# Love film!



## kevinfoto (Jul 21, 2011)

Will film ever come back! Any thoughts?


----------



## Proteus617 (Jul 21, 2011)

APUG.


----------



## ann (Jul 21, 2011)

There is a growing number of people going back to film and a lot of young people interested. Will it ever be king again. Don't think so. But it isn't dead.

I have a teenage darkroom workshop this week and it has been full. They are having a blast and doing some nice things , especially for children without any photo experience.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jul 21, 2011)

Commercially... No

ArtIstically, I wasn't aware that film has gone anywhere.

This is also how I treat film.  If I'm doing my own artistic work, I use film.  However for paid work digital is a lot less stressful.


----------



## kevinfoto (Jul 21, 2011)

Thanks. I agree. Artistically is film.


----------



## 1holegrouper (Jul 22, 2011)

It is kind of like comparing ovens to microwaves. Most of us still have ovens.  You don't see chefs making their prize entres in microwaves.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 22, 2011)

Will film ever come back? Uh....no, not to anything even remotely close to what it once was. It has been replaced....eliminated...done away with, in so,so many situations. At my dentist's office, they now have a digital X-ray system, which has replaced the old X-ray film and Kodak HC-110 developer system he used for many years. Film sales have crashed, hard. Film cameras are now worth only a fraction of what they used to be valued at. The vast majority of develop and print labs are gone--out of business due to lack of demand for their services. My friends Ben and Tanya bought an interest in a chain of film developing stores almost precisely at the time that the Canon D30 and the Fuji S1 Pro were the "hot, new things" in d-slr cameras. In other words, right at the start of the digital SLR era. Within a few years, they had to close--they could not make it because there was no longer any need to develop film for masses of people. The new way of doing photography among the majority of people is using digital cameras.

I personally have shot very,very little film since going digital, but last week I did use my Canon A1 waterproof 35mm autofocus camera to take some photos of my son in the swimming pool. And, I keep threatening to load up a few Bronica SQ magazines with some 120 rollfilm, but honestly, it's just so much more-affordable, faster, and easier to shoot digitally. Currently, the companies and business doing the best in the film biz are the last few remaining ones,because they have absorbed all the clients from the other, failed businesses. Film will probably hang on for quite some time. FIlm still remains a pretty good way to get big negatives and high resolution at low prices.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 22, 2011)

Film is not dead, but it is very much endangered, and it will never return.  This is good and bad IMO; digital is much easier to work with, and I love the fact that instead of having to go into the darkroom, mix and pour trays full of chemicals and come out hours later with my hands smelling of fixer, and the cut on my finger stinging from the stop bath, I just sit down at the computer for a few minutes and a print will roll off the printer.  

That said, there is NOTHING that will ever replace film for B&W work.  I have a good stock of various types of Ilford 120 in the back of my 'fridge, and actually do put a fair bit through my old 645 AFD.


----------



## kevinfoto (Jul 24, 2011)

Hmm.. I agree. With everyone points here. Nothing compares toB&W film


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 24, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Will film ever come back? Uh....no, not to anything even remotely close to what it once was. It has been replaced....eliminated...done away with, in so,so many situations. At my dentist's office, they now have a digital X-ray system, which has replaced the old X-ray film and Kodak HC-110 developer system he used for many years. Film sales have crashed, hard. Film cameras are now worth only a fraction of what they used to be valued at. The vast majority of develop and print labs are gone--out of business due to lack of demand for their services. My friends Ben and Tanya bought an interest in a chain of film developing stores almost precisely at the time that the Canon D30 and the Fuji S1 Pro were the "hot, new things" in d-slr cameras. In other words, right at the start of the digital SLR era. Within a few years, they had to close--they could not make it because there was no longer any need to develop film for masses of people. The new way of doing photography among the majority of people is using digital cameras.
> 
> I personally have shot very,very little film since going digital, but last week I did use my Canon A1 waterproof 35mm autofocus camera to take some photos of my son in the swimming pool. And, I keep threatening to load up a few Bronica SQ magazines with some 120 rollfilm, but honestly, it's just so much more-affordable, faster, and easier to shoot digitally. Currently, the companies and business doing the best in the film biz are the last few remaining ones,because they have absorbed all the clients from the other, failed businesses. Film will probably hang on for quite some time. FIlm still remains a pretty good way to get big negatives and high resolution at low prices.



As much as I want to say, "no Derrel, you're wrong!", this is very true. 

Film is like vinyl. It won't go away, it's just not mainstream anymore like it once was. Film will never come back to what it was in the mid 90's. Which is fine, because as long as I can still buy it and develop it, commercially it's an easy way to look different that the latest lightroom plug-in photogs and artistically, it is still the highest quality (and archival) medium that has ever existed.

Take the movie industry, alot of people can't read digital video shot 20, 30 years ago because the tapes are so out dated, nothing reads them. And what can be read, those films will ALWAYS AND FOREVER be locked into the quality that was the best for the 70's, 80's or 90's. The Wizard of Oz, shot in the 1930's, on film, looks incredible today, even in High-Def because it was shot on film, and you can always pull more out of it as scanning technology improves. 

When you grow old, what is going to happen to your pictures? Old prints and negatives have been passed down in my family, they are precious. Are we really going to pass down Hard Disks? Digital IS NOT TANGIBLE. 

Let's say you're 25 right now, when you're 85 years old, will you still be able to ope up .NEF's that you shot 60 years ago? Probably not. 
When you're 85, 60 years from now, will you still be able to see negatives or transparencies that you shot in your 20's? You bet. 

Did Radio kill the Newspaper?
Did TV kill the Radio? 
Did Internet kill the TV?
Did Digital kill Film?

Nope.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 24, 2011)

Derrel said:


> The idea that digital is not tangible is very important to understand. Digital images by their nature, do not exist in the tangible, hand-holdable, hold-it-up-to-the-light-and-see-a-picture nature of glass plates, and films on the various bases; the earliest films on nitrocellulose base have almost entirely disappeared; so, the earliest motion pictures made in Hollywood, for the most part, are now long since gone, having been lost due to an unsuitable film base material. Later film ,that made of the various "safety film" base materials, has not decayed nearly so badly,and so we have quite a few old motion picture films in pretty good condition. I think the same thing might easily happen to the first generation of digital images; just like almost ALL of the old HOllywood stuff shot on nitro was lost, so might be the earliest generation of digitally captured images.


I have heard (and I can't find a source for it right now) that most (if not all...?) movies shot digitally (which I think is still in the minority of films being produced today) are converted to film for archival purposes.  And I suppose also for playback on older equipment...

edit
But yeah - that wouldn't apply to early digital stills...  I must have mis-read that line and thought you meant digital movies...


edit ... again
Why is my post "earlier" than your's now??  You had the last post, I replied to it, and now you still have the last post and mine is between your's and Sw1tchFX's...  Weird...

...Unless you deleted it and then re-posted it.  (Which must be what happened, because the typos I spotted are gone.)


----------



## Derrel (Jul 24, 2011)

The idea that digital is not tangible is very important to understand. Digital images by their nature, do not exist in the tangible, hand-holdable, hold-it-up-to-the-light-and-see-a-picture nature of glass plates, and films on the various bases; the earliest films on nitrocellulose base have almost entirely disappeared; so, the earliest motion pictures made in Hollywood, for the most part, are now long since gone, having been lost due to an unsuitable film base material. Later film, that made on the various "safety film" base materials, has not decayed nearly so badly,and so we have quite a few old motion picture films in pretty good condition. I think the same thing might easily happen to the first generation of digital images; just like almost ALL of the old Hollywood stuff shot on nitro was lost, so might be lost much of the earliest generation of digitally captured images.


As far as "nothing" being able to read digital video shot 20 or 30 years ago--I think that's a bit of an exaggeration; however, at the widespread, popular, household level, it's true. Not many homes today can even play a Betamax tape, but at the level of museums, film preservation groups, cinema fanatics, and historical societies, there is adequate hardware all over the world to translate virtually *any* older video to a newer, more-current, more-popular format, or indeed onto MULTIPLE differing formats of storage media. This process is often called forward migration, and forward migration involves duplicating the digital data onto NEWER storage media.


Back to the non-tangible aspect of digital images: noted Leica expert and photo write Irwin Puts wrote a fascinating essay on the difference between digital and analog imaging, and the non-tangible nature of digital still images is one of the main differences between the digtial and the silver-based or dye-based images we've shot on film for these many years. But despite the fact that digital might not be tangible, that doesn't mean that film will therefore make a comeback. Much earlier, film-shot work has deteriorated due to bad processing, faulty materials, poor archival life of earlier processes (Agfa and Perutz and Ansco, as well as Polaroid, made some incredibly crappy color film that has already given up the ghost just 40 years later...sad, but true). Color prints were often poorly processed, as was much lab-done B&W consumer-grade work. Slides and negatives get burned up in fires, and destroyed in floods, and so on, and also take up pretty large physical strorage areas. Mold and fungus ruin films. Digital images once printed out are as tangible as film-created images. Being able to hold something in one's hand does NOT ensure that it will be around in the future; in fact, the ability to "encode" a picture in binary code means that digital images can be "archived" in BOOKS or on PAPER. I can e-mail you the binary code to a picture in seconds, and you can print that code out, and store an encoded picture that could later be typed by hand into a decoding application, and the image magically re-created, perfectly. No so with a film negative; it cannot be transcribed and typed out like a binary image file.


I really disagree quite strongly about the future "locked tight" nature of opening up .NEF files or other raw camera captures...computer power is so,so vast right now, and the .NEF specification so primitive that I expect the smart phones of the upcoming decades to be able to open and read hundred and hundreds of raw image file formats; computing power has been doubling every 18 months since before you were born, and will probably continue to expand pretty rapidly for some time. I can access archives of information right now using my computer which used to take WEEKS of inter-library loan applications and book shipping to access; I can access river levels, stock prices, and menu and movie listing right now from a telephone, whereas only a few years ago, that kind of info was locked away in newspapers, and government databases that were NOT available so easily. The "tangible" books locked in libraries gathering dust can now be accessed via the interwebs!


A good example for examination of future-proofing might be the JPEG image file. Let's compare it to, say, the two-bladed 110 volt household plug-in receptacles (i.e. the wall A.C. outlets) that were built into my great-grandparents' 1921 farm house, back at around the time that new home was one of the first to be built WITH AC CURRENT as "standard" equipment...the same, simple, two-bladed plug-in devices made in 1921 or 1922 or 1940 or 1990, will still plug into the wall, and work. We're approaching 90 years with a simple standard that has remained mostly compatible forward and backward. Same with the flat phonograph record playback system; machines are available cheap, and are still being made,even though most music today is bought as digital downloads. I think the JPEG image file format is akin to the 110 volt AC wall outlet system of the early 1920's. And I think that future computing software will be easily able to handle .NEF and .CR2 files, quite easily. Morse code was invented in 1844, right? Very simple code for a human. For a computer, modern image files are pieces of cake....they are not even encrypted! I think JPEGS will be readable for hundreds of years,by many,many devices.


Film will continue to be made for quite some time I am confident. But film never was without "lost images". The early Polaroid images? GONE. MUCH of the earlier color stuff, or the color stuff that had poor archival keeping quality--gone. Kodachrome was great in DARK storage, but poor for projection. Ektachrome was great when projected, but not nearly as stable in the dark as Kodachrome was. As far as being able to see images I have made 60 to 70 years in the future, the huge advantage digital has over film is almost INSTANT duplication, with ZERO quality loss, and at affordable prices. I can afford to make multiple copies of digital images, at almost no cost per image, due to the fact that the digiial image is not "tangible", and can be replicated nearly-instantly with a modern computer, and I can keep one,two,three, or even a hundred copies of my best images, anyplace. When a steel box full of Kodachromes melts in a house fire, that archive is gone. With digital images, they can easily reside in the cloud, at my brother's, on my key ring on a flash drive, and in safety deposit box. AND, I an make the entire archive set in a day or so, for as many as 50,000 images, duplicated five times...which is why my mioney says the digital images being made today will probably out-last the earlier film images by a good margin.


Anyway...today I took another roll of Fujicolor 200 shots of my kid and me in the pool using the underwater Canon A-1 camera I have...I do not have a digital that has an underwater housing.


----------



## Andrew_Northover (Aug 6, 2011)

Im an engineer so thinking like one here. Everyone I've spoken to who loves photography generally only stays away from film due to processing complexity and cost. Film is expensive, processing is even more. So the economic aspect is a major problem.
Secondly, particularly in victoria australia where i am, if you're shooting B&W film and NOT from melbourne, its quite difficult to have it processed if you want it done well and don't have access to a darkroom.
So, my theory is, what if the technology were to appear, that allows for a 35mm roll of film to be of a completely different chemical system as what we're familiar with. A hybrid between analogue and digital. Reusable film canisters with an electronic "setting" device, where at the completion of the film you can digitally change the chemical structure of the film, as you would using a fixer in a darkroom, and then scan the negs for use on computer. After scanning, the roll can be reset, and be a new roll of film again.
So in essence, its a digital camera, but still have all the benefits of film. Its obviously a very hypothetical situation, but if such a technology could appear, id imagine a sudden boom of film based cameras to reappear.


----------



## Mike_E (Aug 6, 2011)

Going down to the -Mart and buying a coffee cup is how coffee is drunk these days but throwing, glazing and firing your own mug isn't going away either.


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 6, 2011)

Andrew_Northover said:


> So in essence, its a digital camera, but still have all the benefits of film.


Not exactly...

There wouldn't be any physical negative after you 'reset' the film.  ...It would basically be a full frame digital camera with a very small memory card.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Aug 6, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> Andrew_Northover said:
> 
> 
> > So in essence, its a digital camera, but still have all the benefits of film.
> ...


yup. This is the thing that alot of people forget about film. The tangibility of it.


----------



## rocdoc (Aug 8, 2011)

Funny, I see more people going through what I just went through: learning a lot on digital and then moving to film (not full time, but for occasional fun) for the simplicity and full control feeling of it. Delaying gratification is really tough though... I recently bought an incredibly cheap good quality film body and LOVE going around with it and my 50mm lens...


----------



## mila_olivera (Aug 5, 2012)

Tangibility... how I love this word. Why do I love film so much? Why did I moved from digital to film and don't want to come back to digital anymore?
Because I hate things that can dissapear just with a click, with a virus in your computer or anything else. I'm just 19, but I know very well what I want my work to be:
Tangible, almost eternal and incorruptible over time. My mind's beyond this new world of 'everything's kept in a place we can't even touch'. I can't stand it.
I love film, I love shooting it. I love opening a drawer and see negatives and prints and letters.
Just my opinion.


----------



## Chann (Aug 5, 2012)

I hit print and out pops a tangible paper print.  

Kidding aside, digital does have a big advantage when it comes to backups and storage. I can save my many years worth of photos on my computer which backs up to a My Book which is kept offsite from my house.


----------



## bhop (Aug 5, 2012)

Wow, this is an old thread, but I do agree.  I love film.


----------



## Gaerek (Aug 5, 2012)

mila_olivera said:


> Tangibility... how I love this word. Why do I love film so much? Why did I moved from digital to film and don't want to come back to digital anymore?
> Because I hate things that can dissapear just with a click, with a virus in your computer or anything else. I'm just 19, but I know very well what I want my work to be:
> Tangible, almost eternal and incorruptible over time. My mind's beyond this new world of 'everything's kept in a place we can't even touch'. I can't stand it.
> I love film, I love shooting it. I love opening a drawer and see negatives and prints and letters.
> Just my opinion.



Flood? Fire? Theft? These are all ways your tangible negatives/prints can be destroyed or lost forever. Is digital perfect? No, but my current backup scheme will survive pretty much anything that can happen. Anything that can destroy my digital shots would be something that would make me not really care much about my photos anymore (we're talking disaster of biblical proportions here). About the physical tangibility for the sake of being able to hold and touch, well, I can't comment on that because it's a preference thing. Personally, I'm happy not to have boxes and boxes of negatives/prints to sort through. Just the same as I love not having hundreds of individual CDs and instead can hold my 800 CDs worth of music on an iPod classic. Being able to carry my entire CD collection on something smaller than a deck of cards is absolutely wonderful.

If film is your preference, then do what makes you happy!  But your analog negatives are far more vulnerable than "digital negatives" with a proper backup scheme (which isn't hard to set up).


----------



## bhop (Aug 5, 2012)




----------



## mila_olivera (Aug 5, 2012)

LOL bhop this is not the first time I see one of these funny post of yours. You're great :v


----------



## laurenvictoria (Aug 6, 2012)

Whooooaaa film is not dead or dying. Definitely thriving in the teenage world. Im 18 and seriously film is all the rage, and vinyls. This generation has an immense fascination with the past
http://www.lomography.com/


Oh and polaroids are back!


----------



## mila_olivera (Aug 6, 2012)

laurenvictoria said:


> Whooooaaa film is not dead or dying. Definitely thriving in the teenage world. Im 18 and seriously film is all the rage, and vinyls. This generation has an immense fascination with the past


 Yay! We're young and rescuing this lovely feeling of shooting film  
I followed on tumblr btw, dear Lauren!


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 6, 2012)

laurenvictoria said:


> Whooooaaa film is not dead or dying. Definitely thriving in the teenage world. Im 18 and seriously film is all the rage, and vinyls. This generation has an immense fascination with the past
> Lomography
> 
> 
> Oh and polaroids are back!




I checked out your tumblr... nice work.

Even though this thread is back from the dead. I'm sure douchebag darrel will be in here at any moment telling us about how film has no purpose in today's use. However, he's spent 179 years doing photography, so what he says must be right :roll:


----------



## mila_olivera (Aug 6, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> laurenvictoria said:
> 
> 
> > Whooooaaa film is not dead or dying. Definitely thriving in the teenage world. Im 18 and seriously film is all the rage, and vinyls. This generation has an immense fascination with the past
> ...



LOL, at least he gives his own reasons and opinion, instead of just calling us hipsters as someone called me once...


----------



## laurenvictoria (Aug 6, 2012)

I hate being called a hipster because I use film, Seriously just love the way it looks.
(and yay! ill follow you back!)


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 6, 2012)

I like film for the "look" I guess - especially medium and large format.

Actually...I think those are the only film formats I like. Lol


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 6, 2012)

laurenvictoria said:


> I hate being called a hipster because I use film, Seriously just love the way it looks.
> (and yay! ill follow you back!)



That term is more age specific than anything else in my area. Unless you walked around with a pair of square frame glasses, skinny jeans, TOMS, & a coach backpack... it's pretty much impossible to be called a "hipster" around here if you're over the age of 21. My film cameras are 30+ years old (except one, the N65), and I haven't ever had a single person call me a hipster, or any other wanna be term for using them.


----------



## Tuffythepug (Aug 6, 2012)

I just recently picked up a Bronica ETRS for the purpose of getting back into my first love: B/W film.   I shot a couple of test photos today and I'll probably finish off this first roll this  week.    I found out that the closest source of b/w 120 roll film is about a 45 minute drive away.   I'll probably order it on-line after this..  I understand Freestyle in S.  Cal has a good selection of color and black and white film in 35mm and 120 size so that might be my go-to source.


----------



## Fred Berg (Aug 6, 2012)

15 minute drive: Ektar, Kodak consumer (DIN 24 + 27), Elite Chrome, Agfa Precisa off the shelf.

15 minute drive (same mall, different shop): Agfa Vista colour negative + Precisa slide, Kodak consumer + Elite Chrome off the shelf.

15 minute drive + 5 minute walk: T-max (DIN 21 + 24), Ektar, Portra (various speeds) Fuji, developing chemicals off the shelf.

15 minute drive + 10 minute walk: good range of Fuji colour film (up to DIN 33) off the shelf.

5 minute walk (no car this time): Ilford, Fuji off the shelf.

5 minute walk + going round one more corner: Kodak consumer colour negative (DIN 24 + 27), BW400CN, Elite Chrome, Agfa Precisa off the shelf.

I've probably missed something but you get my drift. Film is very much in demand here and going strong.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 6, 2012)

The town i live in is only small and has 3 camera shop all with film but only 2 stock 120, i shot 4 rolls of film this weekend 2 35mm and2 120 and bought 5 rolls of 120 FP4  good job i have just bought a bulk loader only trouble is what to load it with HP5 or FP4


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 6, 2012)

mila_olivera said:


> Tangibility... how I love this word. Why do I love film so much? Why did I moved from digital to film and don't want to come back to digital anymore?
> Because I hate things that can dissapear just with a click, with a virus in your computer or anything else. I'm just 19, but I know very well what I want my work to be:
> Tangible, almost eternal and incorruptible over time. My mind's beyond this new world of 'everything's kept in a place we can't even touch'. I can't stand it.
> I love film, I love shooting it. I love opening a drawer and see negatives and prints and letters.
> Just my opinion.



Yep, a very old thread. I have also noticed as Lauren indicates below an uptick in interest by youth. Just to clarify your comment here you do of course mean b&w film. You're not taking any film photos in color right?

Joe


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 6, 2012)

Ysarex said:
			
		

> Yep, a very old thread. I have also noticed as Lauren indicates below an uptick in interest by youth. Just to clarify your comment here you do of course mean b&w film. You're not taking any film photos in color right?
> 
> Joe



Agreed, if you're shooting in color, the photos can very well disappear contrary to popular belief.

B&W film will last MUCH longer than color film. (the good stuff anyway, not that crap using dyes)


----------



## laurenvictoria (Aug 6, 2012)

No color too! I usually get my film developed at riteaid and have them put it on a disk or I scan it myself so its on my computer forever   I havent done black and white yet because around where I live they have to send it out and it takes like 2 weeks to come back. Some day Ill do it though


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 6, 2012)

laurenvictoria said:
			
		

> No color too! I usually get my film developed at riteaid and have them put it on a disk or I scan it myself so its on my computer forever   I havent done black and white yet because around where I live they have to send it out and it takes like 2 weeks to come back. Some day Ill do it though



I know Walgreens here will do black and whites where I live. I don't know about your area. You might want to check them out.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 6, 2012)

Develope your own and take control


----------



## mila_olivera (Aug 6, 2012)

In fact, no, I can't because I still haven't found a place that sells them. I'm afraid I should go to Buenos Aires to get some. Two hours drive, and I don't have a car. And bus tickets are super expensive to go there.


----------



## Tuffythepug (Aug 6, 2012)

My town of app. 50,000 population has no "real" camera store.  Just a WalMart ,  Walgreens, and CVS Pharmacy.    On Saturday I spoke on the phone with the photo dep't mgrs of Walgreens and CVS...    They did not know what 120 film was.  One guy kept telling me the only film  he had was "400".  That was 35mm 400 speed film.  He did not understand the distinction between 120 roll film size and 35mm 400 speed.  He suggested I might just want to buy a disposable camera.  The Walgreens lady did not know what a film camera was.
This is the state of photography where I live.  Thus, it's either a 45 minute drive or rely on on-line purchase and wait by the mailbox.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 6, 2012)

Tuffythepug said:
			
		

> My town of app. 50,000 population has no "real" camera store.  Just a WalMart ,  Walgreens, and CVS Pharmacy.    On Saturday I spoke on the phone with the photo dep't mgrs of Walgreens and CVS...    They did not know what 120 film was.  One guy kept telling me the only film  he had was "400".  That was 35mm 400 speed film.  He did not understand the distinction between 120 roll film size and 35mm 400 speed.  He suggested I might just want to buy a disposable camera.  The Walgreens lady did not know what a film camera was.
> This is the state of photography where I live.  Thus, it's either a 45 minute drive or rely on on-line purchase and wait by the mailbox.



I'd move .


----------



## mila_olivera (Aug 6, 2012)

From KODAK: Technical File


> Film is by far the most reliable way to archive images. Black-and- white separations will last for up to 500 years, and color negative and intermediate stocks will last for hundreds of years.


I think one hundred it's ok for me. I can make the best prints possible before I die and store them as well as I can. LOL


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 6, 2012)

mila_olivera said:


> From KODAK: Technical File
> 
> 
> > Film is by far the most reliable way to archive images. Black-and- white separations will last for up to 500 years, and color negative and intermediate stocks will last for hundreds of years.
> ...



Yes, this is the reason I asked you about b&W versus color. When you revived this thread and started saying things like, "eternal and incorruptible over time" I thought it might be appropriate to point out that your color film is fading. I have seen an increased interest in film from young adults in my photo classes. Typically the question of dye stability has never crossed their minds.

I know there's been some back and forth tension here over film versus digital and I don't want to exacerbate that, but it is important that sound information be presented here.

That quote you got from that Kodak motion-picture site is extremely misleading. First of all you're not going to make separation negatives of your color film. The film may indeed last a few hundred years, the dyes on it will not. I'm 60 years old now and have shot color film for 40 years. Barring an unexpected surprise I will outlive the usefulness of your color film and you should live to see it fade into oblivion. Any prints you make will go along with the film.

You should know this rule by now: Never ask the wolf if he intends to eat the sheep! You don't ask a product manufacturer how their product stacks up and then believe them! If you want to know about dye fading in color films you ask Henry Wilhelm: Wilhelm Imaging Research. If Kodak and Henry don't agree, Henry will be right and Kodak will be lying.

Color film begins fading immediately and fades quickly by relative comparison to other dyes and pigments. This is the reason it took so long for color photography to make inroads into the art world and a major reason why it continues to be a weak player. The first color photographs to make it into a museum were Bill Eggleston's prints that Szarkowski bought for MOMA just before he retired. That was 1976! We had guys walking around on the moon in 1969! It took six more years to get a color print into a reputable museum and those prints were dye transfers (quadruple the fade resistance of your film).

You will not get 100 years from your film and prints. You will be lucky to get much beyond 10% of that. Apart from freeze drying your film there is nothing you can do about that. I started to take photo seriously about 20 years before you were born. Apart from the Kodachromes I took then, all of my color negative and E6 film from that time has faded badly. Henry Wilhelm wrote a definitive book on the topic and it's available in PDF format on his website -- data you should consider is in chapter 5.

By all means keep shooting film and enjoy yourself. Just want to make sure you're well informed -- color film is in fact the opposite of this; "eternal and incorruptible over time."

Joe


----------



## mila_olivera (Aug 6, 2012)

Ysarex said:


> By all means keep shooting film and enjoy yourself. Just want to make sure you're well informed -- color film is in fact the opposite of this; "eternal and incorruptible over time."
> 
> Joe



I have to say you're completely right. Anyways, even if I'm wrong about it being eternal, it still feels great.
Thank you!


----------



## JAC526 (Aug 6, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> Tuffythepug said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Perfectly reasonable suggestion.

The INTERWEBZ is a much better suggestion.

Amazon Prime free 2 day shipping ftw.


----------



## Corto (Aug 6, 2012)

Film and digital will live side by side. Have no worries.


----------



## laurenvictoria (Aug 7, 2012)

Amen


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 7, 2012)

Storage technology improves every day, solid state drives are new, but extremely reliable and almost fail proof and soon will be more reliable to archive than film. For the person who said "Are we going to pass down hard drives"... Probably. Especially since a 1 TB hard drive is about half the size of a camera body and in the future will be a quarter of that size. Film looks great, but very large strides are being made and I believe that in the near future, you will not be able to tell the difference between a film print and a digital print.


----------



## Fred Berg (Aug 7, 2012)

For me digital's greatest problems lie precisely in the endeavours which have been made to _perfect_ it. Apart from its excellent reproduction qualities, film has charm and character and this is what it is most difficult for the digital camp to emulate. Indeed, until quite recently (presumably when some bright spark in Japan actually noticed that film was stubbornly refusing to roll over and die) I don't think anyone had actually given much thought to these things. Yes, the production of digital cameras is taking great strides, but the question isn't so much how to develop and perfect but, rather, one of how to put a ghost in the machine.

I have nothing against digital per se, but if film is your thing, then no amount of arguing how the technical advances of digital are being honed on a daily basis will ever convince you to capitulate celluloid to a chip.


----------



## JAC526 (Aug 7, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> Storage technology improves every day, solid state drives are new, but extremely reliable and almost fail proof and soon will be more reliable to archive than film. For the person who said "Are we going to pass down hard drives"... Probably. Especially since a 1 TB hard drive is about half the size of a camera body and in the future will be a quarter of that size. Film looks great, but very large strides are being made and I believe that in the near future, you will not be able to tell the difference between a film print and a digital print.



I don't care if there comes a time when even science can't tell the difference between a digital and a film print.  I just like the film process more.  It is fun to wait.  It is fun to be surprised.  It is not so much fun to be disappointed.

But as more and more things become instantly available it is nice to have to wait for something.


----------



## timor (Aug 7, 2012)

Fred Berg said:


> Apart from its excellent reproduction qualities, film has charm and character and this is what it is most difficult for the digital camp to emulate. Indeed, until quite recently (presumably when some bright spark in Japan actually noticed that film was stubbornly refusing to roll over and die) I don't think anyone had actually given much thought to these things. Yes, the production of digital cameras is taking great strides, but the question isn't so much how to develop and perfect but, rather, one of how to put a ghost in the machine.
> 
> I have nothing against digital per se, but if film is your thing, then no amount of arguing how the technical advances of digital are being honed on a daily basis will ever convince you to capitulate celluloid to a chip.


Me to, I have nothing against digital, however I prefer photography. (For digital militia: *film photography.*) I noticed new name of that, looks like some of professionals have maybe trouble to market their products if they say: "It is a film photography" and use instead "latent image capture". Fred used word "emulation" but I have another: "pretend", "fake". It is just a matter of time until computer will ba able to "emulate" the charm and character of the film. At least for many. The problem I see is not in character of digital capture, it's a great technology, but in hiperbolic rise of hypocrisy with it. Primed in today's genertation with nintendo and other games the epidemy of pretending goes strong. Well, everybody likes sweet, little lies. Here we come to major difference between digital and latent image capturing. As Derrel points out it is the tangibility or not-tangibility of digital images. Well, he is partially right, digital files are non-tangible, cannot be viewed like negatives on the light tables, but isn't the LCD screen very much a light table ? The missing point here is that the negative and a digital file are not the ultimate end of the process, print is. And print is as tangible as it gets. The problem of many todays digital photographers is, they stoped half way on the stage of computer and call it art. The major difference between film and digital is somewhere else, it is in the very nature of "capture". With film it is a physicochemical process which very essence is beyond man's control. We can prepare the medium in a best way we know, but the light gonna do it's work the way it will. Digital works on principle of interpretation by a man; sensor creates an input, input is analyzed and interpreted by an algorithm, algorithm creates an output. As far as I remeber algorithms are written by people. In film photography the light is a direct cause of an image creation (twice), in digital it is an indirect. Never less it works well, as most algorithms are honest and are giving very close proximation to reality in return, but without doubt there is always potential for "emulations" or fake or how Fred nicely said "put a ghost in the machine".


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 7, 2012)

JAC526 said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > Storage technology improves every day, solid state drives are new, but extremely reliable and almost fail proof and soon will be more reliable to archive than film. For the person who said "Are we going to pass down hard drives"... Probably. Especially since a 1 TB hard drive is about half the size of a camera body and in the future will be a quarter of that size. Film looks great, but very large strides are being made and I believe that in the near future, you will not be able to tell the difference between a film print and a digital print.
> ...



I'm not talking about the process though. If that's the only thing that is keeping you from converting to digital after digital replicates film quality, than so be it.


----------



## JAC526 (Aug 7, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> JAC526 said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...



It seems like that is exactly what you are talking about.  You admit film looks great and if in the future you couldn't tell the difference than film will have lost its only benefit over digital.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 7, 2012)

JAC526 said:
			
		

> It seems like that is exactly what you are talking about.  You admit film looks great and if in the future you couldn't tell the difference than film will have lost its only benefit over digital.



I think they have had long enough to try and make digital look like film, i shoot both but am getting to a point where i could jack in digital now i have the camera i have wanted for a long time


----------



## JAC526 (Aug 7, 2012)

Yeah the only digital I shoot is for pictures that I know are going on the internet or are to be shared with family.

That's why I bought a M4/3 Oly Epl2.  To take pictures of the family while we are running around.

Anything "serious" I like shooting with film.


----------



## 3bayjunkie (Aug 7, 2012)

JAC526 said:
			
		

> I don't care if there comes a time when even science can't tell the difference between a digital and a film print.  I just like the film process more.  It is fun to wait.  It is fun to be surprised.  It is not so much fun to be disappointed.
> 
> But as more and more things become instantly available it is nice to have to wait for something.



I agree with you. Besides the fact that i only payed $600 for my flagship model Canon 1V instead of the $8000 you would pay in the digital world, film is organic. Digital will never replace it no matter how many plug ins you have.

I use film for business and pleasure. I encompass the price of film and developing into my rates when quoting someone a price. Ao for me i dont feel as if im paying for it. So really it is less expensive for ME to shoot film. People who pay extra for a film photographer are interested in that type of art.

Also another topic which has been made clear about digital is that you can save it on your computer so it wont deteriorate. If you like shooting digital, thats great, but anyone can go out and get a 135 or 120 film scanner now and have them saves for ever on digits.

Another point is you can develop your own b&w film in about 15 min and then scan it if you want and it isnt even that difficult. I do it myself


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 7, 2012)

JAC526 said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > JAC526 said:
> ...



You got that out of this?



> _ Film looks great, but very large strides are being made and I believe that in the near future, you will not be able to tell the difference between a film print and a digital print._



I'm not talking about the process. I am talking about the quality of the image. However, I don't find how waiting longer to achieve identical quality is a benefit. You may enjoy it, but that doesn't mean it's a benefit of film.


----------



## bhop (Aug 7, 2012)

3bayjunkie said:


> Another point is you can develop your own b&w film in *about 15 min* and then scan it if you want and it isnt even that difficult. I do it myself



Hah.. i'm with you and prefer film myself and all, but you must've forgotten about the washing and drying part..


----------



## JAC526 (Aug 7, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> JAC526 said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...



Well sorry I misunderstood.  And there is no full frame digital camera that will out resolve a MF or LF film camera.


----------



## 3bayjunkie (Aug 7, 2012)

bhop said:
			
		

> Hah.. i'm with you and prefer film myself and all, but you must've forgotten about the washing and drying part..



Well no i didnt forget. Ok so add 2 or 3 minutes fir washing, but im not going to stand there and watch it dry, ill be in the other room spending time with my family. 

Also i forgot to add in. How much time do you spend color correcting and enhancing digital images? Another advantage of film is, my lab does all the color correction for me. All i have to do is maybe adjust the "levels" in photoshop to my liking. 

But as for proofs. Lets say i take 300 photos at a wedding. All of the 4x6 proofs get sent to the costumer right out of the box. I dont have to spend a minute in front of the computer


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 7, 2012)

JAC526 said:


> Well sorry I misunderstood.  And there is no full frame digital camera that will out resolve a MF or LF film camera.



And so what? You're trying to say that a medium format film camera has better resolution than a full frame (35mm) digital camera? Actually you may want to reconsider that; do you mean the resolving power of the optics or the resolution of the film versus the sensor square inch to square inch or do you mean the total detail capture capacity of a full frame digital versus say a 2.25 film camera, but even so what's the point?

Why not compare a medium format film camera with a medium format digital camera? But again what's the point?

Joe


----------



## slackercruster (Aug 7, 2012)

It never went away. it will never come back. Why would it? It is like shooting with glass plates. I love dig and I was raised on film. But I do like the look of film. But not enough to use it.


----------



## JAC526 (Aug 7, 2012)

Ysarex said:


> JAC526 said:
> 
> 
> > Well sorry I misunderstood.  And there is no full frame digital camera that will out resolve a MF or LF film camera.
> ...



Your right.  There is no point.


----------



## 3bayjunkie (Aug 7, 2012)

3bayjunkie said:
			
		

> Well no i didnt forget. Ok so add 2 or 3 minutes fir washing, but im not going to stand there and watch it dry, ill be in the other room spending time with my family.
> 
> Also i forgot to add in. How much time do you spend color correcting and enhancing digital images? Another advantage of film is, my lab does all the color correction for me. All i have to do is maybe adjust the "levels" in photoshop to my liking.
> 
> But as for proofs. Lets say i take 300 photos at a wedding. All of the 4x6 proofs get sent to the costumer right out of the box. I dont have to spend a minute in front of the computer



Like i said. Time=money. I could take 100 photos or 1000 photos and ill still spend 0 hours uploading and processing images until the client orders prints or albums. All proofs are printed by my lab 4x6 with quarter inch white boarder and i just mail them out directly.

Id rather spend my time living life rather than uploading and saving and printing photos from digital form. Anything the client orders prints of will be scanned at high resolution and then i may have to tweek the levels but thats it. The film already has the colors i want.


----------



## jaicatalano (Aug 7, 2012)

Film will never die out completely but the days of seeing the masses with film cameras are long gone. There are some sites that keep those days alive that are very inspiring.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 7, 2012)

JAC526 said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > JAC526 said:
> ...



Yet. 

I'd say within 5 years it does.


----------



## bhop (Aug 7, 2012)

Personally, I think it's awesome that a thread in the film forum has gone on this long.  This place was dead a few months ago, but seems to be experiencing an resurgence lately.  Woohoo!


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 8, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> JAC526 said:
> 
> 
> > Well sorry I misunderstood.  And there is no full frame digital camera that will out resolve a MF or LF film camera.
> ...



And so what? What's the point?

Joe


----------



## gsgary (Aug 8, 2012)

slackercruster said:
			
		

> It never went away. it will never come back. Why would it? It is like shooting with glass plates. I love dig and I was raised on film. But I do like the look of film. But not enough to use it.



There is a growing number of wedding photographers going back to film in the UK because of demand


----------



## gsgary (Aug 8, 2012)

25% of our camera club are film and it is growing


----------



## timor (Aug 8, 2012)

Good news. Maybe film won't die before me.


----------



## mila_olivera (Aug 8, 2012)

bhop said:


> Personally, I think it's awesome that a thread in the film forum has gone on this long.  This place was dead a few months ago, but seems to be experiencing an resurgence lately.  Woohoo!


 LoL I'm new here and I'm answering really old posts, that's why this thread came up xD


----------



## gsgary (Aug 8, 2012)

mila_olivera said:
			
		

> LoL I'm new here and I'm answering really old posts, that's why this thread came up xD



That because film is on its way back


----------



## mila_olivera (Aug 8, 2012)

gsgary said:


> mila_olivera said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Am I detecting sarcasm? Or just misundertanding?
Internet's the most confusing way of comunication.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 8, 2012)

mila_olivera said:
			
		

> Am I detecting sarcasm? Or just misundertanding?
> Internet's the most confusing way of comunication.



No im not joking i think film is much bigger in the UK , last issue of Photo Pro had an article about Ilford and there is no way they are giving up on film, i have shot 4 rolls this week


----------



## mila_olivera (Aug 8, 2012)

gsgary said:


> mila_olivera said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's great. I don't think that film is going to replace digital at all, but it is firm and gaining users.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 8, 2012)

mila_olivera said:
			
		

> That's great. I don't think that film is going to replace digital at all, but it is firm and gaining users.



As people grow interest in photography and research how the equipment works, it's very easy to see how and why people get drawn to desire to shoot with film. 

The digital equipment crosses in relation with film to an exact match. Although film has to be removed and processed later, the mechanics and settings for use of the equipment has not changed. We still refer to. Light sensitivity as ISO,  the lenses still operate the same way, and we still have mechanical shutters. 

I think film has been hindered in its demand, but I don't think it's going to disappear by any means. It will be one of those things that sticks around for those nostalgic types of people.


----------



## timor (Aug 9, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> The digital equipment crosses in relation with film to an exact match. Although film has to be removed and processed later, the mechanics and settings for use of the equipment has not changed. We still refer to. Light sensitivity as ISO,  the lenses still operate the same way, and we still have mechanical shutters.


Yes Aaron. That is how most people see it. That, how is presented by industry. For both technologies, generically called "photography" the parallels ends with pressing the shutter. What happens after that is completely different and foreign to each other. The final product seemingly similar is totally different in the nature to. 150+ years of film photography created a world of own values. I like this values, I shoot film and make prints in a darkroom. I have nothing against digital, maybe only, that it converted photography into triviality.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 9, 2012)

Ysarex said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > JAC526 said:
> ...



What's yours?


----------



## amolitor (Aug 9, 2012)

Just an FYI, diffraction limits mean that you have to go to a larger film/sensor plane in the not too distant future.

If you want to resolve more than 40 useful megapixels or so at, say, f/8, you're simply not going to be able to do it with a full frame sensor and standard lens technology. This doesn't mean that throwing more megapixels at the sensor isn't useful in other ways, but it's not going to give you more resolving power. Lens test heros will, of course, shoot at f/2.8 and get more, but that's not very interesting if you want (say) 100 real megapixels in a range of real shooting situations.

In reality, large format doesn't really do that much more (I forget what the effective megapixelage of, say, an 8x10 sheet film is, but I remember being astonished at how low it was).

Anyways. If you want more resolving power within a usefully wide range of apertures, at some point fairly soon you gotta go bigger.

I like film. Film is nice. I like getting my fingers wet.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 9, 2012)

I got fed up of talking about film so me and my club mate went out to shoot some film instead of talking about it, can you name the 2 cameras he has with him from his vast collection


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 9, 2012)

timor said:


> AaronLLockhart said:
> 
> 
> > The digital equipment crosses in relation with film to an exact match. Although film has to be removed and processed later, the mechanics and settings for use of the equipment has not changed. We still refer to. Light sensitivity as ISO,  the lenses still operate the same way, and we still have mechanical shutters.
> ...





timor said:


> I have nothing against digital,



Yes you do -- you keep saying you don't; you know -- Hamlet -- [timor] doth protest too much.



timor said:


> maybe only, that it converted photography into triviality.



See, there you go. You start the sentence with "I have nothing against digital," and then you say you do. And I'm going to call that claim utter rubbish and nonsense. You want trivial? Here's an image from the world of film photography. Yes indeed, portent with the promise of profound portraits.







Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 9, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...



I don't have one yet -- I asked you first and I don't want to jump to conclusions.

Joe


----------



## timor (Aug 9, 2012)

Yes Joe, unlimited plenty brings always trivialization. It's a phenomenon not exclusive to photography. And if I caused jump in your blood pressure, I am sorry. Be assure, I am not talking about your photography. This is a remark regarding general perception of and attitude towards a photography after a mass deployment of digital cameras.


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 9, 2012)

timor said:


> Yes Joe, unlimited plenty brings always trivialization. It's a phenomenon not exclusive to photography. And if I caused jump in your blood pressure, I am sorry. Be assure, I am not talking about your photography. This is a remark regarding general perception of and attitude towards a photography after a mass deployment of digital cameras.



No argument there; it's just the same as the mass deployment of disposable film cameras -- nothing unique about digital in that regard.

There's an under current in this and other related threads that suggests animosity between two different camps. The future of photography is obviously digital and for legitimate reasons, but that doesn't mean film has to end or that the two have to be bitter rivals. That doesn't mean one has to be bad and the other good. I'm reminded of one of my favorite quotes by a film photographer:

_Whether a watercolor is inferior to an oil, or whether a drawing, an  etching, or a photograph is not as important as either, is inconsequent.  To have to despise something in order to respect something else is a  sign of impotence. _-- Paul Strand

Joe


----------



## timor (Aug 9, 2012)

Thanks Joe. Now I think I am more on the same page as you. I don't despise digital, I shoot film 'cause I like the film experience, thing I can not find in digital as it is wholly different technology. That's all.


----------



## stlbob (Aug 13, 2012)

As was said prior,film never left the building.It just got an office in the basement.which is just fine by me, I can get the good stuff,take care of it and pass it on.


----------



## compur (Aug 13, 2012)

I've been attending local camera shows for many years.  These shows feature mostly film equipment being sold by local collector/dealers.  As the "digital revolution" emerged these shows shrank and shank in size but in the last few years they have experienced a resurgence of interest and are usually packed with people from beginning to end now. 

I have an friend, a vintage camera buff from England, who went back to England recently for a visit.  While there he attended a camera show near London.  When he got back he told me that it was impossible to get near the tables at the show due to the crowds there. He had to wait a couple hours for the crowds to subside a bit before he could even get up to the tables to see anything.


----------



## Fred Berg (Aug 14, 2012)

compur said:


> I've been attending local camera shows for many years.  These shows feature mostly film equipment being sold by local collector/dealers.  As the "digital revolution" emerged these shows shrank and shank in size but in the last few years they have experienced a resurgence of interest and are usually packed with people from beginning to end now.
> 
> I have an friend, a vintage camera buff from England, who went back to England recently for a visit.  While there he attended a camera show near London.  When he got back he told me that it was impossible to get near the tables at the show due to the crowds there. He had to wait a couple hours for the crowds to subside a bit before he could even get up to the tables to see anything.



I think it was Gary who mentioned that film is big in England (he said UK - I just checked back), and that it is in no small part due to the efforts of Ilford. I haven't run a roll of their film through a camera for, oh, twenty years or more but decided to give it a go again recently. I have a roll of FP4 DIN 22 loaded in one of my cameras at the moment and if it turns out nice, I could be persuaded. The price was a pleasant surprise at about a euro cheaper than T-Max DIN 21.


----------



## Tuffythepug (Aug 14, 2012)

Well, I have a fresh roll of Ilford in a Bronica 645 which I just obtained recently.   I have not shot black and white in many years but I still have tanks and reels so I'm going to give it a whirl again.   I love the  immediacy of digital but I love the way black and white is captured on film that cannot be easily duplicated with digital,.  

I've found a place I can buy just about any film still in production and also provide whatever degree of processing I may need at reasonable prices.  I plan to try a few different emulsions just to see what might best suit me.   I did always like Ilford and of course the Kodak Tri X and Pan X.

Does anyone else ever use a DSLR to take test shots before burning a frame of film just like we used to do with polaroids to check for proper exposure and framing ?   I plan on doing this at least for the first couple of rolls until I'm more comfortable using the metered prism finder of the Bronica.  You have to think about these things when you are only going to get 15 exposures on a 120 roll of film.   You want every shot to count.


----------



## stlbob (Aug 14, 2012)

Well there is no need for film and digital to be polar opposites .Both are an expression of what the photographer sees and hopes to convey to whom ever sees his/her works.Both have their merits and downfall.No medium is perfect.I shoot film because of the love i have for the older cameras.I have been shooting since the mid 70,s.Enjoy picking an old as possible and make something interesting.

That being said i recently was blessed enough to begin a new career at 50 in photography.I will be using Nikons D300 and D200 with nice glass.I use them and enjoy them.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 14, 2012)

Fred Berg said:


> compur said:
> 
> 
> > I've been attending local camera shows for many years.  These shows feature mostly film equipment being sold by local collector/dealers.  As the "digital revolution" emerged these shows shrank and shank in size but in the last few years they have experienced a resurgence of interest and are usually packed with people from beginning to end now.
> ...



Also try some HP5, this is Ilford HP5 in my M4, you shoot lots of buildings so you will definately like Ilford FPan, another film i am enjoying is Foma and it is very cheap


----------



## Fred Berg (Aug 14, 2012)

gsgary said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> > compur said:
> ...



Thanks for the tips, Gary. Great pic, btw.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 15, 2012)

Cheers Fred


----------

