Photographer
Beatrice Neumann
Posts: 193
gavin oneill wrote:
actually for most of my outdoor beauty stuff, and almost anything else i shoot outside, im going back to film as of a few months ago..........theres something that 100+ years of perfercting has given film that digital (in its relative infancy) has not matched yet. ive been shooting digi for 5+ years, currently using the latest and greatest digi equipment, and its amazing (the hassleblad H1d with 22mgpx imacon back), but most of it is best suited for fashion and studio use, which in both cases i prefer it over film, any day. but outdoors and outdoor beauty im still not 100% sold......(im mainly referring to skintone here, and colour rendering, specially of blue sky and sea, not sharpness).
35mm is a no contest, i dont think any 35mm digi camera on the market is better than film, specially outside, specially for sky, sea and skin.. Agree with you 100%.
Just started using film again about 6 months ago after I realized the limitations of digital, so i bought medium format again....
Photographer
CreativeSandBoxStudio
Posts: 1984
London, England, United Kingdom
Stop sounding like Chicken Little, film is here to stay but look at special ordering films that use to be the standards at pro camera stores. I shoot 220 Tri-xpan in 220-4x5 & 8x10 sheets. Yes! I also shoot digital, but there ain't nothing like film grain on fiber base paper 16x20 print
Photographer
Photography by Baron
Posts: 7
Chicago, Illinois, US
I have a Nagra reel-to-reel tape recorder...best analog sound ever. Medium format, medium format panoramic, 4x5 and 8x10 cameras that see nothing but film. Process all my own film.
But, from there I scan at high resolution (4,000 dpi) and print on a couple of large, Epson printers. Sometimes miss the darkroom but not the time it takes to setup and cleanup. Nor the space it takes.
Does that make me a half-Luddite?
Photographer
Photos by Jerry
Posts: 701
Edmonds, Washington, US
Everything changes with time. I was reading a book of old photographic essays and articles. Paul Strand said in 1917 that "color and photography have nothing to do with each other." Wouldn't he be surprised. Will you be surprised in the future?
I tried making my own emulsion on glass once and exposing it in a 5x7 camera. I have used 4x5, medium format, 35mm, 16mm over many years.
I have three Carousel slide projectors. For years I made three slides to make a panorama to be projected on three screens. Now I scan the slides and use P/S to join them together to make a print. Last winter Kodak stopped making Carousel slide projectors. Maybe my Carousels will end up in a museum next to the lantern slide projectors.
I have a huge library about photography using film. Not many books written about film any more. Some of the books on digital are fascinating with all the new ideas.
I stopped using my darkroom three years and four digital cameras ago. Yes, there is a steep learning curve, just as there was with film. There is rapid technological development, faster than there was with film. Sometimes I am nostalgic for the processes I never got to see and try: autochrome, platinum printing, etc. I did try cyanotype, gold-toning, pinhole photography, gum-bichromate printing, several types of color printing. I began processing Ektachrome with process E-2. Anscochrome was better (my slides from the 50s have not faded) but they quit making it. I once watched a master do dye-transfer printing. It was an incredible process in the hands of someone who knew what he was doing. Kokak has stopped making Dye Transfer Materials.
Kodak has stopped making black and white printing papers. It is predicted they may go bankrupt. I wonder when Kodak will make their last roll or sheet of film. George Eastman, who founded Kodak, built a fortune advertising "You press the button and we will do the rest."
My advice to young photographers is to go entirely digital and live (and love) the history of this technology as it develops. Remember it will be different than film, but it is the future. Don't dwell on the past. That is for old guys like me.
Photographer
Done and Gone
Posts: 7650
Chiredzi, Masvingo, Zimbabwe
Nope, don't use it. Did the whole home B+W darkroom thing, worked at a photolab printing custom Type R and processing E-6 dip and dunk Kodak Q lab. Learned many fine things, got reaction to chemistry, had to remove myself from the environment. The history of photography has been one of innovation and discovery. Early photo emulsions used thick layers of coal tar!
Whatever works is cool.
Photographer
Vance C McDaniel
Posts: 7609
Los Angeles, California, US
Chris Macan wrote:
Somebody is a little cranky today,
it's all good,
relax. Cranky?
LOL..Hold on let me smoke another bowl as I laugh at this one...
PUFF PUFF PUFF LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
Photographer
John F Cooper
Posts: 46
New York, New York, US
Film, yes. 120mm / 4x5 / 8x10. I shoot no 35mm, digital or otherwise. I still love polaroids and sometimes use them as final art. Go figure.
Photographer
Thos Damn Yankees
Posts: 141
FILM yes: 4x5, 5x7 (my favorite) and 8x10. I also use a 6x7 roll film back on my Linhofs.
Photographer
BTHPhoto
Posts: 6985
Fairbanks, Alaska, US
120, 2.25x3.25 sheets, 4x5 sheets (but I'm going to modernize as soon as I figure out how to fit a microdrive under the dark slide)
For what it's worth, I shoot digital too. They're both great tools.
Photographer
Vance C McDaniel
Posts: 7609
Los Angeles, California, US
Beatrice Neumann wrote:
Agree with you 100%.
Just started using film again about 6 months ago after I realized the limitations of digital, so i bought medium format again.... This is an argument that will soon unfold it self.
FILM is not here to stay...It will dwindle down to a select few who choose to pursue it. Just Like I like to find Old records from time to time.
I really think people choose to neglet the reality of new technology as it pertains to PROFIT margins for major companies. I have equipment I cant even have serviced anymore. And to find the parts and components is just too costly. Everything runs it's course and becomes a part of history. Film will fade..Well it already has. there will always be a select few. LIKE GLASS blowers..who are also a dying breed.
Nothing last forever...This is the way of life.
I would also note, that digital has fewer linitations than may think. However, it is not the same as shooting on film. the trules are different and when you learn them the results will astound you.
You stil must be a photgrapher inoder to produce the images you want.
Digital will never change that.. (On that I am probaly wrong )...
LOL..Puff puff
Photographer
VRG Photography
Posts: 1025
Tallahassee, Florida, US
Vance wrote:
I love how a debate arises from such a simple question.
I also shoot on film now and then, but not in the studio. Only for my enjoyment and it's all nature stuff. Which none of you will most likely ever see. :-)
I would like to make one little rant.
1. Film Buffs.
Film is awesome, film is proven..And film still has SOME advantages over digital ..Depending on your profenciancy using digital.. Many digital shooters have received results the naked eye can not tell the difference.
2. Digital Buffs
Yes, it is the wave of the future..It will eclipse film one day..Technology will always roll forward and replace much of what we once used.
To all of US
Drop the Friggen High horse egos and "looking down the nose" attitudes when it comes to what format an artist uses. GET OVER yourselves for crying out loud. If you have a preference, use it. Dont thorw attitude and greif over a new format. It's pointless.
Like or not, technology will make EVERYthing obsolete in due time. That is the nature of our world.
Now go shoot something! You need a hug.
Photographer
Vance C McDaniel
Posts: 7609
Los Angeles, California, US
VRG Photography wrote:
You need a hug. Still puffin...lol
Photographer
Tim Little Photography
Posts: 11771
Wilmington, Delaware, US
I won a bid on eBay just last night for a Mamiya M645 kit so I can go back to shooting film. I don't want to get into what is better and all that. I just know that I enjoy shooting on film. I prefer film for image capture but I prefer the digital darkroom. I plan on having high quality scans done of the images I like. I guess I'm lucky, I don't have to make my living shooting anymore. I can do whatever I want just because I want to, and right now I wanna shoot more film!
Photographer
nathan combs
Posts: 3687
Waynesboro, Virginia, US
you will have to take my K1000 out of my cold dead hands i will never give it up  in fact when i get a bit of $$$ to gather i probably buy a nether medium format (my brother accidentally tossed my Hassled 501c and my 80 and 180 lenses  )
Photographer
Black Ricco
Posts: 3486
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
I have a Nagra reel-to-reel tape recorder...
That was great recorder...
30 years ago.
I've shot so much film, processed so much film, and spent so much time in the darkroom mixing custom soups that I know the M&M lab index by heart...
The only advantage that film holds over digital is ability of multiple exposures which has already been overcome on at least one digital system, and will be common place in a few years.
film is dead. We held the funeral, drinks and snacks were served, and everyone's gone home.
Get over it, and join the rest of us in the 21st century.
Photographer
Le Beck Photography
Posts: 4114
Los Angeles, California, US
Vance wrote:
This is an argument that will soon unfold it self.
FILM is not here to stay...It will dwindle down to a select few who choose to pursue it. Just Like I like to find Old records from time to time.
I really think people choose to neglet the reality of new technology as it pertains to PROFIT margins for major companies. I have equipment I cant even have serviced anymore. And to find the parts and components is just too costly. Everything runs it's course and becomes a part of history. Film will fade..Well it already has. there will always be a select few. LIKE GLASS blowers..who are also a dying breed.
Nothing last forever...This is the way of life.
I would also note, that digital has fewer linitations than may think. However, it is not the same as shooting on film. the trules are different and when you learn them the results will astound you.
You stil must be a photgrapher inoder to produce the images you want.
Digital will never change that.. (On that I am probaly wrong )...
LOL..Puff puff The EPA will step in before long. Silver, Amoniun Thiosulfate, Selenium, etc. All dangerous toxins that persist in the environment. Say good bye.
I love the look of B&W film printed on a great fibre base paper like Agfa Insignia, or Forte, but I saw prints at Photo LA last year that were indistinguishable from silver prints unless you examined the surface of the paper at very close range. A handrolled fine art paper does not look like any photo emulsion. That's the only way i could tell it was a glicee print. Besides, it's been shown by densitometer testing that some of the new pigment based glicee prints on coated matte fine art papers have significantly greater D-Max: 2.30 for fiber based and 2.45 for inkjet. Remember D-Max is a log scale, that .15 is a large diffeerence.
Photographer
Black Ricco
Posts: 3486
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
I love the look of B&W film printed on a great fibre base paper like Agfa Insignia, or Forte, but I saw prints at Photo LA last year that were indistinguishable from silver prints unless you examined the surface of the paper at very close range.
Exactly! Agfa 25 printed on Ilford fibre galerie... fuckin' gorgeous! Unbelievable depth and tone. Technology is almost there.
Let go film lovers. You'll feel better and less stressed.
I actually got up out of bed to correct "galerie". How sad and anal retentive is that?!?
Photographer
Vance C McDaniel
Posts: 7609
Los Angeles, California, US
Black Ricco wrote:
I love the look of B&W film printed on a great fibre base paper like Agfa Insignia, or Forte, but I saw prints at Photo LA last year that were indistinguishable from silver prints unless you examined the surface of the paper at very close range.
Exactly! Agfa 25 printed on Ilford fibre gallery... fuckin' gorgeous! Unbelievable depth and tone. Technology is almost there.
Let go, film lovers. You'll feel better and less stressed. Careful....you may get a hug..
puff puff puff
Photographer
Robert Randall
Posts: 13890
Chicago, Illinois, US
Black Ricco wrote:
I love the look of B&W film printed on a great fibre base paper like Agfa Insignia, or Forte, but I saw prints at Photo LA last year that were indistinguishable from silver prints unless you examined the surface of the paper at very close range.
Exactly! Agfa 25 printed on Ilford fibre galerie... fuckin' gorgeous! Unbelievable depth and tone. Technology is almost there.
Let go film lovers. You'll feel better and less stressed.
I actually got up out of bed to correct "galerie". How sad and anal retentive is that?!? Yeah! Black Ricco's back spoutin off again about stuff he doesn't have a clue about. I missed you buddy!
Photographer
Farenell Photography
Posts: 18832
Albany, New York, US
I'd still shoot film if I weren't a brokeass student. There's just something that I miss about having toxic chemicals on my hands during the development process.
Photographer
Hamza
Posts: 7791
New York, New York, US
I got hired for this gig and quoted a price. I assumed they wanted Digital!
To my surprise, I get the email telling me they want me to shoot FILM!
I had to charge extra for the cost of film and developing.
The client understood and told me that Digital looks too well DIGITAL.
They love the look of Tmax 400 and some other old film called Kodachrome.
Anyway, I hope this client hangs around for awhile!
I shoot with a F5 and have NOT stopped using film. Digital has it's place, so does film.
Photographer
Lo Fi Art
Posts: 1311
Alice Town, Biminis, Bahamas
Wow! I wish I could add something profound. It pretty much has all been said. I even don't mind cutting my lip while biting off the leader of 35mm when I forget where the scissors are in the darkroom. I give my blood for b&w film!
Photographer
Karl Blessing
Posts: 30911
Caledonia, Michigan, US
Hamza wrote:
I got hired for this gig and quoted a price. I assumed they wanted Digital!
To my surprise, I get the email telling me they want me to shoot FILM!
I had to charge extra for the cost of film and developing.
The client understood and told me that Digital looks too well DIGITAL.
They love the look of Tmax 400 and some other old film called Kodachrome.
Anyway, I hope this client hangs around for awhile!
I shoot with a F5 and have NOT stopped using film. Digital has it's place, so does film. If you ever shoot Kodachrome, keep in mind that there is only one lab in the entire world where you can get it processed ( used to be three official kodak labs in the US, Europe and Asia until a couple months ago. )
You can still get Kodachrome, one of the reasons some people will still shoot it is because of it's excellent dark-storage archeival use (known to last a very long time in dark storage before the colors start to shift on the slides), where as newer Ektachrome is much better for light storage (can last longer sitting on top of a light table than kodachrome).
Also ... have you cracked any skulls yet with that F5, I'm told you could probally kill a few people defending yourself with the F5 before the camera gets a dent.
Photographer
Karl Blessing
Posts: 30911
Caledonia, Michigan, US
Captured Live wrote:
Wow! I wish I could add something profound. It pretty much has all been said. I even don't mind cutting my lip while biting off the leader of 35mm when I forget where the scissors are in the darkroom. I give my blood for b&w film! My Bulk Roll of Kodak UltraTec would torture you, most film you can tear with your finger rather easily, UltraTec is Estar-based, as a result you'd need a freaking sharp scissors to cut, as you'll be struggling to tear even between your teeth.
I shoot mostly black and white as well, since I like to develop it myself. For me at least B&W seems to be one of those things where you can control every aspect of the image from the moment you shoot the film to the moment you develop and print, and that can tweak its look anywhere in the process. Machine processed chemistry (C-41, E6) while can be done yourself is usually pretty straight forward and is usually dangerous to be 'tweaking' as you may totally ruin the image. So yes.. I'm a B&W whore.
Photographer
WZ Photography
Posts: 584
Squamish, British Columbia, Canada
I still shoot film, medium format mostly.
ZW
Photographer
Robert Randall
Posts: 13890
Chicago, Illinois, US
Karl Blessing wrote:
My Bulk Roll of Kodak UltraTec would torture you, most film you can tear with your finger rather easily, UltraTec is Estar-based, as a result you'd need a freaking sharp scissors to cut, as you'll be struggling to tear even between your teeth. So we get to the heart of the matter. You just like to eat film.
Photographer
oldguysrule
Posts: 6129
med format film for work
35 digital for fun
Photographer
Black Ricco
Posts: 3486
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
If you film shooters want film cheap contact me. I've got all sizes and emulsions. 100 ft. bulk loaders damned near fully loaded with Tech Pan 25 and Kodachrome 25. 4X5, 21/4, 35mm.
It's all been frozen or refridgerated.
Photographer
Karl Blessing
Posts: 30911
Caledonia, Michigan, US
Black Ricco wrote:
If you film shooters want film cheap contact me. I've got all sizes and emulsions. 100 ft. bulk loaders damned near fully loaded with Tech Pan 25 and Kodachrome 25. 4X5, 21/4, 35mm.
It's all been frozen or refridgerated. Yer probally gona become a very loved man in a moment.
Photographer
photographybyfrank
Posts: 455
Clearwater, Florida, US
I want to thank all the film shooters n some of you digital shooters too
Photographer
Karl Blessing
Posts: 30911
Caledonia, Michigan, US
Bob Randall Photography wrote:
So we get to the heart of the matter. You just like to eat film. Hrm I guess metiphorically speaking the art of photography is like being a chef peicing all the ingredients with precision and such. And if I need to take a lil bite out of the ingreidients as I make my course, just call it quality control. *chews on a short end of Tri-X like it was tobacco* *spits some emulsions out*
Photographer
dgold
Posts: 10302
Pawtucket, Rhode Island, US
...still a film user.
I do put all images on CD w/logo inset for the uploading ease and photoshop when necessary, but, there's no business like film business.
Photographer
Classical Image
Posts: 12
Miami, Florida, US
Of course the resolution and skin colors I get on film can not be reproduced in digital
Photographer
Hamza
Posts: 7791
New York, New York, US
Karl Blessing wrote:
If you ever shoot Kodachrome, keep in mind that there is only one lab in the entire world where you can get it processed ( used to be three official kodak labs in the US, Europe and Asia until a couple months ago. )
You can still get Kodachrome, one of the reasons some people will still shoot it is because of it's excellent dark-storage archeival use (known to last a very long time in dark storage before the colors start to shift on the slides), where as newer Ektachrome is much better for light storage (can last longer sitting on top of a light table than kodachrome).
Also ... have you cracked any skulls yet with that F5, I'm told you could probally kill a few people defending yourself with the F5 before the camera gets a dent. Karl, I was being sarcastic. Of course I know of Kodachrome! How can you NOT? It was the BEST Color Positive film EVER made... I cried when they discontinued Kodachrome 25 Pro!!! I am actually in the process of striking a deal with Kodak for them to make me a SPECIAL batch of the stuff. I may have to come up with 100K, but I know a whole bunch of Photogs that would kill for that film!!!
The main reason for Kodachrome is the Colors... it's all about the colors dude.......
The archival storage is secondary.
Photographer
Karl Blessing
Posts: 30911
Caledonia, Michigan, US
Hamza wrote:
Karl, I was being sarcastic. Of course I know of Kodachrome! How can you NOT? It was the BEST Color Positive film EVER made... I cried when they discontinued Kodachrome 25 Pro!!! I am actually in the process of striking a deal with Kodak for them to make me a SPECIAL batch of the stuff. I may have to come up with 100K, but I know a whole bunch of Photogs that would kill for that film!!!
The main reason for Kodachrome is the Colors... it's all about the colors dude.......
The archival storage is secondary. "Mama don't take my kodachrome away...."
Photographer
Asphalt-Assault
Posts: 12
North Bend, Washington, US
Yes, I still use film (35 and 67), and I also use a digital.
I've been shooting more trucks and cars this year. I'm not real happy with the color reproduction from digital.
So, I went out and picked up a RB about a week ago (getting a 4x5 next month)and just got pro-packs of Velvia 100, Tmax and Neopan.
Patrick
Photographer
Karl Blessing
Posts: 30911
Caledonia, Michigan, US
Hamza wrote:
Karl, I was being sarcastic. Of course I know of Kodachrome! How can you NOT? It was the BEST Color Positive film EVER made... I cried when they discontinued Kodachrome 25 Pro!!! I am actually in the process of striking a deal with Kodak for them to make me a SPECIAL batch of the stuff. I may have to come up with 100K, but I know a whole bunch of Photogs that would kill for that film!!!
The main reason for Kodachrome is the Colors... it's all about the colors dude.......
The archival storage is secondary. I thought Agfa CT-18 was the best color positive film ever....
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12989
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US
Michael L. wrote:
Nope, don't use it. Did the whole home B+W darkroom thing, worked at a photolab printing custom Type R and processing E-6 dip and dunk Kodak Q lab. Learned many fine things, got reaction to chemistry, had to remove myself from the environment. The history of photography has been one of innovation and discovery. Early photo emulsions used thick layers of coal tar!
Whatever works is cool. I loved type R revesal paper,
(ciba and ilfochrome were nice too but harder to print my work on)
Great for printing contrasty slides without going to an interneg,
and so much fun to pop in a pinhole camera for that quick one of a kind color pinhole print.
|
in fact when i get a bit of $$$ to gather i probably buy a nether medium format (my brother accidentally tossed my Hassled 501c and my 80 and 180 lenses 
)
