs on a cheap outdated epson, photoshop the scans and print in wallgreens. but the biggest difference, you have the physical negs archived for generations down the line.

    biggest difference between digital and film?.... digital technology changes fast. if jpegs arent supported you are skunked. if the media your pix are stored on isnt supported, you are skunked again. oh you can chase technology n convert as you go but consider how much you have to be converted by then.

    with negatives... put a neg on your belly n lay in the sun and you will have a beautiful tatoo.

    Moving On likes this.
  15. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    I guess that's what they mean when they talk about a "positive outcome." :D
  16. “Filmtats”.
    You just started a new millennial hipster craze......
  17. Vincent Peri

    Vincent Peri Metairie, LA

    Hmm... that means they'll
    have to start using film to
    get the negatives (or even
  18. Turning a negative into a positive.....
  19. People come to their own conclusions about what medium is best for them and they usually do so with good reasons, the OP being no exception. I'm shooting a 6x9 rangefinder now because a) I can still focus using a rangefinder but not an slr focusing screen, b) I live in a place where there are still labs and processing is cheap, and c) I find digital photography to be about instant satisfaction as Moving On said. And I still shoot a lot of digital but my heart is with film. The point is, debating the two is silly. People do what they do in the way it suits them to do it.
    Moving On and Sandy Vongries like this.
  20. sevigny-bike.jpg

Share This Page