Who developes your film?

[JDMvW]

According to some people, I didn't take "hundreds of CRAP SHOTS" on film, I took thousands. Ah well, I Yam what I Yam.

[mike_halliwell]

In terms of getting it 'Right in Camera', shooting transparency film is the most demanding.

[Jochen_S]

I 'd still rely on German mass photo finisher Cewe, IF(!) I re-entered a mood desiring their products. Reaching one of their distribution partners doesn't require putting on real shoes.

Hitting the outsourced color mood seems hard to me, pretty much like trying to live childhood dreams, maybe not even my own, now.

Sure, I 'd flip through the envelopes full of 4x6"s. On a good day I might stuff multiples into a shoe box but where is the joy or purpose?

 

When I ordered CDs in the past, these seemed kind of expensive, especially for the low Photo CD resolution.

I am pretty much tempted to ship the slave labor of "mid res scanning everything and the kitchen sink" to a low wage country. Scan Cafe comes to mind, but no, I haven't tried them. I also don't know who 'll just soak my rolls but I assume hiring somebody, who replenishes their chemicals, might be more feasible than trying my luck with the Jobo.

 

I am more excited about shooting and more or less home processing BW. (Late Winogrand is probably an example for "less"?).

[warren_wilson]

What a nice moment of nostalgia this thread provides. I was one of those guys wearing glasses and blinking in the red light of the high school dark room, trying to wind 40 exposures onto a 36-exposure cassette and marvelling at the magic of the chemistry. It reminds me of those little notebooks I later carried to record the f/stop and shutter speed of each shot so that when the transparencies finally came back from the lab I would be able to ponder the variables: assuming the numbers on the slides corresponded with the numbers in my notebook.

 

My photographic learning curve skyrocketed when each exposure was essentially free, the pertinent information was burned into the metadata, and the feedback on exposure, composition, lighting, white balance etc. was immediate. Some sort of arcane nostalgia is the only reason I’d have any interest in shooting film today — just as if someone offered me the chance to play with some wet collodion plates.

[JDMvW]

If he thought lenses had got to the 'highest levels of perfection' in 1984, he was a tad wrong there...!

 

And yet somehow, so many lenses are still Double Gauss.

[mike_halliwell]

so many lenses are still Double Gauss

Based on, maybe!

 

But with computer lens design, new glass compositions and lens coatings, things have got a lot, lot better.

 

Maybe I'm weird (!?) but I don't classify the flawed images made from much older lenses in a positive light.

 

It's easy to make a flawed image from a 'perfect' one... the other way around, not so much.

[CvhKaar]

it is often the combination of imperfections in lenses, with irregular grain of film (which cannot be produced digitally) and paper ,personal chemical processes and the knowledge, and experience and skill of the photographer are the basis that elevate the results of analogue photography to works of art.

 

Digital photoraphy can also produce true works of art, but totally different from the analogue processes.

 

Though processes techniques means and materials are very different For me both , in my vision are important as a separate art-form.

[mike_halliwell]

with irregular grain of film (which cannot be produced digitally)

If you can see it, it can be reproduced digitally.

[Mary Doo]

If you can see it, it can be reproduced digitally.

 

A few years ago DXO gave away a "film pack" of several film effects that can be applied to digital images. I downloaded it for curiosity and it was interesting. Now it has many different film effects but it is not free. I am not sure if the emulations are close enough though.

[Niels - NHSN]

If he thought lenses had got to the 'highest levels of perfection' in 1984, he was a tad wrong there...!

AA talks about science, research and makes it sound like optical "perfection" is objectively qualifiable - which it isn't, of course.

 

Regardless, I'm not sure that he was entirely wrong if you consider the capabilities of the recording medium at the time. Optical advancement in the film era beyond 1984 came with cost of other optical qualities - ugly donut shaped OOF of aspherical lenses in order to make a perceived sharper image, for example.

Yes, you can argue that a 80-200mm zoom was better in 1999 than in 1984, but I don't think AA was thinking about zooms when talking about optical perfection - if you wanted a "perfect" 200mm in 1984, it was available.

 

The digital paradigm-shift made it meaningful to advance further, but in the film era - I tend to agree with AA; optically 1984 is close to the peak of perfection and nothing truly meaningful happened until the digital era, IMO.

Edited June 22, 2022 by NHSN

[mike_halliwell]

As in, as 'perfect' as film needed...;)

 

and, yes, high MPix sensors moved the goalposts!

[CvhKaar]

If you can see it, it can be reproduced digitally.

If you REproduce it you first need an example or template, and then it is not an original nor is irt irregular ...

[glen_h]

 

(snip)

The disconnect between using the camera and seeing the result, together with the rest of the faff involved with film, makes for the worst possible learning experience. It's like expecting a painter to learn to paint with their canvas, brushes and hands hidden inside a large box that stops them seeing the result for a week.

 

(snip)

 

When I first started working with computers, I would punch programs on cards on day,

and get the results the next day. One result was that I got better at getting programs

right the first time. Thinking more about what I was doing.

 

It seems to me that, at least some, in the digital age just take as many picture

as they can, and hope some come out. That is, minimal thought about what they

are actual doing, or trying to do.

 

Actually, though, I rarely look at the little LCD screen. There are only so many

things you can tell looking at it. (Though having the color balance completely

wrong is one of them.)

 

As well as I understand it, Kodak came out with a new Super-8 camera.

(Well, it might also have a digital camera inside, too.)

 

In film (that is, movie) school, as well as I know, they still teach film, and

so students need to learn how to use it. Even more, to learn to think film,

what works and what doesn't.

 

But yes digital is fun, and normally when I take a film camera, I also take

along a digital camera.

[Mary Doo]

It seems to me that, at least some, in the digital age just take as many picture as they can, and hope some come out. That is, minimal thought about what they are actual doing, or trying to do.

Think digital shooters who do not care much about what they are shooting, or don't know what they are doing, would behave the same way in film. However, digital encourages the photographer to experiment more - especially the more creative stuff that they would probably not want to "waste" film on because these typically require multiple attempts and one needs immediate feedback to determine if there's a need for additional effort.

 

One major advantage is digital provides the opportunity to shoot adequately for action photography (e.g., sports and wildlife, especially birds) to retain the best shots. People did that too in film days, except the disadvantages were plenty, especially due to the ISO/ASA and the 36-shots/roll limitation which led to the retention of a few usable shots out of one roll.

 

Film is nostalgia. There's nothing wrong with that. But it's really not related to superior skill or knowledge.

[rodeo_joe1]

It seems to me that, at least some, in the digital age just take as many picture

as they can, and hope some come out.

There's a thing called "Working the shot" that involves trying different angles and ideas. With the aim of working towards the most safisfactory/pleasing composition or picture that most closely fits the brief or concept.

 

With film, I found that I reached a certain shot and instinctively knew it was 'in the can', and moved on. But of course, any subject presents an almost infinite number of viewpoints/lighting/moods - for want of a more precise word. So maybe rather than the 'perfect' shot, perhaps my attitude with film was more "that'll do". Nowadays I certainly burn a lot more frames per subject, and with much less of a "that'll do" attitude. It's usually a loss of good light, or an impatient companion that drags me away from a subject, rather than thinking I've explored all possibilities. Whereas with film it was the mental till-ringing 'kerching' of my wallet emptying with every shutter press that stopped me!

[glen_h]

Think digital shooters who do not care much about what they are shooting, or don't know what they are doing, would behave the same way in film. However, digital encourages the photographer to experiment more - especially the more creative stuff that they would probably not want to "waste" film on because these typically require multiple attempts and one needs immediate feedback to determine if there's a need for additional effort.

 

One major advantage is digital provides the opportunity to shoot adequately for action photography (e.g., sports and wildlife, especially birds) to retain the best shots. People did that too in film days, except the disadvantages were plenty, especially due to the ISO/ASA and the 36-shots/roll limitation which led to the retention of a few usable shots out of one roll.

 

Film is nostalgia. There's nothing wrong with that. But it's really not related to superior skill or knowledge.

 

When I was young, especially for 7th and 8th grade yearbook photography, I would buy 100 foot

rolls from Freestyle for $5. So I didn't have to worry so much about the cost, but still tried not

to waste film so much.

 

The cost of SD cards per shot is amazingly low. I usually figure there will be some cost in

time looking through them, so the price isn't quite that low. I suspect that I do take more than

I would for the cost of film, but not a huge number more.

 

Reminds me of when I was young, and visiting D.C., my dad told me how to tell when

the Washington monument is open. Look for flashes coming out the windows.

 

So, yes, there is experimenting when you are somewhat unsure, but have good

expectations of the result. And then there is just not caring much at all.

 

The cost of film gives a little incentive to not wasting it. Some people need some incentive.

Some are disciplined even when the cost is low, some are not, even when it is high.

[Niels - NHSN]

I've got a nice collection of auto focus and manual focus camera bodies and lenses and I'd like to start using up my freezer full of dated C41, E6, B&W CN41 and a few rolls of specialty film and I'm looking for someone to develop the film. I don't need high quality, what I'm looking for is 4x6 or 5x7 prints and a disk with the scanned negatives. Among my bodies I have the Nikkormat FTn, FT3, FM3a, FM2N, FM, F3HP, F100 and F5 plus some really nice Canon and Minolta bodies and a few lenses. After shooting my stockpile of film I'll get rid of most of my gear and go 100% digital.

I am in EU so can't help with processing suggestions. I have a neighbourhood lab for C41, and do all BW myself.

 

The value of well kept film is high (check film prices if you haven't recently) and your cameras are also in demand.

No need to feel obligated to use them, just because you have them - they would quickly find a new home on ebay or through local classifieds.

I would personally keep a favorite camera and lens and a dozen or two rolls of film - film photography is satisfying in a complementary way to digital imagery. It is not necessary either/or.

Edited June 23, 2022 by NHSN

[Mary Doo]

Some are disciplined even when the cost is low, some are not, even when it is high.

Dunno, I would tend to think that the cost of one's time is an important factor. It would be silly to shoot indiscriminately unless deemed necessary - the punishment is doubled when one needs to extract the desirable shots from a sea of rubble. In this respect it was much easier back in film days as one just needed to toss the undesirables into the trash can, instead of having to browse through the images, import them etc.

[CvhKaar]

what springs into mind also : Ican stilluse my analogue (film) camera's from the 1980's with their lenses , bellows etc.

Older ( just 15 yoear old digitale camera-s are "outdatedïn different ways, the software used ( windows 7) the operating systems used ( also windows 7) the sensors used canno longer be replaced the edited nef files ( more current ones use a "sidecar" the edits) become problematic with current post software, etc. loads of "chalanges" for the shots that are only 10 - 20 years old, whre i can still use the negatives and slides from over 50 years old perfectly, the newer digital files ( on oold 500Mb harddisks or "floppies"are troublesome ...

[Ken Katz]

Lightroom has no problem reading the RAW files from my Canon D60, which was introduced about 20 years ago. My machine is running WIN 11. Don't have any Lightroom edits from back then since I only started using it about 11 years ago. Don't think you can imbed edits onto a native slide or negative, but I haven't used film in a decade and 1/2 so maybe I am missing something.

 

I have nothing against anyone using using film or any image recording / processing / printing technology they choose. I look at the images not the process.

Edited June 23, 2022 by Ken Katz

[James Bryant]

The Zeiss 80mm planar purchased with my Hasselblad 500c in 1972 is still a top quality lens. My best lens is a Zeiss Otus 85mm f1.4 in Nikon F mount. Its image quality shows up in both film and digital.

I use both film and digital and find each has advantages depending on the circumstances. I also visualize differently when I am shooting film v. digital. One of the best things I learned from Ansel Adam's books is visualization before I take the image.

[glen_h]

(snip)

 

Older ( just 15 yoear old digitale camera-s are "outdatedïn different ways,

(snip)

 

Last year I bought a D1X for $40. It came out 23 years ago for over $4000.

 

It does have enough resolution for most uses today. I read the files right

off the CF card, and don't use any special software.

 

But yes it is outdated, antique, or whichever, but it is still fun to use.

[BeBu Lamar]

Last year I bought a D1X for $40. It came out 23 years ago for over $4000.

 

It does have enough resolution for most uses today. I read the files right

off the CF card, and don't use any special software.

 

But yes it is outdated, antique, or whichever, but it is still fun to use.

 

I have a D1X and I found I prefer the pictures from the CP5000 more. Both cameras are 5MP. The CP5000 was only about 2 year or so newer.

[c_watson1]

"...it was much easier back in film days as one just needed to toss the undesirables into the trash can, instead of having to browse through the images, import them etc"

 

Problem is, the flub shots cost the same to process and print as the keepers. Switched to process and scan--only service years before picking up a digital camera.

[glen_h]

(snip)

 

Problem is, the flub shots cost the same to process and print as the keepers. Switched to process and scan--only service years before picking up a digital camera.

 

Well, you don't have to print them all.

 

I have lots of negatives from the early years that I never printed.

Also, some from 7th and 8th grade yearbook photography that I might have printed

but the prints ended up with the school.

 

So now I can scan them and post them for everyone, and especially my schoolmates,

to see so many years later.

 

Now people know that anything can end up on Facebook, but 50 years ago they

didn't know that, but now they appear!

 

Otherwise, with 35mm film you don't normally splice out of the middle of a roll and

throw it away. And most don't come out so bad, anyway.

 

When I was young, color prints were pretty expensive. But then by 30 or so years ago,

the price came down. It was usual to get double prints and not worry about ones that

didn't come out.

 

When I first started black and white darkroom photography, I still remember 55 years

later, 3x5 reprints were $0.07 for black and white, and $0.22 for color.

 

Now, 55 years later and with much inflation, you can get color prints,

and 4x6 at that, for less than $0.20, sometimes $0.10.

 

Or scan and view on the computer screen.