RolliPoli: About 12 years ago I used their colour negative film ('Made in Italy') marketed under a couple of different brands. The dyes were very unstable and started to shift and fade with in a couple of years of dark and dry storage.
Yes, I'm sure they will demonstrate how new materials will not shift or fade and make a point of it. Plus feedback from users.
AksCT: Cost of Digital: Myth(Due to character restriction, I have split it in 3 parts)
What not to do: OF COURSE, you can dev with chems at home (even color C41 is NOT hard), and even get a good lens enlarger, and make your own prints even; but that's not more convenient. People who do real B&W do that, for the higher res and greater tones; because you lose digital color control that way (on the analog prints). There's C41 B&W without those advantages, so you can get the $2 CVS develop only; but that's silly; because once a color negative is scanned, you can also make it B&W+filter effects and all edits(see Gimp, it's free).
Here's a tip. Would I prefer Portra 400's res? Yes. Am I going to pay for it. No, not usually.
Would I prefer Medium Formats res? Yes? Am I going to pay extra for it? No. Carry extra? No.
Why? 35mm resolution NOT THAT BAD people. Horses for course. First of all, that are many ways and things you can do to maximize the resolution (acuity before and after scanning to Mangle-Pixies). If the goal in printing no bigger than 8x10, game over. It's going to be OK. You win. People are giving away pro 35mm full frame film SLR's and lenses. It's $4 for a roll and dev. What's not to try? Welcome to the frustrations of scanning at home. LOL. Remember, that's for when you do bunches. Then you get a plan, and with a DSLR or good digicam (or mirror-less) it's typical, you have you preferred jig, or whatever.
I have explored out, many, many photographic disciplines and answered a whole lot of questions about how I want to do it. So learn on digital, with all your test shots and who said burn off roll after roll of film? I did 4 or 5 film projects last year (not including scanning older negatives myself) and spent less than $36! That included comparing digital the beach, the XA, full frame prime in your pocket, Canon Elan 7e EYE TRACKING focus (film) world class auto SLR, my REAL Diana F (Original F, LOL. No freaking +), old pocket 170mm power zoom lens comparison, and things like the free Portra 400 look applies from Gimp+GIMC plug-in. So the point: It's hard to beat the fun of $2 roll and $2 develop only. Because you Can use you DSLR to scan the (without waiting), if you know photography. Macro is better; but 18-55mm a few inches works! It's not easy the first time, and you gotta follow all the ways; but then it can be. You can just get CD too, for light use. Do bulk on digital. Do film.
The camera almost does matter, accept I want the damn thing to stay out of my way. Will they ever make a photography centric camera? One with true benefits balance? So even with DIGITAL, I'm wasting fewer and fewer needless shots. I learned a lot, I admit. Play and learn with digital; but don't test yourself to death. That's not the point of it all. Take real world shots. SOMETHING NOT BORING. Something with real emotion, Hook the heart. That's the upper level. ...and so try to have at least three great "elements" in your picture or don't even bother. This is all your choice. What do you what you pictures to be? Typical or undeniable? Sure, some folks would not recognize a good picture if it bit them; but does that matter? Some of us do. What matters is do you? So now, I can think more what I want and go do it. That takes less time, and less shots. You going to have to just believe me (or not) when I say, mine have greatly improved. OK that's a wrap....
... and people think all the auto AF and AE makes camera smart, and it doesn't. If it did, then why does this months need an improvement? If you don't know what to do, when you auto systems fail, you don't get the shot. Anyway, here's how the cost really go...
In 2012, I had about 10,000 photo files. But 2013 it was about 5200. But now toward the end of 2024 I only have about 2660. What's going on? I must be slack, right? Gotta get out more. No, I got better. You see, my thing is to always improve. Photography will surprise you, in that it's is a never ending discipline and study of light in contrasts, and the making of a "picture". So yes I weed them out; but not so much as I did. At first it's like a child with a squirt gun in the house. Real fun; but doomed from the start. That's a far cry from a marksman. Meaning purposeful art. I know, you can just take a snap shot *and* everybody wants it simple. Have fun. I going a different direction. Luck has nothing to do with it....
That's the stupid-ist thing I've ever heard. Sorry I had a fight at your black trilogy party. I can see you worked at making a point there. We know film and developing can add up. We all got giddy, with our first digital cameras, thinking how free it was to snap-away, taking a gazillion pictures of squirrels and the cat. Our desk, our feet, our toes, the carpet, the moon, the ceiling fan and oh the best part. THE DELETE BUTTON! LOL. There's good to maybe 3. People blink, right? A limb was in the way, during the FIRST drive shot of Sasquatch kissing his wife, right? 3 shot's of your beautiful baby in about the same pose is OK; BUT NOT 20! Don't forget too, your friends will not tell you you suck. Don't bug your friends; because they will lie. No, digital is great; but it excels at learning by doing. Heck, you can use any old digicam as a meter! As the same ISO, just set that Aperture and Shutter in your manual camera. But couldn't you also read a book, or the Internet? Cameras R stupid
So it's a like Stop less in background blur isolation than a kit lens on a crop DSLR. Including worse Bokeh quality. Not with light; but in terms of DOF eqiv, and it's huge. That's not good. Not at the price.
They should NOT have listened to novices as to lusting for ZOOM X-FACTOR and just made a better camera. They should have capped the focal at 100mm (eqiv angle) and went the other way! Heck, they should have done 27-100mm on MFT. Made that a f/2.8 CONSTANT lens (built-in, so very IQ optimized optimized) and then you'd have something. Think about it. There's your do all camera. Mid small size, affordable price. Leica F2.8 27-100mm HELLO! They could even sell "X-FACTOR" extenders to the silly crowd.
But they wouldn't make that.
Andreas M: Shooting film requires a certain discipline, born of limited frames and undeveloped images, something that is lacking in digital photography. Can't say I really miss that, but keeping a film factory open and producing does keep some options open.
I do miss getting a significantly higher ISO by buying a new roll of film rather than buying a new camera.
Andreas M : Doesn't everyone count them like that?
nerd2: I am old enough to actually grow up with film camera and just cannot understand why people are romantizing film that much. It was just magnitudes more bothersome, and even the (now pre-histroic) 2.6MP D1 was a gospel compared to film cameras.
Anyone can easily duplicate the film experience by duct taping all status LCD and most controls (ISO and WB), using 16MB SD card (I have one!), shoot only in JPEG and then directly giving the SD card to the lab. Now good luck.
... Even truly pocket FULL-FRAME, prime lens ones (hello little Oly XA, and that you can use in place of a wide angle lens, for groups shots and more, so you don't have to change any lens either. Just use the other cam, or 3, or 4, at 35mm film cam prices. Nice ones too, But don't TELL anybody.) Shhhh. Remember, film will nickel and dime you to death. :)
Ah no. WB being done for you can be considered a distinct advantage with film. Choose your film look, you're done. Just stick with flash indoors; which is what most sharp digital guys do anyway, including gels. Sharpening being done also. Also, you are falsely assuming only medium format can be enough resolution; whereas 35mm film be be subjectively scans to a GOOD (DSLR FF like) IQ resolution of ABOUT 12 to 18 Mangle-Pixies. What are you going to print? Posters? You CAN change mid roll if you know what you're doing and have a leader grabber (or other tricks) and simply remember where you where; but you don't have to do that! $2 roll are 24 each and you likely have another film camera you go t for free anyway.
I grew up with film too and what "Joseph Black" said. Ditto.
Well it looks like job number one is low prices and proving their film is made out of different materials; that will not fade with some manner of a guarantee, to back it up. Otherwise it's much to do about nothing.
Holger Drallmeyer: Why does this always have to turn into a Film vs. Digital debate?I never see that going on with Acrylic painters vs. Ipad Doodlers ;)
Yes, originally I was going to say, why can't we see the distinct merits of both. But recognizing many do not, I'm saying digital has plenty of support. I use both. But I might street fight you over film. Because I value you *and* myself. ;)
beckmarc: For a "dead" medium this post about a new film initiative sure gets a lot of comments. "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about" The fact that so many photographers are inspired to write about film, for or anti, indicates film is still relevant.
graybalanced: The real test, of course, is to see how many of the "I miss film, digital ruined photography" crowd actually buys enough product to keep ventures like this and The Impossible Project alive.
If you don't, then it doesn't matter what is posted on message boards, you chose digital through your actions regardless of your words.
Can you spare some money for me to buy some film?
justinwonnacott: Films made specifically for scanning would make sense and probably find a lot of buyers.
The end use of the film they make - if it gets made at all - will usually involve a scanner . Very few people project slides today, colour enlarging has passed into history and the use of BW darkroom tools has become severely crippled by the diminished availability of chemistry and papers. Scanning BW film produces excellent prints.
Films designed to take advantage of the dynamic range of scanners and that are optimized for the colour receptors of the scanner would make a lot of sense. I believe Agfa once made a BW film with this in mind.
This is one of those times you are both right. I know. Mind blowing isn't it?
Film for better scans makes perfect since; as scanning yourself (if you can get it down) is the way to reduce film stills cost, with develop only (and may keep develop-only going). Once digital, it flows with your other digital shots and allows one to use film when it's best (saving money).
Now I KNOW, it's (maybe) not "organic"; but I would be cheating you all, if I didn't say Gimp, with the GMIC filters plug-in, has really cool film looks, including Portra 400 and many more, for free. You'd have to be stupid not to install and use Gimp; even if you use something else regularly. I mean, even the upgrades/fast ongoing improvements are free and there's NOTHING "cheap" about it. Didn't your momma teach you to share? Real Portra really has the stuff; but they know it. $$$ It's more fun with $2 film. But there are special occasions and pro jobs. More power.
audijam: All i want to say is I cherish every moment I press the shutter and hear the motor advances my film to the next I don't need to be reminded that film is DEAD (well it is not completely dead yet) and digital DSLR is much better blah blah blah. I use 5D3 for work and family and believe me I love it because it's perfect for what I need it to serve. HOWEVER, it doesn't eliminate or replace my love for film SLR.
I took my EOS 3 out last night just to look at it. It's so beautiful. Too bad I let go of my AE1 years ago to a teen who wants to learn photography. I hope he hasn't given up yet.
120 film cost more and to process. Even though scanning is easier and on cheaper scanners, lenses, and bodies can sometimes be a lot more expensive. While there are exceptions, not so much on the better 120 stuff. Systems are GENERALLY to big for carry. The exceptions are expensive, rare, or to limited. The lenses have to cover a wider area. Resolution is great; but 35mm does not have these issues. More resolution is not everything.
But what if it did? If you know what you're doing and look at the maximum 35mm film acuity, then combine it's great color, tonality, looks, WB ease, DR, and highlights, NOW we're talking.
Drum scans cost to much you say? Well how about we take those rare, special shots, and use an old (good lens) enlarger to make the best 8x10 (or 5x7 print to save $) and since resolution is so important, we'll take that big print, right on over to a great scanner and scan it; while it's still wet! YOUR home, drum-like scans. Maximum creative control. On the cheap.
....Scan at home, and you have your digital file where Gimp can do any edit, known to mankind, for free. Including Portra 400 color/looks (with Gimps GMIC plug-in for FREE) if that's what you want. What's more is better dynamic range covering the shadow detail (if you did your job) *and* greater latitude for exposure error (print film) and BEAUTIFUL rolling highlights that don't have that dead digital look. While the Mangle-Pixies will not be 24Mpx, what are you printing that big? You can still print 8x10 and bigger and that's before (over) up-sizing, processed, (and resized back down a bit) and fancy edits like Gimps GMIC auto clean ups and then Inverse_Diffusion to add detail, etc.
Film is better than digital. Hell, 35mm $2 a roll film is better than digital. Now, I was going to say they both have merit, pros, cons, etc, blah, blah, blah. But digital has enough support right now.
35mm camera are more full featured, all manner of types, "full frame", AF or better yet, manual focus with systems that facilitate manual focus easily. I have personally done sports tracking with MANUAL focus at f/2.0, 135mm with many keepers. These high end cameras are practically being given away and can be dropped by the drug store for $2 develop-only while you shop.