Film is still hard to beat

[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.

Are those top 3 lines really so difficult for you? Children can learn that w/no problems. 35mm also comes in 12 exposure rolls. Medium Format is available in 15,12, 10, or less depending on negative size. The way a lot of dslr users photograph, shouldn't take long to go through that roll.

Now, about your group photo. Take charge, everyone looking ahead, inquire if anyone blinked and take a 2nd photo in case. That's worked very well for me w/countless groups.

Please do enlighten us about developing and scanning methods. That will provide film users much enjoyment.

You seem to like the film vs digital motif, so I'll address what you've stated. Again, bear in mind both mediums have their strong points.
With a film camera, I can create my vision, send the film to a lab for optical prints or scanning in various resolutions, and have a tangible negative that I can later market to a customer if desired. That negative far outlasts a cd or dvd btw. (Most people don't handle those properly, anyway) I can also get retouching as needed. This allows me more free time while you're debating over how much retouching is enough. Those computers and cameras have a short usage life compared to film cameras. Those computers and cameras riddle garbage dumps more than film cameras, not to mention the environmental impact from all that plastic and those toxic chips which are seldom recycled. How about all those inks? Again, film cameras cost less, last longer, are capable of equal or better imagery under CONTROLLED conditions. I would like to see your cost breakdown for expense of film vs digital since you claim to know film costs more. Many magazine art departments still use film to shoot their products/covers because of the quality.

You make statements that aren't very informed and follow the usual internet noise from those that are also following others from the mostly uninformed pack. In the end, it's about what people enjoy. If people like film, why be a critic? Oh, you just need to be accepted.

You've still failed to build a case for films practicality!

Yes, loading film isn't difficult...but how is it more practical to have to stop shooting and change your roll of film every 24 or 36 (or 12 or 15) shots? Need to shoot at a different ISO mid roll? Time to stop and open the camera up again. Practical? No - I can just hit a button or turn a dial on a digital camera.

What? You have to physically send your film to the lab for prints or scanning?! Sounds like there's a time component involved - and I hope they don't lose or damage your film! My digital file doesn't need any scanning, and I can upload a copy of it to the lab (or a client, or to and off-site backup) in a few moments. Very practical.

Free time?! While you're developing (or are waiting to for the lab to develop) your film, I or my retoucher have already finished with and delivered to the client, my digital file. Client certainly finds digital more practical.

"internet noise" and "uninformed pack"? No, my statements come from many years of working in commercial studios where the practicality of digital imaging killed off the use of film long ago.

As others have said, film is easy to beat. Yes, it can be nice to shoot for warm fuzzies...but there's nothing practical about it.

d.

 

[Loswr]

...not to mention the environmental impact from all that plastic and those toxic chips which are seldom recycled.

As opposed to the non-toxic and environmentally-friendly chemicals used in darkrooms? :

 

[Hillsilly]

I'm happy to accept that digital imaging is more practical than photography, but if it is so good, why do Fuji sell more instax film cameras annually than ALL DSLRs combined? And why are their sales increasing annually, while DSLR sales are decreasing? And why is film simulation software so popular with DSLR users? Could it be that DSLRs are really the Betamax of the camera industry?

Lol, I just realised I also replied to this topic back in 2012.

 

[N2itiv]

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.

Are those top 3 lines really so difficult for you? Children can learn that w/no problems. 35mm also comes in 12 exposure rolls. Medium Format is available in 15,12, 10, or less depending on negative size. The way a lot of dslr users photograph, shouldn't take long to go through that roll.

Now, about your group photo. Take charge, everyone looking ahead, inquire if anyone blinked and take a 2nd photo in case. That's worked very well for me w/countless groups.

Please do enlighten us about developing and scanning methods. That will provide film users much enjoyment.

You seem to like the film vs digital motif, so I'll address what you've stated. Again, bear in mind both mediums have their strong points.
With a film camera, I can create my vision, send the film to a lab for optical prints or scanning in various resolutions, and have a tangible negative that I can later market to a customer if desired. That negative far outlasts a cd or dvd btw. (Most people don't handle those properly, anyway) I can also get retouching as needed. This allows me more free time while you're debating over how much retouching is enough. Those computers and cameras have a short usage life compared to film cameras. Those computers and cameras riddle garbage dumps more than film cameras, not to mention the environmental impact from all that plastic and those toxic chips which are seldom recycled. How about all those inks? Again, film cameras cost less, last longer, are capable of equal or better imagery under CONTROLLED conditions. I would like to see your cost breakdown for expense of film vs digital since you claim to know film costs more. Many magazine art departments still use film to shoot their products/covers because of the quality.

You make statements that aren't very informed and follow the usual internet noise from those that are also following others from the mostly uninformed pack. In the end, it's about what people enjoy. If people like film, why be a critic? Oh, you just need to be accepted.

You've still failed to build a case for films practicality!

Yes, loading film isn't difficult...but how is it more practical to have to stop shooting and change your roll of film every 24 or 36 (or 12 or 15) shots? Need to shoot at a different ISO mid roll? Time to stop and open the camera up again. Practical? No - I can just hit a button or turn a dial on a digital camera.

What? You have to physically send your film to the lab for prints or scanning?! Sounds like there's a time component involved - and I hope they don't lose or damage your film! My digital file doesn't need any scanning, and I can upload a copy of it to the lab (or a client, or to and off-site backup) in a few moments. Very practical.

Free time?! While you're developing (or are waiting to for the lab to develop) your film, I or my retoucher have already finished with and delivered to the client, my digital file. Client certainly finds digital more practical.

"internet noise" and "uninformed pack"? No, my statements come from many years of working in commercial studios where the practicality of digital imaging killed off the use of film long ago.

As others have said, film is easy to beat. Yes, it can be nice to shoot for warm fuzzies...but there's nothing practical about it.

d.

You seem to be lacking somewhat in you understanding. I already told I use digital as well, so I am aware of its strong points. You, on the other hand, are not very knowledgeable through any current use of film. Digital is faster and at times that's certainly necessary. I have proved my point quite well. The issue is your lack of accepting that. Not everyone is professional or shoot commercially. Again, the point is peoples enjoyment or knowledge of film benefit under controlled circumstances. From a professional standpoint, time is money. While "you" toil over how many images and how much correction those images require, I'm enjoying quality time.

Once again, you make a sad case making it sound like packaging film and taking it-or having it picked up-for delivery is some major campaign. You talk about damaged or lost film but you fail to mention damaged or lost cards, hard drives, storage costs/hardware and files that need back up based on storage media loss( cd's,dvd's, thumb drives) and ability to read files at a future date That's why you have no credibility on this subject. You just can't handle the truth. You worked in a studio and I owned and managed a successful business that was predominantly film based. Save the bravado, I'm not impressed. When I return to business again, digital will be a big part of it. As will film. Film is easy to beat only from those whom write it off due to their insecurities or lack of desire to learn how to easily and properly deploy it. Professional or not.
As far as product delivery goes, that depends on the genre of work done and mgmt. practices. I still have professional friends in the wedding/portrait biz I talk w/frequently. Yes, digital again can be faster. Tell me how long it takes to get film developed, scanned, retouched and sent back. Without doing research, you can't. Easier to talk than learn. With digital, a 'tog can shoot and sell after session. Many 'togs shoot, edit, and schedule a viewing. The second method I can do in equal time. Let's face it, film as easy or difficult as people wish to make it. You haven't taken much time to learn the facts but still try to make yourself look knowledgeable. Maybe viewers here will catch on to that.

 

[N2itiv]

...not to mention the environmental impact from all that plastic and those toxic chips which are seldom recycled.

As opposed to the non-toxic and environmentally-friendly chemicals used in darkrooms? :

Neuro, I'm not trying to say film is spotless in that area. All photography, in general, is an environmental issue. Let's not overlook that film constitutes much less in that area because it's no longer the predominant method used. Neither does it require as much supporting hardware.

 

[N2itiv]

I'm happy to accept that digital imaging is more practical than photography, but if it is so good, why do Fuji sell more instax film cameras annually than ALL DSLRs combined? And why are their sales increasing annually, while DSLR sales are decreasing? And why is film simulation software so popular with DSLR users? Could it be that DSLRs are really the Betamax of the camera industry?

Lol, I just realised I also replied to this topic back in 2012.

There are a lot of people coming back to film. Those going film only and those keeping both mediums. The problem is not which is better or for what: the issue seems to be people lack of understanding it serves a purpose, offers a different look, gives pleasure and has just as much right to exist as digital. If anyone feels to threatened by film to accept that fact, tuff!

 

[d]

You seem to be lacking somewhat in you understanding. I already told I use digital as well, so I am aware of its strong points. You, on the other hand, are not very knowledgeable through any current use of film. Digital is faster and at times that's certainly necessary. I have proved my point quite well. The issue is your lack of accepting that. Not everyone is professional or shoot commercially. Again, the point is peoples enjoyment or knowledge of film benefit under controlled circumstances. From a professional standpoint, time is money. While "you" toil over how many images and how much correction those images require, I'm enjoying quality time.

Once again, you make a sad case making it sound like packaging film and taking it-or having it picked up-for delivery is some major campaign. You talk about damaged or lost film but you fail to mention damaged or lost cards, hard drives, storage costs/hardware and files that need back up based on storage media loss( cd's,dvd's, thumb drives) and ability to read files at a future date That's why you have no credibility on this subject. You just can't handle the truth. You worked in a studio and I owned and managed a successful business that was predominantly film based. Save the bravado, I'm not impressed. When I return to business again, digital will be a big part of it. As will film. Film is easy to beat only from those whom write it off due to their insecurities or lack of desire to learn how to easily and properly deploy it. Professional or not.
As far as product delivery goes, that depends on the genre of work done and mgmt. practices. I still have professional friends in the wedding/portrait biz I talk w/frequently. Yes, digital again can be faster. Tell me how long it takes to get film developed, scanned, retouched and sent back. Without doing research, you can't. Easier to talk than learn. With digital, a 'tog can shoot and sell after session. Many 'togs shoot, edit, and schedule a viewing. The second method I can do in equal time. Let's face it, film as easy or difficult as people wish to make it. You haven't taken much time to learn the facts but still try to make yourself look knowledgeable. Maybe viewers here will catch on to that.

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!

Neither do I worry about being able to read my image files into the future. While my images are stored in the camera's native raw format, with a few clicks I can have to whole library exporting into another format (DNG, TIFF, JPG etc) should I so desire. I'm confident there will always be something around that can read or convert them, and I don't even necessarily need to purchase the software - currently it's possible to rent Photoshop for a month for $20. A cheap and practical option.

You claimed I can't handle the truth; I think you might be a bit stuck in the past, not fully grasping the realities of the present.

Cheers,
d.

 

[d]

There are a lot of people coming back to film. Those going film only and those keeping both mediums. The problem is not which is better or for what: the issue seems to be people lack of understanding it serves a purpose, offers a different look, gives pleasure and has just as much right to exist as digital. If anyone feels to threatened by film to accept that fact, tuff!

What purpose does film serve other than to offer a different look (easy to emulate digitally), and give "pleasure"? These thin, subjective statements lack substance.

My observation is that the only ones acting threatened are those who profess film's greatness, when challenged to articulate its benefits.

d.

 

[N2itiv]

There are a lot of people coming back to film. Those going film only and those keeping both mediums. The problem is not which is better or for what: the issue seems to be people lack of understanding it serves a purpose, offers a different look, gives pleasure and has just as much right to exist as digital. If anyone feels to threatened by film to accept that fact, tuff!

What purpose does film serve other than to offer a different look (easy to emulate digitally), and give "pleasure"? These thin, subjective statements lack substance.

My observation is that the only ones acting threatened are those who profess film's greatness, when challenged to articulate its benefits.

d.

Only thing that lacks substance is your mental process. So now you determine what has value for all those besides yourself. Film is no greater or lesser than digital. The user has skill or they don't. The image speaks for itself or it don't. Neither medium changes that. Yes, you fear film because you ridicule it when you have vague knowledge of it. The title of this thread is film is hard to beat, not film is invincible. People like yourself always come on these threads as critics. Can't handle the thread and don't have sense enough to stay away from it out of respect for others. Film users don't have these insecurities you project. Every response you've given lacked substance. Couldn't back up your own statements when challenged. Typical fanboy troll! Cheers.

 

[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/

 

[Loswr]

There are a lot of people coming back to film. Those going film only and those keeping both mediums. The problem is not which is better or for what: the issue seems to be people lack of understanding it serves a purpose, offers a different look, gives pleasure and has just as much right to exist as digital.

Yeah, and vinyl is coming back, too. If it gives people pleasure, great – although I think it's mostly nostalgia. The 'advantages' are really limited to lower cost (provided not too many images are taken).

 

[d]

There are a lot of people coming back to film. Those going film only and those keeping both mediums. The problem is not which is better or for what: the issue seems to be people lack of understanding it serves a purpose, offers a different look, gives pleasure and has just as much right to exist as digital. If anyone feels to threatened by film to accept that fact, tuff!

What purpose does film serve other than to offer a different look (easy to emulate digitally), and give "pleasure"? These thin, subjective statements lack substance.

My observation is that the only ones acting threatened are those who profess film's greatness, when challenged to articulate its benefits.

d.

Only thing that lacks substance is your mental process. So now you determine what has value for all those besides yourself. Film is no greater or lesser than digital. The user has skill or they don't. The image speaks for itself or it don't. Neither medium changes that. Yes, you fear film because you ridicule it when you have vague knowledge of it. The title of this thread is film is hard to beat, not film is invincible. People like yourself always come on these threads as critics. Can't handle the thread and don't have sense enough to stay away from it out of respect for others. Film users don't have these insecurities you project. Every response you've given lacked substance. Couldn't back up your own statements when challenged. Typical fanboy troll! Cheers.

I've been clear in my reasoning...your insults don't change or refute that. You've ignored my points and failed to give any reason as to why film is a practical photography option. I respectfully suggest that this is because you're unable to.

d.

 

[gsealy]

There are a lot of people coming back to film. Those going film only and those keeping both mediums. The problem is not which is better or for what: the issue seems to be people lack of understanding it serves a purpose, offers a different look, gives pleasure and has just as much right to exist as digital.

Yeah, and vinyl is coming back, too. If it gives people pleasure, great – although I think it's mostly nostalgia. The 'advantages' are really limited to lower cost (provided not too many images are taken).

I don't see the need to argue about digital versus analogue. If a person can discern the difference and wants to go down that route, then by all means do it. It's not nostalgia.

 

[aj1575]

Digital is the way to go, and from a technical viewpoint, digital is already far ahead of film (ISO 100'000 film anyone?)
I do understand that some people like that Film look, like some people like that vinyl sound. But please be honest, most people won't be able to tell the difference in a blind test. Sure, there is the difference in operating film (and vinyl), but this is more about the process, than about the result. Something of this experience got lost with digital; shooting hundreds of pictures to get a few keepers is like a brute force method compared to carefully planed shoots with film. But you can work the same way with digital, if you like to. So it is okay to say, I like to shot film, but to say that film is better technicaly than digital is not correct.

Last week I had another experience, a shoot that would have been nearly impossible with film. I was shooting along a railway-track with a nice signal-arch. It was to dark for the autofocus, so I did it manualy. Sure this is also possible with film, but not with a 10x digital zoom on the screen. Composition was another problem, especially on the side the contrast was so low, that it was hard to make out what is where. Again, no problem for digital. Crank the ISO up to the max. take an overexposed shot to judge the composition (1-2 sec shutter speed), adjust the composition, and make the shoot at ISO 200. Film just doesn't do that.
If you make that shot with film, then you will be proud of it, and happy when you see the result. But digital is much better suited for this style of shooting.

 

[Ozarker]

But you can work the same way with digital, if you like to.

Good post.

I do exactly this because a shutter has a finite life. I have a very low income so replacing a shutter would be very expensive for me. I try to be careful and methodical for the sake of my photos, but also for the longevity of my equipment.

 

[Hillsilly]

...You've still failed to build a case for films practicality!

Personally, I think it is film's impracticality that makes it special.

Because every shot costs $$, you think twice before pressing the shutter button. The percentage of keepers is a little bit higher.

Because you (generally) take fewer shots, you tend to remember each one and they feel more valuable to you.

Because there are so many choices to make - type of film, format, style of camera, do you develop it yourself, are you going to scan it, work in the darkroom, send it to a lab - you feel more involved with the process.

Because you're not using the same camera as 100's of thousands of other people, you feel like you are making a more individual statement. And some film cameras are a lot of fun to use.

Because of the skills that you pick up using digital cameras, you have the confidence to be more creative with film. And with all of the development that has gone into film over the last ten years, you can get some pretty awesome results. Have you used Portra recently? Or Ektar? Or Cinestill? The quality of current films is amazing and part of the reason a noticeable contingent of high end wedding photographers shoot film.

 

[Hillsilly]

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. "

Looks like a cool camera. Hope you have some fun putting a few rolls through.

For 35mm B&W film, for getting started, I'd stick with either Kodak or Ilford and just choose a film based on ISO. A lower ISO will have less grain and a higher ISO more grain. For general purposes, you can't really go wrong with tri-x 400 or TMAX 100 or 400. TMAX has been around for a while, but it is one of the newer B&W films.

I assume you live in the states? I really don't know the best places to recommend for developing over there. But for what its worth, I usually shoot colour film and later convert it to B&W in post if I want to. When choosing a place to develop your film, make sure they offer a high quality scanning service.

When I do shoot B&W, I go with Foma films (because I can get them at an affordable price from blanconegro.com.au). If you want to try colour film, you can't go wrong with Ektar (if ISO 100 is your thing) or Portra 400 (if you want a bit more speed). Ektar has a more saturated, contrasty look - great for landscapes, sunsets etc. Portra is for making people look beautiful.

 

[pwp]

But you can work the same way with digital, if you like to.

Good post.

I do exactly this because a shutter has a finite life. I have a very low income so replacing a shutter would be very expensive for me. I try to be careful and methodical for the sake of my photos, but also for the longevity of my equipment.

Even the best SLR film bodies had shutters rated at numbers that would be laughable today in premium bodies. When the EOS 1n was announced in 1994 one of the big deals was the upgraded shutter durability, 100,000 exposure cycles without maintenance and 150,0000 cycles with maintenance. Whoo-hoo! That was probably plenty because film tended to keep your shooting rate well down from 2016's day to day requirements.

My comments caught a bit of flack earlier in this thread, but I stand by my comments. They were not intended to put down anyone with a love of shooting film, and I apologize if that's what you read into it. My comments come from a working professional viewpoint with high client expectations and tight deadlines. From a commercial business viewpoint dropping film like a hot potato was a financial imperative. Client perceptions (misguided or not) of a photographer stuck in the past vs constantly introducing them to a fast evolving future counts for a lot too.

I did shoot film professionally for over a dozen years and loved every minute of it. There was certainly a "craft" about it that you had to be highly focused on to have consistent and evolving success. Incidentally my respiratory health improved enormously after I closed the door on the darkroom for the last time. As someone who continually pushed what was possible in making images, digital and the equipment revolution that followed was a gift from the gods. Just about every innovation over the past 15 years or so has offered the means to attempt shots that you wouldn't have even dreamed of last century.

So that's how it's evolved for me and my way of doing things. And as aj1575 posted, you can slow right down to a filmic pace any time you like or when the project requires it.

Film? Vinyl? 1968 Mustangs? All gorgeous with a unique aesthetic, just not remotely relevant in 2016 for this photographer.

-pw

 

[risc32]

Nice, I just got a Fuji GW690ii of ebay, and I can't wait to run some film through it this weekend.

I have this camera. It's just great, you'll love it. I use whatever digital camera i have handy as a meter. just got a few rolls of film back, and i swear, it's some of the best stuff i've ever shot. I really like my 5d, and 5dmk3, they are a dream. They just work. But, that 6x9.... i can't explain it,won't even attempt. When you look at the slides with a loupe, damn. Of course when i look at a 4x5 slide i am again just totally impressed.
anyway, hope you enjoy it.

 

[slclick]

I happen to enjoy the process of film far more than the final image -for obvious reasons (the reverse of the digital experience) and when practiced enough, the final image is equal to the satisfaction of the process as well.