How many people here use film?

[tibz]

<blockquote>

<p>I probably shoot 80% digital and 10% film.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>^Apparently some people cannot add.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[User_4525289]

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

<p>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?</p>

[matias]

<p>Only Film -- 99% slides</p>

[arnold_friend]

<p>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 <strong>can</strong> beat the images from the D200.</p>

[roman_p]

<p >Thanks James for providing more comprehensive calculation. Seems to me that digital is all about money and spending. Not much of photography… </p>

<p >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. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >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. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >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. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >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? </p>

[stp]

<p>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.</p>

[frank.schifano]

<p>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.</p>

[jim_devlin]

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

[peter_ferling]

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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

[berni_landau]

<p>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.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>I shoot digital for quality. I shoot film to take pictures of all the old film gear that I am selling on Ebay.<br>

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. <br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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. <br>

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.</p>

[richard_pellom__long_live_]

<p>Film, Film, Film and only film.</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>Peter, that's an absolutely gorgeous picture!</p>

[the journey]

<p>contrary to popular belief, Film is not dead.<br>

Rollei Infrared, Pan, Techpan<br>

Fuji Reala 500D, 64D<br>

Kodak 5363</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>If film was dead why would Freestyle still be making more money than Ford?</p>

[peter_ferling]

<p>Marc, I'm buying those film cameras off ebay for cheap :) Got a working T90 for $50.<br>

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.<br>

Below is a digital sample.</p><div></div>

[jim_gardner4]

<p>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?</p>

[jtayloreckstein]

<blockquote>

<p>If film was dead why would Freestyle still be making more money than Ford?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Whoa, didn't know that.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I shoot 95% B&W with 5% color, of that 5%, 99% is color negative, 1% is slide. That Portra stuff is amazing.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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..</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Film to the last reel, be it Chinese or Czech.</p>

<p>If you say film is dead, when will you say that cropped digital sensors are dead?</p><div></div>

[jtayloreckstein]

<p>Just as a note, the camera is 40+ years old, not the picture. The Fuji stuff is new to my knowledge.</p>

[fld]

<p>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!</p>

 

[frank.schifano]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

[sam_s6]

<p>My local retailer is selling less and less film. They sell Ilford paper because of the local University has photography classes.<br /> 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.<br>

<br /> P.S. I can't believe Photo.net is keeping this thread alive so long....they must be desperate for ad revenue.</p>

[patrick_mont]

<p>FILM IS NOT DEAD!</p>

[jenny_jaques]

<p>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! )<br>

FILM - yep - love it - and the way it works.</p>

 

[derek_kennedy]

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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.</p>

<p>For me, film is NOT dead. It just took a bit of a holiday.</p>