James Slick Loc: Pittsburgh,PA

Pittsburgh still has a traditional camera store called Bernie's Photo Center (full service digital and film) In addition to film, chemicals and related accessories. They do repairs, video transfer ETC and can hook you up with vintage gear. This isn't an ad, I often by from B&H too, But It's nice to be able to just grab some 120 on a whim!

Nymphadora

I buy a lot of different films from www.filmphotographyproject.com. I buy from all over for film but I use ebay, B&H, etc. I also MAKE my own 127 and 110. I use antique Kodak 127 cameras, such as a 1925 Kodak Vest Pocket Hawkeye, a folder about the size of an audio cassette when it's closed. I made a splitter for 120 to 127 film and the remnant is 16mm, which is 110 film. I reload the old 110 cassettes. My Minolta 110 ZOOM SLR doesn't need the sprocket holes. I also use a 100ft roll of Eastman 7222 b&w movie film. This is the 16mm version of the 35mm Eastman 5222, which I ALSO use from a 100ft roll. It's been bulk loaded into 35mm reload cassettes. I process ALL of my film, b&w, colour, slides, negatives. The chemical kits for colour slides and negatives is a 3 bath process just like b&w only it's a hot bath 105 degree kitchen sink process. All the same hardware as b&w. You should try it. You can get the kits from www.filmphotographyproject.com. They will even sell you cleaned 1 litre water bottles for 35 cents each so you don't have to hunt down brown ones. Just keep them in a dark box. The Darkroom, with scanning, costs about $20 a roll with shipping. But a C41 kit (about $22) and a E6 kit ($33) one can get 10 rolls, possibly as much as 18 for me, it's worth it to try it yourself. I use a $120 Wolverine F2D Mighty scanner from Amazon because it's tiny and can do 35mm, 127, 110, and 8mm stills from your old home movies. For 120 and long format antique 127 (4cm x 6, 8, 9cm, I use the glass and lightbox and digital 'take a picture' method. Film Photography Project also has 4x5, 8x10,120, 110, and experimental films. (no, I don't work for them) Also new film podcasts every 15 days that are an hour or longer. But try developing your own colour....you'll be quite surprised at the ease and low cost per roll...less that $3 a roll for 12+ slides, just like in the olde days..... Nyms

whwiden

I prefer the look of black and white film over a digital conversion. I have tried to get an equivalent look without success. If I get the exposure right, which is now almost all the time, I spend little or no time post processing the scan. With digital I have a lack of discipline.

It is easier to recover a blown highlight with film if needed. There simply is often nothing to recover with a digital file. With film I don't worry about the dust on the sensor problem when I change lenses. For my personal work I use equipment with no electronics. No batteries to worry about. My light meter does not even use a battery (a Sekonic studio meter), so no worries about charging, etc.

I also like the look of showing the edge of the film when I print. If I want to print I take a picture of the negative with a macro lens.

The easiest way to take a photo that looks like film is to actually use film instead of a simulation.

I could go on. When someone wants a wedding or birthday shot, however, I generally use my Nikon D750. That is just what people expect for events.

James Slick Loc: Pittsburgh,PA

Trying to get a real flm look reminded me of a video project I did. I needed to have it look like a lousy EP mode VHS tape. The raw footage was digital SD (480x720) OK start, but all the settings in the video effects software just didn't get the look right! I ended up editing it digitally, burning a DVD, Copying the DVD to an actual VHS deck set at EP and digitizing the dang tape! (and finally cooked off to another DVD!) It was a P.I.T.A, but it came out looking like a genuine 1984 video recorded in EP!

Thruxton Loc: Indiana / California

I've found www.dwaynesphoto.com out of Parsons, KS to be fast, competent, competitive and co-operative film processors. They also have a limited selection of film for sale as well.

Greys3 Loc: Northwest Ohio

Still use and like my 35mm camera. Am switching to digital, but sitll like the film as I can do a lot of things with my home copy of Photoshop. This camera is what got me interested in Photography to begin with, and it went from there. Thanks for mentioning the couple of dealers that i can now order film from. You can laugh at me, but one time, had to purchase some film from the local Kroger's as couldn't find it any place else.

Here is a picture of my 35mm system.

Thanks again for the information.

whitewolfowner

Just start a thread but it will be more technical than digital shooting, since shooting film requires a real understanding of the camera and it's functions a lot more than digital does. And then there is the darkroom end of it too; if you really want to do film, scanning into the computer takes away from film what it is really capable of.

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

Thanks for explanation. For you it is the quality of film black and white over that of digital. Do others have same experience? Or can others get satisfactory b/w from digital?

PhotoArtsLA Loc: Boynton Beach

Freestyle also has film, chemicals, and photo paper.

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/

PhotoArtsLA Loc: Boynton Beach

Digital cannot compete with certain films with correct processing schemes. Sensor size is like film size, and smoothness of tone suffers between DX and FX. Bigger sensors equate to bigger film sizes, but film goes to sizes and qualities digital cannot. Take Kodak Technical Pan processed full tone. You could scan it at 10,000 dpi and the film would cry out for more resolution in the scan. Few scanners have ever existed which could interpolate Technical Pan's essential grain-less quality. And then there's 120 film, shot at 6x4.5cm, 6x6cm, 6x7cm, and 6x9cm commonly. Hasselblad shooters who scanned black and white saw tonal gradations and sharpness simply unseen in the digital world. And then, there's large format, from 4x5 inches to 12x18 inches, and larger. Nothing digital can approach, yet.

All that said, and with a whole lab of enlargers and what not in storage, would I look forward to getting back to that smell, those stains, all that water waste, and need to work in the dark? Digital allows instant review, and skips the lab in favor of digital printing. It is so much less smelly and cleaner than the analog past, and there are plugins which will adapt the RGB image to almost every black and white film type. It's not the same, but in a world ruled by millennials, this audience is raised on lowered visual standards. They shoot only with their cell phones, and mainly for the Internet. Photography in the classic sense, is becoming unfortunately archaic.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

yup, very nice place and a lot of good advice as to what film for what purpose.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

"Quality" is such an ambiguous, ill-defined term, especially in the field of photography. "Favorable characteristics" says it better I think.

whwiden

Yes. That is the better way to say it.

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

Agree with your terminology. The dots of digital, no matter how many and how closely spaced, can't compare to the very tiny silver particles in film and print. Right?

Quinn 4

Great advice from everyone. To Rpavich, thank for the information on APUG Forum. People check that web site out. Answer to " Photography in the sense, is become unfortunately archaic." It will become archaic if we allow it.