120 Chrome Reality Check

[OCULUS New York]

Hi All,

I'm just back from the annual PPSNY (PPA/New York) Workshop at Hobart

College, near the God-head, Rochester. Despite a declining student

population, there were excellent instructors and quality sessions.

 

My film reality check came last night at the closing dinner, when

prizes and favors were being handed out. In the past, Kodak has sent

a couple of reps and propacks of Portra etc. This year everybody got

inkjet paper samples. From Fuji came a couple of small digi cameras,

some coolers and film. (You've probably guessed where this is going).

 

Anyway, near the end, one of the trustees asked if anyone "was still

shooting 120 chrome?" Of the 150 or so there, about a half dozen of

us trudged forward to get a couple rolls of Velvia 100. Nice, but

scary.

 

Then again, this is the middle-aged-plus wedding, family portrait

crowd (no discernable art photgraphy interest) but the paucity of

FILM users was downright disheartening.

 

Later, I was told that one girl at one table turned to someone there

and asked "What's chrome?"

 

Cheers,

Ray Hull

[cenelsonfoto]

Look, technology changes. How many friggin Model T units do you see rolling around the streets?

 

This feigning shock/surprise that some girl... GIRL... not spinster... should turn and ask "What's chrome?", I mean WOW! How dare she, eh!?

 

Really tired of seeing the frequent film-death-shock threads. Shoot film til yer blue in the face. I have no doubt we will have ample stocks of film to diddle our fetishes with for years to come, but eventually, it will become a thing of the past. BFD, move along.

 

Next?

[jorge_jimenez1]

Thanks Ray. I imagine that within ten years there will not be any 35 mm film by major manufacturers. I took stock of the trend recently when I was trying to decide if there was enough life left in the future of MF for me to buy a Rolleiflex 6003 to replace my broken SLX. I also have a complete Rolleiflex 35 mm system which I have not used in four years because digital has caught up with 35 mm. That's not to say that I won't use it ever again, but the frequency is declining fast. On the other hand, On a trip to Italy in 03 I carried only one camera. Not digital. A 1973 Rolleiflex 3.5F. However I did not print the pictures, I had the film scanned at high resolution and now we look at great memories on the big screen LCD. It is a lot easier than pulling out the 3801IR and the 8'x8' screen.

From my perspective, MF will be long in giving up its ghost to digital in the image recording stage. So, I will have the hardware to continue shooting film. I never liked paying to print all my negatives anyway since only 10% of anyone's pictures deserve printing. And contact prints are just too small. I think we are making progress.

[nickolystephens]

As long as there are film cameras in the population there will be film to be had. I have a neighbor with a 1969 Chevy Camaro SS - he just bought "BRAND NEW" headers .....

 

:)

 

Shoot Film!

[sliu]

I have two rolls of new Velvia 100 which I plan to use this weekend on my Holga 120N

and Al's Yashica-Mat.

 

My latest Kinaflex project on Bastille Day was shot with Velvia 100F:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CvGb

 

It is definitely not as cheap as my regular NPS/Portra 160NC (a roll of velvia + process

is more expensive than the $10 I paid for the Kinaflex). But sometimes I do give it a

shot because of the subject matter.

 

Again, it is just me, who never play by the rules ;-)

[matt_needham]

You can still buy 127, 620, 110, and sheet film. It seems unlikely that 35mm or 120 will completely disappear anytime soon.

[dan_fromm1]

CE, take your meds.

[cenelsonfoto]

Dan, they won't refill my script. Turns out I'm not crazy afterall; It's the world that ain't right.

[dan_fromm1]

CE, reconsider. Of course the world isn't right, but YOU could still be wrong.

 

More seriously, falling demand for color reversal film worries me considerably. That's what I shoot, for the most part. When the world's usage falls below the level needed to sustain film production and processing labs, no more will be made. And then what will such as me do?

 

Cheers,

[vivek iyer]

Dan, If all the film are going to disappear..

You should act on that scanner LF project you were thinking of and put your Grand lens to use!

[cenelsonfoto]

Dan - you misread my tone. I do not wish to see film go by the wayside, but this sort of thread does nothing to prevent it happening. I also did not care for the mocking tone regarding the girl who did not know what chrome meant.

 

As the technology changes, the old vernacular becomes foreign. How many kids these days have ever even seen a old-school carbuerator? Everything being FI nowadays.

 

That's all.

[paul_sauer]

My Nikon D100 has made me interested in film again -- not because I don't like it. I love

it. But because it got me in the habbit of shooting and it's made me realize how good an

optical b&w print can be vs. a digital print.

 

The beauty with film is you can have a camera with different performance characteristics

just by switching from Velvia to Tri-X. Then once you get into Tri-X, you can develop it in

different ways with different chemics, etc. to give it differnet looks.

 

I'm having fun with film -- so much fun that I bought a Fuji GW 690, Minolta Autocord,

and a Pentax 645. Too many cameras, yes, but no digital anxiety of having a latest and

greatest model make yours junk. The Autocord was made in 1956 and she'll always be

state of the art in my book.

[dan_fromm1]

CE, thanks for the clarification.

 

Oh the one hand, I remember being a youngster surrounded by old farts who were suprised at how little "the younger generation" knew. Since I remember that, now that I'm an old fart I'm not surprised at how little the younger generation knows. They haven't had time to learn much and they'll never be exposed to all that we old farts were.

 

On the other, I'm appalled at how few people, and of all ages, who claim to be serious photographers have reasonably complete toolkits. But if they're happy and, perhaps, making money, why should I worry about it?

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[OCULUS New York]

Hey CE, why don't you reread my post (post your writing a comment) and figure out who was being nasty. It wasn't I. But I'm sure, whoever she was, might appreciate your gallant chivalry.

 

Get real,

Ray Hull

[cenelsonfoto]

Ray - you are correct. I entirely misread your post. I apologize for my tone.

[scott ream]

I just pulled out some 6x6 and 6x7 Velvia and all I can say is that if chrome goes away then the world really is wrong! It is important to remember that the money makers right now are digital in the professional and especially in the consumer market. I just bought a D70 for wedding and personal work but nothing compares to picking up my 6x7 transparencies from the lab and putting them on the light table.

 

Scott

[michael_riggs]

I feel that film will be around as long as people demand it. However, since Kodak is going to end up with a total staff of about 10 people the rate they are laying off employees, I see their products going away in a few years. That will leave Fuji as the top dog, followed by Ilford, Agfa, Polaroid, and Maco. On that thought one thing concerns me, what will happen to IR film? Without Kodak, Maco would be the only IR film on the market, and it still has distribution issues in the US. Perhaps they would buy the color IR formula and keep it going. I hope.

[david_simonds]

Film is DEAD, DEAD, DEAD. That is why I just dropped $2k on a Nikon 9000, because those Velvia, Astia and GX chromes shot with Schneider/Zeiss glass and printed on Epson Velvet are drop dead gorgeous. I have a Nikon D70, too. It makes nice images, is great for the quick grab and prints remarkably well to the limits of my Epson 2200. But the Rollei 6008 et al will remain my big dog. By the way, I recently bought my favorite uncle a beautiful Kodak Bantam Special (bakelite body circa 1940). You can still get film for it. I am confident that my kids will still be shooting my Rollei after I am gone(unless they sell it for the latest GameBoy).

[markusglueck]

I'm younger than 30 and loooove my slides projected with an p66 from the seventies. There is nothing digital, that compares to that saturation and tonality. If E6 should really die, i will shoot bw slides. But I don't think Fuji is stopping their development for 120. Just think about all that refinements they introduced over the last couple of years. Fuji seem to be the only manufacturer that is really committed to 120. Why then should Ilford still use that ugly tasting lube on the closing strips of their films?

 

Cheers, Markus

[OCULUS New York]

Um, Marcus,

If you think that Ilford uses an "ugly-tasting LUBE" on their end of roll tabs, well, you might be "slipping." LOL.

 

That's Britain's finest peppermint, and they'll thank you for noticing the glue's taste. I actually think it's a nice touch, but not nice enough to make up for the undersized flanges on their plastic spools that caused edge fogging on their Delta a year or so ago. Just a silly millimeter difference caused me a lot of fogged edge grief--not only on their film, but on the next roll through the magazine, as Rollei uses the same incoming roll as the next takeup.

 

Cheers,

Ray Hull

[markusglueck]

Ray, of course I meant glue. :)

Oh well at least I have the laughs on my side. :)

[roger_michaelson]

I keep reading people that dont want film to go away. It is true that it is cost effective, for a person who shoots professionally and spends hundreds of rolls a month/year then it becomes economically efficient to go digital. I do fashion and I spend around 20 rolls a shoot. I still do not consider a digital back mainly because is not effective for me to spend that much money. I dont consider even a 16mp dslr because its still not justified and scanned film on (the soon to arrive in my house nikon 9000) is so much better than 35mm dslr. I like it at least.

 

I shoot Colour neg mainly because at school we have a darkroom for developing c-41s. I would shoot velvia because of its finer grain and nice contrast (for some things too saturated) but its not cost effective for me as I save more than 50% in film by saving its processing.

 

The point I want to make, whether is clear or not is, if you want film to stay for whatever the reason, go out and buy some now. If there is demand, there will be supply. Someone up there cant remember his name said that once the demand will force the supply to stop because it wont be economically possible to produce film, then film will die. But if we all keep buying film (at least untill its digital sister catches up in price, as quality is there if not better) then we will have silver for a while, long while.

[ilkka_nissila]

We do buy film, at least I do, lots of it. And it works great. My people prints from color neg are a lot better than my digital ones, and that's even with 35mm. When the light gets low the dynamic range of my digital is basically too narrow to photograph people in the shade (I don't want to talk about people in a tickle of last sunlight, yech) while 400UC produces the most incredibly beautiful results. And if I want a little classic punch to my pics, I'll make prints from scanned Velvia 100F.

 

There's not much point in whining about the reduced volume of film use. The key is to bring people to be aware of the situations where film gives an edge. The subtleties of film are definitely something to hold on to, once you master them. Digital is the big mag of photography - it keeps you alive but doesn't taste of anything. Not that it isn't good - I shoot loads of digital pictures but no way would I give up film for it.

 

If someone after panicking from these discussions wishes to donate me (or sell cheap) a 50 mm lens for Mamiya 7, I'll be more than happy to discuss it. :-)

 

Let's just keep using what gives us the best final end result and it will stay around. I had a plan of abandoning film after getting a D2X but after a while abandoned the thought of it as unbearable, after 15000 frames of digital shooting with the D70, and sick of having the same look to faces on every shot. Yes, I know how to use lighting but digital is no substitute for film. Neither is film substitute for digital. Let's hope we can create a sustainable balance.

[ilkka_nissila]

Meant to say Big Mac.

[tvih]

I started photography with digital, but I've grown to really like old gear. And of course, with old gear you shoot film. Personally I think, as others have said, as long as there are people who shoot film, there will be film available. Of course not as many kinds as there are now or were in the past - after all, more and more films seem to be getting discontinued. But the most popular ones will most likely survive for quite a while.

 

I'm currently considering getting some traditional B&W film stock for my SL66, to get rid of the 5 euros per roll cost of getting my C41 B&W films developed. Maybe I'll have more luck with developing myself than I had in the past... too bad I sold all my Delta 100 film last year, since I wasn't using them. Gotta get me some Tri-X and maybe Agfapan etc, and something like Rodinal to develop with. Good times :)

 

As for chromes, I'll shoot them right along with the B&W stuff. Since I now can change film backs unlike with the Rolleiflex 2.8 E2 I had before, it's easier to use both types, and not always have the wrong kind of film in the camera!