As I said already multiple times in this thread, the real challenge right now is not cameras and film, but are in the lack of good and cheap scanners, and widespread, flexible and easily accessible development options.
Lack of affordable new cameras = death knell for film photography?
-
A
- Thread starter Horatio
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Nikon s2 with 50mm 1.4
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale Fujifilm 4x5 Fujichrome Veliva 100 and Fujifilm 4x5 Fujichrome 64T. EXPIRED
- Started by Renato Tonelli
-
Sold Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros 120 and 4x5
- Started by Renato Tonelli
-
For Sale Nikkor 5cm f2 ltm
- Started by Gram Nylén
Forum statistics
The Guardian link is very interesting. If you like photographic archaeology, look at the Related Story listed at the end of the article Atlantic City: 'Trump turned this place into a ghost town'
https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...p-ghost-town-gambling-brian-rose-photographer
Honestly, development is easier than it's ever been. If you have access to a kitchen sink (bathroom sinks are too small/shallow, though most bathtubs are usable) you can start processing your own film -- for a couple hundred bucks if you buy everything new, less than half that if you're patient with eBay. Further, when I was learning photography, almost no one tried to do their own color; now, it's barely any harder than conventional black and white (mainly in terms of temperature control). Color printing is a bit more complex, but you can set up to print black and white in a good sized closet. Enlargers are the bottleneck here -- new ones are expensive, if you can find them, and get a cheap one used and you'll have trouble finding negative carriers.
You are spot on, here. Enlargement is another thing entirely, but there are very few obstacles to developing your own film, and the results are perfect.
I'm an old veteran of B/W wet chemistry days, but I never attempted to do color work in the days when I had a full darkroom. The required long developing times for film, precise temperature control, and the expense of color head enlargers and printing paper (test strips alone could get very expensive, burning a lot of paper) made it a very expensive hobby in the days when there was a quality camera shop or photo processor in every town. I'd do B/W at home and send out color film for processing and small prints - and if I wanted to print large, that would go out too.
Flash forward thirty years to the present...
I have returned to shooting film, using either gear I had back in the day or systems I could only dream of affording back then. At first, I went to my local camera shop for development and scanning, but they closed up, and I began looking at developing and scanning myself. With much shorter development times and non-temperature critical blix and stabilization, I figured I could get close enough. I already had tanks, graduates, and a changing bag, so I figured my major expenses would be chemistry and a scanner. I bought a refurb V600 Epson, which is fine for smaller prints, although slow in operation, and acquired the chemistry online. First results were pretty good - with excellent color quality considering the lack of precision. I've recently added a cheap (under $50) Sous Vide heater, and set up a plastic bin as my development bath, holding about four gallons of water to immerse my developing tanks and chemistry bottles to the right level. So now I'm developing my film at a precise 102 degree temperature, in less than a half hour, doing relatively low resolution initial scans, and doing wet scans on the Epson of images I want to use for larger prints. The scanner was under $200, the chemistry is about $50 per 25 rolls of film, and the whole process is a lot easier than I ever expected. I'm very happy with the results so far, and will continue to send out my digital images for prints larger than my HP printer can accommodate.
I don't know why I was so reluctant to start this again. The expense is low, the "overhead" of chemical and equipment storage is minimal, and the hybrid process gives me results that are usable for both digital sharing and smaller prints. If I have an image that I especially prize, the negative is available to send out for wet printing by one of the excellent online labs. I don't know why more people aren't developing their film at home, and then taking either the third party wet printing route or scanning on a relatively inexpensive flatbed scanner. It's my personal path to continued affordable film shooting.
Andy
Because they've been told it's difficult, or hazardous, or they never knew it was even possible. If you aren't already fairly interested in photography, you might not even know it's possible to process your own film.
Even getting a room dark enough to load the film on to the spool can be an insurmountable hurdle to many people.
Something like the daylight loader development tank, that turned into an big anticlimax upon release after what felt like 10 years of development, from last year, would be ideal.
Only done right of course.
It was basically a clone of a flawed design from the sixties.
Enlargement is what most people would and should end up doing (since it’s the best quality you’ll ever see a film photo in), is again severely hampered by available quality space.
Most community darkrooms are at the outset, or quickly turn into exploitation schemes to milk “the fad” for what it’s worth “until it over”.
In the latter half of the twentieth century well run community dark rooms (as in really run by a commune, and not a man trying to feed his wife and three kids, as well as pay for rent and materials) where not uncommon though.
It could happen again.
Something like the daylight loader development tank, that turned into an big anticlimax upon release after what felt like 10 years of development, from last year, would be ideal.
Only done right of course.
It was basically a clone of a flawed design from the sixties.
Enlargement is what most people would and should end up doing (since it’s the best quality you’ll ever see a film photo in), is again severely hampered by available quality space.
Most community darkrooms are at the outset, or quickly turn into exploitation schemes to milk “the fad” for what it’s worth “until it over”.
In the latter half of the twentieth century well run community dark rooms (as in really run by a commune, and not a man trying to feed his wife and three kids, as well as pay for rent and materials) where not uncommon though.
It could happen again.
Last edited:
I have a darkroom at home and make prints on a regular basis, but I don't develop my own film. Primarily because in the limited spare time I have I'd rather spend it on the more creative ends of the process - namely out in the world shooting photos and translating them into physical prints. The endless 'what went wrong here?' threads on forums like Photrio, in which users show their ruined home-developed film, don't really help matters
I realize using a lab affords me somewhat less flexibility in terms of how my film is developed, but I don't believe that's really proven very limiting up to this point. But I likely will bite the bullet in the near future and give it a go. It is slowly starting to become more appealing.
To give you a hint, @logan2z , I learned to develop film at summer camp (one week) at the age of nine, along with learning to operate an adjustable camera (Yashica rangefinder, don't recall model fifty years later), and make basic prints. I then got a daylight tank and a few packets of either Dektol or Kodak MQ Universal developer (essentially the same stuff) at a yard sale, and developed my own film, before my tenth birthday. I loaded the film into the tank in my bed, under every blanket I could borrow.
The negatives were fine, but I had no way to print them at the time.
A few years later, I got a small enlarger and some small-size (2x3?) expired paper at another yard sale, covered the one window in my dormitory room (I was at boarding school), and developed film and made prints, developing both in HC-110. I was fourteen.
Sacrifice a roll to practice loading the reel with, and you'll be off and running. Yes, there will surely come times when you'll make a mistake. Do like you did when you fell off your bicycle trying to learn to ride: pick yourself up and get back on.
The negatives were fine, but I had no way to print them at the time.
A few years later, I got a small enlarger and some small-size (2x3?) expired paper at another yard sale, covered the one window in my dormitory room (I was at boarding school), and developed film and made prints, developing both in HC-110. I was fourteen.
Sacrifice a roll to practice loading the reel with, and you'll be off and running. Yes, there will surely come times when you'll make a mistake. Do like you did when you fell off your bicycle trying to learn to ride: pick yourself up and get back on.
And probably because they don't have access to YouTube? That was actually what convinced me how easy it was and how much tolerance the whole process had.
Andy
Or they never looked at the film videos, perhaps because they already "knew" it was beyond mere mortals. Funny cat videos don't demand anything of the viewer, like changing their world view...
I learned to use a changing bag back in the original "film days". Once you've practiced loading a few rolls of sacrificial film in daylight, transferring the "feel" to a changing bag is really just a matter of a few practice runs. A changing bag costs under $25, and requires no space.
I really don't feel that any of the material considerations or availability of chemistry and products is much of a challenge these days. We've got it pretty good.
Andy
Exactly!
It seems so weird to me that there are those who spend time on this site hoping for the end of film.
Yep, he is also on digital Leica.
It is not APUG anymore, in case if you novice here or haven't noticed. It is no different from RFF now or any other site.
Apparently. I think I will visit a vegetarian cooking site and tell them they should all be eating meat.
In NA here is no lack of good and cheap scanners.
I have this one:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...b11b210201_perfection_v550_photo_scanner.html
199 USD and it is totally awesome scanner. Very common scanner. I purchased it in Canada.
I also have Plustek 8200i which goes on sale bellow 300 USD once in a while on same site, shop.
And where are all kinds of digital cameras rigs, which are good alternative to scanners as well.
You just not willing to accept what owner of this site did after it went PHORTIO from APUG. This site is not film only site anymore. It just another RFF.
While developing film is easy, the general public does not know that. However making enlargements is difficult if not impossible for most people because of the cost of equipment, and the need for a darkroom with an enlarger.
How can it be RFF when we have so many SLR and TLR users? Next you will be complaining about the cost of film.
When you include inflation, film has never been cheaper. Arista 400 for $4.29/36 in 2020? That would be something like a nickel in the 1980s...
And after all the anguish over Acros 100 film being discontinued in 2019, now that Fuji has been re-introduced it: Oh No, the price is outrageous; They are trying to kill the product; What could they possibly be thinking; I don't have confidence in Fuji; I'll never use it; Full Stop.When you include inflation, film has never been cheaper. Arista 400 for $4.29/36 in 2020? That would be something like a nickel in the 1980s...
Last edited:
See, this is the pseudo sealioning I’ve alluded to in the other hot thread on this site.
No! The Epsons are terrible scanners, and you with huge certainty know the reasons I’d list.
The Plusteks are only slightly better.
It’s like having an otherwise excellent hifi, and then hooking up a pair of random plastic boombox speakers.
Sure, you can hear what’s going on, and it’s “useable”, but that’s not really why most people buy hifi equipment.
Absolutely! DSLR scanning is in many ways the best scanning technology there is (though there is still quite a number of things that could be improved, that a standard camera and lens doesn't lend themselves to).
But digital camera scanning is also completely impractical and presents an insurmountable number of difficulties to the vast majority of film shooters.
Scanning is the majority of the cost of processing in a lab, and the results are usually bad to terrible.
It's what's keeping a huge number of people from shooting more, causing them to stop shooting film, or not start at all.
A Good & Cheap scanner should be absolutely #1 priority on everyones list of "things to be done" when it comes to film.
It's more important than anything else for the future thriving of film.
Even if all you ever do is wet print, it's still in you interest, since it would mean more film sales, which means a healthier and more securely grounded market.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |