# Do people even know what film is any more?



## Actor (Jan 23, 2010)

There are at least two threads on this forum posted by noobs with questions about their digital cameras.  The forum's title is clearly "Film Discussion and Q&A."  Don't these people know what film is?


----------



## Overread (Jan 23, 2010)

If they've put their thread in the wrong place then just use the report post feature to alert the moderation team that the thread needs to be moved


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jan 23, 2010)

Film? Wot's that?

:lmao:


----------



## Hybrid Designz (Jan 23, 2010)

I just bought an n65 and 3 Minolta 35mm. cant wait to use them!


----------



## xjken99 (Jan 23, 2010)

Film is that stuff that goes in my Canon slr's that have been in my closet until about a month ago.  I'm shootin, I'm playing with my light meter, using my lenses, converters, filters, in short having a great time.


----------



## airgunr (Jan 24, 2010)

I still shoot 95% film.


----------



## Mike_E (Jan 24, 2010)

At least give them credit for looking here.


----------



## molested_cow (Jan 24, 2010)

Da hood is tough.


----------



## TiaS (Jan 24, 2010)

One of them was me. I am new here and still getting the hang of the site. And yes, lol. I do know what film is.


----------



## maiello22690 (Jan 29, 2010)

I just got through a roll of Kodachrome yesterday.  I've got to send it out to Dwayne's in a couple of days.  But yes, I'm 19 and prefer film, thing is, there are no dakrooms anywhere near me!  My college shut theirs down a couple of years back and I don't have the space or money to make my own yet.


----------



## TexasJeff (Jan 29, 2010)

You guys have renewed my hope in film. I have been out of the photography scene for a number of years for reasons I dont need to go into here.
I admit I was a bit upset when I came to the realization( false as it may have been) that DSLR tech was rendering my hard earned knowledge obsolete.
Now, I am looking forward to setting up my own darkroom, buying some medium format gear to supplement my existing 35mm setup and going to town on some film and prints! As I mentioned in another post I have enough negatives to keep me busy for at least a year even if I dont shoot another roll.
That said I do own a DSLR and am slowly learning to use it, but film is my first love in photography. Does this mean I have chosen a "side". Oh god.
I didnt even know this debate was raging in the photography world, though I might have guessed.


----------



## IgsEMT (Jan 29, 2010)

I have tears in my eyes, film lovers... :lmao:


----------



## Battou (Jan 29, 2010)

Actor said:


> Do people even know what film is any more?




I've seen evidence of this before. I am ashamed of the way things have been proceeding. I understand everything moves forward but sometimes people just have to remember that there is a past. Film does exist, it is still used and I can even tolerate the occational thread misplacement, but there is a little bit of frequency in ignorance IMHO. I too have to wonder if todays average beginner knows what film is.


----------



## IgsEMT (Jan 29, 2010)

> I've seen evidence of this before. I am ashamed of the way things have been proceeding. I understand everything moves forward but sometimes people just have to remember that there is a past. Film does exist, it is still used and I can even tolerate the occational thread misplacement, but there is a little bit of frequency in ignorance IMHO. I too have to wonder if todays average beginner knows what film is.


Got a call few days from a friend, her  brother wants to get into photography and wannted me to talk to him regarding it. So we start talking and I tell the guy - by your self disposable 35mm, shoot it, develop it and we'll meet to discuss it. OF COURSE he asked WHY to which i replied that it'll teach him "think first, shoot later". His reply was "isn't it easier just to shoot digital and then look at pictures?
_Ignorance or maybe even arrogance  _


----------



## Battou (Jan 29, 2010)

IgsEMT said:


> > I've seen evidence of this before. I am ashamed of the way things have been proceeding. I understand everything moves forward but sometimes people just have to remember that there is a past. Film does exist, it is still used and I can even tolerate the occational thread misplacement, but there is a little bit of frequency in ignorance IMHO. I too have to wonder if todays average beginner knows what film is.
> 
> 
> Got a call few days from a friend, her  brother wants to get into photography and wannted me to talk to him regarding it. So we start talking and I tell the guy - by your self disposable 35mm, shoot it, develop it and we'll meet to discuss it. OF COURSE he asked WHY to which i replied that it'll teach him "think first, shoot later". His reply was "isn't it easier just to shoot digital and then look at pictures?
> _Ignorance or maybe even arrogance  _



Suprisingly I had a kid come to me the other day talking to me about his photography class. He was dissapointed with his photos of late. I've known this kid since he was...well A kid. When I asked what he was shooting he kinda seemed ashamed but did tell me. He is shooting for class with his cell phone. He has to because he is still a student and the school took his loaner SLR away because they can no longer process film in school and his job don't pay squat so he can't even afford a deisent dP&S.

Much to my suprise he had actually been wanting to go back to film and to ask me what camera it was that I had originally reccomended a few years ago, so we poured over E-bay looking for an AE-1 setup or an EF like the one I use that would fit his budget. He was also interested in a scanner as well. This likely would no be the case if I shot digital. He likely would give up considering the price of digital equipment.


*EDIT*

Some of his photos can be seen here


----------



## gsgary (Jan 29, 2010)

maiello22690 said:


> I just got through a roll of Kodachrome yesterday.  I've got to send it out to Dwayne's in a couple of days.  But yes, I'm 19 and prefer film, thing is, there are no dakrooms anywhere near me!  My college shut theirs down a couple of years back and I don't have the space or money to make my own yet.



You should live in the uk, every college that teaches photography has a darkroom


----------



## Overread (Jan 30, 2010)

Yep though most schools are moving toward a digital dominant course - film is often part of the course (and some have film section which must be passed) - but they also move more toward the digital methods as well.
However with cameras and facilities most courses also let studends choose to complete the course coursework in film or digital. 

At university level its a bit more divided - some have jumped right into the digital market with a full digital setup and course focused around digital methods - others are sticking to their guns and full film course (often with a bias toward weddings since that and landscapes are two areas where film is still a well used process - B&W film weddings are "popular") whilst most will entertain both in the first year and then let students find their own path in the latter years and dissertations.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 30, 2010)

Consider the fact that if you walk into any store that is selling camera's ... you will not find a Film camera on their shelf (unless you walked into the Used Dept.).


----------



## Overread (Jan 30, 2010)

That's partly as result of manufactures as well though - they simply are not pushing the film market anymore in the 35mm format (some other areas still have a stronger film following, but are more specialist than the average highstreet store). Add to that the lack of demand from the average customer for film cameras and its no wonder that the average highstreet shop - especailly the chainstores - are not stocking any/many film cameras.


----------



## Battou (Jan 30, 2010)

Overread said:


> That's partly as result of manufactures as well though - they simply are not pushing the film market anymore in the 35mm format (some other areas still have a stronger film following, but are more specialist than the average highstreet store). Add to that the lack of demand from the average customer for film cameras and its no wonder that the average highstreet shop - especailly the chainstores - are not stocking any/many film cameras.




This is also due to the average film costomer buying used. When you sit and look at the prices between new and used film camera equipment it's not hard to see why.


----------



## Overread (Jan 30, 2010)

Very true - the digital revolution flooded the film market with (good quality) used products as many pros and amateurs made the jump into digital. 

Heck at the local camera club to me (where everyone is at least double if not more time my own age) digital is highly dominant over film. Free processing, instant results, no film to purchase are all big things that have helped push digital forward.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 30, 2010)

A number of years ago, I bought a Fuji S2 Pro d-slr when it was new, and it cost me $2,495. I shot that camera very heavily, and really enjoyed its lovely image quality and beautiful Fuji color characteristics. After a few years, I figured up that at $6.99 per roll of Ektachrome 100 Professional or other good E-6 slide film, at $8.99 per roll for "quality" E-6 slide developing and mounting, the $2,495 I sunk into the S2 Pro had yielded the equivalent of around $74,500 worth of film and processing. That did not include trips to go and buy film and return home, nor any trips to the lab to drop off-return home-drive back-return home....NO allowance made for time or trips or hassles...

There never was anything wonderful about sending E-6 slide film out and having it come back scratched, or dirty, or processed poorly. Processing from economy labs grew worse and worse and worse, until by the end of the film as mass market era, the chances of getting GOOD processing were lower than the chance of receiving poor or sub-par processing--at many outlets.

I like film images. My first  25 years worth of pictures were all shot on film.
But film was not without its share of problems--damaged negatives, poor processing, processing mistakes, fogged film, cannisters that scratched films, and so on. Not to mention limited shots and the need to carry large amounts of film for extended shooting trips,etc. So, it's no surprise that increasingly, people are less and less aware of film, and of picture-making using film. Emulsion on substrate had a good 165 year run! (1839-2004)


----------



## jbylake (Jan 31, 2010)

maiello22690 said:


> I just got through a roll of Kodachrome yesterday. I've got to send it out to Dwayne's in a couple of days. But yes, I'm 19 and prefer film, thing is, there are no dakrooms anywhere near me! My college shut theirs down a couple of years back and I don't have the space or money to make my own yet.


 
I shoot film almost exclusively.  When I moved into my new flat, there just wasn't room for a darkroom.  Just purchase a dedicated film scanner.  You can develop negatives in your bathroom, if needed, or another room or basement that has a sink.  Then you can just scan your neg's into digital, and buy a printer (oouch! a really good one can be expensive), or send them out for printing.  I might only "keep" one or two for printing out of a roll of 36, if that, so I just take them to a local processor for printing.  I just bought a new scanner about 6 months or so ago.  You can get a good one for a little over $300, you can get less expensive, and more expensive models, whatever your budget allows.

So, for about $400 bucks, or less you can shoot, develop and scan. PS Elements can be had on EBAY for about 30 or 40 Bucks (For PS7). It's really all I need for B&W.  And you're set to go.

J.:mrgreen:


----------



## TexasJeff (Feb 1, 2010)

jbylake said:


> maiello22690 said:
> 
> 
> > I just got through a roll of Kodachrome yesterday. I've got to send it out to Dwayne's in a couple of days. But yes, I'm 19 and prefer film, thing is, there are no dakrooms anywhere near me! My college shut theirs down a couple of years back and I don't have the space or money to make my own yet.
> ...


Are prints scanned from negatives but printed digitally something you could show at galleries?
I am assuming hand made prints are still the norm. I had been wondering about this and your post reminded me.


----------



## Battou (Feb 1, 2010)

TexasJeff said:


> jbylake said:
> 
> 
> > maiello22690 said:
> ...



Actually, yeah one can get away with a scanned negative printed displayed in a gallery, some enthusiests can spot the difference but most untrained eyes would never notice.

No hand printing is no longer the norm, in fact it's a rarety as far as commercial printing goes, one has to look specifically for labs that do optical printing anymore. As far as personal in home printing like jbylake was refferring to goes I would have to say that is prolly fifty/fifty give or take.


----------



## jbylake (Feb 2, 2010)

Yeah, I agree. You can get really good prints from printers, but those quality printers can really cost you big bucks, compared to a normal printer, or "photo printer".  Those that cost a around a hundred or two, won't cut it for Pro level work.  That's why I send off my scanned negatives to a shop to have them printed.

If you're going to be displaying your work in galleries, I would assume that you are a professional, or can shoot at the Pro level, in that case, I think I'd build a full blown darkroom.

J.:mrgreen:


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Feb 2, 2010)

TexasJeff said:


> Are prints scanned from negatives but printed digitally something you could show at galleries?
> I am assuming hand made prints are still the norm. I had been wondering about this and your post reminded me.



This came up in a another thread not that long ago so I checked out the Aperture Foundation. It turns out they do sell digital prints. There are prints listed as "Epson archival" and, whatever that is, that's digital.

Now, the question is whether the foundation follows what the top galleries are doing and, by top, I mean the ones that sell to museums. And then, are the collectors going to follow the museums or what...

But for anyone wanting to seriously explore the photo art world, it would be good to know.


----------



## TexasJeff (Feb 3, 2010)

Very interesting. I was talking to my professor about this and he seemed to be of the opinion that digital prints made from film are acceptable in most situations. He pointed out some photographers like... well I took poor notes. 
Point being there are plenty of well know artists, if I dare use the word, doing just that. I am going to be getting a negative scanner soon.
I have also been thinking my DSLR is going to be a wonderful replacement for my old 35mm film cameras except for infrared. I hear there's still some companies making it though Kodak has stopped?
But seeing the price of some of the medium format digitals makes film look very attractive if one wanted to move to a larger format, especially given the drop in price for film gear these days.
There are a lot of possibilities either way and its really an exciting time in photography.


----------



## djacobox372 (Feb 3, 2010)

Derrel said:


> A number of years ago, I bought a Fuji S2 Pro d-slr when it was new, and it cost me $2,495. I shot that camera very heavily, and really enjoyed its lovely image quality and beautiful Fuji color characteristics. After a few years, I figured up that at $6.99 per roll of Ektachrome 100 Professional or other good E-6 slide film, at $8.99 per roll for "quality" E-6 slide developing and mounting, the $2,495 I sunk into the S2 Pro had yielded the equivalent of around $74,500 worth of film and processing. That did not include trips to go and buy film and return home, nor any trips to the lab to drop off-return home-drive back-return home....NO allowance made for time or trips or hassles...
> 
> There never was anything wonderful about sending E-6 slide film out and having it come back scratched, or dirty, or processed poorly. Processing from economy labs grew worse and worse and worse, until by the end of the film as mass market era, the chances of getting GOOD processing were lower than the chance of receiving poor or sub-par processing--at many outlets.
> 
> ...



I understand your points, but why compare a 6 megapixel digital with medium format film?  Heck cheap drugstore 35mm negative film would outperform that particular digital camera.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 3, 2010)

djacobox372 said:


> I understand your points, but why compare a 6 megapixel digital with medium format film?  Heck cheap drugstore 35mm negative film would outperform that particular digital camera.



Not sure what you mean by comparing that camera to medium format film. What do you mean, medium format film? E-6 means E-6 processing. Where is this medium format film thing coming from? I wasn't comparing it to medium format film.

And, funny thing about that particular digital camera--James Russell shot numerous six-figure cosmetics and fashion campaigns using the Fuji S2 pro camera, so your assertion that cheap drugstore negative film outperforms a 6MP digital is quite laughable. He compared the S2's output quite frequently  to Fuji's Astia 120 rollfilm...but then, he's only one of Americas' top advertising shooters. I''m sure he'd rather use cheap drugstore film.

Stop by his web site and look at some of the work done with the S2 pro and tell us how bad it looks compared with MF film work. I'd love to hear your dissertation.  The Photography and Films Of James Russell and Ann Rutherford Los Angeles New York Dallas Paris


----------



## TexasJeff (Feb 5, 2010)

jbylake said:


> Yeah, I agree. You can get really good prints from printers, but those quality printers can really cost you big bucks, compared to a normal printer, or "photo printer".  Those that cost a around a hundred or two, won't cut it for Pro level work.  That's why I send off my scanned negatives to a shop to have them printed.
> 
> If you're going to be displaying your work in galleries, I would assume that you are a professional, or can shoot at the Pro level, in that case, I think I'd build a full blown darkroom.
> 
> J.:mrgreen:


LOL don't put the cart before the horse my friend!
While building a darkroom does loom in my future, my pressing concern now is archiving about 4 years worth of negatives digitally and selecting pieces to print for my portfolio. These are all B&W and Infrared images. I will be buying a dedicated scanner next week and beginning. I understand your point about printing and I dont have thousands of spare dollars to buy a nice one....right now.
Which brought up my questions about printing digitally.


----------



## Robert1947 (Feb 8, 2010)

Derrel said:


> djacobox372 said:
> 
> 
> > I understand your points, but why compare a 6 megapixel digital with medium format film? Heck cheap drugstore 35mm negative film would outperform that particular digital camera.
> ...


 
I'm new here so I'm not trying to stir things up with anyone but I have to agree with you re Fuji S2 or any other quality DSLR. Now don't missunderstand .... I love my old OM1 as much as anybody else loves their film but, based on my long experience I can't agree with the "number crunchers" who claim to be able to "prove" that digital can't equal film. The numbers may say so but my eyes tell me how good a print looks and I've seen 16x20's from a 5mp Olympus E1 that blew me away. The owner of that E1 happens to be my wife ... a gallery curator!

I use both digital and 35mm c41 interchangeably and which one I like better is more a matter of the color charachteristic of the medium rather than pixel peeping or numbers (resolution) crunching.

Thankyou
Robert


----------



## bennielou (Feb 10, 2010)

Probably no more than they know what Beta Cams are or remember 8 track tapes.

Hey, film is fabulous.  I'm a fan.  But 99 percent of clients (I just made that up, but I bet I'm pretty close) don't care about film.

Digital has passed film up in term of clarity and quality.  Even though I'm a fan, and offer it myself....no one wants it anymore.  Ok, maybe a really select few, but that's about it.  If you offer film only, you might really have a huge niche market.

Anyhoo, people, for the most part, have been "pitched" out of film.  There are many good reasons for this.

But if you are still shooting film, know and capitalize on that.  You are one of the lone rangers out there.


----------



## skieur (Feb 10, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Film? Wot's that?
> 
> :lmao:


 
That's the obsolete plastic stuff, that grand dad used to have in his small, weird looking camera.   

skieur


----------

