Film Users

[robert blu]

i use digital, I use film. Depending on the project and on the mood.

With film when I have time I do development myself. Other times I use a prolab for development and (wet) contact prints.

Than I scan the frames are worthwhile, with LR or PS i make the corrections in the same way I was doing in the wet darkroom and print on cotton paper.

Great recent news after many years probably (fingers crossed) with a few friends will manage to set up a proper darkroom...

robert

 

[traveler_101]

Film - I wrote a nice little entry but the programme dropped my reply.

So I will just say :

Computers are useful tool that I use all the time and I am happy to get away from them by using an analog technology.

Film gives me more satisfaction and a greater sense of accomplishment.

I am not spending $15 to have a roll developed (here it would be more like $40). Besides the cost, I returned to film because I wanted more involvement in the whole process. I learned to develop. I like chemicals - even though I had never done it before. Once I started having negatives around the house, one of them stood up on its edge and said "wet print me"!

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

I only use film that I develope myself, just as in 1967 when I started with photography. I'm happy that I still can get film, developer and printing paper. I use film because the "end product" of my photographic activities are the gelatine silver prints made by myself. I love printing. For me it is important to get a physical result that I can keep in a box and hold in my hands to look at it.


Erik.

I so wish I had returned to film earlier, but by an eerie coincidence I bought a Rolleicord as my return camera which was sold to me by a specialist film photographer who ran developing and printing courses as an Ilford partner, so I took one with him. When I saw the print in the flesh of my image I knew instantly that the beauty of gelatine silver prints has to be seen in the flesh, for which there is no substitute at all. I scan to digital for convenience until I can set up a decent darkroom, but annoyingly that's on hold until I move. I can see myself not emerging for years!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I'm not sure if my film experience is any different from OP. I started in 2012. But even darkroom paper I use is dated decades ago. So are enlarges and else. Chemicals are the same.
Has yarn knitting changed? 🙂

I like film because it is different than digital. If not better in final image. But I'm not into pixels count or changing brands every other year on digital.

 

[Solinar]

Great recent news after many years probably (fingers crossed) with a few friends will manage to set uo a proper darkroom...

robert

Great news Robert - I just want to say that up until about 10 years ago, I could easily purchase darkroom chemistry from two stores that were within bicycling distance to my house. One of which was a five minute walk from my workplace. - Today, my darkroom lifeline depends on the United Parcel Service, UPS or FedEx.

With regards to film, 35mm Delta 400 and HP 5 are still available from local shop that is about a 15 minute drive from my house. 120 film is a different story.

 

[Out to Lunch]

Today, it depends on where you live. In North America and Western Europe, film is still doable without too much aggravation. Where I live today, this is not so. It's a pain throughout the entire process. All this said, I don't care and I do whatever feels right.

 

[charjohncarter]

I have four cameras with film in them now. If it is Black and White I develop at home. I don't have a dark room so I scan and send the files out for printing. Color; I send out my negatives or transparencies to Blue Moon in Portland Oregon. Then on return I scan and send the files to print. I do some Polaroid too, but that is as I've always done it.

I just like the look of film; maybe because it is what I've always used.

 

[shawn]

Majority of my shots are digital but I also shoot some film. The film is in a variety of cameras, mostly Barnacks or a Rollei TLR.

I process B&W and C41 at home and then scan the negatives on a Pakon. The Pakon makes the process far more enjoyable then when I was scanning whole roles on a Coolscan 8000. Now I just use it when I want a higher resolution. For 120 I use either a flatbed or the Coolscan.

I still have all the equipment to setup a darkroom but haven't had one in over 20 years.

Shawn

 

[narsuitus]

I would appreciate hearing from film users the how and why of their choice.

I have been shooting film since I was 5-years old. My first photos were shot using my father's Kodak Bullet camera.

Over the decades, I have used a variety of camera brands to shoot film images. Film cameras I have used include Nikon, Pentax, Canon, Mamiya, Fuji, Miranda, Olympus, Calumet, Graflex, Holga, Diana, Argus, Ansco, Leica, Contax, Kodak, Minolta, Vivitar, and Polaroid.

The film formats I have used include 35mm small format, 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9cm medium format, and 4x5 and 8x10 large format.

I usually developed my black & white film in Kodak D-76 or a custom buffered 2-bath developer.

I have used a variety of enlargers and darkrooms to print my black & white negatives. The largest negative size I was able to print using my personal enlarger was 6x7cm.

I have used Canon and Epson scanners to digitize my film images.

I have used Canon digital printers or a custom lab.

I usually developed my color slide film using Kodak E4 or E6 chemistry. I stopped shooting and developing color slide film when it became too difficult to find 1-liter size chemistry.

I had my color print film developed and printed by a custom lab.

I no longer shoot film commercially but I still shoot film personally because I still enjoy it.


Film Supply by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[rolfe]

Have you noticed that everyone has the same two or three cameras and the same 24-70 and 70-200 lenses? Have you noticed that all the work has started to look homogenized?

These days, it is about obtaining a unique look, and film makes that part easy. 35mm B&W, MF and LF color and B&W have different looks, and stand out. 35mm color is the one that digital has really killed.

Rolfe

 

[sjones]

I switched to film in 2008 largely because I wanted an affordable rangefinder, somewhat reversing the typical notion of digital being cheaper.

I also liked film grain (Daido Moriyama), but film emulating software at the time was still a bit sketchy.

Anyway, I ordered a Voigtlander Bessa R2M from Cameraquest and picked up a Zeiss 50mm from Map Camera and a Nikon Coolscan V ED at the nearby Yodobashi.

I still assumed that I would primarily use digital, but after my first time out with a roll, I never used my 350D again.

I’ve since settled on a Leica M2, and I do not have any desire for any other cameras, no matter what technology my bring.

For the next several years I developed my negative or sent them out for development, subsequently using the Nikon to scan the negatives.

However, I just had what I would say were personal issues with inkjet prints, and last year, I started making wet prints for the first time. I’m still very much in the learning stage, but a great silver halide is, to me, the ultimate end to the overall process.

And it is the whole process and tactility of film that I love, so much so that I wonder if I would even carry on with photography if film completely vanished.

 

[Hans Berkhout]

What I am writing concerns black and white photography, from my perspective.

The digital route can produce beautiful prints- but not many people are able to accomplish this, as far as I’m concerned. General tonal range (the mid grays), the high values, the low values- usually one or all of these are very often not quite right. The multitude of variables at camera- , computer software- and printer level are to blame as far as I am concerned.

The digital approach results in one being a hostage of hard- and software developers. Changes (“improvements”) are hard to avoid even when not asked for. New developments may result in incompatibility of systems. Back-up approaches, methods, may change. No peace and quiet in digital life.

All in all digital photography offers fascinating possibilities but it brings along too many distractions from actual photography. I find that too many hurdles must be overcome on the road to an excellent final print.

I take pictures at home or on the street with a pre-WW2 Summar 50/2.0 on my digital Leica M-E. It’s fun. A few clicks of the mouse in LR4 and that’s it. Sometimes for family or friends a print on Epson 3880, no need for wall paper.

When in need for contemplation and/or in need for visual excitement I go out with my Deardorff 4x5 Special. Spend some time under the dark cloth. Use mainly a 210mm lens. Mix developer, fixer etc (for film as wells as paper processing) from scratch, don’t depend on manufacturers that may discontinue products on a whim. Return home with 0 or 1 or who knows how many/few exposed sheets.
Plan a day in the darkroom, set up the night before. Great music while printing. No rush.

I would never be able to make a digital print of the same quality as my darkroom prints. Too many steps to learn, too many distracting elements, ongoing changes etc.

www.gelsilver.blogspot.ca

 

[Colin Corneau]

I got my start in newspaper photojournalism with B&W film, then colour film that we scanned with a neg scanner to get digital files, then to digital cameras around 2002. My career ran the gamut, through the whole transition.

I re-discovered film about 12 years ago and really loved it -- once I didn't have to do it for a deadline or a definite work process, I was free to enjoy it and see it for all the good qualities it has...things like a slower, methodical and mindful approach to making pictures.

Part of it was nostalgia, of course, but a lot of it turned out to be the happiness of something substantive and concrete that I could tangibly hold in my hands. Nothing could be destroyed forever by having a magnet in the vicinity, or a hard drive that corrupted, or any number of ethereal bolts from the blue that were out of my control....a negative is a tangible object, a print is a tangible object. It's real, it exists.

I'm still very glad I don't HAVE to use film for work. Having it on my time, at my speed and for my demands removes all pressure. Once that pressure is gone, then all that remains is the process. And it's a process I really like, it turns out.

Among the first photographers to go digital were news photographers. Whether it was the wire services at presidential political party conventions with specialized equipment or, a little later, individual photographers working with early consumer digital cameras, it meant beating deadlines. The was particularly true in the world of color, The wire services had black-and-white transmission down pat and darkroom time minimized, but news publications were beginning to print in color (Their advertisers wanted color ads.). That meant shipping the film to a lab, often the publication’s in house lab. That was a real deadline killer, especially if you were working out of the country where sometimes shipping the film took more talent than taking the picture.

News publications don’t print murals, so the small megapixel counts of the early digital cameras was not a problem. While I still have my darkroom and negatives that go back 65 years, I haven’t shot film in almost two decades. I’m out of touch and want to know how film shooters work in a world dominated by digital, but blessed by low prices on some really good used cameras. Do you have your own darkroom or do you send your film out for processing. Do you print in a darkroom or scan and print on your computer or send out for prints? Perhaps most important, what is there about film that makes you choose it over digital? Professional demands moved me from film to digital and, I suppose, budget and expediency moved my personal work to digital. But when I look at the film world, I see some beautiful work. I would appreciate hearing from film users the how and why of their choice.

 

[KenR]

To paraphrase a great movie “I love the smell of fixer in the morning, it smells like victory”. I enjoy the hands on control of the entire process. I spend my work hours sitting in front of a computer, so for fun I want to do something completely different. I dabbled in digital and have returned to film.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

KenR, "To paraphrase a great movie:" 'Either you surf, or you print!!

 

[Rayt]

I have about 800 pages of b/w negs in storage and when I retire I intend to spend my days printing them traditionally. I tried getting into digital more then once. I had the Epson R2400 but the prints lacked “quality”. When I compare my darkroom prints on fiber paper with the inkjet output they were not even close. Looking at prints from friends with years of printing skills and better equipment I still found they lack tonality. I fully admit the problem is me and if had the technical part of it down perhaps it would have made a difference. In the end I just don’t like the look of physical output from a digital file.

 

[Ulophot]

Enjoying the nature of the process

Enjoying the nature of the process

I, too, picked up my first SLR in 1968. Around 2005, financial issues obliged me to put my life as a 30-year professional photographer aside; I'm no businessman. The digital tidal wave was just moving in seriously; I had no capital to switch over from film and no way to pay back any loans for new equipment. Nor did I wish to sell my film equipment -- I love the process! Whenever I mentioned taking down the darkroom, my children protested, insisting that I would return eventually. About 2.5 years ago, I finally began to do so, though no longer professionally and now confined to available weekend time for the most part.

My focus now is almost exclusively a portrait project -- mostly natural light, on location, all B&W with HP5, a warm tone paper, and selenium toner. Mostly 4x5, 645.

Recently, with continuing challenges trying to retrain my compositional eye, I decided to use my trusty M4 as a vehicle to improve my 4x5 and 645 work. Huh? Well, in part the tripod was restricting me from the kind of active working-through of a situation, the fine tuning of composition "on-the fly" I had learned in 35. Of course, the rectangle is very different, and for my portraiture the 4x5 space is my favorite. But right now I need the handheld, long-roll freedom to retrain my eye. $200 to add an Elmar-C 90 in mint condition to my 50 and 35 was manageable; going digital was not.

Besides, I have done my share of Photoshopping of portraits and other images. The portraits I am making now are not commercial; I don't want to sit at a computer playing with pixels. I want the challenge of the straight image, the challenges of darkroom printing (no scanning) to create the best silver gelatin image I can, using the traditional tools of the B&W darkroom. I look at the magnificent work of great pre-digital film photographic artists and am happy striving to create, occasionally, an image that begins to partake in the beauty they have bequeathed. I am not worried about the limits of the medium. I am studying Thomas Eakins, the great American painter, among others, and a number of "environmental portrait" photographers, clarifying how it is I wish to portray my honored subjects.

It's gratifying to see film having outflanked the doomsayers. It has a place in the media of fine art, and that's where I hang my hat -- happily so.