How many people here use film?

[a._t._burke]

<p>Real men still shoot film. </p>

[vijay_nebhrajani]

<blockquote>

<p>Real men still shoot film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I shoot 8x10, so I must be a <em>real</em> "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.</p>

<p>Yeah, right.</p>

[ian_watson1]

<p>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!</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>For prints large format film. For the internet digital.</p>

[mark_punch]

<p>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</p>

[mike dixon]

<p>To answer your question, I, like many others, use film <strong>and</strong> 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.</p>

[ian_tindale]

<p>Looking for a certain ratio?</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>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....</p>

[douglas_vitello]

<p>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.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>100% film 99% B&W 1 % color.. of that 1% 99% Slide film 1% negative film</p>

[hclim]

<p>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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.</p>

[stephen_schoof1]

<p>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.</p>

 

[larrydressler]

<p>I am also small but I can carry my weight in Nikons.... :) It must have been my Milatary training.<br>

My Kiev 60 is always with me on a field trip along with the Nikon N90s and about 5 lenses.<br>

Film is a passion not a survival tool so I lift weights to be able to carry my passion. LOL</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Larry</p><div></div>

[peter_fitzsimons]

<p>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.</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>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.</p>

[bogdan_nicolescu]

<p>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:)...</p>

[don_e]

<p>Probably a lot, considering it's a film forum.</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

[tin_ho]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[Paul Lewis1664881697]

<p>100% film, 99% color slides</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p >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.</p>

<p > <br>

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.</p>

[applesanity]

<blockquote>

<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.<br>

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!<br>

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

</blockquote>

<p>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%?</p>

[jim_gardner4]

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

If you enjoy film get out there and use it. </p>

[silverscape]

<p>Uh oh. Here we go again.<br>

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 <em>they'll</em> all be digital. Or you might get some new members who mostly lurk, and they will post their first topic just <em>because</em> they saw this one. <br>

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 <em>because</em> they specifically wanted to say that they use digital or that they wanted to make comments like "film is dead."<br /><br />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. <strong>The mere fact that there is an active Film form means that a lot of people use film</strong>. All your going to do is draw people from digital forums, who of course are just going to say "film is dead" blah blah.<br /><br />What you're asking is like going to a bicycling forum and asking a question like "oh, so how many of you <em>still</em> like riding mountain bikes....or have you switched over to a scooter yet?" </p>

[silverscape]

<p>...Actually, I take it back. It looks like most people like using film. On a film forum, imagine that :)<br>

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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. </p>