Why is film coming back

Arkady said:
High-street labs take 30 minutes to D&P plus scan to CD, so even the 'wait' isn't that long any more...
Click to expand...

Have you tried this Rob, whats the quality of the scans like?

stew
 
From my point of view I started shooting a bit of film in addition to digital initially because I had finally finished scanning in all my old slides and rather liked the subtle differences in the finished article.Now I find that it gives me 2 really different feelings compared to digital firstly that the quality prime lenses for my Minolta's are way cheaper than the equivalent canon autofocus lenses would be and secondly because I only have 36 shots to work with each time I am much more selective about when I press the shutter and a result get a much higher percentage of keepers
For those of us above a certain age its the same feeling as we had shooting Medium Format alongside 35mm
 
The quick D&P&S seem to scan the prints at 300DPI, so while the scans aren't bad, they're not ideal for big enlagements.

The biggest problem with most of these places is that the D&P machine is open to the great (dusty) wide world and the wet films are often hung to dry in the wide (dusty) open air, making later, high res. scans a pain.

Back to the original subject!

I'm guessing that one of the reasons that film is still concentrated on in the first year of some courses is that it's still on the syllabus, however outdated it may be. Many years ago, I did a horticulture course and we were taught loads of antiquated techniques and even given instruction on some chenicals that have been banned substances for mnay years. The lecturers all found it completely ridiculaous but they still had to teach the stuff because questions on the old stuff could (and did) turn up in the final exams.

TBH, the only part of film I miss is seeing a B&W print emerging from nowhere as it sits in the gently oscillating dev tray, although I'm more than happy without the headaches that the combination of dev and fixer fumes used to give me! Seeing a print appear from the output slot of the printer still has a little of the magic and the 3 colour passes of a dye-sub are even closer.
 
I find my F65 easier to use than either the D40X or the D90 and there simply is no digital equivalent to the Canonet rangefinder. And that's before we get to the sheer loveliness of what Ilford Lab do to the film.

I was a wholesale convert to digital and am more than happy to say that without digital I'd still be a pretty lame, mundane snapper. But my photography has become far more recognisably my own and I'm far happier with it since I began taking more and more film shots last year.
 
I've been working in sound for a few years and seen a very similar shift. We used to record to tape on 24 track (or 16 or 8 depending on how deep your pockets are), and editing involved sticky tape and razor blades, cutting out the section of audio and sticking a new one in. Now we have computer based protools systems with hundreds of audio tracks and endless editing possibilites at our fingertips.

The result is a real lack of talent in the music industry, you don't need to learn to play because you can edit out your mistakes and pull your ropey singing back into tune. I assume the photographic equivalent is stitching panoramics together and adjusting colours etc, it could be done but was a lot easier to just learn to get it right first time on film, you can correct these little issues in the digital domain but the result usually isn't quite as good as doing it properly the first time.

Personally I've bought a DSLR to take loads of piccies (in a 2 weeks I've taken more pics on my DSLR than I ever did on film) but my good piccies are better than anything I ever did on film yet my bad piccies are far worse than anything i did on film, I can afford to be very disposable with them. at the moment while learning this is good, if I ever develop a talent for this photography lark I would like to work with film again.

I think its maybe a case of what is not normal is trendy, at work we used 2" analogue tape to record to all the students wanted to work in digital recording to pro tools, 3 years after installing a pro tools system and all the students who had HAD to record exclusively to tape had gone, they new students want to use tape again instead of protools, they do not have to use tape so it becomes trendy and they want to use it.
 
artona said:
Have you tried this Rob, whats the quality of the scans like?

stew
Click to expand...

Nothing special - see my latest post in the Film section under 'Show us your film shots'...

But they're good enough to give them a minor tweak for web-viewing...
 
Nod said:
The quick D&P&S seem to scan the prints at 300DPI, so while the scans aren't bad, they're not ideal for big enlagements.

The biggest problem with most of these places is that the D&P machine is open to the great (dusty) wide world and the wet films are often hung to dry in the wide (dusty) open air, making later, high res. scans a pain...
Click to expand...

Yes on the first, no on the second...

Fuji and Agfa processors dry the film inside the machine - it comes out cut and dried.

The problem is poor maintenance schedules: ideally you start to prep the machine 2 hours before you intend to put the first film through and spend one hour after closing every day, cleaning it at the end of the procesing-cycle.

If there's a very low through-put, companies may feel that one employee spending three hours a day tending a barely-used machine is a poor waste of human resources, so maintenance schedules may be side-stepped to once every two or three days instead.
This results in crusted dev particles getting on the rollers, which is the main cause of linear scratches on neg-strips.
 
Arkady said:
Yes on the first, no on the second...

Fuji and Agfa processors dry the film inside the machine - it comes out cut and dried.

The problem is poor maintenance schedules: ideally you start to prep the machine 2 hours before you intend to put the first film through and spend one hour after closing every day, cleaning it at the end of the procesing-cycle.

If there's a very low through-put, companies may feel that one employee spending three hours a day tending a barely-used machine is a poor waste of human resources, so maintenance schedules may be side-stepped to once every two or three days instead.
This results in crusted dev particles getting on the rollers, which is the main cause of linear scratches on neg-strips.
Click to expand...

What about Kodak and Konica Minolta machines? There are still some about!

In an ideal world, yes, the machines should be prepped and cleaned every day but as you say, 3 hours of an employee's time is a fair investment for a small shop for a (nowadays) very small return. On the (now) rare occasions when I get a film D&Ped, I ask the machine operator when it was last cleaned before handing over the films - if it turns out that cleaning's overdue, 30 minute D&P (and even the 1 hour service) is not an option.
 
Nod said:
What about Kodak and Konica Minolta machines? There are still some about!

In an ideal world, yes, the machines should be prepped and cleaned every day but as you say, 3 hours of an employee's time is a fair investment for a small shop for a (nowadays) very small return. On the (now) rare occasions when I get a film D&Ped, I ask the machine operator when it was last cleaned before handing over the films - if it turns out that cleaning's overdue, 30 minute D&P (and even the 1 hour service) is not an option.
Click to expand...

My mate used to own a 1 hour process lab around 10 years ago. Occasionally I'd work the odd Saturday to help him out, and yes, I did get there at 7am to prep the machine ready for a 9am opening. One thing I remember my mate saying was to not put my own films through straight after the chemicals had been changed, but to let them calm down a bit - run a few of the next day/next 3 days happy-snaps through first.

Best part was the processing shop was the ground floor, upper floor was my mates studio, where we used to run camera club evenings - shoot your film, then nip downstairs and stick it through the minilab...

I'm happy to shoot either Film or Digital to be honest, as long as it means I'm out there shooting. For paying jobs, where I absolutely have to get the shot, then I'll shoot digital, chimp and repeat until I get it right. For my own personal stuff, largely i'll shoot on film - most recently i've been messing around with a pinhole 6x12 on 120 roll film, and 6 frames to a roll really tends to make you think before you press the button and count the elephants :lol:
 
One thing I have just remembered, the latest Wild Life photographer of the year had a decent propertion of entries that were taken with film camera (from what I recognised/remebered)...
 
Arkady said:
It's magical, that's why.
Click to expand...

+1
I'm completely dispassionate about digital images as they're not really real, so until I actually *print* a digital photograph (Something I regrettably rarely get round to!) they have very little emotional impact.

Film/slides on the other hand are completely tangible from the get go and until you see your first slides on the lightbox, hard to describe.

Commercially non-viable, certainly, but there's something special about it.
 
There is an issue with the cost associated with film (£5 pro film 36 exp + £7 development 4"x6" + £12 high res scan = £24 a go). Well, 24 x 100 = 2400, which is the same as a mint EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM. Therefore my FD 300mm f/2.8L is now gathering dust under my desk...

If you can develop and scan professionally at home / your studio it may be different. I would be shooting medium / large format though.
 
Anticipation. With digital you can see the picture immediately so you don't have to wait to see your pics. With film you have to wait so the excitement builds with the anticipation till you either develop the pics or pick them up from the developer.
As said in a post above, it's magic.
In these days of instant everything, It's a refreshing change to have to wait for something. IMHO ;)
 
Some really interesting views. I spent the first 20 years of my pro life on film. On the newspapers where I started it was all black and white. As a 20 year old when I should have been out clubbing you would normally find me in the newspaper dark room late into sat night/sun morning.

I lived 30 miles from the office and once got breathalised at 2am on a Sunday morning. The traffic cop did not see the funny side of my answer to his question of where I had been. I told him I had been "developing" :D:D, fortunately I did not "Print and Drink" so was ok :D:D

Most of what we used to do in the darkroom we now do on photoshop and I am still to be found late into the night processing, its just digital now.

stew
 
I like the look of B&W film. I have some nice digital kit but have also picked up film bodies so I can use them too. B&W developing yourself is cheap and if you buy C41 process film you can have 36 developed and scanned for less than £2 so you get your images on the computer AND you have the negs to do your own enlargements later.
 
I see you have a Nikon FM Darren. Great sturdy cameras

stew
 
Using film forces you to slow down, my photos on film are a lot better then any of my digital images imho.
 
Liam, I agree. I am shooting digital like film now. My camera is on manual all the time including manual focus. I prefer to use a prime lens, 50mm most of the time and I do not look at that darn screen thing on the back other than once, and that is check I loaded the memory card. We used to do that with film by trying to rewind (without pushing the release button)

stew
 
Stew, Yer I do similar as I use my great grandads light meter and use manual exposure. I now come home with less images but with more keepers, my digital photography just lacks something...
 
artona said:
I see you have a Nikon FM Darren. Great sturdy cameras

stew
Click to expand...

I went down the "look for a film camera that works with all my kit" route and bought the F80 (which was still in it's box having only shot 2 or 3 rolls as it was a pro's 3rd spare!). I used the F80 for a while then thought I would buy some IR film. I asked on here and found that the F80 can't use IR film as it has an IR sensor inside it for the sprockets. I mentioned this to someone at work who noticed me looking at vintage cameras on the internet and he said "Oh i've got an old Nikon in the attic. Give me a lift home and I'll find it for you". So took him home and he nipped up to the attic only to come down 5 minutes later with a lowepro camera bag. Inside this was a Nikon FM, E series 50mm f1.8, flash, spare batteries for the camera and the flash, manual and some other bits. "Oh nice" I said, "How much". He replied "Well I tried to stick it on ebay a while ago and nobody wanted it. Would £20 be too much". "No no, I'm happy to pay that. Does that include the bag!". "Oh yes, no problem".....................
 
Although I shoot digital I apply a heck of a lot of thought before pressing the shutter button. If the shot isn't speed critical (rarely any of my shots are) I can spend several minutes umming and arrhing before I do trip the shutter. I have an almost 100% keeper rate.

It isn't digital's fault that people rush...
 
trencheel303 said:
Although I shoot digital I apply a heck of a lot of thought before pressing the shutter button. If the shot isn't speed critical (rarely any of my shots are) I can spend several minutes umming and arrhing before I do trip the shutter. I have an almost 100% keeper rate.

It isn't digital's fault that people rush...
Click to expand...

For once I'm in total agreement with you. :thumbs:
 
grey.squirrel said:
I don't 100% agree.

The only difference is you can take hundreds with loadsa different settings till you get it right with digital
Click to expand...
Kinda the point of the whole "making you think more" comment I would think. No? :)

grey.squirrel said:
but how many people bother?
Click to expand...
According to those who shoot only film and not digital, everybody who shoots a digital camera.

grey.squirrel said:
The only part I agree on is getting the right composition can be easier with digital because of the ease of cropping and plenty shots.
Click to expand...
Getting the right composition and cropping the crap out of it in Photoshop to try to save a bad composition are two different things. :)
 
Voyager said:
I guess that film is now for people who still want to take photographs while digital is largely for those who want to make pictures.
Click to expand...

Wrong way around there. You TAKE pictures, you MAKE photographs. :)
 
Liam said:
Stew, Yer I do similar as I use my great grandads light meter and use manual exposure. I now come home with less images but with more keepers, my digital photography just lacks something...
Click to expand...

any idea what it lacks Liam?

stew
 
To those who are saying that they take 'more care' with their film images and this is why their film images are 'better' - with a higher 'keeper' rate, why not just apply the same thought-process to your digital photography?

Just because a DSLR has a 'brain' doesn't mean you have to switch yours off...
 
I think it comes from different experiences Rob. With film you have a limited number of shots. We used to shoot a wedding on three rolls of 12 shots and you had to make 30 count for the album. A company called National Weddings from Epping used to get their operators to shoot 10 rolls - i.e 120 to get 30 which was a pretty radical concept.

If you started on digital the same restraints were not there I guess
 
I'm going to throw in my 2cents with another comparison:

Keyboard vs. Piano.. A digital keyboard is far more functional, portable and can produce a similar sound to a grand piano. You can add beats, effects, record a loop, pitch shift etc. But no matter how hard it tries, it will never equal the sound and feeling of when a grand piano is played (the grand piano in this instance is more in comparison with medium format film).

Anyway, I feel more passionate about my photos when shooting film. I spend 5 times the amount of time on a shot looking down at the WLF making sure it's composed the best I can get it, and metered from my knowledge of exposure. Hold my breath and trip the shutter, as I know if i get that shot wrong, it's gonna waste money.
 
I accept that - but this is pitched at those who are now shooting film as well: a few here have hinted that the reason their film images now are 'better' than their digital images now...etc etc

I was surprised at how small a number '37' images actually are when viewed through Adobe Bridge...lol

At weddings I used to shoot two rolls of 120 film on the Pentax and about five rolls on 35mm, so about 30 MF and 170 on 35mm...
Compared to the 1500+ I'd expect to shoot now.

On a minor-news-job I'd shoot up to ten rolls of high-speed B&W depending on the job. Now I shoot what I need to get the job done: having 'chimp'-ability means I stop when I know I've got the shot, so I actually shoot a lot less.

On a studio shoot I'd shoot polaroids to check the light and two rolls just to 'warm-up' the model and still only expect to get maybe 10-20 'keepers' from 15 or 20 rolls of film...
Now as soon as the lighting is set, I can pretty much guarantee that I have a 50% or higher keep-rate (barring blinkers), so again I actually shoot less than in the past with film.

Though it's not an entirely fair comparison as clients' expectations for wedding imagery in particular have changed completely in the last 20 years...

The removal of the need for 'insurance' shots that we took with film have actually reduced the number of shots I take at the outset.
 
Arkady said:
To those who are saying that they take 'more care' with their film images and this is why their film images are 'better' - with a higher 'keeper' rate, why not just apply the same thought-process to your digital photography?

Just because a DSLR has a 'brain' doesn't mean you have to switch yours off...
Click to expand...

:clap: Absoloutely Spot On :clap:

Might just be that I had 30 years of film slr's before going digital last year, but it's just engrained now :shrug:
 
I suppose it's a bit like books. Books will never crash or fail on you and it's there when you want it, no worry about upgrading, turning on a computer to actually read anything or fiddling about with different file formats that become obselete before you can finish saying Tom Robertson.

But having said that, digital is here and is here to stay but can you still reliably view your digital photos in, say, 50 years time?
While 99.99% of my photographs are taken using a digital camera of one sort or another, there is still that nagging thought in the back of my mind wondering if we can still pull up that "favourite" digital image in 50 years time.
With film, just pull out an album, and there is it, that photo still untouched and as good as on the day it was taken with no corruption or missing data.
 
trencheel303 said:
...I have an almost 100% keeper rate.
Click to expand...

In my 30+ years at the SLR thing you're the 1st person I've come across to claim such a thing. Almost 100%?

I've pushed myself to limits technically and physically. Looking back I doubt if even a mere 3-5% of my images were really worthwhile. Maybe there's something lacking somewhere...
 
Undercrank said:
And.. What does a "keeper" really mean?
Click to expand...

I have two criteria: best and acceptable.
Images that are not unfocussed, blurred, blinkies, badly composed, otherwise crap, etc. go into a 'working' folder.
From those 'acceptable' images are drawn the ones which I would send to clients or publish or hang on a wall - use whatever criteria suits you best here. Those making the 'final cut' are my 'keepers'.

If you take 100 images - you're not going to hang all 100 of them on the wall, even if they're all in focus, properly-exposed etc. nor would you send all 100 to a client unless they specifically asked for them. you'd send the best ones - those are the 'keepers'.
 
Perhaps it's not that people feel the film images are better than the digital ones. If you were to take two side by side and evaluate them critically you might argue the digital is better. Perhaps the perception that it is better is nothing more than an emotional response because of the extra investment made in taking that photo on film (time, consideration, money).

Alternatively it's because film makes you more attractive to the opposite sex.
 
My ex wife would sit and paint water colors all day long,When i asked her why she said i was doing somthing for enjoyment,the same with film you dont have to produce 1000 photos in a day for the sake of it but a roll of film taken over a few hours is so chilled out,whats the hurry.Ok digital has its part to play but if its for enjoyment why stress out .If i get 4 or 5 shots out of a roll of b&w and spend a week prossesing them after being scanned and end up with 4 or 5 brill pics ,what is wrong with that

We are all in too much of a hurry,slow down and enjoy
 
artona said:
any idea what it lacks Liam?

stew
Click to expand...

I am not sure what it is but I have shown some of my 6x6 slides to some digital guys at work and they suddenly realized why people shoot film :D

There is nothing more exciting than being able to hold one of your images, it makes photography more enjoyable imho.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top