Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
karmakamera said:Hi
Now there's few places to buy film, especially the chromes for my RF and even fewer places in Singapore do E-6 processing.
Hi to Singapore,
the situation in Germany ( as in Europe in general afaik) is very different, I still get everything in the shops I need, still every service, I can sent even exposed 120 Tri-X to a mass labs and get an acceptable dev. And prices are low, 1,90 Euro for a Superia 200.
So the "filmless age" ( which will never come anyway) is still behind the horizon, no film user worries here about such issues.
Regards,
Bertram
Andy K
Well-known
karmakamera said:Hi
I am a newbie to this forum, greetings to all RF-philes here.
Recently, life is getting harder for user and lover of classic film cameras recently.
Getting stares when you ask for slide film these days at neighbourhood labs, even stranger look when they see the relic (M3) I was carrying.
Signs of the hard time for avid film users these days, businesses are cutting down on services and investing heavily on digital equipment.
Surving labs are even competing with DIY vending machine with memory slots.
Now there's few places to buy film, especially the chromes for my RF and even fewer places in Singapore do E-6 processing.
Like forumers here, I have accumulated enuff manual focus SLR and RF and interchangeable lenses to last me a lifetime , just wondering what a film-less world would be like?
Facing a really uncertain future until the next 50/60+ Megapixel Digital M body or compatible RF arrive.
There are many online sources for film, paper and chemicals. If you buy your film in bulk rolls of 30m and load your own cassettes buying online can be very economical. Some film manufacturers are even bringing out new films, such as Ilford who are researching a Delta 25 film.
As for a 60mp DSLR, isn't the current maximum 35mm ccd resolution stuck firmly at 16.2mp?
V
varjag
Guest
It's not the resolution that differentiates digital from film. Nor we love film simply for resolution
JMP
Established
varjag said:It's not the resolution that differentiates digital from film. Nor we love film simply for resolution
I think this is spot on. The resolution of high-end digital is satisfactory. What still seems to be missing is a certain finesse. With certain textures, such as skin, digital seems to make them appear slick, or a little CGI looking. Also, indeterminate colors, such as off-whites, seem to be rendered strangely, as well as shadow detail. As someone suggested in another thread, perhaps it's the lack of grain.
James Burton
Shoot into the light
SolaresLarrave said:
Ummmm, but wine is a poor replacement for beer (for Mediterranean types).
How exactly does Coke (tm) (yuk) approximate beer? Does it for example have a yummy malty taste perhaps?
James
Ben Z
Veteran
I have no control whatsoever over whether film will vanish or not. Right now I've got a freezer full of it, paid for as are my film cameras, so until that's gone I'm sitting back and letting the parade of new digital cameras and discontinuations and devaluations go by as I watch from the sidelines. At the point where my film stock is depleted, I will assess the situation again. If I can still buy film and get it processed with reasonable convenience and at reasonable price, I may very well continue on to shoot film and let the digital cameras mature some more. If not, then I will probably get a one-generation-behind used dslr (for half what the original buyer paid for it) and go from there. I'm not going to sit around wringing my hands in anxiety, that's for sure.
ErnestoJL
Well-known
Talking about 110 and 126 film formats, there were several remarkable examples of cameras being designed more or less with the same quality level and finesse like their 35 mm counterpats, like the ZI Contaflex 126, trhe superb Pentax Auto 110 and some other examples from Ricoh (126C Flex), Minolta Weathermatic 110, etc.
Those cameras were designed for the Kodak´s expected (and promoted) 35mm film replacement, it is the 126, which never had succes in the advanced /semi-pro /professional photographers market. Film quality was low so no serious photographer will choose it. The 110 format was a cross developement between lens sharpness and film quality, bringing acceptable results at low cost. It was designed only for prints of up to 130 x 90 mm, and bigger prints showed grain.
Of course, this ended when APS fastly disposable cameras (far east made) flooded the world making 35 mm again the format of choice. It was soon followed by a drastic price reduction for SLRs (mostly plastic made), so another 35 mm sales boom was starting.
Today we are facing the digital revolution and LOTS of people are almost giving away excellent cameras, making room for the shortliving newcomers.
I know that sometime in the future getting pictures form a thick tape coated with chemicals would be a museum attraction, however this time didn´t come yet.
As long as digital picture detail and quality isn´t on a par (at reasonable prices of course, it is at same price level than a comparable 35 mm either RF or SLR) with film, and most important, until using a digital would be as easy as using a manual focus, metered or not RF or whatever camera comes to your mind (may be a Leica M4?, or a Contax II?) digital won´t be fully accepted.
Also it´s automation level makes that everything is AUTO, which is the only way to take pictures without spending hours getting the camera ready for aunt Louisa birthday...
Let me say it in other words: past week I needed some pictures for items I´m selling in the local enemyBay. I asked mi girlfriends daughter her camera, a 6.1 Mp Fuji. I spent more than an hour trying to get the thing ready to take at most 20 shots. (Didn´t get any picture from it). I didn´t have the manual at hand, but I never needed any camera manual (just to know some special functions) during the past 42 years!!
Even so, it was really annoying to be forced to think where to place mi dirty fingers as long as the camera has function buttons in almost every place... Not to tell that the display size forced me to bring my reading glasses...
The 35 mm film era isn´t yet gone. Maybe it would get expensive, or scarce, but at least (I hope) two or three manufacturers will continue making it for some time.
Francisco (Solares Larrave) said:
Perhaps because there are some who can't admit the obvious... that digital is to film photography what Coke is to wine: just a convenient, poor replacement.
I agree!!
So Gentlemen, Keep on shooting film!!
Ernesto
Those cameras were designed for the Kodak´s expected (and promoted) 35mm film replacement, it is the 126, which never had succes in the advanced /semi-pro /professional photographers market. Film quality was low so no serious photographer will choose it. The 110 format was a cross developement between lens sharpness and film quality, bringing acceptable results at low cost. It was designed only for prints of up to 130 x 90 mm, and bigger prints showed grain.
Of course, this ended when APS fastly disposable cameras (far east made) flooded the world making 35 mm again the format of choice. It was soon followed by a drastic price reduction for SLRs (mostly plastic made), so another 35 mm sales boom was starting.
Today we are facing the digital revolution and LOTS of people are almost giving away excellent cameras, making room for the shortliving newcomers.
I know that sometime in the future getting pictures form a thick tape coated with chemicals would be a museum attraction, however this time didn´t come yet.
As long as digital picture detail and quality isn´t on a par (at reasonable prices of course, it is at same price level than a comparable 35 mm either RF or SLR) with film, and most important, until using a digital would be as easy as using a manual focus, metered or not RF or whatever camera comes to your mind (may be a Leica M4?, or a Contax II?) digital won´t be fully accepted.
Also it´s automation level makes that everything is AUTO, which is the only way to take pictures without spending hours getting the camera ready for aunt Louisa birthday...
Let me say it in other words: past week I needed some pictures for items I´m selling in the local enemyBay. I asked mi girlfriends daughter her camera, a 6.1 Mp Fuji. I spent more than an hour trying to get the thing ready to take at most 20 shots. (Didn´t get any picture from it). I didn´t have the manual at hand, but I never needed any camera manual (just to know some special functions) during the past 42 years!!
Even so, it was really annoying to be forced to think where to place mi dirty fingers as long as the camera has function buttons in almost every place... Not to tell that the display size forced me to bring my reading glasses...
The 35 mm film era isn´t yet gone. Maybe it would get expensive, or scarce, but at least (I hope) two or three manufacturers will continue making it for some time.
Francisco (Solares Larrave) said:
Perhaps because there are some who can't admit the obvious... that digital is to film photography what Coke is to wine: just a convenient, poor replacement.
I agree!!
So Gentlemen, Keep on shooting film!!
Ernesto
waileong
Well-known
Shootout? Why?
Shootout? Why?
Why shootout? Even if the shooutout showed that film is better, so what? Digital is already mainstream, it has nothing to prove to anyone.
The point, though, is that you and I are romantics, using tools from a more civilised age, although I would say that there is a certain amount of elegance in our tools that digital cannot match.
This is especially so for manual RF's and SLR's-- modern cameras are just not made the same way any more, and you won't find this kind of quality ever again. It's kind of like having an antique car-- the detail, styling, etc. just doesn't exist in a modern car.
I'm joining the Dark side. Tonight I'll be going into my darkroom, to produce my first wet print.
Wai Leong
===
Shootout? Why?
Why shootout? Even if the shooutout showed that film is better, so what? Digital is already mainstream, it has nothing to prove to anyone.
The point, though, is that you and I are romantics, using tools from a more civilised age, although I would say that there is a certain amount of elegance in our tools that digital cannot match.
This is especially so for manual RF's and SLR's-- modern cameras are just not made the same way any more, and you won't find this kind of quality ever again. It's kind of like having an antique car-- the detail, styling, etc. just doesn't exist in a modern car.
I'm joining the Dark side. Tonight I'll be going into my darkroom, to produce my first wet print.
Wai Leong
===
karmakamera said:
paulfitz
Established
Hi Karmakamera!
I think that digital would have mushed over a lot of the details in the circular design behind the main statue - all those curves - you can put a round peg in a square hole, but you lose a lot. I am also suprised a 20 something can tell the difference - hire that girl!
I live near the infamous red building on Nicholson and some other street (can't tell what it is) of the Steve's Digicam's website. I want to find that building and shoot the same scene scanned to 6 megapixels on Velvia or Provia with my Canonet 1.7, Contax G1 28mm Biogon, lowly Leica Mini and soon to arrive Olympus XA and Yashica GT. Then post for reference. That would be an interesting test. Sad thing is at that res the digital might look better.
Does anybody know what that cross street is in Dunediin, FL?
Think it would make for an interesting project as a "retro" testing site.
Just my 2 cents. I ran first roll of APX100 in the mini today and I am shocked at the quality. So much detail.
I think that digital would have mushed over a lot of the details in the circular design behind the main statue - all those curves - you can put a round peg in a square hole, but you lose a lot. I am also suprised a 20 something can tell the difference - hire that girl!
I live near the infamous red building on Nicholson and some other street (can't tell what it is) of the Steve's Digicam's website. I want to find that building and shoot the same scene scanned to 6 megapixels on Velvia or Provia with my Canonet 1.7, Contax G1 28mm Biogon, lowly Leica Mini and soon to arrive Olympus XA and Yashica GT. Then post for reference. That would be an interesting test. Sad thing is at that res the digital might look better.
Does anybody know what that cross street is in Dunediin, FL?
Think it would make for an interesting project as a "retro" testing site.
Just my 2 cents. I ran first roll of APX100 in the mini today and I am shocked at the quality. So much detail.
karmakamera
Member
Bertram2 said:
Hi Bertram
That's very re-assuring, I think Germany should be the last place on earth to run out of 35mm film and RF cameras.
ErnestoJL
Well-known
waileong said:
I have to admit that you are right, we (and I guess most of Us) are kind of romantics who enjoy sometimes collecting and allways using old style cameras, made in, perhaps, a more civilized age.
I do admit that I prefer a mechanical watch instead of a state of the art, more accurate quartz timepiece just to show you an example.
Otherwise it wouldn´t be possible to explain why many of Us look for "that special camera" with that "perfect lens", instead of following the herd.
The many examples of cameras owned by forum members show that average camera age is about 35 years, it is, nothing to be called "new".
I guess that also many of Us still have a traditional wet darkroom, and use it regularly.
However, the true is that digital is the mainstream today may we like it or not.
Besides, congrats on your first wet prints !!
Ernesto (also in the dark side)
karmakamera
Member
paulfitz said:
Hi Paul
Nows the best time for RF-philes to pick up cool retro RFs toys to play with, RF toys would generally be "affordable" depending on your choice.
Generally people are ignorant to realize that if they have more patience to invest some time into practising and learning existing (film-based) technology which is already at its pinnacle, they would have saved tons of money paying for and testing marginal upgrades by manufacturers.
I think digital is costly because of frequent camera upgrades, battery usuage replacement and low used resale value, on the flip side this mades manufacturer very happy.
Digital quality depends a lot on firmware and software, even with an DC Leica ASPH on my 2mpixel Panasonic DMC-F7, in some shots, my subject's skin looked so flawlessly rendered by the onboard digital chip, almost liked he walked into the set of "Toy Story II".
Like any digital products, digital cameras are being released in the market like every series of Intel Pentium(TM) CPU chips, the performance difference is very marginal but the price differential is big from the current fastest to the current slowest in production.
Looking carefully at the specifications of major digital cam offerings, every other major non-cosmetic parts is essentially the same between current and old series, all the same except the CCD and the price.
Of course, digital has advantage over film in terms of lower processing cost, instanteous delivery of output.
It seems that the end user could eventually end up purchasing digital cameras more regularly than a film camera user (not referring to our RF-philes here). It may work out to be costly in the long run.
Alas, we are not living in a perfect world so I reckon every solution does create little imperfection of its own.
karmakamera
Member
waileong said:
WL
No shootout is necessary because most mainstreamers can do with anything as long as the picture outputs instanteously to view SVGA/xVGA resolution, say 1200 X 1600 and could be posted into their online BLOG immediately.
Understandably, camera manufacturers are facing a tough time, losing ground to handphone makers like Nokia and Sony, they are throwing in 2Mp camera with music too with their phone! Canon,Nikon are now competing with new competitors like Sony and Panasonic in alliance with Carl Zeiss and Leica.
I concur with you, Jedi Knights, as romantics, are not mainstreamers.
The lightsabers we use looks like ritualistic tools from an old cult of the last millenium. Alas, only the Jedi knows its potential power.
I will be adding on a couple of mechnical RFs and SLR to my collection just to reminiscent of the past glory of the Jedi era.
Happy darksiding in your darkroom with your lightsaber.
Swooooooossssh.
KarmaKamera
Last edited:
R
RML
Guest
Just a question but why is it that every time there's a digital -vs- film thread, people always come back to film being civilised, film being better, film being whatever-great-thing and digital the exact opposite?
I'm prefectly happy with my R-D1 and I don't have any of the issues people tend to come up with: skin looking like Toy Story, colours being off, not enough shadow detail, blown highlights, etc.
I guess some of these things might be true for certain shots under certain conditions with certain camera settings with certain digital sensors in certain cameras, but don't generalise it. I've seen stunning shots that a pro wouldn't be able to tell the difference from digital or film. I've also seen horrible crappy shots from both digital and film.
It's all in how well you know your camera, your medium (35mm, MF, LF, digital, etc.), your post shooting work and the printing. Take a look at my gallery. I've placed some "recent" work done with my R-D1. IMO it doesn't show all those flaws people relate to digital. Take a look at JLW's and other R-D1 users' work. There too you'll be hard pressed to find flawed work because digital was used instead of film. Differences you'll find, yes, but we find differences between Efke and Neopan and TMax developed in Rodinal or Diafine or what-have-you as well.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's tiring to hear people praise film even though film has its flaws and drawbacks too, and bashing digital on grounds that often have less to do with the medium but with the photog, post-processing or printing.
I'm prefectly happy with my R-D1 and I don't have any of the issues people tend to come up with: skin looking like Toy Story, colours being off, not enough shadow detail, blown highlights, etc.
I guess some of these things might be true for certain shots under certain conditions with certain camera settings with certain digital sensors in certain cameras, but don't generalise it. I've seen stunning shots that a pro wouldn't be able to tell the difference from digital or film. I've also seen horrible crappy shots from both digital and film.
It's all in how well you know your camera, your medium (35mm, MF, LF, digital, etc.), your post shooting work and the printing. Take a look at my gallery. I've placed some "recent" work done with my R-D1. IMO it doesn't show all those flaws people relate to digital. Take a look at JLW's and other R-D1 users' work. There too you'll be hard pressed to find flawed work because digital was used instead of film. Differences you'll find, yes, but we find differences between Efke and Neopan and TMax developed in Rodinal or Diafine or what-have-you as well.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's tiring to hear people praise film even though film has its flaws and drawbacks too, and bashing digital on grounds that often have less to do with the medium but with the photog, post-processing or printing.
karmakamera
Member
RML said:
No worries, the biasness and perceived bashing you see here is just a natural outcry and an expression of personal preferences and petty end user frustration.
One justification for film to continue is end user expectation, the second being the abundance of quality tools still available on planet earth to mostly discerning and artistic people who sees photography as an entire process and experience, romantics if you would like.
Such discussion cannot be complete without some down to earth human remarks, comments and opinions on elusive things like feelings, dislikes, quanlity and the percieved common threat (digital).
I have called for film users to unite and not to bury digital because it seems more likely that the mainstream digital majority would soon be burying the film industry and depriving the still nostaglic film users, like myself.
We film users are the ones under the thread of extinction.
waileong
Well-known
You don't have to undertand it...
You don't have to undertand it...
It's romanticism.... there's nothing to understand. People always think of the good old days...
And no one's bashing digital, we're just reminiscing.
You don't have to undertand it...
It's romanticism.... there's nothing to understand. People always think of the good old days...
And no one's bashing digital, we're just reminiscing.
RML said:
R
RML
Guest
waileong said:
Well, if it's reminiscing then it's fine by me.
Don't get me wrong. I don't want to see film disappear either. I know it's for too many people the medium for their creative processes and output. But it's not the know-all-end-all.
I don't use film anymore, for many reasons, but I do hope it'll be available for a long time. I still have a few cameras that need film once in a while just to stay fit.
I wish I was more into DIY B&W. I was for a while but I didn't like the results from Efke in Rodinal. Too grainy for my taste. The drying is a problem (dust, curly film, drying spots ) and Efke is quite sensitive film. It scratches pretty easily. And besides, I prefer colour.
karmakamera
Member
waileong said:
Hi Romantic 1
Admittedly, romantics are crazy abnormal people.
I suppose you should get your hands on one of this 'O" serie, a replica of Leica prototype (see picture) even RF-less meterless, batteryless, fully mechanically elegant toy to play with.
Only 4000 pieces made and sold worldwide. Minus the collector/investor horde, and those on showcase of VIP dealers, reckon there would still be a handful of crazy romantics who would be really crazy enough to buy and take pictures with one of these.
Guess what, it's not so popular with Leica collectors because it is not a faithful replica, first the film loading mechanism is modern (Leica LTM/M3) and the lens is multicoated!
If u qualify yourself as one of the crazies, go get one for yourself, shoot BW and you will enjoy the entire photographic experience with this tool.
For a start, you would take time to understand the workings of the tool, unlearn a lot of old habits, get it to work and work within the limitations of the tool available.
It is rangefinder Jedi training because the Jedi eyes is the rangefinder.
It's total involvement but at times it is trial and error and you'll be clueless too.
This retro camera is what makes classic film photography interactive and fun as a hobby and an art.
Of course, artistic people are not rational scientists, they are crazy, some are hopeless romantics and absolute nuts!
Last edited:
karmakamera
Member
Andy K said:
(1) Andy, its a 1st time for me if importing film, do you have any reliable online mail order sources for film to recommend?
(2) Is there is a technological limit to the size of the smallest pixel on a CCD chip?
Heck there goes my crazy imagination of a digital medium format digital 6X6 Hassie?
kdanks
Newbie
My interest in photography (rather than just using a camera, which I'd done for years) was really awakened by digital, first a point and shoot, and then a dSLR. The p&s is a great tool in the right situations, but I really didn't get on with the dSLR, so I sold it and am now ploughing my own furrow in black and white with Voigtlander and Ilford.
I've spent a lot of time on here, on APUG and many other websites, just learning. What I've seen is a growing community, and one that knows what it has to do if it wants film products to remain available. I get the impression that interest in film is probably higher now than it has been for a number of years, and that the enthusiast market is expanding, in spite of digital. In some ways digital is a good thing for parts of the film sector, because it brings back people like me with fresh enthusiasm. I've spent money on equipment and film and when I feel that I know what I'm doing with those I'll start spending again on chemicals and darkroom equipment. And I know I'm not the only one.
I've spent a lot of time on here, on APUG and many other websites, just learning. What I've seen is a growing community, and one that knows what it has to do if it wants film products to remain available. I get the impression that interest in film is probably higher now than it has been for a number of years, and that the enthusiast market is expanding, in spite of digital. In some ways digital is a good thing for parts of the film sector, because it brings back people like me with fresh enthusiasm. I've spent money on equipment and film and when I feel that I know what I'm doing with those I'll start spending again on chemicals and darkroom equipment. And I know I'm not the only one.