How long 35mm with no new cameras?

ilovekodachrome · Jan 3, 2009

I'm grateful to see so may interesting replies. I just take pictures, so I can only tell you how I work. I use an FM2n or an F100 (both with cable release) with Kodachrome 64 mounted on a Sunpak Pro 523p carbon-fiber tripod. I use 1-2 SB800 flashes bounced off the ceiling, with a PhotoFlex 22'' white/gold LiteDisc. Lately, I've been mostly using a Nikon 35mm 1.4 AIS manual focus lens at f4 - f5.6. Outside I sometimes also use flash. I remount my slides in Gepe glassless mounts (which eliminates those annoying rounded corners) and scan them with Silverfast AI Studio and a Konica/Minolta Dimage 5400 II. I “only” scan at 2700 ppi (with multi-exposure) because I feel this gives me grainless photos to at least 8x10, which I print with Photoshop CS2 and an Epson Stylus Photo R800.

Although you may disagree with my choice of film, it’s hard to see how I could get more quality out of the 35mm format (with the exception of improving my technique).

I’m very concerned about those rumors that the Nikon F6 is being discontinued. New products seem to me to be a sign that a format is viable. On the other hand, Ektar 100 being released may be more important than the F6 being discontinued. And, I read somewhere that there hasn’t been a new Super-8 camera since the 1980’s, but that format seems to be alive and well.

It seems to me that the attraction of 35mm is: compact equipment; large number of lenses and accessories; wide range of films available; lower entry cost than other formats; and ability to be scanned relatively quickly.

ilovekodachrome · Jan 3, 2009

And, while I have the floor, I would implore everyone reading this to shoot at least one roll of Kodachrome this year. It's an emulsion that doesn't deserve to fade away.

wogster · Jan 3, 2009

Ray Rogers said:
???

Ian,
This is a rather provocative statement.
Could you expand on this?

What Ilford products demonstrates what you say?
In the absence of a product to product comparison, on what do you base the claim of Ilford's superiority?

Ray

I don't know about Ian, but I have preferred Ilford products for many years.....

Photo Engineer · Jan 3, 2009

I use them myself Paul, but I have no proof that they are better or technologically superior to similar Kodak products.

PE

Photo Engineer · Jan 3, 2009

Most of the sensors made today are made by Kodak or use Kodak technology as they were the first in the field.

I know, there will be a lot of objection to this statement, but I know the patent situation and have seen the data.

PE

2F/2F · Jan 3, 2009

No new 35mm cameras? How about the new Blackbird, Fly???!

The survival of 35mm film has nothing to do with whether or not digital SLRs are any "better" or "worse" (stupid subjective overblown words anyhow), so let us shitcan this argument right now, since it is making this into another stupid post like so many others in which the techies come in to this nice Website and make their stupid arguments that belong on Photo.net or in some photo rag. It has everything to do with use, notably in Hollywood, and will definitely be affected by college (and perhaps high school) educational programs and individual instructors. Without a new generation of smart, devoted film users, film is dead, and nobody will even miss it because we'll all be dead too. Nobody is getting together and conspiring to do away with 35mm film. It will go away when people give up on using it in sustainable quantities, and not before. People who have given up on 35mm film 100% in favor of digital are not going to come back, because we already know they are stupid, technically and/or monetarily obsessed short-sighted people. Those who still shoot film are holdouts doing it because they do not need or want digital, and probably will never stop shooting 35 until it is pried from their hands. The number of smart people who use both must be very small. In other words, we smart people have no control over what happens with 35mm. All we can do is keep shooting and pray, and arrogantly keep telling the argumentative digital idiots that they *are* idiots and they can lick our Royal boots. It has NOTHING to do with what whiz-bang digital Game Boys are now available, and everything to do with profits. If Kodak and Fuji cannot spend the effort trying to convince people to use their own products, then they deserve to die.

wogster · Jan 4, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
I use them myself Paul, but I have no proof that they are better or technologically superior to similar Kodak products.

PE

I never said they were better or technologically superior, just that I preferred them. My favourite film of all time is PanF, I've used and like FP4 and HP5, tried a roll of Delta 100, and liked it, need to try Delta 400 though, tried a roll of XP2 and wasn't impressed. I should give TMax a try, but since, here in Canada I can get all of the Ilford films for reasonable prices, I have no real reason to. Checking one of the sources though the TMax is cheaper, but since Kodak is rumoured to be wanting out of the B&W market, I don't want to switch from films I know to films I don't when they may not be around in a year.

I used Tri-X and Pan-X back in the 70's and wasn't thrilled. Tried some of the colour stuff, never found a Kodak colour film that would impress me, liked Fuji, but some of the Fuji's have had unusual colours the last few years. For colour, I use the d*****l these days. I rarely do anything artistic in colour, it's mostly point and shoot type stuff, so the DSLR is good enough. Anything where I want decent B&W is going to to be shot on film. I want to get back into B&W printing, I need to find a way to do it in a limited space though......

Ray Rogers · Jan 4, 2009

wogster said:
I don't know about Ian, but I have preferred Ilford products for many years.....

I like Ilford's products as well, as far as I know them... and I used, but never idolized, any Kodak product... it is just that I wonder what promted Ian's comment... I would have assumed Kodak to be the research leader for the most part... despite not being the most favored manufacturer.

frdrx · Jan 4, 2009

Lobalobo said:
Not sure when I last saw a properly projected 35mm slide, but consumers don't project anymore, they share online or sit in front of their tvs. Do pros project? I'm in no position to argue, but I'd be surprised.

You're right. People don't project slides any more, which is a terrible shame. But you really should have a look at a proper slide presentation to realize what 35 mm film is capable of. You simply cannot match the overall quality and look with any digital device in the world.

Lobalobo said:
More generally, I'm not saying film is dead. To replicate or exceed MF is expensive and to replicate or exceed LF is enormously expensive. It's specifically the 35mm format for which I can't imagine a future, for the reasons I stated in my original post.

I understand your individual reasons, but I disagree with your conclusion. I see no reason why 35 film should vanish first. Do you want it to follow the dodo, or why are you being so blatantly pessimistic? Can't you see all that wonderful art that people continue producing with 35 mm film?

Lobalobo said:
(Would any pro use 35mm film over a Canon 5D? I now several who don't, who have given up even MF format for full-frame 35mm digital.)

Of course, many people do prefer DSLRs (even APS ones), but this has little to do with image quality or aesthetics. People love to hoover pictures, chimp and own the latest gadgets. In terms of quality, even 35 film is potentially technically better and more beautiful than the output of any small format DSLR, even though the gap is closing.

Lobalobo said:
There are advantages to film, I know, but the 35mm film is just too small, I would think, to justify it's use for most pros or enthusiasts only because either MF film or 35mm digital, or both, will dominate for almost any use.

You're right: `most pros or enthusiasts' will continue using small format digital, optionally besides MF or LF film. But some, including me, will continue choosing small format film over small format digital. Other than that, I don't think it's too small at all. It's similar in size to a full-frame digital sensor, by the way, so the theoretical image quality limitations are the same. A 35 mm image (captured on film or digitally) is perfectly adequate for most purposes, that is, for small pictures. Medium format is much better, no doubt about it (I shoot 6x4.5), but I only want or need this quality when I wish to print large or project on a really big screen. Have a nice day.

frdrx · Jan 4, 2009

ilovekodachrome said:
And, while I have the floor, I would implore everyone reading this to shoot at least one roll of Kodachrome this year. It's an emulsion that doesn't deserve to fade away.

Will do.

wogster · Jan 4, 2009

2F/2F said:
No new 35mm cameras? How about the new Blackbird, Fly???!

The survival of 35mm film has nothing to do with whether or not digital SLRs are any "better" or "worse" (stupid subjective overblown words anyhow), so let us shitcan this argument right now, since it is making this into another stupid post like so many others in which the techies come in to this nice Website and make their stupid arguments that belong on Photo.net or in some photo rag. It has everything to do with use, notably in Hollywood, and will definitely be affected by college (and perhaps high school) educational programs and individual instructors. Without a new generation of smart, devoted film users, film is dead, and nobody will even miss it because we'll all be dead too. Nobody is getting together and conspiring to do away with 35mm film. It will go away when people give up on using it in sustainable quantities, and not before. People who have given up on 35mm film 100% in favor of digital are not going to come back, because we already know they are stupid, technically and/or monetarily obsessed short-sighted people. Those who still shoot film are holdouts doing it because they do not need or want digital, and probably will never stop shooting 35 until it is pried from their hands. The number of smart people who use both must be very small. In other words, we smart people have no control over what happens with 35mm. All we can do is keep shooting and pray, and arrogantly keep telling the argumentative digital idiots that they *are* idiots and they can lick our Royal boots. It has NOTHING to do with what whiz-bang digital Game Boys are now available, and everything to do with profits. If Kodak and Fuji cannot spend the effort trying to convince people to use their own products, then they deserve to die.

Don't be so sure that people who move to 100% digital are not coming back, I am proof, I went from 100% film, to 100% digital, and am now moving back to film, because film, and I mean 35mm film here, has certain qualities that are missing in digital images. Heck I am even thinking of finding a way to set up the old enlarger and doing some B&W printing again. Will I go back 100%, probably not, there are some things were digital works just as well.

Now as to the death of film, every technology sea change goes through the same process, everyone adopts the new technology except a few retro grouches, many see that it's not worth the hype, that was attached to it. Many figure they are there already and stay with the new, a small portion go back to the old technology exclusively and some will use both the old and new. Film photography has come full circle in that it's been on both ends and in the middle of this sea change.

In the 1800's B&W film photography was the new kid, predicted to replace painting and drawing in a few short years, over 100 years later the fact you can buy canvas and paints and various drawing tools means this prophecy was not true. In the 1940's it was predicted that the new colour photography technology would replace B&W entirely within a few short years. Over 50 years later, you can still buy B&W materials, so that prophecy was wrong too.

The current prophetic word in all this is that film is dead and that digital will completely eliminate it in a few short years, Where have we heard this kind of thing before? I expect over 50 years from now, you will still be able to get film, someone will still be making film cameras, the market will have settled into it's niche and still be important.

What, I think will save film is, in 20 years you will get kids with their fancy auto everything digital cameras looking at the works of the great film photographers and comparing those wonderful works to the flat, toneless crap of their own overly computer processed work, and they will go looking for the then 70 and 80 year old film guys, who will be willing to sit back and tell them about the wonders of the old films we use and used, and how you can play with processing to get different results the smells of the different chemistries, the wonderment of opening the tank and pulling out a wet roll of negatives. and watching a white piece of exposed paper turn into a photograph under a safe light. Film will then go through an amazing renaissance. What I think will die is colour film, partly because it's designed for the high volume use that it has seen over the last 50 years, B&W settled into a niche years ago, and while it had some pain in the early digital process, I think it's less then it is for colour, digital B&W doesn't give quite the same effect, so a lot of B&W guys will think, hmmm is it worth, spending an couple of hours on a computer to make a digital image look like B&W or better to shoot and process film in the first place.

Ian Grant · Jan 4, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
Ian;

I'm not sure of your figures either regarding technical expertise. But lets agree to disagree. Kodak has a larger staff in analog than Ilford. That I am pretty sure of.

PE

Of course Kodak's R&D is spread out over a far larger sector of the market but research on colour films lead to improvements in B&W as well.

Ray Rogers said:
???

Ian,
This is a rather provocative statement.
Could you expand on this?

What Ilford products demonstrates what you say?
In the absence of a product to product comparison, on what do you base the claim of Ilford's superiority?

Ray

When I said early days I was referring to the 1890's early 1900's when Kodak began an acquiring other companies for their products & technologies. They approached Ilford with a view to merging with them, and later taking them over.

Remember that the first Manual of Photography (later called the Ilford Manual of Photography) was published in 1890, before Eastman Kodak was founded.

Later Kodak was always envious of the Ilford range of B&W films and papers which were widely regarded as being superior by users to comparable Kodak products. Personally I think that changed when Kodak introduced Tmax films but they were a spin off from colour film technology.

Ian

2F/2F · Jan 4, 2009

wogster said:
Don't be so sure that people who move to 100% digital are not coming back, I am proof, I went from 100% film, to 100% digital, and am now moving back to film, because film, and I mean 35mm film here, has certain qualities that are missing in digital images. Heck I am even thinking of finding a way to set up the old enlarger and doing some B&W printing again. Will I go back 100%, probably not, there are some things were digital works just as well.

Now as to the death of film, every technology sea change goes through the same process, everyone adopts the new technology except a few retro grouches, many see that it's not worth the hype, that was attached to it. Many figure they are there already and stay with the new, a small portion go back to the old technology exclusively and some will use both the old and new. Film photography has come full circle in that it's been on both ends and in the middle of this sea change.

In the 1800's B&W film photography was the new kid, predicted to replace painting and drawing in a few short years, over 100 years later the fact you can buy canvas and paints and various drawing tools means this prophecy was not true. In the 1940's it was predicted that the new colour photography technology would replace B&W entirely within a few short years. Over 50 years later, you can still buy B&W materials, so that prophecy was wrong too.

The current prophetic word in all this is that film is dead and that digital will completely eliminate it in a few short years, Where have we heard this kind of thing before? I expect over 50 years from now, you will still be able to get film, someone will still be making film cameras, the market will have settled into it's niche and still be important.

What, I think will save film is, in 20 years you will get kids with their fancy auto everything digital cameras looking at the works of the great film photographers and comparing those wonderful works to the flat, toneless crap of their own overly computer processed work, and they will go looking for the then 70 and 80 year old film guys, who will be willing to sit back and tell them about the wonders of the old films we use and used, and how you can play with processing to get different results the smells of the different chemistries, the wonderment of opening the tank and pulling out a wet roll of negatives. and watching a white piece of exposed paper turn into a photograph under a safe light. Film will then go through an amazing renaissance. What I think will die is colour film, partly because it's designed for the high volume use that it has seen over the last 50 years, B&W settled into a niche years ago, and while it had some pain in the early digital process, I think it's less then it is for colour, digital B&W doesn't give quite the same effect, so a lot of B&W guys will think, hmmm is it worth, spending an couple of hours on a computer to make a digital image look like B&W or better to shoot and process film in the first place.

Some good points, but the main point is still being ignored: What you or I do does not matter. You may have come back to film, but not the people who provided Kodak with a lot of their income. Also, the fact that you had to "come back" in the first place means that you may just as likely jump ship again. This is up to Hollywood and commercial photographers, not hobbyists and "artists". Our volume is simply too low to make a large dent. As for "quality" swaying people, don't count on that! People in general are STUPID, greedy, cheap, and lazy above all. Those who are not are such a small number, I don't know what they can do to change things for film.

Photo Engineer · Jan 4, 2009

Ian;

Color R&D does not lead to B&W products, as the methods used in control of image tone and curve shape in both products is entirely different. Organic chemicals that interact with silver tone are used in B&W while chemicals that interact with the dye forming reaction are often used in color along with (sometimes) organic reagents that do some of the same things in color as B&W.

Kodak used to have 3 different units that did MP, Consumer Color and B&W. They now have 3 teams instead of 3 full units AFAIK.

PE

Ian Grant · Jan 4, 2009

Ron, your very wrong Kodak colour R&D lead to huge improvements in emulsion technology. Much of this was specifically for for the introduction of the disk cameras but spilled over into all colour films. Then the same technologies were later used for Tmax B&W films.

Kodak's priorities in the 70's, 80's & 90's were colour, the largest market and then B&W.

Ian

Photo Engineer · Jan 4, 2009

Ian;

I was there, remember?

Here are examples. Sulfur and sulfur + gold was first used in B&W films, then it was used in color. Emulsions + PMT for curve control, fog and tone were used for B&W, but it only partly worked for color. They had to use Cd and organics such as scavengers to control toe and fog. You see, aerially oxidized B&W developer causes no fog, but aerially oxidized color developer causes "fog". This must be eliminated by different means and the two methods don't cross over between color and B&W.

The T-grains were put into both types of products at about the same time, but IDK if they were released at the same time. So, it really depends on time frame as the product sales weighted for ROI determined part of this.

Some things used in color could never be used in B&W such as scavengers to improve grain. B&W used pan sensitization and blended emulsions to gain some of the same results in better grain. The B&W also used higher silver levels which could not be done in color due to layer and turbidity effects. B&W films tend to higher iodide for image structure, but color films use DIR couplers and higher levels of sensitization. The list of differences is long.

The 2 electron sensitization went into MP first, then Consumer color and then B&W due to the more recent priority.

So, teams diverged greatly in emulsion design, addenda usage and film and paper structures. In all cases until the mid 80s these groups were not even in the same unit nor under the same mid and high level management. The teams set their own priorities based solely on budget, but budget was based on expected ROI.

PE

wogster · Jan 4, 2009

2F/2F said:
Some good points, but the main point is still being ignored: What you or I do does not matter. You may have come back to film, but not the people who provided Kodak with a lot of their income. Also, the fact that you had to "come back" in the first place means that you may just as likely jump ship again. This is up to Hollywood and commercial photographers, not hobbyists and "artists". Our volume is simply too low to make a large dent. As for "quality" swaying people, don't count on that! People in general are STUPID, greedy, cheap, and lazy above all. Those who are not are such a small number, I don't know what they can do to change things for film.

You forgot the biggest "thrill" to digital for the common man, what I like to call bling factor. It doesn't matter if your photographic abilities are fewer then Stevie Wonders, IF you have the latest model of Canon or Nikon digital around your neck with the fancy neck strap, with the biggest bazooka of a lens attached.

There will always be some people who will want film, considering that we now have a global marketplace, someone, somewhere will be supplying it. They may not have a massively huge market, but there will be a market there.

PHOTOTONE · Jan 4, 2009

Well, the OP was asking how long will there be film with NO NEW CAMERAS, specifically 35mm cameras. I think we have as a group dispelled the notion that there are no new cameras. There are quite a few, across a wide price spectrum, BUT they are not really mass marketed in Walmart, BestBuy, etc. like they used to be. But still, any one can get a new camera that wants one..in 35mm from under $200 to over $5000.

Another respondent seems to be under the impression that there are no new Large Format cameras. Lands sakes (as they used to say) there seems (to me) to be a bumper crop of new brands of Large Format Cameras, and size availability is "whatever you want, we'll build it." I think Large Format, and Ultra Large Format is a growth industry for artisan builders.

Ray Rogers · Jan 4, 2009

Ian Grant said:
When I said early days I was referring to the 1890's early 1900's when Kodak began an acquiring other companies for their products & technologies. They approached Ilford with a view to merging with them, and later taking them over.

Ian Grant said:
Remember that the first Manual of Photography (later called the Ilford Manual of Photography) was published in 1890, before Eastman Kodak was founded.

Harman and Eastman were both active in 1879.
While Eastman Kodak came about later, before that there was Eastman Dry Plate and Film Company and before that there was George Eastman.

Ian Grant said:
Later Kodak was always envious of the Ilford range of B&W films and papers which were widely regarded as being superior by users to comparable Kodak products.
Ian

I am not aware of any "product envy" directed directly at Ilford... Agfa, sure.

Kodak was a hunter. A predator. So in that sense, yes, but that "hunger" was shared amoung many competitors... Eastman also tried to buy Japanese companies too; that did not indicate those companies were technically advanced.

2F/2F · Jan 5, 2009

wogster said:
You forgot the biggest "thrill" to digital for the common man, what I like to call bling factor. It doesn't matter if your photographic abilities are fewer then Stevie Wonders, IF you have the latest model of Canon or Nikon digital around your neck with the fancy neck strap, with the biggest bazooka of a lens attached.

There will always be some people who will want film, considering that we now have a global marketplace, someone, somewhere will be supplying it. They may not have a massively huge market, but there will be a market there.

This behavior was described over 100 years ago in "The Theory of the Leisure Class", by Thorstein Veblen. He called it "conspicuous consumption". It is FAR worse today. He was writing about it as a socio-economic curiosity at the turn of what would be the first industrialized century, in the same way that the artists of the time were beginning to make similar social criticism/commentary with their artwork. He would crap his pants if he were alive today to see how right he was. Great phrase to know. I use it all the time to describe idiot consumers. For some reason "conspicuous consumers" seems to go over much better than "idiot consumers". I guess it just sounds more professional to an idiot consumer.

Ian Grant · Jan 5, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
Ian;

I was there, remember?

. . . . . . . . The T-grains were put into both types of products at about the same time, but IDK if they were released at the same time. So, it really depends on time frame as the product sales weighted for ROI determined part of this.

PE

T-grain films were first introduced in 1982 with Kodacolor VR 100. But Tmax films weren't released to the public until considerably later around 1986, John Sexton began working with Kodak testing early versions in about 1984.

Ian

benjiboy · Jan 5, 2009

A long time , how many film cameras must there be in the world ?

Photo Engineer · Jan 5, 2009

Ian Grant said:
T-grain films were first introduced in 1982 with Kodacolor VR 100. But Tmax films weren't released to the public until considerably later around 1986, John Sexton began working with Kodak testing early versions in about 1984.

Ian

Yes, that was the time that Kodak began deemphasizing B&W and in the 1988 RIF laid off so many people. The B&W division was gutted and Grant Haist retired.

This does not mean that internal R&D did not go forward on B&W. I was working side-by-side with the Gold team that introduced the T-grain film. We had a Gold 400 with T-grain at the time, but it was not introduced for about 5 years.

We had a 400 speed color film AAMOF in 1965. My wife and I took samples in plain yellow boxes to Disney World in the following year. It was K-grain though. At the time you mention, there was the T-grain Kodachromes as well with an ISO 400 version.

There was a lot of R&D that never got introduced is my point. I should add that ALL emulsion testing is done in B&W films. Grain, sharpness, dyes, keeping, curve shape.... All of it is done that way first. If it does not survive as a B&W film type, then the emulsion is rejected.

PE

SilverGlow · Jan 5, 2009

2F/2F said:
Some good points, but the main point is still being ignored: What you or I do does not matter. You may have come back to film, but not the people who provided Kodak with a lot of their income. Also, the fact that you had to "come back" in the first place means that you may just as likely jump ship again. This is up to Hollywood and commercial photographers, not hobbyists and "artists". Our volume is simply too low to make a large dent. As for "quality" swaying people, don't count on that! People in general are STUPID, greedy, cheap, and lazy above all. Those who are not are such a small number, I don't know what they can do to change things for film.

I think in 50 years, one can buy 35mm B&W and color films. Cheaply too, and perhaps all made in India or China :-( But at least film will be around. I do think that what influences the big companies to make film is be far the number of people shooting film and not the number of film cameras being made. Film is slowly losing it's charm in high school and college curriculums, and as film usage dies in the schools, so will film, because for film to thrive, new shooters need to be introduced into it. All of us old film nuts will be dead "soon" (relative to teenaged years).

As to "stupid" digital users, well if you look all over the internet, one will find amazing fantastic work done by "stupid" digital users, and I mean awesome work at the very top of the craft, from nearly ALL the big photographer names in most genres.

While I share your fervor for film, calling digital shooters "idiots" is not going to benefit anyone, nor change anything except to make one look like one more interested in cameras and media then the prime directive: The Picture.

I think you will find "stupid", "greedy", and "cheap" people shooting both film and digital, and to demonize one or the other is...well, it's stupid! ;-)

wogster · Jan 5, 2009

SilverGlow said:
I think in 50 years, one can buy 35mm B&W and color films. Cheaply too, and perhaps all made in India or China :-( But at least film will be around. I do think that what influences the big companies to make film is be far the number of people shooting film and not the number of film cameras being made. Film is slowly losing it's charm in high school and college curriculums, and as film usage dies in the schools, so will film, because for film to thrive, new shooters need to be introduced into it. All of us old film nuts will be dead "soon" (relative to teenaged years).

As to "stupid" digital users, well if you look all over the internet, one will find amazing fantastic work done by "stupid" digital users, and I mean awesome work at the very top of the craft, from nearly ALL the big photographer names in most genres.

While I share your fervor for film, calling digital shooters "idiots" is not going to benefit anyone, nor change anything except to make one look like one more interested in cameras and media then the prime directive: The Picture.

I think you will find "stupid", "greedy", and "cheap" people shooting both film and digital, and to demonize one or the other is...well, it's stupid! ;-)

I don't think anyone said you were stupid for shooting digital, although many people are stupid enough to believe as gospel the marketing hype they see in the big photo magazines, that you must get rid of that decrepit ancient 18 month old 12MP digital camera for the new 14MP digital camera, even though you never print anything larger then a 4"x6" print or a 800x600 pixel JPEG online. Of course this new camera has only drivers for the absolute latest version of Windows, so you need to replace your computer and all of the software too..... Of course now that you have spent $4000 on a new digital imaging system, you complain about the cost of film at $10/roll (including processing). Oops I forgot something, you spent that $4000 on your credit card at 20% per annum interest computed daily, so better make that at least $4,.500 by the time you get it all paid for.

Of course at $10/roll one would need to shoot 450 rolls in 18 months to spend the same amount. That's around a roll every day and a half, few non-professionals would shoot that much. in 35mm at least.

Many professionals shoot digital where time is money, and the time is more important then the cost of equipment which can be written off anyway.....Some though have found that the time spent on the computer is more expensive then the cost of film and processing, so they moved back to shooting film.

How long 35mm with no new cameras?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency