4 ms·

This is a shame. For professionals, it has long made sense to make the transition to digital. For the amateurs of the world and those of us doing it for the she

This is a shame. For professionals, it has long made sense to make the transition to digital. For the amateurs of the world and those of us doing it for the sheer joy of it, film is unsurpassed. Developing B&W prints is as close to magic as I've experienced. For those who don't know, B&W paper isn't sensitive to red light, so once you've exposed the paper, you can put it in the developer and actually watch the image appear. Plus there's something about the smell of a darkroom. The hot lamps of the enlargers create a smell that mixes with the smell of the fixer and the stop bath that's unmistakable. Would I want to do any of this if I were shooting weddings? Definitely not. If I'm taking my camera for a walk and want to see what I've captured, absolutely! The other thing that's a damned shame is the way the manufacturing has changed. I've long been a Pentax man, and the old Super-Takumar and Super-Multi-Coated (as distinct from the later SMC) lenses are a pleasure to use[0]. Everything about the way they fall to hand is perfect, and the machining is immaculate. The focus ring is scalloped and knurled, and it's metal. They must have cost a fortune to make. The SMC, K, M, and I'd assume the A series lenses have a lot more plastic on the outside of the lenses, but the feel of the focusing helix is still beyond reproach. Modern lenses, by comparison, are made so that they can be driven by the autofocus mechanisms, and the feel of the ring in manual mode is terrible. That isn't to say that the modern lenses are optically worse; I'm sure the situation is quite the opposite. Nonetheless, something has been lost. Again all of this is moot for most people looking for the most productivity out of their tools, or for the people shooting casually. The small group of people in the middle, they'll miss it. Honestly, it's like CD (or any other digital medium) vs records. Records are quantitatively worse by any measure, but for the sheer pleasure of the experience, they can't be matched. If I want to sit down and actually listen to music, part of the enjoyment is the smell of the record and its sleeve, and the tangible process of putting the needle on the record. [0] Super Takumar and SMC Takumars here: http://blog.prairierimimages.com/2011/08/old-glass-asahipentax-smc-super-takumar.html http://blog.prairierimimages.com/2011/08/old-glass-asahipent... The Super-Multi-Coated Takumars are essentially identical from the outside.

hamitron 8y ago
The only reason it made sense to transition to digital is the workflow. Its more efficient to shoot weddings on digital so you can turn out a product faster.
- twblalock 8y ago
  There are a lot of reasons it made sense: getting to see your photos instantly instead of waiting for (and paying for) film development, the ability to change the white balance after photos are taken, not lugging a bunch of film around, not worrying about airport x-rays ruining your film, getting a digital copy of your photos without using a scanner, and many other very big advantages.
  - batbomb 8y ago
    And the iPad
  - hamitron 8y ago
    x-rays don't ruin film
    - lb1lf 8y ago
      That depends. A lot of older X-ray machines were designed on the more is MORE philosophy, definitely ruining most film. The fine print on so-called ‘film safe’ machines typically state they won’t visibly affect film slower than ISO800, inclusive. (Plus, the damage is accumulated, so if you lug a lot of film through a lot of airports, you will get the occasional nasty surprise.) That being said, I’ve never had any problems having my film -when I travel with it- inspected manually.
- toomanybeersies 8y ago
  Cost and flexibility when shooting (adjustable ISO, no need to pause to change rolls) are actually the bigger advantages. You can turn out photos in film about as fast as digital. I can get a roll developed, scanned, and online in about 20 minutes.
  - jacobush 8y ago
    You are fast. For me it's more like 2 hours at least. You have a Pakon?
sureaboutthis 8y ago
Note that "professionals" still use film, particularly in the high end art market with large format and 'view' cameras in particular. One might think that's "niche" but there are a lot of them out there.
- vanderZwan 8y ago
  Heck, The Impossible Project managed to bring back polaroids. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaroid_Originals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaroid_Originals
  - mauvehaus 8y ago
    The Impossible Project seems to be the happy coincidence of a number of people who qualify as miracle workers and the manufacturing equipment not being scrapped. I am awed by the work they're doing, even if I've never shot a Polaroid picture in my life.
    - vanderZwan 8y ago
      Well, said miracle workers used to work at the manufacturing plant, and were the ones who ensured the manufacturing equipment didn't get scrapped. That was point of their whole initial campaign! But yes, they deserve a lot of respect for what they achieved :)
  - _ph_ 8y ago
    With all the respect for their achievements, their film is far from classic Polaroid.
    - vanderZwan 8y ago
      Sure, but that's understandable no? Even if they had managed to hire all of the former engineers working at the original manufacturing plant, there was probably a ton of knowledge that was simply lost when it was closed. If they now have to rediscover all of that on their own you can't expect them to recreate a century of fine-tuned knowledge from scratch. Actually, that touches on something that really saddens me: a ton of this knowledge is just lost when a company goes bankrupt. Part of The Impossible Project was to minimise that loss: > Kaps revealed through a series of blog posts and interviews in 2016 that he had personally approached Fuji about acquiring their machinery in an attempt to to rescue their soon-to-be discontinued FP3000b and FP100b packfilm products. Kaps was unsuccessful in this pursuit, but motivated by his disappointment in Fuji's decision, he established the Analogue Product Institute (API) with the goal of "developing a NEW generation of analog instant packfilm [and] Establishing a rich network of new suppliers, manufacturers and financiers from all over the world". It's not entirely unlike relying on closed source software, I guess. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaroid_Originals#Future_and_other_formats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaroid_Originals#Future_and_...
khazhoux 8y ago
You need a Fujifilm X100F, with the matching leather case for extra style points. Camera feels great, has a real optical viewfinder, and lots of physical controls.
- ghostly_s 8y ago
  Many of the XF lenses and cameras are nearly all-metal construction, also. Great quality gear.
  - CarVac 8y ago
    They're all metal on the outside, but certainly not on the inside. Not that that's a bad thing. But the tactile experience is a long way from the old actually-all-metal cameras and lenses. I was sorely disappointed the first time I held a Fuji X series camera.
    - ghostly_s 8y ago
      I would encourage you to check out more of the range. They vary quite a bit from the same plastic-y crap with vintage styling and some sincerely robust construction. I've been shooting on an X-E1 for several years now and I treat it like dirt, granted it's not quite like the good old days, but it's stood up admirably compared to the Minolta 35mm I was treating like dirt prior. (Coincidentally, that one's also an XE-1...brothers separated by 40 years.) I'll agree with you though on the control interface for the lenses. I still often shoot my manual-focus Minolta lenses on the Fuji. The drive-by-wire focus rings just can't compare (seems Fuji thinks the mark of quality is stiffness when it's really about responsiveness) and the aperture ring situation is all over the map in the XF line. I sorely wish someone would revive those delightful knurled rubberized focus rings; but alas, I guess they've all decided "surely no-one really uses these?"
ISL 8y ago
I don't expect film to die entirely; it has simply lost its economy of scale. I'm seeing lots of photographers who have cut their teeth on digital dabbling with it. There is, as you clearly expound, a romance to the darkroom. It won't go away... modern art supply stores are ample evidence of the preservation of older techniques. Lens-wise, there will always be a market for lenses that inspire. The emergence of short-flange-distance mirrorless cameras has driven huge interest in older glass. If you haven't tried it yet, try adapting your favorite lenses to a modern image sensor. Electromagnetic waves care not how old the optics are. I'm sad, too, to see the EOS-1 series end. The design of the EOS-1 RS inspired me, as a teenager, to build my first optical system, something for which I'll be forever grateful. I wouldn't trade my modern camera for the finest 35-mm film camera, though. The rate at which I can learn with a digital camera is so much greater. Yesterday evening, I probably shot a hundred frames (each while watching for the camera/tripod vibration to settle at 10x-magnified live view), sorted them, processed the best, and printed one, all in a few hours. The only costs were 0.1% of the camera's shutter life, hard-disk space, electricity, and two pieces of paper.
beat 8y ago
Eh. Film is still around, and I still shoot film occasionally, but I can't imagine buying a new film camera, not when there are so many perfectly good used ones out there - including my own collection (I favor an Olympus OM-1 myself). So Canon isn't making cameras anymore? No great loss. They made millions, and millions are still lying around.
dahart 8y ago
I share some of your feelings. But I see both sides, I want to play a bit of devil's advocate here. I tried to hang on to my darkroom equipment for over a decade, and despite the joy of darkroom work, I just never used it. Too expensive, too time-consuming, everything film related being phased out and hard to get. Not to mention digital being so much easier, better, more reliable, etc. > For the amateurs of the world and those of us doing it for the sheer joy of it, film is unsurpassed. I feel like that too, but I'd like to understand more clearly exactly what was lost. Are we just being nostalgic? Is obsessing over the tactile part of the experience missing what's important about creating imagery or music? Are we ignoring the fact that the new generation has their own tactile experience that is different but not worse than ours was? We associate these tactile experiences with our joy of discovery and creation, but perhaps they're incidental and not very important to actually being creative. > Plus there's something about the smell of a darkroom. The hot lamps of the enlargers create a smell that mixes with the smell of the fixer and the stop bath that's unmistakable. I never got over the feeling that I was giving myself cancer or something else breathing and touching the chemicals. The vinegary smell of fixer isn't something I miss personally. > something has been lost. FWIW, doing my own image processing by writing my own code has taken the place of doing my own darkroom work, and white it's obviously less tactile, it still gives me a similar feeling of touching the images.
pdpi 8y ago
As an established amateur I can see how film might work better for you, but digital is way more pleasant for a beginner. I only recently got into the hobby, and digital is a godsend because I get to experiment on the cheap — I don't feel like I'm wasting film if I take the same photo ten times from different angles, with different apertures, at different focal distances... I also get to go to my computer, take all the photos out, see what worked and what didn't, and get a lot more usable feedback much sooner.

hamitron 8y ago

The only reason it made sense to transition to digital is the workflow. Its more efficient to shoot weddings on digital so you can turn out a product faster.

twblalock 8y ago
There are a lot of reasons it made sense: getting to see your photos instantly instead of waiting for (and paying for) film development, the ability to change the white balance after photos are taken, not lugging a bunch of film around, not worrying about airport x-rays ruining your film, getting a digital copy of your photos without using a scanner, and many other very big advantages.
- batbomb 8y ago
  And the iPad
- hamitron 8y ago
  x-rays don't ruin film
  - lb1lf 8y ago
    That depends. A lot of older X-ray machines were designed on the more is MORE philosophy, definitely ruining most film. The fine print on so-called ‘film safe’ machines typically state they won’t visibly affect film slower than ISO800, inclusive. (Plus, the damage is accumulated, so if you lug a lot of film through a lot of airports, you will get the occasional nasty surprise.) That being said, I’ve never had any problems having my film -when I travel with it- inspected manually.
toomanybeersies 8y ago
Cost and flexibility when shooting (adjustable ISO, no need to pause to change rolls) are actually the bigger advantages. You can turn out photos in film about as fast as digital. I can get a roll developed, scanned, and online in about 20 minutes.
- jacobush 8y ago
  You are fast. For me it's more like 2 hours at least. You have a Pakon?

sureaboutthis 8y ago

Note that "professionals" still use film, particularly in the high end art market with large format and 'view' cameras in particular. One might think that's "niche" but there are a lot of them out there.

vanderZwan 8y ago
Heck, The Impossible Project managed to bring back polaroids. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaroid_Originals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaroid_Originals
- mauvehaus 8y ago
  The Impossible Project seems to be the happy coincidence of a number of people who qualify as miracle workers and the manufacturing equipment not being scrapped. I am awed by the work they're doing, even if I've never shot a Polaroid picture in my life.
  - vanderZwan 8y ago
    Well, said miracle workers used to work at the manufacturing plant, and were the ones who ensured the manufacturing equipment didn't get scrapped. That was point of their whole initial campaign! But yes, they deserve a lot of respect for what they achieved :)
- _ph_ 8y ago
  With all the respect for their achievements, their film is far from classic Polaroid.
  - vanderZwan 8y ago
    Sure, but that's understandable no? Even if they had managed to hire all of the former engineers working at the original manufacturing plant, there was probably a ton of knowledge that was simply lost when it was closed. If they now have to rediscover all of that on their own you can't expect them to recreate a century of fine-tuned knowledge from scratch. Actually, that touches on something that really saddens me: a ton of this knowledge is just lost when a company goes bankrupt. Part of The Impossible Project was to minimise that loss: > Kaps revealed through a series of blog posts and interviews in 2016 that he had personally approached Fuji about acquiring their machinery in an attempt to to rescue their soon-to-be discontinued FP3000b and FP100b packfilm products. Kaps was unsuccessful in this pursuit, but motivated by his disappointment in Fuji's decision, he established the Analogue Product Institute (API) with the goal of "developing a NEW generation of analog instant packfilm [and] Establishing a rich network of new suppliers, manufacturers and financiers from all over the world". It's not entirely unlike relying on closed source software, I guess. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaroid_Originals#Future_and_other_formats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaroid_Originals#Future_and_...

khazhoux 8y ago

You need a Fujifilm X100F, with the matching leather case for extra style points. Camera feels great, has a real optical viewfinder, and lots of physical controls.

ghostly_s 8y ago
Many of the XF lenses and cameras are nearly all-metal construction, also. Great quality gear.
- CarVac 8y ago
  They're all metal on the outside, but certainly not on the inside. Not that that's a bad thing. But the tactile experience is a long way from the old actually-all-metal cameras and lenses. I was sorely disappointed the first time I held a Fuji X series camera.
  - ghostly_s 8y ago
    I would encourage you to check out more of the range. They vary quite a bit from the same plastic-y crap with vintage styling and some sincerely robust construction. I've been shooting on an X-E1 for several years now and I treat it like dirt, granted it's not quite like the good old days, but it's stood up admirably compared to the Minolta 35mm I was treating like dirt prior. (Coincidentally, that one's also an XE-1...brothers separated by 40 years.) I'll agree with you though on the control interface for the lenses. I still often shoot my manual-focus Minolta lenses on the Fuji. The drive-by-wire focus rings just can't compare (seems Fuji thinks the mark of quality is stiffness when it's really about responsiveness) and the aperture ring situation is all over the map in the XF line. I sorely wish someone would revive those delightful knurled rubberized focus rings; but alas, I guess they've all decided "surely no-one really uses these?"

ISL 8y ago

I don't expect film to die entirely; it has simply lost its economy of scale. I'm seeing lots of photographers who have cut their teeth on digital dabbling with it. There is, as you clearly expound, a romance to the darkroom. It won't go away... modern art supply stores are ample evidence of the preservation of older techniques. Lens-wise, there will always be a market for lenses that inspire. The emergence of short-flange-distance mirrorless cameras has driven huge interest in older glass. If you haven't tried it yet, try adapting your favorite lenses to a modern image sensor. Electromagnetic waves care not how old the optics are. I'm sad, too, to see the EOS-1 series end. The design of the EOS-1 RS inspired me, as a teenager, to build my first optical system, something for which I'll be forever grateful. I wouldn't trade my modern camera for the finest 35-mm film camera, though. The rate at which I can learn with a digital camera is so much greater. Yesterday evening, I probably shot a hundred frames (each while watching for the camera/tripod vibration to settle at 10x-magnified live view), sorted them, processed the best, and printed one, all in a few hours. The only costs were 0.1% of the camera's shutter life, hard-disk space, electricity, and two pieces of paper.

beat 8y ago

Eh. Film is still around, and I still shoot film occasionally, but I can't imagine buying a new film camera, not when there are so many perfectly good used ones out there - including my own collection (I favor an Olympus OM-1 myself). So Canon isn't making cameras anymore? No great loss. They made millions, and millions are still lying around.

dahart 8y ago

I share some of your feelings. But I see both sides, I want to play a bit of devil's advocate here. I tried to hang on to my darkroom equipment for over a decade, and despite the joy of darkroom work, I just never used it. Too expensive, too time-consuming, everything film related being phased out and hard to get. Not to mention digital being so much easier, better, more reliable, etc. > For the amateurs of the world and those of us doing it for the sheer joy of it, film is unsurpassed. I feel like that too, but I'd like to understand more clearly exactly what was lost. Are we just being nostalgic? Is obsessing over the tactile part of the experience missing what's important about creating imagery or music? Are we ignoring the fact that the new generation has their own tactile experience that is different but not worse than ours was? We associate these tactile experiences with our joy of discovery and creation, but perhaps they're incidental and not very important to actually being creative. > Plus there's something about the smell of a darkroom. The hot lamps of the enlargers create a smell that mixes with the smell of the fixer and the stop bath that's unmistakable. I never got over the feeling that I was giving myself cancer or something else breathing and touching the chemicals. The vinegary smell of fixer isn't something I miss personally. > something has been lost. FWIW, doing my own image processing by writing my own code has taken the place of doing my own darkroom work, and white it's obviously less tactile, it still gives me a similar feeling of touching the images.

pdpi 8y ago

As an established amateur I can see how film might work better for you, but digital is way more pleasant for a beginner. I only recently got into the hobby, and digital is a godsend because I get to experiment on the cheap — I don't feel like I'm wasting film if I take the same photo ten times from different angles, with different apertures, at different focal distances... I also get to go to my computer, take all the photos out, see what worked and what didn't, and get a lot more usable feedback much sooner.