Film quality then and now

[rodeo_joe1]

There's a reason pros before digital shot MF and LF, and that's because 35mm is a terrible format in regards to pulling information from, optically or with a drum scanner. Because somebody needs a desperate bone in the fight against digital and quotes anything they can find doesn't change how bad 35mm is in terms of commercial reproduction.

 

- Hear hear!

But some people just won't accept that 35mm film is a tool of convenience over quality. And many of those miniature-film users also berate digital for being too easy and convenient.

 

Cognitive dissonance rules.

[James G. Dainis]

I don't think 35mm film is a tool of convenience anymore. It is rather hard to find, not like before when one could buy some in the supermarket between the dog food and feminine hygiene products.

[Moving On]

I never bind fun to expedience......

;)

[Moving On]

between the dog food and feminine hygiene products.

Now we know what REALLY killed film!

[rodeo_joe1]

I don't think 35mm film is a tool of convenience anymore. It is rather hard to find, not like before when one could buy some in the supermarket between the dog food and feminine hygiene products.

 

- The more difficult film is to find, surely there's greater reason to use a decently-sized format and get better results?

[carbon_dragon]

Yes 35mm was definitely about convenience, even when their real competitors were large format cameras. You get more pictures, you have to enlarge, you need better lenses, and you can carry it around without breaking your back. It was a disruptive influence, but in a good way. I would never have carried around a 4x5, as nice as they looked (or an 8x10). I even tried an Olympus Pen, but the half frame was just too small for reliable 8x10 prints (at least for me). I guess APS-C and Micro 4/3 have proven that digital sensors can do a bit better with that same size than film did? It's all about the compromise you're prepared to accept. Now film is not so convenient, it's not the mainline way of getting images, but people may get enjoyment out of it, or even still use it as a photographic option for professional work, if they choose to do so. But now using film might be somewhat quirky in the same way I am using a Leica rangefinder. Maybe that's part of the fun for those of us who do this as a hobby?

 

For those of us who mostly converted to digital, I wonder what camera finally convinced you that you COULD rely on digital to get you the pictures you wanted? When digital ceased to be a toy and when it became a legitimate alternative (regardless of the scientific information analysis of the mediums)?

[Moving On]

What brought me to digital long ago was an Olympus Stylus for technical documentation at work.

The simplicity, quality, and ease of transfer via email made it an excellent tool for work.

[JDMvW]

Although things have changed since the OP was made, it's not been for the better. The only place in my town that I know of that still has film for sale is in the Walgreens between hearing aid batteries and nail clippers. It's next to where the C-41 processor used to stand. Only a few Kodak color negative films are sold.

 

No one here does in-house processing any more. Dwayne's is quick, but you can't browse the magazines while your film is being done.

[carbon_dragon]

I've been holding off shooting my frozen color film because I'm not quite sure where to get it processed anymore. I think it will have to be by mail. Sort of the opposite of convenient. Black and white I can develop.

[Moving On]

Dwayne’s.

Call ‘em.

You can save on postage by sending multiples rather than mailers.

[glen_h]

Although things have changed since the OP was made, it's not been for the better. The only place in my town that I know of that still has film for sale is in the Walgreens between hearing aid batteries and nail clippers. It's next to where the C-41 processor used to stand. Only a few Kodak color negative films are sold.

 

No one here does in-house processing any more. Dwayne's is quick, but you can't browse the magazines while your film is being done.

 

In Seattle, we have drug stores that sell film, I believe including TX, but yet mostly C41 films. They still do C41 processing and printing, in the store. And yes magazines to read while they do it.

 

Walgreens doesn't do film processing in store, but they do printing, usually from digital images.

 

But also, we have a real camera store with darkroom supplies, film and paper. I just looked at their web site, which indicated Ektachrome E100, 135-36, $11.95, out of stock.

 

And not so far away from that store, though unrelated, a lab that does C41 and E6.