Photography Online at Ilford factory

I'd love to go back for another trip round Ilford at Mobberly, must have been 9 years ago. The smell of maturing emulsion in the 'coffins' in the cold store, I'd wear that as aftershave. Wandering round the paper packing area with a safelight torch. Seeing the laser print maker doing a 54 by 36 inch one. We should see if TP F&C could get a visit.
 
But but but,

´film shooting and wet printing is far too expensive and the IQ is inferior, hence why I prefer the digital equivalents’

^^This^^ is what 8 out of 10 people say to me when they realise that I don’t possess a digital camera ( barring what my fone offers which is very little) and that I much prefer traditional darkroom process to computer generated prints.
In fact it is rare that I come across digital shooters who actually print their work, usually because they find cost prohibitive !

Strangely however , even though most folk down here consider film to be dead , they still demand ridiculously high prices for analogue equipment even when much of it is knacked, simply because it’s to do with photography :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I thought that was a pretty good, balanced view and an excellent intro to "why shoot film" as well as the costs. The depreciation of digital cameras vs the appreciation (or at least flatlining) of film cameras makes experimentation a less costly gamble if you're a digital only shooter and was something I hadn't considered. I've sold all my film cameras for more or the same as I paid for them. Thanks for sharing Peter.
 
Harlequin565 said:
I thought that was a pretty good, balanced view and an excellent intro to "why shoot film" as well as the costs.
Click to expand...
I don't think it could be described as "balanced".

The capital comparison was distorted: a 24MP full frame camera can be bought for under £500 if you look around (my Nikon D600 as an example) and new "cheap" lenses perform as well as 25 year old "top end" lenses for practical purposes. The claim that you need to spend £1,500 more to obtain comparable quality is true only for a specialised meaning of "comparable". The argument about film cost only makes sense if you're a very low volume user. The depreciation argument depends entirely on whether you bought the equipment new or second hand, while the argument about film gear appreciating in value may be true if there continues to be an active desire for the equipment and no new equipment becomes available.

The presenter accepts that you'll take many more images on digital than on film but dismisses this. Yet, in my experience, the more images you expose, the closer you'll get to the image you want. I did this with film, where appropriate, as well.

Finally, the big elephant in the room is: what are you going to do with the frames you expose? If you wet print, then you need a realistic assessment of what proportion of frames you'll print and how much paper and chemistry you'll use for each finished print. You also need to include the cost of darkroom equipment. Somehow, none of that was covered. If you're going to scan, the question arises: why not be all digital?

I'm not anti-film, with something like a quarter of a million frames behind me, I consider myself to have been a good customer over the years. I still own some film cameras, though I see less and less reason to use them now.

So: if people want to spend their money on film and printing, I say "go for it"; after all, there is something rather nice about a well glazed 10x8 which I haven't seen quite duplicated in digital. But hey guys: let's be honest out there!
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
I don't think it could be described as "balanced".
Click to expand...
There are extremes, as you alluded to in your follow up. The majority of internet "discussions" are often about extremes. I've shot 90% film over the last 3 years as an amateur and totted up 120-ish rolls/year. I thought his "2 rolls/week" was probably generous. Anyone shooting 3-4 rolls a week as a hobbyist is going to be an exception. I also think that 35mm is perfectly acceptable for most "normal" use (normal in 2022 being Instagram and Facebook) where he reckoned you need to go MF to get comparable files to FF DSLR. Really though, you have to be pixel peeping or printing big to see the difference. On a 3" phone screen, pretty much everything looks fab.

But to do a concise review like that had to have a lot of concessions and as "experts" (and I use that term loosely!) we're bound to be able to pick out bits of the presentation that were glossed over and/or dramatised. I didn't get the feeling that it was down to some sort of "film is better than digital" diatribe; more a "we only have a limited time to get the points across". That's my take on it anyway. There are a LOT of crackly noir music YouTube videos going on about how shooting film somehow magically makes you a better photographer - which I think biases in a cringeworthy way. This definitely felt more balanced.

I think the point about slowing down with film and thus taking less shots & more care was well made and something I identified with. It's something I see a lot with digital students (and hobbyists) who take a million pictures of the same thing because they can, not because they need to. In my experience, having lots of images of the same scene only increases time spent at the computer trying to figure out which one is best (i.e. depression) so I don't see it as a benefit for me.

With a longer treatise on the subject, I think your points would have been addressed, but things like wet printing, and home dev (which can massively reduce the cost) weren't covered, along with the finer points of 2nd hand bargain hunting something comparable to a D850. I'd have argued the Bronnie could easily deliver great images comparable to the RZ for significantly reduced cost. They had to put a stake in the ground somewhere and I, for one, don't think it was a bad effort.
 
Now that digital is so widely available for pretty much anyone who wants to take photographs, the reasons for choosing analogue formats will vary from person to person, but I expect that it'll be a minority of photographers who choose film over digital as the result of a cost / benefit analysis.
 
Last edited:
Harlequin565 said:
They had to put a stake in the ground somewhere and I, for one, don't think it was a bad effort.
Click to expand...
That's where we must agree to disagree :naughty:

It's appears to have become the norm to gloss over inaccuracy or dishonesty in all spheres now, with the excuse that "it would be boring" to be accurate or "we don't have time" to get it right.

Just to be clear, I have no bias against the use of film but I have extreme bias against the culture of dishonesty that has trickled down from politicians into everything we see or hear. This particular video was glossy, well made and spoiled by letting the presenter make claims that just don't stand up to scrutiny.
 
I don't want to get into a film v digital debate. I enjoyed the video (especially the out takes) and thought it fair. For me, the economics are firmly on the side of film; and in my experience the care I take with each LF exposure means that I am certain before packing away that I have obtained the best composition and correct exposure.

I'll just add that I don't use film purely on economic grounds. The aesthetic of a print from film (even after scanning and inkjet printing) is preferable to me to a purely digital production.
 
It was an interesting video. I've done the factory tour and it was really good.
 
"A man convinced against his will
Is of the same opinion still"

I'm old enough to know that reason can never trump prejudice - and that one man's prejudice is another's considered opinion.
 
Harlequin565 said:
In my experience, having lots of images of the same scene only increases time spent at the computer trying to figure out which one is best (i.e. depression) so I don't see it as a benefit for me.
Click to expand...
:plus1:

Even three or four film frames of the same scene ( which I have done on small formats) can lead to difficulties and frustration in choosing the ‘best’
 
StephenM said:
I don't want to get into a film v digital debate.
Click to expand...
Nor do I.

My problem isn't with the advocacy for film but with the inaccuracy of the statements made in that particular video. When you want to encourage the use of a technique or a product, just get the facts right, so that anyone following your advice isn't disappointed. If you're honest, you'll make and keep more converts. ;)
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
When you want to encourage the use of a technique or a product, just get the facts right, so that anyone following your advice isn't disappointed. If you're honest, you'll make and keep more converts. ;)
Click to expand...

Perhaps forward this opinion direct to ilford.
They have an efficient and easy to use contact page on their website.

I’m sure they’ll be happy to discuss facts with you and where they sourced them .

I’m pretty sure that they will accept their errors and offer an apology if the facts that they mention in their video are proven to be incorrect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top