Full old school

I used to shoot film....a lot
Mostly black and white, I developed at home and printed at home.
I loved the art of it and the skill involved.

Is it dead? Or am I imagining it? Developers are harder to find, fixers... Hypo etc... it all seems very difficult now? I have a decent setup. I wonder if it's worth selling or just dropping in the garbage. I do love the discipline, but I myself have moved to mostly digital...but have about a thousand negatives in bw that need printing or exploration?

Looking for realistic talk on this. I don't want or need to waste money, I just want to know realistic looks at all this. I loved it when I did it a long time ago, however, my timer burned out and I stopped....moved on to other things. The art is not lost in me yet.

Should I just get rid of it...or does anyone think I will get back to it...... realistically?

Sounds familiar...

Realistically, the film era is over. Start scanning your negatives; I am almost done with mine.

Some people are taking this with a high dose of emotion. Well, there are two sides for each coin: one can either lament the thought that his Nikon F2 will never, ever again be used to actually make a picture, or he can enjoy the fact that a device required to produce a photograph of similar quality can today be had for a fraction of F2's original price.

Some skills we learned at great expense are of no value any more. But the skill of learning new skills remains with us...

Tempora mutantur, et nos in ilis.

bremzer

bremzer said:

Tempora mutantur, et nos in ilis.

Click to expand...

Don't think my beloved old Nikon F-801 SLR camera with is 35-70 mm kit lens just gathers dust. It does not sit on a shelf but in a case behind a door. The batteries were removed years ago.

--
Iván József Balázs
(Hungary)

The only difference between film and so-called digital photography is where in the process A/D conversion takes place. Late-phase A/D conversion is slower - about 1 hour for a 36 shot roll - but the only additional photographic capability modern digital cameras give you is the ability to change ISO shot-to-shot and (with the latest generation of SLRs) to reach very high ISO values. Otherwise, my F100 meters better, focuses better, has a better viewfinder and is better ergonomically than my D80.

For me, the real difference is that film is a more thoughtful - even "contemplative" - way of taking photographs. I think instant gratification is a curse (I would rather catch a train than fly, too).
--
A l'eau, c'est l'heure! (French naval motto)

On the death of Kodachrome, I pulled out some of my slides from way back when, and do believe I put a lot more thought into them. Digital can make you lazy, but I don't recall the dslr makers holding me hostage and forcing me to point and spray, so that's a self imposed limitation.

My Omega B22 hasn't been out of its box for ten years. I do miss the sights and smells of the darkroom, it was always a magical place. But I don't miss all the extra time and expense. Don't miss running out of film, or having to change rolls.

Digital does take out a lot of the tedium. What we do with the time savings and convenience is up to us.

Apfelbaum said:

I used to shoot film....a lot
Mostly black and white, I developed at home and printed at home.
I loved the art of it and the skill involved.

Is it dead? Or am I imagining it? Developers are harder to find, fixers... Hypo etc... it all seems very difficult now? I have a decent setup. I wonder if it's worth selling or just dropping in the garbage. I do love the discipline, but I myself have moved to mostly digital...but have about a thousand negatives in bw that need printing or exploration?

Looking for realistic talk on this. I don't want or need to waste money, I just want to know realistic looks at all this. I loved it when I did it a long time ago, however, my timer burned out and I stopped....moved on to other things. The art is not lost in me yet.

Should I just get rid of it...or does anyone think I will get back to it...... realistically?

Click to expand...

I think bremzer is right, the film era is over. I´d say keep your old lenses, filters, hoods, etc., they still might work on some digital bodies via an adapter, maybe even keep a good old body for nostalgia reasons, but get rid of all the other stuff, you´re very probably never going to use it again.

Scan your old negatives or prints, preferably on the best scanner available to you, make backups of everything.

When I started digital in 2003, for more than a year I still carried my old Canon AE-1, the 50/1.8, the 28/2.8 and the 80-200/4 with me all the time. But did I ever use it again?: No! In the end of 2004 I put everything film in a box, which is still sitting somewhere in the house. Maybe one day I will play again with the old FD-mount lenses, on 4/3 they don´t work (no focus infinity) but on m4/3 they will do.

As bremzer said: Tempora mutantur. Et nos mutamur in illis. The instant feedback with digital makes everything so much easier and less expensive, compared to film! And no more need to work with dirty chemicals; editing now via the computer is half the pleasure of digital photography to me! I´ve learnt more about editing during the first year with digital than I ever knew before during more than 40 years with film!

René

René Schuster said:

Apfelbaum said:

I used to shoot film....a lot
Mostly black and white, I developed at home and printed at home.
I loved the art of it and the skill involved.

Is it dead? Or am I imagining it? Developers are harder to find, fixers... Hypo etc... it all seems very difficult now? I have a decent setup. I wonder if it's worth selling or just dropping in the garbage. I do love the discipline, but I myself have moved to mostly digital...but have about a thousand negatives in bw that need printing or exploration?

Looking for realistic talk on this. I don't want or need to waste money, I just want to know realistic looks at all this. I loved it when I did it a long time ago, however, my timer burned out and I stopped....moved on to other things. The art is not lost in me yet.

Should I just get rid of it...or does anyone think I will get back to it...... realistically?

Click to expand...

I think bremzer is right, the film era is over. I´d say keep your old lenses, filters, hoods, etc., they still might work on some digital bodies via an adapter, maybe even keep a good old body for nostalgia reasons, but get rid of all the other stuff, you´re very probably never going to use it again.

Scan your old negatives or prints, preferably on the best scanner available to you, make backups of everything.

When I started digital in 2003, for more than a year I still carried my old Canon AE-1, the 50/1.8, the 28/2.8 and the 80-200/4 with me all the time. But did I ever use it again?: No! In the end of 2004 I put everything film in a box, which is still sitting somewhere in the house. Maybe one day I will play again with the old FD-mount lenses, on 4/3 they don´t work (no focus infinity) but on m4/3 they will do.

As bremzer said: Tempora mutantur. Et nos mutamur in illis. The instant feedback with digital makes everything so much easier and less expensive, compared to film! And no more need to work with dirty chemicals; editing now via the computer is half the pleasure of digital photography to me! I´ve learnt more about editing during the first year with digital than I ever knew before during more than 40 years with film!

René

Click to expand...

I don't miss my B & W darkroom or the color darkroom.

--

28 years as a freelancer,(news,magazine, wedding photography) camera equip. over the years: Practica MLT, Canon A1, Minolta 9xi, 7xi, Dimage Z1,Fuji 5200,Canon S2,Pentax K100D,Olympus 380,Canon SX 10 ( http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v104/Buckl/ )
http://issuu.com/Lbuck

For comercial work film is dead, I bought a Fuji S2 in 2004 or 3 I am not sure and I never shot film on a job again except for one client for whom I shoot 5x4 trannies once a year or so.

BUT.
Any one can get a DSLR and get good shots out of it
that has devalued to some extent the value of images in general
EVERYONE THINKS THEY ARE A PHOTOGRAPHER NOW

I have Exhibited 3 times the 1st 2 times were from stuff I shot on film and sold quite well

the last time it was all digital of a similar stile to previous work and only sold one.

Ikea sponsored a local photo comp as they are building a new store in the area the winning shot was taken on neg,(medium format)
the b&W lab I use ocasionally is getting busier.
Art students are running around with K1000's, Minolta srt101's and FM2's
Some galleries aren't too keen on digital photography

I know a landscape photographer that sells a lot of prints , he shoots neg and scans it himself
his work makes most HDR stuff i have seen look like a kid did it
You can get software to simulate b&w film , SO CAN EVERYBODY ELSE!!!!!!!!!

The point I am making is that if you want to exhibit your work or even are just looking for a good talking point . Or want to take some pride in your images, shooting film is a good way adding of value to the image, it sets it apart in terms of craftsmanship or uniqueness or novelty value.provided the image is strong or interesting enough

If you are just taking holiday and family snaps then sure bin your darkroom.

As I side note I left my RB67 in a box for 4 years and decided to use it recently, All the lenses have serious fungus issues!!!!

I recently realized that for a variety of reasons, tangential to this discussion, I switched to digital for the bulk of my photography early; even before the quality of the digital, with the gear I could afford, was at par with what I could produce with 35mm film (which used to be my "main format" of the "chemical era").

If we accept this definition of "early" as suggested, the definition of "late" would be the opposite: switching after the bulk of one's digital images was of higher technical quality than what he was commonly producing with film.

So my question is: how many of you switched "early" and how many switched "late"?

bremzer

tessar 75 said:

..never shot film on a job again except for one client for whom I shoot 5x4 trannies once a year or so.

Click to expand...

Trannies? 20 of them? Very interesting! (Or do I maybe need a new dictionary, lol?!)

But good you mentioned fungus on your old boxed lenses, I really should check my old FD ones, thanks!

René

And I think long term it will survive but as a niche/specialist area obviously digital has the mass market (and most film users knew that would happen over time and with reduced prices)

Frankly I don't care what others do I like using both mediums.

Sad thing is these so called "digital die hard dudes" who appear so zealously on forums with a desire to inflict "everything must die"! on anyone who does not subscribe to their own vision of a digital Mecca which also includes the death of optical viewfinders because it's not "digital enough" are missing the point.

You don't read Art forums where somebody is mocked for using Oil paints or Acrylics or whatever they want to. They make a creative choice it's theirs alone.

Folks used to call themselves "Photographers" now some use the term "Digital Photographers" whatever the hell that means you are still capturing an image. Photography would be a very sad place if there was not a choice of creative medium for those who want it. I embrace choice for all and folks can use just what they like.

Film has a lot of charm and I like the look of it. That's enough for me I like both mediums in their own way.

In cabinetmaking there was a period when the vast majority of makers went over to machine-tools. Many stopped using the traditional handtools and techniques; many of the young taking up cabinet-making never learnt how to use the traditional handtools at all.

Although furniture made with machine tools can be made to a very high standard - "artistically" as well as technically, it does have a certain "perfect look" that loses some of the charm seen in handtool-made pieces with their slight imperfections and hand-of-the-maker in the form of tool marks.

In all events many makers, including whole swathes of amateurs, went back to hand tools and traditional making methods, often in pursuit of traditional forms and "looks" in the furniture. There is a huge market now in quality handtools, as a result.

I can see the possibility of a similar revival in film-based photography. Enough folk seeking the lost pleasures of both the film "look" and the pleasures of the darkroom might well see such a revival.

In woodworking, the revival started with a few makers, then half a dozen tool makers and so forth. They made the necessary tools in small often one-man operations that gradually became business-sized. Often the toolmakers were initially woodworkers forced to make their own traditional hand tools, as the big tool makers no longer made quality tools - ar any tools (having gone bust). But even today there are many, many artisan toolmakers.

The costs of one-man-made film gubbins might be high - but so will be the quality of the goods, made by enthusiasts. If fellows are really intent on preserving the tradition and pleasures of film, these costs will be borne........

So perhaps the answer is: try making your own chemicals; perhaps even your own papers. You might not just keep your ability to "do film" alive but also create a small and satisfying business.

SirLataxe, who uses every tool he can get aholden of.

For most amateur photographers interested in the end result I would argue film is dead. I say most because there have always been large format amateurs who will probably continue, but for anyone who shot 35mm or 6x6 as a hobbyist digital is technically superior, easier and cheaper.

There is a, to me, bizarre fad to embrace the lowest quality of all film equipment called "Lomography", but I suspect that will wane quickly and people are already emulting its crappy results with phone camera apps.

I have a Jobo temperature stabilized rotary processor and two enlargers which I will never use again. I'm keeping my medium format gear partly because it's not worth a huge amount, and partly because there may one day be a relatively affordable digital back for it!

I still shoot in almost exactly the same way as I used to with film; predominantly with a tripod, hand held spot meter, and frustratingly slow for anyone with me. For me personally the advantages of digital are:

• No more fussing with stale batches of chemicals
• I can get an image "right" in the digital darkroom once, and reproduce it endlessly with complete consistency
• The ability to apply color filters "after the shot" when creating black and white images
• Much better control of color than was ever possible in the wet darkroom
• No setup or cleanup time!

There will always continue to be those who practice wet darkroom techniques, but they will become a decreasing niche, just like the steam engineers before them

Kevin

I also shot film for many years, developed all types of film and printed very large in color and black-and-white. I enjoyed the craftsmanship of creating the perfect print. I even came up with some new chemical processes for enhancing prints.

I was an early adopter of digital but still shot film for serious work. I bought a good film scanner and shut down the darkroom forever.

When digital cameras became good enough, I quit using film altogether. I waited too late to sell by 35mm gear. I gave some of it away to friends who still shot film. I did sell off my medium format gear but did not get much for it. I still have my darkroom equipment but I think it is worthless. I would give it to a school if they would want it.

Technically, I can produce better prints now with less work. I can do things in post processing that were not possible with film.

If you want to see the value of your film and darkroom gear, do a search on Ebay and see what it is selling for. Don't expect much.

.
. Some thought the world as we know it ended
when Dylan went electric in 65...;-)
.
--
Jon in Thailand

http://www.flickr.com/photos/af2899/
.

bremzer said:

If we accept this definition of "early" as suggested, the definition of "late" would be the opposite: switching after the bulk of one's digital images was of higher technical quality than what he was commonly producing with film.

So my question is: how many of you switched "early" and how many switched "late"?

bremzer

Click to expand...

I got an Olympus P&S in 2005 for a month long trip to Italy in 2005. My wife could barely see the tiny LCD to take pictures (it also has the OVF that I prefer) so I bought her the latest largest screen P&S in 2006. I still used my F2, and FE2 for my therapy shooting until September of 2009 when I finally felt that digital was close to film and bought a D90. I still shoot a little film with my old Nikon's, but the DSLR is instant gratification.
Hmmmm, what to do with the 23C?
--
Michael

Easy for you to say!

Hi Rene
you are write, LOL... about my spelling
But
This is a photography forum not a spelling forum

And yes I don't know how to put a diacritical mark above the letter "e" with a key board

--
Roygbiv

I recently went in to the Dr. for some test and Xrays. After the Xrays the technician and I were talking about the familiar smell of acetic acid wafting from the darkroom. Conjured up some enjoyable memories of over 10 years in a darkroom and some of the great B&W prints I still have from my days in the military and all the exotic places I visited as a photg.
--

' You don't have to have the best of everything to get the best out of what you do have'.