Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Who's still shooting film?  (Read 20008 times)
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5171


« Reply #40 on: December 07, 2012, 12:09:51 AM »
ReplyReply

I hear a few people worried about the demise of Kodak. Will it really be the end of film when they are gone?

I thought that companies like Ilford would keep things alive. I even noticed Rollei makes film and chemicals, which I never knew.
Ilford is definitely still around. It came close to bankruptcy a few years ago, but if Kodak B&W film goes away, Ilford probably benefits. Part of Agfa-Gevaert is still around too in fact much of the film sold under the Rollei brand is made by what remains of Agfa-Gevaert: Rollei does not make any itself.

And of course Fujifilm is still active in film, despite having wisely diversified.

Edited for spelling errors and the correct name of the former Agfa-Gevaert.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2012, 12:11:40 PM by BJL » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7911


WWW
« Reply #41 on: December 07, 2012, 12:17:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I don't think Rollei exists any more. It is just a trade mark, essentially, owned by http://www.rcp-technik.com/.

Ilford is still around: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/home.asp

The real powerhouse in film is probably Fuji, they managed transition to digital quite well. I don't know how they film business is doing.

Best regards
Erik

I hear a few people worried about the demise of Kodak. Will it really be the end of film when they are gone?

I thought that companies like Ilford would keep things alive. I even noticed Rollei makes film and chemicals, which I never knew.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2012, 07:25:33 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

RobertJ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 601


« Reply #42 on: December 07, 2012, 04:44:30 AM »
ReplyReply

I shoot DSLR for stock photography.

The unused film I have left right now:

40 sheets 4x5 Fuji Astia (this stuff is gone now...)
30 sheets 4x5 Kodak E100G (uh, this stuff is gone now too!)
20 sheets 4x5 Fuji Provia
10 sheets 8x10 Kodak E100G
60 sheets 8x10 Fuji Provia

You guys are worried about Portra, but Kodak is still making neg film.  They stopped making positive film (E100G), while Fuji stopped making negative film. 

Portra is currently available at B&H in 4x5 and 8x10.  Stock up if you can afford it. Smiley
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #43 on: December 07, 2012, 08:31:01 AM »
ReplyReply

When I shot beauty and cosmetics on 4x5 E100G was my film.  Love(d) it.

I shoot DSLR for stock photography.

The unused film I have left right now:

40 sheets 4x5 Fuji Astia (this stuff is gone now...)
30 sheets 4x5 Kodak E100G (uh, this stuff is gone now too!)
20 sheets 4x5 Fuji Provia
10 sheets 8x10 Kodak E100G
60 sheets 8x10 Fuji Provia

You guys are worried about Portra, but Kodak is still making neg film.  They stopped making positive film (E100G), while Fuji stopped making negative film. 

Portra is currently available at B&H in 4x5 and 8x10.  Stock up if you can afford it. Smiley
Logged
DennisWilliams
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


« Reply #44 on: December 07, 2012, 11:18:30 PM »
ReplyReply

All my output is with Pentax 67 bodies and lenses, Acros and Provia.
Logged
Aryan Aqajani
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 37



WWW
« Reply #45 on: December 08, 2012, 08:38:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Like 80% of my personal work are being done with RZ67 Pro IID and film. I use Fuji Acros 100 for long exposure photography, Kodak Tri-X for portrait stuff rated at ASA 800 and 1600, Kodak Portra 160 and 400 as well for portraits again! My scanner is Epson V700 and printer is Epson R3000! The reasons I am shooting film while I have a DM22 back are;

1. I love 5:4 ratio!
2. Love the look of film!
3. The depth of filed is more shallower than a 36x48mm sensor!
4. Due to max 30s exposure time of my back, shoot film for long exposures during day time!
5. Due to max ISO 400, shoot film when I need to go over ISO 400!
6. Love to use all the area of the huge RZ viewfinder!
7. I love it when I develop the film and my hands smell all those chemicals when I'm done!
8. When I am doing the agitation, I feel like I am making those photos come to life, feeling like I am creating something not capturing!
9. I love the fact that I don't need to bother with the LCD, just focus on the subject! There is no way to have a glance at histogram or whatever! The fact that I have to understand how I am measuring the light with my handheld light meter!

Long live film  Wink
Logged

Aryan Aqajani - Photographer in Melbourne, Australia
Website | Blog | Facebook
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #46 on: December 08, 2012, 11:06:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Like 80% of my personal work are being done with RZ67 Pro IID and film. I use Fuji Acros 100 for long exposure photography, Kodak Tri-X for portrait stuff rated at ASA 800 and 1600, Kodak Portra 160 and 400 as well for portraits again! My scanner is Epson V700 and printer is Epson R3000! The reasons I am shooting film while I have a DM22 back are;

1. I love 5:4 ratio!
2. Love the look of film!
3. The depth of filed is more shallower than a 36x48mm sensor!
4. Due to max 30s exposure time of my back, shoot film for long exposures during day time!
5. Due to max ISO 400, shoot film when I need to go over ISO 400!
6. Love to use all the area of the huge RZ viewfinder!
7. I love it when I develop the film and my hands smell all those chemicals when I'm done!
8. When I am doing the agitation, I feel like I am making those photos come to life, feeling like I am creating something not capturing!
9. I love the fact that I don't need to bother with the LCD, just focus on the subject! There is no way to have a glance at histogram or whatever! The fact that I have to understand how I am measuring the light with my handheld light meter!

Long live film  Wink


Right on! 
Logged
drevil
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« Reply #47 on: December 08, 2012, 08:02:15 PM »
ReplyReply

i occasionally still shooting film, gonna finish a roll of tmax400 today and then i will load the magical adox csm 20 for the first time, i think with this one i will rethink composition 10x before shooting  Wink
Logged
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5807



WWW
« Reply #48 on: December 09, 2012, 12:58:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Still shoot film on occasion... both 35mm and 120.  Really miss Kodachrome 25 though!

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
Gel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 159


Excuse me while I bust a cap


« Reply #49 on: December 09, 2012, 02:09:02 AM »
ReplyReply

i occasionally still shooting film, gonna finish a roll of tmax400 today and then i will load the magical adox csm 20 for the first time, i think with this one i will rethink composition 10x before shooting  Wink

Ooh, been looking at Adox 20 but developing it scares the hell out of me.
Logged

Chris Giles Photography
pjtn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 193


« Reply #50 on: December 11, 2012, 02:38:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Ilford seem very dedicated to black and white film, so it gives me some hope that film will be around for some time to come.

I started photography in the digital age so really have next to no experience with film. What exactly is it that gives film a different look? After seeing a number of images online I can usually pick which is film, but I can't pinpoint why.

Also, does anyone know of comparison images online directly comparing digital with film? It would be nice to see how they compare side-by-side and what kind of resolution to expect from a 6x6 image. Not that I will need all that much for 14"x14" prints.
Logged
JohnCox123
Guest
« Reply #51 on: December 11, 2012, 03:39:48 AM »
ReplyReply

I shoot film, I'm taking delivery of 25 rolls of Tri X today.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7911


WWW
« Reply #52 on: December 11, 2012, 04:14:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Film has sort of built in rendition. The chemistry is part of the imaging chain.

Regarding side by side comparisons, here are some links:

A great comparison of film vs. digial by Tim Parkin et al. : http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html

This one: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml

Or this: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/59-sony-alpha-900-vs-67-analogue-round-2?showall=1

My take is that 20 MP digital is perfectly good replacement for 120 film (6x4.5 - 6x8) on technical grounds.

Best regards
Erik

I started photography in the digital age so really have next to no experience with film. What exactly is it that gives film a different look? After seeing a number of images online I can usually pick which is film, but I can't pinpoint why.

Also, does anyone know of comparison images online directly comparing digital with film? It would be nice to see how they compare side-by-side and what kind of resolution to expect from a 6x6 image. Not that I will need all that much for 14"x14" prints.
Logged

patrickfransdesmet
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


« Reply #53 on: December 11, 2012, 04:54:13 AM »
ReplyReply

yes ofcourse
the technical comparison is ONLY one part of the story
one could find that an IQ180 looks sharper than velvia
but what I see is, that even the jpg scan from these images
show that typical film look
that 3D look that I miss in CCD or CMOS images
this is due to the 3D film layer perhaps
this is what is missing in CCD's who are mirror flat
so the images look flat too

but then ...
Compare a real contactprint from a 8x10 black white print
to the same size of an IQ180

personally, I prefer the film print

but, as it is art, it is up to you wether to like it or not


other thing what bothers me, is the amount of money I've spend on digital
over the last 15 years, upgrading all the time
while my 4x5 or medium format film gear, did not change
and guaranteed me of CONSTANT QUALITY
I cannot do a retrospective from my digital prints over the last 15 years
because they vary in quality ...imacon 96, P20, P45, P65 ...
and then STILL NOT REACH THAT SAME IMAGE THAN WITH FILM


So I STOPPED COMPARING FILM and DIGITAL
It makes NO SENSE !

Two different media

as Oil paint and Aquarel
they're in the same ligue

Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7911


WWW
« Reply #54 on: December 11, 2012, 05:27:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

The original poster wants to have a comparison between film and digital images. He is coming from MF digital and considers film as an option. He seems to be interested medium format film, that is roll firm and not large format.

He also needs to consider scanning and practicalities.

Best regards
Erik

yes ofcourse
the technical comparison is ONLY one part of the story
one could find that an IQ180 looks sharper than velvia
but what I see is, that even the jpg scan from these images
show that typical film look
that 3D look that I miss in CCD or CMOS images
this is due to the 3D film layer perhaps
this is what is missing in CCD's who are mirror flat
so the images look flat too

but then ...
Compare a real contactprint from a 8x10 black white print
to the same size of an IQ180

personally, I prefer the film print

but, as it is art, it is up to you wether to like it or not


other thing what bothers me, is the amount of money I've spend on digital
over the last 15 years, upgrading all the time
while my 4x5 or medium format film gear, did not change
and guaranteed me of CONSTANT QUALITY
I cannot do a retrospective from my digital prints over the last 15 years
because they vary in quality ...imacon 96, P20, P45, P65 ...
and then STILL NOT REACH THAT SAME IMAGE THAN WITH FILM


So I STOPPED COMPARING FILM and DIGITAL
It makes NO SENSE !

Two different media

as Oil paint and Aquarel
they're in the same ligue


Logged

pjtn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 193


« Reply #55 on: December 11, 2012, 05:28:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Actually scanning is probably the most annoying part and may be the weakest link. Most probably I would get an Epson V750 to do the scanning.
Logged
JV
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 691


« Reply #56 on: December 11, 2012, 06:38:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Just short of 100 rolls of 120 film last month.
Not a professional photographer so all for personal non-commercial use.
I have a H4X and a Hy6 which both allow to shoot film but I mostly use the Hy6 for film.
Logged
JohnCox123
Guest
« Reply #57 on: December 11, 2012, 07:13:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Actually scanning is probably the most annoying part and may be the weakest link. Most probably I would get an Epson V750 to do the scanning.

This is something I've been thinking about a lot recently. I'm trying to find the optimum dpi to scan at for convenience and quality. I'm using an Epson V500 and VueScan. I can get 2400 dpi scans that look good, but from the majority of my scans only a few make it into portfolios or to customers, -I don't need to scan everything at 2400dpi. This begs the question of what the best solution is for workflow, and should I scan things just to proof and then get the ones that are good scanned with a drum professionally.
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #58 on: December 11, 2012, 08:25:15 AM »
ReplyReply

This is something I've been thinking about a lot recently. I'm trying to find the optimum dpi to scan at for convenience and quality. I'm using an Epson V500 and VueScan. I can get 2400 dpi scans that look good, but from the majority of my scans only a few make it into portfolios or to customers, -I don't need to scan everything at 2400dpi. This begs the question of what the best solution is for workflow, and should I scan things just to proof and then get the ones that are good scanned with a drum professionally.

John,

I essentially scan for good 16x16 from 6x6 on a V750 with the betterscan holders, or 16x20 from 6x7 negs.  In a sense I consider these proofs, but they are good enough for a 16x16 print on an Epson or for publication.  I have anything I really like drum scanned.

I scan at 6400dpi and downsize in PS.  I suspect that with the V750 I'm probably getting something like 2400 dpi actual resolution.  The V750 is a surprisingly capable scanner, and with more effort comes better results.  My now departed Nikon and Imacon were better, much better in some respects, but in reality I'm really scanning for proofs and medium sized prints, so the V750 is all I need right now. 
Logged
kers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 787


WWW
« Reply #59 on: December 11, 2012, 09:02:59 AM »
ReplyReply

In the past i developed BW and printed in BW and sometimes colour..

After that there was a period i scanned negatives- slides and prints.
The mayor problem with scanning colour was getting the colours right- it always was a mess and a struggle.
Never liked the flatbed scanner for film.. the only scanner i liked for film (slide) was the Imacon ( and drum but too expensive to do frequently)
of course negative film was never made to be scanned but to be printed. And those prints look very good indeed. I used slides for scanning

Nowadays my 'darkroom' is HP printer Z3100- i always like to control the whole process... It is very good for BW as well as colour and you can choose so many papers
It prints while i have a coffee ... and i can do colour-and the colours are right- this was almost impossible before. ( and the colours stay longer)

I would never go back to the darkroom but only for printing BW ( medium format or larger) on baryte paper. Very much like the results of a beautiful baryta print (- not the chemicals)
it is about the luster and the beautiful darktones ...

For me the digital image is now better than the film image;  it has much more depth: ( compare a d800 file with a scanned negative or slide and see there is so much more information in the shadows and highlights)
about 3 dimensionality- it has a lot to do how you process the digital image...
And the digital image is still developing fast and very young ...







Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad