Is there still a place for Film Cameras?

johno · August 22, 2005

So all this talk about new digital technology... What about film? I have a digital camera... But, there is someting about film, right. (I get into "film vs. digital" discussions with an "old school" friend of mine... He says, "If only I had bought a nice slide scanner and a better lens instead of my digital... I would be better off." He's mostly a nature photographer.

Being new to the camera world, I have been thinking of getting a nice film camera...

Am I crazy? Is there a place for film anymore?

I hope this will spark a good discussion... Unless, this subject is archived in a past forum... If it is, could someone please post the link?

peace.
johno~

Khaos · August 22, 2005

There will always be film. However it will be harder to find it and find those who will develop it. Vinyl records have been upsurped by CDs for almost 20 years now and yet turntables are still sold and vinyl is still bought and played.

colourbox · August 22, 2005

I have a nice film scanner and I am growing very tired of touching up scratches, mildew, uneven color dye fading, and other defects inherent to film. Now that raw digital workflows are really getting settled, I'm really starting to appreciate digital.

Ever read LensWork magazine? Fantastic reproductions of high-quality B&W film photography. They ran an editions series where one of the selling points was that they were traditional darkroom prints. Well, read this!

I don't mind shooting film; I just don't like dealing with it afterward. A few weekends ago I spent all weekend with my digital SLR. But the next weekend I wanted to take a break from digital and I pulled out my film SLR. I have to say, that was fun. But there's so much more speed, control, and consistency with digital Raw files. Scanning is slow.

Ultimately this echoes the other post. Film and darkroom paper will exist, but your choices will be diminished as it is impossible to maintain the past range of film, chemicals, and paper when the sales volume drops through the floor. It's likely that in the future, film, chemicals, and paper will be carefully crafted by isolated artisans in small, high-quality, expensive batches and you'll have to get it over the Internet. That's my guess anyway.

For now, I still see tons of Kodak consumer film on sale down at the Costco...

NHBubba · August 22, 2005

I'm reminded of a sceen in that cheasy movie "Doc Hollywood" where 'Doc' says "I wouldn't trade any of it for goooold. ... Well maybe gold. Or cash money!"

In that same sense, you'll have to pry my Pentax K1000 w/ 50mm MF prime out of my cold dead hands! ... Well, unless you volunteer a nice Canon 1-series in trade!

Seriously, in my view, film has become something of a niche these days. For a amateur on a budget, I think digital wins hands down. The initial investment is far greater, but once you buy in the ability to endlessly experiment w/ different techniques and effects w/o concern for film or processing costs is invaluable.

Quallity wise I believe that digital is at or very close to even the best of the 135 and smaller formats that we amateurs use. Especially if you limit yourself to prints no larger than say 10x15", which most of us do.

That said, there's something nostalgic about using conventional, fully manual, analog equipment. Last spring I ran a roll of film through my gawd-knows how old Pentax. It was fun! And I think it made my digital shots better too. The need to conserve film forced me to concentrate more on the exposure, compensation, etc. Things that I get lazy w/ in the digital domain. However I had one helluva time finding someone to process my color slide film! I'll continue to pull the film rig out now and then and 'practice' w/ it.

colourbox · August 22, 2005

The Pentax K-1000 rules. Even if I dump all my other film bodies, I'm keeping the K-1000. I have one of the ones from the 80s that had the metal body made in Japan. What I like about it is that you can take pictures even if the battery's completely dead, since it only runs the meter. Something you can't dream of doing with a digital.

Owen · August 22, 2005

Speaking with the development department at my place of work, they still deal with 60:40, film to digital.

pathfinder · August 22, 2005

I printed B&W, color negatives and color slides to 16x20 in my own darkroom 25 years ago, and I still have many of those prints. Maybe I wasn't as good as it as I should have been....... ( Lots of Cibachrome prints from underwater slides circa 1984 )

But they can't begin to compare to 13x19 prints or 16x24 prints I make from my 20D or my 1dsMkll on an Epson ink jet printer. Not even close. Not in texture, sharpeness or lack of grain.

I still own some Nikon 35mm stuff - but why shoot film and THEN scan, when I have a better scanner in my DSLR that scans at 1/30th of a sec or less.

NHBubba · August 22, 2005

colourbox wrote:

The Pentax K-1000 rules. Even if I dump all my other film bodies, I'm keeping the K-1000. I have one of the ones from the 80s that had the metal body made in Japan. What I like about it is that you can take pictures even if the battery's completely dead, since it only runs the meter. Something you can't dream of doing with a digital.

Exactly.. Besides, the camera isn't worth a darn thing!

Owen wrote:

Speaking with the development department at my place of work, they still deal with 60:40, film to digital.

And that surprises you?! Ask them how many customers they don't see anymore.. how many have bought nice ink-jet printers and make their own prints at home, never to visit a photo lab again!

I've actually had thoughts of trying to pick up a used Elan-caliber Canon film body. I'd like to be able to use some of the new, fancy-smancy lenses I've bought for my Rebel w/ film. However all my film stuff is Pentax and all the digital stuff is Canon. I'd get a film body if the price were right. But then I don't want it bad enough to pay anything close to retail! And I won't settle for a cheapo Rebel body either.

Richard S · August 22, 2005

There will always be people use film, just as there are still people
who make Daguerreotypes, Tintypes, and Calotypes. I'd say within 5-10
years film will be thought of in the same way.

pathfinder · August 22, 2005

Richard S wrote:

There will always be people use film, just as there are still people
who make Daguerreotypes, Tintypes, and Calotypes. I'd say within 5-10
years film will be thought of in the same way.

I almost added in my post that Nostalgia may be responsible for the attraction some folks have for film

colourbox · August 22, 2005

Owen wrote:

Speaking with the development department at my place of work, they still deal with 60:40, film to digital.

Wow, so there's been a shift from 100:0 to 60:40. Pretty dramatic 40% drop away from film in just a few short years, is another way to look at that.

Owen · August 23, 2005

colourbox wrote:

Wow, so there's been a shift from 100:0 to 60:40. Pretty dramatic 40% drop away from film in just a few short years, is another way to look at that.

Can you imagine the cost of all the printing companies that have gone from film to digital AND film? In most retail outlets each terminal has a touch screen and sometimes there are up to 6 terminals, not to mention the digital setups for large size posters, those printers, the color correction machines, the digital inputs into tradtional 1hour printers, etc! ... sheesh. The cost must have been huge to accomodate digital.

Red Bull · August 23, 2005

colourbox wrote:

The Pentax K-1000 rules. Even if I dump all my other film bodies, I'm keeping the K-1000. I have one of the ones from the 80s that had the metal body made in Japan. What I like about it is that you can take pictures even if the battery's completely dead, since it only runs the meter. Something you can't dream of doing with a digital.

Agreed. I recently got a K-1000 in very good condition, metal body. I'm actually going to use it for the Photography class at school. It's a very nice camera.

gtc · August 24, 2005

large format still a gorilla
medium format mamiyas and hassleblads now have 22mmp backs however
i dont think digital has come close to large format yet-i could be wrong of course-but I thought that large format was the equivalent resolution of 35-40mp
,other than that digital wins in so many ways

pathfinder wrote:

I almost added in my post that Nostalgia may be responsible for the attraction some folks have for film

BigAl · August 24, 2005

Film cameras are still used for teaching photography:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=12702

regards
alan

Plasmodium · August 24, 2005

Interestingly, despite being a committed amateur digital photographer, when I think about ways in which I might upgrade my 300D nothing interests me as much as medium format. And medium format digital probably won't be worth the price for me for many years (because of drop in price, not because of change in income). So part of me actually wouldn't mind spending $1000 or $2000 on a nice 6x7 medium format camera plus a film scanner. Its the cheapest way to get high quality huge images, including digitally retouched 20 to 30 megapixel shots that can then be printed.

S. Reed · August 24, 2005

johno wrote:

So all this talk about new digital technology... What about film? I have a digital camera... But, there is someting about film, right. (I get into "film vs. digital" discussions with an "old school" friend of mine... He says, "If only I had bought a nice slide scanner and a better lens instead of my digital... I would be better off." He's mostly a nature photographer.

Being new to the camera world, I have been thinking of getting a nice film camera...

Am I crazy? Is there a place for film anymore?

I hope this will spark a good discussion... Unless, this subject is archived in a past forum... If it is, could someone please post the link?

peace.
johno~

You could not pry my cold dead fingers from my Toyo VX 125 4x5. I'm going to be burried with it which is no waste cause I will have worn it out by then.

For fine art photography you couldn't give me 1DS MkII (though I'd snap it up in a minute for just about every other kind of photography). I don't enjoy digital photography like I do tranny work. (I have a 10D) Something about the deliberateness of film. The pace. The less time staring at a computer screen. The lovely trannies on the light table.

I shoot landscape mostly.

I have 35mm and 645 film cameras gathering dust however.

pathfinder · August 24, 2005

S. Reed wrote:

You could not pry my cold dead fingers from my Toyo VX 125 4x5. I'm going to be burried with it which is no waste cause I will have worn it out by then.

For fine art photography you couldn't give me 1DS MkII (though I'd snap it up in a minute for just about every other kind of photography). I don't enjoy digital photography like I do tranny work. (I have a 10D) Something about the deliberateness of film. The pace. The less time staring at a computer screen. The lovely trannies on the light table.

I shoot landscape mostly.

I have 35mm and 645 film cameras gathering dust however.

4x5 is where Alan Briot feels film is still superior to full frame 35mm digital. Can shoot a basketball game or a wedding very easily with 4x5 though. 4x5 takes tremendous discipline and patience, neither of which I have in abundance

PeterGar · August 24, 2005

When I told my uncle that I had begun to become interested in photography, he quickly have me his two 35mm cameras. One is a Nikon FE with 50mm 1.8 Nikkor lens and the other is a Minolta Maxxumm 7000. Until recently, they've been sitting in my closet while I've been "learning" with my Canon 300D.

A few weeks ago I decided to take out the Nikon and start learning the basics of photography using this Nikon in manual mode with B&W film. I asked the clerk at the local camera shop for B&W film and bought what he recommended. Later, before I loaded the film, I noticed that the foam seals around the film door and the foam bumper by the mirror where deteriorated into a gummy mess. I cleaned up the mess as much as I could, loaded the film, and snapped some pics (including some of a local house fire/emergency scene). Then, when I took it to get processed, found out that the average retail photolab doesn't process traditional B&W. Found a few places that develop the film, but it aint cheap. I bought traditional B&W when I should have bought C-41 type B&W for convinent processing.

The moral of the story is this. It's going to cost about $100 for me the get the foam replaced on the camera and about $22 to develop and process my exposed roll of film.

I'm sticking with digital.

rahmonster · August 25, 2005

I have an EOS30 that I love and still use it more than my digital. Partly helped because I study fine art B&w photography and develop all of my own film and prints. To me personally, I will always prefer film to digital I think. I love both mediums for both of their advantages, but when I'm doing my art prints I much prefer to work in the darkroom. That is probably just my personal preference though I guess. And I have yet to come across a camera store who said they wont do film. I have just noticed I am paying WAY more for my colour prints than I was 5 years ago.

colourbox · August 25, 2005

PeterGar wrote:

Found a few places that develop the film, but it aint cheap. I bought traditional B&W when I should have bought C-41 type B&W for convinent processing.

FYI, If you have one of those film scanners that has ICE dust and scratch removal, it won't work on silver B&W film, but it will work on C-41 and other dye-based films. Which means you might spend more time cleaning up the silver B&W.

PeterGar · August 25, 2005

colourbox wrote:

FYI, If you have one of those film scanners that has ICE dust and scratch removal, it won't work on silver B&W film, but it will work on C-41 and other dye-based films. Which means you might spend more time cleaning up the silver B&W.

Is that the main difference between traditional B&W and C-41 B&W? One is silver-based and one is dye-based?

Matthew Saville · August 25, 2005

johno wrote:

...He's mostly a nature photographer.

Of course, you'll mostly hear his sort of advice from mostly nature photographers. Because quite frankly, digital HAS won out in the fast action shooting. But for the zen photographers, film still takes the cake, in many situations. I just don't like to fiddle with ISO, WB, contrast, color space, etc. etc. when I'm shooting a sunrise. I just throw RVP 50 in there and voila, beautiful color.

colourbox wrote:

I have a nice film scanner and I am growing very tired of touching up scratches, mildew, uneven color dye fading, and other defects inherent to film. Now that raw digital workflows are really getting settled, I'm really starting to appreciate digital.

On the flip side, I'm getting very tired of CF cards going bad, DVD+R's not being read-able on other computers, and so on and so forth.

NHBubba wrote:

Seriously, in my view, film has become something of a niche these days. For a amateur on a budget, I think digital wins hands down. The initial investment is far greater, but once you buy in the ability to endlessly experiment w/ different techniques and effects w/o concern for film or processing costs is invaluable.

You are exactly right; my D70 and I just a few days ago celebrated it's 40,000th shutter release. For film, that would have been 1,111 rolls which if I had shot half transparency and half neg, would have cost me almost $9,000, without a single scan or print. Instead, I've spent $450 on 6 gigs worth of Compact Flash. My point is, digital has allowed me such an incredible learning "spree" that I cannot even begin to think where I would be if I still had to save up for film, wait for processing, etc. etc. Star trail multiple exposures? Reverse lens macro? Forget it, I'm not wasting time and money to get 3 rolls of flim back that are blown white or pitch black. But with digital, I can learn from my mistakes the split second the shutter closes, all for theoretically $0.00. I would still be in the dark ages if I hadn't bought my DSLR.

pathfinder wrote:

But they can't begin to compare to 13x19 prints or 16x24 prints I make from my 20D or my 1dsMkll on an Epson ink jet printer. Not even close. Not in texture, sharpeness or lack of grain.

Sad to say, but currently I still loathe inkjet prints. 30 minutes in the car and they become one big ink-and-paper sandwich, even the "holy grail" Epson stuff. They are just too big of a money hole for me, and besides, I just prefer the larger, 16x24" and 20x30" prints I can get from light jets, at lower-by-the-minute costs...

S. Reed wrote:

You could not pry my cold dead fingers from my Toyo VX 125 4x5. I'm going to be burried with it which is no waste cause I will have worn it out by then.

For fine art photography you couldn't give me 1DS MkII (though I'd snap it up in a minute for just about every other kind of photography). I don't enjoy digital photography like I do tranny work. (I have a 10D) Something about the deliberateness of film. The pace. The less time staring at a computer screen. The lovely trannies on the light table.

I shoot landscape mostly.

Light tables still beat my ugly little monitor, hands down. Although I think if I had an Apple 23" cinema flatscreen, the light table might start to get jealous! But see, I'm right about the "shoot landscape mostly" and the whole deliberateness, the pace of film. It's just more condusive to high quality results when you're as serious as 4x5. The whole "immediate results for tricky exposure verification" is absolute nonsense when people have mastered their spot meters an the zone system. If I shoot film and bracket 3 exposures, I'm 99.9% of the time right on the money, but shooting digital seems to take exposure after exposure after exposure to get it "right"...

PeterGar wrote:

Then, when I took it to get processed, found out that the average retail photolab doesn't process traditional B&W. Found a few places that develop the film, but it aint cheap. I bought traditional B&W when I should have bought C-41 type B&W for convinent processing.

I can't exactly blame you here. It's hard to enjoy true B&W shooting when you have to pay through the nose. And what's more, you don't get to go into the wet lab and do the printing yourself... The reason I LOVE my traditional B&W Fuji Acros SO much is that I have the school lab at OCC where I can develop film for free and print as much as I can afford in paper. Watching an inkjet go back and forth for 45 minutes is just no fun at all as compared to the magic of watching a B&W print appear on paper right before your eyes. But if you don't have access to a lab, I do agree, it's quite a hassle to find a place that will print and then to scan it in. Although about dust, I cannot concede that drawback because that's a matter of clean practice and not a "must". If you're clean with your film, you'll have to do far less touching up than you would if you change lenses on your DSLR just a few times...

Cheers all, and great topic! All in all I think film is still very much alive, and it will not be dying down to the status of "niche" for quite some time. Anybody get their hands on the new Velvia 100 yet? My local store got some in but the dang lab techs shot it all! Grrr... (but at least they shot it with an XpanII and let me have a look at the results on the light table. That calmed me down considerably lol...)

-Matt-

colourbox · August 25, 2005

Is that the main difference between traditional B&W and C-41 B&W? One is silver-based and one is dye-based?

Pretty much. One of the big reasons the C-41 B&W came out is exactly what you complained about: neighborhood processors don't do silver B&W anymore. That wasn't digital's fault, the B&W volume fell off too much years ago and got to the point where if you didn't have a pro lab nearby it got sent to a lab in some other, bigger city for a similarly bigger price. The primary advantage of C-41 is that you can run it through a common 1-hour color processor. It's just a side advantage that it also works better with scanner scratch and dust removal systems.

OK, I have a question. What's everyone's favorite 35mm film storage page brand? I have some old ones that are just right, the film slides out without much tugging. The ones I've bought in the last few years are really tight. I feel like I have to really push or pull to get the filmstrip in or out, and I'm always worried I'm going to add yet another scratch or scuff to the emulsion.

rahmonster · August 25, 2005

I use KENRO ones that are made out of a sort of tissue paper which doesnt scratch my negs and doesnt create static either. And the size of the neg sleeves is nice and wide, plenty of room

Richard S · August 26, 2005

One more point worth mentioning. What's happening down at the low-end
of the market is important. Once someone finds a way to make a
digital camera that replaces those ultra-cheap disposable cameras you
find at the corner drugstore, that's when we'll know film is really
starting to die.

How long do you think it will be before you can't buy Kodak Gold film
in the supermarket anymore? Like I said before I think that day is at
least 5-to-10 years away. Speaking for myself personally, whenever I
go to a museum or other public venue I'd say half the people are still
using film cameras.

The digital camera manufacturers have to solve the problem of how to
make their technology appealing and easy for people who don't own
computers and don't care to. Film still owns that segment of the
market.

Is there still a place for Film Cameras?

Comments