Does anyone still shoot film?

[Riprorin]

If so, how come?

 

[isekii]

I do waterproof disposable.

for the water shots, meaning water sports etc..

You are talking about 35mm film cameras ?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yep.

Transparencies from digital don't work, and film is still superior in quality.

 

[Riprorin]

Yes.

 

[Beau]

Sometimes. It's a pride issue. So many digitals are so easily operated and come out with decent pics that it is just frustrating to me. SLR film really tests your skill.

Though, I still would take my D1 (yes, I got it back ) over a film camera anyday.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Film has never done anything to me, no need to shoot it.

 

[WhiteKnight]

I do, I like Kodak TMax B&W film. I do a lot of my own processing, and honestly, I just prefer using a normal SLR camera over a digital. I'd consider getting a digital camera if it were the same price as a comparable SLR, but right now I just use digital cameras for snapshots, not for anything artistic.

 

[ClueLis]

I also do a lot of TMax work. The quality of self-processed film is still higher than digital pics, IMO.

 

[Ime]

Yep, in fact I shot a roll the other day for given' me lip.

 

[WhiteKnight]

ClueLis, what development time do you use on your TMax. They changed it to 7.5 min in the most recent version of TMax, but a lot of my prints were coming out flat so I put it back to 8 and that seemed to do the trick. I use TMax developer too.

 

[lowtech1]

I still do film because I have invested over 10k in my 35mm & medium format camera equipments.

 

[Beau]

Originally posted by: lowtech
I still do film because I have invested over 10k in my 35mm & medium format camera equipments.

Mmm.... medium format...... I'd love to get one.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Definitely! I have better control with my Pentax than with our digital...granted our digital isn't that great.

 

[ClueLis]

Originally posted by: WhiteKnight
ClueLis, what development time do you use on your TMax. They changed it to 7.5 min in the most recent version of TMax, but a lot of my prints were coming out flat so I put it back to 8 and that seemed to do the trick. I use TMax developer too.

I do a little bit of futzing with the film. You see, I find the 400 speed a little grainy, so I expose it at 320 speed and only develop it for 6 min. I wish I could be of more help in your case, but I don't have much info on that bit.

 

[WhiteKnight]

I've use 100 for most stuff. I think I've only shot 1, maybe 2 rolls of the 400. I don't remember significant graininess... Maybe I'll go pull out my old negatives.

 

[ClueLis]

Originally posted by: WhiteKnight
I've use 100 for most stuff. I think I've only shot 1, maybe 2 rolls of the 400. I don't remember significant graininess... Maybe I'll go pull out my old negatives.

It's not real bad, but you start to notice it on larger prints. It just has a slightly richer look when overexposed slightly.

P.S. My apologies to Riprorin for hijacking the thread.

 

[lowtech1]

Originally posted by: ClueLis

Originally posted by: WhiteKnight
ClueLis, what development time do you use on your TMax. They changed it to 7.5 min in the most recent version of TMax, but a lot of my prints were coming out flat so I put it back to 8 and that seemed to do the trick. I use TMax developer too.

I do a little bit of futzing with the film. You see, I find the 400 speed a little grainy, so I expose it at 320 speed and only develop it for 6 min. I wish I could be of more help in your case, but I don't have much info on that bit.

droping the film speed isn't going to gain you much in term of grain size, but you will get better density neg (longer contrast range). However, you might want to explore TMax 100 or Delta 100 because they have very nice long contrast range. The best of the bunch is the old AgfaPan APX 25 that have same grain size as the modern 100 iso, but the contrast range is second to non and it is extreamly for given for under expose or poor developement time/temperature.
At the moment I have more than 30 rolls of AgfaPan APX 220 films in the frige along with about 50 rolls of others 35mm/220 b&w/slide/colour print film.

 

[tcsenter]

Does anyone still shoot film?

Nope, nobody. All those rows and rows and rows of film for sale at Walmart and Walgreens are just empty boxes for display only. There isn't really any film in them. And the film development services offered by these establishments and the big developing houses such as Clark and Seattle Film Works? Yeah, those are just a cover for aliens.

 

[Soybomb]

I do sometimes before I can get a lot better quality with a lot less spent on equipment.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Does anyone still shoot film?

Nope, nobody. All those rows and rows and rows of film for sale at Walmart and Walgreens are just empty boxes for display only. There isn't really any film in them. And the film development services offered by these establishments and the big developing houses such as Clark and Seattle Film Works? Yeah, those are just a cover for aliens.

Ahha, you confirmed my suspicions. I always knew that there was a vast consiparacy ay work.

Obviously, people are still shooting film. My question was in regards to film use among young, computer savy individuals. My guess is that these type of people are less likely to use film.

 

[dman]

Kodak cutting 6000 jobs.


Alt. Link

Rochester, N.Y. ? Eastman Kodak Co. is cutting between 4,500 and 6,000 jobs, or up to 9 percent of its payroll, as it struggles to cope with a nearly three-year slump in film sales it blames largely on a sluggish economy and the rapid growth of filmless digital picture-taking.

The cuts were announced Wednesday as the world's largest photography company posted sharply lower second-quarter earnings of $112-million (U.S.), or 39 cents a share, down from $284-million, or 97 a share, a year ago.

Excluding one-time items, however, earnings were $172-million, or 60 cents a share, sharply higher than Kodak's lowered forecast of 25 cents to 35 cents a share. That beat the consensus forecast of 29 cents a share among analysts surveyed by Thomson First Call.

Sales totaled $3.352-billion, unchanged from the second quarter of 2002.

The company eliminated 7,000 jobs last year, shrinking its work force to 70,000 people. In January, it said it is cutting another 1,800 to 2,200 jobs in trimming back photofinishing operations in the United States and Western Europe.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: dman
Kodak cutting 6000 jobs.


Alt. Link

Rochester, N.Y. ? Eastman Kodak Co. is cutting between 4,500 and 6,000 jobs, or up to 9 percent of its payroll, as it struggles to cope with a nearly three-year slump in film sales it blames largely on a sluggish economy and the rapid growth of filmless digital picture-taking.

The cuts were announced Wednesday as the world's largest photography company posted sharply lower second-quarter earnings of $112-million (U.S.), or 39 cents a share, down from $284-million, or 97 a share, a year ago.

Excluding one-time items, however, earnings were $172-million, or 60 cents a share, sharply higher than Kodak's lowered forecast of 25 cents to 35 cents a share. That beat the consensus forecast of 29 cents a share among analysts surveyed by Thomson First Call.

Sales totaled $3.352-billion, unchanged from the second quarter of 2002.

The company eliminated 7,000 jobs last year, shrinking its work force to 70,000 people. In January, it said it is cutting another 1,800 to 2,200 jobs in trimming back photofinishing operations in the United States and Western Europe.

Damn, heh.

 

[Ornery]

My wife went to a family reunion, so I made sure she got some photos, but NOT with my camera! She took a decent point & shoot I got for her several years ago. The Minolta Freedom Zoom 105i (in the rare white color

). I scanned her 4x6 snapshots at 300dpi on our Microtek E6, and I was pretty disappointed. I have a much better appreciation for the nice job our new digital does.

I won't even bother trying to shoot with my old Contax 137, since I can't focus for sh|t. I'd say I'm pretty much through with 35mm.

 

[Jzero]

Digital is still a little too expensive. The day I can get a dSLR with the same lens interchangeability and high enough resolution for under $600 is the day I jump.

We're almost there. I have a crappy digital P&S that I love b/c it was cheap and compact and I don't have to worry about carrying or losing it the way I do with my SLR setup, but when I want real-live prints, I can't afford a good enough digital and printer.....maybe next year, though, at this rate.

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

I don't feel like giving up my current SLR equipment (Nikon 6006 body) and spending several thousand dollars to replace it with functional equivalents.