Film is still hard to beat

[smithy]

Hard to beat?

Changing ISO in a flash. Instant results (no mailers, no waste). No chemicals. No 10,000 slides to store and manage.

Not that hard at all.

You're talking about convenience not quality.

Excuse me? Did you not write, "Film is still hard to beat," as the title of your post? I don't see "quality" in there, do you?

How's about being SPECIFIC and NOT opening a can of worms next time, huh?

And for the LAST time, to everyone, QUALITY is subjective. Hello?

Well in the first place it was kind of a rhetorical question. I liked the colour quality to the shots I had taken with particular film types that are a result of the emulsions used in the film. If you had bothered to read the thread you would have known what I was talking about.

I'm not stupid, I know that film is more expensive and harder to process or are you suggesting I am? Put away the claws, please.

I did read what you wrote. How does that in any way, shape, matter or form limit my comments, hmm? What, do I have to run my opinions by you first?

You might not mean to come across as being aggressive, but it certainly reads like that. We're pretty laid back here, even when we disagree with each other. For all-out war, go register on an Apple forum or something.

 

[pwp]

The only thing I miss about film is the great conversations photographers had with each other once or twice a day at the E6 film lab. That was nice.

Recently I looked at some files of premium level drum scans from 6x7 Velvia shot on an RZ67 that I used to think were the bees knees. They looked awful compared to what I'm shooting today on 1D4 & 5D3, and would be surpassed easily by the old 5D Classic.

Film does deliver certain unique characteristics, but certainly not ones that I have any willingness to continue to explore. I've always gone by the rule that "Content is King". Most (not all!) photography today leaves the work from previous decades gasping for respectability. Go and take a look at photography books and magazines from the the 1970's, 1980's & 1990's. Then try to convince me that Film is Still Hard to Beat.

PW

 

[Richard8971]

I would have to say that film vs. digital is that digital has given the masses the chance to really learn photography and I think that really chaps "filmies"

I mean, when I was growing up, I wanted a Canon AE-1P so bad, but the cost of cameras and lenses were out of my leauge, not to mention that one-hour photo shops were almost unheard of. The learning curve was massive. You did not know if you got a good shot (if you shot manual) until you developed your film.

Now comes digital. You can see the image as soon as you take it and can instanly make changes and now anyone can learn how to take a photo (outside of using "auto") and have it be affordable. One example being is if I need to switch my speed of film, I simply change my camera's settings (ISO) and not have to switch out a entire roll of film. Not to mention, on a 16GB card I can store 800 photos!!! Come on... I mean really. Your average person carried only a few rolls and they contained what? 24? 36? shots per roll? : (Let's see... math... 800 divided by 24 {average shots per roll} is 33 rolls!!!) Oh, and I can swap memory cards in like 5 seconds if by chance I run out of room shooting in a morning and they can STILL fit in my front pocket.

With digital, a journalist can take a photo half-way across the world and sent it back to his/her editor in minutes, if not seconds. Do THAT with film.

If you choose to shoot film then so be it, but in MO film is going the way of the 8-track, super 8, beta tape, records, lazer disks... It is simply being replaced by a superior tecnology. Before long, any leftover superiority of 35mm film over digital will be long gone.

D

 

[Deleted member 42026]

One example being is if I need to switch my speed of film, I simply change my camera's settings (ISO) and not have to switch out a entire roll of film. Not to mention, on a 16GB card I can store 800 photos!!! Come on... I mean really. Your average person carried only a few rolls and they contained what? 24? 36? shots per roll? : (Let's see... math... 800 divided by 24 {average shots per roll} is 33 rolls!!!) Oh, and I can swap memory cards in like 5 seconds if by chance I run out of room shooting in a morning and they can STILL fit in my front pocket.

Yup, totally agree with that as much as I'd defend film where I can.

I've shot well over 2400 shots in day shooting sports and stuff before (haven't done it since though). But how many rolls of film would that be? Oh, lets say at bare minimums at least $1300 worth!!!!! Not a chance in hell I could have afforded to do that.

I was taught on film, before any other options were available. But will only shoot medium format film now, and no I don't shoot much of it. Darkroom access is also getting harder to come by.

 

[itsnotmeyouknow]

I would have to say that film vs. digital is that digital has given the masses the chance to really learn photography and I think that really chaps "filmies"

I mean, when I was growing up, I wanted a Canon AE-1P so bad, but the cost of cameras and lenses were out of my leauge, not to mention that one-hour photo shops were almost unheard of. The learning curve was massive. You did not know if you got a good shot (if you shot manual) until you developed your film.

Now comes digital. You can see the image as soon as you take it and can instanly make changes and now anyone can learn how to take a photo (outside of using "auto") and have it be affordable. One example being is if I need to switch my speed of film, I simply change my camera's settings (ISO) and not have to switch out a entire roll of film. Not to mention, on a 16GB card I can store 800 photos!!! Come on... I mean really. Your average person carried only a few rolls and they contained what? 24? 36? shots per roll? : (Let's see... math... 800 divided by 24 {average shots per roll} is 33 rolls!!!) Oh, and I can swap memory cards in like 5 seconds if by chance I run out of room shooting in a morning and they can STILL fit in my front pocket.

With digital, a journalist can take a photo half-way across the world and sent it back to his/her editor in minutes, if not seconds. Do THAT with film.

If you choose to shoot film then so be it, but in MO film is going the way of the 8-track, super 8, beta tape, records, lazer disks... It is simply being replaced by a superior tecnology. Before long, any leftover superiority of 35mm film over digital will be long gone.

D

You do realise that much of what you see on TV has been recorded on Beta tape don't you? Beta wasn't better than VHS, VHS just won the marketing war. Beta and its successor Digital Tape (which is based on Beta) is far superior to VHS.

On the other side of things, yes film is more convenient, and yes it is easier to learn at the beginning as you see your results. Does it make us lazy though? I believe to an extent it does: shoot away and it can be fixed more easily in post so many don't bother to get it right in camera. I shoot all medium format in film mix of black and white and Reala/Ektar 100. There are still some qualities that I like in the film that isn't present in digital. Other views will vary of course

 

[smithy]

You do realise that much of what you see on TV has been recorded on Beta tape don't you? Beta VHS wasn't better than VHS Beta, VHS just won the marketing war. Beta and its successor Digital Tape (which is based on Beta) is far superior to VHS.

On the other side of things, yes film digital is more convenient, and yes it is easier to learn at the beginning as you see your results. Does it make us lazy though? I believe to an extent it does: shoot away and it can be fixed more easily in post so many don't bother to get it right in camera. I shoot all medium format in film mix of black and white and Reala/Ektar 100. There are still some qualities that I like in the film that isn't present in digital. Other views will vary of course

I edited your words to help your post make sense

 

[itsnotmeyouknow]

You do realise that much of what you see on TV has been recorded on Beta tape don't you? Beta VHS wasn't better than VHS Beta, VHS just won the marketing war. Beta and its successor Digital Tape (which is based on Beta) is far superior to VHS.

On the other side of things, yes film digital is more convenient, and yes it is easier to learn at the beginning as you see your results. Does it make us lazy though? I believe to an extent it does: shoot away and it can be fixed more easily in post so many don't bother to get it right in camera. I shoot all medium format in film mix of black and white and Reala/Ektar 100. There are still some qualities that I like in the film that isn't present in digital. Other views will vary of course

I edited your words to help your post make sense

Oops don't know how I managed that. Thanks!

So this is what I meant:

You do realise that much of what you see on TV has been recorded on Beta tape don't you? VHS wasn't better than Beta, VHS just won the marketing war. Beta and its successor Digital Tape (which is based on Beta) is far superior to VHS.

On the other side of things, yes digital is more convenient, and yes it is easier to learn at the beginning as you see your results. Does it make us lazy though? I believe to an extent it does: shoot away and it can be fixed more easily in post so many don't bother to get it right in camera. I shoot all medium format in film mix of black and white and Reala/Ektar 100. There are still some qualities that I like in the film that isn't present in digital. Other views will vary of course

 

[markd61]

Those are beautiful images.

What is ironic is that the scans from your negs are probably better than what can be achieved by optical printing on photo paper.

When I first started scanning negs on a Kodak RFS 3570 back in the 90's I was astonished to see the dynamic range of the scans that far surpassed the quality of printing conventionally. I was able to create prints from my scans that left my clients speechless. The best part was when they took their negs to other labs and could never get prints to equal the range in our prints.

 

[paul13walnut5]

Some days i'm in a film mood, some days I'm in a digital mood. The digital days outweigh the film days probably at least 100:1 these days, but I still have a film camera and some film waiting to be used.

My decision is based on liking to shoot black and white with chromagenic film now and then, I love xp2 and 400cn.

The grain is lovely, quite pronounced, yet doesn't get in the way of detail, quite unlike digital noise, the contrast and gamma scale is totally different too, and the biggest bonus of all: I can optically filter the lens.

When I've tried this on digital the results are very flat - post-processing being better for digital mono's- but a red or yellow or occasionally green filter over my lens renders my viewfinder 'momo' to all intents and purposes, certainly it makes it far more easy for me to see in mono: with an unfiltered viewfinder I struggle to see visualise a good mono shot.

There is the argument of shooting RAW with the mono picture style on (giving me a mono live view, but colour RAW if I really need to tweak) but I find this less immediate, ironically.

My shots on film tend to be more rigorously planned an executed, I think technical merits of the medium aside, film forces you into a different way of working : sometimes it's great to have space for 500 RAW files at 8fps. Other times it's great just to take your time. Not that this is exclusive to film users of course.

I'm not looking to be corrected as it really is just an opinion and it is what works for me, but thats the point, these debates always come down to which is 'better'. I reached the conclusion that they are different, and folk who write one off against the other are potentially missing a trick.

On the Beta / VHS debate (It really isn't the same thing, Beta / 16mm would be a better comparison) VHS won out because it was cheaper to make, had higher profit margins and the studios got behind it.

Beta was technically far superior (component colour vs composite colour) but the decks were more costly and the distributers never really got behind it.

I have a Sony J3 deck (pro betacamSP/BetacamSX/Digibeta) which still gets daily use and a JVC S-VHS deck which is used occassionally, normally for friends looking to dub their 1980's holiday videos to DVD.

Ultimately, Beta derived formats won.... Which reminds me, I have 2 rolls of S8 ektachrome I need to use up!

 

[gary samples]

do they still make film?

 

[dr croubie]

do they still make film?

Making it isn't the problem, everyone here still sells it, even the local supermarkets and Big W.

It's the processing that's a bitch, I get my normal-colour and colour-B+W (like Tmax) films done at the 1 Kodak Express between here and Melbourne, even they can't do slide (like Velvia) so they post it to someone else. The 'true' B+W films like BW400CN I get done at another shop called (funnily enough), Black+White Photographics (who also, funnily enough, do process Velvia and slide films).
Besides those two shops there might be another one or two around the place, if they close then it's postage to Sydney or Melbourne or start mixing my own chemicals...

 

[paul13walnut5]

@drcroubie

Think you got your true and colour bw films mixed up there old chap: 400Cn is chromagenic (c41 process) TMax's are old school mono.

 

[slclick]

My EOS 3 just kicked the bucket and took me out of the film business (for a while) unless you count 120 Holga which I next to never shoot any longer.

 

[sagittariansrock]

"Film is still hard to beat"--not cost-wise.

I dunno, I just got my EOS 3 off ebay for $150 shipped.
at $12 a roll of film plus $8 developing, how many rolls do I have to shoot to equal a 5D3 body?

100 rolls, or 3600 shots.
For a professional, probably 5 weddings (or less)?
So, a 5D3 pays for itself pretty quickly.
Maybe you should argue about other advantages of film?

 

[slclick]

"Film is still hard to beat"--not cost-wise.

I dunno, I just got my EOS 3 off ebay for $150 shipped.
at $12 a roll of film plus $8 developing, how many rolls do I have to shoot to equal a 5D3 body?

100 rolls, or 3600 shots.
For a professional, probably 5 weddings (or less)?
So, a 5D3 pays for itself pretty quickly.
Maybe you should argue about other advantages of film?

Film is expensive. That is a given. But a bigger issue for me is space/darkroom availability. I'm accustomed to too professional of facilities from Community College to have a go (again) at a home setup. The only darkroom to rent is 12+ miles away with limited availability. So besides the fact that my film body just broke, it's not the real problem here, it's infrastructure.I have a ton of film, paper, toner, and other goods to produce alternative prints but just not the place. Oh, send it to a lab you say? And who is going to do my dodging and burning? My toning? .....I won't scan unless it's drum scanning and it's just not available here. I love it, I am very passionate about it but it's just not feasible. Maybe when the kids move out, lol.

 

[pwp]

Wow another resurrected 2012 thread singing the praised of film on the same day. What's going on? Must be a Kodak led conspiracy. This has been solidly argued for just about all of this century. I thought the dust had settled.

Re: Film is still hard to beat...nah, Film is so easy to beat. It was ten or more years ago, it was in 2012 and it is today.

-pw

 

[N2itiv]

........

Re: Film is still hard to beat...nah, Film is so easy to beat. It was ten or more years ago, it was in 2012 and it is today.

-pw

Get a clue, pw.
Film is still practical w/much to offer. People w/your opinion are a laugh because no matter what you say film just won't die. The message an image conveys is more important than medium. That holds true w/digital. Portra, Ektar, and other film brands have improved greatly since the years you've used it. Professionally or otherwise. Digitize it and you can do the same w/it as one can do w/an dslr.

Most members here do photography for their enjoyment. What you or I think about what gives them pleasure isn't our business. I use both. I used film as a full time professional through the end of '08 and will use it again as I re-enter business. There's no difference between a film dollar or digital dollar. Get real and quit being a killjoy.

 

[Ozarker]

........

Re: Film is still hard to beat...nah, Film is so easy to beat. It was ten or more years ago, it was in 2012 and it is today.

-pw

Get a clue, pw.
Film is still practical w/much to offer. People w/your opinion are a laugh because no matter what you say film just won't die. The message an image conveys is more important than medium. That holds true w/digital. Portra, Ektar, and other film brands have improved greatly since the years you've used it. Professionally or otherwise. Digitize it and you can do the same w/it as one can do w/an dslr.

Most members here do photography for their enjoyment. What you or I think about what gives them pleasure isn't our business. I use both. I used film as a full time professional through the end of '08 and will use it again as I re-enter business. There's no difference between a film dollar or digital dollar. Get real and quit being a killjoy.

While film isn't completely dead, it is mostly dead. The fact that when I go to Walmart and can only find one brand, one speed, and only in color... and the fact that they no longer process the medium tells me that film is mostly dead. It is a niche market just like vinyl records and jiffy pop popcorn.

Now, can anyone recommend a good 35mm black and white film I can get from Adorama or somewhere? I just got a 56 year old Voigtlander Vito CL (mint condition) that I want to play around with. Also, I need a good recommendation for where to process. Got rid of all my amateur darkroom stuff 20 years ago.

In my opinion, film is easy to beat because it is so got dang scarce and cumbersome to find processing. Yes, I could process it myself, but I don't have room for a darkroom setup.

With digital, things move at lightning speed and I can get any look I want... including a film look, whatever that is.

 

[d]

Get a clue, pw.
Film is still practical w/much to offer....

Film is practical? Ha! You have to have to buy it, unpack it, open your camera, fit it inside correctly. Then 24 or 36 images later you rewind it, open your camera and remove it, store it, install your next roll, then 24 or 36 images later...

Took a group photo...did anyone blink...dunno, no way to check. Take some more photos just in case...

Do I need to talk about the development process? Scanning to obtain a digital version?

Doesn't sound like a very practical medium to me, when with a digital camera I can snap, review, upload, edit and print a bunch of photos in practically no time. And with the low cost of computers and cameras these days, it doesn't take many photos at all before you come out cheaper than an equivalent number of film images.

I do like film and still shoot it occasionally for a bit of fun, but I don't think it has much to offer these days other than warm feelings of nostalgia. Practical, it ain't.

d.

 

[N2itiv]

........

Re: Film is still hard to beat...nah, Film is so easy to beat. It was ten or more years ago, it was in 2012 and it is today.

-pw

Get a clue, pw.
Film is still practical w/much to offer. People w/your opinion are a laugh because no matter what you say film just won't die. The message an image conveys is more important than medium. That holds true w/digital. Portra, Ektar, and other film brands have improved greatly since the years you've used it. Professionally or otherwise. Digitize it and you can do the same w/it as one can do w/an dslr.

Most members here do photography for their enjoyment. What you or I think about what gives them pleasure isn't our business. I use both. I used film as a full time professional through the end of '08 and will use it again as I re-enter business. There's no difference between a film dollar or digital dollar. Get real and quit being a killjoy.

While film isn't completely dead, it is mostly dead. The fact that when I go to Walmart and can only find one brand, one speed, and only in color... and the fact that they no longer process the medium tells me that film is mostly dead. It is a niche market just like vinyl records and jiffy pop popcorn.

Now, can anyone recommend a good 35mm black and white film I can get from Adorama or somewhere? I just got a 56 year old Voigtlander Vito CL (mint condition) that I want to play around with. Also, I need a good recommendation for where to process. Got rid of all my amateur darkroom stuff 20 years ago.

In my opinion, film is easy to beat because it is so got dang scarce and cumbersome to find processing. Yes, I could process it myself, but I don't have room for a darkroom setup.

With digital, things move at lightning speed and I can get any look I want... including a film look, whatever that is.

I've already stated I use both, so I understand them both well. Anyway, back to your post.
Film users are a thriving community, however, obviously not equal to the # of dslr users. What do you really expect to find at Walmart film wise? Go to a real camera store like B&H where you will get the best prices.(and over 200 entries for available film) Do you do all your camera shopping local? Film is no different
Read the reviews there and select whatever ISO's you need.

Scarce? Do you get out in the internet world much? Not trying to give you a hard time but this is much too simple. Here's a link: Do your own homework. You'd be surprised what's still available.
http://www.digitaltruth.com/labs_services.php?doc=custom . You may also want to see apug.com for other film suppliers.
Here's a couple others not listed: PhotoTech labs in Richmond, VA. Moon Photo, and Panda Photo Lab in Seattle, and Richard photo lab. Good luck!