Any Practical And Financially Viable Reason To Do Film Photography?

Teila Day said:

I've spent $125-$150 just having a K1000 cleaned and debris from the viewfinder removed... and the local shop didn't do a good job at that.

Click to expand...

Next time contact Eric at www.pentaxs.com -- haven't had the need to use his services yet, but I understand that for $85 (includes return shipping) your Pentax comes back like new.

Teila Day said:

You've had low repair bill, but do you expect the same for all these teens buying old 6x7 and 645 cameras? How much will it cost them for mirror adjustments, shipping, parts that may/may not be available?

Click to expand...

Teila Day said:

How much do you think the typical maintenance bill is these days for someone shooting 645 and larger? ... over $200?

Click to expand...

Can't say for sure. I shoot with four MF cameras, all Mamiyas -- a borrowed C330 and RB67 and a pair of 645s (1000s models). All four are working pretty much perfectly (though the winder in the RB67 sometimes gets a bit cranky). From what I understand, the service costs for MF aren't any higher than 35mm, and there are plenty of parts around -- the guy I use has a ton of old cameras he can cannibalize for parts.

If the Mamiyas ever break, I promise I will tell you what the repair costs are. I have found, in buying several old cameras, that the assumption that any old camera will need repair or service is largely false.

Aaron

Teila Day said:

Teila: "The most obvious factor that keeps most people from shooting the better, and larger films is cost." Do you really want to refute that statement?

Click to expand...

I do -- I don't think it's correct. I think the biggest (and, yes, most obvious) factor that keeps people from shooting large-format film is logistics. A 4x5 camera is not terribly expensive compared to digital, but the logistics of shooting and developing sheet film are significant compared to roll film.

Happily, if image resolution is your sole concern, you can exceed MF digital with a 6x7 camera and some Ektar.

Aaron

Teila Day said:

The OP isn't talking about a sliver of the film using demographic that is (1) willing to allot space, and buy chemicals or scanner to process their own film

Click to expand...

Well, let's ask the OP -- but what space requirements are there to processing film? I transfer to reels in my dark bag at my table (or sometimes sitting on the couch), and I develop in my bathroom. The only space requirements are half a shelf for supplies. And I think you'll find the development-chemical market is very robust -- more choices than ever nowadays.

BTW, my costs for developing chemistry (all of it) is about 82 cents per roll for 35mm -- and that's using D-76 which is the priciest of the 3 developers I use.

Teila Day said:

(2) who actually want to process their own film.

Click to expand...

I think for a lot of us that's part of the enjoyment.

Teila Day said:

The OP is talking overall whether or not film is practical (most probably don't find it practical AND financially viable) to process film in their house (which they probably rent) or an apartment.

Click to expand...

Yes, for this apartment-dweller, not only is it practical and financially viable to develop my own film, it's a key driver in keeping film photography affordable. My developing cost (all chemicals and hardware amortized over 10 years) is about 83 cents per 35mm roll if I use D-76 in a single-rell tank. Cheaper when I use HC-110, Legacy L-76, or my two-reel tank. I haven't calculated my MF development costs but I believe it's about $1.20 in a single-reel tank.

Teila Day said:

it would cost me more time, inconvenience, and extra effort.... (here it comes) ... which makes it -- not practical --.

Click to expand...

...unless the extra effort is part of the appeal. For me, it is. And that, to me, makes film practical -- it's a more practical way to achieve satisfaction.
Aaron

Teila Day said:

I assert that a large barrier to entry for larger formats (film or digital) is overall cost..

Click to expand...

For me, it's practicality. Same reason my digicam is a Sony APS-C rather than a Nikon DSLR -- I like a smaller, lighter camera. I mostly shoot 35mm over MF film because it's easier to pack the gear. The RB67 is particularly cumbersome. I've actually started shooting more MF since I got the Mamiya 645s.

The per-shot costs are higher than 35mm, particularly because I can't bulk-roll (about 58 cents per frame to shoot and develop (and that's with the good stuff, FP4+) as opposed to 20-ish for 35mm). But a 645z costs what, $4,500? Again, that's enough to shoot one roll of MF B&W per week for nearly ten years. Oh, wait, I have to buy a lens for that 645z, too, don't I? Looks like MF film just got more financially practical

Aaron

Autonerd said:

Teila Day said:

I assert that a large barrier to entry for larger formats (film or digital) is overall cost..

Click to expand...

For me, it's practicality. Same reason my digicam is a Sony APS-C rather than a Nikon DSLR -- I like a smaller, lighter camera. I mostly shoot 35mm over MF film because it's easier to pack the gear. The RB67 is particularly cumbersome. I've actually started shooting more MF since I got the Mamiya 645s.

Click to expand...

Traditional MF is definitely bulky. I tend to favor the large brick-like bodies, but I can definitely see where light weight and a more svelte form factor is preferred by many if not most photographers. I think I'm getting to that point where using a camera stand, tripod, or fencepost is going to be my go-to way of shooting, so while the weight hasn't been much of a factor in the past... It's time for me to stop trying to hand hold a heavy set up. I feel relieved now when everything is on a camera stand. Time for me to act my age I suppose

Autonerd said:

The per-shot costs are higher than 35mm, particularly because I can't bulk-roll (about 58 cents per frame to shoot and develop (and that's with the good stuff, FP4+) as opposed to 20-ish for 35mm). But a 645z costs what, $4,500? Again, that's enough to shoot one roll of MF B&W per week for nearly ten years. Oh, wait, I have to buy a lens for that 645z, too, don't I? Looks like MF film just got more financially practical

Click to expand...

Yes - That's an excellent point for those who don't shoot a lot.

What would be interesting is if there's a common consensus on a rough demarcation line between cost savings shooting film and when it becomes more cost effective to shoot digital. Other than the obvious cases on each side of the fence, it would be neat to hear from various photographers as to what they think the "fine line" is between film being practically and financially worth it vs. no longer financially and practically sensible.

57even said:

Overrank said:

57even said:

Michael Fryd said:

One point of view is that creativity comes from constraints. Jon Stewart (formerly of The Daily Show) said that give him the freedom to do anything and he was lost. Give him constraints, and the creative juices flow.

Click to expand...

I see digital as having constraints too, just different ones.

If the bar for what is possible is raised, the level of acceptability is also raised. I am a lot more demanding about the quality of the work I produce than I ever was with film because I make much larger prints.

Click to expand...

When I started work all our reports were written in longhand and typed by a typing pool. You’d do a check of the report and send it back for corrections by the pool. It would then go for technical check and corrections would be made (by the pool) and finally approval (with possibly some more changes). So at most there were four edits because it was difficult to do so.

Now everyone uses word processors and make hundreds of edits changing the report, getting the wording “just so” (then changing it back ). The same formal steps (technical check and approval) are still there, but because it’s so easy all the words are “polished” until they shine (or so people like to think ).

So are the reports “technically” better ? Yes, because they’re typeset and laser printed, rather than run off on a typewriter, plus they’re searchable as PDFs and can be emailed. But are they better in terms of what they say, and their authoritativeness ? Absolutely not, because *that has nothing to do with technology*, that is to do with the checking and approval process and the skills and knowledge of the people doing it.

Click to expand...

But a report is not art.

Click to expand...

Arguably most photographs are not art either, that is especially true with much commercial photographs

Member said:

And as someone who authors and edits reports on a regular basis, it is no longer enough just to fill it with words. Charts and other forms of graphical content can add to the informativeness and readability.

Producing an illustrated user guide used to require a huge effort, and doing it in colour was incredibly expensive. Now it is possible to import charts, diagrams and even photos (like the ports on the back of a server) into a document.

And we have extended the breadth of shared information to include websites (with video and image content) that include feedback and comment sections.

Click to expand...

I had already made those points “So are the reports “technically” better ? Yes, because they’re typeset and laser printed,…..” but it doesn’t affect my argument about the accuracy of technical content being unchanged

Member said:

Authors are now required to master many different skills that they never had to worry about before.

Click to expand...

An alternative way of putting this is that people have to do lots of repetitive tasks outside their skill set

Member said:

Member said:

The same is true for photographs - the “quality”, that is the ability to produce an emotional response in the viewer, is completely independent of any “technical” quality in the image.

Click to expand...

Not really. There were just so many things that were impossible with film, but are now possible if not exactly simple. The creative gamut has been extended by an order of magnitude.

And because we are saturated with photographs, being able to stand out is a great deal harder. When I shot film, it was enough to capture a nice scene in good light. Now, there are a million images of nice scenes in good light appearing on the internet every minute.

How do you stand out when the average is so much higher than it was and the average viewer is so jaded by constant repetition?

Click to expand...

A lack of visibility on some (fictional) world stage is irrelevant to emotional response when someone is looking at that photograph, unless you’re indicating that the plethora of digital images has numbed peoples senses ? Which would hardly be a plus point

57even said:

It's like owning a motorcycle.

Sunny day, wind on the face, carving down a canyon... great fun.

But there are very few people who exclusively ride motorcycles. For most it is a sunny day fun ride, but there's still a car or truck in the garage for utility.

Personally, I have little interest in film. But if I had a garage to safely store a motorcycle, I would have one in a heartbeat.

There is no practical or financial justification, but if you enjoy it, do it.

Click to expand...

This is the problem, people deal in absolutes based on their own assumptions and preferences, I could easily make a case that there are still both practical and financial reasons for shooting film. A film camera shot occasionally for family snaps is evidently cheaper and more practical than a digital camera, computer and software etc. A wedding photographer differentiating himself from the competition can save time and potentially make more money, and some do, there are no absolutes here.

Overrank said:

57even said:

Overrank said:

57even said:

Michael Fryd said:

One point of view is that creativity comes from constraints. Jon Stewart (formerly of The Daily Show) said that give him the freedom to do anything and he was lost. Give him constraints, and the creative juices flow.

Click to expand...

I see digital as having constraints too, just different ones.

If the bar for what is possible is raised, the level of acceptability is also raised. I am a lot more demanding about the quality of the work I produce than I ever was with film because I make much larger prints.

Click to expand...

When I started work all our reports were written in longhand and typed by a typing pool. You’d do a check of the report and send it back for corrections by the pool. It would then go for technical check and corrections would be made (by the pool) and finally approval (with possibly some more changes). So at most there were four edits because it was difficult to do so.

Now everyone uses word processors and make hundreds of edits changing the report, getting the wording “just so” (then changing it back ). The same formal steps (technical check and approval) are still there, but because it’s so easy all the words are “polished” until they shine (or so people like to think ).

So are the reports “technically” better ? Yes, because they’re typeset and laser printed, rather than run off on a typewriter, plus they’re searchable as PDFs and can be emailed. But are they better in terms of what they say, and their authoritativeness ? Absolutely not, because *that has nothing to do with technology*, that is to do with the checking and approval process and the skills and knowledge of the people doing it.

Click to expand...

But a report is not art.

Click to expand...

Arguably most photographs are not art either, that is especially true with much commercial photographs

Overrank said:

And as someone who authors and edits reports on a regular basis, it is no longer enough just to fill it with words. Charts and other forms of graphical content can add to the informativeness and readability.

Producing an illustrated user guide used to require a huge effort, and doing it in colour was incredibly expensive. Now it is possible to import charts, diagrams and even photos (like the ports on the back of a server) into a document.

And we have extended the breadth of shared information to include websites (with video and image content) that include feedback and comment sections.

Click to expand...

I had already made those points “So are the reports “technically” better ? Yes, because they’re typeset and laser printed,…..” but it doesn’t affect my argument about the accuracy of technical content being unchanged

Click to expand...

Accuracy of content is not the issue here.

Overrank said:

Overrank said:

Authors are now required to master many different skills that they never had to worry about before.

Click to expand...

An alternative way of putting this is that people have to do lots of repetitive tasks outside their skill set

Click to expand...

One person can now create content that would have taken an entire production team.

Just as I can now create images that would have required a master darkroom printer, and a fully equipped darkroom, and actually have more creative control than they did.

Overrank said:

Overrank said:

Overrank said:

The same is true for photographs - the “quality”, that is the ability to produce an emotional response in the viewer, is completely independent of any “technical” quality in the image.

Click to expand...

Not really. There were just so many things that were impossible with film, but are now possible if not exactly simple. The creative gamut has been extended by an order of magnitude.

And because we are saturated with photographs, being able to stand out is a great deal harder. When I shot film, it was enough to capture a nice scene in good light. Now, there are a million images of nice scenes in good light appearing on the internet every minute.

How do you stand out when the average is so much higher than it was and the average viewer is so jaded by constant repetition?

Click to expand...

A lack of visibility on some (fictional) world stage is irrelevant to emotional response when someone is looking at that photograph, unless you’re indicating that the plethora of digital images has numbed peoples senses ? Which would hardly be a plus point

Click to expand...

No, it is just that anyone with camera can produce what would once have been considered a 'good' image. To stand out, it has to be more than merely competent, and I don't mean in the technical sense.

absquatulate said:

57even said:

It's like owning a motorcycle.

Sunny day, wind on the face, carving down a canyon... great fun.

But there are very few people who exclusively ride motorcycles. For most it is a sunny day fun ride, but there's still a car or truck in the garage for utility.

Personally, I have little interest in film. But if I had a garage to safely store a motorcycle, I would have one in a heartbeat.

There is no practical or financial justification, but if you enjoy it, do it.

Click to expand...

This is the problem, people deal in absolutes based on their own assumptions and preferences, I could easily make a case that there are still both practical and financial reasons for shooting film. A film camera shot occasionally for family snaps is evidently cheaper and more practical than a digital camera, computer and software etc.

Click to expand...

It would have to be very occasional. And I don't think building a darkroom would end up being cheaper than a reasonable computer (which has many other uses).

And if you are just taking family snaps, why would you need a computer?

Member said:

A wedding photographer differentiating himself from the competition can save time and potentially make more money, and some do, there are no absolutes here.

Click to expand...

Not sure where the time saving would come in. As for making more money, then you would most certainly have to because the costs of your business would be a lot higher.

If one or two 'art' photographers can persuade people that film is better, good for them. But unless you are very competent in a darkroom, or use a professional lab - of which there are very few left - getting close to the production quality of a current full frame camera would be extremely expensive and take a lot more time.

And time is a much more important consideration than materials for a pro.

I know quite a few working photographers. Only one shoots film for fun on his days off. It simply isn't cost effective to do it commercially. The turnaround time is a killer.

57even said:

Overrank said:

57even said:

Overrank said:

The same is true for photographs - the “quality”, that is the ability to produce an emotional response in the viewer, is completely independent of any “technical” quality in the image.

Click to expand...

Not really. There were just so many things that were impossible with film, but are now possible if not exactly simple. The creative gamut has been extended by an order of magnitude.

And because we are saturated with photographs, being able to stand out is a great deal harder. When I shot film, it was enough to capture a nice scene in good light. Now, there are a million images of nice scenes in good light appearing on the internet every minute.

How do you stand out when the average is so much higher than it was and the average viewer is so jaded by constant repetition?

Click to expand...

A lack of visibility on some (fictional) world stage is irrelevant to emotional response when someone is looking at that photograph, unless you’re indicating that the plethora of digital images has numbed peoples senses ? Which would hardly be a plus point

Click to expand...

No, it is just that anyone with camera can produce what would once have been considered a 'good' image.

Click to expand...

A technically good image. But an in focus, well exposed image of your feet is still just that - even 100, in focus, well exposed images of your feet that didn’t have a per image capture cost are still just that.

Member said:

To stand out, it has to be more than merely competent, and I don't mean in the technical sense.

Click to expand...

Do you have any examples of photographs that are more than merely competent in a non-technical sense ? I can’t really see what you’re getting at ?

Or are you suggesting that photographers now are better than the photographers used to be, even if stripped of their automation - that’s what it seems to me you are saying

Overrank said:

57even said:

Overrank said:

57even said:

Overrank said:

The same is true for photographs - the “quality”, that is the ability to produce an emotional response in the viewer, is completely independent of any “technical” quality in the image.

Click to expand...

Not really. There were just so many things that were impossible with film, but are now possible if not exactly simple. The creative gamut has been extended by an order of magnitude.

And because we are saturated with photographs, being able to stand out is a great deal harder. When I shot film, it was enough to capture a nice scene in good light. Now, there are a million images of nice scenes in good light appearing on the internet every minute.

How do you stand out when the average is so much higher than it was and the average viewer is so jaded by constant repetition?

Click to expand...

A lack of visibility on some (fictional) world stage is irrelevant to emotional response when someone is looking at that photograph, unless you’re indicating that the plethora of digital images has numbed peoples senses ? Which would hardly be a plus point

Click to expand...

No, it is just that anyone with camera can produce what would once have been considered a 'good' image.

Click to expand...

A technically good image. But an in focus, well exposed image of your feet is still just that - even 100, in focus, well exposed images of your feet that didn’t have a per image capture cost are still just that.

Overrank said:

To stand out, it has to be more than merely competent, and I don't mean in the technical sense.

Click to expand...

Do you have any examples of photographs that are more than merely competent in a non-technical sense ? I can’t really see what you’re getting at ?

Or are you suggesting that photographers now are better than the photographers used to be, even if stripped of their automation - that’s what it seems to me you are saying

Click to expand...

No, I am saying that the cameras allow you to do things that were not previously possible, so simply doing the same old thing is no longer particularly notable, and with so many images being published, being original is increasingly challenging.

57even said:

Overrank said:

57even said:

Overrank said:

57even said:

Overrank said:

The same is true for photographs - the “quality”, that is the ability to produce an emotional response in the viewer, is completely independent of any “technical” quality in the image.

Click to expand...

Not really. There were just so many things that were impossible with film, but are now possible if not exactly simple. The creative gamut has been extended by an order of magnitude.

And because we are saturated with photographs, being able to stand out is a great deal harder. When I shot film, it was enough to capture a nice scene in good light. Now, there are a million images of nice scenes in good light appearing on the internet every minute.

How do you stand out when the average is so much higher than it was and the average viewer is so jaded by constant repetition?

Click to expand...

A lack of visibility on some (fictional) world stage is irrelevant to emotional response when someone is looking at that photograph, unless you’re indicating that the plethora of digital images has numbed peoples senses ? Which would hardly be a plus point

Click to expand...

No, it is just that anyone with camera can produce what would once have been considered a 'good' image.

Click to expand...

A technically good image. But an in focus, well exposed image of your feet is still just that - even 100, in focus, well exposed images of your feet that didn’t have a per image capture cost are still just that.

Member said:

To stand out, it has to be more than merely competent, and I don't mean in the technical sense.

Click to expand...

Do you have any examples of photographs that are more than merely competent in a non-technical sense ? I can’t really see what you’re getting at ?

Or are you suggesting that photographers now are better than the photographers used to be, even if stripped of their automation - that’s what it seems to me you are saying

Click to expand...

No, I am saying that the cameras allow you to do things that were not previously possible,

Click to expand...

I suspect that’s possible for the majority of camera users, you’d be surprised what was possible with film and enough time and money ( “Bees in flight” for example )

Member said:

so simply doing the same old thing is no longer particularly notable, and with so many images being published, being original is increasingly challenging.

Click to expand...

But being original (whatever that means, almost everything has been done twenty times over, 50 years ago) does not in itself mean that a photograph is good I.e. elicits an emotional response

57even said:

absquatulate said:

57even said:

It's like owning a motorcycle.

Sunny day, wind on the face, carving down a canyon... great fun.

But there are very few people who exclusively ride motorcycles. For most it is a sunny day fun ride, but there's still a car or truck in the garage for utility.

Personally, I have little interest in film. But if I had a garage to safely store a motorcycle, I would have one in a heartbeat.

There is no practical or financial justification, but if you enjoy it, do it.

Click to expand...

This is the problem, people deal in absolutes based on their own assumptions and preferences, I could easily make a case that there are still both practical and financial reasons for shooting film. A film camera shot occasionally for family snaps is evidently cheaper and more practical than a digital camera, computer and software etc.

Click to expand...

It would have to be very occasional. And I don't think building a darkroom would end up being cheaper than a reasonable computer (which has many other uses).

Click to expand...

You don't need a darkroom to produce prints, there are still plenty of services that will develop and print your film.

Member said:

And if you are just taking family snaps, why would you need a computer?

Click to expand...

Not everyone has a smart phone, and an increasing number of people are coming to the conclusion they're a really bad idea.

Member said:

Member said:

A wedding photographer differentiating himself from the competition can save time and potentially make more money, and some do, there are no absolutes here.

Click to expand...

Not sure where the time saving would come in. As for making more money, then you would most certainly have to because the costs of your business would be a lot higher.

Click to expand...

The time saving part is a lab doing all the work, which frees you up to do more actual revenue producing work. I have listened to a photographer, and read others, who state this exact case.

Member said:

If one or two 'art' photographers can persuade people that film is better, good for them. But unless you are very competent in a darkroom, or use a professional lab - of which there are very few left - getting close to the production quality of a current full frame camera would be extremely expensive and take a lot more time.

Click to expand...

A medium format film camera is perfectly capable of producing more than enough quality for wedding photographs (and anything else at cost).

Member said:

And time is a much more important consideration than materials for a pro.

Click to expand...

See my example above.

Member said:

I know quite a few working photographers. Only one shoots film for fun on his days off. It simply isn't cost effective to do it commercially. The turnaround time is a killer.

Click to expand...

See my example above, and the guy I listened to stated he saved tons of time by not having to process thousands of images digitally. The look of film is baked in, if you know the film well and how it handles situations you don't need to worry about how it will look afterwards. The people I have listened to, and read, drop their films at a lab and carry on working productively. They also tend to be high end wedding photographers so charge for their services accordingly, and they definitely make a good living do it this way. If you are a decent wedding photographer and are able to offer a choice you have an advantage, and it isn't just some photographers who prefer the look of film, especially black and white.

I'm not saying that digital doesn't work for most people, I'm saying film still works for some, because it's evidently true, that includes cost and profit too, if that wasn't the case they wouldn't bother.

absquatulate said:

I'm not saying that digital doesn't work for most people, I'm saying film still works for some, because it's evidently true, that includes cost and profit too, if that wasn't the case they wouldn't bother.

Click to expand...

That’s the odd thing with discussions like this - it seems that the “I wouldn’t go back to film if you paid me” argument comes to the fore, as if someone is proposing that all digital camera users switch to film (which, tbh, would be a bad thing because Kodak can’t make enough film for the market as it is )

Overrank said:

absquatulate said:

I'm not saying that digital doesn't work for most people, I'm saying film still works for some, because it's evidently true, that includes cost and profit too, if that wasn't the case they wouldn't bother.

Click to expand...

That’s the odd thing with discussions like this - it seems that the “I wouldn’t go back to film if you paid me” argument comes to the fore, as if someone is proposing that all digital camera users switch to film (which, tbh, would be a bad thing because Kodak can’t make enough film for the market as it is )

Click to expand...

It's the absolutes I rail against, there are very few absolutes in life in my experience.

absquatulate said:

Overrank said:

absquatulate said:

I'm not saying that digital doesn't work for most people, I'm saying film still works for some, because it's evidently true, that includes cost and profit too, if that wasn't the case they wouldn't bother.

Click to expand...

That’s the odd thing with discussions like this - it seems that the “I wouldn’t go back to film if you paid me” argument comes to the fore, as if someone is proposing that all digital camera users switch to film (which, tbh, would be a bad thing because Kodak can’t make enough film for the market as it is )

Click to expand...

It's the absolutes I rail against, there are very few absolutes in life in my experience.

Click to expand...

Yes, the original question was can you make a living from film photography, of which the general answer is yes, but it’s a lot of work compared to digital.

And then it heads on the trajectory of “to match the resolution of u4/3 you’ll need at least 20 x 16 Tech Pan film scanned using the synchrotron at CERN”

I just enjoying learning to use CMS20 in 35mm and getting the most out of it.

Overrank said:

absquatulate said:

Overrank said:

absquatulate said:

I'm not saying that digital doesn't work for most people, I'm saying film still works for some, because it's evidently true, that includes cost and profit too, if that wasn't the case they wouldn't bother.

Click to expand...

That’s the odd thing with discussions like this - it seems that the “I wouldn’t go back to film if you paid me” argument comes to the fore, as if someone is proposing that all digital camera users switch to film (which, tbh, would be a bad thing because Kodak can’t make enough film for the market as it is )

Click to expand...

It's the absolutes I rail against, there are very few absolutes in life in my experience.

Click to expand...

Yes, the original question was can you make a living from film photography, of which the general answer is yes, but it’s a lot of work compared to digital.

And then it heads on the trajectory of “to match the resolution of u4/3 you’ll need at least 20 x 16 Tech Pan film scanned using the synchrotron at CERN”

I just enjoying learning to use CMS20 in 35mm and getting the most out of it.

Click to expand...

You'll enjoy the video below then, which kind of destroys that assertion, using an m4/3's camera in HR mode I've never shot it myself, but probably will give it a try at some point.

Huge Prints From 35mm Film

absquatulate said:

Overrank said:

absquatulate said:

Overrank said:

absquatulate said:

I'm not saying that digital doesn't work for most people, I'm saying film still works for some, because it's evidently true, that includes cost and profit too, if that wasn't the case they wouldn't bother.

Click to expand...

That’s the odd thing with discussions like this - it seems that the “I wouldn’t go back to film if you paid me” argument comes to the fore, as if someone is proposing that all digital camera users switch to film (which, tbh, would be a bad thing because Kodak can’t make enough film for the market as it is )

Click to expand...

It's the absolutes I rail against, there are very few absolutes in life in my experience.

Click to expand...

Yes, the original question was can you make a living from film photography, of which the general answer is yes, but it’s a lot of work compared to digital.

And then it heads on the trajectory of “to match the resolution of u4/3 you’ll need at least 20 x 16 Tech Pan film scanned using the synchrotron at CERN”

I just enjoying learning to use CMS20 in 35mm and getting the most out of it.

Click to expand...

You'll enjoy the video below then, which kind of destroys that assertion, using an m4/3's camera in HR mode I've never shot it myself, but probably will give it a try at some point.

Huge Prints From 35mm Film

Click to expand...

Thanks. I saw that specific video last week - I’d only used CMS20 for macro before but the video inspired me to go out this weekend and shoot some canalscapes, I’ll see what they come out like when I get them developed.

Steve O’Nions did another CMS 20 video where he optically printed one of the negatives too

The main problem with CMS20 is that it shows up any errors in technique or equipment. I’ve tried handholding but ISO12 -25 really pushes that in the winter ! You really need a tripod.

Overrank said:

absquatulate said:

Overrank said:

absquatulate said:

Overrank said:

absquatulate said:

I'm not saying that digital doesn't work for most people, I'm saying film still works for some, because it's evidently true, that includes cost and profit too, if that wasn't the case they wouldn't bother.

Click to expand...

That’s the odd thing with discussions like this - it seems that the “I wouldn’t go back to film if you paid me” argument comes to the fore, as if someone is proposing that all digital camera users switch to film (which, tbh, would be a bad thing because Kodak can’t make enough film for the market as it is )

Click to expand...

It's the absolutes I rail against, there are very few absolutes in life in my experience.

Click to expand...

Yes, the original question was can you make a living from film photography, of which the general answer is yes, but it’s a lot of work compared to digital.

And then it heads on the trajectory of “to match the resolution of u4/3 you’ll need at least 20 x 16 Tech Pan film scanned using the synchrotron at CERN”

I just enjoying learning to use CMS20 in 35mm and getting the most out of it.

Click to expand...

You'll enjoy the video below then, which kind of destroys that assertion, using an m4/3's camera in HR mode I've never shot it myself, but probably will give it a try at some point.

Huge Prints From 35mm Film

Click to expand...

Thanks. I saw that specific video last week - I’d only used CMS20 for macro before but the video inspired me to go out this weekend and shoot some canalscapes, I’ll see what they come out like when I get them developed.

Click to expand...

Excellent, it would be good to see some results if they come out alright.

Overrank said:

The main problem with CMS20 is that it shows up any errors in technique or equipment. I’ve tried handholding but ISO12 -25 really pushes that in the winter ! You really need a tripod.

Click to expand...

It appears so, I rarely go anywhere without a tripod so that's no problem, I'm currently wrestling with trying to get the best out of Rollei retro, and I like low speed films, so CMS 20 is on my list of things to try.

absquatulate said:

Overrank said:

absquatulate said:

Overrank said:

absquatulate said:

Overrank said:

absquatulate said:

I'm not saying that digital doesn't work for most people, I'm saying film still works for some, because it's evidently true, that includes cost and profit too, if that wasn't the case they wouldn't bother.

Click to expand...

That’s the odd thing with discussions like this - it seems that the “I wouldn’t go back to film if you paid me” argument comes to the fore, as if someone is proposing that all digital camera users switch to film (which, tbh, would be a bad thing because Kodak can’t make enough film for the market as it is )

Click to expand...

It's the absolutes I rail against, there are very few absolutes in life in my experience.

Click to expand...

Yes, the original question was can you make a living from film photography, of which the general answer is yes, but it’s a lot of work compared to digital.

And then it heads on the trajectory of “to match the resolution of u4/3 you’ll need at least 20 x 16 Tech Pan film scanned using the synchrotron at CERN”

I just enjoying learning to use CMS20 in 35mm and getting the most out of it.

Click to expand...

You'll enjoy the video below then, which kind of destroys that assertion, using an m4/3's camera in HR mode I've never shot it myself, but probably will give it a try at some point.

Huge Prints From 35mm Film

Click to expand...

Thanks. I saw that specific video last week - I’d only used CMS20 for macro before but the video inspired me to go out this weekend and shoot some canalscapes, I’ll see what they come out like when I get them developed.

Click to expand...

Excellent, it would be good to see some results if they come out alright.

Click to expand...

These are some close ups (all lab scans)

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65466426 (Full resolution at 30MP)

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65918457 (Much reduced in size)

Tbh the tomato one isn’t the best on the roll as it blew about a bit in the wind, but it was the only one I would put up a full res scan of. It does show off the pretty much lack of grain though in the unfocussed areas.

Member said:

Member said:

The main problem with CMS20 is that it shows up any errors in technique or equipment. I’ve tried handholding but ISO12 -25 really pushes that in the winter ! You really need a tripod.

Click to expand...

It appears so, I rarely go anywhere without a tripod so that's no problem, I'm currently wrestling with trying to get the best out of Rollei retro, and I like low speed films, so CMS 20 is on my list of things to try.

Click to expand...

Overrank said:

absquatulate said:

Overrank said:

absquatulate said:

Overrank said:

absquatulate said:

Overrank said:

absquatulate said:

I'm not saying that digital doesn't work for most people, I'm saying film still works for some, because it's evidently true, that includes cost and profit too, if that wasn't the case they wouldn't bother.

Click to expand...

That’s the odd thing with discussions like this - it seems that the “I wouldn’t go back to film if you paid me” argument comes to the fore, as if someone is proposing that all digital camera users switch to film (which, tbh, would be a bad thing because Kodak can’t make enough film for the market as it is )

Click to expand...

It's the absolutes I rail against, there are very few absolutes in life in my experience.

Click to expand...

Yes, the original question was can you make a living from film photography, of which the general answer is yes, but it’s a lot of work compared to digital.

And then it heads on the trajectory of “to match the resolution of u4/3 you’ll need at least 20 x 16 Tech Pan film scanned using the synchrotron at CERN”

I just enjoying learning to use CMS20 in 35mm and getting the most out of it.

Click to expand...

You'll enjoy the video below then, which kind of destroys that assertion, using an m4/3's camera in HR mode I've never shot it myself, but probably will give it a try at some point.

Huge Prints From 35mm Film

Click to expand...

Thanks. I saw that specific video last week - I’d only used CMS20 for macro before but the video inspired me to go out this weekend and shoot some canalscapes, I’ll see what they come out like when I get them developed.

Click to expand...

Excellent, it would be good to see some results if they come out alright.

Click to expand...

These are some close ups (all lab scans)

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65466426 (Full resolution at 30MP)

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65918457 (Much reduced in size)

Tbh the tomato one isn’t the best on the roll as it blew about a bit in the wind, but it was the only one I would put up a full res scan of. It does show off the pretty much lack of grain though in the unfocussed areas.

Click to expand...

Interesting, Rollei Ortho 25 is the finest grained film I've used, but CMS 20 is on another level. I do actually like some grain but I'd be interested to see what I could do with it on the right subjects. If you've never tried Rollei Ortho 25 I highly recommend it, especially in DD-X, the tonality is fantastic, even in 35mm, and the grain is very fine but pleasing to look at. It also has a subtle but very nice glow in the highlights.

Overrank said:

Overrank said:

Overrank said:

The main problem with CMS20 is that it shows up any errors in technique or equipment. I’ve tried handholding but ISO12 -25 really pushes that in the winter ! You really need a tripod.

Click to expand...

It appears so, I rarely go anywhere without a tripod so that's no problem, I'm currently wrestling with trying to get the best out of Rollei retro, and I like low speed films, so CMS 20 is on my list of things to try.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...