Is anyone still using film?

[Clarifixer]

I've been using my Olympus OM gear (even bought a mint black OM-2n last year) sporadically and still love the look of film, but am finding that after buying a Leica D-Lux 5 (made by Panasonic under license from Leitz), it's harder to break out the film camera and spend the time necessary to get what I want.

I still have a complete wet darkroom and mix all my own developers and such, but the at the moment am sadly in the "instant gratification" mode that digital fosters. Quality is getting so good that it's more a matter of pride in film skills than final product that dictates one's preference.

Here's a scanned film shot (OM-2n with spectacular bokeh afforded by the legendary Zuiko f/2.8 35-80 lens) :



and a pure digital shot with the Leica:



Different to be sure, for many reasons. Going "figital" with scanning negatives gives you the pleasure of developing your film, but without the hassle and expense of silver printing. I'm using Pixelmater on my Mac, and the time difference between that and tweaking the chemistry and enlargement settings is enormous.

 

[vferdman]

I've been using my Olympus OM gear (even bought a mint black OM-2n last year) sporadically and still love the look of film, but am finding that after buying a Leica D-Lux 5 (made by Panasonic under license from Leitz), it's harder to break out the film camera and spend the time necessary to get what I want.

I still have a complete wet darkroom and mix all my own developers and such, but the at the moment am sadly in the "instant gratification" mode that digital fosters. Quality is getting so good that it's more a matter of pride in film skills than final product that dictates one's preference.

Here's a scanned film shot (OM-2n with spectacular bokeh afforded by the legendary Zuiko f/2.8 35-80 lens) :

View attachment 285608

and a pure digital shot with the Leica:

View attachment 285611

Different to be sure, for many reasons. Going "figital" with scanning negatives gives you the pleasure of developing your film, but without the hassle and expense of silver printing. I'm using Pixelmater on my Mac, and the time difference between that and tweaking the chemistry and enlargement settings is enormous.

I couldn't agree more with everything you said. I have not had a dark room in my home since I was a kid in the Soviet Union in the 70's (portable gear that I used in our family bathroom), but I did use very excellent university dark rooms in various colleges around Boston in the 80's and 90's. I have not printed a silver image in decades, but I have scanned dozens of rolls of film. Both color and BW. I have a Nikon CoolScan film scanner and I am also of the opinion that the "figital" is an excellent compromise if one wants to use film these days. I am also very much into instant gratification of digital photography and I also must admit that a single most effective thing that improved my photography skills was a digital camera with instant review of the shot. I think so many people got so much better at taking photographs when we could actually review the shot instantly. That is certainly a great thing. However, and I refer to the two shots you have included, there are still dynamic range problems in digital, especially the consumer/prosumer gear. Just look at the blown highlights in the second shot! Great portrait, but does not have the warmth and depth (much shallower DOF) and frankly, I spent much more time examining the first shot. It drew me in and made me "experience" the moment there. The second shot looks like a snap, even though it's just as compelling in reality. The blown highlights, too much stuff in focus. Eye does not want to stay on that shot, unlike the first one. That one I want to examine and linger. Most people will not deconstruct the actual "why" they like or do not like a shot, but most digital shots out there suffer from these two things (not enough dynamic range and too much DOF). Even some DSLRs have these attributes. Again, as I said before, the best camera is the one that's on your person when the shot presents itself, so digital excels in that like no film camera ever could. This is why I started this thread. I am so torn between the ease and utility of digital, but the technology is just not going the right way, I feel. Manufacturers push pixel density instead of increasing the area of the sensor and going to bigger lenses. This is why you can buy a little digicam for under $200 (and it will tak decent pictures for basic snaps). Once digital offers a lens like that phenomenal Zuiko or any number of lenses that have been made in the heyday of the 35mm film days and do it at affordable cost I will feel that film is truly dead. But until then there is still a reason to shoot film and go through the extra effort because the results are definitely better in certain situations. There are many situations in which digital is as good or even better (like macro) than most 35mm film cameras, but if you have any kind of dynamic range in the scene that's wider than 4 stops, digital falls on its face, still. Again, pro gear is excluded from this. I realize that if you shoot something like top of the line $5,000 DSLR you will be able to get results that are as good or even better than film. But you will have to shoot raw and you will have to spend a lot of time in your digital dark room, perhaps more than in the real one to get the shot. Then, if you want to print it's a whole different set of equipment for color space and adjustments (not for BW). If you think that picture looks great on your laptop, you may be surprised at what you get on a print. There is a whole lot more to do in digital than analog if you are actually after good results on a print. Monitor calibration, understanding color spaces, etc. In a way, it's more complicated than the old film. But if you just want to grab a shot and have it on Facebook in less than a minute after it happened then of course it's digital all the way. There is a difference and the way we now share information instantly is changing the way we look at photography and equipment associated with it.

Anyway, thanks a lot for sharing your photos and thoughts. It's great to know that I am not alone in my love for film, but also love of taking images and sharing them instantly and the two are at odds...

My SCSI card for the scanner should arrive today or tomorrow and I'll be scanning some BW film for the first time in years. I wonder if I can even get a good shot without the instant review anymore... We'll see.

 

[Valerius]

Yepp, I'm still shooting film, using Leica M4 and M4P with lenses having focal lengths between 21 and 90mm. The most used lenses are the 35 mm and 21 mm. These are wonderful cameras/lenses, small but not too small for a normal sized hand to handle. Also use a couple of film SLR's, but tend to gravitate more and more toward the rangefinders. What I can't understand with the modern digital SLR's is why they are such incredible big and clumsy. Also the lenses should be possible to downsize while keeping quality on a decent level. Or will they be too expensive then?

 

[vferdman]

Yepp, I'm still shooting film, using Leica M4 and M4P with lenses having focal lengths between 21 and 90mm. The most used lenses are the 35 mm and 21 mm. These are wonderful cameras/lenses, small but not too small for a normal sized hand to handle. Also use a couple of film SLR's, but tend to gravitate more and more toward the rangefinders. What I can't understand with the modern digital SLR's is why they are such incredible big and clumsy. Also the lenses should be possible to downsize while keeping quality on a decent level. Or will they be too expensive then?

the only Leica I was ever able to afford in film days was a Minolta made Leica CL with a 40mm Summicron f/2.0. It was an amazing camera and I would have kept it if it didn't cost $800 for not a real tank of a Leica that Mx is. I love the rangefinders and still have a Konica Hexar AF (sort of a rangefinder with AF) that I have not used in ages. That has a 35mm Summicron f/2 clone lens that will blow your mind. I will sell it most likely. Just not using it and it's a non-interchangeable lens cam. Fantastically quiet and amazingly well designed for a P&S with brains. I like the SLRs for their viewfinders. I am talking Nikon F3 here and not crap cameras that were and are being sold as pro-summer. I have not looked at a DSLR viewfinder that didn't make me want to vomit yet, but the F3 or F3HP finder is pure gold. 100% coverage, perfect magnification, huge eye relief, especially on the HP version, not too much info, but not too little. I get meter, F-stop, shutter speed all in view, but not superimposed on the image I am composing. I hate the superimposed info in the image, which every modern camera with a viewfinder deems necessary.

The modern DSLRs are actually quite small. Just go and look in your local Best Buy. They are finally getting small, but I am with you on not understanding why the lenses are so big when they are covering only 25% of the area of the full 35mm frame. The whole sensor size is an issue for me. I think the sensors need to get significantly larger before I get very excited about the new wiz-bang DSLR. It's not about the resolution or even image quality, but it is about simple laws of physics. Larger image size requires larger focal length of lens and that changes the image drastically. Remember the silly 110 film or disk cameras of old? They sucked! Mostly because they had a small frame. Camera manufacturers need to wake up to the fact that a larger imager together with appropriate optics will produce very different images. I am sure they know that, but instead they are pushing megapixel count. I would prefer a 8 megapixel 35mm sensor to a 20 megapixel 4/3 size sensor. I really would and so would most photogs.

 

[Clarifixer]

Yepp, I'm still shooting film, using Leica M4 and M4P with lenses having focal lengths between 21 and 90mm. The most used lenses are the 35 mm and 21 mm. These are wonderful cameras/lenses, small but not too small for a normal sized hand to handle. Also use a couple of film SLR's, but tend to gravitate more and more toward the rangefinders. What I can't understand with the modern digital SLR's is why they are such incredible big and clumsy. Also the lenses should be possible to downsize while keeping quality on a decent level. Or will they be too expensive then?

Size was one of the reasons I went with a prosumer Leica (D-Lux 5) rather than a brick-like DSLR. Oh, how I wanted to spring for a Leica M Monochrom, but at $8000 for the body alone it was absurdly out of the question. Having full manual control over exposure and focus was something I was not willing to give up, and the "Japanese Leica" had that.

I almost went for the Olympus Pen since they will accept the OM lenses with adapters, but then you would lose the autofocus and other amenities for quick grab shots, so I decided against it.

As vferdman so well noted, it's a real struggle to choose between the worlds. Trying to hang on to both film and pixels will probably be one of those things that just fades away as the digital improves and youngster don't have a clue about the difference unless they study in art school or are exposed to film before the old farts die off!

I think there will always be a niche for large format art film photography, but commercial and consumer will be all digital in the future as companies cease production of film, paper and chemicals. Shame.

 

[Sully2]

Film guy here...and wife also for that matter. Canon equipment mainly...from F1's down to AE1 Programs.....about 22-23 lenses. Took a leap a few years back to autofocus..Canon of course...and picked up about 7 lenses for the 2 of us to use on the Autofocus cameras. Full darkroom downstairs with a Jobo processor...etc

She and I both have digital cameras we use around the house or when out on vacation and just walking around. Cigarette pack sized little doodads. We have color printers for that stuff too.

We have been from Sanibel Island, FL to Mt Denali, AK shooting pics. East to the Atlantic to SLC, Utah and lots of places in between.

If anyone is interested in FD ( manual focus) Canon equipment...give me a buzz. Im getting too old and feeble to haunt log camera gear in the Mtns anymore...*S* Lenses from 28mm to 400 mm with tele-extenders

 

[Seadooer]

Nice pictures. I bought a Nikon FE with lenses and flash back 33yrs ago used about 4 rolls of film in it. Now it's sitting in closet. I just never got into it like I thought I would.

 

[Mick]

I have a fridge full of film (135, 120, 220, 4x5 and 8x10)

I hate to admit it but I have not shot film in over a year now.

I gotta do something with the 4x5 and 8x10 sheet film as it is just to expensive to let it sour

 

[sixsixty]

Great pictures. I still use film and develop in my bathroom. I'm not convinced this digital malarky is gonna catch on.....

I have a film photoblog here: http://www.caughtinthelight.co.uk

Same here, I still shoot mostly film and develop in my bathtub. I think I probably have at least over 20 film cameras here and there around the house.

 

[sixsixty]

Is that a dedicated fridge just for film! Love it!

I was really thinking about getting into large format, even took a couple of classes. But, realized finding film would just be a huge pain. Sticking with medium while that last.

 

[Edcculus]

Speaking of film going away - there are still companies that are 100% dedicated to film and optical printing like Ilford who are still showing good profits. Hopefully they will be around for a long time. Fuji seems to be going strong, although they recently dumped some of the larger formats in Acros.

Sully2 - I recently got a F1, A1 and FTb from my grandfather. I may be interested in some of your FD glass if you are willing to part with it. I currently have a much wider collection than I have for my Nikon. He must have shot a lot of macro stuff though, because they seem to all be macro lenses. I have a few extension tubes as well. I have 2 50mm lenses, but both are macro with a max aperture of around f2.8 or even smaller. I may be interested in some faster lenses if you have any.

 

[Mick]

Same here, I still shoot mostly film and develop in my bathtub. I think I probably have at least over 20 film cameras here and there around the house.

Is that a dedicated fridge just for film! Love it!

I was really thinking about getting into large format, even took a couple of classes. But, realized finding film would just be a huge pain. Sticking with medium while that last.

Yep, just film in that fridge.

I only have two 35mm film cameras (both F2 Nikons I bought new in the early 70's). One 4x5 and one 8x10 camera. I sold my Hasselblads a while ago but I have a Sinar 4x5 Variable format holder for 120/220 that will mask 6 x 4.5, 6 x 6, 6 x 7, and 6 x 12 so I can still shoot roll film (in the studio)

I develop and print in my darkroom. Though before having a dedicated darkroom I have used everything from a closet to a converted coal bin

 

[Seadooer]

Last time I used film was about 33yrs ago.

 

[Clarifixer]

Turtle--that's a lovely and well set up darkroom. Mine is in the "rough" section of the basement with concrete block walls, cement floor and open joist ceiling, but is is functional.

One thing I found about scanning is that the tone of different films is an interesting variation. This is Ilford Pan F shot on a bright day with the Olympus OM-2n and 24 mm f/2.8 and developed in good old D-76:



Right off the scanner it has a lovely golden sepia tone, whereas the Tri-X shot of my wife's profile is much cooler and neutral. I like both. This film does take a lot of time for spot removal--lots of clumps at the pixel level.​

 

[AllenG]

Yep, just film in that fridge.

I only have two 35mm film cameras (both F2 Nikons I bought new in the early 70's). One 4x5 and one 8x10 camera. I sold my Hasselblads a while ago but I have a Sinar 4x5 Variable format holder for 120/220 that will mask 6 x 4.5, 6 x 6, 6 x 7, and 6 x 12 so I can still shoot roll film (in the studio)

I develop and print in my darkroom. Though before having a dedicated darkroom I have used everything from a closet to a converted coal bin

That is just beautiful.

 

[vferdman]

Turtle--that's a lovely and well set up darkroom. Mine is in the "rough" section of the basement with concrete block walls, cement floor and open joist ceiling, but is is functional.

One thing I found about scanning is that the tone of different films is an interesting variation. This is Ilford Pan F shot on a bright day with the Olympus OM-2n and 24 mm f/2.8 and developed in good old D-76:

View attachment 285806

Right off the scanner it has a lovely golden sepia tone, whereas the Tri-X shot of my wife's profile is much cooler and neutral. I like both. This film does take a lot of time for spot removal--lots of clumps at the pixel level.​

Gorgeous tone on that shot. What scanner and software are you using? I use ViewScan. That has some profiles for certain film profiles (both color and BW) and will correct for the color of the stock. It usually works out pretty good and then you can add tone yourself.

 

[Clarifixer]

Gorgeous tone on that shot. What scanner and software are you using? I use ViewScan. That has some profiles for certain film profiles (both color and BW) and will correct for the color of the stock. It usually works out pretty good and then you can add tone yourself.

I'm using VueScan as well, and a Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 ED that I picked up used, like new. I usually just hack along without reading instruction manuals, so I'm not sure what is or isn't possible. Kind of like my somewhat clueless approach to life in general!

 

[djh]

Some great stuff in this thread, chaps. Good to see that so many people are still passionate about shooting film. It would be great if we could put together some sort of learning resource for film newbies.

 

[erehwesle]

Heck yes I shoot film! And vferdman, my favorite camera for b&w is a Zenit I picked up in Krasnodar in '90. Thing is built like a tank, great optics, leaks a little light but nothing takes pictures like it.

Now, developing is tough. I envy your darkrooms, all. When I was in Philly I had two places that would serve, here in Tulsa shot rolls are backing up. Well, it is always fun to have some suprises when I finally get them developed.

 

[mdarnton]

I used to be a photographer, but I dumped my darkroom and went to scanning around 2002, then sold all my film stuff, mostly Leica stuff, in 2008 when I bought a Nikon D300. Then a year or two ago I came back to it, via a couple of Nikon FGs (great camera, and cheap cheap cheap) . Now, for myself, it's what I shoot, though I do digital for the pro-type stuff I do now. My flickr page is http://flickr.com/mdarnton