How many people here use film?

[jim_devlin]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not to pick on you, Sam, but your quote is a good example of why film being 'dead' for some folks does not equate to the end of film for all photographers. <br /> <br /> The situation you describe is pretty much where my wife is these days. She stopped using 35mm film two years ago when I gave her a point-and-shoot digital camera for Christmas. I checked the counter today and we have taken over 3,400 photos with it during this timeframe. Not every one is a keeper - in fact, I would say that maybe half are saved since she captures multiple images and saves the best ones. Still, this is a savings for us since she would have had to print all of these out in the past just to see how they came out, and the knowledge that she doesn’t have to pay to buy film and develop images has freed her to take as many pictures as she wants. <br /> <br /> My situation is different from hers. As I mentioned in an earlier post, my photography is more selective and is not currently constrained by the cost of film and developing - I shoot as much as I want. When the day comes that I make a serious foray into digital photography, I will be looking to obtain a DSLR outfit that is the equivalent to my current film SLR outfits. I value sharp images and frequently shoot in low light situations and love using my 50mm f 1.8 lens to achieve this, so I would want the digital equivalent of this fast prime lens (yeah, I know you can use image-stabilized lenses and higher ISO‘s to improve the images captured using a slower lens, but it‘s just not the same). For a Nikon owner, this means the $300 35mm F2 lens. This will also affect my choice of camera body and push me up into the more expensive options since this lens will not function fully with the lower-priced D40 and D60 bodies. I would also need to invest in at least one external hard drive to store my images, and if the digital bug truly takes hold I’m sure I’d want to get a decent processing/organizing software program like Lightroom. Long story short, I’d be looking at spending $1,500 to $1,800 to get the digital equivalent of the gear I currently own. The value proposition that would compel me to switch to digital is just not there right now.</p>

[jim_gardner4]

<p>Im almost sorry to keep on about this but i just cant understand why so many people are saying film and chemicals are hard to get. Obviously I dont know where you all live but here in England it is a simple case of choosing one of many suppliers, picking up the phone and saying "hi could you send me 5 rolls of this, 5 rolls of that, 2 rolls of the other and 7 rolls of something else and these chemicals please". Three days later they come in the post. I dont think there are any well known films that couldnt be ordered. Is it much harder than that outside the U.K?</p>

[jtayloreckstein]

<p>Jim, I think what you're hearing is people feeling inconvenieced. It takes a bit of planning, but here in the states, I know 2 camera stores within 20 minutes driving that stock what I need at reasonable prices if I need film (B&W or color) same day. If the application is not very critical, I know a number of drug store films which meet my needs as well.</p>

<p>If I know the holidays are coming up, for example. I know to order 5-10 rolls from Freestyle a few weeks in advance. I order most things I need to economize on over the Internet. Maybe that's a generational thing?</p>

<p>This works well for me, forces me to plan.</p>

<p>-Bonifaz</p>

[bruce_mattes]

<p>Film is not dead..</p>

<p>Film cameras have magic inside of them..Digital cameras do not..</p>

<p>Both types of cameras require the same amount of thought, technique, and talent in order for a photographer to produce a high-quality image that has the capability to WOW!! its viewer..</p>

<p>The cost of film is actually less when <strong>ALL</strong> factors are considered and weighed..</p>

<p>Film bodies used daily have lifespans measured in multiple decades, usually 3-7..With regular CLA's, of course..Digital bodies and backs that are used daily have lifespans that average, at most, 5-10 years..CLA's for digital are generally not cost effective, or in many cases not available..According to the informal data that I have accumulated, most digital photographic tools used daily wear out between 3-5 years after purchase..</p>

<p>Digital cameras are more convenient..They offer an immediacy that no film camera can..They encourage poor photographic technique by virtue of that convenience and immediacy..</p>

<p>Film has never been what could be termed convienient, especially compared to digital..As long as there were local, easy-to-access labs that could process film at medium-to-high quality levels, the relative inconvenience of film was acceptable..Especially, when there were no other alternatives..</p>

<p>To try and achieve the same colors and WOW!! factors in a print that a good color film, such as Velvia, has with a digital capture requires a stunningly huge investment in time, skill, and money..</p>

<p>When you add up the costs for the FF digital camera; the best lenses to accompany that camera; the multiple computers; the best large-screen, high-resolution monitors; the monitor calibrating software and hardware; the various post-processing software packages (usually 3-5, sometimes more); the high-end inkjet printers, the custom calibrating RIP's and other software for these printers; the custom ink sets for these printers; the high-end, high-quality papers required for a near silver gelatin realistic print; and all of the other ancillary hardware, software, and materials that I have not mentioned; one ends up with a price tag that rapidly approaches 200K..</p>

<p>I an not talking about your average inkjet print that simply looks good..I am talking here about inkjet prints done by a master printer that attempt to equal and fool the viewer into believing that they are a silver gelatin print done by an equally masterful wet darkroom printer..Two prints that viewed side-by-side would require close examination to tell the difference..</p>

<p>This is the Holy Grail the all digital photographers are striving for..For the amount of money required to duplicate a high-quality silver gelatin print with a start-to-finish digital capture system, one can purchase , used and new, an entire film camera / lens/ wet darkroom / film / chemicals / paper setup..And, afford to shoot an extraordinarily large amount of film, as well as process that film oneself..</p>

<p>What it will not be is as convenient, nor as immediate, as the digital system in the capture part of the equation..</p>

<p>The two systems are not mutually exclusive..I have both..I prefer film, especially for black and white, which is my true passion..</p>

[mike dixon]

<blockquote>

<p>When you add up the costs for the FF digital camera; the best lenses to accompany that camera; . . . one ends up with a price tag that rapidly approaches 200K..</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>And how many photographers purchase the best of everything digital for their own personal use? How many film photographers purchase top-of-the-line film and print processing machinery, enlargers, lenses, etc. for their own personal use? In both cases, the answer is very, very few. Most photographers, whether they're using film or digital, have others do their printing. </p>

<p>It's not difficult to get excellent quality prints made from digital files (printed on exactly the same types of paper and processed using the same chemistry as "optical" prints). I have $3 enlargements from digital files that are actually much better than $15 custom prints made from film.</p>

<p>For some shooting styles (involving a relatively low quantity of exposures), film certainly can be cheaper than using digital. For other styles, digital can be much less expensive than using film, even when costs of storage, backup, processing, and software are included.</p>

[derek_kennedy]

<p>In my town, the only black and white film you can buy is the c-41 stuff. If I want real B&W, I have to order it in - same with chemicals: none to be pruchased locally. So, yeah - inconvenient as all heck. There are 3 places here to get your colour film developed - an actual photography store, Wal Mart, and a gracery store. Wal Mart is getting out of developing film so that may just leave the two. Not that I care as I dont shoot colour film. Luckily the photo store still develops 120 if I need it.<br>

Must be nice to have a store locally to get b&w film at a moments notice! :)</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>If I changed technology every time someone invented something new, there would not be enough time to master the new medium before someone markets a newer one. If someone were to decide that the best way to make pictures is to bounce waves off the moon, or to do some other crazy thing, am I supposed to learn that too? To those who say "film is dead" I say " I soon will be too." So what? Use whatever you have at your disposal to make your work. I once saw a gallery show of drawings made with soot and spit on scrap paper. Wasn't bad. The medium is not important. But I would rather use soot and spit than a digital Hasselblad. Do you see inconsistencies in these statements? Good. They are there. Life is full of surprises.</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>About the quality of B&W prints using an inkjet. My 6 color inkjet gives B&W a magenta cast. Which, I heard is normal for a lot of printers. But, since I only use it for digital negs, that's okay. The lifespan of a film camera can be decades. I have a Kodak 116 that is about 90 years old. Still works fine. The digitals, I've seen comments from those who have at least one broken digital. Mine sure didn't last long!<br>

I saw an article in Photo techniques, that many schools use wet darkrooms because the enlargers,etc last for many years. While they said that with digital, software and other equipment, every 18 months. (their time frame)<br>

I can get any film from Kodak, Ilford and Fuji locally.They have slide developing in 2 hours. Also, chemicals. Untill recently, they stocked 4x5, 5x7,8x10 in sheet film,and Polaroid. They can order sheet film. When they had Polaroid, they supplied up to 4x5.<br>

My Epson printer, in very little time needs 3 ink cartridges at $20.00 a piece. Glad, I don't print color!</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>I am in the middle of a project using a laser printer with scanned negatives in B&W. the look is something that I would call totaly weird. The printer causes things in the picture that defies even the thought that is it Film or Digital. Can't we all just get along and develop our art in our own way not wanting 1 or the other to be the best just be the best at what we do and use/Try.</p>

<p>Larry</p>

[peter_ferling]

<p>Shouting matches aside, when you can no longer purchase film, then film will be dead. <br>

The entire issue is one of convenience and the systems available to the average comsumer. The biggest and most important revolution about digital technology has been nothing more than the relatively cheap $100 ink jet printer. Herein the adverage shooter can control the entire process and realize instant gratification without the hassle of film handling and processing. Even us pros have taken such advantage, and yes, our tools are bigger and vastly superior. However, the basic principle of do-it-yourself is the same.<br>

Why film is not dead is because digital technology has not yet fully matured. It's close, but not just yet. Digital has not been able to replicate the look of film, and just for the sake of it, some of us simply like to shoot with it, and also others have a huge investment in tools that use it.<br>

The original poster wanted to know how many of us are using WHICH technology, and I believe the answer is BOTH. :)</p>

[bob_himmelright]

<p>I use both, but prefer film for black and white.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Thank you. I see this is that Those who do it for a quick living use Digital.... I mean that as in those who do it for a living as their daily bread and butter.. and those who use film for the art of it ... use Film. I can't say that.... It just seems that another poll turned into something that is BS. We are all Photographers... I see many people using film and digital... I just don't see alot of them processing it like I do in my home.</p>

<p> I am old school I always thought you had to understand the Masters before you could begin to understand yourself. I was wrong. Understand Yourself then study the Masters.</p>

<p>Larry</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>"My 6 color inkjet gives B&W a magenta cast."</p>

<p>My HP 8450 printer has a gray ink cartridge that prints beautiful B&W. If you want to print B&W and color it is easy to find a printer that does a good job with both.</p>

[rdm]

<p>I use only film , both 35mm and 120, mostly 35mm. All color and an occasional roll of B&W . I use lots of different classic and antique cameras too. In fact i always have a Kodak signet with me in my car, loaded with Kodak 200 gold film. and a tourist with Kodak portra 400 film. My camera of choice is my Minolta X700 and all the lenses i have gotten foe it over the years since middle school. Non costing over 20 dollars (unless you count the 12 dollar 1.4 Rokkor i had a CLA done for 50 after i purchased it). I have not yet gotten a digital camera and still look out for one, but i never have allot of money handy, being a poor college student makes it hard to save. And so it looks like unless there someone that wanted to donate me a DSLR I'm not gonna have one for a long time. But Since i just learned One can change the body flange on a cannon to accept Minolta lenses, I wish i could find somone throwing away an old digital rebel ... haha.</strong><br>

Anyway, I use the schools scanners to scan my negatives and think i might have to invest in a scanner before i am finished with school. Because it sux not having access to one in the summer.</strong></p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>Marc, I'm sure your printer does print great B&Ws. But, since my prints need to be contact printed from some type of negative. I went with my Epson, because it prints up to 13x19". The printers in that size that have the gray cartridge seem to be in the $500.00 and up range. At,least the ones I've seen advertised.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>My last 3 scanners combined did not coast 500 bucks... I must live in a low life lane. My Printer is from Big Lots. good enough for preview the rest I send out to print for Color .. I do my own B&W in my little dark room I built in the closet. Scanning and printing yourself adds up to just the same thing. Time investment and if you do it wet or dry.</p>

<p> We can argue all day long but the fact is the tools are different but the results are the same. They are what you created.</p>

<p>Larry</p>

[luca_stramare2]

<p>If I had to take pictures for a living, I'd been digital. There are a thousand of reasons to prefer digital for business. Actually I am on the 4th digital camera for my business use, which means documentation of complaints.<br>

When my free time is considered, I am still shooting film. I went digital in 2003 and came back to film in 2005. It was not my cup of tea. Apart from having lost all my CDs (defective burner, I discovered five years later), I did not like all the post-processing, multiple backups, computer, printer, ... at the end I went back to my old slides. My post processing is throwing the slides on a light table, look at them, trash the bad ones, caption and file the good ones. And then arrange slide shows for my friends (which are shooting slides as well). I am a reflective photographer, I carefully plan my shots, visualize, compose, ... set exposure, shoot. This is the real joy. Sometimes I wonder I could enjoy nearly the same with a camera and no film inside. Since I don't shoot miles of film every year, I can still afford, and I have a good lab taking care of my rolls on the way between home and office.<br>

Today I just made a purchase of 200 Kodak Elite Chrome rolls, about 3$ each. Not all for me, I will keep about 40 of them (the amount I shoot in one year). All the rest are requests for my friend. Film is not dead, it has become something people use for the joy of it, not because they need to take a picture.</p>

[d_f11]

<p> Film all the way - practically ALL Kodachrome, with the exception of Ektachrome GX for springtime tulip-citiscape shots.</p>

[jason_inskeep]

<p>i started photography shooting digital as a way to show the world i saw to my family and friends back home. it worked well till i got better and reallized that point and shoot cameras suck and are not very responsive when i want them to be and really hard to control. so i bought a canon a2, 24mm 2.8, 50mm 1.8, 70-200 f4L. i had gone out my first time using it and was able to take more pictures that i liked with the camera and i wasn't fighting with the equipment as much. i could see what i was looking at ( i love the larger viewfinder, would go to a bigger format if i could afford it), and upon developing i am thinking that my film stuff was sharper and handled better than my ps digital. since i bought a very used 10 that i like but i always take about 400 shots with it only liking about half those then i have to cut out 2/3 of that bunch cause its all the same stuff over and over again. it also has this odd color shift too it and my 24mm that i love doesn't really do a lot for me on the 10D. the raw files are hard to deal with on my computer as you have to open them one at time and process them and save as jpeg just so you know what is what incase you want to go back to them later. i started shooting slides and nicer print films and i am actually happier with film than i am with my 10D. in all reallity i got a hand me down camera for free that i put a 50mm f2 smc pentax lens on, that and a roll of fuji sensia made me happier than the 10D and i was actually liking my results with almost as much as i like the results of my friends 1D mkII in terms of color and contrast and every thing. the only thing is i cant make as big of prints and i have to wait for my film to come back. i would love to go all digital but at the same time the initial cost for results that are as pleasing to me would be alot more than i can afford to do. so i shoot film and put up with the high processing/ scanning costs cause it makes me happier. i have my wide angle back, have nice color that i dont have to mess with in photoshop on a screen that i am not totally confident in, when i want to see my stuff i can just look at it. but 18-20+ dollars for 36 exposures is pretty rough. which is nice makes me be quite a bit more selective about what i shoot.<br>

so anyway i guess i am in limbo but more and more every day i lean towards just shooting a lot of slide and black and white print even though i know that eventually i will run up the 2000+ dollars in film that i would have spent on a 5d or a used 1d mk 2 or what ever or the 600+ dollar 1.6x crop sensor camera and another 600+ on a wide angle that would only sort of replace my 24mm 2.8. for me its the difference between shooting and paying a little at a time or shooting with something doesnt' really do it for me and not shooting to save money for somethign that does.<br>

jason</p>

[James G. Dainis]

<p>Luca,</p>

<p>I think what you said amounts to - If you need to take pictures, use digital. If you want to take pictures, use film. Not a bad philosophy.</p>

[luca_stramare2]

<p>James. Exactly my point, I need to take pictures for work and I do it digitally and i want to take pictures for myself, and I shoot slides.<br>

Actually a friend of mine said: "If I need to take pictures, I use film, if I need to make pictures, I go digital". But this is another can of worms.<br>

Anyway, I have friends who are living on photography: weddings, portraits, still life, some photojournalism, industrial image, catalogs, brochures, ... and the like. They have gone almost 100% digital, film is holding only in large format and black and white. Digital is the best answer in term of convenience and market standards. A photojournalist covering events with film will go out of the business quickly. A friend of mine shoots works for a local newspaper, he is always around covering local events, carries two DSRLs and each of them collects more than a hundred thousands shots per year. Usually the cameras die in 2-3 years because the shutter wears out or a knock sends them to heaven. Unmanageable with film. I also remember of an insurance agent shooting something like 50 rolls of film every week to document claims. He was always looking for the cheapest films and cheapest 1-hour labs. For him digital P&S were a blessing. <br>

But what makes me think is that the same guy, last time I met him and we had a good glass of wine, was off duty and he was walking around with a Rollei TRL loaded with BW film. This is the point to me. Digital kicked out film from the big consumer market: professional and casual (vacation) shooters. It remains a niche for advanced amateurs, people knowing what they are doing. We walked around chatting a little bit and he took 4 exposures in one afternoon, taking up to 30 minutes to compose one. That's photography for the joy of it.</p>

[dallalb]

<p>I still shoot film because I love different films color rendition and because film is... full frame! Then I scan my film and switch to the digital world. I'm an amateur and I don't want to shoot many pictures but the pictures that matter, so I prefer working on quality than quantity, and my mixed workflow gives me good results...</p>

[benny_spinoza]

<p>Ever notice how many of the discussions with the most participants are in the film forum! Must be the passion.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>I shoot both, but film is precious and requires discipline. I do not blast away and hope that 5% will be keepers. And I carry that mind set over when I shoot digital. Who want to sort through thousands of images to find a small number of keepers?</p>

[steve_lane2]

<p>I use both film and digital, although I much prefer film - specifically transparency. I have not shot print film for many years. Transparency, however, has something almost magical about it, especially when projected. My whole picture taking process slows down when using film, and I make sure my metering and composition are as accurate as possible. There is something really enjoyable about working like this. I know I could adopt the same policy with digital, but it just does not 'feel' the same.<br>

Cheers, Steve.</p>