Film -- Does anyone still use it? 35mm Film seemed to take an excessive jump in price about 18 months ago. I'd like to use it more, and am lucky that I have some Fujichrome and...

mickley Loc: Schenectady NY

35mm Film seemed to take an excessive jump in price about 18 months ago. I'd like to use it more, and am lucky that I have some Fujichrome and Ektachrome in the freezer, so for the time being I'm set. Does anyone know of a source for film that what "break the bank"?

genehp Loc: carbondale,PA

Get with the program.genehp

mickley Loc: Schenectady NY

Program? Are you saying film is obsolete?

Don Fischer Loc: Antelope, Ore

I take out a film camera not and then but seldom 35mm. I have an F5 and I love the thing but I also have three med formats I dearly love fooling with. My Pentax 645 is relatively new and is auto everything. My two favorite's are my RB 67 and Yashica 635, both auto nothing!

If I could shoot as inexpensively as digital, I'd probably go back to film. Never gonna happen.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Don Fischer wrote:

If I could shoot as inexpensively as digital, I'd probably go back to film. Never gonna happen.

Agreed.

mickley Loc: Schenectady NY

Don Fischer wrote:

I take out a film camera not and then but seldom 35mm. I have an F5 and I love the thing but I also have three med formats I dearly love fooling with. My Pentax 645 is relatively new and is auto everything. My two favorite's are my RB 67 and Yashica 635, both auto nothing!

If I could shoot as inexpensively as digital, I'd probably go back to film. Never gonna happen.

You are right, digital is much cheaper --- after you have bought the bodies and lenses. But then again, I have a lens "habit" to feed, so that probably doesn't matter. Still, with 40+ rolls in the freezer, I have a couple of years to go...maybe...

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

mickley wrote:

... I have a couple of years to go...maybe...

:lol:

krl48 Loc: NY, PA now SC

Recently took my Mamiya C330 TLR out of storage, cleaned it up and decided to run some film through it.

One roll of Tri X and one roll of Ektachrome via mail order was about $11.50 total including shipping.

Mail order processor provided film developing, standard scan, web access and a CD returned to me with negatives for $27.95 ($11 per roll plus $5.95 return shipping fee).

Web access took 4 or 5 days. Received CD's and negatives in another 4 or 5 days.

Total cost for 24 shots was almost $40. Any prints ordered would have added to the total. I can print from the images on the CD's.

While I am entirely satisfied with the service received and the products delivered, barring hitting the lottery, I don't expect to be transitioning back to film anytime soon.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

krl48 wrote:

...
Web access took 4 or 5 days. Received CD's and negatives in another 4 or 5 days.

The other thing I like about digital is being able to see the results immediately so you can tweak if need be. But film [slides] still seems more vivid. Maybe it's because of the analog gradation in the colors?

mickley Loc: Schenectady NY

krl48 wrote:

Recently took my Mamiya C330 TLR out of storage, c... (show quote)

Yes, you are right. he cost of film plus processing can be daunting. I have both digital and film bodies, and the day all the film is gone, I will be unhappy...in a way.

There are two sides to it. Someone gave me a Leica IIIC and a couple of lenses, but I never used it. If film is gone, I'll never get to see why people praise Leicas so much.

But, on the other hand, the logical side of me says to not throw good money after bad, i.e., don't buy more film. I suspect there is no really good answer.

mickley Loc: Schenectady NY

Longshadow wrote:

The other thing I like about digital is being able to see the results immediately so you can tweak if need be. But film [slides] still seems more vivid. Maybe it's because of the analog gradation in the colors?

Film has its allure, to be sure; I like its "smoothness". I think the equivalent bit depth of film is higher than digital. Most good DSLRs have a 14-bit depth on RAW (the TIF normally stores at 16-bit). I'm amazed that more users haven't demanded more bit depth.

Can't argue about the immediacy of review, but that doesn't matter as much to me. I tend to shoot moving objects, so the same subject cannot reoccur anyway.

blankmange Loc: down on the farm...

I can't say that film is obsolete or that era is over.... but it definitely isn't the future...

given the example above, if any of those exposures are throw-aways, that's $1.67 shot and 5 to 10 days to find out, whereas if I shoot 90 frames on my K-50 and 10 (15? 25?) aren't usable, what does it cost me?

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

I have a canon F-1 and a bunch of Fd lenses sitting in their case. B&H offered me all of $85 for everything. That won't even pay for a good CPL so I still have them. I don't use them but somehow they have sentimental value. If film ever gets popular again I will be all set.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

boberic wrote:

... I don't use them but somehow they have sentimental value. If film ever gets popular again I will be all set.

I can appreciate that.
My Ftb, AE-1, and Yashica Mat 124 are on display on my curio shelf in a display cabinet. I just can't get rid of them!

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Longshadow wrote:

I can appreciate that.
My Ftb, AE-1, and Yashica Mat 124 are on display on my curio shelf in a display cabinet. I just can't get rid of them!

Never thought of putting them on display. It's a good Idea. they will make interesting objects of curiousity