Is shooting with B/W film coming back strong ?

[rashedahmed]

<p>I have been following B/W shooting with film from last year (2012). It seems to me that it is coming back in a strong manner. Yesterday, I saw a commercial shoot (in a website ) of a real state company in U.S shot with a 4x5 Sinar X and T-Max 400 ISO b/w film. What an amazing details and contrast !</p>

[john_h.1]

An ancedotal event isn't indicative of a trend.

[c_watson1]

<p>Echo chambers like APUG.org can't seem to produce any data to support this view apart from anecdotes and scattered reports from Ilford. No one there likes to look at time series data, like that from the PMA that show how US demand for film products collapsed between 1999 and 2010 from 1 billion rolls/yr to 20million rolls/yr. Ilford's sales may be up but the same can't necessarily be said for film consumption overall.<br /> Please tell me how you quantify "coming back in a strong manner?" Truisms just don't cut.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Ah, the irony of seeing the two thread titles straight one after another: "Film coming back strong" versus "<a href="/casual-conversations-forum/00bEqe">Film is Dead</a>".<br>

Just how many threads on these subjects do we need? There is no data to support film is coming back, nor that it's dead. Is it so hard to just use whatever medium you prefer and enjoy that - without a need to see your choice/preference supported by some anecdote?</p>

[Member69643]

<p>It really doesn't matter does it? Digital-only, digital is god folks will say film is dead, there's no data to support your claim, and that you smell funny. Film lovers will eagerly nod with that glazed-eyes look that comes from using too much Tmax and never seeing grain.</p>

<p>Shoot film. Don't shoot film. Gods, the obsession with winning, or being "right" about trivial things is just plain sickening. Enjoy your hobby until you can't, then do something else. Take the dog for a long walk maybe.</p>

[john_h.1]

Two similarly themed threads merely appearing close in time isn't "irony" but all of these recent collective comments

about the alleged 'resurgence' of film appearing in general may indicate a trend... Wishful thinking or poor analysis.

Probaby both.

 

Film is around for people to enjoy if they wish. Its not dead. Its not resurging. Its that simple.

[vrankin]

<p>Film is very nice. I like it. I just don't use it anymore.</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>All my serious shooting is now digital. But, every now and then, during a full moon, I put on a black hoodie and sneak out the back door with my Olympus OM-1 loaded with chromogenic BW film. The neighbors don't suspect a thing......heh-heh!</p>

[c_watson1]

 

<p><em>"Two similarly themed threads merely appearing close in time isn't "irony" but all of these recent collective comments about the alleged 'resurgence' of film appearing in general may indicate a trend... Wishful thinking or poor analysis. Probaby both.</em><br>

<em>Film is around for people to enjoy if they wish. Its not dead. Its not resurging. Its that simple."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em><br /></em>Agree. Still love shooting 35mm and 120. As long as it's reasonably convenient and affordable to do so, I'll shoot it. But the parameters of convenience and cost aren't the same everywhere for everybody--that's what's not always understood.</p>

 

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

<p>"Film is very nice. I like it. I just don't use it anymore."<br>

Very well said Howard; I agree 100%.<br>

cb</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>But I do see where the illusion originates: E-6 is all but gone; instant imaging is all but gone; large format C-41 is getting difficult to find processing. So a lot of talk is about home processing B&W with a small amount of talk about home processing E-6 or C-41. And as far as I'm concerned... too much talk about the possible future revival of instant imaging products.</p>

[wayne_crider4]

<p>From all that I have read sales stabilized at a low volume a few years back and have been averaging one side or another to close to the high since. Apparently the plastic camera film crowd was a big factor in the stabilization. Professionals started using some film again ( a misnomer since nothing is really abandoned per se') after the era of the strong advent of digital mainly because it got the job done in a better way. Another indicator is sales of used film cameras of which threads are constantly popping up in various forums. Eventually they'll put film in them.<br>

While I shoot digital, I do any important landscape stuff on film. I also shoot b&w and develop and it's a pleasurable experience compared to sitting behind a computer screen. I need to move about.</p>

<p> </p>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>I also shoot b&w and develop and it's a pleasurable experience compared to sitting behind a computer screen. I need to move about.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you say so. Personally I regard darkroom work and so-called "lightroom work" (in front of a computer) as somewhat the same sort of experience, the tiny differences being that (1) my cat can cuddle in my lap while I'm editing photos, (2) I can occasionally stretch and look out the window at a beautiful view, (3) I can take telephone calls more easily, (4) my fingers don't get cold, and (5) I don't emerge from the work session feeling like a mole. But that's just me. I admit I do sort of miss darkroom work, but I would also miss lightroom work if I had to stop doing it. (I guess computers don't bother me the same way.)</p>

<p>EDIT: One cool thing that will never come back: I once had a habit, long ago, of doing my darkroom work while listening to CBS Radio Mystery Theater on the shortwave out of Shreveport, LA. That was pretty cool. I once listened to a back episode over the Internet while doing lightroom work, but it just wasn't the same. There's something about the dark that transforms those old programs. :-)</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Er... but I think that was on the AM band, not shortwave.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>Two similarly themed threads merely appearing close in time isn't "irony"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ah well, I saw some irony in it. Made me smile, anyway. Otherwise, fully agree with conclusion.</p>

[ann_overland]

<blockquote>

<p>Yesterday, I saw a commercial shoot (in a website ) of a real state company in U.S shot with a 4x5 Sinar X and T-Max 400 ISO b/w film. What an amazing details and contrast !</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is cool, Rashed! :-) </p>

[mendel_leisk]

I can see a few reasons:

 

 

1. Nice, and very inexpensive film cameras can be found.

 

 

2. Shooting black/white forces you into black and white mode, unlike desaturating a full color raw image.

 

 

3. Since availability of processing is getting spotty, home processing is coming to the fore more, and black/white is quite easy to do.

 

 

Anyway, I picked up a Pentax K1000 in nice shape, just before XMas, and found a source for Tri-X and chemicals, so am giving it a go. ;)

 

Moderator: how come the site's ignoring carriage returns? (can't make lists, paragraphs)

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"I once had a habit, long ago, of doing my darkroom work while listening to CBS Radio Mystery Theater on the shortwave out of Shreveport, LA. That was pretty cool. I once listened to a back episode over the Internet while doing lightroom work, but it just wasn't the same. There's something about the dark that transforms those old programs. :-)"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sarah, coincidentally I've been listening to this old radio programs a lot the past year or so, including the CBS Radio Mystery Theater last night.</p>

<p>I still love radio and listen to shortwave and AM a lot. But there ain't much out there anymore, less all the time other than China Radio International and the notorious Firedragon jammers. Incidentally, some of those shows were carried on shortwave via various relays from America (the Armed Forces Network even produced its own short-lived "Macabre" series), Radio Australia, BBC, South Africa and a few others. But most of them were broadcast on regional mediumwave AM stations.</p>

<p>And along the merry lines of the endless film vs digital debate, I'd say it's safe to call it ironic rather than coincidental that I listen to those old radio programs via the web on my PC. You can find hundreds of those radio shows on the <a href="http://www.archive.org/">Internet Archive</a>.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Rashed, if you become tired of the dismissive remarks and pessimism here about "echo chambers" in the guise of frankness, you may find a few specialty film oriented Flickr groups and apug.org more supportive.</p>

<p>Many of us film and traditional darkroom fans are well aware of the realities, but we don't see any constructive purpose in continually discouraging others and farting in a closed car.</p>

<p>There are still plenty of folks enjoying the hobby and sharing solid constructive information, as well as encouraging experiments, and welcoming young folks who are new to the craft as well as older folks returning to film and the darkroom now that they have more spare time.</p>

<p>For the devoted naysayers, there's a difference between fertilizing a delicate plant and continually pissing in other people's Cheerios.</p>

[keith selmes]

<p>My film photography has been a small black and white revival for several years.<br>

I suppose I had not done any for maybe 10 or 20 years, and then started again a few years ago.</p>

<p>I learned to do my own processing, but have never progressed to colour, which looks to be more fiddly. Meanwhile lab processing is harder to get now, and probably means sending away, so I just haven't done any colour. Colour film languishes in the fridge.</p>

<p>So for me, usually, digital is colour, and film is B&W.</p>

<p>I don't know if I will ever do any more colour film, but I hope to do quite a lot more B&W.<br>

Pity about Efke, but I have some Shanghai 5x7 and 4x5 to get on with.</p>

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

<p>Lex-if you like old time radio, try this. I listen to it on iTunes.<br>

<a href="http://www.20thcenturyradio.com/">http://www.20thcenturyradio.com/</a></p>

<p>enjoy!</p>

<p>cb</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>Since availability of processing is getting spotty</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>There has never been a point in my life that one can get commercially developed C-41 at such a rock bottom price. 35mm C-41 goes to Sam's Club. Everything else goes to Walmart (E-6, 220, 120, etc). Well B&W gets developed at home. Seriously 88 cents to develop a roll of C-41 120?! What in the world do people want? FREE????</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>I have been following B/W shooting with film from last year (2012)</strong>. It seems to me that it is coming back in a strong manner.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lol! One whole year?! Analog photography has been around since the 1800s. My advice would be to do a longer survey. Commercial use of film will NEVER be anything like it used to be. Stop in to a local camera store and talk to any of the old timers that work there. Back in the day pros would come in and drop THOUSANDS on new equipment like it was nothing. That same stuff is selling for pennies on the dollar on eprey in mint condition. As someone else noted these threads never get started with long term numbers quoted from a high quality source. What probably happened is someone told you no one uses film and now that you actually bothered to verify that remark you have discovered it was false. That doesn't mean film is experiencing some kind of insane resurgence. The stories of stabilization and either a much lower decrease or a slight increase seem plausible. Dead? No. Strong resurgence? Highly unlikely... frankly I'll just change that to a no.</p>

<p>FYI lately I have been shooting film more than digital.</p>

[john_h.1]

There may be naysayers, Lex, for the sake of being naysayers but, in this instance, the poster appears to be asking a bona

fide question and has recieved legitimate feedback (by some anyway).

 

As to irony of listening to old radio broadcasts, its no more so than listening to digitized music recordings or viewing

scanned photos online. Having to resort to the internet to argue that radio communication is more effective would be

more so.

[jon_mullen1]

<p>Rashed, I too like using film as a medium, but find that a digital camera is more forgiving and convenient to use. Every now and again I will defrost some 120 or 35 and woo the subject/s that deserve the devotion that comes with using film.<br>

I do miss the low speed transparency film that once was more than readily available through the 70's and 80's (ASA25) and the simplicity of just posting the exposed roll and eagerly anticipating the slides to be posted back. A delightful system that I relished almost as much as fine dining.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>And along the merry lines of the endless film vs digital debate, I'd say it's safe to call it ironic rather than coincidental that I listen to those old radio programs via the web on my PC. You can find hundreds of those radio shows on the <a href="http://www.archive.org/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Internet Archive</a>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>... and they're fun to hear, Lex. However, somehow nothing compares to the magic of a weak signal (static, pops, occasional whistles when trying to re-tune) on a tube radio from a station many hundreds (in the case of the Shreveport broadcasts) or thousands of miles away. I still have my tube-type Hallicrafters and Zenith shortwaves. I think the Hallicrafters still works, although it's been years since I've pulled it out. It's in the attic next to my Kodak Model A condenser enlarger. :-)</p>