Do people even know what film is any more?

[gsgary]

I just got through a roll of Kodachrome yesterday. I've got to send it out to Dwayne's in a couple of days. But yes, I'm 19 and prefer film, thing is, there are no dakrooms anywhere near me! My college shut theirs down a couple of years back and I don't have the space or money to make my own yet.

You should live in the uk, every college that teaches photography has a darkroom

 

[Overread37]

Yep though most schools are moving toward a digital dominant course - film is often part of the course (and some have film section which must be passed) - but they also move more toward the digital methods as well.
However with cameras and facilities most courses also let studends choose to complete the course coursework in film or digital.

At university level its a bit more divided - some have jumped right into the digital market with a full digital setup and course focused around digital methods - others are sticking to their guns and full film course (often with a bias toward weddings since that and landscapes are two areas where film is still a well used process - B&W film weddings are "popular") whilst most will entertain both in the first year and then let students find their own path in the latter years and dissertations.

 

[dxqcanada]

Consider the fact that if you walk into any store that is selling camera's ... you will not find a Film camera on their shelf (unless you walked into the Used Dept.).

 

[Overread37]

That's partly as result of manufactures as well though - they simply are not pushing the film market anymore in the 35mm format (some other areas still have a stronger film following, but are more specialist than the average highstreet store). Add to that the lack of demand from the average customer for film cameras and its no wonder that the average highstreet shop - especailly the chainstores - are not stocking any/many film cameras.

 

[Battou]

That's partly as result of manufactures as well though - they simply are not pushing the film market anymore in the 35mm format (some other areas still have a stronger film following, but are more specialist than the average highstreet store). Add to that the lack of demand from the average customer for film cameras and its no wonder that the average highstreet shop - especailly the chainstores - are not stocking any/many film cameras.

This is also due to the average film costomer buying used. When you sit and look at the prices between new and used film camera equipment it's not hard to see why.

 

[Overread37]

Very true - the digital revolution flooded the film market with (good quality) used products as many pros and amateurs made the jump into digital.

Heck at the local camera club to me (where everyone is at least double if not more time my own age) digital is highly dominant over film. Free processing, instant results, no film to purchase are all big things that have helped push digital forward.

 

[Derrel]

A number of years ago, I bought a Fuji S2 Pro d-slr when it was new, and it cost me $2,495. I shot that camera very heavily, and really enjoyed its lovely image quality and beautiful Fuji color characteristics. After a few years, I figured up that at $6.99 per roll of Ektachrome 100 Professional or other good E-6 slide film, at $8.99 per roll for "quality" E-6 slide developing and mounting, the $2,495 I sunk into the S2 Pro had yielded the equivalent of around $74,500 worth of film and processing. That did not include trips to go and buy film and return home, nor any trips to the lab to drop off-return home-drive back-return home....NO allowance made for time or trips or hassles...

There never was anything wonderful about sending E-6 slide film out and having it come back scratched, or dirty, or processed poorly. Processing from economy labs grew worse and worse and worse, until by the end of the film as mass market era, the chances of getting GOOD processing were lower than the chance of receiving poor or sub-par processing--at many outlets.

I like film images. My first 25 years worth of pictures were all shot on film.
But film was not without its share of problems--damaged negatives, poor processing, processing mistakes, fogged film, cannisters that scratched films, and so on. Not to mention limited shots and the need to carry large amounts of film for extended shooting trips,etc. So, it's no surprise that increasingly, people are less and less aware of film, and of picture-making using film. Emulsion on substrate had a good 165 year run! (1839-2004)

 

[jbylake]

I just got through a roll of Kodachrome yesterday. I've got to send it out to Dwayne's in a couple of days. But yes, I'm 19 and prefer film, thing is, there are no dakrooms anywhere near me! My college shut theirs down a couple of years back and I don't have the space or money to make my own yet.

I shoot film almost exclusively. When I moved into my new flat, there just wasn't room for a darkroom. Just purchase a dedicated film scanner. You can develop negatives in your bathroom, if needed, or another room or basement that has a sink. Then you can just scan your neg's into digital, and buy a printer (oouch! a really good one can be expensive), or send them out for printing. I might only "keep" one or two for printing out of a roll of 36, if that, so I just take them to a local processor for printing. I just bought a new scanner about 6 months or so ago. You can get a good one for a little over $300, you can get less expensive, and more expensive models, whatever your budget allows.

So, for about $400 bucks, or less you can shoot, develop and scan. PS Elements can be had on EBAY for about 30 or 40 Bucks (For PS7). It's really all I need for B&W. And you're set to go.

J.:mrgreen:

 

[TexasJeff]

I just got through a roll of Kodachrome yesterday. I've got to send it out to Dwayne's in a couple of days. But yes, I'm 19 and prefer film, thing is, there are no dakrooms anywhere near me! My college shut theirs down a couple of years back and I don't have the space or money to make my own yet.

I shoot film almost exclusively. When I moved into my new flat, there just wasn't room for a darkroom. Just purchase a dedicated film scanner. You can develop negatives in your bathroom, if needed, or another room or basement that has a sink. Then you can just scan your neg's into digital, and buy a printer (oouch! a really good one can be expensive), or send them out for printing. I might only "keep" one or two for printing out of a roll of 36, if that, so I just take them to a local processor for printing. I just bought a new scanner about 6 months or so ago. You can get a good one for a little over $300, you can get less expensive, and more expensive models, whatever your budget allows.

So, for about $400 bucks, or less you can shoot, develop and scan. PS Elements can be had on EBAY for about 30 or 40 Bucks (For PS7). It's really all I need for B&W. And you're set to go.

J.:mrgreen:

Are prints scanned from negatives but printed digitally something you could show at galleries?
I am assuming hand made prints are still the norm. I had been wondering about this and your post reminded me.

 

[Battou]

I just got through a roll of Kodachrome yesterday. I've got to send it out to Dwayne's in a couple of days. But yes, I'm 19 and prefer film, thing is, there are no dakrooms anywhere near me! My college shut theirs down a couple of years back and I don't have the space or money to make my own yet.

I shoot film almost exclusively. When I moved into my new flat, there just wasn't room for a darkroom. Just purchase a dedicated film scanner. You can develop negatives in your bathroom, if needed, or another room or basement that has a sink. Then you can just scan your neg's into digital, and buy a printer (oouch! a really good one can be expensive), or send them out for printing. I might only "keep" one or two for printing out of a roll of 36, if that, so I just take them to a local processor for printing. I just bought a new scanner about 6 months or so ago. You can get a good one for a little over $300, you can get less expensive, and more expensive models, whatever your budget allows.

So, for about $400 bucks, or less you can shoot, develop and scan. PS Elements can be had on EBAY for about 30 or 40 Bucks (For PS7). It's really all I need for B&W. And you're set to go.

J.:mrgreen:

Are prints scanned from negatives but printed digitally something you could show at galleries?
I am assuming hand made prints are still the norm. I had been wondering about this and your post reminded me.

Actually, yeah one can get away with a scanned negative printed displayed in a gallery, some enthusiests can spot the difference but most untrained eyes would never notice.

No hand printing is no longer the norm, in fact it's a rarety as far as commercial printing goes, one has to look specifically for labs that do optical printing anymore. As far as personal in home printing like jbylake was refferring to goes I would have to say that is prolly fifty/fifty give or take.

 

[jbylake]

Yeah, I agree. You can get really good prints from printers, but those quality printers can really cost you big bucks, compared to a normal printer, or "photo printer". Those that cost a around a hundred or two, won't cut it for Pro level work. That's why I send off my scanned negatives to a shop to have them printed.

If you're going to be displaying your work in galleries, I would assume that you are a professional, or can shoot at the Pro level, in that case, I think I'd build a full blown darkroom.

J.:mrgreen:

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Are prints scanned from negatives but printed digitally something you could show at galleries?
I am assuming hand made prints are still the norm. I had been wondering about this and your post reminded me.

This came up in a another thread not that long ago so I checked out the Aperture Foundation. It turns out they do sell digital prints. There are prints listed as "Epson archival" and, whatever that is, that's digital.

Now, the question is whether the foundation follows what the top galleries are doing and, by top, I mean the ones that sell to museums. And then, are the collectors going to follow the museums or what...

But for anyone wanting to seriously explore the photo art world, it would be good to know.

 

[TexasJeff]

Very interesting. I was talking to my professor about this and he seemed to be of the opinion that digital prints made from film are acceptable in most situations. He pointed out some photographers like... well I took poor notes.
Point being there are plenty of well know artists, if I dare use the word, doing just that. I am going to be getting a negative scanner soon.
I have also been thinking my DSLR is going to be a wonderful replacement for my old 35mm film cameras except for infrared. I hear there's still some companies making it though Kodak has stopped?
But seeing the price of some of the medium format digitals makes film look very attractive if one wanted to move to a larger format, especially given the drop in price for film gear these days.
There are a lot of possibilities either way and its really an exciting time in photography.

 

[djacobox372]

A number of years ago, I bought a Fuji S2 Pro d-slr when it was new, and it cost me $2,495. I shot that camera very heavily, and really enjoyed its lovely image quality and beautiful Fuji color characteristics. After a few years, I figured up that at $6.99 per roll of Ektachrome 100 Professional or other good E-6 slide film, at $8.99 per roll for "quality" E-6 slide developing and mounting, the $2,495 I sunk into the S2 Pro had yielded the equivalent of around $74,500 worth of film and processing. That did not include trips to go and buy film and return home, nor any trips to the lab to drop off-return home-drive back-return home....NO allowance made for time or trips or hassles...

There never was anything wonderful about sending E-6 slide film out and having it come back scratched, or dirty, or processed poorly. Processing from economy labs grew worse and worse and worse, until by the end of the film as mass market era, the chances of getting GOOD processing were lower than the chance of receiving poor or sub-par processing--at many outlets.

I like film images. My first 25 years worth of pictures were all shot on film.
But film was not without its share of problems--damaged negatives, poor processing, processing mistakes, fogged film, cannisters that scratched films, and so on. Not to mention limited shots and the need to carry large amounts of film for extended shooting trips,etc. So, it's no surprise that increasingly, people are less and less aware of film, and of picture-making using film. Emulsion on substrate had a good 165 year run! (1839-2004)

I understand your points, but why compare a 6 megapixel digital with medium format film? Heck cheap drugstore 35mm negative film would outperform that particular digital camera.

 

[Derrel]

I understand your points, but why compare a 6 megapixel digital with medium format film? Heck cheap drugstore 35mm negative film would outperform that particular digital camera.

Not sure what you mean by comparing that camera to medium format film. What do you mean, medium format film? E-6 means E-6 processing. Where is this medium format film thing coming from? I wasn't comparing it to medium format film.

And, funny thing about that particular digital camera--James Russell shot numerous six-figure cosmetics and fashion campaigns using the Fuji S2 pro camera, so your assertion that cheap drugstore negative film outperforms a 6MP digital is quite laughable. He compared the S2's output quite frequently to Fuji's Astia 120 rollfilm...but then, he's only one of Americas' top advertising shooters. I''m sure he'd rather use cheap drugstore film.

Stop by his web site and look at some of the work done with the S2 pro and tell us how bad it looks compared with MF film work. I'd love to hear your dissertation. The Photography and Films Of James Russell and Ann Rutherford Los Angeles New York Dallas Paris