|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
F... F... F.... Fi... Fi...Film is Not Going Away!
Oct 13 14 06:25 pm Link Once shot a few rolls - it was dirt cheap then. But the quality was terrible and I didn't like the low contrast, low d-max nature of the scale. Maybe they will use a new formulation. I certainly hope. Some of the off brands they produced then weren't any better. Oct 13 14 06:47 pm Link I have never heard of it I wish Efke would back with their IR film Should have hoarded a bunch before it was gone Oct 13 14 07:07 pm Link Not all kickstarter/crowd funded projects have been successful so interesting to see how it goes. There's always the resistance to change but I couldn't be happier leaving film behind after all those countless nights locked up in my makeshift darkroom or hours spotting prints. Oct 14 14 02:48 am Link I seem to remember that the transparency film was rather good. But I really don't understand this air of mystique that some people seem to be trying to build around film. Oct 14 14 03:53 am Link Good for them. Oct 14 14 04:44 am Link I somehow doubt they will make a go of it as more film labs keeping shutting down. Could be the EPA people will tighten up restrictions on film processing effluents even more and to the point of banning their sale. It started with silver and trying to recycle it, then it was a bad heavy metal showing up in recycled water supplies, and now hydroquine developer is on their radar. Color chemistry used to be bad for formalin in the color stabilizers too. The "Green people" would no doubt be shocked at some of the stuff in school labs (i.e. Chemistry, darkrooms, biology, etc.) that goes down the drain too. I expect to see some heavy waste management fees attached to labs too in order to close them. Don't know if Costco got targeted, but mine just stopped dealing with film a couple of months ago (Wasn't profitable enough, aside from the restrictions.). It might be good for the oldster pros who still shoot film and have a ton of gear, but film's days could be waning and going the way of Daguerreotypes and tintypes. It was fun then, but digital is far sharper, wider latitude, easier to work and rework. Sadly, I threw out all my film and darkroom gear as I couldn't peddle the 4x5 stuff so it all went to the dump. Too much stuff so something had to go and it was all film related that went. Was fun at the time and like magic, but can't say I miss it. Digital, however, seems to cost me a lot more though. More variations of printing papers and some are not all that cheap either. Hideously costly inks where one ink cart costs as much as a gallon of color chemistry. Printers that last maybe 2 years and are disposable as they cost too much to fix. New cameras with higher resolution. Sharper lenses. Never ending software purchases and upgrades, even subscriptions. Can't say it is cheaper than film overall. I have to buy another Epson printer as the old one just croaked at 20 months of use and the needed parts are more than buying a new one alone, and they are about as much as a Beseler 4x5 enlarger that lasted forever. Oct 14 14 07:28 am Link Film is dead to me.  Oct 14 14 07:49 am Link Mortonovich just sent me 8 rolls of Kodak Panatomic-X for my birthday. I'm so stoked I can't even tell you… There are still a LOT of people shooting film in the world of art photography, both young and old. Almost all the art models I've known are pretty young and every single one of them, when they do their own photography, shoot film. All of the really talented art students I know (ICP, The New School, SVA & Yale) shoot primarily film. So much so that every morning while I have my coffee, I scour craigslist for people giving away darkroom gear to outfit students. Oct 14 14 10:27 am Link Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote: 35 or 120? Oct 14 14 11:07 am Link I think Kodak would disagree with that comment. Oct 14 14 12:01 pm Link I heard about this. Awesome. Film rocks. Good luck to them, there are still tonnes of people who love shooting film. Oct 14 14 12:37 pm Link Film no thanks. That's like going back to vinyl records.  Why would you do that!.... See I got jokes! Oct 14 14 12:54 pm Link Never heard of them. I'll stick with my go-to brands for now until I see results from these guys. Oct 14 14 11:35 pm Link Never heard of em either. I'll stick to using the big names for now. Film will never die... Only the photographers using it will. Oct 16 14 10:03 am Link The F-Stop wrote: I'm 31 and have been shooting mostly film for the past two years. Oct 16 14 10:28 am Link Art Silva wrote: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/747178 … f=mainmenu Oct 16 14 10:36 am Link Roy Hubbard wrote: This is what has been generally expected. Contrary to what a lot of people here seem to think, Kodak's film division was still profitable, it just wasn't profitable enough for Kodak. The new company is profitable. Ilford's film and chemical company (again, now a separate company) is profitable and growing. Oct 16 14 11:06 am Link They (3m) used to make "made in USA"Agfa film. Konica made "made in japan" Agfa film. Supposed to be the same formulation just for different markets. Oct 16 14 11:07 am Link Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote: We'll see in ten years. If I were to go back to film, I'd go with where Fugi left off, with Provia 100 f, (I don't think anyone has done much to improve film since then). Though it was a superior film for scanning at the time, it didn't hold a candle to my 1DsMkII, even then. Digital has delivered superior image quality for about a decade, and not using the software that is available today is just further tying one's hands behind one's back. Why do you think film has been almost completely abandoned ? And insults toward those who like to shoot nude women don't add anything useful to the discussion. Oct 16 14 11:38 am Link Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote: Hilarious. Oct 16 14 03:12 pm Link Don Garrett wrote: I've got no crystal ball, but suspect Fujifilm will bow out before the rest. Oct 16 14 03:14 pm Link Daniel wrote: That is to say that they ALL will bow out, eventually, giving way to digital. (Your statement, "before the rest"). But Provia 100 f was still the best for scanning, and one of the most forgiving slide films I have ever used. I would not trust a new group to make a better film than Fugi did, when it was going head to head with Kodak for film quality. Oct 16 14 03:53 pm Link Don Garrett wrote: I see what you did there, and rightly so, but I misspoke. I think film will be around for a long time; it will probably take a many, many number of decades before it might even possibly go the Impossible Project route (I guess, unless silver is also hypothesized to be as alien as gold may be). Oct 16 14 04:16 pm Link I figured the "new" manufacture that picked up the color film slack would be Eastern European... but Italy will do. I pledged early and the kickstarter fully funded very quickly, So as long as they overcome the technical and scaling kinks it looks like the basic demand is there. Oct 16 14 06:07 pm Link Film will always have a place in my heart. I love the ease of digital though. Oct 16 14 06:53 pm Link If you're ever shot Lomography 100 ISO color film, it was probably made by Ferrania. You can tell by the 114034 manufacturer code under the barcode. I have two rolls of Ferrania Solaris 100 sitting here that I'll be shooting shortly. I like the film, and I'm glad they're making a comeback. Oct 16 14 10:04 pm Link Giacomo is entirely correct about film; it's not a mass-market product, but it is incredibly dominant in the art market. And no, The Mayhem is not the art market. I can't say I'm terribly excited about this news. It's cool to hear about more films going back into production, but they're crap films. If you're some hipster shooting film to be ironic, this is right up your alley. But if you're shooting film because it gives you something digital lacks, there's nothing here for you. "Film" doesn't do anything for you that digital won't. But good film ... Well, that's another story. Oct 16 14 10:24 pm Link Smedley Whiplash wrote: "Film is not dead. It just smells funny." Oct 17 14 04:48 am Link Roy Hubbard wrote: There are plenty of film users left n perhaps like oil n water painting, we'll keep this form of art alive as well. Oct 17 14 10:10 am Link The F-Stop wrote: Hell, I just dropped a few grand to be able to do Platinum/Palladium printing… That's a far older process than silver... Oct 17 14 10:19 am Link I have four rolls of film in the refrigerator. One day I need to shoot them. Oct 17 14 08:47 pm Link Film and digital talk is not all about "image quality". It would be like saying water colour painting is dead because with oil and acrylic painting you can get much higher "image quality". Not even considering digital painting. I shoot film not as looking for a high "image quality" with a deadly sharpness. I shoot 95% with film just because I enjoy the process much much more. I like to handle and see the physical thing. It is relaxing, beautiful and nice to archive. I spend away too long in front of the computer, the computer make me anxious, stressed, make shure the digital files will be safe for decades is annoying and it is very boring to me working with digital photography. As I like to say. There are people who think it is useless to cook since fastfood and delivery food is much faster, often cheaper and normally very delicious. But there are many who still enjoy cook and even grow their on food. They just enjoy their time doing it.  Oct 17 14 11:54 pm Link I hate how film, to a certain extent has become a gimmick these days. Oct 18 14 03:43 am Link Bobby C wrote: The gimmick is spray and pray, and then paint lipstick on the pig with PS to polish it up for retail. Oct 18 14 06:17 am Link Alas, I loved film, but the cost drove me away. A few years ago, on the cusp of digital vs film, I went to Greece. I shot 1000 negatives of medium format film. I also shot 1000 images with a small digital I'd picked up as a backup camera. When I got home I took the negatives in to be processed. It cost over $1,000, and that was just for the negatives. I did my own printing, and the cost for the paper, chemicals, the hours and hours of work kept me busy for a month. The digital images didn't cost a thing beyond the expense for the chip for my camera. I downloaded them, edited them, and came to a sad conclusion. I couldn't afford to shoot film an longer. So I took all of my darkroom equipment, most of my film cameras, (35mm and medium format) and all of my other film related equipment to National Camera Exchange. I put it all on the counter and proposed a trade. All of that for a good digital camera. They took the trade and I got a great Nikon with a wonderful lens. That was in 2005. They told me if I'd done this a year later they wouldn't do it because film was fading so fast at that time. I miss film, but life moves on. Oct 18 14 06:25 am Link Bobby C wrote: Everything if a gimmick, if you don't have the chops to back it up. Oct 18 14 10:01 pm Link Zack Zoll wrote: Someday I hope to be that guy.... lol Oct 19 14 09:40 am Link PhillipM wrote: You're talking about individuals having a problem, Not about problems with the technology. The technology is fine, it is certain individuals who screw up an image, spray and pray, polish turds, etc.. It is such a tired idea, that "the technology made someone do it badly" Oct 19 14 11:10 am Link This essay was commissioned by the local photo lab years ago: http://www.acecam.com/magazine/robert-bruce-duncan.html Still... in 2005 I was commissioned by a very wealthy collector of antique and classic race boats to shoot images for a book. He flew me to the Midwest three times. Yes, the dread O'Hare. With the generous advance I purchased a D2x. Yes, there was a learning curve. LOL. But the images, all on the water, boat-to-boat, were amazing. In print. Now, with the D800, I will never go back. My only film camera is a Holga. LOL. RBD Oct 19 14 11:22 am Link |
