Long live film

[Photo_Smith]

This film is nice but I'm asking myself how the people manage all that film developing and scanning or printing.

You don't need to do it yourself there are some fantastic labs in Germany where you live. You need to find one.
I have Peak imaging in the UK, totally top notch in every way, you need a German lab of the same quality.

 

[KM-25]

This film is nice but I'm asking myself how the people manage all that film developing and scanning or printing. For me film is something special because it costs a lot of dedication and of course time. A lot of time. Handling a film for me means making the bathroom lighttight and bringing the film on the spool (no talk about such a stupid changing bag where I mess up the film with fingerprints) Then I have to prepare the kitchen with the development materials and do the development. After that the film has to dry in the bathroom. It's not good if it dries overnight because then I have a dust problem so I have to start early enough. All this means I have normally a timeslot for 1 film every 2-3 weeks. And scanning is very timeconsuming too.
Giving the film away for developing? I tried 2 local and 2 mailorder labs. The negatives came back with scratches from all of them so they were not scannable afterwards. This means I develop myself or film is dead.
And please don't forget the digital editing and printing. If you have the film-scan-print approach then you spend as much time with digital editing as with a native digital file if not more if you have to take care of dust spots for example.

One roll every 2-3 weeks and it is this hard for you? It sounds like you are fighting it, you need to figure out why that is and fix it.

And why are you editing digitally, just look at the negs on a light table, pick which ones you want and then scan them, you can not possibly be scanning all 36? If by editing you mean making tonal adjustments, that is not editing, that is post processing in the digital realm and darkroom work in the non-digital realm. I wish people would not use the term like that, Kathy Ryan of the New York Times is the Photo Editor…she does nothing to the photo’s content but she sure can choose them.

I find running up to 8 rolls of 35mm film and 4 rolls of 120 in a two hour period pretty much effortless, in an hour is only a little more effort. I can even run two different tanks with two different developing time needs at the same time, it takes practice, that’s all. And this is not in a full blown dedicated darkroom, this is in a 880 square foot, two bedroom, one bath apartment by the way, so imagine running the amount of film I did in my post above in just two 8 hour shifts….in that space.

Run hot water in the shower for a few minutes before you run the film and then close the door, it will create humidity that will knock out a lot of dust when it comes to dry it. I live at 8,000 feet and I have a lot of dust, this is what I do before I load 4x5. I also put cheap black felt adhesive strips in the door jambs to seal the light out, put a dark colored towel on the floor and make sure all the blinds are closed in the apartment, what’s the big deal? If you truly love working with film, you love to tackle the nuances of what it takes to get great film out of your own hands…for if you love it, you overcome the hurdles…quickly. If you don’t have the right equipment, then you make it a priority to get it and employ it.

Practice make perfect, keep at it, shoot and soup more than 1 roll a month that’s for sure….

 

[Chris101]

... you can not possibly be scanning all 36? ...

Put the whole roll in one of those clear PrintFile sleeves, and stick it on a flatbed, then scan it at 1200ppi. There's a whole roll scanned at once, big enough to make any editing decisions for scanning or printing each negative.

 

[KM-25]

Plus setting up the equipment, cleaning the equipment and storing it away it's over an hour. Compared to that the six minutes in the tank are of course not relevant.

Perhaps start a new thread in this forum subsection asking how to optimize small run film developing, in no time at all this should take you no more than an hour from the word go. And even if it does take you over an hour...is that such a big deal?

You were given good advice about a flatbed as a contact proofer, I sometimes use my DSLR and then invert the image in Photoshop if I am too hurried to make a real contact sheet. I know many love the entire process...it sounds like you just want the photos but none of the work, surely that is not the case is it?

If it is, well.............I am pretty sure that is called iPhone+Facebook=Likes....;-)

This is a positive thread about film, lets not derail it shall we....

 

[shadowfox]

Finally got around to watching this short film. I do agree with the comments that it would have been nice to have a little variety with who they were interviewing rather than some ridiculously stereotypical hipsters. Some comments that made me laugh:

"I just started photography two years ago.... I only shot digital for three months before moving to film." - Really? Give me a break

More variety, agree 100%. I'd like to see more of *young* darkroom printers share their experiences.

But what is this general brush "stereotypical hipsters"?? They are young, and can make a living doing photography, does that automatically make them a hipster or pretender?

Ironically, I have little to no interest in the type of photos they mostly show in the movie, basically you take a picture of beautiful people ... and it turned out ... beautiful... big deal. 😀

But I resonate with why they do it, and especially why they choose film.

 

[mdwsta4]

I would think the opening interview of the dude with the beanie and patches sweatshirt should answer your question...

More variety, agree 100%. I'd like to see more of *young* darkroom printers share their experiences.

But what is this general brush "stereotypical hipsters"?? They are young, and can make a living doing photography, does that automatically make them a hipster or pretender?

Ironically, I have little to no interest in the type of photos they mostly show in the movie, basically you take a picture of beautiful people ... and it turned out ... beautiful... big deal. 😀

But I resonate with why they do it, and especially why they choose film.

 

[Ansel]

Plus setting up the equipment, cleaning the equipment and storing it away it's over an hour. Compared to that the six minutes in the tank are of course not relevant.

What setup? You put the film on the reel and the reel in the tank. Then pour in developer, stop, fix, and wash. Hang to try. Rinse reel and tank. Done.

All of the above takes me roughly 17 minutes. Developing film really is simple.

 

[shadowfox]

Sorry, didn't want to spoil your happy film party.

Why be sarcastic?
This is not a "happy film party", it's a thread that positively talks about the future of film photography.

You are welcome to voice your aversions and concerns, but don't feel out of place if others who gets it reply with their positive experiences.

 

[shadowfox]

I would think the opening interview of the dude with the beanie and patches sweatshirt should answer your question...

You mean the dude who said he walked around with the waist-level viewfinder just to see how things look?

I like his answers, and that's exactly what I sometimes do also.

By your definition, I'm a hipster too.

 

[KM-25]

Sorry, didn't want to spoil your happy film party.

OK, come on now, it's not about that as much as it is helping you out in a more effective manner, I am sure there are a number of people who would benefit from a new thread that broaches the subject.

 

[Gregoyle]

Finally watched it and thought it was nothing but a good thing. Some interesting comments above:

More variety, agree 100%. I'd like to see more of *young* darkroom printers share their experiences.

But what is this general brush "stereotypical hipsters"?? They are young, and can make a living doing photography, does that automatically make them a hipster or pretender?

As far as film with young people being a fad, well that remains to be seen. Young people can set wheels in motion that last a lifetime, so it is a little on the “stodgy” side to assume they will not stick with it.

I think shadowfox and KM-25 make some great points here. First, if the film is about young, artistic people (which I think is a great way way to emphasize film's relevance, not to mention that they are simply more photogenic), you expect that they are going to dress in a young, artistic way, i.e. "hipster."

To speak to KM-25's point, I have to agree. Most of the things that are "maintstream" started as a fad. Many artists have had their best work when they were young.

Either way, I think it's great to have a documentary focusing on film photography.

 

[thegman]

True, but film obviously was one of those things that benefited.

I'd say film benefited from being mainstream in one major way, and that's availability of different emulsions.

It's benefited in one major way from being niche by making amazing cameras very inexpensive.

There are far fewer labs now, but the internet has made actual lab availability much better, for me anyway.

In my day to day life, I'm not sure if using film in 1995 was any easier than it is now. If I loved certain films which are now gone, that would be different though.

 

[John Bragg]

I thoroughly enjoyed watching. Nice to see I have something in common with the folks in the film. I dont shoot digital, but I would not nescessarily rule it out. The thing is that film gives me the perfect medium for my photos, and that makes me happy. I dont spend hours wondering what if, but carry on as I have done for close on 30 years.