I don't shoot film, I'm not rich enough...

Brian Puccio said:
If you're saying that for these important photos that Samys won't do them justice, what should I look for in a lab? What's a good way to compare, should I shoot some test charts and send them to several labs and see which rolls come back looking best?
Click to expand...

Well, I was factoring in the time and repeatability of a professional job. You can't (easily) fly a few dozen people to some little island somewhere (for example) and re-shoot your job because some minimum-wage guy sneezed on your negs. There is also repeatability - if your client wants another series of prints, or something has to match between two shoots a month apart, then going to a processor who doesn't control their chemicals is not going to cut it. Then there are the services which are not straight printing, such as large format inter-neg work off transparencies etc. Fortunately I am not doing professional stuff, so have less stress like that.

Also, having a small lab in a corner-shop does not mean that the results will be all over the place, but on average there will (one expects) be more reliability at a different sort of lab. If you've found a little place that is always good, then why change ? It can even be useful as you can always have a chat with the main worker about not letting the new guy practice on your holiday shots etc.

A few times I have heard that 'professional' labs are boasting of processing C41 in hand-tanks with one-shot chemistry these days. That seems rather bizarre to me, but it is over twenty years since I worked in a Q-lab lab so things might have changed. There are lists of Q-labs available from Kodak, and there used to be a similar quality system by Fuji too (which one was used depended on where you got the consumables) plus there would be word-of-mouth, if you can find a good local professional using film, and you could always post in the relevant forum at Apug with the question.

Really the film costs are a red herring I think. The trade-off is between getting the results you want, whatever they are, and the time and enjoyment you require to achieve them. I happen to enjoy darkroom printing, hence it is not a 'cost', whereas I sit behind a computer all day so wouldn't want to develop square-eyes by using one for my hobby as well.
 
wgerrard said:
Bringing any $7000 camera, film or digital into a discussion of film vs digital costs is, I think, apples and oranges. The M9 is a luxury item. It's a bit like bringing a Ferrari into a discussion of hybrids versus diesels. Few trying to decide whether to buy a film or digital camera will even consider an M9 (and most of them won't even know it exists).

You have to have money up front for any camera. My point -- my only point -- is that if you spend X on a film camera, you will incur recurring costs to use it. That doesn't happen with a digital..

It's a subject brought up several times in this thread. I was thinking about the attributes of the hardware, not the images. The point here is that if you can't afford to buy film, you can't afford to buy film. Nothing about the qualities of a Leica or the advantages of an RF or the charm of old Rolleis or the slickness of new digitals is going to change that fact. "Opportunity costs" don't come into play. Someone who can't afford film is not going to splurge on an expensive camera because it might hold its trade-in value.
Click to expand...

Maybe a better comparison would be then a micro four thirds camera compared to an M6? (I've been watching that thread of yours, very interesting results. I have a GF1 and have yet to do 1:1 comparisons in terms of charpness, but in terms of color, the GF1 is no place close to Provia/Velvia.)

But at the same time, if you cannot afford to buy film, you cannot afford to buy the memory card for your M9, let alone the M9 itself (or the GF1).

MartinP said:
Well, I was factoring in the time and repeatability of a professional job. You can't (easily) fly a few dozen people to some little island somewhere (for example) and re-shoot your job because some minimum-wage guy sneezed on your negs. There is also repeatability - if your client wants another series of prints, or something has to match between two shoots a month apart, then going to a processor who doesn't control their chemicals is not going to cut it. Then there are the services which are not straight printing, such as large format inter-neg work off transparencies etc. Fortunately I am not doing professional stuff, so have less stress like that.

Also, having a small lab in a corner-shop does not mean that the results will be all over the place, but on average there will (one expects) be more reliability at a different sort of lab. If you've found a little place that is always good, then why change ? It can even be useful as you can always have a chat with the main worker about not letting the new guy practice on your holiday shots etc.

A few times I have heard that 'professional' labs are boasting of processing C41 in hand-tanks with one-shot chemistry these days. That seems rather bizarre to me, but it is over twenty years since I worked in a Q-lab lab so things might have changed. There are lists of Q-labs available from Kodak, and there used to be a similar quality system by Fuji too (which one was used depended on where you got the consumables) plus there would be word-of-mouth, if you can find a good local professional using film, and you could always post in the relevant forum at Apug with the question.

Really the film costs are a red herring I think. The trade-off is between getting the results you want, whatever they are, and the time and enjoyment you require to achieve them. I happen to enjoy darkroom printing, hence it is not a 'cost', whereas I sit behind a computer all day so wouldn't want to develop square-eyes by using one for my hobby as well.
Click to expand...

This is very useful information. I'm not married to Samy's, but they're cheap and I have had no problems over 30 rolls of film. No scratches, which I assume is because they dip and dunk.

The good news for me is I have no clients. I take photos because it makes me very happy.

I don't get a chance to talk to the owner because they are across the US, I'm in NY, them in CA. But when I did get a chance to talk to two local owners of two local photo places here, it wound up being "what happened to these rolls, this looks horrible?!"

I heard of Samys through APUG and since have sent them 4 batches of film, all of them looking excellent.

Thanks for the information, I'll keep using them, even for these upcoming vacation photos since they haven't steered me wrong, though maybe I'll mail one batch when I get back, wait to make sure they're good, then send the second batch. Just in case they do have a new guy with a bad day.
 
For someone who is always short on time (due to family obligation, work, etc)...shooting film is very expensive. The cost of film itself is cheap, but the processing and scanning are very expensive.

I just sent 4 rolls of 35mm bw to a professional lab for processing and scanning to medium resolution, and I had to pay almost US $100.

Compared that to digital capture. With digital, if I'm short on time and don't want to do RAW conversion, I just set my camera to JPEG mode and adjusted the WB properly before shooting...and I'm all set.

The time that it took to download the scanned files from my film lab and the time it took me to download my CF cards are equal. The processing cost, however, is hugely different. And the cost of camera gears are about equal between digital and film (keep in mind I'm comparing the price of USED Leica M-series and used Contax medium-format film bodies to that of used Canon 5D).

-d
 
Last edited:
Brian Puccio said:
Maybe a better comparison would be then a micro four thirds camera compared to an M6? (I've been watching that thread of yours, very interesting results. I have a GF1 and have yet to do 1:1 comparisons in terms of charpness, but in terms of color, the GF1 is no place close to Provia/Velvia.)
Click to expand...

Yes, that's certainly more realistic and common.

I did buy the Sigma DP2-S. It's a comfortable camera for me to hold and carry around, so it's met one of my prime qualifications for a travel camera. I've only managed to use it for an hour or so. Images look pretty good. I haven't compared them with the scans I get from Ektar, my usual C-41, though. I'll post something after I've used the it for a bit. So far, though, the auto focus speed has not been an issue. Save time with RAW files is long enough to be annoying. I can barely see the LCD screen in the sun, but I can say that about every LCD screen I've used.

But at the same time, if you cannot afford to buy film, you cannot afford to buy the memory card for your M9, let alone the M9 itself (or the GF1).
Click to expand...

True, but at least it is a one-time expense.

About the M9's affordability: I figure that I could afford an M9 if I didn't travel anywhere for two years. We all make choices. I'd rather travel with, say, a disposable camera than stay home with an M9.
 
Brian Puccio said:
I've got no problems.
Click to expand...

Well, you do spend a lot of time arguing your new place on the beach and making graphs, when all you're really saying is that financially digital rangefinders don't work out for you.

For me it's easy. I shoot mainly XP2 and Kodak E100D. A roll of the former is about 12 EUR, a roll of the latter is about 14 EUR, both including development, plus the time spent scanning. You can try and keep film costs down - recently I bought some 700 feet of Kodak 5285 movie stock, which is identical to the E100D, and so I have seven bulk rolls still in the freezer that should last a while - but I'm seeing the point less and less. And bulk scanning rolls of film makes me feel like I'm wasting my time.

I think the main reason why your opportunity cost argument makes sense is because you insist that the object of comparison be an M9 and nothing else. Someone willing to settle for something a little more mundane - an M8 maybe - suddenly finds themselves comparing $1000 M6s with $2000-to-$2500 M8s, or the equivalent of some 80 rolls of film. So when those bulk rolls run out, it'll be a digital for me.
 
Cost aside, I find shooting with film more conceptual in the sense that it engages my imagination more than digital does because of the immediate feedback of digital. With film, the possible image remains a mystery for a longer period of time. One knows that with film feedback will not be immediate and so that forces a higher degree of commitment to the planning of an image. As a hobbyist, this greater mental engagement is more rewarding and ultimately more satisfying. This is totally subjective and relevant only to me and my personal experience with film and digital.
 
Hi Frank,

Your decanted words are significant to me. I'd also say, even if the pleasures film gives are somehow subjective, your opinion is very objective...

And I bet your words describe the feelings of a huge amount of film photographers around the world.

Cheers,

Juan
 
FrankS said:
Cost aside, I find shooting with film more conceptual in the sense that it engages my imagination more than digital does because of the immediate feedback of digital. With film, the possible image remains a mystery for a longer period of time.
Click to expand...

I mainly shoot film myself, but I don't think I understand that argument. If I found the screen on the back distracting, I'd simply not look at it. You can make the image as mysterious as you want.
 
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

It is human nature to use the capabilities of ones tools. With digital, that means reviewing photos after taking them, and taking more pics than you need and then deleting them because "it doesn't cost anything."

Anyway, as I said, this is totally subjective and applicable only to me and my personal experiences. YMMV
 
I have the same perceptions as Frank seems to have regarding usage of film.
I feel that I am challenging myself to arrive at a certain look when exposing a specific type of film and when using a certian type of lens. This feeling goes back to many years of using slow speed slide film where exposure is crtitical. Extra care is needed to arrive at a slide that looks the way I wanted it to look (in my head).
 
The other factor that compels me to shoot film instead of digital are the tools. I love the tactile sensations of using classic vintage cameras built with fine workmanship and precision. If I had to choose between plastic point and shoot film cameras and plastic point and shoot digital cameras, I'd likely turn to digital. For me and my hobbyist's perspective, it is also about the process/journey, not all about the final product/destination.

But again, that's just me. Not suggesting at all that eveanyone else should think the same way. Everyone has different tastebuds and that's okay.
 
An analogy: I have an old motorcycle that I have to fuss with, it's oily, and not nearly as fast, smooth, or comfortable as a modern motorcycle, but I would not even consider trading it for a new computerized fuel-injected motorcycle. Just today I installed a Helicoil (for the first time) to repair a stripped cylinder stud thread in my motorcycle's engine case. What a rush drilling into that aluminum alloy knowing that if you messed up, you would really mess up. I'm a hands-on kind of guy. Film is my thing.
 
Exactly Bill. Everyone has to decide for themselves what works, what doesn't, how much is too much bother, or money. No one can say this for anyone else.

joke: Hey Michealangello! Use a roller, it'll be easier and go faster!
 
If I didn't wet print my B&W negatives, I'd pay someone to wet print them. Otherwise I'd shoot digital and specialize on its own ways of processing and printing... Just my perception...

Cheers,

Juan
 
wgerrard said:
I'm glad you said that. Several months ago, in a spasm of enthusiasm, I spent more than I needed to on an enlarger and other paraphernalia. I intended to use a bedroom and an adjoining bathroom as a makeshift darkroom and start printing b&w. But, all that stuff sits idle. Why? Because it is just too much hassle to blackout the bedroom every time I want to work in the darkroom. Because it is too much hassle to deal with the water being in the next room. Because I don't want to go through the learning curve of creating decent prints without a mentor and because I'd just file the prints away in a desk. And because the people who want to see my pictures very much want to see them on a monitor.

Understand, I am not bashing anyone who loves to work in a darkroom. It's an art, and should be valued and preserved. But, so is weaving quilts and I'm not doing that, either.
Click to expand...

Its not that much trouble if you have a specialized room with a sink and everything built in. I did when I was in college, even had one of those cool 6 foot long sinks that you lay the trays in. Setting up was super easy. Go in the room, mix chemicals and turn off the lights! I miss it, but I developed bad allergies to chemicals and had to quit.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Its not that much trouble if you have a specialized room with a sink and everything built in
Click to expand...

No such luck here. The bathroom in question is heavily trafficked.Three leaky doors and one humongous window would need to be blacked out each time. I'm a lazy sod and I'm not gonna mess with it. Unless I move. Then we'll see.
 
If we could have "chimped" with film, everyone would have been doing it all along.

If someone doesn't want to, that's fine. Just another personal preference. Getting immediate feedback on an image, though, isn't a bad thing.
 
wgerrard said:
If we could have "chimped" with film, everyone would have been doing it all along.

If someone doesn't want to, that's fine. Just another personal preference. Getting immediate feedback on an image, though, isn't a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Hi Bill,

Isn't a bad thing for you... But it is, for me and others...

Even when I shoot digital for money, I prefer to work without chimping...

And the game I really like to play with film, is precisely about creating when I click the shutter, and not knowing anything about an image I'll see in the future, and not repeating shots... That "only once" chance, is the most intense part of the game to me... There are different games in photography: we should not try to make them all look as if they were the same or meant the same... YMMV...

Cheers,

Juan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom