Is there really a strong interest in film photography?

[TheFlyingCamera]

As someone who teaches darkroom photography, we routinely have full classes of people at all age ranges wanting to learn not only film developing, but printing and enlarging. Not 20-30 students at a time, for sure, but 8-10, which is pushing the limits of our darkroom (we have 13 enlarger stations all told). Our Sunday open darkroom rental is also very popular. So the interest in film photography is definitely there.

 

[Sirius Glass]

As someone who teaches darkroom photography, we routinely have full classes of people at all age ranges wanting to learn not only film developing, but printing and enlarging. Not 20-30 students at a time, for sure, but 8-10, which is pushing the limits of our darkroom (we have 13 enlarger stations all told). Our Sunday open darkroom rental is also very popular. So the interest in film photography is definitely there.

At Glen Echo?

 

[MattKing]

That's IF you can find proper interneg film. Which, not incidentally, will create its own age-related problem within about 5 years.

As I understand it, Portra 160 and, IIRC, Ektar 100 can be used for the purpose and excellent results can be achieved, but not nearly as simply as with the special purpose internegative films.

 

[Henning Serger]

I still shoot Velvia 50. Thirty-five years ago I had outside lab make me 16x20" prints from 6x7 medium format 120 Velvia 50 and other chromes. They used a 4x5 internegative to produce the prints chemically.

How does Velvia 50 drum scanning and RA-4 and laser exposing/printing hold up today?

Alan, you get really excellent quality. No problem at all to even make huge poster sized prints for your walls.
If you are not satiesfied with that quality, then your problem is not a photographic one, but a mental one.......

A very good friend of mine is doing that regularly: Selecting his 3-4 recent favourite Velvia 50 or Provia 100F shots, drum-scanning them on a Heidelberg Tango drumscanner, sending the files to an excellent lab who is exposing the photos on Fuji RA-4 silver-halide photo paper (in his case mostly the lab 'White Wall'), and then hanging the huge prints (mostly more than 1 meter long) on the walls in his home.
Some months later the prints are replaced by new ones.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[VinceInMT]

Just wondering: why don't you edit those snaps, then discarding the junque, rather than scanning everything? IMO that's the respectful thing to do for family.

If it's worth scanning/copyinv, surely it's worth printing.

Because I wanted to have everything scanned. What might be junk, might have a purpose later. For example, as part of my job many years ago I used to shoot lots of job site photos that helped when I got back to the office to work on design. While ephemeral at the time, many have ended up as subject matter in my artwork years later.

And why would scanning everything be disrespectful to family?

 

[Steven Lee]

A very good friend of mine is doing that regularly: Selecting his 3-4 recent favourite Velvia 50 or Provia 100F shots, drum-scanning them on a Heidelberg Tango drumscanner, sending the files to an excellent lab who is exposing the photos on Fuji RA-4 silver-halide photo paper (in his case mostly the lab 'White Wall'), and then hanging the huge prints (mostly more than 1 meter long) on the walls in his home.

Is he also projecting? I am trying to understand the rationale for not using print film if the final goal is a print?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Because I wanted to have everything scanned. What might be junk, might have a purpose later. For example, as part of my job many years ago I used to shoot lots of job site photos that helped when I got back to the office to work on design. While ephemeral at the time, many have ended up as subject matter in my artwork years later.

And why would scanning everything be disrespectful to family?

Maybe he's thinking that leaving 15,000 photos might be torturous for them to go through.

 

[Henning Serger]

Is he also projecting? I am trying to understand the rationale for not using print film if the final goal is a print?

Yes, he is also projecting. But for the huge prints he prefers the superior sharpness and resolution of Velvia 50 and Provia 100F compared to CN film. And he also prefers the amzing colours of these two positive films.
For the same reasons I prefer Velvia and Provia for my "wall prints", too, by the way. Especially for my landscape photos.

And of course projection and prints are not at all an "either-or" choice! It is an "and". You can have easily both with positive film. One of its numerous advantages.
Some pictures you just want to have on the wall .

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Sirius Glass]

Is he also projecting? I am trying to understand the rationale for not using print film if the final goal is a print?

Sometimes the photograph was taken as a slide.

 

[Steven Lee]

@Henning Serger and @Sirius Glass the reason I asked is because a few weeks ago, I posted a question to the "Color" sub-forum:

• How can slide film be competitive to print film in terms of color quality, if it does not utilize the mask to cancel off cross-layer contamination?
• How can slide film have finer grain than print film of the same ISO speed?

Not a lot of people commented, but the general consensus was that print film should have more accurate color reproduction and the grain is a function of film speed, regardless of either it's slide or print.

I was just curious about slides in general. My personal experience with transparencies has been mixed, because I've never done my own E6 at home, and I've been quite unlucky with the labs.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yes, he is also projecting. But for the huge prints he prefers the superior sharpness and resolution of Velvia 50 and Provia 100F compared to CN film. And he also prefers the amzing colours of these two positive films.
For the same reasons I prefer Velvia and Provia for my "wall prints", too, by the way. Especially for my landscape photos.

And of course projection and prints are not at all an "either-or" choice! It is an "and". You can have easily both with positive film. One of its numerous advantages.
Some pictures you just want to have on the wall .

Best regards,
Henning

I found scanning color-negative film difficult. With chromes, you know looking at the film to see whether it's right even before scanning. When scanning, it's simple and fast to get the colors right. Plus the colors are great. Editing color negative is difficult. Also, I don't print much but display on the web or make slide show as I can play on a smart TV. So scanning again. If I decide to print it, I'll send it out to a pro lab.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

@Henning Serger and @Sirius Glass the reason I asked is because a few weeks ago, I posted a question to the "Color" sub-forum asking:

• How can slide film be competitive to print film in terms of color quality, if it does not utilize the mask to cancel off cross-layer contamination?
• How can slide film have finer grain than print film of the same ISO speed?

Not a lot of people commented, but the general consensus was that print film should have more accurate color reproduction and the grain is a function of film speed, regardless of either it's slide or print.

I was just curious.

Print film like Portra is made for accurate colors and is used a lot for portraits that need accurate flesh tones. People see that immediately if they aren't accurate. Print film also have a wider range in stops and you can see better in shadow areas compared to chromes. However, I belive chromes have more resolution, generally.

 

[Helge]

Define “cheap” and why that is a requirement.

I’d say around a $1000 is realistic and attainable. And about the max of what you could have Joe(anne)-average film shooter consider putting down to save on expensive bad lab scans and have much more control.
$500 would be ideal but would probably eat too much into profit margin for anyone to be willing to try it.

And cheap because Flextight prices is not an option if film is going to prosper. And the current scanners are just terrible and woefully misrepresents film. Pieter could become right solely on account of bad scanning.

A good multi macro stitch scan will forever and instantly turn you off any kind of traditional scanner and gives you a taste of what is possible.

Imagine an integrated machine where all the fat is cut off. No batteries or screen. No lens mount or Bayer filtered full frame sensor.
Just a simple fixed height, high pitch, small and cheap monochrome sensor, RGB backlight and a small but sharp lens in front.
Wouldn’t even have to be an achromat lens. Colour fringing could be auto corrected in software easily.

I would add fast to that list of attributes. I mainly camera-scan my negatives; it is not simple and not cheap (unless you have much of the equipment already) but the results are good and it is really fast - I can do a 36 exp roll of 35mm in just a few minutes.

It is the lack of speed that has kept me doing this slightly complicated process instead of trying dedicated scanner options; none of them approach this sort of speed.

Fast is part of simple in my world.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I’d say around a $1000 is realistic and attainable. And about the max of what you could have Joe(anne)-average film shooter consider putting down to save on expensive bad lab scans and have much more control.
$500 would be ideal but would probably eat too much into profit margin for anyone to be willing to try it.

And cheap because Flextight prices is not an option if film is going to prosper. And the current scanners are just terrible and woefully misrepresents film. Pieter could become right solely on account of bad scanning.

A good multi macro stitch scan will forever and instantly turn you off any kind of traditional scanner and gives you a taste of what is possible.

Imagine an integrated machine where all the fat is cut off. No batteries or screen. No lens mount or Bayer filtered full frame sensor.
Just a simple fixed height, high pitch small and cheap monochrome sensor, RGB backlight and a small but sharp lens in front.
Wouldn’t even have to be an achromat lens. Colour fringing could be auto corrected in software easily.



Fast is part of simple in my world.

Why cheap monochrome sensor and RGB backlight? Wouldn't a color sensor be better?

Why couldn't they update flat beds scanners? It's been 10-15 years. Aren't there better sensors today that have higher dMax and resolution?

 

[Helge]

Why cheap monochrome sensor and RGB backlight? Wouldn't a color sensor be better?

Why couldn't they update flat beds scanners? It's been 10-15 years. Aren't there better sensors today that have higher dMax and resolution?

Line sensors is a dead market. As is the idea of dragging a sensor along a subject.

RGB backlight would allow just the right kind of peaky light to emulate RA-4. A Bayer filter is always a compromise, not only spatially but also WRT precision in colour space.

A cheap sensor because more than good enough sensors has become incredibly cheap during the last decade.
A phone style sensor and optics, sans Bayer filter, would be fantastic for scanning.

 

[armadsen]

1. Sadly dark room printing is not as much a part of the resurgence as the film and scanning part.
Printing images is simply not a part of peoples mindset today. Most people wouldn’t know what to do with a print. “Hang it on the wall”? “That’s for posters or paintings”.
But even then, dark room printing is coming back. Albeit at a slower pace.
Which is understandable as it’s an another step and another tier of cost. And worst of all, requires space and planning.
I’ve had dark room equipment snatched under my nose multiple times because I thought I had time to think it over or saw it too late.
Just a few weeks ago, a Microsight focuser was bought in a thrift market seconds before I had a chance to pick it up.
And the guy who bought it clearly knew how lucky he was (I asked him).

I'm young enough (38) to have gotten serious about photography as a hobby in the digital era, though I had film cameras (point and shoots) as a kid and young adult.

I made my first darkroom prints (from film I processed as well) last week, and it was magic. I'm lucky to have a community darkroom about 10 minutes from my house, but I'm already scheming to section off part of my basement so I can have one at home.

 

[Henning Serger]

@Henning Serger and @Sirius Glass the reason I asked is because a few weeks ago, I posted a question to the "Color" sub-forum:

• How can slide film be competitive to print film in terms of color quality, if it does not utilize the mask to cancel off cross-layer contamination?
• How can slide film have finer grain than print film of the same ISO speed?

Not a lot of people commented, but the general consensus was that print film should have more accurate color reproduction and the grain is a function of film speed, regardless of either it's slide or print.

I was just curious about slides in general. My personal experience with transparencies has been mixed, because I've never done my own E6 at home, and I've been quite unlucky with the labs.

Hello Steven,

to your first question:
The mask is mainly useful (and was introduced) for optical printing on CN paper. And for us as photographers it is important to differentiate between more technical and theoretical factors and our "real world": If you are using colour negative film and look at the whole imaging chain up to the final result you see several factors that influence the colour rendition:
- with optical printing it is your personal filtering process (your visual impression / your taste) and the choice of your colour paper, and both have huge influence on the resulting colour
- with scanning you have the characteristics of the used scanner, of the scanning software, and the "filtering" = editing you use as a scanner operator.

Or to say it in a different way: Give one negative to 10 different photographers or labs and you will most probably get 10 different results in colour rendition.
So in "the real world" colour accuracy of negative film is often a more theoretical concept.
That is by the way one of the reasons why in pre-digital times in professional photography for book publications and in advertizing almost exclusively positive film was used: You always have the transparency as an original and as reference. And all who are involved in the process can refer exactly to that.

And then you have the very important point that often film manufacturers simply don't go for "most accurate / most precise" colors, but for "most pleasing colours" for the target audience.
Best example ist Kodak: None of the current Kodak CN films is really "accurate" in a technical sense. All current Kodak CN films have a warm (yellowish) rendering. Most a quite strong one (especially all the amateur films, Ektar 100, but also Portra 400 and Portra 800), others a bit less (ProImage, Portra 160). Portra 160 is currently the only Kodak CN film which is oriented more to a neutral, less warm colour rendition (but not completely neutral).
Kodak is doing that because due to their experience and market research their customers go for that warm look, have a preference for it.
Fujifilm has a different approach.

And then of course you have the problem that different people indeed see colours differently.
E.g. if you ask 100 people looking at the same colour chart you will not get 100 same descriptions of these colours.

If I look at my personal colour assessment, the most natural / neutral / accurate colour films I've used and tested have been Reala, Superia Reala, Astia 100F and Provia 100F.

Therefore my recommendation as a photographer for a very pragmatic approach:
Just use the film and a certain colour rendition which fits your subject and your creative idea. Use what you like.
And don't care too much for theoretical or technical concepts.

To your second question:
Color reversal film generally has a bit finer grain (and higher resolution and better sharpness) than color negative film of the same speed. The main reason is the reversal process: When the film is exposed, mainly the larger silver-halide crystal are exposed. And in the reversal process these are removed, and the finer/smaller crystals remain forming the final positive picture.
And with Velvia 50 and Velvia 100 we have in addition the unique characteristic and advantage that they are delivering a superior, unsurpassed resolution already at extremely low object contrast (1.6:1) with 80-85 lp/mm. No other colour film is offering that, especially no colour negative film.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Pieter12]

That is why when I have a critical color shoot, I include a color chart in one of the frames.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Henning: How is it that there's extremely low contrast? I thought Velvia was high and often you can;t see the shadows area details. :

"And with Velvia 50 and Velvia 100 we have in addition the unique characteristic and advantage that they are delivering a superior, unsurpassed resolution already at extremely low object contrast (1.6:1) with 80-85 lp/mm. No other colour film is offering that, especially no colour negative film."

 

[JParker]

To answer the question of the original poster:
Yes, there is definitely a really strong interest and increasing demand for film.
During the last years I have travelled much (because of my job and also for private reasons), to different countrys and continents.
And at my destinations I have always looked for local labs and (used) camera shops. Talked to the staff there and discussed the situation.
And in all cases (with no exceptions), on all locations around the world, the staff in the labs and shops reported a strong film revival and increasing demand.

Back to topic :
During the last year I have also been in several different countries on two different continents. And have visited labs and film brick-and-mortar-stores.
And I have also got the same information in all these labs and shops: Strong increasing demand for film. Getting enough film to satisfy the customer demand was mentioned as the main challenge for the shops.
I also see this development around me with friends and their friends or their children: people starting film photography is not rare anymore.

Henning: How is it that there's extremely low contrast? I thought Velvia was high and often you can;t see the shadows area details. :

"And with Velvia 50 and Velvia 100 we have in addition the unique characteristic and advantage that they are delivering a superior, unsurpassed resolution already at extremely low object contrast (1.6:1) with 80-85 lp/mm. No other colour film is offering that, especially no colour negative film."

Henning is refering to object contrast: That is the contrast of the several things and details you are photographing. For example the contrast difference of the letters of your newspaper and the paper base.
Take a spot meter and measure the contrast difference of different subjects, so you get a feeling of typical contrast differences of different objects. In most cases these differences are quite low. And that is the great advantage of slide film and especially the Velvias compared to color negative film: The MTF for these low object contrast differences is on a record level with the Velvias.
You see that also in the Velvia data sheet: There is a value for extremely low object contrast, and for extremely high object contrast.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I guess that helps Velvia "pop".

 

[Steven Lee]

Just use the film and a certain colour rendition which fits your subject and your creative idea. Use what you like.
And don't care too much for theoretical or technical concepts.

Henning, thank you.

The subjective nature of color is understood, but I was primarily interested from a historical / technology perspective. I find it fascinating: a few months ago I saw a blog post, which I currently cannot find, which documented the process of inventing the orange mask at Kodak. My impression was that they simply couldn't move forward (to any kind of an acceptable output) without addressing the layer contamination due to the impurity of dyes in the lower layers. And that made me thinking that the same problem must be present with slide film, and there must be some kind of a solution.

Again, I understand that color accuracy is not always the goal. But as an always-curious-about-everything engineer, I continue to wonder what kind of a workaround is used to deal with impure dyes in transparencies...

Color reversal film generally has a bit finer grain (and higher resolution and better sharpness) than color negative film of the same speed. The main reason is the reversal process: When the film is exposed, mainly the larger silver-halide crystal are exposed. And in the reversal process these are removed, and the finer/smaller crystals remain forming the final positive picture.

Ah-ha! That's the kind of insight I was hoping for. Thank you!

 

[Henning Serger]

Henning, thank you.


Again, I understand that color accuracy is not always the goal. But as an always-curious-about-everything engineer, I continue to wonder what kind of a workaround is used to deal with impure dyes in transparencies...

Steven, honestly, we probably will never know the exact "tricks" the emulsion engineers use as this high-tech knowledge are company secrets. Especially at Fujifilm, which has been technology and market leader in colour positive film technology for more than 30 years.
I can completely understand your curiosity as an engineer nonetheless .
But when I look at my original colour chart, and then compare that with the results of Astia 100F (and its amateur version Sensia III), Provia 100F and Provia 400X, then the results are so similar that I am absolutely satiesfied.
Well, and the Velvias: I just love their unique, vibrant colour rendition for lots of subjects. No other colour film can give me these amazing colours .

I guess that helps Velvia "pop".

Yupp, it definitely does .

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Helge]

@Henning Serger and @Sirius Glass the reason I asked is because a few weeks ago, I posted a question to the "Color" sub-forum:

• How can slide film be competitive to print film in terms of color quality, if it does not utilize the mask to cancel off cross-layer contamination?
• How can slide film have finer grain than print film of the same ISO speed?

Not a lot of people commented, but the general consensus was that print film should have more accurate color reproduction and the grain is a function of film speed, regardless of either it's slideor print.

I was just curious about slides in general. My personal experience with transparencies has been mixed, because I've never done my own E6 at home, and I've been quite unlucky with the labs.

As a small addendum to Hennings, as per usual, excellent post, much of the reason for the orange mask is due to the duping factor. Whenever something is duplicated by analog means the characteristics of the two involved media will add and subtract in complex ways, like interference patterns spatially. Only also in colour space and tonally.
This means higher contrast often and an extra accumulation of colour skewing, in the case of film.
Positive film is only a single generation (1.5 depending on how you look at it) and is thus immune to this effect.

We should not hope for this to be taken out of C-41 under any circumstances, as the ultimate way of using film is still to print it photochemically.

We as serious amateur photographers should hope for RA-4 printing to remain and become much more common again. Both as an amateur endeavor and professionally.

What the masking is doing is also not possible to emulate by scanning and correcting. And if scanned and de-masked perfectly, negative colour film will in fact give the most accurate colours. And also with about double the dynamic range captured.
Slides inherent dynamic range, as a display medium, is unequalled anywhere.
But as Henning says, a heck of a lot of what is desireable in the colour reproduction is up to psychooptics and application, not down to what is “correct”.

Personally I shoot about half and half of negative and chrome colour.

 

[Sirius Glass]

@Henning Serger and @Sirius Glass the reason I asked is because a few weeks ago, I posted a question to the "Color" sub-forum:

• How can slide film be competitive to print film in terms of color quality, if it does not utilize the mask to cancel off cross-layer contamination?
• How can slide film have finer grain than print film of the same ISO speed?

Not a lot of people commented, but the general consensus was that print film should have more accurate color reproduction and the grain is a function of film speed, regardless of either it's slide or print.

I was just curious about slides in general. My personal experience with transparencies has been mixed, because I've never done my own E6 at home, and I've been quite unlucky with the labs.

The orange mask was added because the dyes in film could not reproduce the needed amount of orange needed to balance the colors properly. Then less orange is removed in the printing process so that orange balances properly. ==> Orange is added in excess and removed in lessor amounts so the colors balance properly. The orange mask is needed and it is here to stay.