steve03 Loc: long Lsland

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

The whole reason film has fallen to the grievously low demand it has at the moment is the cost of film itself plus the cost of processing. Should both drop to much more acceptable price points then film would experience a wonderful revival. I still shoot film regularly, but not in the quantities that I would like simply due to the cost. I can no longer buy 120 rolls film anywhere in my state, much less get it processed. Mailers only add to the expense. By the time I buy the film, pay for shipping, processing and return shipping, it costs me about $1.35 per negative, with no prints included as I print everything myself. This needs to be cut in half to revive the industry or it will eventually totally succumb to the advances of digital. My Nikon D800E has equaled anything I can get from 35mm film so I have totally quit shooting 35mm. How much longer before my medium format is equaled? Maybe not all that long........

bunuweld Loc: Arizona

A romantic idea, but market demand realities will keep those prices from going down, and they may skyrocket as the demand goes down even faster.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Likely very true, but a guy can dream, can't he?
The film industry is killing itself, has been for about 12 years now.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I usually purchase these films in these quantities:
Ilford FP 4 50 sheets 4x5 - $36.95
Ilford FP 4 120 Pro Pack - $60 +/-
Ilford Delta 400 35mm - 100 feet - $61 +/-

Developer - $15 but at 2ml per development that's about $1 per
Fixer - $5 per gallon good for about 50 rolls of 35mm, about .10 per

Water bill goes up but hardly enough to mention.

Amount of elation when seeing the developed image - Priceless.

foot note, - The bulk load 35mm Nikon cassettes and the Jobo processing equipment are a bit pricey, but will last a lifetime.
--Bob

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

:thumbup: I still shoot film on a regular basis too, not so much 35mm, though some, but mostly Medium Format.
Digital sure is easier on the pocket, but I like the quality of film better.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

:thumbup:

Steve_m Loc: Southern California

Film is thing of the past no matter how you slice it. As far as the cost of the film is concern, Kodak never made a nickel of profit on the film itself. Coating polyester film is not a easy process. It has to have up to 16 layers of gelatin type of precision coating. All has to be done in total dark. Kodak made their profit on picture processing and on photographic paper. With film the photograph was deciding, if that particular picture of for example a rock is worth it or wasted place on film and wasted money. With digital technology I can take 20 pictures of that rock, immediately see the picture, see the histogram and finally, if I don't like it, I can erase it with one push of the button. If we add available processing software, there is hardly any argument in favor of the film. I know, there are people who will swear, that film technology is better. There are people, who swear, that 8-track cassette is better than audio CD. I used to like cars, where I could overhaul the whole engine in my garage with a few tools and without a computer. Today all I can do is to change motor oil. Time is changing and we have to change to. Teenagers today they have no idea what that damn film was.
That was just my thought.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Think what you want. I'll still adore using film. Digital is nice, provides a very usable tool, and is expeditious when doing a large amount of photos that are needed in a hurry.

I'll take umbrage with the implications of your comment regarding being able to see the results immediately. Taking 20 photos of a rock and then picking out the best is similar to saying your a marksman because you can hit a target at 10 yards with a shotgun.

I see the image I want before I even press the shutter release. At the same time, I know the processing I'll need to do to achieve that image. This follows with digital as well. I rarely take more than two images of any subject. I just as rarely every chimp an image, either. Again, I know what I'll get before I even place my finger on the shutter release.

Yes, I've moved on. I process film better today, than I did years ago. I'll be processing it better years from now than I did today. Simple as that.
--Bob

Steve_m Loc: Southern California

Well, my hat is off to you. I don't have your ability or your talent. I have to do it the hard way. During my film time I could produced an image worth displaying maybe once a year. With my digital "shotgun" style shooting I am able to generate that image worth bragging maybe once a week. So, I am about 52 times more productive with the digital technology than I was with film.

I have just one question for you. How do you process your printing? Do you scan your image into a digital format, or do you process your print with chemicals and filters?

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Steve,
Believe me. It's not an ability that just happened. I've had to work very hard at developing the ability to pre-visualize a final print while looking at a scene. Much the same way I've had to work at observing the scene, and the slight nuances of tonality presented by it. It is achieved by dedication and hours of working toward that goal. I practice that every day, whether I have a camera with me or not, not being very rare.

I think one must completely see what one is photographing in order to have a chance of producing a final image that is satisfactory.

As for printing, I have two enlargers. A Simmons Omega D2V for black and white and a Bessler enlarger for color. However, since most of my work is headed for web exhibition, I don't print very much at present. The prints I do are done at a local camera / imaging center. I scan the negatives, then PPP (post post process) then in Photoshop, and then bring them to Tempe Imaging Center.

As for you comment regarding 12 images per year, that falls right along the lines of a quote by Ansel Adams, "Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop".
--Bob

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

I think Fuji was the only company to ever use a polyester base on one of its films, all others used a Acetone base.