Is there really a strong interest in film photography?

[cmacd123]

if you shot 10 rolls of 36 exp 35mm per week, in a year you'd have used less than what a 35mm movie camera uses in 30 minutes at 24 fps.

rule of thumb is 90 ft a minute. so 52 weeks of 10 rolls of 5.5 feet a roll is about
2860 feet or enough film to shoot almost 32 minutes. it is an entire other ballgame.

 

[koraks]

lots of digital cameras died for reason of faulty production

That's debatable. You're addressing one particular defect that affected Sony chips in the 2002-2004 era. The vast majority of the digital cameras ever produced either still work, or were landfilled because they were no longer needed - not because they were defective. Besides, the actually common defects in fact were very similar to the defects we saw in late 1990s 35mm compact 'zoom' cameras: failure of the lens turret system. Unrelated to the camera being digital or not.

 

[Agulliver]

The resurgence in C41 has been driven mostly by younger photographers coming new to film. They tend to have P&S cameras which don't necessarily do well with slide film due to the need to be more strict with exposure settings. When they do make the move to better cameras, as many do, they still need to learn the basics which many of us learned first time around. C41 negative film (and B&W) is far more forgiving than transparency film.

That said, I am mad at myself....last year I purchased some keenly priced fresh Ektachrome that had been hand rolled from bulk.....put it somewhere safe and cannot find it for the life of me. It's probably in the same baggy with some 120 Delta 3200 that should have been frozen but aren't in the freezer. Hopefully I turn it up before it expires.

A lot of digital cameras of the 1996-2005 era seem to have short lifetimes. Not just ones with the dodgy Sony chips....that was the time frame when the industry was expanding fast and trying to make smaller, user friendly digital cameras....and longevity wasn't something they thought of. After about 2005, they seem to survive well. But certainly I personally saw among friends and colleagues a lot of compact and bridge cameras which died after about three years average use. Brands included Pentax, Sanyo, Canon, Olympus, Fuji.

 

[Agulliver]

You still can buy F50 for the same price if not even cheaper.

In the UK I am currently seeing nothing less than £35 for examples that are said to be working. £15 will get you a bid on a "I don't know about cameras, I don't have a battery or film. It was my dad's.".

Prices for examples that have actually been tested recently by running a film through them are at least 3x that and with even a kit lens you can go over £100.

And try finding a bulk loader for a tenner these days....

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

One of the biggest differences might be that shoddy E6 processing reveals itself easily to the naked eye, whereas most people can't tell that their negatives are messed up - maybe not even after they scan them and work with the scans!

That's why I stick with Chromes. YOu know immediately which shots were messed up. With print film, you're busy scanning and trying to correct colors that are uncorrectable because you missed the proper exposure.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yes, and there are still some nice condition secondhand slide projectors out there. Braun Photo Technik in Germany still provide new 35mm slide projectors, for the time being. Jensen Diaprojektoren in Germany might still provide new, but I think quite expensive, medium format slide projectors.

But too much projection is not good for the film, and there are very, very few places that can still make analog transparency duplicates, and only slightly more places that can make transparencies from high-resolution scans (preferably photomultiplier tube drum scans to preserve the original film characteristics as well as possible). And of course, all of this can significantly increase the cost of using transparency film for projection.

Additionally, many labs have stopped offering slide mounting, even if they still do E-6 processing. So, one might have the additional cost and work of acquiring materials and mounting for projection.

All of this is not to disagree with your post, but just to point out that this has become more complicated nowadays.

When I moved ten years ago, and found my projector was broken, I had already been into scanning. Now with my 75" UHD 4K TV, I create slide shows digitally from scanning to show on the TV. I add music, title, credits, etc and I find it's better than projection. I can even post some of the shows on my YouTube pages as linked below. YouiTube allows you to upload 4K for 4K TVs so the replay quality is excellent. Also, anyone with a cellphone or laptop can see the shows remotely, even on their TV. No need to bore them as guests in my home when they can stay home and be bored in theirs.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

PS not all my YouTube shows are on scanned film. Must were digitally shot
This one is 35mm Tmax 400 BW. (4K)
THis one is 35mm EKtachrome (2K)

 

[bfilm]

When I moved ten years ago, and found my projector was broken, I had already been into scanning. Now with my 75" UHD 4K TV, I create slide shows digitally from scanning to show on the TV. I add music, title, credits, etc and I find it's better than projection. I can even post some of the shows on my YouTube pages as linked below. YouiTube allows you to upload 4K for 4K TVs so the replay quality is excellent. Also, anyone with a cellphone or laptop can see the shows remotely, even on their TV. No need to bore them as guests in my home when they can stay home and be bored in theirs.

This is certainly an option, but it misses the magic of natural or incandescent light shining through the transparency. That is so much of the appeal of transparency film, that you get the picture right on the film and can view it directly, either tiny or enlarged through loupe or projector lens. I feel that many of the nice qualities of transparency film transfer well through the printing workflow, but certainly that you get an actual physical picture made right in the camera is one of the unique aspects.

 

[Mike Lopez]

This is certainly an option, but it misses the magic of natural or incandescent light shining through the transparency. That is so much of the appeal of transparency film, that you get the picture right on the film and can view it directly, either tiny or enlarged through loupe or projector lens. I feel that many of the nice qualities of transparency film transfer well through the printing workflow, but certainly that you get an actual physical picture made right in the camera is one of the unique aspects.

View attachment 365125

Precisely.

 

[Agulliver]

Real slides do have a following. Just looking again at my local shop, they stock a few rolls of Ektachrome and when they brought up a few "new old stock" slide projectors from the basement a few years ago they did sell them. But that's not where the drive is for the increase in interest in film photography. That, very strongly, is coming from younger people buying consumer grade C41 colour negative film.

It all benefits us, because if Kodak weren't selling bucket loads of Ultramax there would probably be no Ektachrome either....but we really are a very small and rather insignificant group of people. The masses who are posting to instagram are where the resurgence of film use is at.

 

[bfilm]

Real slides do have a following. Just looking again at my local shop, they stock a few rolls of Ektachrome and when they brought up a few "new old stock" slide projectors from the basement a few years ago they did sell them. But that's not where the drive is for the increase in interest in film photography. That, very strongly, is coming from younger people buying consumer grade C41 colour negative film.

It all benefits us, because if Kodak weren't selling bucket loads of Ultramax there would probably be no Ektachrome either....but we really are a very small and rather insignificant group of people. The masses who are posting to instagram are where the resurgence of film use is at.

Right, but that is why some of the questioning in recent posts has been about why C-41 and not E-6, if they are just scanning it anyway and not darkroom printing? Thus far, the reasons would seem to be that E-6 is a more exotic film format to many, more difficult to consistently use correctly, and currently more expensive.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Right, but that is why some of the questioning in recent posts has been about why C-41 and not E-6, if they are just scanning it anyway and not darkroom printing? Thus far, the reasons would seem to be that E-6 is a more exotic film format to many, more difficult to consistently use correctly, and currently more expensive.

C-41 has a broader Subject Brightness Range than E-6 and therefore more shadow depth is possible. That allows C-41 allows one to have a usable exposure that is not required to be exactly on or very close to the exact exposure.

 

[koraks]

C-41 has a broader Subject Brightness Range than E-6 and therefore more shadow depth is possible.

I think this formulation is a bit problematic. I understand what you mean about the more limited dynamic range of E6. However, this (1) doesn't affect SBR, since SBR is a given out there in reality and doesn't care about what film you use, and if a camera is being pointed at something in the first place. Also, (2) the main problem with E6 is highlights blowing out upon overexposure in the same way negative (color, B&W) brings the risk of featureless shadows upon underexposure. The converse is also true - the highlights of C41 tend to be recoverable to a remarkable extent, and the same is true for the shadows on E6. So the formulation that 'more shadow depth is possible' in E6 is a bit awkward from my point of view.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think this formulation is a bit problematic. I understand what you mean about the more limited dynamic range of E6. However, this (1) doesn't affect SBR, since SBR is a given out there in reality and doesn't care about what film you use, and if a camera is being pointed at something in the first place. Also, (2) the main problem with E6 is highlights blowing out upon overexposure in the same way negative (color, B&W) brings the risk of featureless shadows upon underexposure. The converse is also true - the highlights of C41 tend to be recoverable to a remarkable extent, and the same is true for the shadows on E6. So the formulation that 'more shadow depth is possible' in E6 is a bit awkward from my point of view.

I should have posted dynamic range rather than SBR, but you expanded my thoughts.

 

[koraks]

Yes, indeed, that would have helped. And we were certainly thinking along the same lines; I don't doubt this.

 

[Subversive Mk II]

I always shot a half-stop under on Ektachrome. Worked ok for me.

 

[Agulliver]

I always shot a half-stop under on Ektachrome. Worked ok for me.

And the thing is, with a lot of the P&S cameras that those starting out their film journey are using.....one cannot do that. E6 film is less forgiving of exposure inaccuracy, mistakes or simply being used in a camera that has a very simple exposure system. I haven't actually tried this, but I would expect a modern C41 film to do better than E6 in situations such as indoor snap shots of friends with a built in flash, outdoor shots of anything from buildings in direct sun to people in shade....in a camera that doesn't have a sophisticated exposure measuring system or any manual override.

A lot of us more experienced folk learned to get things right first time on colour negative film that isn't as forgiving as today's. And then honed skills on slide film - though I have to say I quite rarely did shoot slide film. I did go through a phase in the early 2000s of shooting Kodachrome and cheap E6 because it was something I'd not really done before and I found myself with the resources to do it.

There's also the matter of convenience. Any standard photo lab does C41, it's by far the most popular process for still film. Many towns and cities still have places one can drop off film and pick it up a day or two later and receive scans to one's inbox. Try that with E6. There's still a decent number of E6 labs about but they generally require posting film off. A further inconvenience. E6 has *always* been less available than C41, even in the heyday. Which is why most people shot C41. Some of that infrastructure remains.