J Wegener Photography wrote:
I recently joined Instagram as a 100% analog photographer. Part of my “mission” is to inspire photographers to consider exploring analog photography. One of the common hashtags I soon encountered on IG was #staybrokeshootfilm. I recognize the cost of film photography compared to digital photography might pose a barrier to entry for some. But I see many of the film photographers on IG just shooting film and then having an outside lab process the film for them, and the photographers perhaps scan the negatives themselves to be able to share their creations online. That strain of analog photographer will likely never set foot in a traditional darkroom where it does indeed become expensive to equip if one is committed to making physical prints from a film negative. The cost of materials needed to make paper prints has risen dramatically since my initial days in the early 1970s. Plus, there’s the additional cost of the enlarger, trays, timer, safelight, dry mount press and tacking iron (if you want to adhere your paper print to mount board), and mat cutter (if you want to cut your own window mats for a finished presentation of the photograph).

In my long time as a photographer, I’ve spent literally thousands of hours alone in a darkroom. Not all of that time has been pleasant or enjoyable as the work can at times be laborious and frustrating if one has high standards. But looking back after over fifty years I do not regret choosing this path as a visual artist.

I've worked many years in the past operating what were known as 1-Hour Photo or Daylabs .. where people would bring their roll in to be processed and come back to pick up their prints & negatives an hour later. Of course I've also worked in darkrooms hand processing and printing my own work.  I find the strain of sitting infront of a computer making adjustments, or postproduction work to be tedious and time consuming when I'd rather be out shooting.  Eye strain is another issue I have with digital.  When it came to shooting film, I spent far less time in the darkroom thanks to technology that brought us the 1 Hour daylight processing.   

Digital technology is great for seeing that you've got the "shot" but we used to do that by shooting a polaroid.  I didn't get my first digital camera until 2005, and then it wasn't as good as film.  Technology has improved the digital cameras and production, but I am in favor of shooting either or both depending on the circumstances.  In recent times I've given in to using my cellphone camera for many daily things .. but I still love shooting film.  If there anyone here that would shoot a model session with an iPhone??  I hope not! 

By the way, I've lost more digital images in the past due to computer hard drives crashing than I have lost with my film photos.  It has caused me to start downloading my digital images as soon as possible to multiple drives!  Another thing  about your film, you can send your film to one of the large companies that develop and process film, and they can send you the scans of your photos via email before you get the resulting package in the snail mail.  There is an excellent lab in LA for mail order film processing.   www.thedarkroom.com

Handtinted Women wrote:
Have been using film and a darkroom since 1971. Never made the transition to digital photography.

This, not exactly but mostly. I also worked at a film based photo lab, we were the only lab in the Central Valley of California that printed Type R - slides to positives. There were some individuals printing Cibachrome, which is a different process for positive to positive. I ran the E-6 and Type R labs, developed slide film and printed positives.

And I went to college at Fresno City College, they had an excellent photography department, I was a lab assistant. There were several black and white film labs, an E-6 side lab and a large black and white print lab with 14 enlarger stations.

I got more than my share of chemical fumes!!!!
Over the years I shot 110, 35mm, 120 (6x6, 6x7 and 6x9) and while in college I checked out a Sinar 4x5 with a Rodenstock lens for 2 semesters.

I went digital with a Sony, sort of a cross between a point and shoot and a professional camera. It was pretty good back in the day. Next I got a Canon 5d, eventually sold that and got a Canon T2i. Both of those had disappointing high ISO performance, both are gone. Now I have a Canon 6d and ISO 6400 on that looks way better than ISO 800 looked on the 5d. Progress! I have a few good lenses, 2 L. It's fine for now.

Chris Macan wrote:
I'm still an old school photographer although don't generally shoot 35mm film as digital is generally better for me in that format.

But I do a lot of 6x12 format pinhole work on film. (Fuji Velvia 100 & Kodak Ektar 100)
I love Instax film, and still have a few packs of Fuji FP100c and new 55 to shoot.
And I'm looking at the practicality of shooting 4x5 tintype for my next project.


612 pinhole on Fuji Velvia 100

samreevesphoto wrote:
As they say film is not dead:

I'm pretty much sticking to B&W while I remodel my garage for a full service darkroom.

Fuji GW 690 + Fomapan 100: https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/47940417

Canon Elan 7 + Fomapan 100: https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/47786938

Mamiya C330 + Fomapan 100: https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/48125966

I also have in my collection a Canon F-1, A-1, AE-1, AT-1, FX, FT, FTb, EF, Tachihara 4x5 Field, and a Yashica-C.

Some classic 35mm and medium format cameras there.

Some of the old 120 folding cameras are still worth using I think, they offer serious image making capability with very little bulk and weight and were widely used by professionals in the 1930s to 1950s. A few models are now worth as much as modern cameras, but the Zeiss Ikonta 521/2 in 6 X 9 format can still be found at quite low cost.

samreevesphoto wrote:
As they say film is not dead:

I'm pretty much sticking to B&W while I remodel my garage for a full service darkroom.

Fuji GW 690 + Fomapan 100: https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/47940417

Canon Elan 7 + Fomapan 100: https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/47786938

Mamiya C330 + Fomapan 100: https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/48125966

I also have in my collection a Canon F-1, A-1, AE-1, AT-1, FX, FT, FTb, EF, Tachihara 4x5 Field, and a Yashica-C.

Have you tried Ferrania P30?
It's a bit more expensive and harder to get than Fomapan but I think the high silver/low grain nature of it would work well for the images you shoot.

https://www.filmferrania.com/

Shadow Dancer wrote:
This, not exactly but mostly. I also worked at a film based photo lab, we were the only lab in the Central Valley of California that printed Type R - slides to positives. There were some individuals printing Cibachrome, which is a different process for positive to positive. I ran the E-6 and Type R labs, developed slide film and printed positives.

I was also a E6 and R3 devotee.
Studied both processes extensively at The Rochester Institute of Technology and managed an E6 line for a few years after I graduated. (my E6 Z manual is still sitting on the shelf here in my office)

I loved nothing more than shooting Pinhole camera images directly onto R3 paper.
(fortunately the lab round the corner from my office had an R3 processor so I could keep shooting R3 pinhole images after I graduated from RIT)

R.EYE.R wrote:
With current film and development price hike it quickly becomes rather impractical, unfortunately.

Colour film and processing are not getting cheaper but the supply situation for colour negative film is improving a little. Black and white film is not expensive and home processing is pretty easy. Of course you need a film scanner to digitise your images. Film photography is a little more complicated and time consuming than digital. But the cost of professional digital cameras is well beyond what I want to spend on something with a useful life of about 5 years.

JSouthworth wrote:
Of course you need a film scanner to digitise your images.

Not everyone needs or wants to digitize their images.
There are galleries and foundations built around the preservation, display and sales of analogue photography.

I have a scanner for my medium format and polaroid work,
but anything in 35mm or 4x5/8x10 I send out if I need scans.

R.EYE.R wrote:
With current film and development price hike it quickly becomes rather impractical, unfortunately.

Kodak cut the price of 35mm TRI-X 400 by 30% this month.

JSouthworth wrote:

Colour film and processing are not getting cheaper but the supply situation for colour negative film is improving a little. Black and white film is not expensive and home processing is pretty easy. Of course you need a film scanner to digitise your images. Film photography is a little more complicated and time consuming than digital. But the cost of professional digital cameras is well beyond what I want to spend on something with a useful life of about 5 years.

Here in Japan Ilford film has increased in price just as Fujifilm or Kodak.
As municipal disposal is convoluted and charged a fee for uncommon or large items, it really adds more to the headache.
Theoretically it would be easy to develop at home, but I prefered to use established labs due to their quality control - always nice to avoid scratches and dust.

Model Mayhem Edu wrote:

Kodak cut the price of 35mm TRI-X 400 by 30% this month.

That's very nice. In my caee 120/220 Fuji rolls I prefer are either gone (Pro400X) or nearly doubled in price:(
Luckily I have 6 packets of Pro400X in the freezer;)

R.EYE.R wrote:

That's very nice. In my caee 120/220 Fuji rolls I prefer are either gone (Pro400X) or nearly doubled in price:(
Luckily I have 6 packets of Pro400X in the freezer;)

Fuji appears to be getting out of film production, except for Instax. I feel like they've been breaking photographers' hearts since eliminating packfilm (my freezer is down to the last 10 packs) and show no signs of changing course. Enjoy your last six packets of Pro400X.

Kodak and Lomography cut medium format prices last year but I believe that was due to poor sales and concern production is becoming economically non-viable.

Model Mayhem Edu wrote:
Fuji appears to be getting out of film production, except for Instax.

I guess it's good that I've been picking up tin types as an option,
if ever film isn't available I can still make old style photos.

Model Mayhem Edu wrote:
Fuji appears to be getting out of film production, except for Instax. I feel like they've been breaking photographers' hearts since eliminating packfilm (my freezer is down to the last 10 packs) and show no signs of changing course. Enjoy your last six packets of Pro400X.

Kodak and Lomography cut medium format prices last year but I believe that was due to poor sales and concern production is becoming economically non-viable.

Fuji transferred the film looks to their recent lines of digital cameras, which may explain the film price hike as well as dwindling production.
Basically it's a process of phasing out film entirely.
It all reminds of the COPAL unwillingness to continue manufacturing leaf shutters, which saw cancellation of several Rodenstock and Schneider lenses for Alpa cameras.

I will probably hold on to the freezer stock for a while, but sadly I didn't stock up on Velvia50 in time.

Another pain is realisation that my GX680 will soon be just a decorative piece.

R.EYE.R wrote:
Fuji transferred the film looks to their recent lines of digital cameras, which may explain the film price hike as well as dwindling production.
Basically it's a process of phasing out film entirely.
It all reminds of the COPAL unwillingness to continue manufacturing leaf shutters, which saw cancellation of several Rodenstock and Schneider lenses for Alpa cameras.

I will probably hold on to the freezer stock for a while, but sadly I didn't stock up on Velvia50 in time.

Another pain is realisation that my GX680 will soon be just a decorative piece.

Fuji are manufacturers of digital cameras, they may think that running down film production will boost sales of their other products but they're wrong about that, at least where I'm concerned.

Commercial E6 processing is more expensive than C41, cost in the UK is about twice that of C41 processing although some good E6 home processing kits are now available. Velvia 50 is or was a highly regarded film but really too expensive at 2-3 times the cost of negative film per roll. I just used my last two 35mm rolls in a December 2023 shoot. Lomography 100 is perhaps the nearest thing to a C41 equivalent in terms of image quality, this is a good film with fine grain.

JSouthworth wrote:
Commercial E6 processing is more expensive than C41, cost in the UK is about twice that of C41 processing although some good E6 home processing kits are available. Velvia 50 is or was a highly regarded film but really too expensive at 2-3 times the cost of negative film per roll.

I've started converting from Velvia 100 to Ektar 100 for my pinhole panoramic series because E-6 processing is just getting too hard to find locally. I have labs near me that still do it.... but they only run a batch when they have enough rolls to make it worthwhile.
So if I drop it off today, it may be ready Friday or it may be ready in 6 weeks.

Chris Macan wrote:
I've started converting from Velvia 100 to Ektar 100 for my pinhole panoramic series because E-6 processing is just getting too hard to find locally. I have labs near me that still do it.... but they only run a batch when they have enough rolls to make it worthwhile.
So if I drop it off today, it may be ready Friday or it may be ready in 6 weeks.

You could do it yourself with one of these kits;

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/256186760679 … R_C5qdS-Yw

This is sufficient for as many as 40 films, although it may not keep for very long once you start using it, and E6 is not as easy to do as C41, but a big improvement over the previous E4 process which used highly toxic chemicals.

JSouthworth wrote:
This is sufficient for as many as 40 films, although it may not keep for very long once you start using it, and E6 is not as easy to do as C41, but a big improvement over the previous E4 process which used highly toxic chemicals.

I used to use the Kodak E-6 hobby kit at minimum developing temperature to process the original E4 version of Ektachrome Infrared at home. The low temp got me around the need to use an emulsion pre-hardener on the E4 film.

I specialized in E6 and R3 processing when I was just a few years younger than I am now,
So I can do it myself.... I just don't have the time or desire to actually do it.

Lachance Photography wrote:
I think it's great for fine art or personal projects, but it's commercial use is pretty impractical.

Pretty much. I bought my first DSLR in 2009 for a catalog shoot and on my second now. Crazy I still shot film up to that point but the catalog was such a large project and I shoot digital for everything but my own artistic pursuits.

Film will always be my passions though.

Lachance Photography wrote:
There are some people, particularly wedding couples that still want images shot on film.  They then still want digital images so everything will have to be scanned which requires more work and you can charge more.  However, I don't understand why anyone would request film as today's full frame dslrs and mirrorless cameras far surpass the resolution of even the best film.

It isn't all about resolution, films can have a superior dynamic range. Low speed films can however surpass the resolution of digital image sensors, figures up to 800 lines per millimeter have been quoted for some black and white films. That's equivalent to about 552 MP on 35mm or full frame digital.

Most lenses for small formats can resolve 50-80 lines per millimeter, but there are some that can resolve 140 lines per millimeter.