For what format(s) do you still use film for?

[Faintandfuzzy]

Mainly 35mm and 4x5. Although I just added a 110 film body for a landscape project.

 

[mike rosenlof]

35mm, 6x6, 4x5, 6x7 roll film holder on the 4x5, 8x10 I've done all of the above in this calendar year, but mostly 35mm or 8x10.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Mainly 120 occasional 35mm and 4x5.

 

[David Hughes]

And I knew someone who used 48" x 35" until a year or two back. There's more to life than 120 and 35mm.

Regards, David

 

[divewizard]

I don't use 4x5 or 8x10 yet, but I plan to in the future.

 

[redisburning]

I don't use 4x5 or 8x10 yet, but I plan to in the future.

you definitely should!

it's not that hard to get into, a super graphic and a fuji or nikon 150 is a great introduction to sheet film.

 

[rbsinto]

Just 35mm, and essentially only colour slide.
Other than the unwanted digital camera in my cell phone, I don't own a digital camera.

 

[louisb]

I got back into film photography when I purchased a Hasselblad SWC, largely because I thought it such an incredible camera.

Since then I have shot mostly 120 film in 6x6, 6x9 and now 6x7 having purchased a Fujifilm GF670w - which is probably my ideal MF camera.

Digital may rock but film still rules.

LouisB

 

[stratcat]

35mm and medium format (6x6 and 6x9)

 

[zuiko85]

From 16mm Minolta (10X14mm) through 35mm both 18X24 and 24X36 from there going up to 6X6 and 6X9 and just a bit of dabbling in 4X5.

Tom A. has a Minox!! Cool.

 

[lynnb]

35mm and 120 (6x6). In about a ratio of 2:1. Almost entirely b&w (and mostly HP5+).

 

[rhl-oregon]

35mm and medium format, with 4x5 in the pipeline.

Ditto. Waiting for really dry weather to get used to 4x5 Cambo. But looking forward to it.

 

[figfoto]

I haven't used film for 35mm for years since getting the M8, but for medium format you can't beat film, the results you get are worth the extra time and hassle of scanning. Just wish I had more time...

 

[eleskin]

Large Format

Large Format

I use 4x5 and 8x10 for film. Digital I use my M8 and X-Pro 1.

 

[adam satushek]

voted all:
35mm, Leica, Tmax 400
120, Mamiya 7II, Portra 160 and 400
4x5, Sinar F2, Portra 160
8x10, Sinar F2, Portra 160, and I have some Delta 100 but haven't shot any yet.

35mm BW for wandering around and everyday carry. Most of what I consider my serious work is 4x5. Mamiya for when I'm traveling and cannot lug the 4x5...but the 4x5 usually comes too. And 8x10 for when I really want to take my time. 4x5 Portra 160 scanned at 8000ppi suits my large print needs perfectly fine so the 8x10 does not see a ton of use mostly due to the expense of 8x10 color neg, but am excited to shoot some 8x10 BW and make contact prints in the future.

 

[Bill Clark]

35mm & medium format (6x6, 6x4.5)

All black & white film.

Been developing film with rodinal (Fomadon R09) using stand develoopment method 1+100 for 60 min.). Did a roll of Kentmere 100 this AM and I like the look of the negs.

 

[jaredangle]

I'm primarily using film in 35mm and 6x7. I have some 4x5 on hand (Ilford HP5+ and FP4+) but I only use them for the occasional odd project.

I take out a 35mm pretty often though, usually Neopan SS in my Nikon F4 or Contax G1 during the daytime, but I have some Tri-X and Neopan 400 that should see some shooting time soon. I've got a bit of b/w and color for the Mamiya RZ67 that gets shot fairly often for portraiture and detail shots as well.

 

[shadowfox]

I shoot all formats listed.

I have my 8x10 dusted and ready.
Just need a break from the daily grind.

 

[clayne]

Myself I shoot it all with the exception of 16mm and 8x10. If I had cameras that did those formats I would shoot them however. Black and white, C-41, E-6, from 135 to 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, and 4x5 I shoot it. Primarily the bias is on 135 by far just because I know it the best and use it most but all the various formats have their strengths and weaknesses.

I could sell the Nikon scanner, M6, and some other things to get me at least halfway to the cost of the M-M, and I probably will eventually, but that's a big chunk of change.

Think about how crazy this sounds. Sell the farm just to get the latest digital M that will be worth a box of crackerjacks 5-10 years after it's released? You will seriously regret it. Regardless of hordes of digital brickwall shooting pixel peepers proclaiming film will be gone in a year, that just simply isn't the case. You already have items which are holding their value just fine, are perfectly usable, and I imagine deliver results you like. Selling it all to get the hot new thing is the equivalent of divorcing your wife of 20 years for a college student.

Absolutely no new technology out there will elevate the quality or integrity of your output unless it's inherently limited by format - and I highly doubt it is.

 

[ssmc]

In 35mm I shoot B&W pretty much exclusively nowadays (IMO I get better color results with a DSLR than from 35mm) but still like to play with both color and B&W in 120 (645 and 6x9).

Digital B&W conversions are all very well (I use Silver Efex Pro when I feel the need) but when adding contrast effects the results can be very ugly due to uneven channel response. Worst of all is that "grain" added to a digital file is just noise that destroys information but in a (traditional) silver halide image the grain structure creates the image. Barring some computational breakthrough in the way grain is simulated I can't see any way around this - if you want your images to really look like B&W film (and I don't mean in isolation, I mean in a side-by-side comparison), the only way is to shoot them on film in the first place.