4 ms·

Good times indeed. I had a Bronica SQ-Ai in the 90s. Sold it all and went digital when the Nikon D100 came out. Now well in Nikon Z land. Sometimes I want to g

by unxdfa 4y ago

Good times indeed. I had a Bronica SQ-Ai in the 90s. Sold it all and went digital when the Nikon D100 came out. Now well in Nikon Z land. Sometimes I want to go back to film. Not necessarily large format as I would hate to lug the things around now. Perhaps some East German 35mm stuff :)

vr46 4y ago
I can tell you that the hassle these days is more trouble than it's worth for film, because all the convenience has vanished AND it costs a fortune. I'd buy ten rolls of Fuji 35mm slide film, came with pre-paid envelopes, so I just needed to put a stamp on them and put them in a postbox. Post on a Monday, back on Wednesday. Easy. Anything else? Pop a stack of films into a pre-paid little card box and send to Peak Imaging. Back came a giant envelope of contact sheets and negatives. In a hurry? Middle of the night? Bike to Soho, drop off films at Joe's Basement, go to pub or cafe for an hour, come back and pick up stunning results. The best now? Traipse to Khrome in Central Hamburg, drop off films, ask for scanning, results arrive by email several days or maybe a week later, but still have to head back to collect negatives, and all of this costs a bomb now. I basically keep my ancient Contax T2 loaded with crap film and shoot it casually all year long like we used to and then develop it so you end up with birthdays, christmas, easter all on one film like the good old days. It's so expensive to experiment now.
- xdennis 4y ago
  Some people actually enjoy developing and scanning/printing everything themselves. But it's true that colour photography is essentially dead for non billionaires. I stocked up with more than 100 rolls a few years ago. When I run out, I'll just continue with black and white. Bulk rolls of Fomapan 100 are still very cheap. For 4x5, a single 50 sheet pack lasts me more than a year. For 8x10, shooting X-Ray film is cheaper than Fomapan in 4x5 (but the film is very easy to scratch).
  - vr46 4y ago
    Absolutely, it's a brilliant hobby, but it takes a huge amount of time and space. And money now, because darkroom hardware and materials are super expensive. If I was learning now like I did when I was 18, I'd never be able to afford it. I've a huge box of film that's basically going to outlive me because of the processing costs, ha!
  - abruzzi 4y ago
    color has gotten more expensive, but its not that bad. Kodak recently released Gold 200 in 120 format (the type of film that the camera in the brochure uses.) A 5 pack costs USD$45,so $9 a roll. This camera shoot 15 shots per roll so 60 cents a shot. Sure, if you're snapshotting, but usually you get a big camera like this because you're being careful and deliberate composing your photos instead of machine-gunning. You can develop color at home, but scanning is harder without software to specifically remove the oeange mask.
  - anta40 4y ago
    >> But it's true that colour photography is essentially dead for non billionaires I prefer B&W. But still admire lots of color photographers. One of them is Christopher Burkett, one of the few folks who still do Cibachrome prints these days. His prints are so marvelous that people may easily mistake them as digital images. Of course, what he's doing takes lots of expertise and money.
    - vr46 4y ago
      Cibachromes? Really? I haven't been able to get Cibachrome/Ilforchrome for years, I thought the chemistry was long long gone. Sheesh my Cibas from the early 1990s are still stunning prints. Wish I'd made more.
      - anta40 4y ago
        Mr Burkett purhased lots of Cibachrome materials before Ilford Switzerland declared bankruptcy. https://christopherburkett.com/about/cibachrome https://christopherburkett.com/about/cibachrome
  - pathartl 4y ago
    I've only just gotten into film, being a total amateur with digital as well. Mostly because my parents were photographers for 40 years, so we have a Jobo ATL 2500 autolab and a FlexTight Precision II scanner. I'm honestly not sure I would have even tried film without them.
- unxdfa 4y ago
  It's not /that/ expensive if you stick to B&W. I mean I can pick up a fairly good 35mm Praktica body, Zeiss nifty fifty, some rolls of Ilford, all the chemicals, tank, dark room bag and film puller for less than half the price of my Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 lens. As for scanning, you can do that with your DSLR/mirrorless, a lamp and some diffusing plastic. But yeah, is it worth the hassle? Probably not.
  - vr46 4y ago
    Well, I've got all the kit already, still have all my darkroom kit but it's not worth setting up for such short runs. I have my film scanner still which has been busy scanning my archives but time is in short supply these days...
    - lb1lf 4y ago
      I went hybrid a long time ago and haven't looked back since, though YMMV - I develop B&W film in Paterson tanks and a light proof changing bag, reducing my darkroom setup time to seconds. I then scan the negatives. Once every blue moon I dust off the enlarger and make prints - but inbetween those sessions, I am happy to be digital.
- abruzzi 4y ago
  I really only shoot B&W so its still pretty cheap. There are also relatively inexpensive C41 color negative films. Slide/Chrome films on the other hand are all expensive. As for convenience, sure, there are no more drive through 1hr photomats, but the entire reason I went back to film is to immerse myself in the process, so I develop everything at home. I print B&W at home, and I scan at home (with a Pentax K-1ii mounted on a copy rig made froma Sinar P2). If you want snapshot, digital is certainly better in most ways, but if you want to understand and participate in a fascinating optical and chemical process, film is quite amazing.

by unxdfa 4y ago

vr46 4y ago

I can tell you that the hassle these days is more trouble than it's worth for film, because all the convenience has vanished AND it costs a fortune. I'd buy ten rolls of Fuji 35mm slide film, came with pre-paid envelopes, so I just needed to put a stamp on them and put them in a postbox. Post on a Monday, back on Wednesday. Easy. Anything else? Pop a stack of films into a pre-paid little card box and send to Peak Imaging. Back came a giant envelope of contact sheets and negatives. In a hurry? Middle of the night? Bike to Soho, drop off films at Joe's Basement, go to pub or cafe for an hour, come back and pick up stunning results. The best now? Traipse to Khrome in Central Hamburg, drop off films, ask for scanning, results arrive by email several days or maybe a week later, but still have to head back to collect negatives, and all of this costs a bomb now. I basically keep my ancient Contax T2 loaded with crap film and shoot it casually all year long like we used to and then develop it so you end up with birthdays, christmas, easter all on one film like the good old days. It's so expensive to experiment now.

xdennis 4y ago
Some people actually enjoy developing and scanning/printing everything themselves. But it's true that colour photography is essentially dead for non billionaires. I stocked up with more than 100 rolls a few years ago. When I run out, I'll just continue with black and white. Bulk rolls of Fomapan 100 are still very cheap. For 4x5, a single 50 sheet pack lasts me more than a year. For 8x10, shooting X-Ray film is cheaper than Fomapan in 4x5 (but the film is very easy to scratch).
- vr46 4y ago
  Absolutely, it's a brilliant hobby, but it takes a huge amount of time and space. And money now, because darkroom hardware and materials are super expensive. If I was learning now like I did when I was 18, I'd never be able to afford it. I've a huge box of film that's basically going to outlive me because of the processing costs, ha!
- abruzzi 4y ago
  color has gotten more expensive, but its not that bad. Kodak recently released Gold 200 in 120 format (the type of film that the camera in the brochure uses.) A 5 pack costs USD$45,so $9 a roll. This camera shoot 15 shots per roll so 60 cents a shot. Sure, if you're snapshotting, but usually you get a big camera like this because you're being careful and deliberate composing your photos instead of machine-gunning. You can develop color at home, but scanning is harder without software to specifically remove the oeange mask.
- anta40 4y ago
  >> But it's true that colour photography is essentially dead for non billionaires I prefer B&W. But still admire lots of color photographers. One of them is Christopher Burkett, one of the few folks who still do Cibachrome prints these days. His prints are so marvelous that people may easily mistake them as digital images. Of course, what he's doing takes lots of expertise and money.
  - vr46 4y ago
    Cibachromes? Really? I haven't been able to get Cibachrome/Ilforchrome for years, I thought the chemistry was long long gone. Sheesh my Cibas from the early 1990s are still stunning prints. Wish I'd made more.
    - anta40 4y ago
      Mr Burkett purhased lots of Cibachrome materials before Ilford Switzerland declared bankruptcy. https://christopherburkett.com/about/cibachrome https://christopherburkett.com/about/cibachrome
- pathartl 4y ago
  I've only just gotten into film, being a total amateur with digital as well. Mostly because my parents were photographers for 40 years, so we have a Jobo ATL 2500 autolab and a FlexTight Precision II scanner. I'm honestly not sure I would have even tried film without them.
unxdfa 4y ago
It's not /that/ expensive if you stick to B&W. I mean I can pick up a fairly good 35mm Praktica body, Zeiss nifty fifty, some rolls of Ilford, all the chemicals, tank, dark room bag and film puller for less than half the price of my Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 lens. As for scanning, you can do that with your DSLR/mirrorless, a lamp and some diffusing plastic. But yeah, is it worth the hassle? Probably not.
- vr46 4y ago
  Well, I've got all the kit already, still have all my darkroom kit but it's not worth setting up for such short runs. I have my film scanner still which has been busy scanning my archives but time is in short supply these days...
  - lb1lf 4y ago
    I went hybrid a long time ago and haven't looked back since, though YMMV - I develop B&W film in Paterson tanks and a light proof changing bag, reducing my darkroom setup time to seconds. I then scan the negatives. Once every blue moon I dust off the enlarger and make prints - but inbetween those sessions, I am happy to be digital.
abruzzi 4y ago
I really only shoot B&W so its still pretty cheap. There are also relatively inexpensive C41 color negative films. Slide/Chrome films on the other hand are all expensive. As for convenience, sure, there are no more drive through 1hr photomats, but the entire reason I went back to film is to immerse myself in the process, so I develop everything at home. I print B&W at home, and I scan at home (with a Pentax K-1ii mounted on a copy rig made froma Sinar P2). If you want snapshot, digital is certainly better in most ways, but if you want to understand and participate in a fascinating optical and chemical process, film is quite amazing.