nopal

Am I in the correct group for film rather than digital?

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

We are film as well as digital.Welcome to our forum.

Ron Dial Loc: Cuenca, Ecuador

Some of us do both. I still shoot a lot of film but primarily digital as clients art directors are always in a hurry.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

I used to shoot film. Does that count?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Film in addition to digital? Yes
Film rather than digital? No

adm

Yes, this forum is for film and digital. I shoot both but mostly film.

PhotoKurtz Loc: Carterville, IL

I shot film, digital and horses.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I shoot both film and digital. This year's resolution was to work equally with both. So far, so good. Now I need to pay more attention to medium and 35mm format, as I've mostly used 4x5.
--Bob

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

This is a basic photography site however there are better places to be when it comes to film.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/

Is much better than here if you want to talk film.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I used film (B&W negatives, slides, color negatives) from 1960 to 2005. I worked in a pro portrait photo lab for 33 years. The happiest days of my life were spent watching millions of dollars' worth of optical film printing and processing equipment get ripped out and recycled. I was a key player in our transition to digital production from 2000 to 2005. It opened up a whole new world of applications. Unfortunately for pro portrait photographers, the mass market has shifted far away from printing, toward online sharing via email, text, Instagram, FaceBook, Shutterfly... Moms no longer value prints as much as they do the "free" and impromptu image captures with their smartphones and digital cameras.

Film is still viable... I just don't see the point of exposing something that has to be developed and scanned to be useful for my purposes, which are all electronic media-based. And since large format inkjet printing is now the state of the art, most folks who use film are scanning and printing digitally, anyway.

Now, if it turns you on to watch a B&W image come up in the developer while sniffing acetic acid and hypo fumes, go for it! It's okay. But I don't miss it. Nor do I miss my skin peeling off from exposure to formaldehyde in E6 stabilizer, or watching two long time fellow employees who ran millions of feet of film through our C41 process die of the same rare form of liver cancer.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

There are other chemicals that can give you liver cancer other than a C41 process. A horrible cancer it is.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

I shot film for many years. My first film camera was a Kodak Instamatic #104, that used Kodak cartridges. Then I borrowed my father's Minolta SRT-101. A very good camera. My father sold it. We both decided to go digital. Film isn't dead yet.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Yes, of course. But when you work around C41 daily for 25 or 31 years, it’s the most likely culprit.

Our processors had large, deep tanks. We ran thousands of feet of 35mm, 46mm, and 70mm unperforated films and hundreds of rolls of 120/220 and 35 perf per day through six processors. The operators occasionally had to rescue film that got caught and torn, or stalled when power went out and the backup generator failed. Both were treated several times a year for severe reactions.

bweber Loc: Newton, MA

I agree. I loved looking at my 6 x 7 slides from my Pentax 67, but it was a real process to get prints made after cibachrome was discontinued. I love working with large raw digital images on my computer and either printing them myself or using a lab for large prints. I will ever go back to film.

Sunrisepano Loc: West Sub of Chicago

I once saw where someone shot a box of black & white paper. Then exposed the holes of the unopened box to light and developed the paper. That was the art display in the museum. Is that what is meant when you say you shot some pictures?