The end of film

[ex-powderbroker]

Holy shit, I went to go buy some 35mm for the first time ages and things have really changed.

I'm not sure if it is since Kodak shat the bed or instagram forced people to retire even digital P&S's, but I get the feeling it's time to stock up if I ever want to hear the sound of a real shutter followed by the film advance of a 35mm again.

A quick scan on teh net showed a 5 pack of porta vc for $70!. The Lomo store has expired chrome for $16/roll. Their only stock that costs what I remember film "should" sit actually not close. There is always the option of stocking up now in case things get worse but when I think about it, most the places I used to process (and work at out of college) are gone. Just yesterday I was really getting the urge to load up the rolleiflex and shoot a few to get primed for an early season square TR. The obsolesce of the media has been in everyone's face for awhile, but I guess I was sort of lost the reality of what that meant even though I knew it had already been sent to the farm upstate.

The only possible upside could be a sweet cheap LOMO style digi back that uses CF cards for the 4x5 and stuff like that, but it isn't going to happen because there's no market. Otherwise, maybe the fed can prop up the print house business. Every photog gets a coupon to shoot, process, and print 100 rolls... and the lab isn't allowed to fuck it up when you want the film pushed, a test clip made, or to give you the wrong shit when you pick it up.

But how much time do we got, doc? In five years is there just one lab in Europe that you have to mail your exposures to, a la Kodachrome ten years ago?

In other news, looks like that hand me down 100 prime came a little too late!

[charles martel]

We're you been?

[ex-powderbroker]

Seriously. I should have spent more time visiting the Super expensive grocery store where I could have caught this sticker.

[systemoverblow'd]

Wait until you pay for developing.

[bad dancer]

Yeah, I laughed yesterday at my son when I was taking some shots of him at a skate competition and mentioned to him that he needs a bit of "Kodak Courage". I just got a blank stare, like what the F$%^ are you talking about dad ?

[systemoverblow'd]

What are kids going to keep their dime bag in now!!!?!?!?!

[freak]

Wait until you pay for developing.

yeah, thats the really bad part. 10 years ago i could drop of rolls of film basically everywhere and not only have them developed in a day, but get 36 decent prints as well which cost ~ €4, or i could go without the prints for €1.75.
5 years ago prices had doubled, but you could get really nice scans from everywhere in addition to the developing.
nowadays there are only a few places where i can actually get film developed, the prints are really bad, especially from slide film which, because they just scan the film with low quality and then print the pictures. the bad thing is, the prints are mandatory everywhere over here, so i have to buy them even if i dont want them. and then the whole thing cost about €18.- including a cd of the bad scans. great. to make it even worse, the whole thing takes over a week...

just not so much fun anymore to shoot film with these conditions...

freak~[&]

[charles martel]

yeah, thats the really bad part. 10 years ago i could drop of rolls of film basically everywhere and not only have them developed in a day, but get 36 decent prints as well which cost ~ €4, or i could go without the prints for €1.75.
5 years ago prices had doubled, but you could get really nice scans from everywhere in addition to the developing.
nowadays there are only a few places where i can actually get film developed, the prints are really bad, especially from slide film which, because they just scan the film with low quality and then print the pictures. the bad thing is, the prints are mandatory everywhere over here, so i have to buy them even if i dont want them. and then the whole thing cost about €18.- including a cd of the bad scans. great. to make it even worse, the whole thing takes over a week...

just not so much fun anymore to shoot film with these conditions...

freak~[&]

I agree. The days of getting quick contact sheets and then picking what yo want to to print or blow-up into 8/12s are long gone.

On the bright side of the death of film, went out for a three hour hike yesterday and took a bunch of shots with my little Canon a 495. Got some nice shots.





Didn't have to develop them or drive to a place and wait for them to do it. It's better now, really. Digital is better.

[Chainsaw_Willie]

I wonder if we'll end up in a situation ala vinyl records? The new digital medium storms in, pushes the old technology aside but a few luddites hold on and grit their teeth and in 20 years nostalgia for the old medium brings about a mini-renaissance made possible by those stubborn luddites who refused to give up on their technology.

[charles martel]

I already know pro photographers who still shoot, on ocassion, with their old film Nikons and the like.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using TGR Forums

[Hugh Conway]

adorama/BH still have "ok" price for film thats cheaper than the rapage the Lomo store fuckers try, but yeah, films dead. Or at least color film, still a market for BW because it's pretty durn simple to develop at home.

[Supermoon]

I think shooting, developing and printing your own B&W film is a great exercise for everyone to go through. Especially when they are just starting out. Other than that, digital is just so superior in almost every way now.

[Gunder]

I got a shit ton of velvia, and some random extoics still kicking around in my film (beer) fridge.

Make me a reasonable offer on the following lot and its yours:

30 rolls of Velvia 100F
10 rolls of Agfa vista
2 rolls agfapan 25
3 rolls astia 100f
2 rolls 400 cn
1 Roll EPT 160T
5 rolls 400TX
21 rolls of ilford hp5
3 rolls provia 400f
12 rolls of Velvia 50

[Tippster]

Amazon has shitloads of film, as does B&H.

[charles martel]

And they still make the classic B & W Kodak Tri-X, but you can emulate that digitally in Photoshop, too.

What's interesting is that Kodak got film technology to the point that they could take a roll of uncut 35mm film, probably about four feet in diameter and four feet wide, more or less, and look through it sideways to check the quality of each emulsion layer. Incredible technology. All obsolete, even ten years ago.

Kodak's CEOs screwed up big time:

http://ec.libsyn.com/p/1/1/2/112497d...9&c_id=4871588

[bmxbandit]

not sure what you guys are talking about. You can get film processed at costco for $1.50, with prints for $5. I shoot digital and still shoot film. you can buy film for a couple bucks a roll depending. i cant believe Im responding to this. shoot with a digital camera that will be obsolete in a couple years and compare results to a $100 film camera from the 70's. seriously.

[charles martel]

not sure what you guys are talking about.

Look at the picture:

You can get film processed at costco for $1.50, with prints for $5. I shoot digital and still shoot film. you can buy film for a couple bucks a roll depending. i cant believe Im responding to this. shoot with a digital camera that will be obsolete in a couple years and compare results to a $100 film camera from the 70's.

The nearest Costco is over six hours away.

i cant believe Im responding to this

Neither can I.

shoot with a digital camera that will be obsolete in a couple years and compare results to a $100 film camera from the 70's.

Digital is better than film. Even a simple point and shoot is better than my obsolete Nikon SLR.

seriously.

Seriously what?

[Chainsaw_Willie]

[QUOTE=charles martel;3744888]...Digital is better than film. Even a simple point and shoot is better than my obsolete Nikon SLR.
[QUOTE]

Just want to point out that "better" is a VERY subjective term and entirely depends on your frame of reference.

You can't argue that digital is cheaper and easier for average people to own the entire process from shutter-click to printing. Whether or not that's "better" is, as said, a subjective judgement.

For me, digital is way better. But, for someone highly invested in the traditional film process, who makes or made very high quality and artistic prints using film, digital may not be better at all.

[Gunder]

Sold all of the film

[cat in january]

Sold all of the film

Good for you. Room for more beer now.

[The AD]

Bumping this after two years because I just came across lots of unused film at home. Turns out film is still readily available--at least at stores such as B&H--and it's not that expensive. You can still find processing that's not an arm and a leg, either. Now I've got the bug to shoot some film! I'll admit it's basically purely nostalgia. Shotting digital is certainly way, way easier.

[Meathelmet]

I already know pro photographers who still shoot, on ocassion, with their old film Nikons and the like.

Yep, quite few do actually. Most of the people like fine art geezers scan them up and do digital printing. Old style printing gets rarely done
anymore in color because of the cost is prohibitive and the quality (and longevity) starts to be better with dig prints. As weird as it is, B&W seems
to hold on. Which is nice.

And they still make the classic B & W Kodak Tri-X, but you can emulate that digitally in Photoshop, too.

That looks like absolute shit, pity that is... There are some really high end tech, especially in the cine world things like ARRIs digitizers that can produce some
quality stuff bit in general the plug ins are worth shit. Why? You need some really sophisticated algorithms to produce chaotic enough results to
produce the film grain like quality...and that takes time & money to make them.

Digital is better than film. Even a simple point and shoot is better than my obsolete Nikon SLR.

Depends. Load a Tri-x in it,35mm old manual lens, f8, develop it properly, print it 30x40cm and tone it with celene or gold and you would spend a shitload of time to
produce better results with a 15m/px P&S + photoshop. I could almost dare you to...

Or, if you want to match a properly scanned 4x5" or 8x10" and blow it up to exhibition sized, like 150cm x 250cm, you basically have to have some 60m/px Hasselblad
to get even remotely good results. Yes, you can do big prints with some good post processing and if your style fits the topic but...



There is a reason why a lot, I mean a LOT of fine art photogs still use 120 roll & large format film for their stuff. Of course one reason is that with 1000€ you get
a good 4x5" and shitload of film & the tools are awesome to work with but also the quality. It is hard to match.


I hope I dont sound like a total douche and luddite, digital is most of the time more than good enough. But it is weird how the film is still kicking and refusing
to die like a frigging zombie. I have a hard time to see that it will totally die in the next 10-20 years. Of course it seized to be a cashcow in the change of the
millenium but like the vinyl, hopefully it will find a niche for at least couple of decades.

[Hugh Conway]

Bumping this after two years because I just came across lots of unused film at home. Turns out film is still readily available--at least at stores such as B&H--and it's not that expensive. You can still find processing that's not an arm and a leg, either. Now I've got the bug to shoot some film! I'll admit it's basically purely nostalgia. Shotting digital is certainly way, way easier.

buy a fixed lens rangefinder (cheap) or a "real" rangefinder - they are fun to shoot with film they'll call you a poser/hipster/douche but who gives a shit?

[outabounds]

Digital is far easier. In fact, anyone who can't get technically near perfect or better exposures with a modern SLR is probably borderline retarded. That's one thing that's great about film; it separates the experts from the hacks as well as skinny skis in deep pow. I know several pros who primarily shoot film. I'm a hack and I get looks out of film I can't get on the computer, but maybe that's because I can't be bothered to sit in front of a pc for long.

...and I love me some grain.

I think this guy does better with film that 99.99% of everyone shooting digital.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/zebandrews/

[The AD]

buy a fixed lens rangefinder (cheap) or a "real" rangefinder - they are fun to shoot with film they'll call you a poser/hipster/douche but who gives a shit?

I've got a TLR. More or less hipster than a rangefinder? It's a Yashica, though, not a Rolleiflex.