How many people here use film?

[tibz]

<p>I'm just wondering what the ratio of people who are using film to people who have switched to digital is.</p>

[kevin_surfane]

<p>I'm a film and digital user but I'll be moving completely to digital in 2009.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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!</p>

<p>Film is dead Fred and I stand by my numbers.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Just digital now.</p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[clay2]

<p>Still shoot, process, and print film. See my profile.<br>

Best regards,<br>

/Clay</p>

[dan_mcclain]

<p>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. <br>

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. </p>

 

[benjaminoliverhicks]

<p>Add one more for film and one more for digital.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[robert lee]

<p>Sure. Lots of B&W.</p>

[rob_wall]

<p>Sometimes.<br>

Love film, don't love scanning.</p>

[tibz]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I hate scanning too. So I print optically.</p>

 

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

<p>Just purchased 35 rolls of 120 "New TMY."<br>

And a new scanner.<br>

Best to Your Success in 2009!</p>

<p> </p>

[User_502260]

<p>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.</p>

[jim_a]

<p>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...<br>

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.</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>To preface my answer, I am an amateur; I take pictures solely for my enjoyment.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[terry_dent1]

<p>I shoot all film, color slide and black and white. Oh, I do use digital to take pictures of things I sell on ebay...............</p>

[shambrick007]

<p>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.</p>

[ian_mazursky]

<p>Im 99.95% Film. 645, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 (very soon) & 12x20.<br>

Color Negative & Chrome & lot of B&W.<br>

The other .05% is digital. My D200 is relegated to shooting products that are up on Ebay.</p>

<p>-ian</p>

[vincent_peri]

<p>I shoot film exclusively. No digital for me.</p>

[michaelging]

<p>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.</p>

[wentbackward]

<p>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).</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[patrick_mont]

<p>I will forever be FILM ONLY! Long live Kodachrome!</p>

[SCL]

<p>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.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[yann1]

<p>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).<br>

I love film</p>

[benny_spinoza]

<p>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.</p>