Reflections on Film

[carbon_dragon]

<p>I shoot mostly digital, but I've been developing film and shooting film since High School in the 70s. Recently I've been taking out my film cameras to see if they still work properly by running some film though them. I have a bunch in my fridge and freezer. Since I converted to digital a lot has changed.</p>

<p>Kodak is in bankrupcy. There are no camera stores around to buy darkroom chemicals or gear from. There is no place to drop off E-6 for processing (I'm having to mail it off). C-41 is still done at drug stores but probably not all that expertly. I threw out my D-76 and fixer since I hadn't used it in so long. I didn't have enough stop bath though so I used the old indicator stop bath. I mixed new D-76 and fixer from the packages but they were long past their sell date (worked ok though). Then I had to remember how to load the Leica IIIf and the Contax IIA. Loading the Leica took about 20 minutes with the leader trimmer! Then I had to remember how to develop film properly (and find my old darkroom guide and my changing bag). </p>

<p>It all went well but it was quite an interesting experience after so long. Not sure how much more I will do, but I have so much film I'll probably try to work it off a little while I'm doing my digital. I have a NEX-7 on the way but I plan to use all my old film camera lenses (Leica M, Minolta, Contax/Yashica, maybe even my Contax rangefinder lenses) and use the camera in manual most of the time. It was kind of run really.</p>

[mfophotos]

<p>This is why the internet is so great. Freestyle Camera, Adorama, B&H, all sell the things a film photographer needs. Unless one is really tied into needing transparencies, E-6 films and development are dwindling due to the superiority of digital for those uses. However, Kodak Ektar 100 is a wonderful C-41 film. I still have my darkroom and use it for printing, but mostly use it for b&w developing, as I scan my negatives. <br>

There is a resurgence in interest in film among the younger folks that grew up with digital. It will still be a niche market, but it won't be disappearing. Check out the folks at Film Photography Podcast.</p>

 

[richard__]

<p>But it continues looking more dire every day:</p>

<p>Martin Scorcese to abandon film to shoot movies digitally<br />A long-term Scorcese collaborator conceded the collapse of film was “impossible to fight”.<br /><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/martin-scorcese-to-abandon-film-to-shoot-movies-digitally-7893449.html">http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/martin-scorcese-to-abandon-film-to-shoot-movies-digitally-7893449.html</a></p>

<p>Hopefully there will be enough of an art market for it that mitigates this rolling commercial bandwagon.</p>

 

[lachaine]

Funny, I just loaded some Fuji Superia this morning in my original Pentax K1000 bought new in the late 70's, for the first

time in many years. I've used film in other cameras as late as a few months ago, but not that one. I plan on having fun

with it tomorrow, but really, it's just for old times sake. Other than for that reason, I'm not sure there is anything left to

discuss, really. Given the fact that it mostly all ends up digital at some point anyway, who cares how it started out.

 

Well, wait a minute. That's not quite true. "Full frame" digital is well beyond my means, but a roll of film still costs what?

The price of a latté? I don't care about "image quality" that much. I just want the 35mm experience... with the lenses and all.

 

One thing has changed. There are no more fast minilabs anywhere near where I live. There are a couple of more enthusiast-oriented places though. They cost a bit more, but it's still manageable.

[carbon_dragon]

A Canon 5D mk I may be a relatively cheap way into full frame. Good camera, even if a little outdated now. Film is less

expensive but the cost mounts up. Probably in the space of a year if you shoot a lot you will end up paying out more than

the cost of that digital. There are ways to economize, 100' bulk loaded black and white film that you develop yourself.

That is pretty cheap.

 

But now, as I said you have to be DETERMINED because the tide is really against you. I can't just go down to Wolf

camera and buy darkroom chemicals or film (because they're all closed). I can't just go down to the local camera store

and leave my film for an hour and pick up the results. No. Now I have to mail it away and wait a week or two. That's even

harder than it used be, made doubly so because I know had I taken it with one of my digitals, I would just be plugging in

the memory card and bang, there are my images.

[carbon_dragon]

Just saw a couple of interesting things. First, while at the dentist, the last Wolf camera tiny little store I knew about which

closed recently was being cleaned out. I was just in time to see the C41 machine being carried out. Then I left a roll of film

at Walgreens only to be informed that they're taking their machines out sometime this year and going all digital.

 

 

You can still mail the film out to somebody out there, but turnaround will be poor. Probably less an issue if you're just

working for fun and most of the pros are probably either using much more professional labs or doing their own

processing at this point. I just don't do enough film to justify learning to process C-41.

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I did a calculation recently. I did a wedding earlier in the month and I shot almost 1,000 frames. I calculated that if I used b&w film it would have cost me well over double the cost of the camera rental.</p>

<p>Now, I prefer film overall, and I'll pay a premium for it. But the best colour film is movie stock and that is unobtainable at reasonable cost for still photography. I'm pessimistic not because labs are closing, but because the best films are too expensive. Just when I was getting my hopes up to shoot more film, I'm discovering that it might not be worth it.</p>

<p>Time will tell and I'm always ready to change tack. I have three or four decent 35mm cameras ready to go. Of course I'll shoot the odd roll of film anyway. It's a shame I can't make a habit out of it though.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>It's economy of scale I guess. Less film bought, more expensive. I can't deny I liked seeing that black and white film come out of the developing tank though. There's something tactile about it and there's a feeling of achievement you don't get putting an SD card in the drive. But the digital is so much more immediate. And seeing your work in the camera is a lot easier than having that feedback hours or even weeks later.</p>

[Member69643]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=20594">Karim Ghantous</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jun 29, 2012; 02:02 a.m.</p>

 

<p>I did a calculation recently. I did a wedding earlier in the month and I shot almost 1,000 frames. I calculated that if I used b&w film it would have cost me well over double the cost of the camera rental.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I used to shoot weddings, haven't done one in about three years now. Even back then though I'd seldom have more than 300 images. If I wanted to do it on film at $2.50 a roll, that's 25 bucks for film (360 exposures) and another $20 for developing and scanning. What on Earth did you shoot that ended up with nearly a thousand shots? I could barely fit 300 worthwhile shots in a typical 4-hour shooting assignment.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p> I did a wedding earlier in the month and I shot almost 1,000 frames. I calculated that if I used b&w film it would have cost me well over double the cost of the camera rental.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />Comparisons like this are pointless. You only took 1,000 shots because you could, not because you needed to.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

I don't know about weddings, but just shooting, it's almost a muscle that I exercise, lining up good compositions and then

shooting. With digital that comes without guilt. With film, I do it anyway but feel the guilt (and the expense). But the

expense comes from processing since I have more film in the fridge and freezer than I will EVER use including Tri-x,

Velvia, HIE, and Tech Pan. I suspect the HIE is probably aging badly. I'm going to try a roll to see.

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>What on Earth did you shoot that ended up with nearly a thousand shots? I could barely fit 300 worthwhile shots in a typical 4-hour shooting assignment.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You only took 1,000 shots because you could, not because you needed to.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My concise explanation: I worked from about 14:00 until midnight. I like to get maximal coverage. Some compositions need variations or multiple attempts to insure against camera shake, blinking etc. I'm sometimes shooting at 1/50 sec. at 200mm. I delivered over 400 frames to the couple. Some of those were variations of the same basic shot from which can choose their favourite.</p>

[wblynch]

<p>Steak cost more than hamburger. It also takes longer to cook.</p>

 

[plasma181]

<p>I shot 2 rolls of Portra through my FM3a at my nephew's high school graduation. That was about 2 weeks ago.</p>

<p>Film will be dying for a thousand years.</p><div></div>

[carbon_dragon]

Film's life is somewhat dependent on the chemicals being around to process it. It might live on in a small amount of

dedicated practitioners if Kodak and Fuji and Ilford went, but it might as well be dead. I hope that never happens.

 

 

As an additional note, some of my film from my fridge and freezer has come back and some show real deterioration.

Nothing wrong with the cameras but bad color shifts and other bad effects on the age of the film. I have to trash the stuff

in the fridge and only use the stuff from the freezer.

[jeff_z.]

<p>Nice shot, Robert!! Portra is absolutely great stuff!</p>