Level of interest in film photography

[rossb]

<p>That GAF is a crazy film. Never heard of it before. I do like the photo and I looked at it for a long time. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>After GAF 500 was discontinued (not while it was still being advertised), one of the photo magazines labeled it the "worst slide film ever" but together with an f/1.2 lens you could get pictures that weren't possible any other way. Most digital whippersnappers have no idea how fast ASA 500 was in its day (and it could be pushed further).<br>

It came with what I call the G. Seurat 'filter': Pointillism at no extra cost<br>

I admit I did some color correction to the above slide -- most colors as it came back were in the magenta-brown range.<br /><br>

May the gods help me, I did love that film. Hi-Speed Ektachrome had some of its features, but not all.<br /></p><div></div>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>There is a level of resurgence of shooting film - maybe not a mass movement, but Ilford is posting decent results, prices on ebay for film gear have gone up and it's getting easier to buy film again, at least where I am.<br>

Given that a fair share of it are people who may not yet have a lot of experience with various emulsions, or in case of B&W combinations of emulsions and developers, there is quite some merit in looking online to get a rough idea of what it'll look like.</p>

<p>Since I fit the demographic of one that's terribly late to the film party, I know for sure I use the internet like this. I'm well aware that I'm looking at scans, and possibly edited files at that, but checking a number of photos of the film/developer I'm interested in does simply help a bit on deciding to put money into it or not.</p>

[jordan2240]

<p>In response to the original question, my guess is that visitors view the film gallery as 'real photography,' and the digital gallery as computer-manipulated. Whenever I am with non-photographers at a gallery, and they see a work that is attributed to 'digital photography,' they assume it was mostly the work of a computer. When a work is attributed to just plain 'photography,' no such assumption is made. Essentially, they see the film photograph as being more genuine.</p>

[rossb]

<p>I do not know if film sales is increasing or not but I will just keep on going with my FM2n.. Mostly shooting HP5 these days and process at home. I am independent of any labs which is good because there are none around. I will pick up another FM2n one of these days if I see one around. </p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I find myself more interested in the output of people who use film, as long as their photos are good. I can only follow so many people on Flickr.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am very interest in film photography but I have no interest in B&W photography. I found most of the film photographers tend to do B&W which makes sense but it's not my interest.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> I'm of the opinion that b&w is best done with digital - i.e. monochrome sensors. The original Leica M Monochrom is amazing. Colour is best done with film, if you can afford it.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My even-younger daughter is taking a high-school course in photography, and it's all digital.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> I agree with that strategy. Beginners really should start with digital. But if they really, really want to start with film, they should start with transparency film.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Don't we all secretly yearn for those "film vs digital" days of the past...</p>

</blockquote>

<p> In a way, yes, because I like to compare technologies. I don't tolerate BS though, no matter what the medium, and that can cause arguments, which nobody wants. One person showed 'evidence' that a 12Mpx APS-C sensor showed more detail than a 120 negative. I was going to call it out as BS but thought better of it. And one website compared a 120 camera to an APS-C sensor and of course the film camera won. But that is not a useful comparison.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yeah, I'd like to see someone rival or equal this GAF 500 slide with any stinkin' digital!</p>

</blockquote>

<p> That doesn't look too bad at all!</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Essentially, they see the film photograph as being more genuine. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's silly.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>As a viewer of photography, strong, well-made photographs that move and stimulate my imagination with the ability to release narrative, come from photographers whose life experiences, curiosity, imagination, skill, ability to see, understand light, context, withholding information, etc, are all able to come together in a synergistic manner. I've yet to be moved by the capture media chosen.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>I went to pick up a roll of E6 developed at a nearby lab, and arrived just after a friend of my daughter. She was picking up a roll of film and prints, I believe C41.</p>

<p>There are some from the next generation interested in film!</p>

[rossb]

<p>Well getting back on topic my level of interest in film photography has been lifelong. I got my first camera a Yashica rangefinder in 1968. I was taking photos of my military life using B/W film and processing from the PX on the military base. </p>

<p>Fast forward many years and I have shot B/W, color and slide film over the many years. Currently shooting mostly HP5 with my FM2n and enjoy the hobby. I enjoy the film itself, the process of developing and the finished print.</p>

<p> I do own a mirrorless digital camera and a cell phone. </p>

[rossb]

<blockquote>

<p>There are some from the next generation interested in film!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My son was in Grad School when he developed an interest in photography. So I packed up my D200, Nikon f2.8 zoom, Nikon 28-105 zoom, tokina 12-24 zoom and Nikon50mm f1.8. Along with sb600 flash, Domke camera bag, some filters with step up and down rings and misc camera stuff associated with the camera. Also I tossed in a Nikon F100 because he said he wanted to shoot film. I hated the D200 myself but used the F100 quite a bit.. Surprisingly he took the entire digital kit and sold it to KEH and bought a Contac G rangefinder, 3 lenses and a B/W film processing kit. He retained the F100 and the 50mm f1.8 lens. However he sold the flash which I thought was odd given it worked well on the F100.</p>

<p>Now he is out of grad school and teaching in San Jose and just shoots the Contac G1 camera exclusively. I asked him why he likes film and he said " there is no joy in digital". That was all he said and it seemed enough to me since I also have that lack of emotion for digital.. Anyway it's fun having a family member shooting film for me. We talk about film and camera's and all that. Obviously he takes pictures with his iphone as everyone does I imagine. That Contac has some crazy good glass. We are both going to be shooting some Japan Camera Hunter Street Pan 400 pretty soon. Well he is already shooting it but I do not get some also until I see him this weekend.</p>

<p> </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p><em>Conta<strong>x</strong></em><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

Sorry: I just had to correct it<strong><br /></strong></p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>My level of interest in film photography is gauged by the level of interest of labs to produce quality results.</p>

<p>Going by the results I got in the '70's and '80's the labs weren't very interested and I doubt they're going to be interested now. Consumer level processing lab's lack of quality control is what killed my interest in shooting film.</p>

<p>This thread supports this POV...</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00eBgV</p>

[rossb]

<p> Agreed on the labs. <br>

It's better to control the developing and processing of the film yourself. Which turns out to be the fun of it anyway. However time marches on nad with tech my mirrorless does not even need photoshop. Adjust the photo the way you wish it to be in the menu's and snap the picture and dump it into the computer and your done. Or click print is you wish. I do not see a hobby with that but others do. </p>

<p> </p>

[rossb]

<p>I left a misspelled word in the last paragraph by the way. It was intentional but I will try to leave won in each paragraph from now on. </p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>I've yet to be moved by the capture media chosen.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Cameras are for photographers, not for viewers.</p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>This has been an interesting read but I have to throw in my two cents. I learned photography on film, that's what there was. I learned the difference in color slide and negative, the differences in all the wonderful B&W films, the chemistry, all the other darkroom work. It was and still is great. I love doing it. Shooting a roll of film with even a good motor driven F-whatever makes me slow down, look at what I am doing, give it some thought and make an image. Using an RB67 is even better. It simply demands more of the photographer. I got away from film for a while when digital got reasonable but the last couple of years film has called me back. I am building a new darkroom, stocking up on film, chemistry, paper. I'm even thinking of doing my own E-6 again. Who knows, a 4x5 may follow me home this year. Digital is fine, bordering on the incredible. It is great in the newspaper business or what is left of it and I've gone to completely digital for wedding work. Still, for me photography is a lifelong passion and just because digital is handy doesn't mean it is the only way. A lot of us are putting film back in the work flow and kids who have never tried it probably ought to.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Tim, I guess you are referring to lab development of color film. For many shooting black and white film, home processing is easy and high quality attainable in negatives, scanning or silver prints.</p>

<p>No better and no worse than it ever was, if you don't mind accepting a somewhat smaller range of products. However, I photograph using only two different films, two types of papersand two camera systems so lack of a wider range of products is unimportant. </p>

 

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Yes, Arthur, I was referring to color negative print film, not interested in B&W processing. Never had any issues with labs botching the prints of my 35mm Kodak 5052 TMX B&W film negatives. If you screw up B&W film you might as well hang it up both professionally and as a hobbyist. </p>

<p>There are more words devoted to the love of equipment, process and capture media than the results they produce. That's a hobby I'm not interested in. </p><div></div>

[aplumpton]

<p>Tim, color negative film as you know has a lot more latitude than slide film, so exposure and lab processing unless really bad are lesser issues. But I rarely use them so I am perhaps not aware of all the problems. </p>

<p>Getting average quality B&W negatives from a lab is not usually difficult, but excellent B&W negatives are not at all as easily attainable by such routes, which is also the case for printing. I know of few labs that will do dodging and burning or other selective image controls within reasonable price range for B&W negs. It is all a question of how much quality you want and many committed B&W workers with film do their own work or have professional printers do it. </p>

[rossb]

<p>Since there are no labs, camera stores or a place in the county for any supplies at all I just shoot B/W film. It's my hobby these days. No C41 or E6 any longer. It is relatively inexpensive to shoot B/W film with home processing. I will probably spend $300.00 on film and chemicals this year. That will cover 200 feet of film which is about all I will be shooting. I do use my cell phone for pictures as it's the best way to share on facebook. Sometimes I upload a B/W photo of the Grandkids using the PC and in B/W. <br>

Anyway B/W is my photo hobby. I like the entire process from the film and camera to the developing process and finished print. It's very nice. It's also my only reasonable film option these days. </p>

<p>I just learned last night that Keeble and Schuchatt in Palo Alto closed up. The place is 65miles from the house and I went in the place a few times over the years but they had little a film shooter would want. I tried to buy a Domke F6 the last time I was in there maybe 2 years ago. They said they no longer sold Domke so I browsed around for a bit and left. I bought it on-line that night. K&S was not a friendly place from my perspective. </p>

<p>That started me on a quest to find a store that might sell stuff that I would want as a film shooter. I did find a store in San Francisco that is 110 miles from the house. They sell StreetPan400 which I would buy. They sell used film gear. The bad news is it's just to far to go. </p>

[RaymondC]

<p>In little New Zealand, film photog is near non existent here. Film cost are nearly 3x than USA and lab cost 2x. Walking around here, it's not improved, perhaps at other countries. On a film photog site, I read a survey that most of them shot b/w film. So with the OP saying the images were from Velvia and Provia ........ Maybe people used a "film" search field under Google? Are the images or keyworded as such? Maybe some people still think film is better than digital despite they are not being used by pro's ie - convenience over IQ. 2yr ago I had a chat on the bus with a colleague who works in IT - he wasn't into photog but he was surprised which I had to say it more than a few times to him he still believed 35mm film had the advantage even with things like wedding photography - I mean hey when many think of professional photography they immediately think of wedding. This was 35mm film vs 35mm dSLR, yes 2015. Maybe also they liked the saturated color style of slide film shot under daylight. There is a pro here, he's the Nikon Ambassador also but his film work look quite a bit different (Pentax 67) but now he is all digital (Nikon dSLRs). <br /><br />With Ektachrome coming back. Even taking USA prices $10US a roll and $9US for development and mounted I doubt I would shoot much but sure I may pick up a pro pack and give it a whirl.</p>

<p> </p>

[c_watson1]

<p>Survivalist strategies aside, shooting film in 2017 depends on how much of the support infrastructure survived the last decade--film, lab and camera repair resources. It's still functionally intact in Toronto and I happily continue to shoot 35mm and 120 C-41 and b&w. Film and lab service prices are up and access to processing has diminished in keeping with the residual market for film. Process and scan and development only are the only lab services I use. The 4x6 prints of yore are now pricey and often poor quality. DSLR scanning of 120 negs actually kept me shooting medium format. Inconvenience now seems to be film's biggest enemy.</p>

[rossb]

<p>I shoot a Nikon FM2n that was inexpensive to purchase. I will spend less then $300.00 on film and chemicals this year. I buy HP5 in bulk and it runs about $2.25 a roll. Maybe $0.50 a roll for chemicals. The camera was only $60.00 and I spent $50.00 on a CLA. No Leicas in my life. </p>

<p>I guess my point is what hobby could a person have that would be cheaper then that. And it's so much fun from start to finish. I took about 12 photos of my 2 y/o Grandson today. He is over until 4PM. Tomorrow I will take photos of my Granddaughter who will be 5 tomorrow. I will snap off some pictures of her blowing out the candles and opening presents. My daughter will take more photos then I will with her iphone. Her phone gives nice sharp and crystal pictures. She is better off with her iphone then a Leica M10 for multi thousands. The Leica would just sit in the bag but the phone is in her hands half the time anyway. </p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Film as a mainstream item is not really moving and shaking. But as a niche item it is doing better than it has in a long time. I see more and more articles about it's niche resurgence and experience it directly in terms of my fellow pros and enthusiasts using it now using it more than they used to. <br>

I think it is in a really healthy space and I think middle aged to younger people are *far* more positive on it's outlook than say retirement aged people. </p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>To add to the above, more personal experiences being <a href="http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=159470">cited</a>.</p>