Further positive news for film

VertovSvilova said:
The digital versus film argument is long over. That dialogue has become boring and redundant. Today it's film versus digital simply as choice. They will co-exist along side each other as specific media for specific purposes.
Click to expand...

That sounds about right. Let's hope that even Kodak and Fuji stay in the game, at least with a couple three products.
 
Thanks for the link. All good news indeed ! I am glad that Ilford are doing so much to support film photographers, and like others here, I have changed back to them as my main supplier after a long time with Kodak. We need to support the firms that show a deep and sincere commitment to our craft and the materials that we use !
 
John Bragg said:
Thanks for the link. All good news indeed ! I am glad that Ilford are doing so much to support film photographers, and like others here, I have changed back to them as my main supplier after a long time with Kodak. We need to support the firms that show a deep and sincere commitment to our craft and the materials that we use !
Click to expand...
I agree on this one. I have been using mainly Fuji and then Kodak (Kokdak Alaris?), but both companies seem to just hang on until stores run dry so to say. Also Ilfords higher prices was a step for me to watch.
Now i use Kodak for colourfilm, as their New Portra is just the best out there. Too shame the positive films is gone, at least a 100 or better yet 100 and 400 speed film in all sizes should be available as kodak slide films had really really really nice colouring. The Fuji slides is just too expensive for me to use any, cant pay over 10e/roll of 35mm, the MF is still affordable.
For bw i am thinking of switching over to ilford. We need to use products of the company that is still committed to analog photography with great quality on film and paper as well as chemistry.
 
Well, interesting times for sure.
As an inveterate experimenter color film is just too breathtakingly expensive what with all the extra cost of sending it through the mail (not to mention no personal face to face contact with the lab, that is the worst part).

So, I'll stick to B&W film for 35 and 120 and paper negatives for large format and let the missus do the color snap shots with some little digital thing.
 
zuiko85 said:
Well, interesting times for sure.
As an inveterate experimenter color film is just too breathtakingly expensive what with all the extra cost of sending it through the mail
Click to expand...

Using mail order is cheaper than going to your local lab:
Going to your local lab means wasting time (time is money = opportunity costs),
you have furthermore the fuel costs and parking fees if you go by car, or the ticket costs if you go by bus or underground.

And there is always the option to develop colour at home like BW. It is easys and cheap.

And using colour film is much cheaper than using digital if you want your pictures to last and to be looked at in 30 or 40 years:
http://www.oscars.org/science-technology/sci-tech-projects/digital-dilemma-2

zuiko85 said:
(not to mention no personal face to face contact with the lab, that is the worst part).
Click to expand...

You can talk to them at phone. I am doing that succesfully for years. They make the work according to my wishes.
 
Jani_from_Finland said:
Now i use Kodak for colourfilm, as their New Portra is just the best out there. Too shame the positive films is gone, at least a 100 or better yet 100 and 400 speed film in all sizes should be available as kodak slide films had really really really nice colouring. The Fuji slides is just too expensive for me to use any, cant pay over 10e/roll of 35mm, the MF is still affordable.
Click to expand...

Shooting Fuji slide film in 35mm is even cheaper compared to shooting Portra (and you also have the option using the AgfaPhoto CT Precisa).

Because:
1. With a transparency / slide you already have a finished picture you can look at.
With negative film you need prints. And prints in really good quality do cost, which add up in the end to more than the reversal film and development.
And the slides can be viewed enlarged in excellent quality with an excellent slide loupe (e.g. the ones from Schneider-Kreuznach or Rodenstock), delivering even better quality in comparison to the prints.

Some may say you can scan and look at it at a computer monitor.
Why using a high-tec medium like film (no matter whether reversal or negative film), and then using by far the viewing medium with the absolut lowest quality?
That does not make sense.
LCD monitors are unable to show real halftones, the colours cannot really match the real, natural colours.
And the resolution is ridiculous low with 1 - 1,5 MP.

The same is valid for DSLRs: It does not make any sense to spend huge amounts of money for a 16, 24, 35 MP camera, and then only using the tiny fraction 1 - 1,5 MP of it using the computer monitor for looking at the pictures.
Complete waste of money.
(spending so much money would make sense making bigger prints).

2. If you project your slides, you get pictures as big as you want, as big as your projection screen is.
To make such a big, brillant picture of e.g. 1 meter x 1,50 meter cost you the film and development, and a slide mount.
Here in Germany that is depending on film and mounts in the 50 Cent to 1,20€ region per shot.
Cost for projector and screen are negligible per shot, especially over a longer period.
So you get a 1m x 1,5m brillant picture for such an extremely low amount of money.
A print from a negative (or a digital file) of the same size do cost more than 150€ in good quality. And you did not get the brillance and sharpness from the print you get with an excellent projection lens.
So the difference in cost is extreme in favour of slides. Slides are ridiculous cheap in comparison.

Cheers, Jan
 
I shoot C41, ask the lab to develop only. Then I scan at low res (around 1h for 36 frames) and print "contact" for my archive. Select the really good frames. scam high res, dedust and make a little PP than I print inkjet on color papers. It works reasonably well except for the scratches on the film that most lab produce.
Gave up E6 because no always lower quality of the process (dirty spots, scratches) from most lab and too long time to have them developed.
robert
PS: not having the lab printing all the frames is making the process not tooexpensive
 
robert blu said:
Gave up E6 because no always lower quality of the process (dirty spots, scratches) from most lab and too long time to have them developed.
Click to expand...

Just send E6 to
http://www.ars-imago.com/filmdev in Rome
or
http://www.agenzialuce.it/
and you will be satiesfied.

Or send to www.photostudio13.de in Germany: Outstanding quality at very reasonable price.
Dip and dunk processing therefore no scratches, cascade fixation for highest quality.
They are developing E6 every day, and send the films back to the customer the same day they have developed them.
 
tom.w.bn said:
Last year I bought some rolls of Acros 100 for around 5,50 EUR. Now it's 7,20 EUR. I can't see good times here.
Click to expand...

15 years ago in the so-called "golden times of film" there was no Acros 100 at all (it was introduced in 2002).
Neopan SS, the forerunner, was very difficult to get in Germany.
And it was inferior to the later Acros 100.
And if I consider inflation, the current price for Acros is more, but not so much more.
The alternative for higher prices would be cancelling the product. I prefer higher prices, honestly......

If you think it is too much: Use TMX, Delta 100, Adox Silvermax instead.

Cheers, Jan
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom