Why Film?

[christopher walrath]

I got started developing my own B&W film with zero gear and chems before my purchase and I also picked enough film to last the year (starting to get low now) for $375.00. So if you're paying $7.00 a 24 neg roll your paying around $.30 per neg and print. My 36 exposure rolls I am processing for around $.16 per neg. You do the math. And it's fun and the learning curve is real short. Besides, you get to hide in the half bath downstairs for hours at a time in a dark room, huffing chems, rapping and agitating to your hearts content . . . Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[urufan56]

Wow...I didn't know you could get it that cheap...anyone else have anything?

BTW

I got started developing my own B&W film with zero gear and chems before my purchase and I also picked enough film to last the year (starting to get low now) for $375.00.

What kind of film did you buy? Pro. or a cheap brand?

 

[christopher walrath]

Kodak TMY 35mm and 120, some Efke 25 for my matchbox pinholes and aritsa.edu from Freestyle 4x5 sheets, 100ISO.

 

[willard3]

I use both film and digital.

I can get a 20 meg film scan and I can't get a 20 meg digital file.

I use film in low light because, at higher ISO, film makes better images.

I use digital in lots of light because the camera is lighter and easier to carry.

Film has more exposure latitude than digital.

 

[urufan56]

Cool! Yeah, thats what I've heard about film in the low-light conditions! Has anyone used the new Ektar 100 film yet? I've been wondering about how well it works! So does anyone else have anything to say?

Kodak TMY 35mm and 120, some Efke 25 for my matchbox pinholes and aritsa.edu from Freestyle 4x5 sheets, 100ISO.

Where did you buy this film? Do you have to order it over the web or can you get it at Walmart? Is it expensive? Is it Pro. film?

Thanks!

 

[christopher walrath]

I got 30 rolls of Kodak TMY 120 roll film, 10 rolls of TMY 135 film, 4 rolls of Efke 25 135 film from B&H along with all of the gear and chemistry. Here's a link to my starting list a rundown of my process.

https://home.comcast.net/~flash19901/articles_BP_c14_process.htm

I recently picked up the arista 4x5 sheets from Freestyle. The TMax is a professional film and has good contrast on a well controlled negative IMHO. The Efke is not pro, per se, but the slow speed allows me to make pinhole images of brighter subjects without having to raise and lower the cover on my matchbox pinholes for an eighth of a second or whatever. It's well worth the investment and as I said, easy to learn.

(I think we just got another one to join the dark side, guys)

 

[urufan56]

Thanks a lot! (Dunno what else to say...lol)

 

[Helen B]

Has anyone used the new Ektar 100 film yet? I've been wondering about how well it works!

I bought 10 rolls to try, but haven't had time to scan the first tests I've made yet. The results I've seen from other photographers look very good for both colour and resolution.

Best,
Helen

 

[Paul Ron]

They say a picture is worth a thousand words... since digital a picture is now worth about a thousand bucks.

So why would you be so concerned about the cost of the film at that reasale value?

 

[urufan56]

They say a picture is worth a thousand words... since digital a picture is now worth about a thousand bucks.

So why would you be so concerned about the cost of the film at that reasale value?

If I understand your point correctly, then I would have to say that I'm sure that every film user is concered about how much he/she will have to pay to buy film. But you do make a good point. Also keep in mind that I'm poor and try to get the best bang for my buck.

 

[KD5NRH]

Since I do most of my film work in B&W, the film prices can vary, but mostly pretty cheap. For 35mm, I've been using more Ilford Delta Pro ISO100 and 400, $3.59-3.79/24exp roll at Adorama. A few cents more at Freestyle, and B&H is $.09 cheaper on 100, but $.16 more for 400.

(Interesting side note; as far as I can remember, just now was the first time I've ever gone to B&H's site without getting the "we're closed" or "we're going to be closed" popup.)

 

[urufan56]

O ok...that pretty cheap!

 

[Battou]

If I understand your point correctly, then I would have to say that I'm sure that every film user is concered about how much he/she will have to pay to buy film.

On the contrary, he is saying that overhead to produce digital photos is higher than that of film and not to over freat on the cost of film.

As a film Photographer I am not concerned in the least about what I pay for film, and I too am broke, in fact I spent my last five dollars on cigeretts last week broke.

 

[urufan56]

Your right, you make a good pont, I'll just not try to think about it!

On the contrary, he is saying that overhead to produce digital photos is higher than that of film and not to over freat on the cost of film.

Your right, but isn't it true that digital costs more in the beginning but for film you have to constantly keep paying for film? jw

 

[Battou]

Your right, you make a good pont, I'll just not try to think about it!



Your right, but isn't it true that digital costs more in the beginning but for film you have to constantly keep paying for film? jw

In a sence, but think of it this way. We are spreading out our expence over a duration of time with affordable increments.

Additionally, Like anyone else we can spend our money when we have it, correct? Well...I have a over thousand dollars worth of lenses, My lens inventory is well in excess of thirty lenses, including but not limited to two 400mm primes on different mounts. However digital users will break the thousand dollar marker on a couple two maybe three lenses. For a user of modern equipment to build and maintain in inventory as vast as mine they would be spending nearly a million dollars if not more, especially considering the modern equivalent to some of my lenses can run upwards of a grand. My Vivitar 400mm tele (Canon mount) cost me $100 USD (the most expencive lens in my collection) and I reasently saw one on E-bay with a buy it now of $78 USD. Since I can't find an exact third party equivalent on the modern Canon mount I have to go with the two closest, They are the Sigma 300mm f/2.8 APO valued at $2,699.00 and the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 APO valued at $4,699.00 at Adoroma. That is one hell of an impact on the wallet that we are avoiding to produce imagery. When I need a lens I can buy it and have it then with out blowing the budget, I don't need to wait and save money for the most part (there are exceptions to this but). I used the Canon mount specifically as I see you are shooting an AE-1 that uses the same FD mount lenses I use on my EF. Nikon and other manufacturers are different but I know Canon.

I may be broke, but I am not in debt. My car is paid for, my home is paid for, my camera is paid for, my lenses are paid for and no credit card bills. How many people with modern 300, 400 and 500mm primes can say that? Not many I would assume, This modern era with credit and all allows people to span these exspendatures out over time as well, so they too are constantly paying out for their glass untill such time that it is paid off, it just goes to the credit card people. All in all the "in the beginning" as you put it, is not as short a period of time as many would like you to believe.

Ten bucks for a few rolls of film every week or two and/or fifty to a hundred bucks for a lens on the rare occation when I find the need for one I lack, I'll take that anyday over a few hundred dollars a week in credit card payments