Why Shoot Film? (Page 2): I am tempted to buy one of those Noritsu C41 processor because we can get good used ones cheap nowaday. But even the smallest one requires to run 15 rolls a...

BebuLamar

selmslie wrote:

I had a Jobo CPE-2 for a while. The best I can say about it is that it worked very well. I used it for negative and positive small, medium and large format film.

The downside was that it was expensive and it would have been a long time before I could break even, if ever.

I am tempted to buy one of those Noritsu C41 processor because we can get good used ones cheap nowaday. But even the smallest one requires to run 15 rolls a day to keep the process in control. If I can keep it running the cost would be low. Back in the early 80's the cost was 7 cents a roll. Today I am sure it's still less than a buck.

John Lawrence

flip1948 wrote:

I still shoot film because I can't figure out how to put an SD card in my Nikon F100.

I am currently bidding on a Nikon D610 on eBay so who knows how much longer the F100 will see the light of day. I'll probably never completely quit shooting film...I just love that F100 too much.

My last film camera was a Nikon F100. Enjoyed it for 10 years then traded it in towards a Nikon D700 digital when I retired in 2010. I prefer digital but wish I also held onto the F100 just to shoot a few rolls. The pictures I took with it still stand out in my albums.

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

I enjoy film cameras for reasons similar to the rationale of people who like to restore antique cars or airplanes or hand knit a sweater, or whatever. I freely admit that modern digital and post processing techniques are cheaper, easier, more versatile, more convenient, and generally just better than film. Film is nostalgic, and enjoyable - but if I had to make a living with my photography, I wouldn't even consider it.
I've sold all my film gear except the trusty Mamiya 7ii.

TimHGuitar Loc: San Francisco, CA

My name is Tim Hall and I joined Ugly Hedgehog (strange name) a while back. I only began contributing comments here and there and posting images about a month ago. I realized after a month's time that I should have joined the film group, which I just did moments ago. I've only read the comments on this particular subject (Why Shoot Film?) thus far, and I find that the discussion doesn't quite fit my own situation. Whereas most are shooting films in order to scan, I shoot film to print in the darkroom. I retired from the business of photography in 2015 and I have to admit, that the last 10 - 15 years while I was in the business, I was only dealing with digital files in my work as a photographic printer. The first 35 years prior, it was all film. Consequently, when I retired I only wanted to do film processing and darkroom printing. I had been in the same building for 27 years when the landlord explained to me that they were going to demolish the building in order to build condos (San Francisco). They gave me a two year warning.
I had spent well over $2,000,000 in building my color lab over those 27 years, and I knew I was not going to rebuild it when I vacated the premises; I was already 63 years old. So I spent the remaining years in my business preparing to work, once again, only in making black and white silver gelatin prints. I had also been the recipient of Robert Cameron's films when he passed away in 2009. Bob was the photographer and publisher of the "Above" series of books, and he photographed, from the air, many cities in order to produce coffee table books.
So, I spent about a year's time figuring out how to best make black and white internegatives from Bob's original transparencies so that I could print some of his aerial shots in black and white. I basically said goodbye to type C prints when I retired, although I did make quite a few color prints in various sizes from my color processing equipment before I closed the door to my establishment,
I don't hate digital, but I am tired of working in that realm. The analogue prints takes a lot of time to do, but that's what I have now... time. Looking closely at a silver gelatin print packs a lot more punch emotionally than an inkjet print does, and I made both when I was in business. Also, a silver gelatin print, correctly made, will last thousands of years, whereas any other image reproduction process will not. Which leads me to my final comment concerning why I still shoot film.
I am 70 now and my children are all grown. They have their separate lives and I think about what I shall leave them. I decided that I would make portfolios in black and white and place them within a folio within a wooden box along with certain writings that I would include. The writings have to do with family history and my own ideas of idealism. These will be available to them after I am gone. Thus, I plan to be busy with these projects for the remaining years of my life. Already I find that the darkroom work is taxing on my body. I used to be able to print 24 hours straight. Now I tire after only 8 hours and I find that I need a nap afterwards. The largest print I can manage now (in trays) is only 24" x 30." I used to print 6' x 10' prints in my lab all day.
So, in short, I shoot film... actually I do little shooting (I am printing old negatives) in order to make analogue prints so that they will last. Some of the ink jet prints I made in my lab got wet unintentionally and the image dripped away.
I am on my 5th portfolio. The first, started in 2019, was called "Homage to Photographers of Old." The second was called "Robert Cameron in Black and White." The third was called "Portraits of Growing Up Asian." The fourth was called "Three Generations of Photographs" (my grandfather, and my father, and I myself, obviously, were all photographers with darkrooms). And the new one I am starting is called "The Spread."
Here are a couple of Bob's images that I converted to black and white and is included in the Cameron folio.

(Download)

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

TimHGuitar wrote:

My name is Tim Hall and I joined Ugly Hedgehog (strange name) a while back. I only began contributing comments here and there and posting images about a month ago. I realized after a month's time that I should have joined the film group, which I just did moments ago. I've only read the comments on this particular subject (Why Shoot Film?) thus far, and I find that the discussion doesn't quite fit my own situation. Whereas most are shooting films in order to scan, I shoot film to print in the darkroom. I retired from the business of photography in 2015 and I have to admit, that the last 10 - 15 years while I was in the business, I was only dealing with digital files in my work as a photographic printer. The first 35 years prior, it was all film. Consequently, when I retired I only wanted to do film processing and darkroom printing. I had been in the same building for 27 years when the landlord explained to me that they were going to demolish the building in order to build condos (San Francisco). They gave me a two year warning.
I had spent well over $2,000,000 in building my color lab over those 27 years, and I knew I was not going to rebuild it when I vacated the premises; I was already 63 years old. So I spent the remaining years in my business preparing to work, once again, only in making black and white silver gelatin prints. I had also been the recipient of Robert Cameron's films when he passed away in 2009. Bob was the photographer and publisher of the "Above" series of books, and he photographed, from the air, many cities in order to produce coffee table books.
So, I spent about a year's time figuring out how to best make black and white internegatives from Bob's original transparencies so that I could print some of his aerial shots in black and white. I basically said goodbye to type C prints when I retired, although I did make quite a few color prints in various sizes from my color processing equipment before I closed the door to my establishment,
I don't hate digital, but I am tired of working in that realm. The analogue prints takes a lot of time to do, but that's what I have now... time. Looking closely at a silver gelatin print packs a lot more punch emotionally than an inkjet print does, and I made both when I was in business. Also, a silver gelatin print, correctly made, will last thousands of years, whereas any other image reproduction process will not. Which leads me to my final comment concerning why I still shoot film.
I am 70 now and my children are all grown. They have their separate lives and I think about what I shall leave them. I decided that I would make portfolios in black and white and place them within a folio within a wooden box along with certain writings that I would include. The writings have to do with family history and my own ideas of idealism. These will be available to them after I am gone. Thus, I plan to be busy with these projects for the remaining years of my life. Already I find that the darkroom work is taxing on my body. I used to be able to print 24 hours straight. Now I tire after only 8 hours and I find that I need a nap afterwards. The largest print I can manage now (in trays) is only 24" x 30." I used to print 6' x 10' prints in my lab all day.
So, in short, I shoot film... actually I do little shooting (I am printing old negatives) in order to make analogue prints so that they will last. Some of the ink jet prints I made in my lab got wet unintentionally and the image dripped away.
I am on my 5th portfolio. The first, started in 2019, was called "Homage to Photographers of Old." The second was called "Robert Cameron in Black and White." The third was called "Portraits of Growing Up Asian." The fourth was called "Three Generations of Photographs" (my grandfather, and my father, and I myself, obviously, were all photographers with darkrooms). And the new one I am starting is called "The Spread."
Here are a couple of Bob's images that I converted to black and white and is included in the Cameron folio.

My name is Tim Hall and I joined Ugly Hedgehog (st... (show quote)

I enjoyed your note! I'm quite a lot older than you though, and no way could I spend 8 hrs at day at anything except sleep!
Photography is still one of several occupations though, and probably the last that I'd voluntarily give up. I'm foremost a flyer and sailplane pilot in season, a nature lover, and student of American and natural history. Each of those has lots of room to include photography, primarily for my own enjoyment. There is simply no place as enjoyable as wilderness, the sky, and the sea!

Bill 45

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

In the digital age of photography, why should anyone still shoot film? I'm sure there are many valid reasons- some practical and some nostalgic, artistic/technical, or emotional.

After transitioning to digital in my professional work, I continued shooting film, for a while, when my digital equipment, at the time, could no accommodate certain assignments. When I require a full complement of view camera movements and/or required maximum resolution for a billboard or phot-mural job, I would go to my 8x10 system and transparency film. Eventually, cameras with higher megapixel counts, perspective contr lenses, and digital conversion to my medium format gear relegated the view camera to the storeroom. Advanced software closed the remaining gap.

I did hang onto various film for portraiture, orthochromatic emulsions for character studies, the film with high red sensitivity for glamour portraits, colour negative films that were designed with portraiture and wedding photography in mind were all-important materials in my toolbox along with some LOVELY warm-tone and textured surfaced chloro-bromide papers sich as Koda Opal and Ektalure, DAF Indiatone, and several German imports. Sadly most of these materials have been discontinued. I really don't mist the "smell" of the darkroom or the "thrill" of watching an image form in the tray but there was a certain level of craftsmanship required to make exceptionally fine prints.

So profess, and rightly so, that there is a certain "look" to film that can not be replicated or recaptured in digital production. I tend to disagree and some of that "look" is coarse grain and other elements that some would consider distraction or defects. Most o the time, in digital production, I can replicate most of the effects I previously attained with film- it's an ongoing learning process.

I can fully understand the value of properly scanning and digitizing existing film negatives and transparencies. Thow who no longer have an operational darkroom or colour lab can continue to archive and print all the negatives and transparencies they made over the years. Aside from using one's favourite film cameras and lenses, what is the advantage of starting new projects or individual shoots with the film only to convert it to digital images? I could understand the concept of shoot film and follow through with a complete darkroom treatment, especially for those practicing the zone system.

Another issue, for me, is the proper development of black and white films. When I was fully engaged in film, my processing technique was extremely critical. I found that many photographers be losing the full potential of their films, as to the accuracy and tight grain structure due to sloppy development techniques. I found that minor reticulation (shifting of the emulsion on the base) happens when there are differentials in temperature between the developer and the other chemicals in the line. Other problems were too much acidity in the stop bath or fixer and unnecessarily long wet-times. Over-emersion in "hypo" eliminator is another detriment. Using moderately slow films, precise temperature control and very careful handling and washing could produce large format-like sharpness from 35mm film. Filtered water used for mixing and diluting chemistry and the wash water or using distilled or demineralized water for mixing chemicals is another essential component. Too vigorous agitation is another cause of quality loss.

So...this is my take on the matter, however, it is certainly not "carved in stone" I would like to hear other opinions and experiences of shooting film and digitizing the negatives or transparencies and/ or continuing the entire darkroom process.

In the digital age of photography, why should anyo... (show quote)

To me the best way to answer to your reply. Why not? It not a put down.

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

[quote=mikegreenwald]I enjoy film cameras for reasons similar to the rationale of people who like to restore antique cars or airplanes or hand knit a sweater, or whatever. I freely admit that modern digital and post processing techniques are cheaper, easier, more versatile, more convenient, and generally just better than film. Film is nostalgic, and enjoyable - but if I had to make a living with my photography, I wouldn't even consider it.
I've sold all my film gear except the trusty Mamiya 7ii.

I agree, including the Mamiya 7ii plus three lenses. I don't know how to knit though, but I can rib stitch a wing!

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

I enjoyed your note! I'm quite a lot older than you though, and no way could I spend 8 hrs at day at anything except sleep!
Photography is still one of several occupations though, and probably the last that I'd voluntarily give up. I'm foremost a flyer and sailplane pilot in season, a nature lover, and student of American and natural history. Each of those has lots of room to include photography, primarily for my own enjoyment. There is simply no place as enjoyable as wilderness, the sky, and the sea![/quote]

Tim, you and I match up pretty well. I fly an ASH 31Mi, a Stearman, and a Carbon Cub, having given up the bigger stuff when I turned 85 a couple of years ago. It's great life, but a little tougher to wander in the far north and the high mountains the last couple of years.

Tim Stapp Loc: Mid Mitten

I shoot film because it has been a childhood dream. I'm almost 66 yrs. old now. I recall at the age of 3 or 4 having been fascinated at the traveling portrait photographer's camera. Looking back, I believe that it was an 8x10.

He would travel from rural town to rural town, taking portraits and delivering prints a few weeks later on his next trip through the area. He would set up in the lobby of the Grand Hotel in Howard City, MI across the street from the Pennsylvania/Pere Marquette Railroad depot.

Realizing my fascination with his camera, on one trip through town, he gave me a roll film camera with instructions on how to load the film and one roll of Kodak film. My Mom purchased a couple additional rolls of Kodak film. I went through those three rolls of film in less than a week.

I walked three miles to town to drop them off at the drug store to be sent out for development. Upon receipt of photographic prints and the negatives, my mother was proud. Given the cost, my father stated: "You can shoot all the pictures that you want with that camera, but you can't have any more film."

I never squeezed a shutter button with my index finger for over 50 years.

Dad's gone now, but at 66 years of age in our new to us house: the 4th bedroom adjoining the laundry room plumbing is going to be a darkroom with a Beselar 23CII set up for 35mm, a Beselar 23XII w/color head set up for medium format and a Beselar CB7 set up for 4x5.

With the JOBO CPE2+, I have less than $500 invested in the darkroom. About the same in cameras/lenses.

Take THAT Dad!!!

SteveInConverse Loc: South Texas

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

I certainly don't mind or object if or when someon... (show quote)

Thank you for your service!

Phossilphoto

An UHH photographer who asked for help with a camera was referred to pg number 4xx in the manual. How many ways can you say focus, select f-stop and shutter speed, push button.

henrycrafter Loc: Orem Utah

I still shoot fim!!!
One reason is my 1945 SpeedGraphic doesn't have a digital back
the other is that is my preference
the third is my emotional tie to film that I have been shooting since about 1953

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

In the digital age of photography, why should anyone still shoot film? I'm sure there are many valid reasons- some practical and some nostalgic, artistic/technical, or emotional.

After transitioning to digital in my professional work, I continued shooting film, for a while, when my digital equipment, at the time, could no accommodate certain assignments. When I require a full complement of view camera movements and/or required maximum resolution for a billboard or phot-mural job, I would go to my 8x10 system and transparency film. Eventually, cameras with higher megapixel counts, perspective contr lenses, and digital conversion to my medium format gear relegated the view camera to the storeroom. Advanced software closed the remaining gap.

I did hang onto various film for portraiture, orthochromatic emulsions for character studies, the film with high red sensitivity for glamour portraits, colour negative films that were designed with portraiture and wedding photography in mind were all-important materials in my toolbox along with some LOVELY warm-tone and textured surfaced chloro-bromide papers sich as Koda Opal and Ektalure, DAF Indiatone, and several German imports. Sadly most of these materials have been discontinued. I really don't mist the "smell" of the darkroom or the "thrill" of watching an image form in the tray but there was a certain level of craftsmanship required to make exceptionally fine prints.

So profess, and rightly so, that there is a certain "look" to film that can not be replicated or recaptured in digital production. I tend to disagree and some of that "look" is coarse grain and other elements that some would consider distraction or defects. Most o the time, in digital production, I can replicate most of the effects I previously attained with film- it's an ongoing learning process.

I can fully understand the value of properly scanning and digitizing existing film negatives and transparencies. Thow who no longer have an operational darkroom or colour lab can continue to archive and print all the negatives and transparencies they made over the years. Aside from using one's favourite film cameras and lenses, what is the advantage of starting new projects or individual shoots with the film only to convert it to digital images? I could understand the concept of shoot film and follow through with a complete darkroom treatment, especially for those practicing the zone system.

Another issue, for me, is the proper development of black and white films. When I was fully engaged in film, my processing technique was extremely critical. I found that many photographers be losing the full potential of their films, as to the accuracy and tight grain structure due to sloppy development techniques. I found that minor reticulation (shifting of the emulsion on the base) happens when there are differentials in temperature between the developer and the other chemicals in the line. Other problems were too much acidity in the stop bath or fixer and unnecessarily long wet-times. Over-emersion in "hypo" eliminator is another detriment. Using moderately slow films, precise temperature control and very careful handling and washing could produce large format-like sharpness from 35mm film. Filtered water used for mixing and diluting chemistry and the wash water or using distilled or demineralized water for mixing chemicals is another essential component. Too vigorous agitation is another cause of quality loss.

So...this is my take on the matter, however, it is certainly not "carved in stone" I would like to hear other opinions and experiences of shooting film and digitizing the negatives or transparencies and/ or continuing the entire darkroom process.

In the digital age of photography, why should anyo... (show quote)

I love using all the old cameras that I could not afford when I was younger. I remember looking at TLR cameras when I was in high school and thinking: " $125! Might as well be a Million". Some of the cameras that I have I inherited, others I bought on Ebay. I'm probably never going to be good enough at developing to appreciate the nuances that you describe; but I do like developing film and then scanning it. I wish I still had a darkroom, and I wanted to convert one of our bathrooms; but there is only so much my wife will put up with.....can't blame her, really.
Erich

wolfMark Loc: Southern Oregon

I'm an old timer who began shooting seriously with an old Yashica-MAT TLR while still in high school back in the mid 60s. My dad was an avid amateur and passed the bug on to me. We had a small darkroom in our basement and I enjoyed developing and making prints with an old Omega enlarger. I continued shooting film for all these years with both Nikons and Leicas (spoiled, I know). I switched to digital about 12 years ago and thought that I would never look back. Then I got caught up in recent nostalgia for analog and decided to shoot film again. Why? I love my old Leica M3, still in good working condition (though a CLA would be good) and the assortment of very fine glass that I have for it and wanted to use them again. All of my digital cameras are crop sensor, which works fine for me, but I wanted to shoot full frame as well. Being retired with a limited income, spending the money for a full frame camera and lenses is a bit out of my sensible reach, so I turned to my 35mm Leica. I'm intrigued by the wide variety of films available. I love working with a totally mechanical camera that doesn't need a battery. There's something about the film quality that I have trouble putting my finger on, just like there is a difference between analog vinyl LPs and CDs. Something 'softer' and 'rounder' about it. The film grain is like the snaps and pops of a vinyl record... it comes with the territory. Most of my photography is still digital. As I post on social media I see digital as the way to go. And the expense and inconvenience of film limits my production. Though when I want to slow down and do something different, I always would prefer film.

BandeauRouge Loc: usa

most digital cameras dont seem to give the same color accuracy as kodak color film does, until they hit the 6,000$ price on teh body