# Another nail in the film coffin



## gsgary (Mar 2, 2015)

Not, Bergger have a new film coming out next month
4x5, 5x7, 8x10 pancro 400
UK dealer
Bergger Black and White Film


----------



## runnah (Mar 2, 2015)




----------



## astroNikon (Mar 2, 2015)

Film will make a comeback
Digital is just a fad.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 2, 2015)

I'm glad to see that I was gone for like 2 years and the same people are having the same arguments.


----------



## limr (Mar 2, 2015)

Who's having an argument?


----------



## astroNikon (Mar 2, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> I'm glad to see that I was gone for like 2 years and the same people are having the same arguments.





limr said:


> Who's having an argument?


I haven't been here for 2 years so it's not me .


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 2, 2015)

limr said:


> Who's having an argument?


I can't tell if you're serious.  But in fairness, my post probably seemed sarcastic.  But in fact, I did find it moderately comforting that Gary's quixotic quest for the proclamation of film superiority, and everybody's arguing with him over it is still running just as strong as ever.


----------



## limr (Mar 2, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Who's having an argument?
> ...



I was serious.

I recognize that Gary is very enthusiastic and often aggressive in his defense of film. And I know that the film vs digital horse is being flogged as spiritedly as ever in many a forum. But this thread has nothing to do with that dead horse. The OP wasn't about film superiority. It was about the introduction of a new film.

The title, I suspect, was aimed at a few posters like cgw who frequently post articles about how film is dead, deceased, joined the choir invisible. Since it was posted in the Film Photography sub-forum, and it was to share information that we might be interested in, I figure the thread was mostly informative, not argumentative.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 2, 2015)

I like the young lasses who shoot film...


----------



## gsgary (Mar 2, 2015)

limr said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...


I'm not looking to cause trouble, it is a brand new film not rebranded


----------



## gsgary (Mar 2, 2015)

Derrel said:


> View attachment 96369 I like the young lasses who shoot film...



I would have no objection to waking up next to her every morning better if she had a camera begining with L


----------



## astroNikon (Mar 2, 2015)

I'm not arguing .. I do have a Canon AE-1 .. somewhere ....


----------



## timor (Mar 2, 2015)

runnah said:


>


Relax, they are made by digital coaters, cut by digitally sharpened scissors, packed by digitally controlled packers and shipped by digitally controlled UPS. Lotsa digi here. Nikon will survive, however there will be no peace. Nikon hates things Nikon do not sell.


----------



## timor (Mar 2, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Who's having an argument?
> ...


He has supporters.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 2, 2015)

timor said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Nikon would still be behind if it was not for Sony


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 2, 2015)

gsgary said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > fjrabon said:
> ...



haha, I know.  Again I didn't mean this as any sort of attack, just making a note of your quip and the first response and how it was a bit comforting that we still do the film v digital thing, even in threads that don't have any reason to go down that route.  Anyway, don't mean to derail an otherwise informative post that I'm sure some of our film supporters are excited about.


----------



## timor (Mar 2, 2015)

gsgary said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...


Sony, Nikon, who cares. One more tsunami like the last one and Japan won't have enough power to charge this batteries.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 2, 2015)

timor said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > timor said:
> ...


Another reason to have cameras without batteries


----------



## limr (Mar 2, 2015)

gsgary said:


> I'm not looking to cause trouble, it is a brand new film not rebranded



I know, that's what I said when I defended you


----------



## cgw (Mar 2, 2015)

_The title, I suspect, was aimed at a few posters like cgw who frequently post articles about how film is dead, deceased, joined the choir invisible. Since it was posted in the Film Photography sub-forum, and it was to share information that we might be interested in, I figure the thread was mostly informative, not argumentative._

Give it a rest. What's tiresome are giddy claims that film's poised to make a miraculous comeback, typically in the absence of any proof aside from wishful thinking about demand. It's their business if they appear barking mad or act like a member of a Polynesian cargo cult hoping for Kodak's E-6 materials and b&w paper to fall from above. I buy and shoot my share of film but have only to check receipts and print/neg envelopes from the past 5 years to see how few labs are still afloat, thanks to far fewer film shooters. 

BTW, the OP's link is for 35mm.

Play nice.


----------



## limr (Mar 2, 2015)

cgw said:


> _The title, I suspect, was aimed at a few posters like cgw who frequently post articles about how film is dead, deceased, joined the choir invisible. Since it was posted in the Film Photography sub-forum, and it was to share information that we might be interested in, I figure the thread was mostly informative, not argumentative._
> 
> Give it a rest. What's tiresome are giddy claims that film's poised to make a miraculous comeback, typically in the absence of any proof aside from wishful thinking about demand. It's their business if they appear barking mad or act like a member of a Polynesian cargo cult hoping for Kodak's E-6 materials and b&w paper to fall from above. I buy and shoot my share of film but have only to check receipts and print/neg envelopes from the past 5 years to see how few labs are still afloat, thanks to far fewer film shooters.
> 
> ...



Why are you aiming that at me?


----------



## gsgary (Mar 2, 2015)

cgw said:


> _The title, I suspect, was aimed at a few posters like cgw who frequently post articles about how film is dead, deceased, joined the choir invisible. Since it was posted in the Film Photography sub-forum, and it was to share information that we might be interested in, I figure the thread was mostly informative, not argumentative._
> 
> Give it a rest. What's tiresome are giddy claims that film's poised to make a miraculous comeback, typically in the absence of any proof aside from wishful thinking about demand. It's their business if they appear barking mad or act like a member of a Polynesian cargo cult hoping for Kodak's E-6 materials and b&w paper to fall from above. I buy and shoot my share of film but have only to check receipts and print/neg envelopes from the past 5 years to see how few labs are still afloat, thanks to far fewer film shooters.
> 
> ...


That was just for UK dealer it is not in 35mm or 120 straight away


----------



## gsgary (Mar 2, 2015)

cgw said:


> _The title, I suspect, was aimed at a few posters like cgw who frequently post articles about how film is dead, deceased, joined the choir invisible. Since it was posted in the Film Photography sub-forum, and it was to share information that we might be interested in, I figure the thread was mostly informative, not argumentative._
> 
> Give it a rest. What's tiresome are giddy claims that film's poised to make a miraculous comeback, typically in the absence of any proof aside from wishful thinking about demand. It's their business if they appear barking mad or act like a member of a Polynesian cargo cult hoping for Kodak's E-6 materials and b&w paper to fall from above. I buy and shoot my share of film but have only to check receipts and print/neg envelopes from the past 5 years to see how few labs are still afloat, thanks to far fewer film shooters.
> 
> ...


You live in the middle of nowhere in Europe there are a lot of film shooters


----------



## dxqcanada (Mar 2, 2015)

Bergger Products Inc - International


----------



## timor (Mar 2, 2015)

Well cgw is right with this "come back", won't happen . We all can relax, there is just too many people in chairs hooked by cat5 to actually do something with their's hands and else. Eeeasy life, there is app for everything.


----------



## bogeyguy (Mar 2, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> I'm glad to see that I was gone for like 2 years and the same people are having the same arguments.


The more things change, the more they stay the same. LOL!


----------



## Torus34 (Mar 2, 2015)

Film is film and digital is digital.  I shoot both.  Wanna make something of it?  Wanna try and get a piece o' me?  Huh?  Huh?  I gotcha film 'n digital right here!


----------



## bribrius (Mar 2, 2015)

Torus34 said:


> Film is film and digital is digital.  I shoot both.  Wanna make something of it?  Wanna try and get a piece o' me?  Huh?  Huh?  I gotcha film 'n digital right here!


i don't know how any one affords to shoot film. I am starting to remember why i stopped. Looked at my mpix invoices on 24 roll exposures. 19 cents per exposure developing, like eight bucks shipping. 20 bucks for just 5x7 prints, 10 bucks for a cd. And of course they ship it in two separate packages so i am paying shipping twice so  like 40 bucks a freakn roll of 24. cant wait to send in the 36's.  clearly, i have to cut somewhere in this. comes to about 1.88 per shot i figured earlier when i got out the calculator...

my wifes catches on to these tabs, she probably will kill me.


----------



## terri (Mar 2, 2015)

That is one beautiful B&W portrait, Derrel!    Personally, I couldn't care less what medium you used to make it.        Lovely!


----------



## tirediron (Mar 2, 2015)

gsgary said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 96369 I like the young lasses who shoot film...
> ...


I wonder if the future Missus Gary would feel the same way?


----------



## Derrel (Mar 2, 2015)

terri said:
			
		

> That is one beautiful B&W portrait, Derrel!    Personally, I couldn't care less what medium you used to make it.        Lovely!



Awww, thanks terri, you're too kind. I did most of the shoot as an homage to classic film cameras....Nikon F2A, Argus C-3, Yashica twin-lens, and even the Minolta 110! People generally like the shots from that session which was shot on the banks of the Columbia River, in Portland, Oregon.


----------



## terri (Mar 2, 2015)

That sounds like so much fun!   Great idea for a series.   I'm guessing the other images turned out nicely, too. 

Next time, include a classic Polaroid, dammit.


----------



## Fred Berg (Mar 3, 2015)

All this talk of film making a come back is nonsense, it has never gone away.


----------



## timor (Mar 3, 2015)

Fred Berg said:


> All this talk of film making a come back is nonsense, it has never gone away.


They mean come back in the sens of reactivation of Kodak and Agfa. That won't happen, but film will around for long time to come, as long as coaters will work. There always will be a group of people shooting film as this is more organic, or less mechanical, form of photography. For some more satisfying than another computer wonder.


----------



## Fred Berg (Mar 3, 2015)

timor said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> > All this talk of film making a come back is nonsense, it has never gone away.
> ...



Yes, that was a little tongue in cheek fun on my part. However, both Kodak and Agfa films are readily available where I am so is there some news concerning these that hasn't reached our shores yet?


----------



## Torus34 (Mar 3, 2015)

Derrel:
I'll also comment on your dual portrait.  It's acceptable, as long as one's willing to go along with near-perfection.  [Ed.: In case you missed the understated praise, Torus was blown away!]


----------



## cgw (Mar 3, 2015)

timor said:


> Well cgw is right with this "come back", won't happen . We all can relax, there is just too many people in chairs hooked by cat5 to actually do something with their's hands and else. Eeeasy life, there is app for everything.


Where's that app for E-6 labs in the GTA??? :^)


----------



## Msteelio91 (Mar 3, 2015)

Derrel said:


> View attachment 96369 I like the young lasses who shoot film...



Hey, I have that exact camera!!!

You can see it in the background of this shot:




MK-2 by Matthew_Steele, on Flickr


----------



## timor (Mar 3, 2015)

cgw said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > Well cgw is right with this "come back", won't happen . We all can relax, there is just too many people in chairs hooked by cat5 to actually do something with their's hands and else. Eeeasy life, there is app for everything.
> ...


Technically your digital camera simulates that. You click and in instant you receive direct positive.


----------



## Mike_E (Mar 7, 2015)

When film does finally die you'll know because they'll have stopped making window panes.

(laughs and walks away)


----------



## bhop (Mar 10, 2015)

bribrius said:


> i don't know how any one affords to shoot film. I am starting to remember why i stopped. Looked at my mpix invoices on 24 roll exposures. 19 cents per exposure developing, like eight bucks shipping. 20 bucks for just 5x7 prints, 10 bucks for a cd. And of course they ship it in two separate packages so i am paying shipping twice so  like 40 bucks a freakn roll of 24. cant wait to send in the 36's.  clearly, i have to cut somewhere in this. comes to about 1.88 per shot i figured earlier when i got out the calculator...
> 
> my wifes catches on to these tabs, she probably will kill me.



Personally, I develop and scan my own, and print my own on my photo printer at home if I want a print. (up to 8.5 x 11)

C41 chemicals are around $20 which is good for a minimum of 8 rolls, and can be stretched out to quite a few more if you store it well.  B&W chemicals cost slightly more, but can last much longer, like months longer.

For me, it really just comes down to time, since developing and scanning, can be time consuming. I don't have as much free time as I used to, so I've been shooting more digital lately, although, if I ever catch up on my undeveloped rolls, i'll probably jump back on my film cameras again.


----------



## timor (Mar 10, 2015)

What is it about the cost ? Every hobby is about spending money on pleasure. If someone want to have pics cheap should buy second hand, old digi P&S (like me, $20 for 7 MP Pentax  - I can still see my wife and kids on vacation.) and watch them on the tablet. It still will cost electricity and use of computer, but that's almost nothing.  But if someone is more ambitious good quality 11x14 FB print may cost 3-10 bucks, same size quality inkjet reproduction may run higher. In any case, there is no way to avoid costs. Costs in any form.


----------

