Film!!!

[Deklari]

I have many old and antique cameras, from large format 8x10 to 24x24mm film. B&W film I process by myself and sett full darkroom for print it. I like contact print from 8x10 and 5x7 format. I also scan all 120 and 35mm films. But I only print them in darkroom. All color film I send off to a local Lab.

 

[Rob-F]

I do my own developing and printing in my darkroom. I seldom scan black & white film. I'd much rather wet print. I've bought four printers. The first three, including two Canons became junk in a disappointingly short time. The fourth one, I haven't unpacked from its box yet. It's an HP. So we will see how it does.

 

[charjohncarter]

I do develop my B&W and send my color to a lab.

I digitalize my negatives (color and B&W) and send the files to a lab for prints. As an aside I really like laser exposed but wet printed photos on 'True B&W Paper' form my lab.

I don't do any alternative processes, but I love Carbon prints: nothing like them.

 

[giganova]

My house is too small for a wet darkroom. 🙁

 

[ChrisPlatt]

I've already developed black and white film in my new place. A photo flatbed scanner is connected to my Windows 7 PC.
My Windows XP film scanner will wait while I decide whether to set up an additional PC or a single dual-boot system.

I'm still in the planning phase to turn my tiny bathroom into an occasional darkroom for wet printing, which is my true photographic passion.
It will be a challenge to design and construct a suitable work surface for the enlarger etc. which can be disassembled and stored in a closet.

I'm planning to use a couple weeks of my annual leave this year to get these and too many other new home projects sorted out...:bang:

Chris

 

[dfranklin]

A somewhat loftier (or maybe not as petty) one is that film provides for a physical fixed reference point to the scene photographed. The very fact of the exposed negative heightens sometimes my emotional response to a photo. It's as if you can still touch that which was.

.

+1

I think about the 'touch' factor all the time when I'm shooting film. In my day job, I'm a professor of literature, so I often think about the difference between film and digital in terms of the difference between metonymy and metaphor. (Bear with me.) Metonymy = the production of meaning through contiguity, metaphor = the production of meaning through similarity. A digital image is, at some level, a translation of a pattern of light and shadow into a corresponding pattern of 1's and 0's. A negative is a material object that has been permanently altered by contact with the light. When looking at my negatives, I often think about the fact that I'm looking at a material trace of the very photons that were there when I opened the shutter.

OK, that probably sounds like a bunch of romantic nonsense. But I guess that's what literature professors do.

 

[Bill Clark]

Isn’t it photons that cause a batch of zeros and ones on a sensor to be directed with the aid of a computer and software on a digital camera that puts together an image we can see, the same photons that can be used to expose film? For me, like film I use RAW capture and develop with my iMac and usually working with Photoshop.

Instead of developing film and using my analog darkroom for making prints I have my CF card and other storage devices that I can process with my iMac. And view many different ways.

At any rate, either medium for me achieves the same result.

 

[jbrubaker]

+1

A negative is a material object that has been permanently altered by contact with the light. When looking at my negatives, I often think about the fact that I'm looking at a material trace of the very photons that were there when I opened the shutter.

I like this way of thinking about film! thank you ---john.

 

[philosli]

For some time now my only film cameras have been 2 large format film cameras used ocassionally for personal work. Digital took over, first, journalism and, now, much of professional photography. But recently I was given a gift of several used film cameras. Because of the sheet film cameras, I still have a functioning darkroom. I wanted to know what the film users on the forum are doing and why they are doing it.

(1) Film processed at a lab or in your darkroom/bathroom/or wherever you could load a film tank?

I process BW myself. For E-6 and C-41, I send them to a lab.

(2) From these negatives or slides, are prints made in your darkroom or sent out to a lab for silver, chemical color or inkjet or are they scanned and ink jet printed in your office? Or are prints a thing of the past now replaced by a computer screen?

I scan all developed films. I used to have a makeshift darkroom and made BW silver gelatin prints. However, that was gone now but I do plan to resurrect it in the near future. I send my scanned files to online print service every now and then to get cheap 4x6 prints or a photobook.

(3) Or are you doing something truly unusual like archival carbon prints on a modified inkjet?

No.

I have one friend who produces archival silver prints because museums like them, and it is the way he has always worked and in which he feels comfortable. I have other friends who shoot film because they feel it slows them down and makes them a better photographer, but they scan the film and make inkjet prints. I’m sure there are many other reasons for shooting film. But I’m sitting here with several film cameras and would love to know some of the things I might look forward to if I start shooting a little film again.

I don't have any digital camera except the one on my phone. All of my "real" cameras are film cameras. I was never satisfied with the digital photos so I completely abandon the digital and go back to films. I almost carry at least one camera each day and take photos whenever & wherever I can.

 

[Deklari]

Isn’t it photons that cause a batch of zeros and ones on a sensor to be directed with the aid of a computer and software on a digital camera that puts together an image we can see, the same photons that can be used to expose film? For me, like film I use RAW capture and develop with my iMac and usually working with Photoshop.

Instead of developing film and using my analog darkroom for making prints I have my CF card and other storage devices that I can process with my iMac. And view many different ways.

At any rate, either medium for me achieves the same result.

Dual nature of light 🙂

 

[Ronald M]

Buy film Spool as required Shoot Develop in D76 1:1 Print with focomat.

Train next generation as much as I can.

Do more digital than film lately as I can do more with my computer. Send to a few labs that do good work. Large projects are always digital. Personal 50 50.

Dislike using computer as medium.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Why? Because it is different from digital. Gear and results.

1) Lab? 🙂 I'm not this rich.
2)Color is by inks, BW is inks and silver gelatin print.
3)"archival carbon prints on a modified inkjet", meh. "Used with the Epson range of professional media, UltraChrome delivers lightfastness
ratings of up to 75 years for colour and over 200 years for black-and-white".

 

[Timmyjoe]

After decades of lugging around multiple (D)SLR's with tele zooms & the like, for the last four or five years I've been trying to find a camera(s) that give me the image quality I want, in the smallest, least intimidating package, with manual controls. This is the best I could come up with so far:

1) Process all my B&W (95% of the film I shoot) at home
2) Used to print in home darkroom, but now scan & print digitally
3) Nothing fancy

Best,
-Tim

 

[dasuess]

I am all in with digital and have been for quite awhile. I have scanned all my 35mm B+W negatives, slides and most of my color negatives. I do all my own printing with an Epson R3000, although I have "farmed out" some larger canvas prints. Planning on picking up an Epson P800 in the next year so I can make larger prints. Gave away my Beseler 23CII to another RFF member when we downsized to condo living 4 years ago. I still have a Nikon F that I purchased new back in 1972, but it has not had film through it for at least 15 years - keeping it for the memories of where I have been with it. I may end up with an S2 that I have committed to buying when a certain person passes away. Not sure I'll use it, but you never know. These days I spend my time lugging a Nikon Df with vintage Nikkor lenses converted to AI for landscape photography. Just before Christmas I picked up a used Fuji X-Pro1 and 18mm/f2 that I plan on being my sole camera for a two week trip to Ireland later this year. Nothing exotic for me - too old and set in my ways.

 

[presspass]

I use both digital and film. The digital is for work; the film for me. I have several long-term projects, one of which has been going on for 40 years. Those are all done with 35mm black and white film. I have a complete darkroom, including a V-35 enlarger with variable contrast head and a slot processor. There's nothing more relaxing that going into the darkroom for a couple of hours. The prints are all selenium toned and provided on an annual basis to one of the subjects of my project - a local volunteer fire company. The prints provide a durable history of the company, its volunteers, and its activities. I have no intention of giving up on film, prints, or my darkroom.

 

[Bschif]

i use B+W, slide and print film, in 120 and 35mm. I generally do the B+W on my own with a Jobo processor and occasionally the E6 in the Jobo also. The print film I send out to The Darkroom in CA. I scan the B+W and slides with my Nikon D700 and use the scans from The Darkroom for the print film.

 

[Bingley]

Like a lot of others who responded above, I develop my own black and white film, which is either 35mm or 120, and then scan the negatives at home to get a digital image. I then post-process using Lightroom to eliminate dust spots, straighten the image, and make minor adjustments to correct for exposure errors (the digital equivalent of dodging and burning). I don't have space in my house for a full darkroom that could include wet printing.

For prints, I take the final digitized images to a lab which does custom inkjet printing using high quality inkjet papers. I wish I could get silver gelatin prints done, but that will have to wait until I have more time as I would need to reserve darkroom time at the place that does my inkjet printing.

All of my color film photos are processed at a local lab and scanned there. If I don't like the scans, I can rescan at home.

For me, digital photography is a supplement to film photography, not a replacement. I still prefer to shoot film whenever I can.

 

[defconfunk]

Nothing Fancy

Nothing Fancy

(1) Film processed at a lab or in your darkroom/bathroom/or wherever you could load a film tank?
Colour goes to the lab, but I've largely stopped shooting colour negative. I mostly shoot black and white which I process in my basement.

(2) From these negatives or slides, are prints made in your darkroom or sent out to a lab for silver, chemical color or inkjet or are they scanned and ink jet printed in your office? Or are prints a thing of the past now replaced by a computer screen?
Prints are made in the darkroom (usually 5x7 for 35mm, but sometimes 8x10, 8x10 for medium format). Film isn't "done" in my books until I've got a print in my hand. If I like a print enough to want to share it online, I'll scan it on a flatbed scanner (Epson v600).
I've got a fair bit of resolution to work with in that combination, so I'm tempted to "enlarge it" and print it on my P800, but I haven't done that from any darkroom prints yet.

(3) Or are you doing something truly unusual like archival carbon prints on a modified inkjet?
Nope.

 

[Rayt]

I shoot b/w film mainly with Leica, Rolleiflex and LF. I process everything in the bathroom. I don’t scan though I should get a flat bed or something. I also own a Monochrom for when the light requires it because I don’t like the look of pushed film. The plan is to have a proper darkroom to print these negs when I retire. If I shoot for other people I have a pretty skilful friend who will scan and provide really nice inkjet prints. Maybe I’ll do that soon but if I go digital i’d rather go all digital given the Monochrom is already so marvellous.

 

[roscoetuff]

Mostly shooting B&W film the last 12 months using Leica M's and Rolleiflex 6008 MF SLR. Develop negs at home... and color sent out to local professional lab that does generally nice work. Their scanning is only so-so. Recently added a Jobo processor primarily so I can add color back to the diet in the next few weeks and I'm glad I did seeing my first Leica color slides, but candidly the Jobo solved some quality control problems in my B&W with its faster rotation for agitation (my earlier Unicolor base was too slow). Still shoot some digital, but rarely more than for making contact sheets. Scan with a Nikon LS8000, post process with Capture One and print with an Epson Surecolor P800 coupled to Colorbyte's Imageprint software. We have a local community darkroom, but so far I'm not feeling the need or the love.

In terms of images produced, I found myself repelled by the lack of texture in some of my early printed digital B&W images... and that really spurred the whole of my return to film. THis has become a more generalized excuse or matter of taste... EXCEPT when viewing output from the very finest photographers using really fantastic gear produced by the likes of a ALPA TC12 with a PhaseOne back (see Luminous Landscape's recent coverage). There I drool, bow down and admit to my unworthiness. Some of it is the gear... more of it is technique and experience. A pro will always be a pro and an amateur an amateur. But for what I can afford to work with as an amateur, film is much more fun, allows and encourages pre-visualization, and avoids the "spray and pray" tendencies that would otherwise cripple my potential. I mean despite all the condescension inherent in the "spray and pray", truth is that it really is fun to see to pull the trigger and see something show up on a screen! So film helps avoid my worst tendencies. Maybe.

Pet digital peeve? People holding their phones up to make snaps of Vermeer's artwork (could be anyone's!) rather than looking at it with their eyes. Dehumanizes the art in front of us and devalues the photos they make that they'll never look at.

At the end of the day, does the instant digital capture become any more fun than pulling a film out of canister to see what the negative looks like? Maybe not for most, but for a few of us... it definitely fills the bill. Thus in my case, post # 4 from "SaveKodak" absolutely nails it. And the delay... may allow or facilitate a more convincingly creative process.