Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Excellent response. In some locations a horse is still the main mode of transport. Watch out for the hitching posts!

But, our worlds are changing, and sometimes the old norm becomes the hobby or luxurious entertainment.

We are in one of those phases, for better or for worse.

phyprof

Isn't it a good feeling to take a few (or many?) rolls of film and go out and enjoy the moment? No chimping, no instant gratification (or instant disappointment).

While I enjoy my D700, and it has its place in my kit, there is something about film that digital can never replace, at least for me.

phyprof

True. These are exciting times. I prefer my Alienware laptop to a Commodore 64. My wife, daughter, and I all drive hybrid vehicles and watch DVD's on flat panel screens. I am not opposed to new technologies.

Film is something I enjoy using. It is not for everybody and I am not suggesting that because I shoot film and digital everyone else should.

An FYI. Ball Photo in Asheville, NC still carries film. 35 mm and 120 as well. They may even have sheet film. I get my Ilford and Kodak from them (b+w). I know they also carry color film and slide. They also have a pretty good selection of used film cameras and lenses, all makes and models.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Don't forget, that there are labs such as Ilford that will process film and do very high quality digital scans. We have many choices.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Hi Harry,

I had (still have) a Zenit E and its Helios 44-2 58mm f/2 lens, which with an inexpensive chipped adapter that works really well on a T3i with focus confirmation.

I'm not one of those that looks for feather-light, but interesting glass is good to use. Don't have to carry it everywhere. I have my default bag, then I have the optional things...

phyprof

That is a good point. I use a lab in California, North Coast Photographic Services. I will give a look at Ilford.

I may have found a place to rent darkroom space. She is a working photographer but I think she will rent her darkroom. I would like to put one in my home but chemical disposal is a problem. I hope this rental works out.

A friend of mine dropped off some film, I think it was Ilford XP2 or Kodak BW400CN, both C-41 process, at a Walgreens. 😝

He got his 4x6 prints and a low resolution scan on cd. They kept the negatives. He didn't read the fine print. Walgreens doesn't return the negatives.

Thanks again for the Ilford suggestion.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

This may help: http://www.ilfordlab-us.com/page/83/Film-FAQ-s.htm

phyprof

Great. Thank you.

therwol Loc: USA

The business of taking and sharing pictures is best done digital for convenience, cost and speed. In fact, the market shows that phones have taken over much of this business. I used to think that 35mm film had the ability to outshine digital, and then I bought Nikon D810. It blows 35mm film away. I have nothing at all against people who still shoot on film. I gave my Nikon FA and a bunch of manual focus lenses to my son in law. He loves the camera. He loves darkroom work. It's a hobby, not a necessity. When I think of pulling out my Nikon Ftn, bought new by my father, I get sentimental and then say "Nah, forget it." Too much bother and money and time wasted. This is my opinion. My son in law doesn't share it. Obviously many people don't share it, and that's okay with me.

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

That's why I use nothing but recycled pixels.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

That would really chap my hide!
Obviously not geared for serious photographers.

BebuLamar

Only if you do B&W. I did color for a good number of years and it was always more expensive than having it developed. I did it because I wanted full control of the process. Today, B&H wouldn't even ship the chemicals I need so I have to go digital.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I do appreciate the smaller size of gear back in the days of film... and the simplicity.

But, modern AF is a lot faster and more accurate than I ever was focusing manually (and I was very good).

And there are a number of aspects of digital that make it sooooo much better than film....

- Variable ISO from shot to shot with digital, if you wish. Back in the days of film, you had to shoot the roll at it's rating (or relatively close) and the whole roll before you could change (mid-roll changes were possible, but either wasteful or a pain in the arse to do if trying to avoid waste).

- Far higher usable ISO with digital. Back in the days of film, for color I shot mostly slides... ISO 50, 100 and 200 at the highest. Today with digital I regularly use ISO 800, 1600, sometimes 3200 and 6400, and occasionally even 8000 or 16000. Those were unheard of ISO's, back in the days of film. Even black & white (which also meant shooting the whole role before changing back to color, so I had to carry multiple cameras loaded with B&W film and various color film... or do those mid-roll changes). Sometimes I pushed Tri X to ISO 800... but rarely beyond that. My favorite B&W film was ISO 100 (Fuji Neopan Acros... gorgeous stuff!)

- Immediate feedback with digital. With film I had to wait until the film was processed to see if I "got it right". That meant at least an hour or two, at the very best, if I were shooting locally 1-hour process C41 color neg film or B&W that I could develop myself. Slide film was usually some days or weeks until I saw the results. While I don't entirely trust the LCD screen on the back of my DSLR to play back an image accurately enough for some things, I can quickly check focus and composition.... plus I can use the histogram to confirm exposure accuracy.

- Roll changes were a pain in the arse. Even when I bulk loaded 35mm film, the best I could do was get about 40 exposures. I never wanted to lug around one of those bulky 250 exposure roll camera backs, even if they made them for the cameras I was using (which they didn't). Today some of my larger memory cards accommodate over 1000 images, though I mostly choose to use cards sized to hold about 250 to 500 shots apiece (don't want to put all my eggs in one basket, in case a card fails or gets lost or ends up going through the laundry). Roll changes were even worse with some cameras... ever load a Leica from the 1950s? You needed three hands to do it quickly. Medium format only accommodated between 10 and 20 shots per roll, depending upon the film and exact format. Large format was shot one sheet of film at a time.

- Constantly buying film and spending to process it definitely made me and, I imagine, most shooters a lot more careful with each shot. That might be a good thing, but it also discouraged much experimentation and "pushing the envelope", which have gotten me some shots I'm really proud of at times.

- Those old cameras also were quite limited with flash (especially Canon FTb, AE-1, A-1, and some others that used a horizontally running, cloth focal plane shutter... flash effects were good if your subject was moving one direction, but not so great if they were going the opposite... vertically running shutters did better, but not a lot). Flash in those days also was limited to relatively slow shutter speeds. Ftb, AE-1, A-1 had 1/60 flash sync... some cameras I used had 1/125... only later ones could do 1/250. And there was no "High Speed Sync", like there is today... allowing me to use flash up to 1/8000 if need be (although at rather at limited distances).

The last film cameras I used... Canon EOS-3... were pretty high performance in many respects. Their 45-point AF was great, once I learned how to use it. It was very similar to what was used in 1D-series cameras for several more generations. And they had a lot of the flash capabilities we have today... and very high shutter speeds, too. And But their 6 frames per second frame rate could fill up a 36 exposure roll of film in 6 seconds flat! And they're just as big as a modern DSLR. But they were cheaper... around $750 apiece if I recall correctly, plus another $200 or so for the power booster/vertical grip... nearly half the price of a 7DII with a battery grip or one third the cost of a 5D Mark IV without a grip. The next step up, Canon EOS-1V and especially EOS-1V "HS", fitted with PB-E2 grip, were the size and performance equivalent of full frame 1Ds-series. EOS-1V could shoot at 9 or 10 frames per second, if I recall correctly, when used with a special rechargeable NiMH battery pack... burning through a roll of film in just over 3 seconds!

Speaking of batteries.... that was another thing those cameras "ate". I used high quality AA alkalines in my PB-E2s... eight of them! At times - when doing a lot of focusing, metering and image stabilization such as sitting in a blind and trying to get shots of uncooperative wildlife - I would sometimes need a fresh set of batteries every 2 to 5 rolls of film. When shooting more "normal" conditions, the 8 batteries in the grip might last 20 or 30 rolls. Even so, that's around 700 to 1000 shots. Two LP-E6N in my 7DIIs today give me upwards of 2500 shots... and are rechargeable. (Rechargeable AA were just starting to be available back in the day of EOS-3.... But were pretty expensive and a often of rather questionable quality.)

It's a myth that "digital is free" (cameras wear out, hard drives fill up, etc.). But it is a lot cheaper than shooting film. And that encourages people to try things they might not do, normally. I wouldn't want to have to go back to shooting film, though I do think it's a worthwhile exercise to do so occasionally, just to remind oneself of some good techniques that tend to fall by the wayside when shooting only digital.

phyprof

Obviously not. I hope this gets around so others won't have the same problem. I would rather spend a little more and use a professional lab rather than some drugstore or a Wal Mart type store.

phyprof

Isn't it a shame that B&H won't ship the chemicals. Maybe you could contact the manufacturer. We have found that ordering from the source is sometimes cheaper than Amazon or other online stores.