jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I use mine for decoration and remembrance.

Hip Coyote

Sure, go with that.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Having used film from full frame to large format I can understand the appeal of mirrorless digital, especially when it comes to manual focusing.

What large format has in common with mirrorless digital is that you are focusing on the actual image, not a mechanical replica via a mirror like you do with an SLR or DSLR. I have had one DSLR go completely out of whack when the camera landed on its prism and I had to discard it because it would not have been worth the expense to repair it.

The only reliable SLRs I used were Hasselblads and Mamiya. Their reliability was prolonged by the greater care I took in handling them.

I have had several rangefinders including Leica, Zeiss Icon and Hasselblad XPan. When it comes to focusing, rangefinders are not really mirrorless. They are just as delicate as SLR/DSLR cameras. To make matters worse, it might take a trip back to Germany and several months to get a Leica returned, even if it's digital.

But with film you don't really need as much precision in focusing since a scanned film image captures the full frame equivalent between 16 and 22MP.

When I wanted more resolution from film I could easily get about 70-80MP from scanned medium format and over 100MP from sheet film.

Canisdirus

I bought some film last year and plunked it into my vintage F3...had a blast shooting it.

Until the prints came back...now it is in my 'Hand me down' closet...well packed away.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

At least you had a blast for relatively little cost.

scaudill Loc: Rock Hill, SC

I still enjoy the occasional trip out with a film camera. I recently picked up a mint Nikon F with a working meter that is very accurate. I also have two Nikon F3HP. My main camera that I use is a Nikon D850.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The best thing about film is your memories get better even if the pictures didn't.

I think digital, in general, and UHH specifically have changed our perception of images -- or more exactly: acceptable images. I've scanned probably 50% of all my available 35mm negatives from the 80s and 90s. Some digital processing can improve nearly every image, and not just the clean-up of scanning anomalies. But in 'modern' film, my biggest change was learning about exposing to the right and adding +1/3 to +1 (even +2) stops of light to film. Then, I scan and edit the resulting JPEGs to the end-result desired. The only disappointment I have now in film is still the occasional missed / soft focus, and sometimes a crummy roll of (too) expired film. The only film available today is really only 'premium'. Given most all remaining equipment worth shooting film is premium too, the results should come out better too, with a bit of effort and knowledge from the modern film photographer.

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

My first SLR, a Pentax ME Super.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Awesome for the F.
Hard to find good ones with meters working.
Mine does somewhat but is not accurate.

Canisdirus

I had a blast...love that camera.

But the cost...I could have purchased a fast SD card instead.

bvogel Loc: Evergreen, CO

I use a Minolta Max 9 along with some Minolta lens from that era. My darkroom is still intact, so I do my own processing.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

[quote=CHG_CANON]Now, about 13 years ago, I cycled through an inherited AE-1, a T90, and an F-1. I added a few FD lenses which were selling relatively cheap back then, at just the start of the mirrorless uses for these lenses, circa 2010.

Chg_Canon: is there any published information which compares the long term durability of prints made from B/W film to prints made from a digital image and rendered in B/W. I have 100 year old prints from my dad's collection that still look a good as new when they were well cared for. I occasionally shoot B/W with my FM just to give my successors the possibility to see what our present times were like.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I have no idea on prints. I'm a modern 21st century man. Once an image gets into a digital format, it can be printed and / or digitally displayed on-demand forever.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Processing my own B&W and scanning is what kept me using film as long as I did.

The film was the easy part and post processing the scanned result eliminated the drudgery of printing.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

[quote=DaveyDitzer]

When I was taking classes, we used fiber-based b&w paper, acid-free archival mat board, and archival dry mount adhesive. Our goal was 100-200 years.

Most processes today use resin-coated paper. It simplifies the print drying process, but uses lower temperature dry mount adhesive. It was not considered an archival process, because the resin (read plastic) material outgasses or leaches out over time.