Do we still need Black and White FIlm???

[Jim Andrada]

OK, OK, OK, before everybody jumps on me I admit it - I have a freezer stuffed with Tri-X, Delta 100, Acros, TMY-400, even 50 sheets of 5 x 7 Efke 25. So I'm not really going to give it up. Each film has a character of its own.

But recently I've been using a lot of Ektar 100 and I find it quite impressive indeed. I've pretty much switched to it for 90% of my MF work, even if the end product is going to be B&W. I find the combination of sharpness, grainless-ness and scan-ability to be hard to beat, particularly for my "sub-mini" Mamiya 645, and converting to B&W in Photoshop gives me a lot of control. I've even signed up for Keith Canham's 5 x 7 order.

It took a few rolls to warm up to it, but now I absolutely love the stuff. (And C-41 is almost easier to process than B&W here in Tucson where the cold water can get close to 90 this time of year.) Yes, it's pricier, but I like the flexibility of not having to worry about loading B&W or color before I head out, or juggling film backs, and at the slow rate I burn through film the price isn't a huge issue.

Anyhow, I find it to be pretty good for most everything.

Would love to hear other (polite!) opinions. And I promise to go out and shoot some Acros tomorrow.

Just FYI this is approximately a half frame crop from a 6 x 4.5 neg

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5576/14919843361_34c480e778.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/oJq6CD)Dark Clouds (https://flic.kr/p/oJq6CD) by Kirigakuresaizoh (https://www.flickr.com/people/89514126@N05/), on Flickr

[jp]

It is indeed an excellent color film. I'd call it a e6 killer rather than a B&W killer.

For B&W I want a film I can print in the darkroom. For a silver or alt process output. Yes, I can and do scan, but I still want a negative I can print the old fashioned ways. It appeals to me to have a negative not comprised solely of dyes as well.

[Jim Andrada]

If I were still doing wet prints I'd agree with you. But having drunk the inkjet Kool-Aid (and not having a darkroom anymore, nor a place to build one) everything is now scanned and printed on an Epson 4880. I've been scanning on an Epson 750, but will be upgrading to a Nikon Coolscan 8k in a few weeks for the "little stuff". I'd go for a drum scanner if I had the space for it, but for now I don't. I'll be taking a couple of 5 x 7 negs to Lenny Eiger's place in a couple of weeks and no doubt he'll get me all fired up to MAKE a place for a Howtek or something. Just have to convince my wife that we never have enough folks over to really NEED half of our dining table. And having one on top of her Grand piano would be really attractive.

Yeah, sure!!!

[Andrew O'Neill]

I print using alt processes, so it's B/W 8x10 film for me.

[ic-racer]

The question is 'do we still need color film.' Most color is done with digital. B&W is its own entity, it uses the principle of light and dark and shadowing to form an image and has nothing to do with digital.
Printing color negative film on the available B&W papers does not work because the paper is not panchromatic. Panchromatic B&W printing paper went out of production long ago.

[Corran]

I can see banding on your scan, even in the small size posted here. Color banding seems to be an endemic problem with many scanners and at least in my experience shows up most commonly in color negative film. This is one of the many reasons I find color negative to be difficult to work with.

Personally if I were to choose one process to do away with it'd be color negative (and keep E-6). I only shoot C-41 for cost reasons when I just want to blow some film or occasionally specifically for low-contrast, muted tones (Portra).

[dsphotog]

Jim,
Is today, April Fools Day?
Surely you jest...

[mdarnton]

The only reason I'm doing LF is because I can do it cheaply. Currently, one sheet of 8x10 x-ray film costs me 40 cents plus my darkroom time. 8x10 color costs $17 a sheet plus someone else's developing. When I can do Ektar at home for 40 cents a sheet, we can talk.

[BetterSense]

At one time I had a similar strategy but with E6 instead (I don't do digital at this time). E6 processing was dirt cheap and if I wanted a b&w, or if the chrome was underexposed, I just made an interneg.

If I scanned, I would also be highly tempted by C41. The latitude is amazing. However, I think I would be just as likely to shoot digital as to start scanning.

[Jim Andrada]

Hi Andrew

What kind of process(es) are you into? I'd love to have a go at carbon transfer, but no place for any wet process these days (I develop in a Jobo, and load in a Harrison tent.) Decades ago I did a lot of photo silk screening - great process if you really like "getting your hands dirty", so to speak.　宜しく

[Jmarmck]

I see the banding as well but I wonder if it is not the camera film insert that is causing it. I have a 645 also and have seen the same banding.

[Corran]

Really? That's interesting. I had a 645 as well briefly and shot a lot of film through it, and never saw banding (other than scanning problems!). How would the film insert cause it?

[Jmarmck]

It is an unsolved mystery. But I have proof. I am not saying that these are not from the scanner but I have similar marks on mine. It is the reason I am toying with the idea of not getting the light seals repaired on the Mamiya and finding a Hasselblad. 6x6 neg might be another reason.

[Corran]

Strange!

[Jim Andrada]

Well, if I could afford an 80mp digital back I'd probably be doing digital as well. Although I'd be just as likely to get a monochrome back and do B&W digitally. No Bayer layer, etc. And I'll make a terrible admission - I DO shot digital on an original Canon 5D.

Re the banding - yep, I see it. I think the Coolscan will do a better job, but won't really know for a couple of weeks until I get it home. I think the Epson just isn't up to scanning 6 x 4.5. Maybe marginal for 6 x 7. 4 x 5 and up - OK. Howtek would be better no doubt. BUT I have the color negs and technology has made it a lot less expensive to print them than it used to be.

I got my (first) 5 x 7 camera in 1970. And I shot a lot of color when it was (relatively) REALLY expensive. Buying the film and having it processed was bad enough, but having it printed was financially out of the question. So I had a choice. Give up color or print it myself. So I learned how to do it. I can say for sure that I make a better print from LF color negs with scanner and inkjet than I did with wet process 40 years ago. I think I'm better off than I'd be if I HADN'T shot color.

But back to the main topic - the real world, like it or not, is in color. That's a basic truth. So if you want a B&W print to fit your vision, you have to apply some transform to get from the color domain to the B&W domain. The question is. where do you apply the transform? In camera, accepting some particular B&W film's characteristics, or in post process (and of course no color film is all that accurate in representing the real world color.)

But in the end, I think the question isn't really how accurately either B&W or Color film captures reality, as much as it is about how you get from the real world to your monochrome vision. And lately I have the feeling that for some large percentage of what I do, working from an Ektar neg is easier.

[karl french]

Troll.

[Jim Andrada]

By the way - re the banding again - I'm not all that sure that some of the problem isn't coming from the lab. Is it really scanner banding, or is it agitation, or...? I get it on B&W as well. And sometimes it runs diagonally!!! Bigger film probably has it as well, it just may be harder to see with a smaller degree of enlargement.

[Jim Andrada]

"Troll?" Who?

[Richard Johnson]

I like color neg and it scans great, no filters needed either.

[djdister]

I'm not sure the "banding" is from a scanning problem. It looks more like an agitation or drying/streaking issue.

[dasBlute]

Shoot TXP because you like it, same with TMY, HP5 or whatever. If you like Ektar go for it.

But YES, we need black and white film, and frankly I imagine TRI-X will outlast Ektar,
but I wish no ill upon any film or the users who love it.

Asking "Do we still need Black and White Film???" -an already threatened species-
just seems like you're just one more dude, hacking at the foundations instead of
shoring it up, it's hyperbole and I agree with Karl.

[Sal Santamaura]

Do we still need Black and White FIlm???"We" includes you and at least one other person. I'll answer based on me being that someone. :)


...recently I've been using a lot of Ektar 100 and I find it quite impressive indeed. I've pretty much switched to it for 90% of my MF work, even if the end product is going to be B&W...You don't need it, but I do. Because Panalure is no longer available. :D:D

[Jim Andrada]

@Tim & Karl

Well, I'm pretty seriously impressed by the Ektar, even if I want to end up with a B&W print, particularly in the context of a hybrid process. It's the first thing I've seen that's got me wondering if us hybrid process folks could simplify our toolkits a bit. YMMV, etc. Calling honest folks Trolls or accusing people of "hacking at the foundations..." etc is impolite, uncalled for, and erroneous.

If you disagree, just say so with a bit more class, like Sal did. And his comment about Panalure is right on - it's almost the same thing I was thinking of, ie deferring the transition from Color to B&W until later in the process when you have more control over the transformation itself.

Disagreement is constructive. Rudeness isn't.

[gregmo]

I'm part of the 5x7 Canham co-op for Ektar as well. Personally, a box of 50 sheets costs nearly 4.5 times more to shoot then 50 Ilford sheets. I would just prefer to shoot B&W film for b&w intended shots.
I have done B&W conversions on occasion with both Portra & Ektar images...I prefer the grain structure of Ektar better between the two.
Reciprocity is pretty poor with Ektar for long exposures. Acros is certainly a better choice.

[karl french]

This thread is nearly the definition of "trolling."
Think about the title of your thread and the definition of trolling:

"submit a deliberately provocative posting to an online message board with the aim of inciting an angry response"

Wether or not your intent was to start an argument or not, the title of your thread is enough to raise a red flag.
Something like "I think digital is great, do we really need film any more?" is about the same.

You like Kodak Ektar. That's great. Starting a thread questioning the viability of black and white negative film as result is foolish.

[Jim Andrada]

Good point re the reciprocity. And to be honest I really like Acros.

Let's put it in a little more context. Hopefully before the end of the year I'll get to spend a couple of weeks in Japan. I'd like to take a LF camera and an MF camera with me. Based on my good experience with Ektar I'm thinking to carry 3 Grafmatics of Ektar with one or two holders of Acros or Tmax just in case. And for MF, probably the 645 with Ektar, period. Even knowing that most of what I shoot will end up as B&W I'd feel comfortable with it.

[Jim Andrada]

@Karl

No intention to start an argument - I really want to know what people think. Come to think of it I haven't seen many argumentative posts in this thread. In retrospect, maybe not the best choice of a thread title, but no way to change it now. But why do you find the idea that something (if not Ektar, maybe some other color film) might be good enough to replace B&W film so upsetting. If you think I'm nuts, that's fine, just say "I think you're nuts for the following three reasons".

Do you have three (or even one or two) reasons? If so, let's hear them. I'm all ears.

It's one thing to argue with the ideas that someone puts forth, it's something else to argue with the putter forth of the ideas. Heck if you have a better idea for a title, ask one of the mods to change it. Maybe something like" Is Ektar 100 good enough to replace B&W film for some applications when scanning even when the final result will be B&W?"

I'll be in the Bay area in a couple of weeks. I'd be happy to get together to talk about my possibly nutty concept over a cup of coffee - on me!

[Daniel Stone]

Jim,
Life is too short to really give a hoot about what others think about a process that you enjoy and derive results from. You're not hurting anyone by using a hybrid process for your work. What works for you might not work for someone else, and vice versa, but who cares?

Ektar 100 is a great film, and I've even made some b/w shots from original color photographs.

Don't let "tradition" stand in your way. Tools and materials are made for using creatively, even if they sometimes get put into a different line of work than originally intended :)

cheers,
Dan

[Jim Jones]

. . . But back to the main topic - the real world, like it or not, is in color. . . .

Most people also see the real World in 3-D, and the tonal range is often greater than any print from film. Film interprets a subject, not presents it exactly as it is. Our eyes and mind reinterpret the image, either to visualize the subject somewhat as it actually was or to appreciate qualities in the subject as emphasized by the photographer. Sometimes B&W more than color film presents a subject in a manner more appropriate to the further processing by eyes and minds. Infrared film and Tech Pan processed for high contrast were two examples that. Reality is merely reality. Imagery can be more.

[djdister]

The short answer to the original question, for me, is yes. The long answer is a homework assignment -- go to B&H Photo, search for sheet films from 4x5 to 8x10 that are IN STOCK, and observe the ratio of color film to B&W film.

[John Kasaian]

Variety is the spice of life. Do we really "need" film at all?
I don't "need" film----as long as I can coat my own plates:rolleyes:

[tgtaylor]

Hi Jim,

IMO we will always "need" B&W film because the color image will never replace the B&W image. When I go shooting I usually carry both B&W and Color with me because some subjects will look better in one or the other and, when in doubt, I'll shoot the subject with both.

Having access to only color negative film won't work for me because in addition to silver gelatin printing I also print using historical processes such as the salted paper process and for those processes you need a B&W negative. Of course one may be able to scan a color negative and make a digital negative from it but I don't think that the results would match: digital is digital and silver is silver.

Further, I don't think that the current software is capable of matching some of the colors that you get when toning the darkroom print. Since Friday I printed 4 8x10 negatives (3 were made with that box of Acros that you got for me in Japan - was saving it for the "good" stuff :cool: ). The first was an overlook of San Francisco from Twin Peaks that I shot with my new 610mm Apo-Nikkor right after I got it back from being mounted by S.K. Grimes in an Ilex 5 shutter. I toned that print in Borax Gold leaving a pinkish-red hue (to match the presumed political inclinations of the City). I tried to scan the finished print but was unable to match the color. Yesterday I printed 3 other negatives but this time toned them in platinum and I don't think that the scanner is capable of producing a "perfect" match. But I am not a proficient scan person and I'm working with the lowly and ancient Epson 3200. Making those prints is labor intensive - all day with overtime if you consider the set-up and breakdown, but the results are well worth it and can't be duplicated otherwise.

Thomas

[Ari]

I shot a series of portraits two years ago on Ektar, and felt that they would be better off as B&W images.
They looked very good and very rich, much better than other colour images I have converted to B&W.
It isn't something I would do regularly, because of budget, but it's good to know that Ektar works very well in both colour and B&W.

[paulr]

The question is 'do we still need color film.' Most color is done with digital.

Agreed. I can't imagine going back to color film from digital. But if I do another black and white project I'll at least consider film. BW film has some unique strengths.

[Teodor Oprean]

This entire thread should be deleted. It is silly.

[bobwysiwyg]

+1.

[Jeff Dexheimer]

Looks like I missed most of the discopussion here, but my answer is simply yes, we need monochrome film.

1. Dynamic range. Black and white rules the roost when it comes to dynamic range.

2. Related to number 1, but different... Zone system control. You don't have the flexibility to control your color negative as much as your monochrome negative.

3. Development flexibility. I can choose from thousands of developer/film combinations to get a result tailored to my specific tastes.

4. Traditional enlargement. I print in a darkroom. I hate scanning film (I do it for proofs, nothing more). When I print, I want an tactile process and color neg film is not easy to print on black and white paper.

5. Cost. If you are going to discard color information anyway, way pay a premium for it. That is a waste of money. I shoot mono because I like the look. It's been almost a year since I touched color film of any kind and I don't plan on it any time, if ever.

6. Because I like it.

Hopefully 6 reasons are enough but regardless, I really don't care what you shoot. Use whatever floats your boat, I'll do the same.

[Rayt]

Without b/w film I would not want to shoot anymore. Instead I would devote the rest of my life printing what I have already shot.

[Drew Wiley]

Does an addict need what he is addicted to? You betcha. I happen to be addicted to both Ektar and several black and white films. Each has its place. But let's just
hypothetically imagine you could in fact do it all with Ektar. ... and let's just imagine you shoot 8x10.... $$$$$$$$$$$

[Jim Andrada]

Actually I do shoot 8 x 10. Should be a couple of new boxes of 8 x 10 Ektar on the porch this afternoon, come to think of it.

BUT - I don't shoot MUCH of it! Most of what I do is 5 x 7 and MF with a bit of 4 x 5 now and then. Hopefully Keith Canham's 5 x 7 order will materialize in the not too distant future, but until then I'll keep cutting down some of the 8 x 10.

And I still have a couple of boxes of 8 x 10 Acros around here somewhere. I really like B&W, but I've gone almost 100% to the Ektar for MF.

[Tin Can]

As I move slowly away from digital anything, I am very happy with B&W film and wet processes. There is no way in Hell, I am shooting Ektar, scanning it and PS'ing it into B&W and then digital printing.

As someone below stated, if it comes to that I will print my old negs till death do we part.

I like old things, old thoughts, old people and memories. Sometimes I think I see in B&W. I was raised on B&W TV, that early imprint does not go away. I still love watching B&W movies, TV shows and wish more 16mm movies were available as they were just 15 years ago, until the Chicago Public Library trashed their huge lending collection. I rented and showed them to hundreds in big art loft parties.

We ARE the last of the B&W film users, let us do it for a few more years and then let the digidogs run loose.

[Drew Wiley]

I'm down to maybe ten sheets of 8x10 ACROS, but I really prefer TMY for 8x10. I love ACROS in 4x5 and 6x9, 6x7. I shoot Ektar as well as Portra in all sizes, 35mm
clear up to 8x10. In MF the combination of ACROS and EKtar really does give me a little more wiggle room than past films in terms of enlargement - certainly not into
4x5 territory, but more than I could do with any slide film. I shot Efke R25 in MF for awhile, but the quality control was not as good as ACROS. It's hard to believe
there's a color neg film out there that can successfully compete with chromes, but there is!

[Jim Noel]

"Do we still need Black & White FIlm?"
Probably the most ridiculous question I have ever seen on this or any other forum. the answer is YES!!!

[Maris Rusis]

Jim Noel may have it exactly right. The question could be "Do we need colour film?" and the answer could be NO. We can always see the world in colour by just looking out the window. To turn this view into black and white, to make an abstraction of it, to make pictures about it rather than of it, black and white is a powerful way to do the job.

[Peter Gomena]

At $4/sheet for 4x5 Portra, we definitely need black-and-white film.

[Drew Wiley]

We don't need the internet either. Hominids have gotten along just fine without for several million years, and don't act much more civilized today with it.

[Peter De Smidt]

I'm down to maybe ten sheets of 8x10 ACROS, but I really prefer TMY for 8x10. I love ACROS in 4x5 and 6x9, 6x7. <snip>

I agree with Drew about something! Should I be worried? :)

Jim, if Ektar gives you what you need, and it's more convenient for you, then by all means use it. I prefer BW for cost reasons, reciprocity characteristics, development choices, speed (TMY), ease of tonal expansion and contraction, and it's ability to record a huge range of luminosities.

[Kodachrome25]

Whew! For a moment there I thought I was on dpreview or photo.net with that catchy lump everyone into one "we" title...

Nothing to see here, move along folks...got a spare padlock mods?

[Rayt]

I'm down to maybe ten sheets of 8x10 ACROS, but I really prefer TMY for 8x10. I love ACROS in 4x5 and 6x9, 6x7

Hi Drew,

What do you love about Acros 4x5, etc., you do not find in Acros 8x10?

[Peter De Smidt]

Sometimes a fast film, with a fast shutter speed, is useful. I expose 8x10 TMY at an EI of 500. I use Acros at EI 50.

[Drew Wiley]

Rayt - really just three reasons I don't shoot ACROS in 8x10. I did shoot a bit of it this month, but it's hard to get (no longer sold in the US), is a slightly slick film
(Newton ring prone, and I haven't yet equipped my cold light 8x10 enlarger with quite as good AN glass as in either my big color unit or smaller enlargers), and it's
a bit slow for this windy climate combined with small f-stops. And I never enlarge black and white film bigger than 20x24 anyway, so having a faster, somewhat
grainier film in the 8x10 is not the kind of issue that it is with smaller film formats and their greater degree of enlargement. Otherwise, if they did import ACROS there
are probably a number of people who would shoot it. There are distinct properties to it like the orthopan sensitivity and very predictable long exposures which make
it a wonderful film.

[Rayt]

Hi Drew, Thanks for the explanation. I just ordered a Harmon Walker 8x10 pin hole and then bought a few boxes of 8x10 Acros in Tokyo due to its reciprocity characteristics. I agree a faster film would be a better choice overall.

[Rayt]

Sometimes a fast film, with a fast shutter speed, is useful. I expose 8x10 TMY at an EI of 500. I use Acros at EI 50.

Yes. Thanks for that. I have never shot slow film with 8x10 for this reason. For the Harmon Walker I just order I thought the reciprocity factor would actually make Acros the faster film. I read somewhere Acros has a thinner film base so I thought perhaps it may be hard to handle in 8x10.

[Kirk Gittings]

I do carry with me color neg film even though I am only interested in B&W prints. There are situations when no filters that I carry will properly separate the tones the way I want to and I can do that better in the b&w conversion of a scan of the color negative.

Here is an example. The sandstone is yellow and the rock art is a pale reddish color. I was able to greatly enhance the separation by saturating the reds and desaturating the yellows in the scan and then working the balance in the conversion.

[Drew Wiley]

I've done analgous things with chromes - using a narrow spectrum filter just to get similar hues differentiated onto pan film, then developing that into a relatively
high gamma silver interneg to print from. Doing the same thing with color negs in the darkroom is a bit more involved, but certainly feasible. Lots of the time I simply
look at a silver mask image intended for color printing control, just for fun, to see what a black and white rendition of the same scene might hypothetically look like.
But if it was that really that good, I probably shot it with both color and black and white film to begin with.

[Kirk Gittings]

But if it was that really that good, I probably shot it with both color and black and white film to begin with.

Me too sometimes-make my best effort with traditional b&w methods and then cover my butt with the negative. At this point though I have a pretty good idea of what needs the color conversion approach-it is not often that I need this though, but when I do it is an image saver.

[djdister]

Me too sometimes-make my best effort with traditional b&w methods and then cover my butt with the negative. At this point though I have a pretty good idea of what needs the color conversion approach-it is not often that I need this though, but when I do it is an image saver.

+1 Absolutely. If the shot looks that good, I'll shoot B&W, color neg and digital. I find it interesting to compare all three methods of capture, and of their various permutations in printed output.

[Drew Wiley]

Although Eliot Porter is now known mainly for his color images, he first got on the map with Stieglitz due to his black and white prints. But over the years he made
quite a few black and white prints, and at one point a book was printed strictly with these. It's a bit hard to find in used bookstores, but interesting. But nearly all of them were printed from red filter separation negatives made from his 4x5 chromes. He described this proclivity more than once, but my hunch is that, as he reviewed these negs (often Super-XX), he'd just see something interesting in one or another neg from time to time, and print it just for the hell of it. Of course, there might be some inevitable loss of shadow detail and maybe a bit more granularity that way, but since people learn to shoot chromes in low contrast settings anyway, the images he chose to print monochrome seem to have came across reasonably well.

[cyrus]

Well considering that home-made dry-plate emulsions can now do f/8 at 1 second, no we don't "need" film...

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah, I'll bet those home-brewed emulsions really send shudders down the spines of folks at Kodak and Fuji. And of course if there's no volume industrial market for
the specialized chemicals and substrates involved in serious film, how much spinoff leftovers do you think there are going to be for hobbyists, at any price?

[djdister]

Yeah, I'll bet those home-brewed emulsions really send shudders down the spines of folks at Kodak and Fuji. And of course if there's no volume industrial market for the specialized chemicals and substrates involved in serious film, how much spinoff leftovers do you think there are going to be for hobbyists, at any price?

That's a scary thought, especially looking down the road 15-20 years (or less). I'm too lazy to coat my own film/plate...

[dwross]

Yeah, I'll bet those home-brewed emulsions really send shudders down the spines of folks at Kodak and Fuji. And of course if there's no volume industrial market for
the specialized chemicals and substrates involved in serious film, how much spinoff leftovers do you think there are going to be for hobbyists, at any price?:) Somehow I don't think Kodak and Ilford lose much sleep over the members of The Light Farm. Seriously, though, they should thank us. Not too long ago the idea was going around that film-is-dead-and-cameras-will-follow-so-why-even-bother-today. Now, it's much more, "well, if they stop making film, I'll make my own." People who aren't afraid keep buying and using film.

Now, to try to break another negativity cycle. I'm making film right now. It's cooking as I type this. It is ortho and ASA 100 in the summer, 64 in the spring and fall, and 50 in the winter. This weekend I shot it as 120 and 127 roll film film at f/8 and 1/60 sec. That's as "serious" a film as I'll ever need. Every component of the film comes from sources other than solely photographic. The film base is a graphics arts product. The ortho sensitizer is a red food coloring. I think the hobbyists are going to be OK.

[Drew Wiley]

R&D expense and inconvenience is one thing. But all these redux or alt whatever processes - whether wet plate, platinotype, tintype, Dauguerr... whatever - nearly all of them were industrial scale back in their day. Even really complicated color processes like carbro had large scale commercial suppliers. Just depends how much
"do-it-yourselfer" you're comfortable with. One shot and print every six months?

[cyrus]

There's a distinction between "need" and "want". I'd want all the BW film in the world to continue existing. But if there's no BW film, some will continue by making their own. Of course, ideally that would not be the only choice. Ideally. But coating dry plates really isn't all that hard, and you get REALLY fine grain and development by inspection. It is do-able.

120651

[dwross]

Hi Drew,

?? Apologies, but I'm not sure your meaning. I'll have 10 rolls of 120 film from a day's work, or a couple a dozen 4x5 sheets if I wanted instead. I'll go through it at about the rate I did when I used commercial film. Probably faster actually today because my home brew is less expensive than commercial, especially the sheets.

D.I.Y isn't everyone's cup of tea and some of the alts are time-consuming but you shouldn't knock something just because you don't get it.

[dwross]

Cyrus,

I love dry plates, especially coated with a smooth as silk, slow emulsion. But don't overlook handmade film and faster emulsions. Being able to use film holders instead of hunting for plate holders, and being able to use roll film cameras (except 35mm that require sprocketed film) is a real fun boon.
d

[cyrus]

Cyrus,

I love dry plates, especially coated with a smooth as silk, slow emulsion. But don't overlook handmade film and faster emulsions. Being able to use film holders instead of hunting for plate holders, and being able to use roll film cameras (except 35mm that require sprocketed film) is a real fun boon.
d

I would LOVE to learn more Denise and I've been an avid fan of your site which got me started on dry plates! Please share your recipe for faster emulsion!

But the plate-holder issue isn't a problem really - easy to modify regular film holder. I wish I had my Mamiya plateholder still but I've stocked up on Rollei plates and ground glass backs.

And also remember all those folding plate cameras! 6x9 and even larger I think! The hard part on those is finding 1mm thick glass, otherwise there's a whole lota folding plate cameras out there that can be used again.

Indeed you're quite right that obtaining the chemicals is hardly a big deal. Nitrate salts, silver, and gelatin. We had 'em a hundred years ago, we'll still have them a hundred years hence.

[Drew Wiley]

So who's going to make that film base for you if the industry in general no longer needs it? It's already getting tricky for manufacturers themselves to keep sufficient
volume ramped up. You can't just squeeze out a roll of polyester or acetate sheeting with a pasta roller. Or course, you might be able to revert to making celluloid base in house, but then you'd be competing with meth labs to see who can burn down the neighborhood first.

[dwross]

Drew,
Do you mean the photographic industry specifically when you say "the industry" or industry in general. For better or for worse, I really don't see the end of polyester film in this world anytime soon, or varieties with hydrophilic subbings. I don't think my art would be affected if Kodak, Ilford, at al, stopped making film. Their supply issues are unrelated to mine. There is always the chance that the world as we know it will burn to the ground. All the more reason to carpe diem, and sitting at a computer crunching image files isn't my idea of a good carpe. Each to their own, wouldn't you agree?

Cyrus,
I'm in the middle of re-writing the Light Farm so that is more accessible and useful. Unfortunately, I just want to photo. I last about 10 minutes typing and it's out the door again with a camera! And, truthfully, I don't see much indication that there is a burning need for more advanced recipes. People already back away from the simplest and cheapest D.I.Y. (see above :)). If I see more interest maybe I can find the motivation to sit at a computer writing a website rather than being out and about having a great time with my emulsions and cameras.

But, I am stubborn and persistent. The re-write will eventually happen. Watch the space and in the meantime, best of luck and fun with your photography. "TLF#2 Negative Emulsion" is easily ASA 25 for most of the year. Learn to make that and you'll be 95% of the way to making the next level recipe ('X2Ag', as yet unpublished.) Thank you for the supportive words. Best of luck and fun to you!

d

[cyrus]

sitting at a computer crunching image files isn't my idea of a good carpe

Amen Sister!

[Drew Wiley]

Uhhh ... if I want to see what Nineteenth Century processes look like, there are plenty of antique shops around, a museum or two, and I even have my own collection of them. For those of us who don't wannabee be "wannabee" retro photographers, but kinda really like what modern films can do, I'm a bit skeptical.
You're welcome to have all the fun you wish making film, and I wish you well. I'd prefer to be printing. And about all it would take to shatter your world is some
new regulation about this or that, once someone learns how to get high smoking silver nitrate, or once NASA determines that there's a correlation between cooking
gelatin and the frequency of meteor showers.

[Tyler Boley]

I definitely NEED B&W film to pursue the photography I care about. Even though I drum scan and print with inkjet printers, 5x7 B&W sheet film, exposed and process properly for scene contrast, is still way ahead of any capture I've seen for what I need. I've sen a lot of capture too, excellent work, as I print for others.

[Drew Wiley]

Uhhh ... digital imaging as we currently know it will be extinct long before black and white film. Yeah, we'll lose this or that product, and others will change. But the
newer technologies are still adolescent and will change a lot faster. They have to. The survival of the whole consumer electronics ethos depends upon things routinely becoming obsolete. Otherwise, the engineers won't have job, nobody will buy the latest and coolest, etc. I think things like color inks per se are just
about to plateau on a "good enough" basis for awhile, because the R&D investment behind that has been rather staggering. But the software and hardware will keep evolving quickly. The nice thing about black and white, as opposed to color, is that there's a lot of wiggle room for still experimenting with this or that on a relatively affordable basis. But all this is starting to become a wild west in terms of "archival" predictions, just like dye transfer printing once did, with its seemingly
endless dye and surface options.

[cyrus]

I don't think we should confuse the medium for the art. Using 19th century processes doesn't necessarily mean you're limited to "antique" 19th century subject matter. We too make film/plates to print, and these processes even provide some advantages to "modern" film -- development by inspection and super fine grain, for example (so they print quite nicely.) And commercial film will go out of existence long before gelatin and silver nitrate does.

As photographers, our medium is not even emulsion and silver nitrate. Our medium is actually light. The photographic material we use merely record the existence (or absence) of light. The chemicals we chose to record that light, whether with TMax or silver-coated plates exposed to iodine, isn't really a big deal as far as I' concerned. Whenever I teach someone photography I make a point of "cupping" some sunlight in my scooped hand and saying "Here's our paint. This stuff comes from the Sun, and took 8 minutes and 20 seconds to arrive here."

The broader point is that if/when there's no more BW film, it will be a sad day -- but that doen't mean the end of BW photography. Not by a long shot

[Drew Wiley]

So why even bother making film? Digital devices capture light too, if that is all you are concerned about. Lichens capture it and then etch the rock with their own
image, even if the ASA setting needs a carbon 14 light meter. But I see no evidence of either silver-based black and white film or paper being in any trouble at this point in history. Just because there are popular options like inkjet doesn't mitigate the appeal of the earlier alternatives. If you enjoy making film, great. Not everyone
who enjoys ice cream makes their own either. Most people who eat steak or cheese don't raise the cow, but you can.

[cyrus]

So why even bother making film? Digital devices capture light too, if that is all you are concerned about.

I have nothiong against people who go digital. but the answer in my case is simply Because I have to. There's nothing logical about it. ;) I've spent money I should have spent on food, on film and cameras. I have spent days in freezing weather, and fought off bears to do this. I have gone into debt over this. I've ended relationships over this. I've done worse than that, just to be able to take more pictures, which I never even post anywhere for other to see. Don't ask me to explain it, that's just the way it is.

I use film too but we're talking about what would happen if there was no film. Unfortunately for me I'm one of the crazy ones who would coat his own plates rather than go digital. I think Denise is too. Theoretically everyone on this board could chuck their 8x10 cameras and go digital tomorrow but for some reason we go on paying $ for film and old cameras. Hell, there's no real logical reason for why any of us takes photos at all -- we could all just park our expanding asses on the recliner in front of the tv instead as does most of humanity -- but we do. Even the people who do this for a living could find easier and more lucrative sources of income, but they still do it. And this includes you too Drew! Welcome to the asylum. But that's OK, you're amongst friends. Big hugs!

[Drew Wiley]

Aaaah... but how much fuller life is doing senseless things like looking at the world upside-down behind a big opalescent ground glass! And I'll bet I'm less poor doing that than the jillions of people with their electronic gadget addictions. I've never had to fight off a bear yet, but if I did, would much prefer to have a big Ries in
my own paws with its spike feet than trying to swat at the critter with a cellphone. I have had a pretty interesting incident with some wild boars, ornery bulls,
etc. In other words, I prefer a black bellows and darkcloth versus red. But other than that, don't have to be worried about rebuying gear every six months just for
the sake of fashionability and reeking consumerism. I have no interest in posting images online either. That's taking two hundred years of photographic excellence
and de-evolving it back into the Ediacarian era, as far as I'm concerned. On the web nobody can tell the difference between a sponge and slime mold. Intelligent
life doesn't even exist there (and by inference, that includes this post too).

[cyrus]

Well I kinda exaggerated -- I didn't fight off the bear. More like, I ran away and hid hoping for it to go away.

[welly]

This is a rather strange thread and question. Surely the end result isn't the entire point and the journey along the way is part and parcel. You're suggesting that people should give up their tried and tested processes for an entirely different process? Because they may get similar results from colour film and some work in photoshop? Or have I missed something?

[evan clarke]

Ach..scans get a digital cam

[dsphotog]

I need B&W film..... But, I don't need inkjet paper. ;) ;)
(that's just me) Not judging those who enjoy those methods.

[jnantz]

Variety is the spice of life. Do we really "need" film at all?
I don't "need" film----as long as I can coat my own plates:rolleyes:

+1

thanks for your posts cyrus and denise,
i find hand coating things to be more fun than storebought
and as it currently is , if i want a color image i am just making trichromes
with panchro emulsion films, so i dont reqlly need color film at the moment either
( i have a camera that exposes 3+ views at once )

[sanking]

+1

thanks for your posts cyrus and denise,
i find hand coating things to be more fun than storebought
and as it currently is , if i want a color image i am just making trichromes
with panchro emulsion films, so i dont reqlly need color film at the moment either
( i have a camera that exposes 3+ views at once )


What camera are you using that exposes 3+ views of panchromatic film at once?

Sandy