Film, the Story So Far

[RattyMouse]

fwiw, i left the color to my wife who shoots digi, i 'fill in' with my film camera(s), almost always sporting b/w. i find my b/w have a bit of soul that her color often miss. i print em myself and find it a joy...as does my wife/kids.

the cost of home processing/printing b/w is not a whole lot....

keep it up..you will find your ballance...

I think I'm going to mess around with some color slide film, but after that, probably shoot strictly b & w film. Without optical prints, I dont see much point to color film.

 

[Vonder]

It's interesting, to think of film as long lasting. In my family, growing up, nobody owned a decent camera. Not even my father, whose photographic interest sparked my interest, post-mortem. He died when I was five.

I recall a photo that stayed on my mother's nightstand until she died, in 2002. It was a photo of my dad, my mom, and me as an infant. It was B&W and hand colored, because nobody could afford real color in 1962, but over the years that photo faded and faded. When we went to clear out my mom's house after she died, nobody wanted that photo. It was that badly faded. And of course, the studio was long gone, the negative thrown in the trash no doubt.

I took as many photos as I could in the 70's, 80's, but the cheaper lab processing I sometimes used resulted in bad prints and bad negatives. When I could afford it I went with the lab's premium service, and many of those prints and negatives are with me to this day, but I have lots of garbage prints and faded negatives.

I wonder, if, just a bit, the fading of these low-cost (and maybe cheaply and improperly fixed?) photos people used to hold dear helped spark the near-hatred of film-based imaging that lead to the digital revolution.

 

[darkosaric]

Here is a thought.

Back when our kids were growing up, I took film pix because that was all there was, and I still have them to treasure. But, consider the possibility that there was digital back then. I had an Apple ][ computer and an Apple ///. If I had transferred the pix to these computers, there is no way that I could have read them today. In fact, the disks themselves have started to deteriorate.

Project this into the future. You are paying up front for an archive of your family. This is priceless.

I have photos that go back about 100 years and that show my family over that time period, even if in some cases, I have no idea who is in the picture. It is great though to look back through them. And also easier than booting a computer and searching for a photo in a file of photos.

So, I think that analog is well worth the price.

And, of course, if you can do it yourself, it is about 1/2 the cost.

Film has many other benefits, including the fun of doing it yourself, adjusting the image yourself instead of with a magic piece of software, and also knowing how good you can get with the latitude of both B&W and color film.

Now, go and enjoy China and explain to your wife that the photos of your kids will still be there when you are my age.

PE

AMEN!

This is 110% truth

 

[polyglot]

Yes, I noted that in my post. The problem then is scanning. Here in China, I get great quality scans for virtually no money. The lab that processes for me does this as well. If I process my own, I have to either pick up that step or work in another way. Yet more headaches.

Ahahaha no. You're effectively paying $3/roll for scanning since the B&W chemistry would cost you under 50c. You can get a mid-range flatbed (~1200dpi optical resolution, enough for an 8x10" print from medium format) for about $180, which is 60 rolls of lab scans and that's only 10 weeks at your current burn rate.

If you value your time (and at 6 rolls/week this might be important) then scanning yourself can be a big time-sink but the results are generally going to be much better than what the $3.50 lab gives you. And you don't need to scan every damn frame, just the good ones - same as you wouldn't print every frame. If you really want someone to do the labour for you, I'd be surprised if you can't find a lab to do bulk scanning, say 20+ rolls in a batch.

The next step on the slippery-slope is to pick up a free enlarger and do real printing. It's a huge time-sink but you can get razor-sharp 16x20" prints from MF Acros for about $5/sheet - just make sure you by the same paper in each size so you can setup your prints at small/cheap sizes then just scale the exposure accordingly to make a big print. Pretty sure you aren't gonna see 16x20" digital prints from any lab or inkjet for $5.

If the running costs are too high, then think before pushing the button. Ask yourself "am I honestly happy to spend an hour in the dark putting this image onto paper?". If not, move on and see your standards climb.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'm not sure if I read you right. The take away lesson I get from your post is, digital is good enough, at least when it comes to family/precious moment shots.

Wrong?

You completely misread what I was talking about. I was using the child as a metaphor for your use of film. Sure, shooting film has some challenges, just as raising a child does. But you don't think about trading in your child because they MIGHT need to see the orthodontist at age fourteen. You are having existential worries about a possible hypothetical future, and allowing that to cloud your enjoyment of what you're doing. You should view your photography the way you view your children - it's an investment that pays you back in ways you can never account for with money.

IF for some strange reason I were to wake up tomorrow and be told that all film production had ceased, and all photo chemistry were now no longer available, I would persist with digital photography, and enjoy it for the benefits it does bring. But until then, I'll persist with film as my first love in photography, and work with it. Sure, it's not CHEAP, not as cheap as it used to be, but then everything has gone up in price too. A roll of film (and processing) is cheaper than a movie ticket, and the images mean more to me. It also gets me out of the house, walking around and exercising while I'm looking for images. Which is definitely something I need more of. I could go on and on, but I hope you get the idea.

 

[markbarendt]

GAS can be a big problem for me.

Ahhh, so film isn't the real issue, collecting is. You are a pack rat.

Most all of us fight with GAS a bit Ratty.

 

[Steve Smith]

Most all of us fight with GAS a bit Ratty.

There's no fighting involved!


Steve.

 

[darkosaric]

Film can be cheap: you can buy 90 meters of Polypan for 30 euros, you get empty film cassettes for free in any film lab. You develop in rodinal 1+100: cost are less than 2 euro cents / frame.
I don't want to say it is a best film, but cheap it is: more than 2000 pictures for about 30-40 euros.

 

[RattyMouse]

Ahhh, so film isn't the real issue, collecting is. You are a pack rat.

Most all of us fight with GAS a bit Ratty.

Yeah, GAS is pretty much a separate issue. The only thing worse than having GAS with digital is having GAS with digital AND film cameras.

I can't stop dreaming up ways to buy a new GF670 camera. I used to shoot 6 x 9 negatives long ago and the 6 x 4.5 negatives of my GA645 seem a bit tiny. The GF670 would almost get me back to where I used to be.

 

[RattyMouse]

Film can be cheap: you can buy 90 meters of Polypan for 30 euros, you get empty film cassettes for free in any film lab. You develop in rodinal 1+100: cost are less than 2 euro cents / frame.
I don't want to say it is a best film, but cheap it is: more than 2000 pictures for about 30-40 euros.

Never heard of Polypan and I'm guessing it is not likely found here in China.

Still those are good numbers.

 

[Brian C. Miller]

Film can be cheap: you can buy 90 meters of Polypan for 30 euros, you get empty film cassettes for free in any film lab. You develop in rodinal 1+100: cost are less than 2 euro cents / frame.
I don't want to say it is a best film, but cheap it is: more than 2000 pictures for about 30-40 euros.

That's cheap, but Ratty is shooting MF, not 35mm. Yes, his shooting costs would go down if he shot 35mm, but he's nuts for a large negative, and so am I. I totally understand his desire for MF.

 

[benjiboy]

If you can't afford to shoot as much as you do I suggest you use a more considered approach before making an exposure, which is what I tend to do when shooting roll film .

 

[Brian C. Miller]

Yeah, GAS is pretty much a separate issue. The only thing worse than having GAS with digital is having GAS with digital AND film cameras.

I can't stop dreaming up ways to buy a new GF670 camera. I used to shoot 6 x 9 negatives long ago and the 6 x 4.5 negatives of my GA645 seem a bit tiny. The GF670 would almost get me back to where I used to be.

If you don't mind the weight, there are lots of 6x7 cameras on the used market. Check KEH for what they have in stock. Also, I've heard that Bronicas are available for cheap, too, but those are 6x6.

 

[BrianShaw]

If you can't afford to shoot as much as you do I suggest you use a more considered approach before making an exposure, which is what I tend to do when shooting roll film .

This has become my approach also.

 

[newtorf]

It is available in China. You can check taobao. There are plenty of discussions about how to buy this film from China, like this one:

Dead Link Removed

Also there are a lot of discussions about this film in China online forums, such as this:

http://forum.xitek.com/forum-viewthread-tid-889227-extra--action-printable-page-1.html

Never heard of Polypan and I'm guessing it is not likely found here in China.

Still those are good numbers.

 

[georg16nik]

If you don't mind the weight, there are lots of 6x7 cameras on the used market. Check KEH for what they have in stock. Also, I've heard that Bronicas are available for cheap, too, but those are 6x6.

If You want GF670, then even Hasselblad wont cut it.
Folders are back in style, Fuji knew that and obviously RattyMouse is singing the same song.

 

[tkamiya]

Let's face it. Photography is not an inexpensive hobby. Not only is there an initial cost, there's ongoing purchase of supplies and equipment.

Any serious hobby will cost good money and photography isn't the only one. One could easily spend just as much doing a lot of other things, and sometimes quite a bit more. I stopped considering the monetary cost of hobbies in absolute terms years ago. What I think now is, am I getting the enjoyment out of the expense I incur? If the answer is yes, then I happily spend the money. If not, cut back or discontinue altogether. I'd rather enjoy what I make and enjoy my leisure pursuit.

As to film being expensive, I really don't think so.

Film equipment is so cheap now that one can get a top pro level gear for nothing or close to nothing. Have you ever seen the cost of the latest digital gear, including bodies, printers, paper, and let's not forget ink cartridges? It's amazingly expensive. I got pro level bodies for film and backup and backup of backup.... for less than $600.... try doing THAT with pro level digital gear.... Also my "printer" (enlarger) was $40.... and I got a backup, and backup of a backup.... Let's try that with Epson..... Film, paper, chems... yeah, it costs money but so as inkjet paper and ink.

I'm sure this is highly dependent upon individuals but I tend to shoot less frames with film but I end up with more images I like.

Just to put things in prospective on my view on film, I use film because I like the result I get. I don't even care if film is technically superior in absolute technical sense. I like the organic look. I've now settled into B&W with film and color with digital pattern. I shoot mostly B&W and process it myself.

 

[JBrunner]

I haven't needed to replace or update any part of my camera and darkroom set up in the entire span of decades I have had them. My negatives never get obliterated by a crash or need to be migrated to new media. It costs me a buck including paper to make a stunning and archival 11x14 print. My enlargers and contact frames dont clog up. I dont have to go to the office supply store and get bent over every two weeks. These days my prints are unique and stand out against the beige of the masses. My eyes dont go blurry. My butt does not continually expand in an office chair. Im not subject to the endless hype and marketing of the next big thing that will make me a real photographer. I spend my time growing instead of keeping up. Apples to apples I think I'm way ahead. Ymmv.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I spend my time growing instead of keeping up.

Ken

 

[lxdude]

If you don't mind the weight, there are lots of 6x7 cameras on the used market. Check KEH for what they have in stock. Also, I've heard that Bronicas are available for cheap, too, but those are 6x6.

The Bronica GS-1 is 6x7

 

[ntenny]

One of my prime shooting times is when it is dark, out on the street. I routinely use ISO3200 and f/2 or f/1.4 lenses in the digital world. My GA645 certainly does not have ISO3200, nor does it have an F2 lens. I can't shoot outside at night with this camera, without radically changing my habits.

Sure it has ISO 3200; Tri-X can be pushed there with nice results, especially in medium format, and Delta 3200 is intended for the job. I guess you're stuck with f/4 with that camera, but 3200 at f/4 doesn't seem prohibitive for a lot of nighttime street shooting. I can't speak to Shanghai in any serious way (I assume you're not doing your street shooting on the Bund, where there should be enough light for anything), but I've done some nighttime handheld street shooting in various cities including Xi'an at comparable exposure values.

That's a nifty-looking camera. I'd never known much about the Fuji 645 cameras and you inspired me to go look up the GA645, and now I've got GAS. Thanks a lot.

-NT

 

[Brian C. Miller]

I wonder, if, just a bit, the fading of these low-cost (and maybe cheaply and improperly fixed?) photos people used to hold dear helped spark the near-hatred of film-based imaging that lead to the digital revolution.

I doubt that. If anything, impermanence of early digitally-produced consumer photographs has posed a significant problem for people. No, what brought about the digital revolution is speed, and BLS (Blinky Light Syndrome, as in, "Oooooh, look at all of the blinky lights! Neat!"). With digital you get an image faster than a Polaroid can develop, and then you can send it to all of your friends as fast as email and the web can deliver it. As we've found out, quality comes in second to convenience, and basically people don't want to remember the past, even though they say they do.

 

[pbromaghin]

tkamiya and jbrunner ++

I'm about $1k into it and have an almost complete 35mm system with 3 bodies, a great 6x6 system, a skeleton studio and a LOT of high class darkroom equipment. Heading on into retirement this should provide endless hours of entertainment. How much digital would that money buy? How much golf?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Hope you get this all through customs should you ever decide to travel or relocate.

PE

 

[pbromaghin]

Hope you get this all through customs should you ever decide to travel or relocate.

PE

The skeleton studio? That stays strictly in the closet.