35mm photographic film extinct?

[N10]

I was just wandering who here still use their film cameras despite the fact that film rolls are becoming rarer and it seems that buying film and having them developed seems more costly than printing digital photos. gosh i might be a little old fashioned but I still love using my Nikon F3...there's a feel good factor when you mechanically wind up that film and even better when u actually get some really good shots...no photoshop!So...who here still use film or do you guys just think film is going extinct or will soon be?:green:

 

[Stillphoto]

Depends on where you live and I suppose where you buy your stuff. I've not had an issue finding film, but then again, I shop at the professional photographic supply / lab that I used to work at. All about knowing where to go haha.

That said, I find it ironic that in the film industry (in which I work) everyone spends tons of time shooting things digitally so that in the end they can make it look like film.

 

[kaptain_zero]

After reading this announcement from Kodak, I'm glad I no longer own 35mm equipment..... it's a sad thing indeed, further info can be found at Kodak:

Eastman Kodak Company announced on June 22, 2009 that it will discontinue sales of KODACHROME Color Film this year, concluding its 74-year run as a photography icon.

I've used more rolls of this film than almost any other except for perhaps Kodak Tri-X B&W.... uhh... and Tech Pan.... and..... never mind. <sigh>

Regards

Kaptain "I wonder if archeologists will some day discover ancient *.gif artifacts?" Zero

 

[HarryN]

Good discussion of course for the photo area. I think it somewhat depends on how you do your photo work, and the "goals".

I really don't take that many pictures. 90% of them are "good enough" using my Nokia cell phone, and are not all that far from a digital camera that would cost $ 100 - 200 all by itself.

I have a minox 35mm for keeping in my travel briefcase. It is light, small, and batteries last forever. Pictures are superb, and even pro film is cheap now. The couple of rolls a year I take with it cost very little compared to buying an equivalent digital camera. I have the negs developed, and scan with a 30ish bit color depth scanner. Just try to find a digital camera with 30+ bit depth at a reasonable price. (corrected 48 bit depth)

The old pentax 35mm slr still does fine and can take pics far better than I ever will.

BTW - I never photo shop. I just take the pic and scan. My work isn't pro and I am not trying to be, just having fun for myself and family sharing.

Kodak still makes some great pro films that are readily available via mail order.

 

[smokinbasser]

Fuji film is still available but suspect you might need to develop it yourself. I used to buy fuji iso 100 B/W 36 exp by the case(50@) and was going through a case sometimes twice a week. Now I have two of the Fuji digital cameras one P&S the other a very capable bridge camera that is in the camera bag with my Canon T2i

 

[Vesper]

For other than specialty needs, it's done. There will be clubs in the near future who, as enthusiasts, will keep it alive much like the Polaroid enthusiasts do with that film now. Like the analog audio purists, the debate will go on for years but there are too many pros to digital. A total paradigm shift and it happened so fast.

 

[blasterman]

there's a feel good factor when you mechanically wind up that film and even better when u actually get some really good shots...no photoshop!

Good shots from what? Dropping film off at a lab and having a minimum wage teenager make all the density/color corrections for you so you don't have to think? The vast majority of film that is shot today is scanned and printed. Good luck even finding a lab that still uses analog optical gear for printing, and if they did, the quality would suck anyways like it always has. I used to work with about half a million dollar's worth of the best film repro gear on the market, knew how to use it, and a digital printer and camera puts that stuff to shame.

Scanning film typically requires this thing called a computer and likely Photoshop if you are a professional.

Just try to find a digital camera with 30+ bit depth at a reasonable price.

Typical stuff said by digital luddites when they don't have a clue what those numbers mean.

I used to *only* scan my film on my 48-bit howetek drum at work, and I'll take an entry level dLSR over that 48-bit Howtek and 35mm film anyday. My Howtek cost $40,000, and a decent dedicated 35mm film scanner about the same as an entry level dSLR. The reason film scanners require all the additional bit depth is due to the D/A conversion while trying to eat through film dye, and 30bits is pretty low end for a film scanner.

Also, what really doesn't make sense is a film scanner *IS* a digital camera. Taking a digital sample of an analog copy (film) of the original scene is illogical and produces a worse result than taking a digital sample of the original scene in the first place.

The majority of pro neg films on the market are still in use because the elderly wedding photogs still shooting it need the +12 stop lattitude range because they can't shoot right (lab fixes messes for them).

Kodachrome nostalgia is my favorite. Here's a film that was never released in larger formats because pros didn't want it, it doesn't scan for beans and doesn't print really well, and Kodak's insistance on making their E-6 films look like it cost them most of their professional market share in the 80's and 90's to Fuji. Trust me, most Kodak shareholders wish Kodachrome and K-14 was killed off 30 years ago:twothumbs

The only thing I agree with you guys on is that classic 35mm film dSLRs are better ergonomically than current dSLRs. I had an F3 when I free lance for the local paper, and other than a D3 or 5D that old F3 was a better machine that any <$2000 dSLR on the market. I then moved on and realized that 35mm was just a convenient, amatuer format anyways and the quality sucked compared to legitimate MF and LF formats. I'm also more concerned about how the final image looks and how I can share it rather than how good a shutter feels.

 

[blasterman]

Like the analog audio purists, the debate will go on for years but there are too many pros to digital

Bad analogy. As a photographer, I produce my own work and master my own work. Audio purists who rave about analog gear, turntables and $1000 speaker cables are typically not the artist and just into equipment fetish. They are about as relevant to the debate as somebody clicking on a picture on Flickr - just more arrogant.

If the studio and recording engineer elect to master the recording on analog, then that's how it should be played back. Putting a digital recording on vinyl doesn't improve the quality of the original, or make the guy with the $15,000 turn table smarter than the recording engineer.

Just like people who still shoot 35mm film because they can't figure out digital and then make a lot of excuses :shrug:

 

[Black Rose]

I still have a roll of Agfa Portrait 160 and two rolls of Agfa APX 100 film in the fridge.

I have no idea when I bought them, but the camera I would have used them in (Minolta X-700) was traded for my Olympus P&S Digital camera 7+ years ago.

 

[Vesper]

Audio purists who rave about analog gear, turntables and $1000 speaker cables are typically not the artist and just into equipment fetish. They are about as relevant to the debate as somebody clicking on a picture on Flickr - just more arrogant.

Huh? Artists like musicians used in the example are most often gear-heads too and like you, have a pretty heavy opinion one way or another. The majority of them create and produce their own end-product, same as most photographers. Arrogance also isn't really a factor. :shrug:

 

[KC2IXE]

...snip... and Tech Pan.... and..... never mind. <sigh>

I've got an exposed roll of Tech pan in the freezer for a decade or so, and of course have no technidol or LC - know where I can grab some, or someone I can send the roll to?

 

[N10]

Keep it cool guys.I must say,i'm not a pro either and to my standards,& i'm generally okay with the results i get by letting others develop my film rolls although i've tried to develop my own film with the help of school teacher.i wasn't really THAT good and still need practice.lol.I rarely do that now..plus i lack the equipment to do so.I guess i only did all that for the fun and had fairly low standards when it comes to photography compared to some other people.

 

[JohnR66]

I keep thinking about picking up an old 35mm SLR to shoot B&W film. If you look around, you can pick up an old camera with a lens or two for peanuts.

For me, I have not shot a roll of film since early 2004 when I went to Hawaii and even then I was using film as backup to my digital SLR I got in 2003.

I bought my parents a digital camera for xmas in 05 and they haven't touched film since.

Still, I'm amazed at how many single use film cameras I see used when I visit some attraction such as a zoo. A used 3 megapixel camera can be found for around $30 and provide better pictures than these single use cameras with the single element plastic lens, fixed shutter speed and no zoom.

 

[Polar Light]

I've got an exposed roll of Tech pan in the freezer for a decade or so, and of course have no technidol or LC - know where I can grab some, or someone I can send the roll to?

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2994361&postcount=28

 

[PCC]

Last year I loaded a roll of Kodak 200 ASA negative film into an old F4s I bought for a little bit more than peanuts. Half of the roll is still unexposed. Fortunately, there is a large professional photography store nearby to where I work so getting it processed will not be a problem, nor will getting film to feed this beast. I actually want to get an MB-20 for this camera because I don't think I'll ever use it in anything but single-shot mode so the extra speed (and heft) aren't needed. The great thing about this old camera is that it is AF and it compliments my much newer D70 digital camera. I'm hoping to replace the D70 with a D700 so lens compatibility should be 100% after the change.

 

[Stillphoto]

So I've got my digital setup which I love, and I have my film cameras, which I don't have enough fingers to count. I'm actually still adding to them.

Dream is to own a black leica m4 or m6 and a 35mm lens. Then I can settle down for a bit.

Since the film industry still consumes a ton of film in the 35mm format, it will most likely be the last film format to die (after sheet film and 120). I don't see that happening for at least another 10-15 years. Sure, there isn't as broad a range available as there was even 5 years ago, but there's still plenty to be had.

Bummed I never got to shoot any kodachrome. I've got a roll in the fridge somewhere, but since I got it from someone else's stash, and it's in a film canister for a different type of film, I'm worried he might have already shot it. I don't exactly want to go shoot some great shots and then pay a ton for a double exposed roll haha.

 

[bstrickler]

I've been shooting film for about 2 years, and it's really caught onto me. I love the way it looks better than B&W digital. The grain from film has a different look than noise in a digital camera. Due to the costs of enlarging film, I've swtiched to scanning my negatives with an Epson V500 (which I absolutely LOVE. It's not for non tech-savvy people, though. If you want to just plug it in, and scan away, while getting high-res pics, it's not for you.)

I personally shoot Fomapan only now (primarily 100 ISO, since I live where the sun is bright). I've had nothing but crap with Arista, and Ilford was more expensive than I could afford constantly. I found Fomapan to be higher quality than Ilford, as well, so it makes sense.

I've had some experience with Adox CMS 20 ISO, but due to me not researching how to develop it, it came out poorly, and stained. But, it kinda worked with what I was shooting, especially with a few specific shots (airshow). If I had done my research BEFORE developing it, it would have turned out much better.

I own 2 Canon AE-1's, and about 6 lenses, one of which is customized (was a broken lens, and now is a macro lens, and I'm working on a ring light for it, so I can use it better for closeups.)

~Brian

 

[kaptain_zero]

I've got an exposed roll of Tech pan in the freezer for a decade or so, and of course have no technidol or LC - know where I can grab some, or someone I can send the roll to?

I see Polar Light has answered your question with the link, however I was going to say that a "plan b" solution would be to head over to photoformulary on the net and check out their TD-3 developer and possibly other options. Myself, I used a lot of HC110 back then (15+ years ago), just because I could get my hands on it. Even further back when I lived in Scandinavia, I was partial to Neofin Blue and Red for various films.

Just to show how far we've gone away from film, I pulled a *MINT* Leitz Valoy II enlarger, complete except for the red focusing filter, out of the trash down the street. The old couple living there are up in age, and the gent who owned it has lost his eyesight so it wasn't in use anymore. I can remember waaay back when I was 13 years old, I got to visit an engineer who was in the photo club I'd joined and I remember drooling over this very enlarger... something I felt I'd never be able to afford. And now here I sit, staring at one...... that came out of the trash!

Mind you, it's quite a step down from my last enlarger (D5XL) and I did process film from 35mm up to 5" x 7" sheet in my darkroom. I had a sodium vapor BW/color dark room lamp that was so bright, I could read the paper in my darkroom while making prints!

Anyway, hope you get that film processed.

Regards

Kaptain "Maybe I'll start playing in the dark again...... " Zero

 

[HarryN]

Just like people who still shoot 35mm film because they can't figure out digital and then make a lot of excuses :shrug:

You are at least 1/2 correct with regards to me. I don't really have a lot of interest in dialing through the menus and specialty camera settings needed to make most digital pictures come out right just because the sensors can't deal with reality.

Can an experienced virtual pro take great pics with digital - sure. Is it likely that my own pictures will improve substantially if I go through all of this bother vs the simple focus, light settings, and "click" of film? I doubt it. I would go fully digital in a minute if it was as forgiving as film in reasonable priced, easy to use gear. We have digital cameras, and I have used them, but I don't enjoy the hassle. With film and negative scan, the images are usually fine "as is", compared to my wife's digital camera, that nearly always needs corrections.

Have doubts? - take some pictures of a blue eyed blond with a digital camera and see how it looks without eye fixes. I doubt that you can capture the various shades of blue eyes with a DSLR costing much less than $2k. Now that you have finally gotten that great image, remember to tell your model that she has to wear special reflective makeup or the DSLR will see "into" the skin and she will look like death warmed over - oh, but 2 hours with photo shop can fix that of course.

The fact remains, that if a camera needs a different setting for "dog" vs "flower" for basic snapshot pics, why am I bothering to spend time learning it, since it will be obsolete in 2- 3 years anyway.

You are right, my canoscan is 48 bit depth, and I scan right off of negs, not prints. Is it perfect - no, but it makes film photography affordable vs getting prints made, and emailing them is easy. BTW, when you are taking a picture with a digital sensor, the camera has only a fraction of a second to do a complete capture of the image, so shortcuts are taken. A scanner has longer to do that scan, so the quality per $ investment is much better, IMHO.

 

[will]

I still have about 15 rolls of film in the freezer and a few print mailers from A & I . I had an underwater film camera that I was using on the beach until a year ago. I picked up a digital underwater camera. I was using Ritz processing, out of business now, to process and print the film. I should have switched to all digital earlier than I did. I was getting about one or two good pictures underwater ( lots of junk along the shoreline - small bits of sand in the water )

I just bought an Epson film scanner and I am in the process of scanning my negatives and slides to my PC. Nice thing about the Epson software, it had a color restoration setting. This has fixed up a number of my really old slides. I find that I will look at the pictures if they are on the PC, much more often than those that are in in albums or are loose. The images taken with a Digital camera are better than those that are scanned

So - I'll finish up the film and use the mailers. The film cameras are stored, no batteries, in Lowepro camera bags.

I have an old TLR 120 camera that I drag out on occasion, set it up on a tripod, break out the light meter and set everything. still some of the best pictures I have ever taken. But, that may be because I am forced to think about what I am doing.

By the way - this is a 60 year old picture - nice thing about scanning and digital images, about 20 minutes to fix it...

I like being able to process my pictures on the PC. This is something I can't do with film. I generally do a little contrast adjustment and some cropping. Nothing much more that that.

I think that the Digital vs Film will go on for years, much like tube amplifiers in the audio world.