Is anyone else unhappy with today's films?

[Fin]

Back when I was using film before all the d*gital stuff happened, I was using mostly Jessops branded Efke KB B&W, some Ilford when I could afford it and quite a lot of cheap-ish supermarket brand C41 stuff, some of which could have been Ferrania. With the exception of the Ilford film, a lot of the results I got were OK, but not amazing, even though I developed and printed B&W.

Now I'm back with film (and utterly loving it by the way) I use quite a lot of Tri X (which is stunning), obviously still Ilford (never realised how high quality it actually was the first time round), and for colour, Ektar and Agfa Vista Plus. I'm still figuring out Ektar, but the Agfa stuff (Fuji C200) is actually really good film, and the price of £1 a roll makes it even betterer! I currently use a Digibase kit with a Coolscan IV for colour and still process the B&W properly and so far, have been getting some really good shots.

Happy with today's films? Yep!

 

[Les Sarile]

Modern = soulless technical perfection, with predictably cold, clinical results!

I seem to recall a tribe that was afraid of their picture being taken as they thought it would steal their soul. They're probably more tolerant with the new films . . .

 

[Ai Print]

If this is your slick way of saying that I am at fault, then I am here to tell you that my only fault is in being to picky to so easily accept average, even mediocre products!

Give me back my Kodachrome!

I'd use Kodachrome in a heartbeat if it came back, I have some 30,000 images shot on it in a period from September 1, 2007 to January 17th of 2011 to go through for my book.

But...it is not coming back, no sense in pitching a tent next to the headstone, you know?
It's like the rest of life really, glass half full, half empty is the choice, the one life you have to live is the certainty....

What is it going to be George....Sunshine or Sunburn?

 

[naaldvoerder]

Very happy!

 

[Jeff Bradford]

I have no such angst. I have much about which to be pleased and no time to gather dissatisfaction.

 

[George Mann]

What is it going to be George....Sunshine or Sunburn?

Cave photography perhaps?

 

[George Mann]

But...it is not coming back

That remains to be seen!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Very, I do well with all that I shoot, never let the tool or material become the excuse.

+1

 

[Agulliver]

I'm far more happy with the selection of films available than with the "choice" of audio cassette tapes where the market has shrunk so much that there is only one left in general availability...and it is a basic one at that. Yes, I can mourn the loss of Kodachrome....mourn all the discontinued products...mourn the high prices today...but the fact is there is still film to suit every occasion and the only way to continue this relatively happy state of affairs is to buy it. And if we do so in enough quantities....some new products might emerge and some discontinued ones might reappear (Ektachrome, anyone?)

 

[removed account4]

Modern = soulless technical perfection, with predictably cold, clinical results!

i think you are talking about modern nikon, canon, scheider, rodenstock, cooke, leitz rollei, oly yashcia glass,
it might not have anything to do with the film. but i can understand why you don't like tab-grain but there are ways of
exposing and processing and printing these "modern" emulsions to have a look that isn't so smooth and appearing grainless. there
are also ways to make or own liquid emulsions and coat "stuff" ( paper, glass, metal, plastic, acetate &c ) and get more of
an "imperfect" look, even with pristine modern lenses &c. it might be worth looking into different ways of exposing and processing your film/prints
so that your results might be more in line of what you are looking for, and if it is olde school kodachrome sort of look, you might look into learning how to make tri chromes,
while they are more technicolor than kodachrome its possible to do with and without a color darkroom.

 

[Prest_400]

I met my wife because of that project...if I do not come out with a nice book in a few years, there will be hell to pay...

To that end, I *finally* have the space to properly edit, storyboard and sequence it all, now own a large home.

Good to hear the project is still floating around. I guess it'll be a decade since, and infact a lot has changed since 2010.

I'm not unhappy with today's films, not that I were yesterday to shoot them (young). Infact some of the current films may very well be the same as the ones in... say 1991 for HP5+. In color it's expected that the current generation (2001 was Provia 100F?) is much better than the previous ones in archival qualities, as well as technical rendition.

I am with John that the unhappiness can be drawn to prices and choice. Of course, could be much worse.

Fire up the archive.org time back machine and load a dealer webshop... B&H in 2009 listed 120 film at roughtly half today's prices. And 220 was there, at current 120 prices! I have to do this from 2012, 2014 and today because in 2-3 years there has been a big bump.
Go check the thread of Ilford prices in Japan. THat is a curious case because Japan was cheap and plenty film about 5 years ago as I remember, also with the legendary Yodobashi coolers. Now it is more expensive than US or EU big dealers!

 

[Peter Schrager]

I use tmy400 with xtol
I use a mamiya7 with crack ass sharp lenses
Then I print on foma131 paper
My photos have a very old time classic look to them..it AIN'T THE FILM...i just enjoy a true 400 speed emulsion and a sharp negative..i do something similar with delta100 ...
Honestly this could be more like the golden age of films
Kodak
Rollei
Adox..
Ferrannia
Aromicx...
Fujfoma
Ilford..thats 8 right there!
Made with modern standards. ...if you can't find a flavor make your own!!

 

[Peter Schrager]

Good to hear the project is still floating around. I guess it'll be a decade since, and infact a lot has changed since 2010.

I'm not unhappy with today's films, not that I were yesterday to shoot them (young). Infact some of the current films may very well be the same as the ones in... say 1991 for HP5+. In color it's expected that the current generation (2001 was Provia 100F?) is much better than the previous ones in archival qualities, as well as technical rendition.

I am with John that the unhappiness can be drawn to prices and choice. Of course, could be much worse.

Fire up the archive.org time back machine and load a dealer webshop... B&H in 2009 listed 120 film at roughtly half today's prices. And 220 was there, at current 120 prices! I have to do this from 2012, 2014 and today because in 2-3 years there has been a big bump.
Go check the thread of Ilford prices in Japan. THat is a curious case because Japan was cheap and plenty film about 5 years ago as I remember, also with the legendary Yodobashi coolers. Now it is more expensive than US or EU big dealers!

You should have bought a 1000 rolls
Norman was like $2.00/roll

 

[Peter Schrager]

Supposed to be Acros!!

 

[eddie]

I'm happy with today's B&W film choices. I think there are superb choices, but wish there was an infrared option.
Can't speak to color, as I haven't shot any in years (although, when I did, they included Kodachrome and various E6 emulsions from Kodak and Fuji).
I've been at this for over 45 years. Losing emulsions has always been the case. Serious photographers have always had to adapt. I truly can't say if today's films are better. I can say that I do better work with the films I'm now using, but I'd like to attribute that to having improved my skills and knowledge base over the decades. In my opinion, if one uses the loss of a particular film for not being able to make the images they'd like, it's a failure of effort and/or stagnant skills.

 

[Prest_400]

You should have bought a 1000 rolls
Norman was like $2.00/roll

I know, but in those times I was young and without capital (the inversely proportional time-money equation).
Price increases were of course more likely than being given the lotto number. That wouldn't hurt.

It is quite positive that, for once, the axe seems to have stopped and we instead will see more films. Ektachrome and Ferrania, with the latter having good long run repercussions.
About polaroid we could complain, great film that was axed back in its time and now we have an (improving) IP product. Though expensive.

 

[LAG]

I really cannot say that I am happy with today's selection of films.

I would say the same!

 

[Photo Engineer]

As I noted in Mr. Mann's thread on Kodachrome, perhaps if he posted one of his pictures using current films alongside of a picture taken with what he considers to be an excellent vintage film, then we might discover exactly what features he is favoring or disfavoring.

PE

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

I'm very happy with the films I use now, although my tastes are different than they were in the 90s and 00s. FP4 is still around, and beautiful in the developer I'm now using. I started with FP4, left for Delta, but now I prefer FP4 again because my tastes have progressed to sharpness, tonality and dimensionality over simply fine grain.

I think the current Portra films are fantastic. I used to shoot fuji neg and fuji chrome, but I now prefer more nuanced, naturalistic colors and contrast. If you look at older color neg films, there is a nostalgia built in to the rendition, but technically they do not compare. Motion picture films are also now the best they have ever been, if only producers would let us shoot film!

My one exception in my contentment is Kodachrome. That was an incomparable film without glutty oversaturation (the anti-Velvia), just beautiful, subtle, real color, and amazing, Rodinal-like sharpness but in a color film! It was very physical-looking. I would much, much preferred someone kept this alive than polaroid. But there is no consumer/hobbyist/novelty customer for Kodachrome like there might be for Impossible film. To me, the only film worth mourning is Kodachrome.

Now papers are another matter....

J

 

[pentaxuser]

Supposed to be Acros!!

I bet Norman is happy that he is not on sale at $2 a roll

pentaxuser

 

[removed account4]

I would say the same!

LAG
why aren't you happy with the selection of films available today ?
seems like they all work well, there are high and low and medium iso, b/w and color
in every format from minox to some obsene film size special ordered from harman/ilford like 32x40inches
while they aren't the same exact films that were available 20 or 30 or 70 years ago they offer a photographer
( if they have the time and want to dispense the effort ) endless ways to express oneself.
sure, plus x or super xx or kchrome isn't available but lots and lots of other stuff is which can be massaged to
do similar things and if handled right give similar results ...
and if "film" is a generic term used instead of "emulsion" there are fantastic bottled emulsions available
as well as simple or difficult "do it yourself" emulsion recipes for enthusiasts. seems to me
we are kind of living in a "golden age" ... if you want it to be ...

ymmv

 

[George Mann]

For me, it's about the way the film looks and how it renders!

 

[Lachlan Young]

For me, it's about the way the film looks and how it renders!

99% of the time with today's materials, shortcomings in those departments are due to the end user's choices of camera, exposure, processing & printing/ scanning rather than any shortcomings with the imaging behaviour of the film.

 

[removed account4]

99% of the time with today's materials, shortcomings in those departments are due to the end user's choices of camera, exposure, processing & printing/ scanning rather than any shortcomings with the imaging behaviour of the film.

+1

 

[George Mann]

99% of the time with today's materials, shortcomings in those departments are due to the end user's choices of camera, exposure, processing & printing/ scanning rather than any shortcomings with the imaging behaviour of the film.

I can always see these inherent characteristics regardless!