I can't find 220 film in most emulsions I want. Even 120 is becoming limited. It's harder and harder to find 36 exposure rolls of 35mm film.
Kodak was once the Big Dog, and you could expect consistency and technical data sheets. The industry pushed companies to compete, giving us two incredible film and paper suppliers: Kodak and Fuji. Compared to 20 years ago, the outlook is now dire.
As stated, there will probably always be B&W of some kind -- it's so easy to make that emulsion. Color? I don't know. When the entertainment industry stops using color film, that will probably be the point it becomes an expensive specialty product.
Personally, I'm on the fence regarding the value of film. I find the expense and long wait to see results huge irritations, out-weighing the supposed value of unique "look".
Get the most basic film camera and some film, shoot for a month and in no time you'll be back to digital.
For one, the antiquated film workflow and limited film supply means that you can never shoot as you will, you will only shoot when you think "there is a good shot", and that is the ultimate road to photography doom because you never learn and simply try to replicate photos of others that you like.
Secondly, the best film scanners are very expensive, yet their best is not quite as good as output from an entry level DSLR sensor.
Finally, if you failed at digital you will most definitely fail at film as well, and vise versa, so don't ever delude yourself into thinking film will make you better and more creative.
The only positive outcome of shooting film is that you learn the basics of exposure if you shoot with an all manual camera, secondly, if you shoot b&w you learn how b&w film looks, that will help your digital post-processing and finally you learn to appreciate digital because in the end of the day photography is not about digital or film, its all about the pictures that you produce.
There is no harm in trying film, just don't have unrealistic expectations.
altern3 wrote:
Get the most basic film camera and some film, shoot for a month and in no time you'll be back to digital.
.
Sorry that I find all your statements so funny. I have shot digital for 9 years and film for 35 years. I'm still shooting both but find film the superior medium.
altern3 wrote:
Get the most basic film camera and some film, shoot for a month and in no time you'll be back to digital.
...
The only positive outcome of shooting film is that you learn the basics of exposure if you shoot with an all manual camera, secondly, if you shoot b&w you learn how b&w film looks, that will help your digital post-processing and finally you learn to appreciate digital because in the end of the day photography is not about digital or film, its all about the pictures that you produce.
There is no harm in trying film, just don't have unrealistic expectations. ...Show more →
Why can't photography be about the process of making the photo? I don't sell or display any of my shots but I enjoy going out with my camera and taking pictures. If it was just about looking at great photos we could buy them from a top.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Sorry that I find all your statements so funny. I have shot digital for 9 years and film for 35 years. I'm still shooting both but find film the superior medium.
And I know why you consider film superior, because with film you don't have to worry about "the look", its already in the DNA of the film to provide the photographer with a basic "aesthetic foundation", with digital you have to create your own look - like creating your own film - and that is beyond the ability of most of us.
I made a thread about this, but basically with digital the photographer has been given a medium that is one step behind film - in other words the RAW file is light data with no alteration and its the photographer who has to make the look (what film did) and since a photographer is not a Kodak with millions in R&D and team of scientists, that's why today's digital photography is in fact twice as hard as with film because not only one has to take great photos, one also has to be a great photoshop artist and a visual artist to know what "look" is right.
altern3 wrote:
And I know why you consider film superior, because with film you don't have to worry about "the look", its already in the DNA of the film to provide the photographer with a basic "aesthetic foundation", with digital you have to create your own look - like creating your own film - and that is beyond the ability of most of us.
I made a thread about this, but basically with digital the photographer has been given a medium that is one step behind film - in other words the RAW file is light data with no alteration and its the photographer who has to make the look (what film did) and since a photographer is not a Kodak with millions in R&D and team of scientists, that's why today's digital photography is in fact twice as hard as with film because not only one has to take great photos, one also has to be a great photoshop artist and a visual artist to know what "look" is right. ...Show more →
You're probably right about the reason why I prefer film. It's just different esthetics. Some painters prefer oil colors, others prefer aquarelles. None is better, just different.
I also like the look of film, but I would say that the primary reason I like film is its superior highlight handling. The film shoulder has no equivalent in digital, and won't until we have 20 stops of DR to throw at it (or whatever the real number is for the film you want to emulate).
redisburning wrote:
can you get better quality from MF? of course. but honestly getting a 120 scanner that can get close to a 200 dollar 35mm film scanner is a very, very expensive proposition. and frankly my scanner for larger formats (E4990) isn't even close and I believe it's very nearly as good as a v700. .
There isn't any 220 Ektar, and 160s is available only on eBay. It's interesting you mention 220 160s, because I got five free rolls of 220 160s and 400H when I got my Mamiya 7 body. I just shot the last of the ten rolls last week.
Superia Reala isn't made in 220 either, but at least it's available on 120 form. Better than 160s, which isn't made anymore at all.
B&H has only 220 Portra 160 and 400, which I don't care for.
altern3 wrote:
There is no harm in trying film, just don't have unrealistic expectations.
..lol
I've just taken up film, a street photographer using film is the dizzy height of fun. I use an F100 to carry my 2nd lens instead of carrying the lens in a pocket and might already have my best photograph on my 1st roll of TX400.
Its a killer pic, am going to run in circles and pee myself till its developed (self developed) and now I get to decide on how I'm doing that as well (likely D76) . AND THEN I PRINT,
I'll do a jpg so that I can share it with my friends here on fm ...BUT I'M PRINTING IT AND THEN HANGING IT ON THE WALL ...MY WALL and quite possibly some other walls as well.
You don't have a shot in hell of clipping my wings with your blunt scissors.
Its for PRINTING as film was intended so to suggest that RAW is a step prior, a step prior to what ...to not to PRINTING, you've missed a whole step in the process.
I don't think film is dead, I think its photographers....
I've just taken up film, a street photographer using film is the dizzy height of fun. I use an F100 to carry my 2nd lens instead of carrying the lens in a pocket and might already have my best photograph on my 1st roll of TX400.
Its a killer pic, am going to run in circles and pee myself till its developed (self developed) and now I get to decide on how I'm doing that as well (likely D76) . AND THEN I PRINT,
I'll do a jpg so that I can share it with my friends here on fm ...BUT I'M PRINTING IT AND THEN HANGING IT ON THE WALL ...MY WALL and quite possibly some other walls as well.
You don't have a shot in hell of clipping my wings with your blunt scissors.
Its for PRINTING as film was intended so to suggest that RAW is a step prior, a step prior to what ...to not to PRINTING, you've missed a whole step in the process.
I don't think film is dead, I think its photographers.......Show more →
Why use a mediocre film like Tri-X? I will never understand the love it gets. HP5 is so much better than Tri-X.
I've just taken up film, a street photographer using film is the dizzy height of fun. I use an F100 to carry my 2nd lens instead of carrying the lens in a pocket and might already have my best photograph on my 1st roll of TX400.
Its a killer pic, am going to run in circles and pee myself till its developed (self developed) and now I get to decide on how I'm doing that as well (likely D76) . AND THEN I PRINT,
I'll do a jpg so that I can share it with my friends here on fm ...BUT I'M PRINTING IT AND THEN HANGING IT ON THE WALL ...MY WALL and quite possibly some other walls as well.
You don't have a shot in hell of clipping my wings with your blunt scissors.
Its for PRINTING as film was intended so to suggest that RAW is a step prior, a step prior to what ...to not to PRINTING, you've missed a whole step in the process.
I don't think film is dead, I think its photographers.......Show more →
I too am a fan of Porta 400 when I shoot color. Mostly though, I shoot b&w such as Ilford HP5. I shoot film just because it's fun, and I like the results. I've shot nearly 30 rolls through my 1959 kodak Brownie Hawkeye, a five dollar camera. It's cool!
