Apparently film photography isn't quite dead yet.

[rfrazier]

I just got around to looking at the month magazine from FirstCall Photographic. In it they say that Plustek has come out with a new medium format scanner (the last was from Nikon, which they quit making in 1999). Unfortunately, the scanner is too expensive for me at about £2000. Vivitar has come out with a new 35mm SLR film camera. Jobo has come out with a new film processor (also expensive). Indeed, they have page after page dedicated to film photography stuff. How very pleasant. :)

Best wishes,
Bob

[Michael_Mcr]

Ooo no - why would anyone go back now ?

Perhaps there is some joy of messing around in a darkroom, but i really cant see the attraction anymore.

I think if one has budget, then a full frame DSLR and a decent spec pc with quality monitor and Adobe lightroom is really leaps and bounds ahead of emulsion technology.

This isnt an attempt at trolling BTW, i just cant see the attraction unless its for someone who has never done D&P and wants to have a go or a collector of vintage cameras.

[ralphy]

It's not necessarily 'going back'. ;-)

I think there will be a resurgence of film - I certainly know of some very good photographers who are either staying with it or have re-started using it - and there are a number of reasons for doing so. Here's a couple from my perspective: I think that B&W shot on film holds more tone and texture than images taken on a colour digital sensor and the same applies to high ISO settings. Another reason: film is more challenging and that has appeal for some photographers. Digital has made us lazy to a degree: the immediacy of reviewing and then re-taking again (and again) needs less planning, less composition and less consideration of the camera's settings.

I'm not sure it is a perfect analogy, but consider vinyl versus CD's: the death of the former was a widely-held opinion but now we are seeing the return to the former, invariably by those who listen to the music more than being concerned over the facilities the latter holds.

R

[Michael_Mcr]

Oh, Ok then its not "going back" :)

I am just curious as to what people "get" from film these days and i guess you have answered it. I do understand what you mean about B&W and films dynamic range will give it more visual punch, but you can do some remarkable HDR stuff nowadays with digital post-processing. However you do B&W, the trick is to get the final print onto a platinum of similar based paper for that real big WOW !!

Not sure about the high ISO thing tho - since i got into digital about 10 years back , i have been constantly amazed how noise free high ISO shots are compared to film. I have yet to see film rated or pushed about 400 that doesnt have noticable grain, yet a lot of digital is quite clean to 800 and beyond.

Apropos composition etc, i would agree with the sentiment, but it really is down to the individual and i can say that i am always reluctant to bracket as you dont often get the result you really want. I am a bit old school i guess that you look at the scene and go for the composition, the focus and the exposure that recreate the feeling that you had. Sometimes you want washed out highlights or no shadow detail to draw the eye to a part of the picture just the way you saw it. One of the drawbacks of the miracle of HDR is sometimes you end up with a perfect yet dull picture.

there is the sentiment of having worked at something also, like vinyl, and that is fine if it gives you the rewards that you want from a hobby.

[unwittingaccomplice]

I still use film. I have a £10 Olympus mju compact with a fixed f2.8 lens that lives in my walking coat and still takes superb pictures.

And I use my Fuji ga645zi medium format rangefinder for colour 120 print film. Both are more portable than an slr and the resolution of the 645 competes with my 12mp slr but trashes it on days with white skies because highlights and shadows both look good. Also landscape horizon details always look better on film to my eyes unless shot with a foveon sensor.

I shoot way more digital but the photos I love the most are often from the 10 rolls of film I shoot each year.

But I am an amateur. I fully understand pro's shooting digital. I would too for the speed and peace of mind.

[Michael_Mcr]

I still use film. I have a £10 Olympus mju compact with a fixed f2.8 lens that lives in my walking coat and still takes superb pictures.

My very first ever camera was an Olympus Pen D which shot half-frame 35mm, so i got 72 pictures out of a 36 roll. It had a lovely fixed wide-angle lens and i just took it everywhere as a kid and snapped away merrily because it took so many pictures ! :)

[rfrazier]

Oh, Ok then its not "going back" :)

I am just curious as to what people "get" from film these days and i guess you have answered it. I do understand what you mean about B&W and films dynamic range will give it more visual punch, but you can do some remarkable HDR stuff nowadays with digital post-processing. However you do B&W, the trick is to get the final print onto a platinum of similar based paper for that real big WOW !!

I can't afford a MF or full frame small digital camera. I can afford a 5x4 film camera. I can't afford a tilt and shift lens for a digital camera. Both of my 5x4 cameras do tilt and shift, as does my Graflex MF camera. My Bronica (small MF) doesn't, but I just like using it, as I do my Pentax 35mm cameras..

Best wishes,
Bob

[Tokyo Tokei]

I still have some film cameras. A nice Nikon SLR with some lenses. A few rangefinders. An original Olympus Trip 35. I had a medium format folding camera and a Rollei 35, both sold last year. I haven't shot any film for at least a year ( still got some rolls in the 'fridge though ! ) so I think for me, it's over.

One argument for film over digital, often overlooked, is archival life. Negatives ( or slides ) have an estimated life of several hundred years. Well-made prints likewise. It is significantly difficult to ensure similar longevity for digital files. Coming across an old DVD-R or HD in 2113 will not be as immediately exciting as finding a shoe box of old prints in grandma's attic, and will likely be unusable.

Paul

[rfrazier]

Speaking of fridge film, here's the top shelf of my college fridge.



I have sheet film (2 1/4 x 3 1/4), and roll film (35mm and 120). Lots of B/W (including a can with 100 feet of 35mm film), colour print film (MF and 35mm), colour transparency film (MF). There is even a jar of HC110 developer in there. A half shelf of the fridge at home and a corner of the freezer at home also have film (my wife is very accommodating about this). The 5x4 film takes up the most room.

Best wishes,
Bob

[Tokyo Tokei]

Nice to see a proper roll of film. I haven't wound my own film rolls since ... 1986 or so. Used to buy this Russian stuff ( I was a poor student ... ) that worked out at about 20p for 36 exposures. Not exactly Ilford quality but sufficed.

As we're doing 'fridge shots ( surely a worthy thread by itself ... ) :



Looks like the foie gras isn't the only thing decaying in my 'fridge. Now I don't have a medium format camera, I am wondering why I still have these ...

Paul

[Michael_Mcr]

One argument for film over digital, often overlooked, is archival life. Negatives ( or slides ) have an estimated life of several hundred years. Well-made prints likewise. It is significantly difficult to ensure similar longevity for digital files. Coming across an old DVD-R or HD in 2113 will not be as immediately exciting as finding a shoe box of old prints in grandma's attic, and will likely be unusable.

Paul

several hundred years ? - only if stored in very exact
circumstances .

Film studios have suffered deterioratng stock that is much less than one hundred years old which has been stored where temperature and humidity are outside very tight tolerances.

Digital media can be archived onto many platforms and then copied exactly if physical deterioration takes place. I have cd's from the early 80's which are in perfect shape and have no read errors outside of normal tolerances, wheras i have plenty of similar aged negatives which have picked up airborne contaminants.

The argument about the joys of discovery is a different matter.

[unixshrk]

Coming across an old DVD-R or HD in 2113 will not be as immediately exciting as finding a shoe box of old prints in grandma's attic, and will likely be unusable.

Paul

Having recently just done this, hours and hours were spent just looking back, as if in a time capsule.

I can honestly say I do not think sitting in front of a computer of any kind reviewing digital photos would be any where even remotely near the joy we experienced dusting them off, and enjoying them.

[Tokyo Tokei]

Digital media can be archived onto many platforms and then copied exactly if physical deterioration takes place. I have cd's from the early 80's which are in perfect shape [...]

You must be an early adopter :-)

CD-R recording systems available in 1990 were similar to the washing machine-sized Meridian CD Publisher, based on the two-piece rack mount Yamaha PDS audio recorder costing $35,000, not including the required external ECC circuitry for data encoding, SCSI hard drive subsystem, and MS-DOS control computer. By 1992, the cost of typical recorders was down to $10–12,000, and in September 1995, Hewlett-Packard introduced its model 4020i manufactured by Philips, which, at $995, was the first recorder to cost less than $1000.[1]

Hey I know digital media can last a while, but the technology evolves more quickly. Finding something to read those "cd's from the early 80's" in 50 years may be difficult. If readable, will your digital file format be "supported" by software ? Which means people need to transfer the digital copies from time to time to other more current media storage technology. As this is tedious, many ( not saying you ! ) don't bother. There are many 100-year old prints around that weren't stored with any special care.

I am taking care of my digital files ( info ) but for many people, they had better archival quality with that shoebox ...

Paul

[Seabadger]

I haven't experienced this for a while, but I had a load of early audio CDs that were rendered unusable due to disk rot. Maybe the problem has been solved now, but it doesn't fill me with a huge amount of confidence.

[aldfort]

I used to love my old Olympus OM-1. It was the best camera I ever owned. I had the stock 50mm f1.8 and a 28mm f2.8 and the 75-150mm f4 zoom. In those days a Weston Master light meter was essential kit.
The thing I loved the most was that all of the image processing ( I shot almost exclusively on 'chrome type films) had to be done in your minds eye. I'd often go out early on a Sunday to take some landscape shots. If I exposed half a roll in a shoot like that and got 12 good slides I was a happy bunny.

Then autofocus came on the scene. I switched to a Minolta - lost something in the switch. and lost interest in taking pictures altogether. Spent years with a cheap digital compact for snaps. Have just recently bought a Canon EOS 550D as Mrs a is getting a bit more creative with her picture taking and it's re-awakened my interest a little.

I'd go back to my old Olympus kit like a shot if I could find any of it to buy.

[Tokyo Tokei]

^ I had an OM-10 and that 50mm lens too. Lovely camera. Earlier today I was out with my Pentax K7, 50mm f1.4 Takumar lens attached, split-image focussing screen in use, aperture-priority engaged. Manual focus and aperture. As close as I can get to the old film-camera feel. Try something similar with your DSLR if you pine for the feel and involvement of the film shooting days.

Paul

[Harry Tuttle]

There are many 100-year old prints around that weren't stored with any special care.

I am taking care of my digital files ( info ) but for many people, they had better archival quality with that shoebox ...

Paul

The prints from the last century might exist but how many haven't suffered from some form of tone shift, mould or some other sort of failure. Likewise the shoe box of 5x7s from the 1970s - how many of these look the same way they did when first processed? Colour film is fugitive and suffers from colour shifting. And because of the lack of control over colour temperature you're never quite sure how true the colours are in the first place? So from my perspective all physical media is temporary and prone to deterioration. Of course you can argue that with proper archival techniques you won't get that but in truth how many amateurs have that kind of capability?

I have a large archive of negatives that I produced over a period of 20 years or so. They are all suffering from some sort of problem, normally drying marks where I didn't have a proper drier, lived in a hard water area and the wetting agent didn't really do it's job. Then there is the production of the print - normally rushed because you can't afford to have a separate dark room (I can remember racing sunrise to get the last print out because I couldn't afford to lightproof my single bedroom flat. The prints would have to be rehearsed as a sort of physical ballet to get the result you wanted - even harder when you were split grade printing, and then there was the chore of physically spotting the print and drying it flat if it was fibre based paper. I used to have piles of books around my flat for that purpose.

Then even when you scan a negative, there's the lengthy period you have to spend getting rid of the dust spots and other artefacts. I've used high end flat bed scanners and own a Nikon Coolscan and a Minolta medium format film scanner and can scan up to 4000dpi but in truth at that resolution I'm scanning the silver in the film itself so the medium is ultimately limited. Scanners provide a better image from colour rather B&W but most of my stock is B&W so I'm limited.

So the idea of film is romantic, but now I have a family and even less space and time I can't go back to film. Comparing my output from 35mm or even 6x6 and 6x7 film against a 12 megapixel camera I'm not sure that unless I were Adrian Ensor I would be getting a better image. And 5 years ago I never thought I'd be saying that.

Of course the flip side of this is the constant spend and equipment required to keep on the upgrade path and the poor quality of the cameras compared to excellent film cameras (which I still have and can't bear to get rid of). So it's not all good, but its better than film from my perspective.

[Harry Tuttle]

I haven't experienced this for a while, but I had a load of early audio CDs that were rendered unusable due to disk rot. Maybe the problem has been solved now, but it doesn't fill me with a huge amount of confidence.

Yup I had this too. Destroyed a whole archive of scanned negatives it took months to make. Since high capacity hard drives became affordable I haven't used a CD or DVD for storage. It's cheaper in a way to fill a hard drive and store that than run the risk of CDs failing. I know that hard drives are themselves impermanent but I try and run a system where I have duplicates of all my files on multiple hard drives hopefully reducing the risk of failure. So my greatest fear is technological advance with little or no retrograde capability particularly with regard to leads and connections. Anyone remember SCSI? I fear Firewire is going the same way and I have a number of devices that use that format. I also have one of the world's biggest collections of old Macs and I don't see it getting any smaller as I try to run increasingly large legacy systems. For me that's the true and annoying cost of digital photography.

[Tokyo Tokei]

I think drying marks and so on are not a function of time deterioration, more an issue in the original process with respect. I know exactly what you mean - I too have folders full of home processed film that is not perfect. It wasn't perfect when I filed it either

I may have inadvertently derailed the thread with the comment about archiving. It was just to add that film, apart from it's intrinsic photographic qualities, has additional benefits that can be overlooked such as longevity. Analogue degradation certainly happens, but digital degradation is worse ( corrupt files ) and there is the whole technology turnover issue to contend with. Had digital cameras been around in the 80s rather than 90s, you'd be looking for a 12" floppy drive now to read your carefully stored backups ...

I doubt one digital camera user in a 100 has any reasonable hope of recovering their digital photos in 50 years.

Paul

[Harry Tuttle]

I used to love my old Olympus OM-1. It was the best camera I ever owned. I had the stock 50mm f1.8 and a 28mm f2.8 and the 75-150mm f4 zoom. In those days a Weston Master light meter was essential kit.
The thing I loved the most was that all of the image processing ( I shot almost exclusively on 'chrome type films) had to be done in your minds eye. I'd often go out early on a Sunday to take some landscape shots. If I exposed half a roll in a shoot like that and got 12 good slides I was a happy bunny.

Then autofocus came on the scene. I switched to a Minolta - lost something in the switch. and lost interest in taking pictures altogether. Spent years with a cheap digital compact for snaps. Have just recently bought a Canon EOS 550D as Mrs a is getting a bit more creative with her picture taking and it's re-awakened my interest a little.

I'd go back to my old Olympus kit like a shot if I could find any of it to buy.

I started with an OM10 and moved onto OM2s. I still have three and can't bear to part with them. I also have two Leicas (which were for me the pinnacle truly marvellous cameras to use regardless of all the hype), a Mamiya 6x7, a Pentax 6x7, a couple of Mamiya C330s, a Voigtlander R2 and an Olympus 35RC plus a range of lenses for each system all sitting doing nothing and I can't really face up to doing what I should and sell it all off.

The physical quality and simplicity of these cameras particularly the viewfinders and interfaces is significantly superior to modern DSLRs and like you I'd give my D90 up for them like a shot but I just can't go back to the physical difficulty of processing film. I guess the answer for me is a digital Leica, but the cost is ridiculously prohibitive. What I'd like is an OM1 with a digital back - that's not too much to ask is it?

[Tokyo Tokei]

^ As I mentioned earlier, a quality old manual-focus manual-aperture lens on a modern DSLR with a split-image focussing screen really is a good option for those of us who miss the "real" cameras but don't want the bother of film processing.

Camera makers know it too. They are copying the look of old cameras ( as in all current Fujis, all current Olympus u4/3s ) but it's the feel they miss. Spin-the-wheel aperture and electronic focussing and viewfinders do not feel the same, even if the body is all chrome and faux leather.

Paul

[Harry Tuttle]

I think drying marks and so on are not a function of time deterioration, more an issue in the original process with respect. I know exactly what you mean - I too have folders full of home processed film that is not perfect. It wasn't perfect when I filed it either

I may have inadvertently derailed the thread with the comment about archiving. It was just to add that film, apart from it's intrinsic photographic qualities, has additional benefits that can be overlooked such as longevity. Analogue degradation certainly happens, but digital degradation is worse ( corrupt files ) and there is the whole technology turnover issue to contend with. Had digital cameras been around in the 80s rather than 90s, you'd be looking for a 12" floppy drive now to read your carefully stored backups ...

I doubt one digital camera user in a 100 has any reasonable hope of recovering their digital photos in 50 years.

Paul

Absolutely agree. I can remember the stress of trying not to buckle the film as you fumbled around in a changing bag trying to thread it onto a developing spool, and then the stress of trying to make sure that you didn't scratch the negative as you squeegeed it off at the other end of the process. I think my problem with drying marks was Bournemouth hard water and having to hang them over the bath to dry. I ended up getting an archival washer but it never really solved the problem and I was too chicken to use a hair dryer as this creates drying marks as well - or destroys the film.

I think we will all be faced onto an expensive gradual upgrade path - which I suspect is what the technology companies want from us anyway. Before digital cameras I have never bought a new film camera - I always bought second hand bodies and bought into the lens system. Even then I'd buy second hand as and when I could. Since I decided I had to get a digital camera to photograph my children 7 years ago I have had something like five different DSLRs and I'm considering upgrading my D90 for a D7100 so I can print A3 at 300ppi+. That's lunacy. What's even more frightening is that when you read the photo forums (which I gave up a couple of years ago in disgust) all the talk is about how laggardly your favourite manufacturer is in producing the next model camera for you to go about and buy. So photography in some quarters has become all about the camera taking the picture not the photographer.

The thing I fear most is when the big camera manufacturers decide not to sell third parties access to the raw file code or Adobe decide to limit the raw files they support (I think both have been suggested). When you can't process the raw files from your legacy DSLR that's when you'll realise that you were only leasing the digital rights to your own images all along.

[Harry Tuttle]

^ As I mentioned earlier, a quality old manual-focus manual-aperture lens on a modern DSLR with a split-image focussing screen really is a good option for those of us who miss the "real" cameras but don't want the bother of film processing.

Camera makers know it too. They are copying the look of old cameras ( as in all current Fujis, all current Olympus u4/3s ) but it's the feel they miss. Spin-the-wheel aperture and electronic focussing and viewfinders do not feel the same, even if the body is all chrome and faux leather.

Paul

We must have been split at birth. Apart from the digital Leica Ms I can't think of a camera that has a viewfinder and focussing system that is in any way equal or superior to my OM2s or Leica Ms. All the modern generation of ersatz rangefinders and DSLRs suffer from small and cluttered optical viewfinders. As for electronic viewfinders...

What never ceases to amaze me are the number of cameras without viewfinders - especially the compacts with interchangeable lenses - where people hold them with outstretched arms. This is about the worst thing you can do for keeping an image steady and blur free. I guess this is what lens stabilisation was invented for.

[Tokyo Tokei]

As I really was out earlier with this, and it happens to be besides me now, a quick shot of my DSLR with 50mm/1.4 :



I replaced the standard focussing screen with one from Nikon with a fine matt, diagonal split and circular prism. You can fit any screen from any film-era 35mm SLR that you like. You will have to trim it to fit the Pentax screen cage though and possibly ( depending on the thickness ) fit spacers. Or you can buy one already professionally trimmed from a few sellers.

The K7 has a proper pentaprism viewfinder, metal body, and with this setup, it feels very similar to my old Olympus in operation. Smoothly resistive focussing, real aperture stops, and a bright optical viewfinder with focussing aids. If you have a DSLR you like, worth trying I think, especially if you still have some decent lenses. Adapters are cheap. The replacement focussing screen isn't strictly necessary but useful if your camera supports it.

</thread derail> !

Paul

[Harry Tuttle]

Thanks Paul,

it's certainly worth thinking about and a decent focussing screen with less reliant on autofocus would be a relief and make using a DSLR considerably more pleasant. Its a shame that manufacturers can't offer this sort of option themselves. It feels weird having to spend a small fortune on a camera and then have to adapt it to meet one's needs. Way of the modern world I guess.

[rfrazier]

Thanks Paul,

it's certainly worth thinking about and a decent focussing screen with less reliant on autofocus would be a relief and make using a DSLR considerably more pleasant. Its a shame that manufacturers can't offer this sort of option themselves. It feels weird having to spend a small fortune on a camera and then have to adapt it to meet one's needs. Way of the modern world I guess.

I like using a ground glass focussing screen. Using a loupe to look at an image which is upside down and inverted is the way to go. :)

Best wishes,
Bob

[Michael_Mcr]

Had digital cameras been around in the 80s rather than 90s, you'd be looking for a 12" floppy drive now to read your carefully stored backups ...

I doubt one digital camera user in a 100 has any reasonable hope of recovering their digital photos in 50 years.

Paul

But anyone who had archived stuff on 12" floppies (LOL) in the 80's, would have transferred them to 3.5" floppies or CD's or tapes and would have then transferred them to DVD's and so the process goes on. I would accept that there is a danger of any digital storage medium becoming obsolete, so there is a need to re-archive occasionally. Digital code is digital code and doesnt deteriorate itself.

It doesnt take long to move archives to another format and it is easy to do with error-checking.

apropos my earlier remark about 80's CD's - i have manufactured audio CD's from 198(3) ? when i bought the first Philips CD player ( i also have the Phillips Brand classical CD's that came with the player and they are fine too ) and also have backup cd's from when i bought my first SCSI CD burner and i can honestly say they are all fine - there is no evidence of any deterioration.

[Michael_Mcr]

A bit O/T, but....

..... Have been clearing out the attic and i found 5 bound annual volumes of the old "35mm" magazine from 1959 - 1963 inc which were given to me when i was about 10 (1973) and first getting into photography by a family friend who taught me how to develop and print photos and she even gave me my first proper camera which was an Olympus Pen D compact.

Free to a loving home - so any forum regulars that i recognise or if they know anyone who would genuinely enjoy them and not just trade them on etc,etc.

The magazines come from an era when it was all home developing and home loading of film cassettes etc and are a fascinating mix of tech articles and period camera reviews as well as photojounalism features.

The volumes are in good , dry and clean condition internally tho the bindings are a tiny bit loose on a couple and could do with reinforcement. You would have to collect from South Manchester or make arangements with me for post / courier delivery or similar.

Otherwise they will be recycled.... :(

[magirus]

I have couple of frames left on a roll of Kodak Gold in my Pentax ME Super, then I have a roll of Kodak BW400CN to go in. Looks like an old stylee weekend for me. The camera with a Pentax 1.7 50mm mounted plus a Tamron 28-80 SP with an Adaptall II adapter fits in a small Billingham Hadley bag, with room to spare.

[Harry Tuttle]

I like using a ground glass focussing screen. Using a loupe to look at an image which is upside down and inverted is the way to go. :)

Best wishes,
Bob

René Burri says that Cartier-Bresson regularly reviewed his contacts upside down camera as a way of judging the composition of his images - if the composition was good from that perspective it would also work the right way round.

I would imagine that this was largely Ansel Adams view of the world as well.

[Seabadger]

Was the C-B mention a reference to him using a VIDOM set to display an upside down image by any chance? I seem to remember reading that somewhere...

[Harry Tuttle]

Was the C-B mention a reference to him using a VIDOM set to display an upside down image by any chance? I seem to remember reading that somewhere...

Yes I believe that's right. I have the Russian version of this device and it's quite a beast to use.

I also know that he was in the habit of reviewing his contact sheets and (I think) prints inverted as well as it allowed him to concentrate on the composition without being overwhelmed by the content of the picture.

I also believe he said that 'focus was a bourgeoise concept'. I always try to bear this in mind when my eye or autofocus let me down...