Film $$$$

[Dave Maciak]

I feel for you guys. I bless my lucky stars I work at a camera store and get film at cost.

I love film---however it's all the costs and expense after it's rolled up and sent to process. I was kucky enough to work at an Aero Space facility that had within the house they had a tremendous lab. Had to buy my own film but process and printed images were allowed, even encouraged by the boss a Master Photographer, It made everybody better. B/W, Chromes, Negative, The color, at least back then was difficult
to learn so I can't say I was proficient with it, Now a-days I understand with kits, and all it's much easier.

 

[Dave Maciak]

I'm liking the process I've worked out for decent prints. Still, I'm hoping Fuji continues to develop big sensor cameras. The new 100RF just might be followed by more affordable models. Fingers crossed.

I swear! I won't buy another camera!

 

[terri]

Besides the cost and lag time between shutter click and viewing is the process and lack of longevity. I have had to throw away many boxes of color negatives, prints, and slides from the 70's forward due to fading. I realize that now most scan their negatives but in doing so you lose the main advantage of film, it's ability to render tonal gradation better. So why film if your going to convert to digital, might as well shoot digital to begin with, especially with the ability to duplicate much of the look of film in post. However I admit the mystique of film still pulls at me.

Digital.



Kidding. It has definitely made life easier for pro photographers and weekend warriors alike.

To your point, it really comes to what any photographer expects to be a final rendering of the image (s)he shot. So many just end up getting posted online, so sure - digital will get you there pretty fast. If you want a print you'll be paying more for it, one way or another. Photo printers + ink + scanner isn't cheap, but you stay in control of your process. Otherwise you will occasionally send out to some printer and hope for the best.

I would argue that a great many film shooters simply like the tactile process of working with film better than digital. Many want to get off their computers and phones. The word "hybrid" means different things to different people. I still have a perfectly good enlarger, but I'm now living in a 3-bedroom bungalow and seriously missing a spare room that could be easily converted to a darkroom, which I enjoyed for 20 years at a prior house. (I have to consider the cost and practicality of having a darkroom created in corner of the un-finished part of my basement. My husband is a film shooter too, and says we'll get there. We'll see. I can't do lith or bromoil prints without silver gelatin prints.)

But even so, we shoot film exclusively and develop at home quite easily. I don't like every scanned negative my Epson V800 does - some look pretty crappy. But the ones that do look good can then be used for my own work, which is image transfers, on varying surfaces - and I use a relatively cheap Brother office-style laser printer for that, and regular copy paper. Yet I have also found a couple of good inkjet papers that I print from my pigment-ink Canon Pro-300 photo printer, that will accept photo oils, so I can still do hand coloring.

The hobby means different things to different people. If all my film producers dried up, I doubt I'd bother much with photography.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Medium format isn't necessary. Ilford FP4 my F5 w/Nikon 28-85 f3.5/4.5 AF. Exposure lost to time.

 

[smoke665]

To your point, it really comes to what any photographer expects to be a final rendering of the image (s)he shot. So many just end up getting posted online, so sure - digital will get you there pretty fast. If you want a print you'll be paying more for it, one way or another. Photo printers + ink + scanner isn't cheap, but you stay in control of your process. Otherwise you will occasionally send out to some printer and hope for the best.

Many want to get off their computers and phones. The word "hybrid" means different things to different people.

I'm not disagreeing with you.....I realllllyyy would like to shot more film, especially MF. Where I disagree is the break in process. Maybe I'm to old and the memory is fading, but I still believe that the tonal representation on a print made from a negative is far better than that made from a digital representation of the negative and you aren't getting off the computer with a "hybrid" process. A good analogy of the farcical use of the "hybrid" word - many years ago while traveling through Amish country, I witnessed a farmer pulling a gasoline engine powered corn picker through his field with a team of mules. He wasn't "really" being true to his beliefs, nor was he gaining anything productive. If anything he was slowing down the process. Now if you set up to go analog all the way with film....yes I can see it. Nothing more magical than seeing the image forming on a print in the tray! I understand why film shooters use the "hybrid" method, I just don't see the advantage.

 

[terri]

Maybe I'm to old and the memory is fading, but I still believe that the tonal representation on a print made from a negative is far better than that made from a digital representation of the negative and you aren't getting off the computer with a "hybrid" process.

On this point we agree completely. A silver gelatin print is most always going to be superior to a printout from a scanned negative - though some folks with great photo editing skills can come pretty darn close. However, there are likely more film shooters who will avail themselves of a film scanner/photo printer than those who can build or create a working darkroom in their homes.

I use the word "hybrid" as an accepted term for using both analog and digital methods to create images. The website Photrio uses it, and the literal definition of the word contains this: "...a thing made by combining two different elements; a mixture." It's appropriate for this context.

He wasn't "really" being true to his beliefs, nor was he gaining anything productive. If anything he was slowing down the process. Now if you set up to go analog all the way with film....yes I can see it.

So a film user who uses a scanner and a printer to make a print isn't being true to his "beliefs?" And who decides what those might be?

A photographic hybrid process doesn't ring "farcical" to me at all. Anyone shooting film in the 21st century will be faced with these issues and reach a workable solution.

One uses the tools available. A comparison to an Amish farmer working his fields with a gas-powered picker is hardly equivalent - unless you think all lovers of analog and film photography are simple Luddites with the religious relish of Anabaptists.

This makes little sense.

As far as "slowing down the process," well...

Have you seen my darkroom apron?

 

[Peeb]

My film process is insane, but it makes me happy:
1. shoot the film
2. develop negatives (used to do it at home- now I send it off).
3. scan the negatives to digital with my DSLR
4. post, and/or print from the digital.

The rational question could be asked: why not just start with the digital camera and take all of the expense and delay out of the process? your end result is digital anyhow? Please don't ask me to explain, but the process just give me satisfaction.

Admittedly, sometimes, I just use thedarkroom.com and use their scans. Here is my latest from a yashica electro35 rangefinder:

Bison on Film by Peeb OK, on Flickr

 

[smoke665]

One uses the tools available. A comparison to an Amish farmer working his fields with a gas-powered picker is hardly equivalent - unless you think all lovers of analog and film photography are simple Luddites wit

You're missing the point, the end result is to get the corn out of the field....the farmer was making the process more difficult by trying to adhear to the old ways, yet taking shortcuts, much like film photographers today. I still occasionally shoot film, but I don't care for the "hybrid" method, because it makes me feel like the farmer.

 

[dxqcanada]

I feel for you guys. I bless my lucky stars I work at a camera store and get film at cost.

Ahh, I really miss that time when I worked in a Camera Store ... such fun, such cheap film and (almost free) developing.

 

[terri]

You're missing the point, the end result is to get the corn out of the field....the farmer was making the process more difficult by trying to adhear to the old ways, yet taking shortcuts, much like film photographers today. I still occasionally shoot film, but I don't care for the "hybrid" method, because it makes me feel like the farmer.

No, I'm not missing anything, Smoke.

I simply find your arguments needlessly judgmental. And a mite odd.

 

[smoke665]

I simply find your arguments needlessly judgmental. And a mite odd.

I've been called worse! Guess this is one on of those agree to disagree moments.

Getting back on the rails of the thread. My go to for portraits in the past was Portra 400. Now it averages out around $21/roll with shipping for 35mm, 36 exposure. Buying in 5 roll packs gets it down to around $14/roll. Surprisingly 120mm is pretty close to the same price. I've been reading a lot on CineStill 400, but havent had the opportunity to try it yet.

As the OP mentioned with processing costs added it's tough for someone that might shoot 40 to 80 shots in a set. I've accumulated a ton of Portra Presets and Profiles over the years, they aren't perfect, but they're so close that it makes the cost barrier even more difficult to cross.

 

[cgw]

I've been called worse! Guess this is one on of those agree to disagree moments.

Getting back on the rails of the thread. My go to for portraits in the past was Portra 400. Now it averages out around $21/roll with shipping for 35mm, 36 exposure. Buying in 5 roll packs gets it down to around $14/roll. Surprisingly 120mm is pretty close to the same price. I've been reading a lot on CineStill 400, but havent had the opportunity to try it yet.

As the OP mentioned with processing costs added it's tough for someone that might shoot 40 to 80 shots in a set. I've accumulated a ton of Portra Presets and Profiles over the years, they aren't perfect, but they're so close that it makes the cost barrier even more difficult to cross.

Cinestill 400 is very likely Kodak Vision 3 cine film. Just consider critics' issues with the halation effects that some disliked. If I had the hots--which I don't--to shoot 120 C-41, I'd probably try Kodak Gold 200 with its familiar toasty color palette--and lower price.

 

[smoke665]

@cgw shot a lot of Kodak Gold 200 back when also, but like others the problem with film from the 80's was longevity. Most of the negatives and prints from that era are fading really bad. Have you noticed any better stability in recent years?

 

[webestang64]

Most of the negatives and prints from that era are fading really bad. Have you noticed any better stability in recent years?

Depends on the lab. One lab I worked at did not use C-41 "stabilizer" for it's final rinse. All my C-41 negs from that lab have faded a bit. All my other negs are fine. And as far as prints, once we got RA-4 process and got away from EP-2 all my color prints look fine from that era.
Our lab uses Fuji C-41 chems with a Noritzu V50 and I run "control strips" to make sure the processor is in balance.
BTW.....a company in Germany is making brand new commercial grade C-41 processors and our lab is thinking of getting one. Our rep at the last trade show said they are very robust. I'm very excited about that as it's hard to find parts for the current one.

 

[cgw]

@cgw shot a lot of Kodak Gold 200 back when also, but like others the problem with film from the 80's was longevity. Most of the negatives and prints from that era are fading really bad. Have you noticed any better stability in recent years?

Have nothing back that far. Never a fan of Kodak consumer films unless I could get it cheaper than Fuji. Kodak.ca never priced as aggressively as Fujifilm.ca. Once Kodak.ca shut down, its prices went up even more about 20yrs ago. No issues with Fuji negatives or prints on Fuji Crystal Archive paper.
Haven't shot enough Gold 200 120 long enough to notice any deterioration. Looks warm to me but when warm works, it's not half bad, especially for the $$$. Lots of online reviews.