Film users unite

[GeneW]

I get the impression that interest in film is probably higher now than it has been for a number of years

I think there's a strong interest in film from the segment of the market I'll overgeneralize as 'advanced amateur'. Unfortunately the economic engines of the market are the pros and the home snapshooters, many of whom have switched to digital. In a sense, that part of the market has been paying the bills and those sales have fallen off drastically (you can read about this in many news stories).

Our slice of the market is smaller. Nice to see Ilford thinks there are enough of us that the reformed company has committed to continued film production. Bravo!

Kodak and Fuji remain inscrutable in their film intentions.

We've discussed this many times on the forum and I think we all hope there will be enough of a market for film to keep a few film manufacturers in business for a long time.

Gene

 

[Frank Granovski]

Hi Frank

I reckon that the film camera replacement rate / trade-up for digital is
much faster here in Singapore.

In 2003 I have seen 20 somethings trading in the classic RFs / SLRs for
real peanuts at used equipment shops for hi-end 4 megapixel digital cameras
which the brokers won't mind taking back at 10-20% of the original cost.

Most used RF film camera equipment here, however, has not gone down in price since because collectors are buying them up faster than user could get their hands on them.
__________________
Earthy kamera junkie in rangefinder heaven :angel:

Here in Vancouver there are all sorts of nuts collecting old cameras/film cameras so this nut often sees deals slip away faster than one can say, Boo! Seriously. I'd walk into a shop, spot something of interest, and then hear, "Oh, that one's spoken for."


Re: "lap," I meant lab. Doh.

 

[illuminatus]

still undecided

still undecided

Film is a dead medium much like the cassette tape for most people. Go to a tourist spot and see how peole are holding their cameras.

Well, I bought my MP beginning of this year. I learned to take pictures using a Nikon FM2. Then I moved to the digital land with C8080. It's a nice camera, but I can no longer change things quickly or easily. I had to go through the menu and this doesn't appeal to me. Besides, I am too lazy to learn about all the features, so I ended up using it in the program mode. I returned to a manual camera because I missed tactile sensations of taking pictures. I think I will be in the film land until the end. :angel:

I don't mind going to a lab or spending some money to purchase slide films. However, that doesn't mean I am completely happy with the film. I recently found out that my local lab no longer makes prints from slides. Now, I have to have them scan my slide then print the scanned image. To make a 14x17 (I think this was the size) print from my slide, I had to spen almost $100 per slide!!!

 

[karmakamera]

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.

Hi kdanks

Voigtlander RF and lenses delivers excellent value and performance,with Ilford b/w film, the photographer goes through the entire process of picture making.

When I started photography, I enjoy BW darkroom alot but have to give it up because I did not get used to the chemical, the smell was/is just too strong for me-I got a "high" after every darkroom session.

Since, picture making and equipment appreciation/collection splits up my hobby time for photography. I must say that film without darkroom is a big compromise, alas we are living in an imperfect world.

Looking at this very active forum, you are not the only one and you will not walk alone.

 

[rayfoxlee]

Hi all

It seems to me that, ultimately, film will die through the force of economics - unless we film fanatics teach our kids that film is not a step backwards, but a step in a different direction.

I expect many RFF'ers started their photographic journey with pretty basic kit. From the point & shoot we then possibly progressed to a manual slr or rangefinder, learning all about F stops, speeds, depth of field etc. Those experienced film photographers that changed to digital took all that experience with them. Imagine, then, how the young first-time snappers will progress? First off, they will have to deal with the novelty of looking through the viewfinder, rather than holding the camera at arm's length (how DO you compose a pic at arm's length??). But will they ever experience the 'purity' of picture taking with just 'focus, speed, aperture' - once they have got their heads around hand-held/in-camera metering? Ummmm.

Seems to me that the future of film rests with us lot. Use it or lose it - and let's educate the kids, if you can make them see that there is more to photographic life than white balance, endless menu options and instant gratification. Might be a bit of a hill to climb, methinks, but who ever said that worthwhile pursuits would be a breeze?

 

[Andy K]

There seems to be an increasing trend of young people, students etc. coming into photography in college or school. I have met many on different forums and they all say 'I started out with digital and now I want to move on to film.'

 

[kdanks]

There seems to be an increasing trend of young people, students etc. coming into photography in college or school. I have met many on different forums and they all say 'I started out with digital and now I want to move on to film.'

I sold my dSLR to a guy on the commercial photography degree at the local university here (where I started as a student myself, the year he was born...). He told me that he prefers film, but needs to shoot digital as well. For commercial purposes film is pretty much a thing of the past, he said.

And in response to rayfoxlee, just this weekend my 8 year-old daughter was asking me about the Paterson film developing tank that I got on eBay. I showed her how it worked (like I'm some kind of expert - but anyway I know I enough to explain it to her). Then she wanted to know about film, so we got an old roll and tried putting it on the reel, and taking it off again and hanging it up on film clips (eBay again). She has stopped asking me to see photos that I've just taken, having been used to the instant gratification of the LCD for the last few years. I thought about getting her one of those Lomo fisheye cameras and letting her play - should be even more fun when I start developing myself and we can see her pictures appearing as if by magic.

Kevin

 

[Socke]

As for a 60mp DSLR, isn't the current maximum 35mm ccd resolution stuck firmly at 16.2mp?

Yes and no, that's what the only manufacturer of 24x36mm CEMOS chips offers. Technicaly it is no problem to scale a 1/1.8 8MPixel chip to 24x36 with nearly 180 MPixels but it would be close to useless over ISO100 and a picture from that sensor would be around 250 MB which would take some 10 to 20 seconds to store.

Digital backs for medium format cameras are allready at 25MPixel and 35 is very close, compared to the chips used in small format SLRs they have the added benefit of true 16bit processing. The chips in current digital SLRs are 12 bit. So you get more dynamic range out of the MF backs, typicaly 10 stops and some go to 12.

As you know, I'm looking at this technology from a printers, as in offset printing, point of view
At the typical 300dpi I get roughly a 14x18" print from a 25MPixel digital back which is more than enough for the highest quality brochure and factoring in the costs of drumscaned 6x4.5 slides and the time lost from picture taking to printing the price for a MF back is reasonable.

OTOH, I'm definitly not talking typical rangefinder use here .
I wouldn't want a Hassy H1 or Contax 645 or Rollei 6008 with a digital back when I travel!

 

[Andy K]

Having read many, many, many threads about digital cameras failing, whether it be battery issues, software issues or hardware issues, I think I'll stick to film. Get a dead pixel on a digicam and it affects every image you capture, with film I have a brand new 'CCD' with every crank of the film advance lever.

 

[Socke]

Having read many, many, many threads about digital cameras failing, whether it be battery issues, software issues or hardware issues, I think I'll stick to film. Get a dead pixel on a digicam and it affects every image you capture, with film I have a brand new 'CCD' with every crank of the film advance lever.

Yes, and no problem with dust on a sensor which is pretty hard to clean but easy to scratch.

 

[Socke]

And another thing,

I love my Contax Gs and they are allways the first camera I grab when I go out shooting, but what I realy miss is ....

drum roll



a film advance lever!

 

[aad]

At our Christmas party last Thursday, I was asked if I was using my "black and white" camera-then I was asked if I could do color-and I was told it was COOL that I could do both!

I won't even buy another AE SLR!

 

[Bertram2]

Y
Digital backs for medium format cameras are allready at 25MPixel and 35 is very close, compared to the chips used in small format SLRs they have the added benefit of true 16bit processing. The chips in current digital SLRs are 12 bit. So you get more dynamic range out of the MF backs, typicaly 10 stops and some go to 12.

Socke,
you know more about it, what is the dynamic range you typically get from a APS chip and what is it from a full frame 24X36 ?

Thanks,
bertram

 

[Socke]

Socke,
you know more about it, what is the dynamic range you typically get from a APS chip and what is it from a full frame 24X36 ?

Thanks,
bertram

It depends on the ISO setting, noise reduction reduces the dynamic range. In JPEG at lowest ISO the current Canon range produces measurable data between -4 and +3.5 EV with zero at RGB 14,14,14 lab luminance 4. The Nikon D2x goes to +3 at comparable settings. IMHO everything below -4 and beyond +3 will be lost in print.

If you get your exposure right, the dynamic range should be enough for a good print, if you rely on the films latitud to cover exposure errors you're as lost with digital as you are with slides

With RAW files we add yet another variable. The range is certainly better than with JPEGs, no wonder since JPEGs are 8 bit and RAW contains the full 12 bit of information per pixel.
Depending on the RAW converter you can salvage some of the highlights and a lot of the shadows so that you can get one more usable step out of it when slightly underexposing.
So in RAW you may get -4.5 to +3.5 but you have to make a decision what you want in print.

So I think we can say that digital SLRs and the one digital RF reached the DR of slides and are as critical to exposure as slides are.

On the minus side we have the dynamic range of slow slide film without the theoretical resolution and on the plus side we have ISO 1600 in colour without the grain even ISO 3200 is better than Delta 3200

But see for yourself in Phil Askeys test of the Canon 5D

OTOH, if you see what good Canon lenses look like on a Canon FF sensor you know why Leica chooses a smaller sensor and Zeiss Ikon doesn't plan to sell a digital RF anytime soon. There is still a lot to do until we can use our rangefinder lenses on a digital sensor the size of film.

The two 24x36mm digital SLRs left are "good enough" for most purposes, but I don't think they are good enough for Velvia and Kodachrome aficionados and a projected slide will beat any digital projector hands down. Those are good enough for HDTV but worlds apart from a slide.

Medium Format has an advantage here, the MF users don't expect their cameras firing away at 5 or 8 frames per second. Therefor datatransport and processing speed is not that important and the designers can tune the chips involved to better quality instead of compromising for speed.

We will see what Leica has to offer, as far as I know they are going in the "slower but better" direction.

 

[nrb]

The situation around here is not that good either.
Black and white film and developers are getting harder and harder to find, and even though colour film is to be found everywhere some labs closed or changed hands recently. Slide processing may take 1 week or more.
Film cameras either vanished from windows or are to be found on rebates.

 

[Socke]

The situation is soemwhat stabilizing in Bremen. The local pharmacy doesn't store traditional B/W or slide film anymore but has Kodak Gold and BW400CN as well as their own brand of colour film. The photo store on the other side of the road has B/W but a bit more expensive than mail order stores.
Chemistry is close to unavailable but I'm promissed ID-11 and DD-X this week.

 

[Bertram2]

Medium Format has an advantage here, the MF users don't expect their cameras firing away at 5 or 8 frames per second. Therefor datatransport and processing speed is not that important and the designers can tune the chips involved to better quality instead of compromising for speed.

We will see what Leica has to offer, as far as I know they are going in the "slower but better" direction.

Thanks, Socke, for this detailed answer ! I learned some new things, did not know that speed influences quality so strongly.

I heard this months ago already that many of the good old analog Canon lenses are more a prob than a release on the a fullframe sensor. No crop factor any longer but other probs which have to do with the angles of the rays.
That would mean in my understanding that a FF sensor needs it's own lensdesign in the same way as APS needs it ( Olympus 4:3) ?

Regards,
bertram

 

[MCTuomey]

I shoot both digital and film enthusiastically. Digi for youth sports photography. Film for everything else (for "me"), preferably b&w in a rangefinder, but by no means inflexibly.

I can't imagine shooting 1,000+ exposures at a weekend futbol tournament with film, for example. Conversely, I can't imagine taking my digital gear on a trip or for pleasure shooting. Film vs digital is a pseudo-problem, IMHO. That said, I love my film gear and, if I had to choose, it'd be my first choice. There're still plenty of fine films around - let's be sure to shoot more and shoot often so the enterprises that offer them have the resources to stay in the marketplace.

Good light to all.

 

[Steve B]

have an open mind

have an open mind

Hi everybody. I'm also new here but so far I'm impressed with the courteous level headed responses I've read on a lot of the threads. Sounds like there's a lot of different types of shooters here.
My only comment on this particular thread is that I think reports of films demise are premature. Things will change no doubt but Nikon is still turning out awsome film cameras and I think at least FujiFilm is in for the long haul. Having said that, and I hope its true, I think its fun to embrace digital as well as film. I don't think there's any point in having a digital/film pissing match. They are different mediums and produce different types of results. This sounds a lot like the color vs. black and white debates from years (ok decades) ago. I've been reading Alfred Stieglitz recently and his arguments against the new fangled roll films sound a lot like the rants we hear today. He grips that there are a lot more pictures being taken but not a lot more good pictures being taken. Sounds like Galen Rowell to me. The more things change the more they stay the same. All of it is fun and we all have our preferences. As much as I like the things that digital does so well I still love the look and feel of Velvia or Tri-X. I just wish there was an affordable digital camera that felt like a "real" camera. You know, with an aperture ring and a shutter speed dial on top. Maybe the R-D1 will be popular enough that they will come through with a model that more people could afford. With pretty great digital compacts selling for $500 you'd think that they could turn out an RF digi for a kilo buck or so. Probably only if the projected sales volume is high enough. So everybody go buy an R-D1 so they'll come out with a camera that I can afford! In the meantime I'll keep shooting with both digital and film depending on the subject and my mood. I don't think its worthwhile to endlessly debate which one is "best". Its like arguing over which camera is best. The answer is always "It depends". I've got a lot of questions for you folks but I'll post them in seperate threads for clarity's sake. Cheers,,,,,,,

 

[karmakamera]

Hi all

It seems to me that, ultimately, film will die through the force of economics - unless we film fanatics teach our kids that film is not a step backwards, but a step in a different direction.

I expect many RFF'ers started their photographic journey with pretty basic kit. From the point & shoot we then possibly progressed to a manual slr or rangefinder, learning all about F stops, speeds, depth of field etc. Those experienced film photographers that changed to digital took all that experience with them. Imagine, then, how the young first-time snappers will progress? First off, they will have to deal with the novelty of looking through the viewfinder, rather than holding the camera at arm's length (how DO you compose a pic at arm's length??). But will they ever experience the 'purity' of picture taking with just 'focus, speed, aperture' - once they have got their heads around hand-held/in-camera metering? Ummmm.

Seems to me that the future of film rests with us lot. Use it or lose it - and let's educate the kids, if you can make them see that there is more to photographic life than white balance, endless menu options and instant gratification. Might be a bit of a hill to climb, methinks, but who ever said that worthwhile pursuits would be a breeze?

Your interesting question on how do we compose a pic with the viewfinder at arm's length has got an answer.

On the Leica O "null" serie replica (see pic attached), Barnack's prototype. the picture IS composed at arm's length on this film camera, that was camera technology in 1920s. No point guessing why this prototype was not chosen for subsequent Leica production models. Or could it be that lithium batteries and LCD screen was not invented then?

The answer may as well be that the view from the viewfinder is the closest as what the photographer will capture on the film. LCD is OTOH is WYSIWYG, what you see is what you get, suppose different technology fits different solution/tools.

Now that this arm's length style of photography got a new packaging and appeal, it looks like technology went back a full cycle for the sake of market forces and the manufacturers.

Perhaps the younger generation fancy talking pictures through LCD screen at arms length, they could imagine the LCD as framelines on the RF with both eyes opened.

Don't you think our generation is more fortunate to see all the hi-tech developments on imaging and reportage, and the experience to test
drive the various technology?