David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I leave them out overnight to come up to NTP but in the plastic tub, which is condensation and Worcestershire Sauce proof. They don't come tougher than that... ;-)
Talking to others, some just carry the film in their pockets for a while to warm up and then load into the camera.
Regards, David
Austerby
Well-known
If you're looking for a darkroom then this site (provided by Ilford) is a great place to start: http://www.localdarkroom.com/
You should definitely get into Medium Format - something like a Yashicamat TLR is a good, inexpensive place to start.
For Large Format, my entry point was the Harman Titan pinhole, also from Ilford, which is capable of wonderful results, so very unlike anything digital.
You should definitely get into Medium Format - something like a Yashicamat TLR is a good, inexpensive place to start.
For Large Format, my entry point was the Harman Titan pinhole, also from Ilford, which is capable of wonderful results, so very unlike anything digital.
ecowarrior
Established
The Oxfam shop in town had a Yashica 124 (not the G model) in the window for a while at £140. I looked at it more than twice, but left it at the time.
Skiff
Well-known
Richard G
Veteran
Perusing this thread was worth the wait for this. And for other things.
I totally agree! I developed over 200 rolls of film the past year and I still get a major thrill every time I open up the tank and pull out freshly developed film. There is no digital equivalent to that!
JChrome
Street Worker
Even if this were true (which others pointed out it isn't), wouldn't you rather have been a part of something that had died? I mean, if I knew that ektar was going to go away forever, I would buy 200 rolls and shoot it just to know what it was like and enjoy its character. I would much rather do that than say "well I switched to digital because I was worried film was going to die."
Spot on sir! I bought 30 rolls of Astia 100F just as it went extinct so that I'd be able to understand what that film was all about. I've also bought 80 rolls of Neopan 400 for the same reason.
majid
Fazal Majid
I wish it were. Back in 2003, I expected color negatives to die quickly, color slides to shrink to a limited selection of pro emulsions, Kodachrome to die off, but B&W to remain healthy.
The speed at which the film market imploded surprised me, specially on the Fuji side, as Japanese companies are often more inclined to let unprofitable businesses with sentimental value linger beyond what American bean-counters would permit (see how Olympus, Pentax and Panasonic are still in the camera business despite hemorrhaging red ink).
Because it takes time and proficiency to gain expertise in developing and printing film. If after all that effort, you find it is no longer possible to exercise your skills because materials have become scarce, that's one form of heartbreak from my point of view.
Ferrania never made any decent film to begin with. As for Ilford, will they still be able to get materials like the special grades of gelatin required, or film-coating machines, when Kodak is liquidated and Fuji discontinues what few films they have left? The machinery at Kodak and Fuji is designed to operate at very high volumes, and cannot be run for small batches Ilford would be content to make. I am also concerned that E-6 processing may become as unviable as K-14 did.
The only thing keeping film running at Kodak is Hollywood (Fuji has already discontinued cine film production). Cine film has been given a 5-year reprieve thanks to Tarantino, Apatow and Nolan convincing the studios to agree to keep buying film that they may not necessarily use, just to keep the lines running at Kodak. Whether that will be renewed is anyone's guess.
Almost all the films I ever liked have gone away: the original Tri-X and APX100, Neopan 1600, K64, Fortia SP, Efke KB25. I never liked Ilford films other than Pan 50F, and Ferrania was never a supplier of high-quality film. The situation is even worse in 120 format. Only Fuji Acros and Provia/Velvia are left, who knows for how long.
I did that when Dwayne's phased out its K-14 line. I desperately wanted to have at least some of my first child's baby photos be taken on Kodachrome as mine were. Sadly, she decided to arrive only in 2012, one year too late.
I have a stock of my favorites in the freezer, nowhere near 80 or 200 rolls, though, more like 10-20 of each. Darkroom chemicals and pregnant women or small children don't mix, and I don't have the time to process or print myself any more (I am fortunate to have a good rental darkroom available, Rayko Photo in San Francisco, time is what I lack and I don't trust most photo labs to print and develop to my liking).
Ranchu
Veteran
It's easy. Maybe a year learning, and then smooth sailing and lovely colors and tones. I scan and take it to get printed. The real heartbreak is that digital WASTED SO MUCH OF MY TIME.
majid
Fazal Majid
Scanning is an entirely different can of worms. I have a Nikon Coolscan 5000 with both batch roll film and slide feeders, and a Coolscan 9000, the amount of time it takes is simply too much to stomach. I don't think a film + scan workflow saves any time over the wet darkroom, and quite possibly the reverse is true. The only exception is if you have a friendly Frontier or Noritsu minilab operator willing to scan your rolls for not too high a price, and even then resolution is usually limited to 3000spi.
Ranchu
Veteran
Got a ink for that five year number?
Ranchu
Veteran
I doubt it. I've never wet printed color, but black and white for sure takes much longer than scanning, which you can do in the background while you fool around on the internet, or work, or whatever. It's easy, too, compared to trying to make a person in a raw file look human. So easy.
majid
Fazal Majid
I don't recall where I got that number from, it may have been from the RFF postings around August of last year when the deal was announced. The exact term of the agreement was not disclosed, merely as "several years".
http://www.firstshowing.net/2014/tarantino-nolan-apatow-abrams-join-together-to-save-35mm-film/
majid
Fazal Majid
Spotting digital B&W scanned on a harsh point-source LED scanner like a Coolscan is far more time-consuming than printing on a more forgiving diffusion source enlarger. Someone with a Minolta Dimage scanner with grain dissolver may have different experience. I have a dedicated Mac for scanning (running XP for compatibility with Nikon Scan) on its own desk, in any case, but I don't scan at work.
The last time my scanners were seriously exercised was when my retired father brought boxes of slides and went through them. There is nothing to connect the scans to the physical originals. I give all my rolls a unique serial number, use that in the scan filenames, and keep the slides or negatives sorted in Print-File sleeves, but since he was less disciplined in his process, there is no way to find which slide corresponds to a scan when I want to rescan (e.g. rescan Kodachromes on the Coolscan 9000 to get Digital ICE4 PRO) and apply more effort and better quality to the top 1%.
Unfortunately, he kept his slides logically grouped together in Leica Pradovit carriers back in France, and to bring them to SF, he hurriedly emptied them into empty slide boxes, but jumbled them thoroughly in the process. I need to undo that using the marking on the slide mounts to reconstruct the original film rolls so the scans can make chronological sense, and so I can infer date and location for unknown shots from others on the same roll. I have the extra-large light table, loupes, slide sorters and all the paraphernalia to do so, just not the time.
Just another example of how well-curated collections are much easier to deal with.
majid
Fazal Majid
Fuji is far better run than Kodak (not difficult, I know), and their solution to the scale problem was to repurpose the coating machines for pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. That's why they are not dependent on cine film as Kodak is.
Fuji makes its own gelatin. Kodak sold its gelatin business to Rousselot in 2011. I seriously doubt Harman has the ability to make its own gelatin, and thus they are dependent on their supply chain. Making gelatin in general is a surprisingly complex affair, and photographic gelatin more so because it needs to be receptive to developer/fixer, while being resistant afterwards. If Rousselot shuts down photographic gelatin production because its biggest customer, Kodak, goes under, all bets are off.
It's a different formulation since 2003 or so, IIRC, with a much stronger anti-halation layer, among other things, but as usual with Kodak bean-counters they also reduced the silver content.
From a technical point of view 35mm film was surpassed by digital at least a decade ago. The only point of shooting film is the different "look" it has. If you fall in love with a specific emulsion (in my case over 90% of my shooting was APX100 and Neopan 1600), and that is discontinued, the result is heartbreak. In most cases, none of the remaining film stocks have the same look you want.
Delta 100 and 400 - poor copies of TMX and TMY.
FP4 and Delta 3200 - hideous grain. I'd much rather soup up Tri-X in Diafine than use Delta 3200, but with the new formulation and anti-halation layer, it becomes a single-use developer.
If you like Ilford films, more power to you, but don't assume everyone shares your preferences. It's undeniable the available selection of film stocks is shrinking steadily, and prices are rising.
Have you entertained the possibility that their volume increased because so many other labs have disappeared, and consumer film photofinishing has all but disappeared?
Niche suppliers like Ilford are growing as Kodak lurches towards oblivion and Fuji has discontinued almost all their B&W films, but the overall market is still shrinking and has yet to touch bottom and recover as pro film did. The question is whether pro film alone is viable. It may be at Ilford, but certainly not at Kodak, and probably not at Fuji long-term either.
Film exports from the US to China are actually growing, but that's mostly analog X-Ray film, not photographic film.
JChrome
Street Worker
Let me just add that two friends of mine just got into the film game and bought 120 cameras (not holgas either). They're both in their 20s.
I spoke to a man at Adorama camera and he told me that in general, prices of Hasselblads are going up and Pentax 67s are harder to come by.
I got into the dark room for the first time and loved every minute of it.
I think film hit its floor awhile ago. And while it won't see its former glory, there won't be catastrophe either. I wanna go out and shoot.
I spoke to a man at Adorama camera and he told me that in general, prices of Hasselblads are going up and Pentax 67s are harder to come by.
I got into the dark room for the first time and loved every minute of it.
I think film hit its floor awhile ago. And while it won't see its former glory, there won't be catastrophe either. I wanna go out and shoot
.
Ranchu
Veteran
Oh, and the thing about time wasn't the amount of time comparing to this or that, it was that ALL of my time spent on digital was WASTED because none of it was what i was looking for aesthetically, and could not be made so. I do know better now what I like.
BenJT
Established
As long as the resources are available, film will be made.
I understand everyone has preferences, like the gentleman who is unhappy with ilford films, but for the majority of us, its all good. Honestly, I'd be perfectly happy with less to choose from.
Films fine and it will be for a long time, either shoot it and enjoy its qualities and the process, or go shoot digital, or do both. Simple as that.
I understand everyone has preferences, like the gentleman who is unhappy with ilford films, but for the majority of us, its all good. Honestly, I'd be perfectly happy with less to choose from.
Films fine and it will be for a long time, either shoot it and enjoy its qualities and the process, or go shoot digital, or do both. Simple as that.
chipgreenberg
Well-known
Should I bother with digital?
I love the look/colors I get with Ektar film
I've been shooting film for 45+ years and am pretty good at pre-visualizing results.
I don't shoot professionally (anymore) so I have no need to instantly preview or deliver images.
My 50+ year old TLR and 35mm rangefinder have lasted, well, 50+ years and will most likely outlast me.
I like setting apertures and shutter speeds without using a menu. (yes I know there are some digital options that do this)
For me, film is cheaper. I spend less than $400/yr on materials and scans. what would I have to spend on digital to have comparable 20x20 prints as my medium format, and how quickly would it depreciate?
So obviously I'm being more than a little sarcastic, but the original post calls for that. Given more time and budget, neither of which I have right now, there are some different subjects/approaches I would like to try that digital would be an advantage. Low light/night photography. Long exposure/motion images where instant review would be helpful.
So, my responsive to the original post is, if you have the time and inclination, why not? Film can give a beautiful look. And you can purchase cameras people only dreamed of not that many years back for a song.
I love the look/colors I get with Ektar film
I've been shooting film for 45+ years and am pretty good at pre-visualizing results.
I don't shoot professionally (anymore) so I have no need to instantly preview or deliver images.
My 50+ year old TLR and 35mm rangefinder have lasted, well, 50+ years and will most likely outlast me.
I like setting apertures and shutter speeds without using a menu. (yes I know there are some digital options that do this)
For me, film is cheaper. I spend less than $400/yr on materials and scans. what would I have to spend on digital to have comparable 20x20 prints as my medium format, and how quickly would it depreciate?
So obviously I'm being more than a little sarcastic, but the original post calls for that. Given more time and budget, neither of which I have right now, there are some different subjects/approaches I would like to try that digital would be an advantage. Low light/night photography. Long exposure/motion images where instant review would be helpful.
So, my responsive to the original post is, if you have the time and inclination, why not? Film can give a beautiful look. And you can purchase cameras people only dreamed of not that many years back for a song.