The comeback of film?

[marcookie]

Hi,

is film photography really coming back? Do you have any story to share? Either positive or negative?
This thread is meant to collect some anecdotal evidence on the subject. Please feel free to contribute with any personal story of "feeling" about the topic. I would love to hear about that.

[BrianShaw]

For LF I never knew that film went away. For negative I shoot Portra or FP4+. For positive I still have a bit of Ektachrome but don’t shoot it anymore.

How about you?

[marcookie]

I will keep it close to the topic of the title... I'll try. I started with film 12 years ago, in the full growth of digital. I am a chemist so the whole process is somewhat natural for me.
I don't know if film is coming back, but for sure I know that digital is slowing down (if we don't factor in the cellphones). I have a Hasselblad that I don't use and goes up in value 10-20% every year, which tells me that there is some demand. Large format is still too expensive for digital, if you're not a telescope owner. But one day we will have widespread large format sensor, I think it is inevitable looking at the progress.
Regarding the process, I think that film still makes sense for 90+% of non professionals, but many people love tech more than art. Also, 99% of teenagers probably don't know exactly what film is.
These are my thoughts.

[Two23]

I shot only film (of course) from 1985 until 2005. Bought a Nikon digital camera in 2005 and shot no film until 2010. I then got possession of my mother-n-law's Kodak Brownie and thought what the hell, might as well try it. Shot a few rolls and loved it! I started shooting 4x5 again shortly after, this time I only shot b&w where before I was shooting only color. I began buying more old cameras and old lenses (and I mean really old, like 1850s!) I'm now also shooting the dry plates (love them) and am seriously looking into wet plate. I always take a film camera with me on trips along with the Nikon digital, and sometimes I go out and am only shooting film (or dry plates.) I'd say I'm using film about 40% of the time now.


Kent in SD

[fotopfw]

Obviously I did shoot film, 135, medium and large format. Started digital, and occasionally I shot medium format (Mamiya gear C330, RB67 Pro S / SD). A few years back I collected images for a workshop. Worked digital mostly for more than 10 years, yet it turned out that the best images were shot on film. In the digital age, I was asked to do a wedding on film, which I still could and did. A few years back I got again into large format, now with the camera's I dreamed of decades ago (Sinar P2 4x5" and 8x10"). Landscapes are now mostly on film, as is architecture. Digital is for ease and speed, airshows. Love both formats. In my workshops, a 64"x80" print made from a drum scanned 8x10" film is breathtaking.

[Pere Casals]

At one point nobody would have said that this 2018 film still would be manufactured. Ilford reports 5% growth in sales. Last Star Wars 8 and Mission Impossible 6: Fallout have been shot in film. Last James Bond film was shot in film when the predecing release of the franchise was shot digital...

... and we have a legion of top wedding photographers, the elite in that sector, that are making an amazing film usage, demonstrating to anybody that wants to see, the truth: film it's still a unique medium for making images.


But we are still critically endangered, we are witnessing the Neopan's vile assassination (one of the greatests BW films ever !), we also have seen that Fuji discontinued color negative film in sheets. We hear worries about the future availability of Velvia/Provia sheets. New Ektachrome is not arriving....We also see that some manufacturers (Kokak and Fuji) fix high prices for sheets, discouraging LF newcommers...


But what I also see is that newcomers to film show happiness in their eyes. This is a powerful new hope.

https://photographylife.com/why-i-shoot-film-as-a-wedding-photographer

https://cdn.photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/why-i-shoot-film-14-703x960.jpg



To me the challenge is to gather a film user's base that allows Kodak and Fuji think in the long term for color film.

My guess is that current sales do allow to keep the color business running in the short term, but color film has refined high technology inside that requires skilled technicians and scientists, it looks that this kind of professionals are now scarce in the manufacturing sector, not only new developments are mostly halted but also, as time passes, it should be more difficut to handle the amount of knowledge that color film requires.

So nothing will stop BW analog photography, but we need more photographers engaging the amazing film subculture to protect color film aganist future discontinuation.

It is important that all of us make an effort to promote the film subculture, of course it's not about fighting digital, at all, digital it's amazing !.

Film it's a unique tool that has a century long heritage in their back. It's a unique tool that allows a way to craft and a way to interpret light that has been refined by incredibly good artists and technicians, providing an amazing set of unique aesthetic and creative resources, I think that this has to be our message...


https://cdn.photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/why-i-shoot-film-3-703x960.jpg

[Mark Sawyer]

I have a Hasselblad that I don't use and goes up in value 10-20% every year, which tells me that there is some demand...

Some of that may be owed to digital backs for Hasselblads. But yeah, film is being wiped out by new technologies like wet plate and Daguerreotype.

[eric black]

I exited in 2012 when the Kodak 5 liter E6 kits became scarce. I missed it for 6 years and am now back with the ability to get Fuji E-6 developing kits from Freestyle. I regret some of the stuff I sold as it is currently going for about 3x what I paid but I have a reasonable facsimile of my old kit in hand and as soon as the wildfires die down a bit will get out and use it on fall colors. Hopefully Provia and these kits will be around for some time to come- if not, Ill deal with their absence when that time comes.

[Bernice Loui]

Film look is only important to those who value it's unique visual offering. For most, the film look is not significant enough to place greater monetary value into the film based (this means film to wet print to finishing print, NO digital involved) images.

Notable was when the original digital files for -Toy Story- was lost resulting in any further work to be done or achieving this cinema release had to be done on digital copies... which are NOT identical to the original digital files. Since this event, some of the cinema industry has been archiving major cinema releases on film and digital.

Having used both digital and film based image making processes, IMO both have their place in the world of image making. What would be better for all involved would be acceptance and support by manufactures of these media technologies for both film and digital. There should be a place in the market for both. Have yet to see ANY digital based B & W print that is the equal of a GOOD film based B & W print, then again this is my opinion.

Digital is a disruptive technology, a means to force sales and keep the system of monetary Capitalism functioning. Forcing Digital on the market then destroying offerings of film does increase profitability in the short time. This can satisfy stock holders-investors-bankers addiction to ROI, but it tends to destroy state of the art technologies that have much to offer.

Only time will tell if film based images can endure and survive the mass acceptance of digital images.


Bernice

[Thalmees]

Wondering, is there photography without film?.
It could be digital photography, but not photography!
Community still wondering: is it photoshopped?
Hopefully, the same query involved video also.
Discovered a small miserable lab that still use 15min service for postcard size printing and developing C41 films.
Some young digital photographers in my town started recently to buy film cameras and use film, some to satisfy curiosity, others for just show up as veteran.
Stopped buying too much film because I much reassured that film will stay forever and later.
Started photography mid 80's, the only ever money paid for a digital camera was $80 for a small Fuji digital compact for my daughter.
Thanks so much for the subject.

[Pere Casals]

Film look is only important to those who value it's unique visual offering.

Let me add that we can talk about the looks of films, because every film has a particular native look: Portra vs Velvia vs TX vs HP vs Vision 3. Then digital has mostly a single native look.

It is true that later we can use Photoshop to transform the original native look, but what film or sensor does at exposure time has a remarkable footprint.

[marcookie]

Thank you all for the contributions, it's been great fun reading all these insights. I hope to find some more tomorrow night after work.


Let me add that we can talk about the looks of films, because every film has a particular native look: Portra vs Velvia vs TX vs HP vs Vision 3. Then digital has mostly a single native look.

It is true that later we can use Photoshop to transform the original native look, but what film or sensor does at exposure time has a remarkable footprint.


This last point I think is particularly important to me. I discovered that each film type has its own characteristics, palette... these were selected by technicians and scientists in the lab, and the process of using and shaping these characteristics continues when I choose and expose the film in the field or for a certain project.
I found digital problematic because for some reasons it was like talking to a computer. A digital file has no inherent characteristics, and you have to introduce them. This might seem like a positive aspect, but somehow it takes away from the craft and the humanity.
For me, this translates into poorer results when I use digital.

Ok, sorry, this was not meant to be a film vs digital issue, but the last post made me reason about it--I use digital and make digital videos every other day.

[Pere Casals]

I discovered that each film type has its own characteristics, palette...

Well, let me add that a key issue is spectral footprint. In the scene each spot emits an spectrum, but the medium records the values for 3 colors. Because that what happens at the shooting time is critical, we reduce the spectral information of the scene to 3 colors, as we have a severe information loss in the capture... what we do in the recording determines what we have.

The resulting palette can be transformed in post processing, of course, but the native footprint of the capture determines what options we have.

If we make a portrait with Velvia 50 then the model will look like if he/she had been inside a microwave oven, throwing Photoshop skills on the problem won't end in a nice portrait. But Velvia 50 is, as 2018, the timeless gold standard for landscape, and nothing on the earth may beat Portra/Fuji 160 in color portraiture.

One may say that this is about personal preferences, but the underlying reality is that Velvia and Portra are refined tools dedicated to special jobs and, gentlemen, we are privileged to have it.






Ok, sorry, this was not meant to be a film vs digital issue


oh... the analog vs digital debate is over... this is something that was solved time ago...

but we have to understand what was that debate... it was about 35mm film vs DSLR and it was won by the digital side, this was 10 years ago.

It is true that in practice a DSLR sports more resolving power than a 35mm camera with color negative films, dot.

It is also evident that commercial photography is 99.99% digital, for a lot of good reasons.

But we may also have a lot of good reasons to shot film...

Nobody can challenge that film is a way superior spectral recording medium (because dedicated flavours), we can shot way larger formats with high impact aesthetics (the +600MPix we obtain with a 8x10 are only a bonus) and that film allows to depict volumes/depth much easier than with digital because highlight/shading handling.

This last point is crucial in cinematography (volumes from actors faces), and one of the reasons that explain that in this digital world still some selected movies are shot on film this 2018.

[marcookie]

Well, let me...

Thank you for the thorough answer. True, true, true! I especially liked that you brought up the highlight handling of color negative film, due to the "self limiting" process of silver (or dyes) sensitization.

There only one minor point that I partially disagree with: I think that the information obtained from three colors is sufficient. The human eye also has three different cone cells for three different colors, so in a way we work like film.


Regarding the original topic of this thread, I hope someone has some other stories to share about the comeback of film!

[Pere Casals]

the highlight handling of color negative film, due to the "self limiting" process of silver (or dyes) sensitization.


Yes... the emulsions have a share of very small silver halide crystals of very low ISO (depending on grain formulation/layers), and this allows to design a sound highlight handling of the film. Sensors have a linear nature that is not natively suitable for presentation when scene DR is wide, but technology (partially) solves that with extended DR combined with necessary transformations in the curves and in the LUTs.

The evolution that digital sensors experiemented it's amazing, not only in the high ISO, and one day sensors+software will match what film can do.

In this 2018, if we review key scenes (for example) in Star Wars 7 (2015)... it's clear that this cannot be obtained with today's digital cinematography, do what you want, there is a too wide technical gap and no $1 million digital camera will do it. I'm not speaking about aesthetics, but about technical excellence.

Well, also it has to be said that Disney (owning LucasFilm) sports world class masterliness in exploiting film core capabilities, the cinematographers and directors working for Disney are supported by a rock solid technical/aesthetical corporate structure, I guess.

But IMHO a shot is not better or worse because it's analog or digital, in reality it's about a lot of things. If we choose film for our work then we have an amazing set of resources we may want to understand and exploit, like in the digital case.

[Ulophot]

A page on B&H I saw the other day similarly notes some new life in the film-manufacturing industry. Let's hope it continues to find a comfortable place, both for film and papers, that will restore greater choice and encourage related manufacture of camera and darkroom equipment.

[Jim Noel]

Some of that may be owed to digital backs for Hasselblads. But yeah, film is being wiped out by new technologies like wet plate and Daguerreotype.

"New technologies" What cave have you been hiding in for almost 200 years?

[minh0204]

"New technologies" What cave have you been hiding in for almost 200 years?

Pretty sure that's sarcasm Tim.

[Mark Sawyer]

You mean wet plate was around before Sally Mann???

I need to Google this...

[Grandpa Ron]

Film has and always will be there, for the same reason people buy and pay more for wooden skis, wood and canvas canoes, bamboo fly rods and a host of other "obsolete" items.

Technology can make thing faster, smarter and easier but it cannot replace the tactile feel and deep comfort that some folks experience when using products developed by long gone master craftsmen.

I enjoy the freedom and ease that digital provides but to me it all seem a bit sterile. However, if I made a living at it and time were money, I probably would not have the luxury of such decisions.

[Drew Wiley]

I thought I was the one who invented 35mm wet plate photography back when I was sixteen years old ... in fact everything was wet. That happens when you slip crossing a creek. But I got wonderful highly minimalistic images from that incident.

[goamules]

Is it coming back (to previous levels)? No. It's being given more visibility by those that do still use it. Like riding a horse to work.

[John Kasaian]

Is it coming back (to previous levels)? No. It's being given more visibility by those that do still use it. Like riding a horse to work.

Dang!
My horse just went hooves up a short while back.
She was a good one!

[Pere Casals]

What is clear is that film market is expanding steadly, some manufacturers are reporting 7% yearly growth. I never would have said that kodak was going to manufacture Ektachrome again...

To me what is clear is that film is a first class creative tool that amazes many people.

I often review what wedding top notch Pros are doing with film, and I feel difficult to give credit to what my eyes see. Impressive... While pros in that sector sporting a last model digital camera have a huge handicap, compared. One may say that's about personal aesthetic preferences, but my view is that there are technical facts involved favouring a contax loaded with portra or ns

[Peter Lewin]

I'm surprised that the majority of posts deal with the technical aspects of film versus digital, especially the color palates of various color films. Few deal with the process differences between film and digital.

First, let me position my thoughts based on my annual visit to the AIPAD (Assoc. of Int'l Photographic Art Dealers) show in NYC. This is the largest collection of photographs for sale that I know of, and each year everything from the earliest daguerrotypes and collodion prints to the newest work off the gallery walls is on display. Virtually all current work is digital, and I am certain that the photographers consider themselves just as much artists as those from the film era. Also, many excellent photographer/printers are now offering digitally-produced versions of their earlier film-based images, so they must believe that digital quality is as good as the older wet prints. So in many ways (all?) the argument that film is technically superior is hard to maintain, at least as demonstrated by those making and selling photographs for a living.

But what clearly separates digital from film is not so much the final product as the process used to produce that final product. The very reason that most of us use large format cameras is that we find the process of making the negative with this equipment more rewarding than creating an image file with a DSLR (I will exclude most digital backs, since they cost about as much as a car, and few of us use them). Similarly, those of us who produce prints in their darkroom enjoy that process more than using Photoshop on a computer terminal. So the question of whether film is "coming back" depends on whether enough people learn and enjoy the physical process of working with film. Hand craftsmanship in woodworking, book binding, and all other "crafts" will always have its adherents, just as there will always be those who want to go through the craftsmanship of creating film-based imagery. Will it every "come back," i.e. attract the majority of people who love the ease of creating digital images with everything from a smartphone to a DSLR? I am certain it will not. But hopefully it will continue to support a base of those who enjoy the craft of photography at least as much as the images produced.

[Ben Calwell]

I hope film will not go away. For me, shooting film offers a greater sense of craftsmanship. I just don't get the same satisfaction shooting an image with digital as I do with film. I don't feel that I've "made" something when I shoot a digital image. With digital capture, I feel as if I've ceded control to the camera. I might feel better about digital if I start using my spot meter and putting a dark cloth over my head as I gaze at the LCD screen. Maybe I just like the theatrical aspects of shooting LF.

[John Kasaian]

Film is too expensive to buy, develop and print (if they even want prints) for most people. And digital prints, if the Photoshop guys can keep their booger hooks from over saturating colors, look pretty good.

I'll still shoot film because I enjoy it, just like some painters still paint with oils because they enjoy it.
Heck, I still enjoy painting with oils---the fumes make me feel like this guy---
185141

[DougK]

I'm coming back to photography after having spent some time away and I'm bypassing 35mm, MF, and digital (most of which gear I sold years ago anyway) for LF. I've always been fascinated by it and now I have both the money and the time, so why not? I'd also like to see what happens with my photos when I'm forced to slow down and really think about things before I trip that shutter instead of being able to bang away and bracket the heck out of everything. It's a whole new world of things to learn and I'm pretty excited about it.

EDIT: As long as film stays around for the next 10-20 years, I'll be happy, but I don't ever see it going away completely. Too many of us weirdos out here who like it :)

[Drew Wiley]

... you just can't stay away from that Muffler Shop Hall of Fame on Herndon Ave can you, John? Ahh, the smell of oil .....

[gphoto120]

My wife taught at a private k-12 school until 2016 which had both a wet darkroom as well as media lab for digital. The film classes were always full as film to the kids was “new” as digital was all they knew. It never will be back to where it was, but we are still seeing a resurgence of film use now that we retired in New Mexico . She now conducts tours at the O’keeffe house . She said there are usually a couple of participants, primarily younger that bring film cameras, mostly 35mm and several oldsters shooting medium format on her tours. In asking them why film, most replies are that they realize that using film will help them With composition etc and hopefully make them better photographers. Also, with new small makers such as Intrepid and Standard Cameras many more are moving into large format from what I’ve seen online. Myself, I just bought a used Chamonix 4x5 and am looking forward to working with it !

[Bob Salomon]

My wife taught at a private k-12 school until 2016 which had both a wet darkroom as well as media lab for digital. The film classes were always full as film to the kids was “new” as digital was all they knew. It never will be back to where it was, but we are still seeing a resurgence of film use now that we retired in New Mexico . She now conducts tours at the O’keeffe house . She said there are usually a couple of participants, primarily younger that bring film cameras, mostly 35mm and several oldsters shooting medium format on her tours. In asking them why film, most replies are that they realize that using film will help them With composition etc and hopefully make them better photographers. Also, with new small makers such as Intrepid and Standard Cameras many more are moving into large format from what I’ve seen online. Myself, I just bought a used Chamonix 4x5 and am looking forward to working with it !
Why would film help them with composition over shooting the same thing with a digital camera?

The only difference would be the medium used to record the image. In fact, if they use a digital back then they could be using the same lens and camera that they would use for film.

[Drew Wiley]

Even a limited amount of experience with film and elementary darkroom technique has definitely helped certain friends of mine with composition. The reason is, there was no penalty to promiscuously shooting digital frames. Once they had to think of spending money and time per shot, it became more important to make each shot count. One of them gave up digi photo completely, and went MF film. In fact, every really good digital printmaker I know was previously an excellent darkroom technician.

[Bob Salomon]

Even a limited amount of experience with film and elementary darkroom technique has definitely helped certain friends of mine with composition. The reason is, there was no penalty to promiscuously shooting digital frames. Once they had to think of spending money and time per shot, it became more important to make each shot count. One of them gave up digi photo completely, and went MF film. In fact, every really good digital printmaker I know was previously an excellent darkroom technician.

Just give them a smaller capacity card and increase the resolution. Don’t let them erases duds and they then have the same appx capacity as film.

[Drew Wiley]

Get a bigger battery with a wire and alligator clip and attach it to their nose. Every time they trip the shutter, they get shocked. It's called conditioning.

[John Kasaian]

... you just can't stay away from that Muffler Shop Hall of Fame on Herndon Ave can you, John? Ahh, the smell of oil .....

Man cannot live by the smell of Fixer alone! :o

[John Kasaian]

Just give them a smaller capacity card and increase the resolution. Don’t let them erases duds and they then have the same appx capacity as film.

Probably because when you have to compose upside down and backwards you learn more slowly, which gives the ol' brain more time to let things sink in.

[Roger Cole]

Film is too expensive to buy, develop and print (if they even want prints) for most people. And digital prints, if the Photoshop guys can keep their booger hooks from over saturating colors, look pretty good.

I'll still shoot film because I enjoy it, just like some painters still paint with oils because they enjoy it.
Heck, I still enjoy painting with oils---the fumes make me feel like this guy---
185141

Film isn't too expensive for most people, or wouldn't be if they didn't (probably) want an absurd number of images combined with instant gratification. The former is expensive and the latter impossible with film. (Ok, leaving aside Instax and Impossible or any left over Fuji peel apart like the two dozen or so packs stashed in my fridge.)

I'm not suggesting people be content with 12 images with some being from the 4th of July picnic and others from Christmas parties on the same roll as was common in days gone by (and when film cost as much or more to use as today, adjusted for inflation, there was just no alternative) but most people could afford to shoot a roll or two or three now and then and have them professionally processed and printed if that was something important to them. The $500 - $1000 smart phone and $100/month data plan they have for their main imaging device (albeit good for many other things) proves that. But they won't be able to shoot a thousand shots nor see and upload or email or text them instantly.

[Bob Salomon]

Probably because when you have to compose upside down and backwards you learn more slowly, which gives the ol' brain more time to let things sink in.

You still would with a digital back if you use the ground glass. If you are comparing say 35 to a DSLR there s absoluteley,no difference!

[Bob Salomon]

Film isn't too expensive for most people, or wouldn't be if they didn't (probably) want an absurd number of images combined with instant gratification. The former is expensive and the latter impossible with film. (Ok, leaving aside Instax and Impossible or any left over Fuji peel apart like the two dozen or so packs stashed in my fridge.)

I'm not suggesting people be content with 12 images with some being from the 4th of July picnic and others from Christmas parties on the same roll as was common in days gone by (and when film cost as much or more to use as today, adjusted for inflation, there was just no alternative) but most people could afford to shoot a roll or two or three now and then and have them professionally processed and printed if that was something important to them. The $500 - $1000 smart phone and $100/month data plan they have for their main imaging device (albeit good for many other things) proves that. But they won't be able to shoot a thousand shots nor see and upload or email or text them instantly.

I have the iPhone X and use Consumer CEllular which costs me 28.00 a month less my AARP discount which brings it down to 25.00 a month.
CC uses the AT&T network so I have exactly the same coverage that I had on AT&T. Just far less per month!

[Roger Cole]

You still would with a digital back if you use the ground glass. If you are comparing say 35 to a DSLR there s absoluteley,no difference!

Marginal cost per shot is much higher in 35mm (though lower than in larger formats) and then there's the lack of instant feedback. Both tend to encourage one to take more time to get it right and just-so than a DSLR where one can, as we say in the (firearm) shooting world "spray and pray."

[Bob Salomon]

Marginal cost per shot is much higher in 35mm (though lower than in larger formats) and then there's the lack of instant feedback. Both tend to encourage one to take more time to get it right and just-so than a DSLR where one can, as we say in the (firearm) shooting world "spray and pray."

Professional sports and news photographers have been using spray and pray long before digital ever existed!

[Jim Jones]

Professional sports and news photographers have been using spray and pray long before digital ever existed!

If not a motor drive, at least many shots during an event. Decades ago this amateur tried to limit a basketball game to just one 36 exposure roll. Now over a hundred frames is typical, and that's usually shooting with a fast non-zoom lens which limits opportunities. Basketball and track are often better captured with one correctly timed shot than a series at 5 frames per second. For example, a runner breaking the tape at 15 mph is moving at 22 fps. With luck, the motor driven camera might capture the best moment. Or the runner might be a foot short of the tape in one shot, and three feet beyond in the next. A good photographer only needs experience, not luck. It always helped me to use a good rangefinder camera, not a SLR or DSLR. The latest tools are not necessarily the best tools.

[Pere Casals]

It always helped me to use a good rangefinder camera, not a SLR or DSLR.

It depends on what it had to be done... In some situations a Nikon F5 or a Canon EOS-1v was the right tool, because of many reasons, improving the chances for a good photographer to do a good job. Of course Cartier-Bresson is a good lesson about how to fire in the right instant with the right framing, but a Pro required the most advanced tools to have a good commercial job done every day, no doubt. Excellent Pros were using F5 and EOS-1v, and they knew why...

[Andrew O'Neill]

Film is too expensive to buy, develop and print (if they even want prints) for most people. And digital prints, if the Photoshop guys can keep their booger hooks from over saturating colors, look pretty good.

I'll still shoot film because I enjoy it, just like some painters still paint with oils because they enjoy it.
Heck, I still enjoy painting with oils---the fumes make me feel like this guy---
185141


I go home everyday smelling of fixer, and turpentine. Who needs cologne??

[Grandpa Ron]

Digital vs. Film photography is not zero sum game. One does not lose and the others win.

Digital vs film is like car vs horse, speed boat vs canoe, snowmobile vs cross country ski. One is simply a technological advancement over the other. Many people enjoy both but most prefer the easier route.

There is nothing inherently noble about limiting yourself to a few well thought out photos, when you can take dozens of well thought out photos faster and cheaper. The folks taking photographs think through and frame each shot, otherwise they are just taking snap shots.

Basically film is for fun.

[BrianShaw]

Amen brother Grandpa... basically film is fun... and gets the job done the way I like doing the job.

[Drew Wiley]

Digital versus film is like going back to the old days when men slaved away with bent sore backs and crooked necks enslaved in galleys, and strained their fingers in torment hour after hour ... I'm referring to the torment of computers of course, which I find to be a backwards, anti-ergonomic, distinctly miserable form of photography. Thank goodness, my galley days are over. In fact, this momentary web session reminding me of my own years on the galley is just about over. I'm heading out to the darkroom, for some retirement fun I well deserve after my "pardon".

[Pere Casals]

Basically film is for fun.

Well, film is not for most (99.99%, or higher) commercial photography, but still it's a Pro choice for some jobs. Star Wars IX (Dec 2019) is being shot in film right now, while Rogue One and Solo were shot in Alexa 65 digital cameras, both made by the same company (Lucasfilm/Disney).

These are > $200 million productions... sometimes raising 2 billion at box office (Episode VII).

The difference in the resulting cinematography is quite evident, and that difference comes from the medium capabilities. Personally I've no doubt that, beyond preferences, the film footage is technically way beyond from what best digital cinematography gear may offer today.

This not always makes a difference, and in many situations digital has a superior result, of course, but some skilled people knowing well the film medium are able to obtain celestial aesthetics beyond any "No Film School" cathedratic may even dream.

Film still rocks in some selected major productions.

[Bob Salomon]

Well, film is not for most (99.99%, or higher) commercial photography, but still it's a Pro choice for some jobs. Star Wars IX (Dec 2019) is being shot in film right now, while Rogue One and Solo were shot in Alexa 65 digital cameras, both made by the same company (Lucasfilm/Disney).

These are > $200 million productions... sometimes raising 2 billion at box office (Episode VII).

The difference in the resulting cinematography is quite evident, and that difference comes from the medium capabilities. Personally I've no doubt that, beyond preferences, the film footage is technically way beyond from what best digital cinematography gear may offer today.

This not always makes a difference, and in many situations digital has a superior result, of course, but some skilled people knowing well the film medium are able to obtain celestial aesthetics beyond any "No Film School" cathedratic may even dream.

Film still rocks in some selected major productions.

And many theaters no longer can project film so they show it from digital media. So most viewers probably only see it from digital.

What do you think the demand for film stock will be when parts for those cameras are no longer available or when the cinematographers and directors using it now retire?

[Drew Wiley]

But the world population or potential audience is a lot bigger too, with more wealth and sense of spending it, so even a smaller percent of it might be enough. I don't care. Theaters are now so loud I have to use earplugs, and digital flicks currently look fake. I'd rather see a classic Technicolor flick anyway... the imagery often has some bits of registration issues or halo, but the hue reproduction is still unsurpassed. The movers and shakers of digital "projection" were shrewd, and did the same thing to theaters that refiners did to their gas station franchises - put them so far behind in debt to upgrade their facilities that the distribution source can easily break them and buy them out. But there seem to be a number of alt theaters too, including not only the usual hole in the wall types next door to motheaten paperback bookstores, but some big brand new venues. Redford is a major backer of these. And here the University recently spent hundreds of millions of dollars on such a facility. But I'm more interested in still images and classic museums than on seeing the latest paintball wall put on a screen as someone's MFA grad gimmick. I'm not worried. Film will probably be alive as long as I am, even if it's reduced to living in my freezer!

[Pere Casals]

And many theaters no longer can project film so they show it from digital media. So most viewers probably only see it from digital.


Productions still shot in film (like Mission Impossible, Star Wars and 007) all use hybrid processing, first what they do is scanning and digitally editing, later they may print some film with a film recorder but most of the projection is done digitally because of cost...

Anyway the resulting cinematography seen in a TV is much better if acquisition was made in film.




What do you think the demand for film stock will be when parts for those cameras are no longer available or when the cinematographers and directors using it now retire?

Stock film demand is very scarce, big busines for kodak was print film before digital projection era, for each foot of stock film they were selling thousands of feet of print film.

There are young directors using film like Rian Johnson (44), Damien Chazelle (33)...

...like there are young photographers using film.

IMHO at one point digital cameras will be able to perform close to what film is able, by then it will be irrelevant if the movie is shot digitally or not.

[Drew Wiley]

Everyone said riding horses was obsolete when the Model T Ford came out and everyone bought one a century ago. But just beyond the city limits here today, there are horse ranches everywhere, with people riding them every weekend. And they spend a lot of money to enjoy that lifestyle. Things change no doubt, but choices will always be needed by creative people. Once any particular media gets too common or entrenched, it's the nature of artists to rebel.

[faberryman]

Everyone said riding horses was obsolete when the Model T Ford came out and everyone bought one a century ago. But just beyond the city limits here today, there are horse ranches everywhere, with people riding them every weekend. And they spend a lot of money to enjoy that lifestyle. Things change no doubt, but choices will always be needed by creative people. Once any particular media gets too common or entrenched, it's the nature of artists to rebel.

Of course they drive their cars over to the stables to ride their horses.

[Grandpa Ron]

Our local drive in movie theater faced that projector situation a couple years ago. They bit the bullet and changed to digital projection.

Technology and multi media compatibility will only grow. If you want to stream your daughter's high school swimming meet to your sister who is riding in a self driving car, it is not going to happen with film.

Film is for those who enjoy working with film.

[John Kasaian]

Film is for those who enjoy working with film.
I enjoy working with film.
Even my 18 year old digital son shoots film.
He thinks it gives him something unique to offer.
And it does.

[Roger Cole]

Professional sports and news photographers have been using spray and pray long before digital ever existed!

And they are all doing it digitally now and spraying a lot more because they see the results and choices immediately and can spray constantly for essentially zero marginal cost.

Come back to film from that and you will slow down at least some, even with a motor driven 35. If nothing else you will have to stop to change film or at least change bodies you are shooting with every 36 shots. Not many bulk backs still in use. I'm not even sure you can get color film in bulk rolls as a stock item anymore (maybe you can, I have no interest in it so haven't looked.)

[Bob Salomon]

And they are all doing it digitally now and spraying a lot more because they see the results and choices immediately and can spray constantly for essentially zero marginal cost.

Come back to film from that and you will slow down at least some, even with a motor driven 35. If nothing else you will have to stop to change film or at least change bodies you are shooting with every 36 shots. Not many bulk backs still in use. I'm not even sure you can get color film in bulk rolls as a stock item anymore (maybe you can, I have no interest in it so haven't looked.)

And they used multiple cameras to keep shooting when one camera is out and an assistant reloaded the empty camera!

Which suburb? We are 30 miles north by Lanier.

[Nodda Duma]

Widening a little bit to encompass analog photography in general, I recently hired two part time employees (high school students) to keep up with demand for dry plates. One of them cuts and preps glass, and the other coats the plates.

I actually get sleep now, which is awesome. :) It also frees up time for me to tinker with new emulsions.

Cheers,
Jason

[Pere Casals]

Widening a little bit to encompass analog photography in general, I recently hired two part time employees (high school students) to keep up with demand for dry plates. One of them cuts and preps glass, and the other coats the plates.

I actually get sleep now, which is awesome. :) It also frees up time for me to tinker with new emulsions.

Cheers,
Jason

Jason, these are great news.

[fotopfw]

And they are all doing it digitally now and spraying a lot more because they see the results and choices immediately and can spray constantly for essentially zero marginal cost.


This is a real misconception, digital shooting is not free. Consumer camera's don't have the shutters for pray and spray. Pro camera's do better, but shutters just last for so long, 2 years at most. For paid professionals, that's no problem, they just get their new gear when it's needed. For others it's burning money, just as it was with film.

[Pere Casals]

but shutters just last for so long, 2 years at most.

Beyond 150,000 shots for consumer/prosumer devices, and beyond 400,000 for pro cameras (D5). At $200 per shutter replacement this is $0.0005 per shot, this is not free, but a single 8x10 velvia drum scan is more expensive than a DSLR shutter...

[jp]

Digital vs. Film photography is not zero sum game. One does not lose and the others win.

Digital vs film is like car vs horse, speed boat vs canoe, snowmobile vs cross country ski. One is simply a technological advancement over the other. Many people enjoy both but most prefer the easier route.

There is nothing inherently noble about limiting yourself to a few well thought out photos, when you can take dozens of well thought out photos faster and cheaper. The folks taking photographs think through and frame each shot, otherwise they are just taking snap shots.

Basically film is for fun.

This is a very nice comparison! I've owned power boats and canoes, snowmobile and XC skiis. I use the canoe and snowshoes because I can slow down and spend more time enjoying nature than zipping along place to place. Even XC skiis are faster than necessary.
Photography does align with these choices. Whatever makes people slow down and take it in. Film is part of that for us, though digital is capable.

I also like the aesthetics produced by the older lenses/cameras, so that means using film. It's quite unlikely anyone would ever build an affordable 6x6cm digital back for my 1940's rolleiflex or a convenient affordable large format back my soft focus interests.

[Grandpa Ron]

As I mention there is something very difficult to explain to some, simply by using a device crafted by folks from previous era.

A device, once far to expense to own, still fully functional, can be enjoyed because technology has made it obsolete. It still does what it was intended to do but now costs a fraction of its original cost.

It's use is predicated on enjoyment not efficiency. Enjoyment is hard to explain.

[Pere Casals]

It still does what it was intended to do but now costs a fraction of its original cost.


With some exceptions: the used Contax 645 price sky rocketed. And now this is happening with Pentax 67II. Not a surprise, these are agile cameras delivering distinctive and breathtaking results in the hands of some leading Pros.

[Roger Cole]

And they used multiple cameras to keep shooting when one camera is out and an assistant reloaded the empty camera!

Which suburb? We are 30 miles north by Lanier.

Lawrenceville. We're practically neighbors!

[Roger Cole]

This is a real misconception, digital shooting is not free. Consumer camera's don't have the shutters for pray and spray. Pro camera's do better, but shutters just last for so long, 2 years at most. For paid professionals, that's no problem, they just get their new gear when it's needed. For others it's burning money, just as it was with film.

Maybe, but the marginal cost per shot is still so low compared to film, even 35mm, that it's in another universe and pretty much irrelevant.

Memory cards also have a finite, though very large, number of times they can be written to. But again, compared to film and processing, the cost is much, much lower per shot.

[Bob Salomon]

Lawrenceville. We're practically neighbors!

Buford, so close!

[SideRaptor]

Just my own two cents. I work at a camera store that still has a film processor. We've got a lot of lab staff, and we're almost always taking in about as much film as we can handle. It's mostly 135, sure, but I've seen a growing interest in medium format, and a few LF photographers as well. It's quite popular with teenagers and young adults. Most people drop off their film and receive in return digital scans. Some (few) still take their black and white and make prints at one of a few public, or at least rentable, darkrooms available in my city. That's fine by me. I also scan all of my own film, as I mostly shoot colour, and until recently haven't had a place to print properly.

[Grandpa Ron]

There is a touch of the "forbidden fruit" in film.

A friend who teaches photography to high school aged students was shocked and pleased when they wanted to try film. They we not giving up digital, they just wanted to experience "old time" photography.

I am sure many will only recall the amount of work require to get a good photo, but a few find it interesting enough to dabble in it from time to time.

Pinhole photography is a classic example of doing something, just for the sake of doing. Seeing just how good a print can be made, with a very simple process.

[Alan Klein]

Film allows a little uniqueness, something humans appreciate. We all want to stand out, to be different.

[Drew Wiley]

Now everything is archived in the "cloud", nebulously. At least discs are good for skeet shooting, once people realize there's nothing on them besides stupid selfies. You call that progress? I'd rather look at tintypes; at least they're tangible.

[bob carnie]

Downtown Camera in Toronto just invested over 100k in a brand new dedicated BW dip and dunk processor, plus square ft to house in in very pricy digs.... this tells me something.

[Pere Casals]

this tells me something.

yes... it tells that they plan to develop perhaps 100k bw rolls in two or three years...

https://web.archive.org/web/20180503001848/https://www.downtowncamera.com/photofinishing-services/black-and-white/

I guess price is in CAD...

--------------------------------

I found this interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkHGb07XeKs

A bit this is explaining what new generations find in film.

[Alan Klein]

yes... it tells that they plan to develop perhaps 100k bw rolls in two or three years...

https://web.archive.org/web/20180503001848/https://www.downtowncamera.com/photofinishing-services/black-and-white/

I guess price is in CAD...

--------------------------------

I found this interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkHGb07XeKs

A bit this is explaining what new generations find in film.

Making it more available at good prices, will encourage people to take up film photography adding to their sales. They'll also make money on printing, scanning etc beside developing. This is all very encouraging for us film shooters. I wish them a lot of success.

[Grandpa Ron]

Lets not kid ourselves film is and will remain a niche market. Attractive to some but a curiosity to most.

I just returned from a week long Iceland vacation. I got a dozen shots of the northern lights on the only two night when they were just visible. They looked like a grey cloud to the naked eye but a 30 second exposure at 6400 ISO with a f4.0 lens did the trick. Still how many rolls of film or digital shots for that matter would it have taken to find that sweet spot? The answer, a lot.185468

Returning home, I down loaded over 400 pictures, the vast majority were of course snap shots, mementos of the trip. A few however were serious photographs intended for framing. Waterfall in particular make great photos but shooting in subdued winter light, at various shutter and aperture exposures, takes more that an click or two to get right. With digital you can shoot till you get it "exactly" how you want it. Electrons are cheap.

All that said, after down loading the SD card onto my computer this morning, the day turned sunny so I set up my 1910 Seneca view camera for a few 4x5 black and white photos. Why? Because it is fun also. The popularity of film may ebb and flow but it will always be there.

Digital will only continue to grow, it is where the research and development is taking place, it is where "camera art" flourishes for the next generation.

Fortunately we can choose which ever suits are fancy at the moment.

[Drew Wiley]

A curiosity to some until they see what well-made large format prints actually look like. Most people today are shut up in a digital jail simply unaware of what lies in the outside world beyond a computer or cell phone screen. It's visual illiteracy that's on the rise.

[Pere Casals]

A curiosity to some until they see what well-made large format prints actually look like. Most people today are shut up in a digital jail simply unaware of what lies in the outside world beyond a computer or cell phone screen. It's visual illiteracy that's on the rise.

+1


I got a dozen shots of the northern lights on the only two night when they were just visible.


Skilled film astrophotographers took magnificent color shots with advanced techniques, but clearly for low light digital has an amazing advantage. In the other side film is able to record nuclears explosions in the first stages with 20 stops dymanic range (POTA)...



Lets not kid ourselves film is and will remain a niche market. Attractive to some but a curiosity to most.


The film age is over, no doubt, and because of devastating reasons. But for some people film it's way more than a "Attactive". If by Dec 2019 you go to a movie theater and watch Star Wars 9 nobody will tell you there that it has been shot in film, but at Disney they know why they shot that in film, they have a legion of top notch technicians that have no doubt about the medium they have to use because of technical reasons.

Also we have another legion of top notch wedding photographers charging high $hundreds per hour that are using exclusively or mostly film. Customers often do not understand why, and some are even not remembering what film was... but those photographers are in the top rankings in that industry.

Finally film crafting treasured a refined imaging culture: artists, industry and market have shaped what film is, that took more than a century. That vault of aesthetic resources has an inmense cultural value, and an artist or an amateur may want to take that way.

[Bob Salomon]

+1



Skilled film astrophotographers took magnificent color shots with advanced techniques, but clearly for low light digital has an amazing advantage. In the other side film is able to record nuclears explosions in the first stages with 20 stops dymanic range (POTA)...




The film age is over, no doubt, and because of devastating reasons. But for some people film it's way more than a "Attactive". If by Dec 2019 you go to a movie theater and watch Star Wars 9 nobody will tell you there that it has been shot in film, but at Disney they know why they shot that in film, they have a legion of top notch technicians that have no doubt about the medium they have to use because of technical reasons.

Also we have another legion of top notch wedding photographers charging high $hundreds per hour that are using exclusively or mostly film. Customers often do not understand why, and some are even not remembering what film was... but those photographers are in the top rankings in that industry.

Finally film crafting treasured a refined imaging culture: artists, industry and market have shaped what film is, that took more than a century. That vault of aesthetic resources has an inmense cultural value, and an artist or an amateur may want to take that way.

For many, if not most, of those wedding and portrait shooters the use of film is called marketing. It separates the Uncle Charley attendees. We used the same marketing techniques in the dark ages of the 50s, 60s and 70s with MF cameras and multiple flash. The customer that receive professionally made prints, film or digital, won’t know the difference!

Back in the mid 80s we sold Boeing a truckload of Linhof TK 45 cameras. A bean counter there wanted to know what was the minimal quality print that would satisfy quality requirements of the majority of photo users at Boeing.
So they undertook a study that included photographing commonly requested subjects with all format cameras from 810 to 110 Instamatic, including then available Rollei and Leaf digital medium format backs.
Each series of prints were produced as 8x10 prints, put in albums and circulated to all departments; advertising, engineering, marketing, etc. each department indicated the print quality that met their needs.

The winner? 110 instamatic!

[bob carnie]

Making it more available at good prices, will encourage people to take up film photography adding to their sales. They'll also make money on printing, scanning etc beside developing. This is all very encouraging for us film shooters. I wish them a lot of success.

Its funny Downtown Camera is the only place where I see lineups of young people , and they are lined up to drop off or pick up film.. the Hostert Dip and Dunk machine allows the technicians to easily load any film and it is a very consistent machine, therefore they can keep the price low for the developing as they are selling the used film camera,film, develop,contact or scans, small proofs, and minilab prints, instore they have ready made frames to go... I think they are perfectly situated to do this business well, I believe they will be a huge success as this company is family owned and are running 7 days a week and deeply committed to photographers. not to mention they sell Leicas high end..

I personally buy all my photo paper, chemistry, alternative supplies that they stock as I want them to be successful and I support small business.

[bob carnie]

I see a lot of low light sky images these days, though impressive I am already bored to tears, that is also true of drone photos, At some point we have to unleash ourselves from the technical wonders and create images that tell stories or are visually impact full , anyone can learn a program to set the sensor to high ISO and shoot the skys and trees , what is unique is someone who can move us with their vision

[Pere Casals]

The winner? 110 instamatic!

:) , today this is done with smatphones, so corporations don't buy many cameras...

____

Bob, here there is a list of top wedding photographers I follow what they are doing, shooting 100% film or using film a lot.

It's not the image quality... 645 film format usually surpasses required IQ but also a D850 dslr does it.

Film shots have an aesthetic footprint that digital shots may approach to, if wanting that, but results are not the same. Sure José Villa would also make excellent weddings with a dslr, and it's also sure that his Contax 645 has way more practical limitations than a pro dslr... but the film work done by those top notch wedding film shooters is not challenged. Also it has to be said that this is not a temporary trend, they have spent many years in that way, and until I know those shooters are to remain with film. More likely some digital wedding shootters are to move to fuji 160/portra.


José Villa http://josevilla.com/
John Dolan http://johndolan.com/portfolios/marriage/
Greg Finck http://www.gregfinck.com/
Noa Azoulay http://www.featherlove.com/
Erich Mcvey http://www.erichmcvey.com/
Braedon Flynn https://braedonphotography.com/portfolio/Weddings/
Liz Banfield https://www.lizbanfield.com/weddings
Judy Pak http://judypak.com/the-details
Sylvie Gil http://www.sylviegilphotography.com/
Ryan Ray https://www.ryanrayphoto.com/
Tec Petaja http://www.tecpetajaphoto.com/
Elizabeth Messina http://www.elizabethmessina.com/#!/i...love/gallery/1
Corbin Gurkin https://corbingurkin.com/
Aaron Delesie http://www.delesieblog.com/
Eric Kelley http://erickelley.com/portfolio
Allan Zepeda https://allanzepeda.com/
Heather Waraksa http://heatherwaraksa.com/
Charlotte Jenks Lewis http://charlottejenkslewis.com/
Leo Patrone http://www.leopatronephotography.com/
KT Merry https://www.ktmerry.com/


Sylvie, a french photographer established in California, sporting a Contax. She looks happy with it...
185480
https://www.sylviegilphotography.com/about/

[faberryman]

Wedding photographers. The last refuge of film.

[Bob Salomon]

:) , today this is done with smatphones, so corporations don't buy many cameras...

____

Bob, here there is a list of top wedding photographers I follow what they are doing, shooting 100% film or using film a lot.

It's not the image quality... 645 film format usually surpasses required IQ but also a D850 dslr does it.

Film shots have an aesthetic footprint that digital shots may approach to, if wanting that, but results are not the same. Sure José Villa would also make excellent weddings with a dslr, and it's also sure that his Contax 645 has way more practical limitations than a pro dslr... but the film work done by those top notch wedding film shooters is not challenged. Also it has to be said that this is not a temporary trend, they have spent many years in that way, and until I know those shooters are to remain with film. More likely some digital wedding shootters are to move to fuji 160/portra.


José Villa http://josevilla.com/
John Dolan http://johndolan.com/portfolios/marriage/
Greg Finck http://www.gregfinck.com/
Noa Azoulay http://www.featherlove.com/
Erich Mcvey http://www.erichmcvey.com/
Braedon Flynn https://braedonphotography.com/portfolio/Weddings/
Liz Banfield https://www.lizbanfield.com/weddings
Judy Pak http://judypak.com/the-details
Sylvie Gil http://www.sylviegilphotography.com/
Ryan Ray http://www.ryanrayphoto.com/
Tec Petaja http://www.tecpetajaphoto.com/
Elizabeth Messina http://www.elizabethmessina.com/#!/i...love/gallery/1
Corbin Gurkin https://corbingurkin.com/
Aaron Delesie http://www.delesieblog.com/
Eric Kelley http://erickelley.com/portfolio
Allan Zepeda https://allanzepeda.com/
Heather Waraksa http://heatherwaraksa.com/
Charlotte Jenks Lewis http://charlottejenkslewis.com/
Leo Patrone http://www.leopatronephotography.com/
KT Merry https://www.ktmerry.com/


185480
https://www.sylviegilphotography.com/about/

20 photographers are not going to save film. 20 are a very, very small number. Most cities and towns have far more then 20!!

[Tin Can]

Bob, those Masters of Industry must have as blind as I am now.

Instamatic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instamatic) was not a bad idea when it was 126, which is square format 35mm film. From age 13, in 1964 I shot Instamatic 100 camera 126 format for years, but when I tried Instamatic 110 film in 1972 even I knew it was crap. Really glad I never fell for the very expensive Pentax 110 SLR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_Auto_110)!

Here again is a poor scan of 1964 NYC World's Fair Mustang Intro shot by me on Ektachrome 126 Instamatic 100.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/814/25961846967_157f1fb408_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FyafBa)1964 Mustang Worlds Fair (https://flic.kr/p/FyafBa) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, those Masters of Industry must have as blind as I am now.

Instamatic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instamatic) was not a bad idea when it was 126, which is square format 35mm film. From age 13, in 1964 I shot Instamatic 100 camera 126 format for years, but when I tried Instamatic 110 film in 1972 even I knew it was crap. Really glad I never fell for the very expensive Pentax 110 SLR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_Auto_110)!

Here again is a poor scan of 1964 NYC World's Fair Mustang Intro shot by me on Ektachrome 126 Instamatic 100.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/814/25961846967_157f1fb408_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FyafBa)1964 Mustang Worlds Fair (https://flic.kr/p/FyafBa) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

Randy, maybe so, but I made some very nice 11x14” Cuba’s from a Rollei A110!

Never got that much from 126.

But then I also got very good prints from my Minox as well!

[BrianShaw]

This is refreshing to hear. Where I live there haven’t been “line ups” for almost 2 decades... and that includes at Freestyle.


Its funny Downtown Camera is the only place where I see lineups of young people , and they are lined up to drop off or pick up film.. the Hostert Dip and Dunk machine allows the technicians to easily load any film and it is a very consistent machine, therefore they can keep the price low for the developing as they are selling the used film camera,film, develop,contact or scans, small proofs, and minilab prints, instore they have ready made frames to go... I think they are perfectly situated to do this business well, I believe they will be a huge success as this company is family owned and are running 7 days a week and deeply committed to photographers. not to mention they sell Leicas high end..

I personally buy all my photo paper, chemistry, alternative supplies that they stock as I want them to be successful and I support small business.

[Tin Can]

I was given a Minox age 7 in 1958 and developed the film myself without help.

But never got beyond Minox contact prints as father forbid an enlarger as frivolous even if I bought one with my paper route cash.

All film processed by mail until I finally took a college photography class in 1998 age 47. Tiny consumer digital was just then available. I bought a Nikon Coolpix 100 (https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/coolpix/others/100/) and did all assignments with film and tiny digital.

Interesting that that 0.3 MP sensor made a 512 X 480 image which is the same size as the crappy Mustang scan.


Randy, maybe so, but I made some very nice 11x14” Cuba’s from a Rollei A110!

Never got that much from 126.

But then I also got very good prints from my Minox as well!

[bob carnie]

This is refreshing to hear. Where I live there haven’t been “line ups” for almost 2 decades... and that includes at Freestyle.

Yes I was quite amazed, last sunday as the doors opened at noon two kids butted in front of me to get in with their film, they seemed to be in a hurry, I have not seen this for at least 20 years at this location

[Pere Casals]

Wedding photographers. The last refuge of film.

Frank, you look happy with film extintion... :)

Film has only a tinny share of the wedding photography (1/10000 ?), but yes... top notch wedding photographers are one of the last refuges in film commercial photography.

Another refuge is some selected movie productions, as mentioned Episode 9 is right now being shot on film, a product that will raise beyond 1 billion.

The strong refuges are artists and amateurs.



20 photographers are not going to save film. 20 are a very, very small number. Most cities and towns have far more then 20!!

Of course, but those 20, mostly leading the rankings of best wedding photographers, are pointing that film is just an excellent choice when a high quality output matters, their exemplary work enlights for those wanting to engage this way.

From the 960 million/y rolls (2003) peak present production is over some 20 million, but now increasing by some 6% yearly. There are good and bad news. Fuji killed Neopan, but kodak recovers P3200 and Ektachrome...

If they kill film we'll make dry plates and lumieres, it is true that film was "critically endangered", now perhaps we are in "vulnerable" situation, so at least we have an improvement.

[Tin Can]

I am more worried about loss of contact and enlarging paper as many 'film nuts' scan for digital output.

I don't want to make emulsions of any kind...

[bob carnie]

I am more worried about loss of contact and enlarging paper as many 'film nuts' scan for digital output.

I don't want to make emulsions of any kind...

There will be some small niche operators doing that for you Randy, think back to when the couple were making Pt Pd pre coated paper for us in the 80's they had a thriving business.

[Bob Salomon]

I was given a Minox age 7 in 1958 and developed the film myself without help.

But never got beyond Minox contact prints as father forbid an enlarger as frivolous even if I bought one with my paper route cash.

All film processed by mail until I finally took a college photography class in 1998 age 47. Tiny consumer digital was just then available. I bought a Nikon Coolpix 100 (https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/coolpix/others/100/) and did all assignments with film and tiny digital.

Interesting that that 0.3 MP sensor made a 512 X 480 image which is the same size as the crappy Mustang scan.

Many of those Minox prints were taken on a road trip for my 13th birthday through CT and other parts of NE. The first time I used it was to shoot pictures of submarines in their berths at Groton, CT. That caught the attention of the Shore Police who wanted to know why a 13 year old with a Minox was photographing subs through a chain link fence!

As a 13 year old I carried very little in the way of ID that would satisfy them. Fortunately my father’s sales rep was able to satisfy them. But they kept the film! But that was in 1954, so times have changed, today they probably would just shoot first.

[Bob Salomon]

Frank, you look happy with film extintion... :)

Film has only a tinny share of the wedding photography (1/10000 ?), but yes... top notch wedding photographers are one of the last refuges in film commercial photography.

Another refuge is some selected movie productions, as mentioned Episode 9 is right now being shot on film, a product that will raise beyond 1 billion.

The strong refuges are artists and amateurs.




Of course, but those 20, mostly leading the rankings of best wedding photographers, are pointing that film is just an excellent choice when a high quality output matters, their exemplary work enlights for those wanting to engage this way.

From the 800 million/y rolls peak present production is over some 3.5 million, but now increasing by some 6% yearly. There are good and bad news. Fuji killed Neopan, but kodak recovers P3200 and Ektachrome...

If they kill film we'll make dry plates and lumieres, it is true that film was "critically endangered", now perhaps we are in "vulnerable" situation, so at least we have an improvement.


Are you so naive and inexperienced to believe that high quality, professional prints can’t be done digitally?

[Tin Can]

Post WW II was interesting. My first wife was born in a US Occupied Germany camp, her parents had stories to tell.

I remember Nike Missile Silos inside Chicago near Montrose Harbour, which were removed and replaced by a Trap Shooting Range. Long gone.

During WW II my mother saw Japanese subs off LA. I don't know if she saw the attack.

No pictures...






Many of those Minox prints were taken on a road trip for my 13th birthday through CT and other parts of NE. The first time I used it was to shoot pictures of submarines in their berths at Groton, CT. That caught the attention of the Shore Police who wanted to know why a 13 year old with a Minox was photographing subs through a chain link fence!

As a 13 year old I carried very little in the way of ID that would satisfy them. Fortunately my father’s sales rep was able to satisfy them. But they kept the film! But that was in 1954, so times have changed, today they probably would just shoot first.

[Pere Casals]

Are you so naive and inexperienced to believe that high quality, professional prints can’t be done digitally?

Bob, 99.9999% of profesional prints are made digitally... so I'm not challenging digital supremacy in the market...

What I said is "film is just an excellent choice when a high quality output matters".

Let me go beyond: a Contax 645 loaded with Portra is a superior tool for many Wedding phtographers because of spectral response. No digital DSLR or Back has an specialized spectral response for portraiture, all are for general usage, while we have films with portraiture dedicated spectral respose. Digital world lacks that.

Of course we can manage RGB color later, but spectral information is lost in the capture instant, spectral information is reduced to 3 values. If the job is well done in that information reduction then we have a photographic quality plus, beyond pixel count and pixel peeping.

A DSLR has this, good in general:

185496


Sylvies' Contax 645 has this, an amazingly well optimized response for human skin:

185497


Of course there is 'à chacun son goût' about spectral responses, me I've no doubt about what is the best.

[Drew Wiley]

Good optical paper is certainly not in short supply at the moment. It changes and evolves just like everything else, but at present has no signs of impending extinction.

[Bob Salomon]

Post WW II was interesting. My first wife was born in a US Occupied Germany camp, her parents had stories to tell.

I remember Nike Missile Silos inside Chicago near Montrose Harbour, which were removed and replaced by a Trap Shooting Range. Long gone.

During WW II my mother saw Japanese subs off LA. I don't know if she saw the attack.

No pictures...

I was talking about images properly done with digital cameras and backs. You are naive if you refuse to acknowledge the quality that can be done digitally.

Go to a Phase One or Alpa or Hasselblad dealer and look at their outputs.
Go rent a Leica or high end Canon, Nikon, etc. and learn what they can really do.

[Tin Can]

I don’t argue that moot point.

I just like magic. 😎


I was talking about images properly done with digital cameras and backs. You are naive if you refuse to acknowledge the quality that can be done digitally.

Go to a Phase One or Alpa or Hasselblad dealer and look at their outputs.
Go rent a Leica or high end Canon, Nikon, etc. and learn what they can really do.

[Tin Can]

Bob Salomon,

Please let me explain. I don't care if people use Inkjet and digital, in fact I use both all the time. Currently a Nikon D750 works great for me. I just don't want to own an Inkjet printer as I have had too MANY. No more...

When I want an Inkjet print I have it printed by https://divlab.com/ after I use Adobe CC.

However what I love as a hobby and only for 'fun' is shooting LF film and printing on Ilford enlarging paper.

Unlike some, I don't think one is better than the other. Now they are just different sides of the same coin.

20 years ago I kept telling my cinematography friends who had just graduated Film school to shoot Digital videos and get serious.

16mm was just too expensive even 20 years ago.

Now they rent from http://doddpro.com/rental/ which is 3 blocks away. They still have no income...

[Bob Salomon]

Bob Salomon,

Please let me explain. I don't care if people use Inkjet and digital, in fact I use both all the time. Currently a Nikon D750 works great for me. I just don't want to own an Inkjet printer as I have had too MANY. No more...

When I want an Inkjet print I have it printed by https://divlab.com/ after I use Adobe CC.

However what I love as a hobby and only for 'fun' is shooting LF film and printing on Ilford enlarging paper.

Unlike some, I don't think one is better than the other. Now they are just different sides of the same coin.

20 years ago I kept telling my cinematography friends who had just graduated Film school to shoot Digital videos and get serious.

16mm was just too expensive even 20 years ago.

Now they rent from http://doddpro.com/rental/ which is 3 blocks away. They still have no income...

Randy,

Film is a tool, just as digital is.

Properly done it is very difficult, without looking under very high magnification, to tell if you can tell which are which.

Just like some artists use oils and others acrylics or pastels, etc. it is all art.

[Pere Casals]

Film is a tool, just as digital is.

+1


Please let me explain. I don't care if people use Inkjet and digital, in fact I use both all the time.
+1



Unlike some, I don't think one is better than the other.


Yes, the digital to film debate is over since 10 years ago and was won by digital, but we have to understand what debate was for most, it was a resolving power comparison DSLR vs 35mm film.

But Digital is a way better tool to allow a pro survive this days, as reality shows, absolutely no doubt. Also better for high ISO. Also much better to spray. A DSLR takes videos.


Anyway there is no doubt that film still has strong points. This 2018 film still handles better highlights, conserving better glare textures in people's faces, helping to a 3D sensation, for example.

Another key strength is spectral response. Nikon vs Canon have an slight difference that's difficult to pefectly match in Ps. Many Pros do recognize that Canon is slightly better for human skin and Nikon is slightly better for the rest. This comes from an slightly different spectral response, most Pros today even don't know that it's because of dyes on the pixels...

A film shooter has an strong avantage, he can replace the sensor of his camera, and the effect is miles away from the Nikon vs Cannon effect.

There is an entire world between Velvia 50 vs Portra 160. Each is an specialized tool for a certain job. Sure a Ps edition can make wonders, and sure that in many situations spectral specialization matters little, but sometimes Velvia or Portra are ground breaking for a job, blowing miles away the DLSR lack of character. Shaping the image character in Ps it's not the same than shaping it from the medium nature.

Sometimes I show a shot (https://www.flickr.com/photos/paulbohman/6615297461/in/faves-125592977@N05/) to my digital friends, speaking about face volumes. First they say that they do that dayly with their DSLRs, then they observe better the image, and then they start grasping their head while saying nothing.




Let's say that photography is beyond commercial photography, Sally Mann made an artistic career with collodion near a century after collodion was commercially over...

[Drew Wiley]

Nobody "won". That's nonsense. Turtles and crocodiles were around before dinosaurs, which seemed to rule the planet for awhile, but are now extinct.

[Pere Casals]

Nobody "won". That's nonsense. Turtles and crocodiles were around before dinosaurs, which seemed to rule the planet for awhile, but are now extinct.

Drew, film has lost the mainstream in a devastating way, digital has been disrruptive. This is a case explained in MBA grades. Kodak and Fuji lost a full sized empire.

...but stradivarius are still playing with techniques developed 3 centuries ago, this is still unsurpassed in expression. Opera lovers fall in ectasys with a soprano interpreting Verdi, feeling the nuances of a voice, no auto-tune, just flavours in the squillo, coloratura or divine pianissimo (Caballé). 150 masters playing and a unique soprano floating on it in total comunion. Other things compared may look music for day care centers, that's better for that.

An artist may only want a hammer to hit a boulder. In that sense film usage only can grow from now, because it makes some people very happy, and additionally it provides a set of aesthetic tools that are (nearly) forbiden in the digital mainstream world.

The question is if that comeback is to peak in a certain term, and what it will happen from then, Bob Carnie pointed that: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?147942-The-comeback-of-film&p=1473248&viewfull=1#post1473248

[Bob Salomon]

Drew, film has lost the mainstream in a devastating way, digital has been disrruptive. This is a case explained in MBA grades. Kodak and Fuji lost a full sized empire.

...but stradivarius are still playing with techniques developed 3 centuries ago, this is still unsurpassed in expression. Opera lovers fall in ectasys with a soprano interpreting Verdi, feeling the nuances of a voice, no auto-tune, just flavours in the squillo, coloratura or divine pianissimo (Caballé). 150 masters playing and a unique soprano floating on it in total comunion. Other things compared may look music for day care centers, that's better for that.

An artist may only want a hammer to hit a boulder. In that sense film usage only can grow from now, because it makes some people very happy, and additionally it provides a set of aesthetic tools that are (nearly) forbiden in the digital mainstream world.

The question is if that comeback is to peak in a certain term, and what it will happen from then, Bob Carnie pointed that: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?147942-The-comeback-of-film&p=1473248&viewfull=1#post1473248

Taking a picture has no relationship to playing a violin or singing. What you use to take or process or print the picture is a tool. You chose the one that works for you. Not on sentiment for what once was, but for what you prefer.

You neglected to mention that there is still a thriving market for buggy whips! Granted most people have no neead for one, other then maybe as a wall hanging, but if you race trotters then they are part of the culture and the required gear!

[Pere Casals]

Taking a picture has no relationship to playing a violin or singing. What you use to take or process or print the picture is a tool. You chose the one that works for you. Not on sentiment for what once was, but for what you prefer.

Some kind of relationship may be there, AA played piano, and he later compared processing to partiture+score.

I find an analogy:

Like classic music is still admired and played today, after many centuries, it can happen that classic photography may have practitioners in the future.

Anyway technically speaking this 2018 film still has some strong points that are unmatched by the new technology, but shooting a digital image is amazingly cheaper and faster...

Personally I've no doubt about the benefits in the spectral nature and highlight peformance. To me this fully explanis why Disney still is shooting some $200 million cost productions on film while best digital cameras on earth (they have) are resting in a shelf.

[Bob Salomon]

Some kind of relationship may be there, AA played piano, and he later compared processing to partiture+score.

I find an analogy:

Like classic music is still admired and played today, after many centuries, it can happen that classic photography may have practitioners in the future.

Anyway technically speaking this 2018 film still has some strong points that are unmatched by the new technology, but shooting a digital image is amazingly cheaper and faster...

Personally I've no doubt about the benefits in the spectral nature and highlight peformance. To me this fully explanis why Disney still is shooting some $200 million cost productions on film while best digital cameras on earth (they have) are resting in a shelf.

Processing isn’t anything like music. It is more like cooking, time and temperature!

[Pere Casals]

Processing isn’t anything like music. It is more like cooking, time and temperature!

:) Sadly we cannot ask Mr Adams what he meant, when speaking about the score.

Paper development does not require accurate temperature/time development, or at least these are fixed parameters, we develop to completion, you know.

The complicated thing is this (cooking or score):

185509

This is for the last version of the Moonrise, 1980. AA worked this print for 4 decades (some 38+ years) until he arrived at this score, or cooking recipe.

[Bob Salomon]

:) Sadly we cannot ask Mr Adams what he meant, when speaking about the score.

Paper development does not require accurate temperature/time development, or at least these are fixed parameters, we develop to completion, you know.

The complicated thing is this (cooking or score):

185509

This is for the last version of the Moonrise, 1980. AA worked this print for 4 decades (some 38+ years) until he arrived at this score, or cooking recipe.

Why not ask John Sexton what he meant?

[Mark Sawyer]

Yes, the digital to film debate is over since 10 years ago...

Yet here we are, debating...

[Drew Wiley]

Pere - Stradivarius violins are still sold right down the street from me. Of course, the level of security in that store is like a jewelry store. They aren't going to unlock the display cases for just anyone. In this instance, success is better defined by historic staying power rather than current market success in cumulative dollars and numbers. We might also consider the longevity of the product itself. Many view cameras are operative and prized a century after they were made. But the average consumer of digital devices has already thrown enough electronics gadets, old cell phones, and computer components into landfill or recycling sufficient to build their own plastic and solder equivalent of the Great Pyramid of Cheops. Disposable pretty much defines the whole ethos. What will happen several decades hence is hard to say. But since the planet itself may be fighting for mere survival, I'm not sure I'd want to be around anyway. So for the moment, just enjoy whatever medium you personally prefer.

[Pere Casals]

Yet here we are, debating...

Mark, IMHO that film vs digital debate ended. To me digital won that debate and conquered the consumer and the commercial markets enterely, and that ended that debate.

IMHO what we have now is not a debate but facts: regarding IQ, spectral responses, ISO performance, shadows/highlight latitude and cost/convenience.

There is plenty of good factual information about all that.

IMHO it cannot be challenged that dslr cameras have way better high ISO or that Portra has a (way better for many) dedicated spectral response for portraits. To me these are technical facts, not a debate. If someone wants to debate that then it can be debated, but I don't find that a debate is there about that.




So for the moment, just enjoy whatever medium you personally prefer.

Drew, of course...

Regarding OP question we have that tinny film market in > 20 million rolls/year, growing some 6% yearly. We are there...