# why won't film just die already?!



## chuasam (Aug 15, 2018)

I was casually browsing the eBay and noticed that old film cameras are commanding ridiculous prices.
an old Olympus Muji II going for $200, Yashica T4 (zeiss) trading for $400...and the Contax T4 (my old love) going for $1500 to $2000.

Why are people still clinging on to film in the age of far better digital technology?


----------



## waday (Aug 15, 2018)

Funny, I just started actively using a film camera I bought on KEH for $10. So far, I've only developed 2 rolls, I have two waiting to get developed, and I plan on taking at least two more rolls this upcoming weekend.

I find that with a limited number of exposures, I am quite literally forced to think through each photo before just snapping away.

It's a hobby, just like any other. If you don't like it, you don't have to partake.


----------



## Peeb (Aug 15, 2018)

Digital is clearly technically superior in most every way.

Still- it is inherently fun to shoot old school sometimes.  

I've been shopping for just the right Nikon F2 recently, btw.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 15, 2018)

There is a certain appeal to vintage everything. Vintage clothing, vintage vinyl records, vintage automobiles, vintage furniture, etc. As far as those extremely high prices on cameras, aren't some of those Buy It Now, or asking prices, and not actual completed sales?

 There are a lot of people who have never shot film, and these people are very interested in the process. One of the nice things about shooting negative film is that it is very easily made into wet darkroom photographic prints, at a reasonable price. Film also creates a tangible copy of each exposure on a permanent base, and that is very nice to have. Film can also be scanned as well, and thus brought into the digital realm quite easily.

Yes digital is a superior imaging medium in most respects, but not in all respects. Just as the CD-ROM music disc is better than a vinyl album, there is a certain appeal to that large black vinyl disc in the very large envelope which contains liner notes and a big cover and reverse photo.  Film is also a permanent basis, in which the image is fixed permanently, and has a tangible form, whereas digital is nothing but numbers and cannot be held up to the light and looked at the way a negative or a slide can be looked at, and the digital image really has no one finite final form, but is easily edited,or re-edited, ad nauseam.


----------



## Digital Matt (Aug 15, 2018)

I think it's unwise to say that digital is far better technology. Film has a quality that digital cannot replicate, not to mention, the process of shooting film forces you to take your time, think a little more, dare I say, take it a little bit more seriously? It's a wonderful, wonderful tool in an artists toolkit. I have a Mamiya m645 with 6 lenses, a 4x5 field camera, and I use them often. The process is amazingly fun and rewarding. Also, the difference in quality from 35mm to medium and large format is gigantic, and when you look at digital alternatives, the majority of us will never afford MF or LF digital. It all depends on why you take photos and what you do with them. For me, film is not dead and never will be. If you don't dig it, don't shoot it, but don't condemn it.


----------



## limr (Aug 15, 2018)

chuasam said:


> I was casually browsing the eBay and noticed that old film cameras are commanding ridiculous prices.
> an old Olympus Muji II going for $200, Yashica T4 (zeiss) trading for $400...and the Contax T4 (my old love) going for $1500 to $2000.
> 
> Why are people still clinging on to film in the age of far better digital technology?



Oh, just hush yourself and stop worrying about what other people are doing.


----------



## jcdeboever (Aug 15, 2018)

I really think @Derrel hit the mark. I was curious about photography as a whole. Two and a half years ago ( I was a virgin), he suggested some 1970's books authored by John Hedgecoe to help me into my journey of photography. Derrel never suggested shooting film and did mention that the lessons learned would translate to digital. He was right. At that point, I felt confident and decided to purchase a film camera and compare what I learned and see if it could enhance the learning curve for me. I was inspired by @limr and @Gary A. film work. I personally fell in love with the image, the look, a destiny. This is going to sound real stupid but the people mentioned, transformed my photography experience. I love them for introducing a medium that I can work within.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 15, 2018)

Who says it needs to?


----------



## john.margetts (Aug 15, 2018)

chuasam said:


> Why are people still clinging on to film in the age of far better digital technology?


Better in what way?

Film has two big advantages for me. First, film is not a surface like a digital sensor is so a film image is slightly three dimensional - it has thickness. This has a significant impact on the aesthetics of the image - it is less 'perfect'.  It is rather like a painter using a fine camel-hair brush for one picture and a pallet knife for the next picture.

Secondly, with film, I use leaf shutters which again have a significant impact on the image - that continuously variable aperture you get as the shutter opens and closes, giving you soft-edged circles of confusion (I am aware I could achieve this with a digital Hasselblad but I wish to remain married).

A further small advantage: I get to use my nice film cameras.

Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk


----------



## dxqcanada (Aug 15, 2018)

I think people who take pictures want to experience different forms of it ... and not always requiring a "better" tech to achieve it ... mostly the experience of the picture ??
My guess is that most film shooters also have digital equipment ... I do.

Though it would be great if everyone just stop jacking up the value of old film cameras ... it makes it harder for me to get them cheap (I'm still waiting to get a Rolleiflex 2.8 for under a hundred bucks).


----------



## john.margetts (Aug 15, 2018)

dxqcanada said:


> Though it would be great if everyone just stop jacking up the value of old film cameras ... it makes it harder for me to get them cheap (I'm still waiting to get a Rolleiflex 2.8 for under a hundred bucks).


I was in Cambridge today and found a photography shop that had a film camera section. Their prices were about 5 times what I pay for the same model cameras. And there were people seriously looking at them!


Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk


----------



## ac12 (Aug 15, 2018)

Darkroom work is MUCH more relaxing (to me) than editing on the computer.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 15, 2018)

ac12 said:


> Darkroom work is MUCH more relaxing (to me) than editing on the computer.



And I just cannot get Photoshop to emulate the smell of stop bath.


----------



## photoflyer (Aug 15, 2018)

Perhaps for the same reason photography did and has not replaced painting.  In the end they (paining, film, digital) are just different ways of capturing and expressing the world around us.  Each of us has our preferred way of doing so and sometimes the act is more important than the result.


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 15, 2018)

I use both film and digital for paid work and there are pros and cons for each medium.  I prefer film (Portra 400) for outdoor portraits because of the colors and highlight retention.  You pretty much nail the colors and skin tone right out of the box.  Also, the look and feel of a 6x7 negative is hard to duplicate on full frame digital sensor.   Digital is far better for low light and moving shots.  Pushing the ISO ridiculously high and virtually unlimited number of shots. But that encourages the spray and pray technique.  LOL  A lot of high end portraits and wedding photographers still shoot film.


----------



## chuasam (Aug 15, 2018)

480sparky said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> > Darkroom work is MUCH more relaxing (to me) than editing on the computer.
> ...



Good point. I love the dancing and goofing off in the dark room. 
College days. I managed to combine dancing and film tank agitation.


----------



## Overread (Aug 16, 2018)

Film is just another medium. It's the same reason why pencils and pens are still used for drawing when we've got digital drawing tablets (that don't run out of lead, that don't run out of paint and which have the mighty Undo button - of course cut the power and things get a bit tricky).

Film will never die off totally, but it will never be as big as it was (unless we have a massive digital shutdown). I've yet to see it have a recovery, then again I've mostly been looking in market auctions where its mostly the lower end of the film market that appears week in week out. That camera shops are now turning a profit with film isn't so daft; the film market is starting to sort itself out with regard to mail order developing and printing; plus more people are used to going online to find retailers and resources to use.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 16, 2018)

Vtec44 said:


> ............. But that encourages the spray and pray technique.  LOL  ............


----------



## photoflyer (Aug 16, 2018)

This discussion also reminds me of the tube versus solid state debate that occurs between audiophiles.   Tube amps are easily 10x or more expensive but are considered the ultimate high-end indulgence.


----------



## john.margetts (Aug 16, 2018)

photoflyer said:


> This discussion also reminds me of the tube versus solid state debate that occurs between audiophiles.   Tube amps are easily 10x or more expensive but are considered the ultimate high-end indulgence.


Solid state electronics do not as smells nice, either. They played the Beatles' Twist and Shout on the radio the other day and I could immediately smell my old Dansette record player.


----------



## webestang64 (Aug 16, 2018)

You will have to pry my film camera out of my dead cold hands before I go digital. And good luck getting my turntable or my typewriter out of my hands as well.


----------



## john.margetts (Aug 16, 2018)

webestang64 said:


> You will have to pry my film camera out of my dead cold hands before I go digital. And good luck getting my turntable or my typewriter out of my hands as well.


Did you type this on your typewriter?

Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk


----------



## ac12 (Aug 16, 2018)

Just like my old stuff back to life and in use:

Fountain pens, and even older dip pens.
Mechanical pencils and lead holders.

Typewriter.
My wife asked me why I still kept a typewriter.  Then a few weeks ago she used it to fill in a form that was mailed to her.
I have not figured out how to fill in a form with a computer.  So it is hand write or type.


----------



## dxqcanada (Aug 16, 2018)

480sparky said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> > Darkroom work is MUCH more relaxing (to me) than editing on the computer.
> ...



You just need to clean your monitor regularly with Vinegar


----------



## limr (Aug 16, 2018)

webestang64 said:


> You will have to pry my film camera out of my dead cold hands before I go digital. And good luck getting my turntable or my typewriter out of my hands as well.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 16, 2018)

Then again, there's people today that are clueless about the existence of......*gasp*.... over-the-air TV broadcasts that are............ FREE!


----------



## chuasam (Aug 16, 2018)

480sparky said:


> Then again, there's people today that are clueless about the existence of......*gasp*.... over-the-air TV broadcasts that are............ FREE!


nothing worth watching on that
and not all countries have free to air broadcasts


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 17, 2018)

chuasam said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Then again, there's people today that are clueless about the existence of......*gasp*.... over-the-air TV broadcasts that are............ FREE!
> ...



To you, maybe. The only this I need over-the-air for is the local news.

But there still people like me who don't pay $180/month just to watch TV. I don't have cable and I don't have satellite.  The closest I have is a big screen that wi-fi's to my internet so I can watch the same stuff you do only 2-3 years later when they upload the videos to YouTube.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 17, 2018)

Speaking of YouTube, I have YouTube TV, which is basically a cable package and it costs $35 per month. Has a lot of channels, and I get all the Blazer games.

Anyway I thought of an analogy for the Why won't film just hurry up and die? thread: "Why wont Canada just give up and become the 51st American state? "


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 17, 2018)

Derrel said:


> ..............Anyway I thought of an analogy for the Why won't film just hurry up and die? thread: "Why wont Canada just give up and become the 51st American state? "



'Cuz they gotta wait for Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, Virgin Islands and Northern Marianas Islands to decide first.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 17, 2018)

I do lumen prints to smell the fixer. 

I have a cable package for the hockey. 
(Oh, Canada... the true north strong and free who has hockey - too bad they don't bring back singing both national anthems at games like I remember but I guess you can't have everything.)

You missed it Sam, film already was supposedly gone and came back. It was a shorter wait than for vinyl to come back.


----------



## jcdeboever (Aug 17, 2018)

I have direct tv because the wife says so.


----------



## Jamesaz (Aug 17, 2018)

When I did photography for money, I came to digital cameras and workflow quite early in the game. The first camera the company bought was some nikon body with a Kodak badged hard drive  and was like carrying around a brick. I'm not sure how many images it held but not so many you could be too distant from someplace to download them and then run them through a pre-layers version of photoshop. Anyway, the quality in those early days was awful and very time consuming. ( For what it's worth, I recognized the artistic potential but felt digital image making was limiting itself by using photography as a starting point). In a short while however the quality became acceptable (think canon 10d) and PS got layers and art directors could avoid making decisions till even later in the publication process. In short, the production schedules demanded using digital. It all paid the same.

Now that I no longer do photography for money, I use film capture. Why? all the good reasons others have said but mostly because I'm kinesthetic, meaning I best process information through movement, so the handwork involved in film, the developing, printing, spotting, mat cutting, all the movement stuff is when I get to ponder my thoughts and examine my techniques. Yeah, it's fun again.

Perhaps, however, the best answer to the question 'why won't it die already' may have to do with the fact that most film users now are old guys like me with disposable income.

One reason to support digital is that, at least on the surface, it seems much cleaner for the environment without the chemical disposal into the city sewers. Whether that is offset by old computers in the landfill remains to be seen. 

It's just not what I like to do.


----------



## chuasam (Aug 18, 2018)

480sparky said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > ..............Anyway I thought of an analogy for the Why won't film just hurry up and die? thread: "Why wont Canada just give up and become the 51st American state? "
> ...



Because We’re not interested in joining that country without healthcare, maternity leave, and far too many guns. 

California, Oregon and NewYork are welcome to join Canada.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 18, 2018)

chuasam said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



You can _have_ Commiefornia and New Spork.


----------



## chuasam (Aug 18, 2018)

480sparky said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...







The blue will be now known as the United States of Canada.


----------



## limr (Aug 18, 2018)




----------



## Designer (Aug 18, 2018)

chuasam said:


> The blue will be now known as the United States of Canada.


I'm o.k. with that.

I suppose the fishing licenses will be astronomical, but c'est la vie.


----------



## limr (Aug 18, 2018)

What the hell do you people not understand about STOP???

Seriously, get back to the film dead horse or get deleted.


----------



## chuasam (Aug 18, 2018)

limr said:


> What the hell do you people not understand about STOP???
> 
> Seriously, get back to the film dead horse or get deleted.
> 
> ...



My biggest issue with film is the minuscule profit margins and the amount of support required.


----------



## limr (Aug 18, 2018)

chuasam said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > What the hell do you people not understand about STOP???
> ...


 
Why do you even care?


----------



## Bear Dale (Aug 18, 2018)

I've got 20 packets of Polaroid in the fridge


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 19, 2018)

chuasam said:


> My biggest issue with film is the minuscule profit margins and the amount of support required.



So you avoid grocery stores as well?


----------



## chuasam (Aug 19, 2018)

480sparky said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > My biggest issue with film is the minuscule profit margins and the amount of support required.
> ...



I usually shop at Costco


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 19, 2018)

chuasam said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...



Are you overly concerned about Costco's miniscule margins and support infrastructure as well?


----------



## chuasam (Aug 19, 2018)

480sparky said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...


Costco's staff are amply well paid.
I'm speaking about film from an industry perspective. It's currently running as a loss leader to get new customers into the stores.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 19, 2018)

chuasam said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...



And it concerns you.............. why?


----------



## davholla (Aug 20, 2018)

ac12 said:


> Darkroom work is MUCH more relaxing (to me) than editing on the computer.


It takes up a lot more space though, which for some of us is a big factor.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 20, 2018)

You don't need a 'real' darkroom just to develop film.


----------



## ac12 (Aug 20, 2018)

davholla said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> > Darkroom work is MUCH more relaxing (to me) than editing on the computer.
> ...



Ha, more than a big factor, a major factor.  Because you also need plumbing for a darkroom.  OK you don't NEED plumbing, a bucket and some care will work.
As for space, in my current house, I use a small half bath, about 3ft x 6ft.  Tricky but it works.
I have discovered, where there is a will, there is a way.  I've make temp darkrooms in all of the apartments, flats and houses that I've lived in.  Some more convenient than others.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 20, 2018)

I converted a spare bedroom to a darkroom. I just use buckets instead of plumbing.  Archaic, but it works for making wet prints.


----------



## Jeff G (Aug 20, 2018)

I worked in a large format darkroom for a long time, I hand developed negatives and prints that varied in sizes from 8"x10" up to 36"x60".  Sometimes one end of my print would be developed before the other end would even be in the developer yet, it did have it's own sense of satisfaction being able to pull it off. 

I totally get the enjoyment of film, I liked hand developing and the time spent in the dark room, but I can't spend time in the darkroom now, the fixer really irritates my throat. (Maybe too much time spent with chemicals when I was younger) doesn't seem to matter how good the ventilation is. I DRIVE MY WIFE NUTS because household cleaners, perfume, or any chemical odors get me to coughing.

Now days my time is limited so digital works for me, I like being able to see a shot right away to see if I need to re-shoot it. Sure it's made me a little lazy  composition wise, but I am trying to pay more attention now that I have joined this forum.


----------



## pitchblack (Aug 21, 2018)

chuasam said:


> Why are people still clinging on to film in the age of far better digital technology?


Same reason people drive classic cars.


----------



## ftw1952 (Aug 21, 2018)

chuasam said:


> I was casually browsing the eBay and noticed that old film cameras are commanding ridiculous prices.
> an old Olympus Muji II going for $200, Yashica T4 (zeiss) trading for $400...and the Contax T4 (my old love) going for $1500 to $2000.
> 
> Why are people still clinging on to film in the age of far better digital technology?


It will be here for a long long time since the law enforcement agencies need to use film on practically all homicide cases. You can not change or alter film negatives. Older cameras are better built before plastic was invented too. Take the early Leica cameras  All machined out from brass and all of mine are very useable today. One is 85 years old now


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Aug 21, 2018)

I build and shoot muzzle loading long rifles, paddle a wood and canvas canoe, use a bamboo fly rod, and like B&W film. Yes I have modern guns, a light weight Kevlar canoe, a carbon fiber fly rod and a super convenient digital camera.

But, there is a certain grace, charm and delight in well crafted products and techniques of the past. If you do not understand, I probably could not explain it to you anyway. It just is.


----------



## Bubba Jones (Aug 21, 2018)

Here is an annology from Star Trek: their food comes from replicators not real cooking. That to me is the digital vs film issue. The replicator can make a stunning meal, however a truly cooked meal with real food, smelling the myriad aromas produced, have its pluses. True, the replicator is fast, as is digital, anyone can push a button then immediately see the food, same with digital. 

Yes, digital images can be stunning in its clarity, sharpness most often better than film (a sharp image never wins a contest). As Ansel Adams is quoted as saying “There’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept”.

Digital shooters have every right to brag about their image quality, speed of turn around and the like. Yet they forget about the gazillion beautiful film images produced the past 150 years. It is as though they cannot come to grips with photography prior to digital. Often I have heard digital shooters say something as “I cannot shoot my images on film...”. Again, over 150 years prior to digital film photographers produced stunning images, from world events, weddings, political, family, commercial work, why today are digital shooters thinking they cannot do the same with film? 

A big plus digital shooters comment on is “I can shoot many images then immediately delete the ones I do not like, they do not cost me anything”; that is very true they can delete images as can film shooters discard their images. As for cost, look at the cost of pro digital cameras, in the thousands of dollars. A pro 35mm film camera can be had for $100-$200. To equal the price of the digital camera will take much film and processing. Okay, the digital shooter will say “I can shoot hundreds of images at a time”, to me that means they are shutter actuators. Digital shooters talk about all the post processing software they use; they are more proud of their computer skills than photography skills.

We hear of digitial only wedding photographers bragging they shoot a few thousand images per wedding. My thought, purchase a video camera not a still camera. Back-in-the-day if we shot ten rolls of film at a wedding that would be a lot; that was 120 or 220 film, in many situations 4x5 sheet film as well. 

Film photographers are much more selective of their shots than digital shooters. Digital shooter as a group are more spray and pray than film shooters. At events and weddings their cameras sound like machine guns. Can you imagine going through thousands of digital images for presenting to the client and having them also cull through those thousands of images? 

Yes, I am strongly in the camp that digital images can be amazing, produces gorgious images, work flow having many pluses over film. For close to ten years I was a digital chest thumper. Now, for the past ten years my photography is 99% film; the other 1% is when I use my iPhone. 

Another thought, digital cameras are computers that capture images, they are disposable. When they stop working it is usually the electronics that go bad and if that camera is a few years old it is better to throw it out. Some of the film  cameras I use are sixty years plus years old, and can still be CLA’d. Also, something digital shooters do not care to think about is their raw files. Those raw files are not a standard, thus they are different with each manufacture, camera, sometimes even with firmware updates change raw files. Worse, some older raw files are not supported by today’s newer software. How will you open your raw files in five-ten and more years?

With digital we have moved into the digital dark ages. HHD crash, CD/DVD rot, some cloud storage services shutdown, etc, thus folks are losing untold number of important files. Digital shooters become annoyed having to copy files to newer formats and devices. What will digital shooters pass on to their family, most likely devices that newer computers cannot read nor connect to; the digital dark ages.

Shooting film, at the end of the year we print all our keepers. Film is safely stored and everyone knows where they are. As scanners become better we again scan film achieving better images than in the past; our image quality improves with the same negative. 

There is much more that can be said, I will leave it to others more eloquent than I am.


----------



## denimadept (Aug 21, 2018)

If you've never printed an image through an enlarger, then put that exposed paper through the chemical process to finish it, you've got an incredible experience ahead of you.  Watching, using a safelight, the image come up in the developer, and smelling that fixer, is wonderful.


----------



## Steve Anchell (Aug 21, 2018)

Bubba Jones, your response is the most eloquent response to this question I have yet read. You've said it all and said it well. Thank you.

Steve Anchell
Author: 
The Darkroom Cookbook
Digital Photo Assignments


----------



## Jenny Mehlenbeck (Aug 21, 2018)

I SO miss my good old canon AE1.   Had a nice collection of lenses too.  And without spending hundreds or more on digital, I have yet to find a way to take long time exposures like star trails with anything other than good old slide film.
BUT.... good luck even FINDING film anymore.  Let alone finding a place to take it to be developed.  It's not like every grocery store has a drop off anymore.  Two camera shops within reach and both are almost an hour drive.  

I miss it.  Digital is fun, instant results, free.  But.... just not always the same.


----------



## denimadept (Aug 21, 2018)

Bubba Jones said:


> With digital we have moved into the digital dark ages. HHD crash, CD/DVD rot, some cloud storage services shutdown, etc, thus folks are losing untold number of important files. Digital shooters become annoyed having to copy files to newer formats and devices. What will digital shooters pass on to their family, most likely devices that newer computers cannot read nor connect to; the digital dark ages.
> 
> Shooting film, at the end of the year we print all our keepers. Film is safely stored and everyone knows where they are. As scanners become better we again scan film achieving better images than in the past; our image quality improves with the same negative.



Backups are critical.  Even my film negatives are ultimate backups of their scans.  It might be best to keep some things as TIFFs or similar.


----------



## tonymp (Aug 21, 2018)

This thread takes me back to days gone by.
I was shooting film with mostly MF cameras ( starting with a Roleiflex 2.8f ) from the 70s onward until 2006 during which time I was by then using Bronicas, though I started using  Minolta digital bridge cameras but only acting as substitute 'Polaroid' backs for my MF gear and it saved me a fair fortune, especially for studio work.

I did have a couple of Nikon film cameras plus decent pro grade lenses and eventually included Nikon digital SLRs into my serious kit but never used the auto exposure or auto settings and shot everything in manual with the aid of my trusty Gossen meter.
I shot quite a number of weddings each year and I never had any issues in shooting with film...the dynamic range was superb and one of the few older digital cameras which I'd use for weddings was the good old Fuji S5 Pro which I used for around 3 years and it too had an excellent dynamic range and with the correct software gave results similar to film, plus I could use my Nikon lenses on the S5 body too. If flash was needed I preferred my Metz hammerheads unless in studio.

Modern digital cameras have mostly moved on since 2012 when I more or less gave up serious photography but there will always be a place for film.
I think anyone wanting to seriously learn photography would do well to get hold of something like a Yashica  TLR plus a decent meter and learn everything with one of those, after which they could move on to an SLR.

Even if they didn't want to go down the film route and they got themselves a decent digital camera, if they also got hold a decent  light meter and learned how to use that for exposures, they'd probably learn more in a month about exposure, apertures and shutter speeds, composition etc by shooting in manual mode than they would learn in 2  years of point and shoot! The Sunny 16 rule is also a good friend to learn and master if a meter isn't to hand. Mounting the camera on a tripod with cable release is even better as long there is no action in the shot. It the best method for formal people shots as the subjects are more relaxed when you're not looking at them through a camera lens.

When shooting with film, one tends to make every shot count and think about what they want to achieve before pulling the trigger. The same can be applied to digital too and it will definitely lessen the workload of going through literally hundreds, if not thousands of mediocre images only to find the same number of decent shots could have been achieved with a little more care in half the time.
Anyway enough of this old time reminiscence.


----------



## Steve Anchell (Aug 21, 2018)

One point that Bubba Jones made I will comment on. 

Minolta camera was bought out by Konica. Konica sold Minolta's patents to Sony. Sony uses a proprietary RAW file, .ARW.

Minolta used a proprietary RAW file, .MRW. The majority of new software programs do not recognize .MRW files. Yes, they can still be converted to .DNG, but for how long? I have a collection of more than 100K b/w film images made over a period of 48 years. I can access and print any one of them at any time.

One point made by Jenny Mehlenbeck that I would also like to comment on. 

Digital is not free. How often do you upgrade your computer? How much did that DSLR or MILC cost you? How much is a fast media card? How much is the monthly subscription to Adobe for the rest of your life, or the purchase of On1 software or NIK? How often do you pay to upgrade your software? And the RAID array you just bought? Don't use a RAID for backup? But you do have a half dozen or more lose drives, right? And you probably should get another one soon. What did they cost? When will they go down and are you 100% certain your backup system is working? When did you last test it with a restore? 

Please don't get me wrong. I use digital almost every day for my work and in my classes. It's a truly remarkable medium and I absolutely love my Sony a7RII.

I use film when I want to decompress and spend quiet time in the darkroom, the door shut, the lights low (and orange), music to fit my mood, and no cell phone.

Digital is a wonderful medium but let's not make it the holy grail.


----------



## dxqcanada (Aug 21, 2018)

... there ain't no grave can hold my body down ... hmm fitting song for old dead film horses


----------



## acolvin (Aug 21, 2018)

F


chuasam said:


> I was casually browsing the eBay and noticed that old film cameras are commanding ridiculous prices.
> an old Olympus Muji II going for $200, Yashica T4 (zeiss) trading for $400...and the Contax T4 (my old love) going for $1500 to $2000.
> 
> Why are people still clinging on to film in the age of far better digital technology?


Film won't die because there are plenty of good photographers who want to have more control over a composition which DSLR cameras don't always offer; also, understanding how and why light works the way in does in a camera (which is, in reality, all photography is: controlling light and how it reacts to film,) and being able to manipulate that  requires an understanding of the mechanics. And that requires knowing how to operate a camera by thinking through the process and operating it manually. Yes, there may be folks out there trying to make a buck off older analog cameras, but collectors and good analog photographers will know automatically what a reasonable price is for an older camera. Also, asking why "film" won't die is a bit like asking why pen and paper won't die when there are word processors or why  radio won't die when there are podcasts on one's iPhone. It's not a genuine question so much as it is a pronouncement by folks who seem to love technology for technology's sake and may have no understanding of how to competently operate an analog camera. I have four SLR's (my oldest is a Box Kodak Brownie ca. 1908) and one older DSRL. Just MHO.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 21, 2018)

ftw1952 said:


> ...........You can not change or alter film negatives. ..............



Sure you can.  It's been done for the past........... oh,,.............170-some years.


----------



## john.margetts (Aug 21, 2018)

480sparky said:


> ftw1952 said:
> 
> 
> > ...........You can not change or alter film negatives. ..............
> ...


Reducers, intensifiers, toners, scalpels, ink, . . .

Each of my Photographers Almanacs contain a dozen or so pages of formulae for improving negatives.

Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk


----------



## tim48v (Aug 21, 2018)

The main reason I shoot 4x5 film is the _camera. _Even the most basic large format camera (excluding the Travelwide), gives me tilt, shift and swing. This makes a huge difference in the resulting image. Sure, there are some shift/tilt lenses available but they are more limiting (and not cheap).

Yeah, I've got decent digitals (too many micro 4/3s and a Sony A7Rii) but I often miss having the movements. (Yes, you can fake it in photoshop, to a point, but it doesn't feel the same.)

Also, a properly scanned 4x5 color transparency will be equivalent to several _gigapixels_. Even the last Star Wars films were filmed: that is, shot on analog film.

In the end, it comes down to which process do you like. After all, my daughter makes her living teaching people how to ride horses (we've had cars for how long?), I have friends who hunt big game with a bow (even though they own numerous rifles) and many new albums are being released, as well, albums, pressed on vinyl.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 21, 2018)

occasionally i think about going back to film. specifically medium format. been on and off that road a few times over the years. 
then i remember what it feels like every time i try and get back into film.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 21, 2018)

tim48v said:


> The main reason I shoot 4x5 film is the _camera. _Even the most basic large format camera (excluding the Travelwide), gives me tilt, shift and swing. This makes a huge difference in the resulting image. Sure, there are some shift/tilt lenses available but they are more limiting (and not cheap)......



I enjoy shooting 4x5 not only for the joy of shooting with film large enough to serve dinner on, but it's also a great conversation starter.  A lot of people are amazed that my "ancient camera that's been restored" is really only 4 years old.



tim48v said:


> ...........Also, a properly scanned 4x5 color transparency will be equivalent to several _gigapixels_. .............



I tried scanning a 4x5 black & white neg at the highest resolution I have in my scanner.  My computer choked up and had to be rebooted.  I think I'd end up with a 1.2gp image if I had the horsepower under the hood of my desktop machine.


Back a few years ago when I got my darkroom back up and running, I invited the neighbor's grandkids (the, ages 7-12) over to watch me make a wet print.  They were absolutely_ amazed_.  No computer.  No monitor.  No mouse.  No sliders. No _Save As _at the end.......


----------



## Jollyprof (Aug 21, 2018)

I got into photography shooting film with an old 1970s Nikkormat and loved the darkroom experience of printing the photos. My current biggest issue with potentially going back to film is finding a decent darkroom to use open to the public (and I am willing to pay). When I first started photography (mid 90s), I had the good fortune to be at Oregon State University, which had a community arts center with a darkroom anyone could join and pay to use. I am now in SoCal and have found it almost impossible to find a good darkroom to use. I work at a University, but darkroom only available to students actively enrolled in photography classes. I do not have currently have the resources (ownership of my living space, etc.) for a home darkroom. So, for me, it is simply a practical problem - if you know a good darkroom in SoCal I could potentially use, please let me know!! I’d like to dust off the Nikkormat and try out a Yashica Mat-124  I picked up. Thanks!!


----------



## maxxremis (Aug 22, 2018)

I am not totally convinced that digital photos have a 100% advantage over film.
Some expert would have to convince me of this.


----------



## Jeff15 (Aug 22, 2018)

Whats film................??????


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Aug 22, 2018)

chuasam said:


> Why are people still clinging on to film in the age of far better digital technology?



I have never understood this argument, or the obvious contradiction it highlights.

Images are the point of photography. So in light of the far better technology you would expect to see the flaws and how *sub-standard* old film images were. The should pale in comparison, but they don't. Not only do they all hold up and are as emotive as they ever were but modern film images can still stand up to being the equal or better of modern digital.

So if the argument doesn't stand even a mild scrutiny of the images produced by each then what is the comparison of *better* based on?

It boils down quite simply to, "my camera is better than yours."

Though we universally like to proclaim it's the photographer we seem to spend most of our time trying to prove it's the camera.

As to why I use film I probably summed it up best in an article I posted on this forum:

Musings on Mull


----------



## D300Rob (Aug 23, 2018)

For me, the first thing that comes to mind about film.  If film died, no more movies.  It is still shot on film, not digital.  Also, film still has a unique quality that is not on digital.  It seems so many digital shooters are spray and pray, and fix it in PS or LR.  Not that much latitude with film.  Get it right in camera, tweaking if needed later, not planning on spending hours to fix.


----------



## john.margetts (Aug 23, 2018)

D300Rob said:


> For me, the first thing that comes to mind about film.  If film died, no more movies.  It is still shot on film, not digital.  Also, film still has a unique quality that is not on digital.  It seems so many digital shooters are spray and pray, and fix it in PS or LR.  Not that much latitude with film.  Get it right in camera, tweaking if needed later, not planning on spending hours to fix.


Most movies have been shot with digital cameras for some years now. Those directors that insist on using film are in a minority.


Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk


----------



## drdroad (Aug 31, 2018)

Despite all these comments, it still is interesting (and a little odd) that some people choose film over digital. Those people who try to point out how much better the photos look from film just doesn't win out, there have been many articles in Photo magazines trying to show this, and none have convinced me. 

But when considering darkroom over computer: HATED the darkroom and happy to be on my computer rather then that smelly, reaking place.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 31, 2018)

I don't see any sense in golf, either.  A perfectly good walk across a meticulously manicured lawn, ruined when you're compelled to take a $500 stick and hit a $40 white ball, then yell, "Ah, *#&$!!!!"


----------



## limr (Aug 31, 2018)

The only thing I find odd is how this topic of conversation will not die.


----------



## dxqcanada (Aug 31, 2018)

Conversations like this will never die, as long as there are people in this world who feel they have a voice that should be heard.


----------



## limr (Aug 31, 2018)

dxqcanada said:


> Conversations like this will never die, as long as there are people in this world who feel they have a voice judgment that should be heard.



FTFY.


----------



## dxqcanada (Aug 31, 2018)

Hmm, I had to Google that ... this whole socialspeak still confuses me.


----------



## limr (Aug 31, 2018)

dxqcanada said:


> Hmm, I had to Google that ... this whole socialspeak still confuses me.



I had to Google it the first time I saw it, too. And now I can't not know it. It's just there, stuck in my brain. Like mold.


----------



## dxqcanada (Aug 31, 2018)

The only one I can remember is ... WTF.


----------



## limr (Aug 31, 2018)

dxqcanada said:


> The only one I can remember is ... WTF.



I have a stamp of that


----------



## dxqcanada (Aug 31, 2018)

WTF


----------



## Fred von den Berg (Aug 31, 2018)

In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted. 
_Bertrand Russell_

Newer technology isn't necessarily better technology. It might be faster or easier or more convenient but these things are aspects that make the process faster, easier and more convenient: not better.


----------



## Vtec44 (Sep 1, 2018)

#makefilmgreatagain   j/k


----------



## dxqcanada (Sep 1, 2018)

Vtec44 said:


> #makefilmgreatagain   j/k



MFGA ? Nah, that doesn't work ... #makeanaloggreatagain = MAGA !!


----------



## Derrel (Sep 1, 2018)

dxqcanada said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > #makefilmgreatagain   j/k
> ...



Walmart has been selling analog stuff lately at close-out prices...I snapped this photo a short time back,using my iPhone SE.


----------



## Gary A. (Sep 1, 2018)

Somehow, before photography, I think there must have been a similar ‘argument’ when charcoal transitioned to watercolor and watercolor to oils, et cetera. Just as charcoal delivers a different image than pencil, so too with film and digital. Digital is different than film, not necessarily better, just different.

If film dies, it will be a slow death dictated by a diminishing market until film manufactures can no longer make a profit.  There are still companies making new film cameras, including but not limited to: Leica, Nikon and Fuji.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 2, 2018)

Now that we have MP3s and WAV files we can play on any device any time, any where, why won't live concerts just die?


----------



## vin88 (Sep 2, 2018)

chuasam said:


> I was casually browsing the eBay and noticed that old film cameras are commanding ridiculous prices.
> an old Olympus Muji II going for $200, Yashica T4 (zeiss) trading for $400...and the Contax T4 (my old love) going for $1500 to $2000.
> 
> Why are people still clinging on to film in the age of far better digital technology?


    its  not about cameras.  its about collecting,  hording and price manipulation or the came of "old maid".  vin


----------



## marcookie (Sep 2, 2018)

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but large format film is still an excellent choice for landscape work. With $1000 it is possible to buy a used large format camera and a good flatbed scanner. This will get images that about 100 megapixels and can be printed 30x40 with no problem. 

Additionally, with $1000/year you can have 100 images processed and 3-4 professional drum scans, which will yield about 300 megapixel files. Good luck having the same quality/price ratio with digital.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 2, 2018)

marcookie said:


> I don't know if this has been posted yet, but large format film is still an excellent choice for landscape work. With $1000 it is possible to buy a used large format camera and a good flatbed scanner. This will get images that about 100 megapixels and can be printed 30x40 with no problem.
> ............



If I scan my 4x5 negs at maximum resolution, I would end up with 1.2 to 1.4 _giga_pixel files.  That is, if my computer had the horsepower to deal with those size files.  It doesn't, so it just locks up and must be rebooted.


----------



## marcookie (Sep 2, 2018)

My Epson V800 does not show any significant improvement above 2400 dpi... which is slightly above 100 mpx. Still  plenty. I will try fluid mount but I suppose that it will not change a lot.. What scanner do you have?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 2, 2018)

CanoScan 9000F Mark II.


----------



## chuasam (Sep 2, 2018)

marcookie said:


> I don't know if this has been posted yet, but large format film is still an excellent choice for landscape work. With $1000 it is possible to buy a used large format camera and a good flatbed scanner. This will get images that about 100 megapixels and can be printed 30x40 with no problem.
> 
> Additionally, with $1000/year you can have 100 images processed and 3-4 professional drum scans, which will yield about 300 megapixel files. Good luck having the same quality/price ratio with digital.


By using my DSLR and a GigaPan, I can easily get images with the equivalent of a gazillion (approximately) megapixels


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 2, 2018)

chuasam said:


> By using my DSLR and a GigaPan, I can easily get images with the equivalent of a gazillion (approximately) megapixels



With just one shutter actuation?


----------



## DennyN (Sep 2, 2018)

Love my film cameras and there are times when I need the ease of use and reliability of my digital. This same issue comes up in the audio world digital vs analog. As a musician I love the warmth or distortion of a vintage tube amp vs solid state. By the way why won't vinyl records just die ?


----------



## vin88 (Sep 3, 2018)

so,  why not use 35 mm film?


----------



## limr (Sep 3, 2018)

vin88 said:


> so,  why not use 35 mm film?



To whom are you directing this question?


----------



## vin88 (Sep 4, 2018)

DennyN said:


> Love my film cameras and there are times when I need the ease of use and reliability of my digital. This same issue comes up in the audio world digital vs analog. As a musician I love the warmth or distortion of a vintage tube amp vs solid state. By the way why won't vinyl records just die ?


   vinyl records or even old Edison records are a good sound storage device and disks are not.  what is a good device?


----------



## DennyN (Sep 4, 2018)

vin88 said:


> DennyN said:
> 
> 
> > Love my film cameras and there are times when I need the ease of use and reliability of my digital. This same issue comes up in the audio world digital vs analog. As a musician I love the warmth or distortion of a vintage tube amp vs solid state. By the way why won't vinyl records just die ?
> ...


My remark about records was tongue in cheek humor.


----------



## vin88 (Sep 5, 2018)

DennyN said:


> vin88 said:
> 
> 
> > DennyN said:
> ...


   good show,  I like to record live music.


----------



## ac12 (Sep 7, 2018)

So that I can still shoot my 4x5 view camera.

I have to fix my new old turntable, so that my wife can listen to her growing collection of 33s.


----------



## DanOstergren (Sep 11, 2018)

I equate old cameras and rare film to rare toys, classic cars, etc. There is clearly a collector's market, and because of that it will never die. It doesn't matter if digital is "better", it just doesn't have much nostalgia or value to a collector. Even as someone who has shot primarily with digital cameras, I have a major interest in old 8x10 film cameras and Rolleiflex TLR cameras, and would love to own and use them for portraits and fashion images. To me it's simply another way of creating self expression and learning something new about a craft that I'm very passionate about. It really has nothing to do with the quality of the photo, and to be honest I think "quality" is something that should be judged based on what's in the photo, not in how it was conceived.


----------



## vin88 (Sep 11, 2018)

DanOstergren said:


> I equate old cameras and rare film to rare toys, classic cars, etc. There is clearly a collector's market, and because of that it will never die. It doesn't matter if digital is "better", it just doesn't have much nostalgia or value to a collector. Even as someone who has shot primarily with digital cameras, I have a major interest in old 8x10 film cameras and Rolleiflex TLR cameras, and would love to own and use them for portraits and fashion images. To me it's simply another way of creating self expression and learning something new about a craft that I'm very passionate about. It really has nothing to do with the quality of the photo, and to be honest I think "quality" is something that should be judged based on what's in the photo, not in how it was conceived.


       digital cameras are great, but,  can quit right in the middle of a shoot;  "the computer age".


----------



## DanOstergren (Sep 12, 2018)

vin88 said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > I equate old cameras and rare film to rare toys, classic cars, etc. There is clearly a collector's market, and because of that it will never die. It doesn't matter if digital is "better", it just doesn't have much nostalgia or value to a collector. Even as someone who has shot primarily with digital cameras, I have a major interest in old 8x10 film cameras and Rolleiflex TLR cameras, and would love to own and use them for portraits and fashion images. To me it's simply another way of creating self expression and learning something new about a craft that I'm very passionate about. It really has nothing to do with the quality of the photo, and to be honest I think "quality" is something that should be judged based on what's in the photo, not in how it was conceived.
> ...


Honestly I think this is the case for anything with mechanical function, whether it's digital or not. This includes the function of film cameras.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Sep 12, 2018)

Well for all the perfectly good reasons for film already mentioned, the bottom line is for some, it is just more fun.

Be it the bigger challenge, a connection to the past, a chance to use highly crafted cameras built by long dead master crafts men or simply to step away from the day to day world of endless electronic gadgetry.

It is not an either/or situation, it is more of a "Well this looks interesting" appeal.


----------



## limr (Sep 12, 2018)

DanOstergren said:


> vin88 said:
> 
> 
> > DanOstergren said:
> ...



Absolutely true - film cameras can fail in the middle of a roll as well and screw things up. Just one nitpick: there are mechanical failures and there are electronic failures. While it's true that some of my totally manual cameras have had issues with things like sticky shutters or film advance from time to time, the film cameras that I have that require batteries and have more complicated electronics have been less reliable than my purely mechanical cameras. When my Olympus OM-2 has a dead battery? Can't use it. Might as well be a paper weight. When my K1000 has a dead battery? I use my phone as a light meter or wing it using Sunny 16 and keep shooting.


----------



## CALNNC (Sep 12, 2018)

I had to comment on this statement about old cameras and film.  Those are with us for the same reason vintage motor vehicles, steam locomotives, rotary engine aircraft, muzzle loaders, and tube stereos and radios are with us.  They are loved by many, restored, fun to operate and use, and just appreciated.  Digital is great and convenient, but the skill and technical aspects of film, make things more interesting for some.   In the day when you took a shot with a camera you made F stop and speed adjustments , had picked the right film for the situation, and produced a great picture, compared to today when it is mostly the microprocessor doing it for you to produce a just as good, maybe even better picture.  But where is the real skill in that?


----------



## wmurnahan (Sep 16, 2018)

chuasam said:


> I was casually browsing the eBay and noticed that old film cameras are commanding ridiculous prices.
> an old Olympus Muji II going for $200, Yashica T4 (zeiss) trading for $400...and the Contax T4 (my old love) going for $1500 to $2000.
> 
> Why are people still clinging on to film in the age of far better digital technology?


For me, I won't give up film because you can't get the luster and depth in the black with an ink jet print that you can with a silver oxide paper print. Look at an Ansel Adams, there is detail even in his darkest shadow, the black has a shine/shimmer, not flat like an ink jet.


----------



## chuasam (Sep 16, 2018)

wmurnahan said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > I was casually browsing the eBay and noticed that old film cameras are commanding ridiculous prices.
> ...


Fair. But a lot of these film shooters are just using Fuji superia 400 in a old point and shoot camera 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## chuasam (Sep 16, 2018)

limr said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > vin88 said:
> ...


In all my years of photography I have never been stopped by a dead battery. I always have a spare. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk


----------



## john.margetts (Sep 16, 2018)

wmurnahan said:


> For me, I won't give up film because you can't get the luster and depth in the black with an ink jet print that you can with a silver oxide paper print. Look at an Ansel Adams, there is detail even in his darkest shadow, the black has a shine/shimmer, not flat like an ink jet.


just a gentle correction - not intending much by this - but the black in an analogue print is metallic silver not silver oxide.



Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk


----------



## limr (Sep 16, 2018)

chuasam said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > DanOstergren said:
> ...



How nice for you.


----------



## Overread (Sep 16, 2018)

Digital cameras run out of battery power
Film cameras run out of film unless they were more modern ones which have all kinds of electric wizardry in them* 

Both hate you if you dunk them in salt water.


*Canon even had a couple with eye tracking to monitor your eye and use it for focus point selection!


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 16, 2018)

wmurnahan said:


> ..For me, I won't give up film because you can't get the luster and depth in the black with an ink jet print that you can with a silver oxide paper print. Look at an Ansel Adams, there is detail even in his darkest shadow, the black has a shine/shimmer, not flat like an ink jet.



Of course, you have to look at an original.  Not a copy.


----------



## webestang64 (Sep 16, 2018)

Overread said:


> *Canon even had a couple with eye tracking to monitor your eye and use it for focus point selection!



LOVE my Canon A2E.


----------



## terri (Sep 16, 2018)

chuasam said:


> wmurnahan said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...


Really?    Point and shoot?    The film shooters I know use regular SLRs or TLR like Rolleis.   Do you have any actual statistics to support this assertion?


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 17, 2018)

terri said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > wmurnahan said:
> ...



The Re-Emergence of the Instant Camera in Our Instagram World


----------



## limr (Sep 17, 2018)

pixmedic said:


> terri said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...



While many instant cameras are just point-and-shoot, that's not what Sam and Terri were talking about.

As for the original assertion that we're all just shooting Superia in point-and-shoots, it's bollocks. These days, those of us who are still shooting film probably all have a point-and-shoot camera in our collection that we like to pull out once in a while for fun, but no, that's not all we're doing.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 17, 2018)

limr said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > terri said:
> ...


It was a joke. settle down

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## limr (Sep 17, 2018)

pixmedic said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



Um...huh? I _am_ settled. I am just responding first to your link and then to Sam's claim.


----------



## terri (Sep 17, 2018)

Dunno how posting a link to an article without comment is supposed to induce a guffaw, but whatever.   

Leo gets it.  I simply wanted Sam to comment further on what I took to be an overly broad, almost dismissive, comment.  He's the OP, after all.


----------



## Solarflare (Sep 20, 2018)

chuasam said:


> I was casually browsing the eBay and noticed that old film cameras are commanding ridiculous prices.
> an old Olympus Muji II going for $200, Yashica T4 (zeiss) trading for $400...and the Contax T4 (my old love) going for $1500 to $2000.
> 
> Why are people still clinging on to film in the age of far better digital technology?


Well, first of all: because. Surprisingly people dont actually need to justify what they're doing.

And why do you bother to browse for film cameras if you look down on people who use them, anyway ?

Meanwhile film has a nonlinear behavior towards light that cannot be fully emulated by digital sensors. For example digital sensors have a much harsher reaction towards overexposure than certain types of film.

And nobody can afford a digital camera that has a large enough sensor that they could compete in resolution with large format film cameras.


----------



## chuasam (Sep 23, 2018)

terri said:


> Dunno how posting a link to an article without comment is supposed to induce a guffaw, but whatever.
> 
> Leo gets it.  I simply wanted Sam to comment further on what I took to be an overly broad, almost dismissive, comment.  He's the OP, after all.


full disclosure: I work in the Camera industry and I do not like something that I consider to be far far less profitable.
THERE!


----------



## chuasam (Sep 23, 2018)

Solarflare said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > I was casually browsing the eBay and noticed that old film cameras are commanding ridiculous prices.
> ...


appraising some old gear


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 23, 2018)

Solarflare said:


> .....Surprisingly people dont actually need to justify what they're doing.............



Especially to ONE PERSON who doesn't agree with them.


----------



## terri (Sep 23, 2018)

chuasam said:


> I do not like something that I consider to be far far less profitable.


ewww.   Spoken like nothing but a capitalist, not an artist.


----------



## chuasam (Sep 23, 2018)

terri said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > I do not like something that I consider to be far far less profitable.
> ...



I ne’er claimed to be an artist


----------



## ac12 (Sep 23, 2018)

Overread said:


> Digital cameras run out of battery power
> Film cameras run out of film unless they were more modern ones which have all kinds of electric wizardry in them*



Just got back from a vacation with my mirrorless.

My mirrorless Olympus E-M1 ran about 4 HOURS on a single battery.  I needed THREE batteries to shoot a full day.  And I had to charge three batteries each night, which meant either two chargers and two charging shifts, or three chargers.

My dSLR could easily shoot 2 DAYS on one battery.
My 35mm film SLR battery lasted over a year.  And even if the meter went out, I could shoot full manual.
My 6x6 does not use a battery.
While you got more functionality at each change in technology, the battery capacity did not keep up with the battery drain, especially the mirrorless.

So what is worse, poor battery life and having to charge every day, or carrying MANY rolls of film?


----------



## waday (Sep 24, 2018)

ac12 said:


> My mirrorless Olympus E-M1 ran about 4 HOURS on a single battery. I needed THREE batteries to shoot a full day. And I had to charge three batteries each night, which meant either two chargers and two charging shifts, or three chargers.


I don't mean to change course, but... was this a photography vacation or a family vacation? When I was out in snowy 30-40 degF weather, shooting all day, I only used one-and-a-half batteries. I usually never have the camera on for longer than it needs to be; I turn it off when not using it. When on family vacations, I can go two days without having to charge it, using the camera when needed. Separately, when I was out on several hikes last year, out all day shooting, I never used more than a single battery to take hundreds of shots each day.

I'm not saying that mirrorless battery life isn't worse than DSLRs (because it is), I'm just surprised at the short-ish lengths you're getting compared to me?


----------



## Derrel (Sep 24, 2018)

waday said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> > My mirrorless Olympus E-M1 ran about 4 HOURS on a single battery. I needed THREE batteries to shoot a full day. And I had to charge three batteries each night, which meant either two chargers and two charging shifts, or three chargers.
> ...



Waday: what brand and model of mirrorless camera were you using? That could play a big part in battery life. Do you have only an EVF as a viewfinder/composing system, or also an eyelevel or "optical" type of viewfinder option? Do you have one of the new Sony mirrorless cameras with the longer, higher-capoability batteries? Some models of mirrorless cameras do not seem to have very long battery life.

*Back to film and why it still exists*: NOBODY (not Nikon,not Canon, not Fuji,not Sony) has ever come close to Tri-X Pan in terms of beautiful B&W *tonality*. Does it have grain? Why yes, yes it does! Is it the highest-acutance film available? No, no it is not! It is the most-beautiful high-ISO B&W film? Yes, yes it is!


----------



## ac12 (Sep 24, 2018)

waday said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> > My mirrorless Olympus E-M1 ran about 4 HOURS on a single battery. I needed THREE batteries to shoot a full day. And I had to charge three batteries each night, which meant either two chargers and two charging shifts, or three chargers.
> ...



Both.
Just my wife and I.  She enjoyed being inside the train car, I enjoyed being on the observation deck shooting.
Because interesting shots came FAST with little or no warning, I had to keep the camera ON, most of the time.
One thing about being in a train, you can't stop to take pictures.  You gotta be ready to shoot, and shoot fast.

I think the E-M1-mk2 has a longer battery life, probably by using a larger battery.


----------



## waday (Sep 24, 2018)

Derrel said:


> Waday: what brand and model of mirrorless camera were you using? That could play a big part in battery life. Do you have only an EVF as a viewfinder/composing system, or also an eyelevel or "optical" type of viewfinder option? Do you have one of the new Sony mirrorless cameras with the longer, higher-capoability batteries? Some models of mirrorless cameras do not seem to have very long battery life.


I have an Olympus EM1. I think it might have to do with ac12 keeping his camera turned on all the time compared to turning it off when not in use. 



ac12 said:


> waday said:
> 
> 
> > ac12 said:
> ...


I can understand that, and that’s probably the difference—you keeping it turned on vs me turning it on and off.


----------



## Solarflare (Sep 25, 2018)

chuasam said:


> full disclosure: I work in the Camera industry and I do not like something that I consider to be far far less profitable.


I wouldnt want to buy anything from a company like that.

After all, somebody with that kind of thinking wouldnt make a product that usually lasts longterm, either.


----------



## chuasam (Sep 25, 2018)

Solarflare said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > full disclosure: I work in the Camera industry and I do not like something that I consider to be far far less profitable.
> ...



Things get painfully obsolete way before they wear out.


----------



## dxqcanada (Sep 25, 2018)

This is where we circle back to the title of this thread ... some people have not considered film photography obsolete (Darryl still pines for his Tri-X Pan ... though I would say that it sucks compared to Panatomic-X, but that's just my opinion ).


----------



## webestang64 (Sep 25, 2018)

dxqcanada said:


> Panatomic-X



mmmmmMMMMMmmmmm.....Pan X.....


----------



## dxqcanada (Sep 25, 2018)

Hmm, Kodak Ektachrome ... Loading site please wait...


----------



## bhop (Oct 9, 2018)

terri said:


> Really?    Point and shoot?    The film shooters I know use regular SLRs or TLR like Rolleis.   Do you have any actual statistics to support this assertion?



I was doing some digital "behind the scenes" shots on a photoshoot for a fashion lookbook. The 21 y/o that was hired to do the shoot was using a Canon P&S for most of it...at least after her Contax G2 died.  She was using portra 400 though... not fujifilm. The lookbook actually turned out really nice, considering it was the look they were going for.

That said, I've been seeing a lot of film cameras out on the streets lately, mostly old SLRs, and a few rangefinders here and there. Rarely p&s.

Personally, I love shooting film and won't stop unless they stop making it. I use film Leicas (can't afford digital) and vintage Nikons (because they're fun).  I also have some digital cameras (X100T and D3s) but the photos never really excite me like my film shots do. I know they're probably "technically" better than a scan from 35mm, but whatever.. I'm an artist, I go by emotions and feelings..


----------



## ac12 (Oct 9, 2018)

terri said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > wmurnahan said:
> ...



I have a Nikon L35AF, 35mm P&S.
It is a great little camera, when I did not want to haul out or around the F2.


----------



## Kiron Kid (Oct 9, 2018)

chuasam said:


> I was casually browsing the eBay and noticed that old film cameras are commanding ridiculous prices.
> an old Olympus Muji II going for $200, Yashica T4 (zeiss) trading for $400...and the Contax T4 (my old love) going for $1500 to $2000.
> 
> Why are people still clinging on to film in the age of far better digital technology?




I still shoot film exclusively. I have shot digital on a few occasions. I much prefer film. I am not opposed to digital. How someone chooses to make their images is their business. I may never own a digital camera. They just do not appeal to me. However, I did just score a NIKON F3.


----------



## Solarflare (Oct 18, 2018)

chuasam said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...



... painful what now ?

I use a Nikon D700 and there are many other people who still do. That thing was introduced over 10 years ago.

That thing is build very well (its heavy too, though) and I cant replicate the results with my D750, so I'll keep using it.


----------



## Kiron Kid (Oct 18, 2018)

Derrel said:


> waday said:
> 
> 
> > ac12 said:
> ...




Neopan 400 has the tonality of Tri-X with the grain of Delta 400. Loved that stuff.


----------



## webestang64 (Oct 19, 2018)

Our store now has the new Ektachrome 100 in stock! WOO HOO!


----------



## Roger Wade (Nov 17, 2018)

Like many here I suspect, I started with film, moved on to digital, lost interest as my voice got lost in the crowd of shouts, only to fall back in love with photography with film again. There is just something about the process, the call, the attention, the creation, the development and the natural the visual image that makes me think film will always be here. Maybe even more so in out hectic, fast-moving times.


----------



## ac12 (Nov 17, 2018)

waday said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Waday: what brand and model of mirrorless camera were you using? That could play a big part in battery life. Do you have only an EVF as a viewfinder/composing system, or also an eyelevel or "optical" type of viewfinder option? Do you have one of the new Sony mirrorless cameras with the longer, higher-capoability batteries? Some models of mirrorless cameras do not seem to have very long battery life.
> ...



I thought about this a bit.
The meter switch on my film cameras was on the film advance lever.  With my thumb, I pulled the lever out a bit to on, pushed it in flush to off.  It was very easy and fast to turn the meter on/off.
The power switch on my Nikon D7200 is a ring around the shutter button, which I rotate with my shutter finger.  Not quite as fast as the film advance lever but easy to get to and fast to use.
The power switch on the Olympus EM1 and EM10 is like the meter switch on the old film OMs, and requires a deliberate action to turn it on/off.  It is definitely NOT fast nor easy to do, as you have to move your left or right hand to the top left deck of the camera to get to the switch.

Probably the worst meter/power switch that I've run into is on the Minolta SRT-101 series cameras.  You turned the camera upside down, and used your thumb to rotate a flush button switch to turn the meter on/off.  It was such a PiA to use, that my friend turned it on, then left it on, until the shoot was over.


----------



## waday (Nov 18, 2018)

ac12 said:


> It is definitely NOT fast or easy to do, as you have to move your left or right hand to the top left deck of the camera to get to the switch.


Good point and totally agree. It’s definitely a conscious decision, although I’ve turned it into a habit.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 4, 2018)

I dont know? I only shot 35 mm as i grew up as it was the "norm". Wasn't for artistic or proving any point it is just normal. And there were places everywhere to drop off your rolls and order prints. All that seems to have changed. I havent shot film in a couple years now, just not worth the half hour drive to drop them off or sending it out and waiting 2 weeks.  If they still had lots of drop off points, i would shoot film more. But that has all been pushed to the wayside and the changes have made shooting film increasing difficult. I know many have darkrooms, labs, but i never wanted that level of investment unless i had too? I was just like every other normal person shooting 35 mm and dropping it off. And then it was pretty inexpensive so you never really gave it much thought.

Digital is way, way, easier and better. You can see the shot right then so you know if you have it or not. With film, you expected one or two shots not to come out. The norm. You just wondered which ones. So digital is a large step up taking the guess work out if it. But it isnt the same nostaligia. Why so many digital programs have editing to make digital "look" like film. Sort of trying to give you the ease of digital but nostalgia of the film look. Still not the same as picking out your film and loading your cameras but it does help.
Also some of the camera companies are making digital cameras to look and feel more like film cameras. So film still had impact on the digital worlds.

I am more interested in the film digital edits now. Shoot digital and pick out the type of film edit i want it too look like.  Comparing, i have 6 ? I guess film cameras? Course like old school each having different type/speed film in it. Forgetting to label the backs and slide the cardboard in to remember what film was in which camera. Film, was not and is not easy. But now i can take a photo with my cellphone, edit it to have the look of film amongst 15 choices or more. Without ever worrying about which camera to take and what film is in what camera.  Not all film came out good either, some of the stuff (and resulting photos) was pure crap.
Not to say i would totally stop shooting film but to put it in reality..

If you can buy a camera that works and feels like a film camera. If you can edit your photo to a multitude of film "looks". If you dont have to have multiple cameras with multiple types and speed films.  Look how much digtal has taken from film to make our life easier. Still most of the perks without the headaches.

The battery argument on digital is kinda dumb, most of the more recent film cameras had batteries too that lasted even less long. But for cameras all manual, consider. When shooting film we were more cautious in what we shot. And took less shots. Maybe at times you might blow through a few rolls in a whack but it was RARE. Most digital cameras are at least good for 200 to 300 shots before the battery is dead. In film terms that is more than what we were shooting anyway in rolls. And you could a extra battery easier than another 5 or 6 rolls. The "i can shoot without a battery going dead" i feel is a very weak argument,

"The range of film" argument. I dont quite get it? I change iso from 200-400- 1200 in digital that IS range. And different speed films and cameras i would have to lug around. Sure, on a single photo maybe you have less range (whites blow out or something).  But i have blown out film too (it isnt perfect). But overall the range on digital already surpasses film, you arent carrying various speed films. On the megapixel count, cost benefit film still wins. But as the digital megapixel sensors increase and costs lower on the high megapixel cameras digital will bypass film. And really, how many shoot medium format or 8x10 anyway. I wouldnt mind it. But the idea of a 120 mp digital large sensor dropping in price overtime i find more intriguing.


----------



## Kiron Kid (Dec 4, 2018)

Film cameras bring us back to the art & craft of photography. Perhaps even slow us down a bit and inspire us to actually “look and see” more intently. Also, I grow tired of all the electronic devices that we rely on in our daily routine. It’s nice to think and act ourselves. I am not opposed to digital, but it’s just not for me. Perhaps it never will be.

Russ


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Dec 24, 2018)

I just spend a couple of hours at the State Park with a 1910 view camera. I now have a few 4x5 negatives to develop and most likely contact print.

Why? because it was fun and interesting to mess with these old products of long gone master craftsmen who competed with one another for the bourgeoning camera market. Just the Nikon, Canon and Sony mirror less market of today.


----------

