James R wrote:
OK, I'll give you that film isn't dead; but, it is on life support. The number of users is way down. There are fewer quality photographic labs. The big problem is that Canon and Nikon are not producing film cameras. Those F3s and F5s are the end of the line.
Film has obviously become a very niche market, but to me that makes it special, like those people who still buy vinyl records or drive a Triumph. Even I'm impressed when someone is shooting film these days. I was shooting a rock show last weekend and another photographer was there with a film Hassy. Since I'm supposed to be the "official" band photographer and it's a small venue, I sometimes get annoyed when I'm crowded by other photographers, but I made room for this guy because I was impressed that he was shooting MF film.
The fact is that Kodak is slowly discontinuing emulsions. Yes, they just came out with Ektar 100, but they discontinued Pro Ultra Color 100 and 400, Ektachrome 400X EPL and Elite Chrome 400 EL. Their position is that as soon as orders decrease to the point where they can't manufacture it consistently, they will discontinue it.
In 35mm, they're down to 28 films and next to be discontinued are probably going to be the remaining old Ektachromes: 64T EPY and 100 Plus EPP. And there are constant rumors that they'll stop producing Kodachrome and Pro Kodachrome 64. In the "amateur" line, they've got both Hi-Def 400 and Ultra Max (GC) 400 and I can't see them keeping both. In fact, go to the Kodak website and try to find amateur films. They're still there, but they are so hidden on the site, it's almost impossible to find. This implies to me that they're going to walk away from the consumer market in the next few years or at least stop marketing to it.
I thought I would never have to say this, but yes, film is dead. No, I am not trolling ( I still have my collection of Nikon film cameras including S2 Rangefinder F, F2A, F3HP, FM2N, F100, N80, and a few Mamiya medium format cameras). The reason why film is dead (IMO) is because the film processing labs have killed it. Good labs are either very, very difficult to find , or they are very expensive. Most local labs are butchering negatives in ever-growing numbers.
What really agravates me is that years ago (1980's and 1990's) even mom & pop corner drug store minilabs produced great results with low-tech processing machines. Now corner drug stores and smaller specialty labs have state of the art developing machines but produce really mediocre results. Maybe this is a result of low grade scanning of negatives prior to print, or maybe the aloof lab techs are not putting any interests in the job that they do. I don't know. Alll I can say is that I still have negatives and prints from those days that are more vibrant, better IQ, superior colors, sharpness, etc., than anything I have seen in the past 12 or so years.
Labs have declined in quality, therefore, people don't see better results with film. So, it doesn't make sense to go through all the trouble of taking pictures with a great Nikon with a fantastic Nikkor lens when you will ony get muddy, pixelated, bland prints from your local lab.
As far as getting an F5, I agree that it is probably one of the best 35mm cameras ever made, but it would be like buying a Ferrari when you live in a place that doesn't sell gasoline anymore!
What what a response to my innocent question! Thanks everyone...
Before getting to the film discussion, DJ - I'm tempted to get a D700 lol by your 6400 ISO image!!
Anyway, here's my situation.
I'm very happy with my Canon digital setup (5D & a bunch of L's). I really want to buy a D700 for my wide angle Nikon lens that I own (14-24mm) but don't feel I'll use it all that much to justify $2K+ on the D700. At the same time, I don't want to switch over completely to Nikon because I'm addicted to the fast primes which I already own.
So (what seems like a great idea) was to get a Nikon film camera, which would work well for the occassional wide angle stuff. At $350 for an F5 I figure can't really go wrong. Worst case, I decide I don't like it and sell it later without losing much (if any).
The questions really then are, how convenient is it to buy film, get it processed etc.
I've never used film before in a serious capacity so I'll have some learning curve.
For some people film is the more convenient choice… i.e my mother.
She’s not the technical type… all the clocks in the house will flash 12:00 until me or my brother fix them… scrolling through menus on a P&S digital, to erase a memory card is simply out of the question.
She has a small Fuji 35mm film camera, it auto feeds a new roll, and auto rewinds once it’s finished. She knows when to use iso 400, and when to use iso 1600, other than that, she just has to drop off the rolls at wall-mart.
Considering how much more forgiving film can be, it really is a better choice for some people.
Up until the very recent generation of P&S , iso 800 and higher, from her 35mm instamatic were considerably better.
mfletch wrote:
No, not dead. It won't completely die out. It'll become more of a niche as time goes by. If you don't mind ordering film by mail and either processing yourself or mailing out film for processing, I see it being around longer than anyone reading this forum. So if you want an F5, treat yourself. Just as the inventory of film at retailers has tapered over the last 5-10yr, I can see the same happening to many drop-off/1 hr processing booths given a similar time frame.
It's not going to die, it's just going to become more inconvenient.
Already, I guess this thread can be deleted.. DJ, Thanks for the ISO 6400 image - I placed my order for a D700 today ($2350 minus $300 in rebates). I guess I'm officially on the Dark side now (well half and half)--> does that make me a zebra ?
dj dunzie wrote:
Haha... but Jacko... here's the Fuji captured using digital at ISO6400!
I am not convinced film will ever truly "die". Thing is, even though it's been pretty much proven that digital can now surpass film in almost every way, there's something enjoyable about shooting with it, if even occasionally. Beta recorders are dead. Film will likely never "die".
epuja wrote:
Already, I guess this thread can be deleted.. DJ, Thanks for the ISO 6400 image - I placed my order for a D700 today ($2350 minus $300 in rebates). I guess I'm officially on the Dark side now (well half and half)--> does that make me a zebra ?
Oh no!!!!!!!!
Of course this thread can't be deleted... too many good posts!
The D700 tempts me too... but I have decided to concentrate on film. For less than a third of what you paid for the D700 one can put together a decent MF system, or for about half the D700 price one can put together a basic large format system. 35mm film is pretty small, and frankly the FF sensor DSLRs are so much more functional than their film ancestors.
Film is not dead, but there will be more casualties before it settles down into the artists' niche to where it is headed. Latest quarterly reports show strong YoY declines in the traditional business, still, and that will continue till only a few plants worldwide exist to service the artist/hobbiest market.
So, when the D700 has lost its thrill... remember to try out some film!
Nov 19, 2008 at 07:59 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I wish film would die! I hated film ... mainly for the pain of dealing with and organizing the negatives and scanning images. The digital world is so much more appealing to me.
snegron wrote:
I thought I would never have to say this, but yes, film is dead. No, I am not trolling ( I still have my collection of Nikon film cameras including S2 Rangefinder F, F2A, F3HP, FM2N, F100, N80, and a few Mamiya medium format cameras). The reason why film is dead (IMO) is because the film processing labs have killed it. Good labs are either very, very difficult to find , or they are very expensive. Most local labs are butchering negatives in ever-growing numbers.
What really agravates me is that years ago (1980's and 1990's) even mom & pop corner drug store minilabs produced great results with low-tech processing machines. Now corner drug stores and smaller specialty labs have state of the art developing machines but produce really mediocre results. Maybe this is a result of low grade scanning of negatives prior to print, or maybe the aloof lab techs are not putting any interests in the job that they do. I don't know. Alll I can say is that I still have negatives and prints from those days that are more vibrant, better IQ, superior colors, sharpness, etc., than anything I have seen in the past 12 or so years.
Labs have declined in quality, therefore, people don't see better results with film. So, it doesn't make sense to go through all the trouble of taking pictures with a great Nikon with a fantastic Nikkor lens when you will ony get muddy, pixelated, bland prints from your local lab.
As far as getting an F5, I agree that it is probably one of the best 35mm cameras ever made, but it would be like buying a Ferrari when you live in a place that doesn't sell gasoline anymore!
Sneg--I think your situation is more unique than you know.
I live in a small town ( 50K people ) and we have a Walgreens and Walmart. If I want negs develop I go to Walgreens--they do a great job and I've never encountered the issues you have. If I want Kodachrome developed I go to Walmart and they ship it to Dwaynes and I get it back in about two weeks. All my Fuji slides go to a Fuji developer--I use mailers. So, by your reasoning, I don't find film dead.
But to the OP--congrats on the D700. I don't own one, but the clean high ISO is very tempting as I do shoot alot of indoor sports and would be happy to go even higher than 3200!
Hi,
i'm a canon digital shooter too; i started trying some other, older lenses with adapters, but it's not very convenient. So i just got an Oly OM-1 to go with the zuikos i got and still have an old yashica for the zeiss glass.
It felt very good to go back using film, and being a hobby, i don't mind the inconvenience.
As for getting film, i just placed an order at Calumet UK (i'm in Spain), and got some color negatives, some B/W and even some Kodachrome (process paid).
Regarding the quality of labs, if you print there is poor even with digital; today one have to print himself to get good quality.
One last note on quality and convenience: i did go back to using some film stricktly because i got a coolscan 500 to scan all of my dad's old slides; then i have a way of scanning the film myself at a good level. Never tried to have the film scanned at a regular lab? If not, don't even try it...
The Film-digital analogy is best described as the CD-Vinyl analogy. There are even a few stores left that carry some inventory of vintage vinyl releases and some special more recent releases. But don't even try to compare the numbers. They aren't in the same universe. Film may not be dead and buried but it most certainly isn't on the radar screen. To call it a niche market would be generous. One of the 2 pro shops in all of Salt Lake City doesn't even carry film, and the other carries it but from what I'm told it is a rare day when they sell any. I'm not knocking it nor suggesting it should just disappear. Only that it is hard to even bring it up in a forum anymore as it is just for so long out of favor...unless of course you're a interplanetary individual such as ken Rockwell who thinks it's still the top dog.
For the most part film is dead. It will be there fro a while but, slowly, slowly it will practically disappear. It may be used on the high end for a while but, fewer and fewer will be trained in film and it will disappear.
I saw a demo on the Canon 5 D II last night. Talk about getting blown away. It wasn't presented by Canon but, by a user of Canon gear. You might be well advised to look at it first.
The upshot is that the future will have a combination of video and stills. The photographers who will be greatly successful will be the ones with open minds and willing to move with the times. The photographer of the future will need a sound grounding in the liberal arts with emphasis on the arts to understand what is happening.
What an exciting time to be into photography. This transition is wonderful.
Bottom line is invest in the glass. The bodies will continue to change as technology marches on.
One thing I didn't see mentioned is the cost of film and processing. Over the last year or so, I've shot around 18,000 images with my digital cameras (I burn though memory on wildlife). If you take that number divided by 36 that's exactly 500 rolls of film! At $10 per roll (film & proc), that's $5000! My D3 paid for itself in one year just because it doesn't use film.
The other thing that gets lost is the number of shots. I used to shoot film all the time and it always seemed like I was missing some magical wildlife shot while the film was rewinding. With 300+ shots on an 8GB card, I don't run into that nearly as often (and never in my D3 with 2 card slots).
I keep saying I have to take out my 4x5, but I can't fly with it anymore, $75 for a 3rd bag on Jet Blue (+ $25 for the 2nd). Was in Zion and I would have loved to have taken it along, especially when I saw a guy with a Linhof, but he was traveling with a camper while gas was still over $3 a gallon. But I get good response from 16x24s from my D200 and Canon iPF5000.
$350 for an F5, if you can handle it why not, but can it do G type lenses?
I feel that for me, in 35mm film is dead. The ease of shooting digital far outweighs the marginal (arguable) improvement in the image with film. However the same cannot yet be said for larger formats. Film is much less of a hassle when I take out my 4X5 and shoot 10 sheets in a whole day. To process and scan 10 sheets only takes about an hour or two... and the image from a 4X5 blows small format digital away. Plus printing with chemicals and light is fun
Dan,
Im just kidding about deleting this thread. There is a lot of useful info here re: film.
One of the reasons I went with the D700 was because I was concerned about the recurring costs of developing film, especially when many places have stopped doing film development. This may add up a whole lot.
Thanks!
dan9 wrote:
Oh no!!!!!!!!
Of course this thread can't be deleted... too many good posts!
The D700 tempts me too... but I have decided to concentrate on film. For less than a third of what you paid for the D700 one can put together a decent MF system, or for about half the D700 price one can put together a basic large format system. 35mm film is pretty small, and frankly the FF sensor DSLRs are so much more functional than their film ancestors.
Film is not dead, but there will be more casualties before it settles down into the artists' niche to where it is headed. Latest quarterly reports show strong YoY declines in the traditional business, still, and that will continue till only a few plants worldwide exist to service the artist/hobbiest market.
So, when the D700 has lost its thrill... remember to try out some film!
epuja wrote:
Already, I guess this thread can be deleted.. DJ, Thanks for the ISO 6400 image - I placed my order for a D700 today ($2350 minus $300 in rebates). I guess I'm officially on the Dark side now (well half and half)--> does that make me a zebra ?
Easiest sale I ever made! Congrats on the purchase... you'll love it, zebra dude!
?