Film is still hard to beat

[slclick]

I don't hear anyone saying film is better just that it has taught certain individuals particular skills and competencies with regards to elements of photography. It seems to be the non film responders who have the attitude that the film people are starting a competition, an us vs them. Reading comprehension is something they should review as this is not what has been posted here.You can try and argue how foolish shooting film is in the age of digital but you do nothing but paint yourself as inflexible in thought and acceptance.Film has been there besides digital for me since the 300D came out. I appreciate each for what they offer me and how I can use them. Different tools and different mindsets for a common art form. You would think with film being the predecessor of digital photography it would get a bit more credence, respect and understanding since it laid the foundation for where we are. Why people feel the need to belittle certain choices, basically come out and tell others they are a fool is nothing but sophomoric...your digital soapbox is unbecoming.

 

[YuengLinger]

I don't hear anyone saying film is better just that it has taught certain individuals particular skills and competencies with regards to elements of photography. It seems to be the non film responders who have the attitude that the film people are starting a competition, an us vs them. Reading comprehension is something they should review as this is not what has been posted here.You can try and argue how foolish shooting film is in the age of digital but you do nothing but paint yourself as inflexible in thought and acceptance.Film has been there besides digital for me since the 300D came out. I appreciate each for what they offer me and how I can use them. Different tools and different mindsets for a common art form. You would think with film being the predecessor of digital photography it would get a bit more credence, respect and understanding since it laid the foundation for where we are. Why people feel the need to belittle certain choices, basically come out and tell others they are a fool is nothing but sophomoric...your digital soapbox is unbecoming.

Your reasonable, balanced view is not a target. It's the laughably pompous who disdain digital photography the same way Vegans abhor consumption of industrial cows. It's those who have announced that they eschew a Canon or Nikon sensor because 1's and 0's can NEVER be tools for creating "art."

Those who claim a digital photo can never capture a subject's humanity, for instance. They are stating a falsehood for one, and also they are belittling the efforts and products of many other photographers.

On the other hand, I understand the value of discipline imposed by having a small number of available exposures on a roll of film, a discipline further extended by no chimping, being forced to wait hours or days for the results of efforts. So, in this light, learning to use film has a place in schools.

It isn't film being skewered, it's an attitude.

The effete, arrogant fops in any realm, be it architecture or cooking, are often ridiculed.


The only people worse than photographers who claim digital has no soul are those who knight themselves as "humanitarian photographers." But that's another topic, sort of.

 

[N2itiv]

I appreciate that you are enthusiastic for the analogue medium - that's fine, and as I've already stated I sometimes still run a roll through a camera as well. However you know nothing of my background or experience, yet attack it as if having some insight - kindly desist.

I chimed in on this discussion because of your brash response to others ("get a clue", "get real") and claim that film is "practical w/- much to offer". Yet rather than inform on what those practicalities could be, you've made a series of silly claims and ill-informed, subjective criticisms that speak more to *your* own insecurities and desire for bravado, seeing as those are the terms you've chosen to use.

I started off in the studio shooting film in large format view cameras - I've done the whole develop/scan/retouch/print thing, and fail to understand how you can argue this workflow results in you enjoying more "quality time" compared to a digital workflow?

Is it because you're outsourcing the processes beyond the camera? Digital makes it even quicker to get an image into the lab. Or is it because you've achieved your shot sooner due to the constraints in having a finite number of frames for capture, while the digital shooter invariably has hundreds or thousands of frames to work through later? I don't think so - modern digital cameras and their features like live-view, tethering, EVFs, CDAF , histograms etc. make it very easy to achieved a desired result with very few clicks of the shutter. If time actually is money, surely then film is not a wise investment? I'd say digital is the more practical (and profitable!) option here.

You're right, I didn't mention card or hard drive failures - I don't tend to worry about them. My camera has dual card slots, so each photo has a backup made at the time of capture. After shooting I can remove one card for safe-keeping as well, and once I've uploaded those images onto my computer, more copies are made. These days, storage is cheap. I can buy an external hard big enough to store my entire library of images for around the same cost as shooting and developing a half dozen rolls of 36 exp. 35mm film. I have three such drives, tucked away in different locations. After a couple of years, those drives will be retired and replaced with some that are no doubt of larger capacity, and likely lower priced as well. I hope your negatives are stored somewhere secure, and you're around to grab them should fire, flood or theft threaten! Perhaps you have them stored in a safe? How much does a decent safe cost? I guess only having a single copy of something isn't all that practical!

[/quote]

Yes, outsourcing, whether film or digital, saves time. One of the biggest concerns about digital-and this statement isn't bashing-are comments from a large # of users that digital takes them so much time. Not just in processing, but learning and using the potential of PS or other programs. Here's another point people don't seem to be considering: All those extra images take time to create, much more time to edit and discard and to process the vast amount of keepers. Those are other reasons time is money and free is as free as people make it out to be. Whereas you feel comfortable w/your archiving methods, we must remember that not everyone will have inclination to do this or perhaps they haven't done so yet. That's a whole other issue but at some point users will have to address it, especially as technology changes. Extra cost and redundancy is necessary.
Just as you don't worry about lost image files, I don't worry about catastrophic event. That will only lead to the consideration of image database hacking, grid failure from both man made or natural occurrences, or even some of these large data sites going of business and users don't have the time or resources to handle the large cache before they're lost. Almost pointless.

Once again, I use both technologies because they both have something to offer. Most respondents aren't well informed about film so they have a follow the heard mentality. If they're not informed, they shouldn't denigrate.
Digital beats film in nearly every metric. That don't mean film has nothing to offer or that it has become incapable. Aside from the color or tones it's optimized for, it also provides great highlights and smooth tonal transitions. Film doesn't require the relatively frequently changes digital does. Digital is still evolving whereas film for the most part has reached its pinnacle. It's image quality is based on film stock used. Film expenses can easily be recouped (by those in business) and for casual users, cost can be minimized by non pro services. Under proper lighting conditions, film can be digital if larger formats and lower ISO films are used. Digital offers nothing within reasonable pricing that allows this opportunity. My personal opinion is that the 645z is the best deal going for overall image quality/affordability.

 

[Sporgon]

I had the experience recently to spend time photographing alongside someone who only shoots film.
It was very interesting.
I was taking about 1000 shots a day and he was shooting max 1 roll of film.
He was very particular about when he took a shot and when he didn't.
He was very careful and precise about taking a photograph.
He looked for very particular light and took his time to carefully study his subject.
I was very impressed and it really made me think about my photography.
Digital makes it too easy just to shoot and shoot.
Part of why film photographs look better is probably because the photographers are more careful and deliberate to set up correctly and expose properly.

This +1

Nonsense, this is just attributable to a lack of self discipline and craft, just go out with a small capacity card in your camera that will slow you down too.

I shot weddings for many years and on a full day shoot averaged 13 rolls of 36 exp film, 468 frames, when I shoot digital weddings I average around 500 or so images.

Using film is a personal choice based on mindset, there is no technical reason to shoot film, none, zero. Anybody that says film has more DR, resolution, 'headroom' etc just doesn't look at the film manufacturers own figures, no film can approach the capabilities of modern camera sensors, be that stills or movie cameras.

Don't get me wrong, I am not anti film in any way, but I just don't see why people need an excuse or justify using it or not using it, just use it (or not) because you want to, that is the only reason anybody needs.

There will be a reasonable market for film for a long time to come, digital movie projectors might have made serious inroads in some markets but most cinemas and movie theaters worldwide rely on actual film to project. For this use alone film stock will continue to be made for years in viable amounts.

You shot weddings with a 35? Really or just the reception.

In the latter days of film 35 mil began to make in roads into the wedding market due to a combination of much finer emulsion film, and the capability of the hardware. The main area here was flash, both TTL function and HSS. If hardware had continued to develop but with no digital I think, given the trend at the end of the film era, that 35 mil would have continued taken sales away from MF in the wedding market.

 

[N2itiv]

Concerning film from a professional (portraiture genre) aspect, as I previously mentioned, a large number of pros don't use the full speed potential of the digital medium. For those that don't shoot and sell immediately. film can equal their speed. Free overnight shipping w/fast developing times are offered, some processers will develop film and e-mail high res files quickly before the negatives return for quicker post work or other usage. The lab I previously dealt with-mostly for sports work-would digitize the roll, offered retouching as an option, didn't charge for developing, and would send the order back postage paid with fairly quick turnaround times, allowing reduced expense. So, I shoot the job, and save much free time for other things while the job is professionally completed and I don't have to be concerned w/paying additional staff. Again, not faster, but quick and still a viable alternative that allows for a negative hard copy and option to sell the negative later.(Jpegs weren't desired)

I mention this because- d-(you) might have a professional background and may appreciate it from that standpoint, or for others here that don't know/don't care and would make uninformed film bashing comments just because. In that case, I'll use the "get a clue" comment if necessary. Film usage shouldn't suffer because those types influence potential users away. I will say concerning that one post, the individual provided a good follow up that seemed quite reasonable.

 

[N2itiv]

I had the experience recently to spend time photographing alongside someone who only shoots film.
It was very interesting.
I was taking about 1000 shots a day and he was shooting max 1 roll of film.
He was very particular about when he took a shot and when he didn't.
He was very careful and precise about taking a photograph.
He looked for very particular light and took his time to carefully study his subject.
I was very impressed and it really made me think about my photography.
Digital makes it too easy just to shoot and shoot.
Part of why film photographs look better is probably because the photographers are more careful and deliberate to set up correctly and expose properly.

This +1

Nonsense, this is just attributable to a lack of self discipline and craft, just go out with a small capacity card in your camera that will slow you down too.

I shot weddings for many years and on a full day shoot averaged 13 rolls of 36 exp film, 468 frames, when I shoot digital weddings I average around 500 or so images.

Using film is a personal choice based on mindset, there is no technical reason to shoot film, none, zero. Anybody that says film has more DR, resolution, 'headroom' etc just doesn't look at the film manufacturers own figures, no film can approach the capabilities of modern camera sensors, be that stills or movie cameras.

Don't get me wrong, I am not anti film in any way, but I just don't see why people need an excuse or justify using it or not using it, just use it (or not) because you want to, that is the only reason anybody needs.

There will be a reasonable market for film for a long time to come, digital movie projectors might have made serious inroads in some markets but most cinemas and movie theaters worldwide rely on actual film to project. For this use alone film stock will continue to be made for years in viable amounts.

You shot weddings with a 35? Really or just the reception.

In the latter days of film 35 mil began to make in roads into the wedding market due to a combination of much finer emulsion film, and the capability of the hardware. The main area here was flash, both TTL function and HSS. If hardware had continued to develop but with no digital I think, given the trend at the end of the film era, that 35 mil would have continued taken sales away from MF in the wedding market.

The portability of 35mm was and is tough to overlook.

 

[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!

Local is the whole point. I used to choose from dozens of 35mm film options locally. Now there is just one. I used to be able to get film developed locally and get it back the same day. Now I have to mail it off. Then I have to pay shipping to buy and process. Yup, there are still film shooters out there, but the community can't be said to be thriving. If it were then I could still have dozens of choices right here in town. There aren't any. 1 choice isn't a choice.

I like film, but for the OP to say it is hard to beat, for others to say the medium is thriving, and for others to say it is convenient... well, that just ignores reality. Film can be a wonderful medium, but it can be duplicated easily through digital means.

"Scarce? Do you get out in the internet world much? Not trying to give you a hard time but this is much too simple." C'mon. That statement is just snarky. I'm on the internet and know what is out there. I ordered all my gear online... except for the Voigtlander Vito CL. I am fully aware of Adorama and B&H.

I don't mind anybody disagreeing. That is fine. What we have here are differences of opinion. The snark is just childish and unnecessary.

Here was my question: "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. "

So yeah, I am aware of what is out there. I asked for black and white film recommendations. There is NOTHING local and nobody LOCAL to ask. Film shooters should be able to tell me what films they have had luck with and where I can send it. They can also tell me what to stay away from.

Differences of opinion should not elicit smart Alec responses. Digital is thriving. It is everywhere. Film is a very small niche market and nowhere even close to where it was at its zenith in the marketplace.

In fact, the following chart shows that after 2005 analogue camera sales do not even register as a blip on the radar. That is why there are very few places to buy film locally and why there are so few choices. That is just reality, not opinion. AS far as phone cameras go: Those come with the phone and are on nearly every phone. The main reason for buying a phone is for the phone. But even phones can be found free. It still counts as a "sale".
http://petapixel.com/2014/12/15/chart-shows-badly-digital-camera-sales-getting-hammered-smartphones/

CFB,
You say local now. The post I responded to says Adorama (mail order) or somewhere? I gave you the somewhere you inquired about. I also mentioned those other service providers for if you needed their processing or other services and for other members that want to research what is still readily available for film.
Go to B&H and read the many reviews there. While you're asking for recommendations, how about mentioning your lighting conditions for ISO as well. Any of those available major brand films are good so all brand recommendations would be opinionated. Accept that w/film everything isn't always in front of you and might require some effort if it's important to you. Get on the net at B&H and help yourself instead of expecting to be spoon fed. You're welcome for my previous advice.

 

[N2itiv]

Post stacking only makes an annoying tone worse. :

I agree w/you, Yueng!
I'll fix that in future posts. If that's not acceptable, you'll just have to fire me.
Off to work shortly. Everyone enjoy and play nice today.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The best thing about film is those little plastic canisters it comes in, which are useful for storing a variety of small items from screws to quarters. The stuff that originally comes inside those handy little canisters has lost relevance.

 

[slclick]

The best thing about film is those little plastic canisters it comes in, which are useful for storing a variety of small items from screws to quarters. The stuff that originally comes inside those handy little canisters has lost relevance.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/out-of-africa/n10451

 

[YuengLinger]

The best thing about film is those little plastic canisters it comes in, which are useful for storing a variety of small items from screws to quarters. The stuff that originally comes inside those handy little canisters has lost relevance.

At some point the number of HDDs full of unwanted but never deleted photos might equal the number of little plastic canisters in landfills.

I wonder how often a decade of family memories is wiped out because backing up a PC is too difficult or time consuming. Is cloud storage saving memories? Or just resulting in billions of orphaned images?

Couldn't sleep last night fretting about all this. And Judy Garland, poor thing.

 

[Orangutan]

The best thing about film is those little plastic canisters it comes in, which are useful for storing a variety of small items from screws to quarters. The stuff that originally comes inside those handy little canisters has lost relevance.

I wonder how often a decade of family memories is wiped out because backing up a PC is too difficult or time consuming. Is cloud storage saving memories? Or just resulting in billions of orphaned images?

The U.S. National Archives, aided by the NSA, are developing the technology to preserve those priceless historical records. They are nearly ready to roll-out an archiving service that operates with no effort (or awareness) on the part of the "customer."

 

[scyrene]

The best thing about film is those little plastic canisters it comes in, which are useful for storing a variety of small items from screws to quarters. The stuff that originally comes inside those handy little canisters has lost relevance.

At some point the number of HDDs full of unwanted but never deleted photos might equal the number of little plastic canisters in landfills.

I wonder how often a decade of family memories is wiped out because backing up a PC is too difficult or time consuming. Is cloud storage saving memories? Or just resulting in billions of orphaned images?

Couldn't sleep last night fretting about all this. And Judy Garland, poor thing.

LOL!

I read about a project - some art thing I think - done a few years ago, which involved lots of old mobile phones. They discovered that many had lots of photos on, still accessible. An unexpected time capsule! So maybe one day caches of old hard drives or memory cards will be useful in the same way, like Sumerian clay tablets (though generally less long-lived).

 

[neuroanatomist]

The best thing about film is those little plastic canisters it comes in, which are useful for storing a variety of small items from screws to quarters. The stuff that originally comes inside those handy little canisters has lost relevance.

So have you, Neuro. Only, no one has told you 'til now.

Sorry you're so offended that a medium you prefer is neither universally loved nor even remotely popular. I suggest you try to get over it and just enjoy shooting. Maybe even pop an 8-track tape into the player as you drive out to a scenic spot!

 

[pwp]

The best thing about film is those little plastic canisters it comes in, which are useful for storing a variety of small items from screws to quarters. The stuff that originally comes inside those handy little canisters has lost relevance.

So have you, Neuro. Only, no one has told you 'til now.

Sorry you're so offended that a medium you prefer is neither universally loved nor even remotely popular. I suggest you try to get over it and just enjoy shooting. Maybe even pop an 8-track tape into the player as you drive out to a scenic spot!

Hah hah! This tired (very old) thread does have a touch of the "8-track" defense case about it. Regardless of your preferred medium, whether you listen to your music on vinyl, 8-track, MP3 or streaming, it's all music.

Film, digital capture, artists oils or sketchpad...we're all making pictures. Beats the hell out of having to work for a living!

-pw

* not saying it's either my way or the highway, but as a fully fired up future fiend, in my universe it's streaming and digital all the way...

 

[gsealy]

Film vs. Electronic - similar but really different depending on what and why you are shooting.

Sports and time sensitive topics for news efforts - does anyone really debate this?

Landscapes, here you can start debating

As to taking a moment or two to think about a shot - you should do it anyway - Ansel Adams I think is famous for saying something like "there is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept"

Portraits, I think there is some debate, but again the purpose of the image starts to drive the preference.

Lastly, "close enough" still begs the issue of why you think one is supposed to be better than the other - they have different purposes and "close enough" is already a compromise - if you choose to compromise (I do) then don't blame the media for your choice.

My 2 pennies

I definitely agree on the main point. If you go to any pro golf tournament, then you will see a bunch of photographers following a group, carrying 1 or more 1D's and shooting maybe a couple of thousand photos in a few hours. Out of those only a few will graduate to a newspaper, online website, or maybe broadcast. They use the 1D's like a machine gun. There is not much art to it, only capture and capture. Then get paid. Film has no place in this scenario.

But there are other situations where film might be better, such as for commercial shoots for magazine ads or posters. Or maybe a person would use film for fine art.

The thing is the person doing the shooting is the person who decides what they want to use to deliver the results they want and many times, need. There is no right or wrong.

 

[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.

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!

Local is the whole point. I used to choose from dozens of 35mm film options locally. Now there is just one. I used to be able to get film developed locally and get it back the same day. Now I have to mail it off. Then I have to pay shipping to buy and process. Yup, there are still film shooters out there, but the community can't be said to be thriving. If it were then I could still have dozens of choices right here in town. There aren't any. 1 choice isn't a choice.

I like film, but for the OP to say it is hard to beat, for others to say the medium is thriving, and for others to say it is convenient... well, that just ignores reality. Film can be a wonderful medium, but it can be duplicated easily through digital means.

"Scarce? Do you get out in the internet world much? Not trying to give you a hard time but this is much too simple." C'mon. That statement is just snarky. I'm on the internet and know what is out there. I ordered all my gear online... except for the Voigtlander Vito CL. I am fully aware of Adorama and B&H.

I don't mind anybody disagreeing. That is fine. What we have here are differences of opinion. The snark is just childish and unnecessary.

Here was my question: "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. "

So yeah, I am aware of what is out there. I asked for black and white film recommendations. There is NOTHING local and nobody LOCAL to ask. Film shooters should be able to tell me what films they have had luck with and where I can send it. They can also tell me what to stay away from.

Differences of opinion should not elicit smart Alec responses. Digital is thriving. It is everywhere. Film is a very small niche market and nowhere even close to where it was at its zenith in the marketplace.

In fact, the following chart shows that after 2005 analogue camera sales do not even register as a blip on the radar. That is why there are very few places to buy film locally and why there are so few choices. That is just reality, not opinion. AS far as phone cameras go: Those come with the phone and are on nearly every phone. The main reason for buying a phone is for the phone. But even phones can be found free. It still counts as a "sale".
http://petapixel.com/2014/12/15/chart-shows-badly-digital-camera-sales-getting-hammered-smartphones/

CFB,
You say local now. The post I responded to says Adorama (mail order) or somewhere? I gave you the somewhere you inquired about. I also mentioned those other service providers for if you needed their processing or other services and for other members that want to research what is still readily available for film.
Go to B&H and read the many reviews there. While you're asking for recommendations, how about mentioning your lighting conditions for ISO as well. Any of those available major brand films are good so all brand recommendations would be opinionated. Accept that w/film everything isn't always in front of you and might require some effort if it's important to you. Get on the net at B&H and help yourself instead of expecting to be spoon fed. You're welcome for my previous advice.

1. Actually, in my first post I mentioned that film is mostly dead and specifically said that I can no longer go into the Walmart and choose from what used to be well over a hundred choices. So I said local from the beginning.

2. Then I asked for recommendations about what black and white films people might recommend to me.

Guess what, people come to this forum asking for advice from more experienced or knowledgeable people all the time. I'd rather get that advice here than from Adorama or B&H reviews from God knows who.

3. Asking to be spoon fed? What kind of psycho twit are you? If you don't like what I post then just pass it over.

Nobody has to agree with you. Nobody has to agree with me. You know what else? Nobody is going to ring a bell and send you a trophy because you think you've won some kind of internet argument.

My opinion is that film is mostly dead. Beyond my opinion is the fact that film is mostly dead. No amount of mental arm wrestling on your part is going to change my opinion or the facts.

When something was popular for many decades (mostly because that was almost all that was available) gets sidelined by new tech and mostly ends up being available to the masses via mail order and almost completely removed from the local stores, even national chains... it is mostly dead. That has nothing to do with whether or not film is good or bad or whether or not it is better or worse than digital.

Now, run along you sad, sorry, keyboard Rambo. There are plenty of people you can drag into a flame war. Just leave me out of it. Many of them will even let you spoon feed them your over elevated opinion of yourself and your pseudo clairvoyant powers. I ain't one of them.

BTW: My lighting conditions? I can worry about that myself. They vary all the time and from location to location. I can control those. Now go handle yourself.

If you interpreted in any way that my post was attacking your opinion or slamming you in any way then you have some serious problems. I think you should go back and read what I wrote and separate what I wrote from what others wrote. Then once you've done that clear your mind of any ill intent on my part and chalk your anger and frustration up to your own error in interpretation. From what I can tell, you are the only swinging Richard in this part of the thread.

May every day of your life be full of love and happiness.

 

[Hillsilly]

Has anyone in Australia used "Hillvale" for processing? (hillvale.com.au)

Now that B&H have stopped shipping C41 chemicals to Australia, the cost of buying chemicals locally is making lab prices look attractive.

 

[Ozarker]

Has anyone in Australia used "Hillvale" for processing? (hillvale.com.au)

Now that B&H have stopped shipping C41 chemicals to Australia, the cost of buying chemicals locally is making lab prices look attractive.

That's too bad about the chemicals to Australia. I always felt that the fun of film (when I developed my own) was the creative control during processing.

 

[Hillsilly]

That's too bad about the chemicals to Australia. I always felt that the fun of film (when I developed my own) was the creative control during processing.

I've become a bit lazy in that regard. I just stand develop B&W. And with colour, it is standard chemicals with standard times at set temperatures. Not a lot of room for creativity.