|
Just look at The Impossible Project, people want film to stick around. There may be a more limited selection and fewer places to develop it if it's not profitable, and it will probably be more expensive, but I can't envision it dying out altogether.
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2011 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:21 |
|
|
Given that there's active R&D and niche products like LF film are still in production, there's been enough investment made to continue film for at least another decade. There will always be an industrial and scientific market as well for some films. Film will probably be around for our lives, though some lines and formats will be discontinued (like kodachrome, 220, and maybe slide?).
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2011 21:07
|
|
|
Black and white will definitely be around for a long time, there are still a lot of weird niche brands out there. In the past I've seen a lot of people decrying film, stating that it's "dead" and shooting it is some kind of hipster calling card, plus hilarious accusations of being an 'old man' and so on. There do seem to be a number of people so emotionally invested in their corner of photography that they actually get a kick out of this. As if film is at war with digital photography and only the "better" format will win, a bit like Canon vs. Nikon or something. So these people really love to say things like "yeah film wont be around much longer" because they have an actual desire for this to happen. Even though it's definitely a shadow of its former self, development of new films hasn't stopped. Kodak's new Portra 160 just made it to market and I'm looking forward to trying that out. And I'm expecting a few more releases before colour film goes away forever. It actually surprised me how long it took Kodachrome to die. The ease of development of C-41 and traditional black and white films will give them much more staying power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2011 22:09
|
|
|
The film scanner I ordered just came in now I can finally scan those 30-some odd rolls I had developed but didn't scan in an effort to save money. Half way through roll #1, holy poo poo this is going to take forever. I know this is asked every page or so, but is 2400 dpi overkill? Also, 48 bit color worth it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2011 22:31
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Just to be clear - the manufacturer's edge markings were there, right, just not any images? If the film is completely clear that means it got fixed before being developed and/or the lab's chemistry is hosed up. Sorry. There were edge markings near the spindle holes. No images, that's what I meant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2011 23:16
|
|
|
I think the new Portra 160 is pretty sweet. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 00:56
|
|
|
spf3million posted:The film scanner I ordered just came in now I can finally scan those 30-some odd rolls I had developed but didn't scan in an effort to save money. Half way through roll #1, holy poo poo this is going to take forever. I know this is asked every page or so, but is 2400 dpi overkill? Also, 48 bit color worth it? Film won't die. It needs to get said every so often, so I'm saying it: no technology yet invented has truly died. We still use fire, right? We still carve stones, right? We still ride horses and shoot arrows and some people devote their lives to beating the 3-shots-per-minute of a trained musketman, circa 1810. Film will get more expensive and harder to find, and some formats will get very hard to find, but film as a technology, a strip of flexible transparent material with light-reactive chemicals layered onto it, will still be in use by specialists and hobbyists for as long as we can go on before the inevitable zombie apocalypse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 02:19
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:2400 dpi is massive overkill. I use 600 when I'm feeling masochistic, 300 normally. Play around with 48 bit vs. 24 bit colour and tell us whether it's worth it. I disagree; I find 2400dpi to be the optimum, past which I get diminishing returns on resolution. There's definitely more detail past that which I won't be able to get out of the negative with a flatbed scanner, but that's plenty for my purposes. I end up with around 7.5 megapixels out of a 35mm frame and 34 megapixels out of a 6x7 frame.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 02:24
|
|
|
It's worth remembering that film is prohibitively expensive to produce, that is mitigated at the existing film producers thanks to their existing facilities, but it's a non-starter to think of a totally new film producer appearing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 02:33
|
|
|
This is true, but a breakthrough in some totally unexpected place is a possibility and a game changer. I make no predictions about breakthroughs - they're unpredictable by nature - but I remain optimistic that some back-room engineer for some back-woods paper-products company will have a great idea, someday.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 02:36
|
|
|
I'm pretty optimistic about the future of film but I doubt in ten years time we will have the selection we have today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 02:52
|
|
|
It would be great if a simpler colour process came along, friendlier for at home developers. Also, I was in an antique store, found a drawer full of B&W prints ranging from 1920-1940. It's incredible how stunning some of them looked. There is really nothing like a good optical print.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 15:51
|
|
|
C-41 isn't easy enough for home development?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 16:45
|
|
|
spf3million posted:The film scanner I ordered just came in now I can finally scan those 30-some odd rolls I had developed but didn't scan in an effort to save money. Half way through roll #1, holy poo poo this is going to take forever. I know this is asked every page or so, but is 2400 dpi overkill? Also, 48 bit color worth it? What really makes all the difference, although this might not be the case for everyone since I'm scanning mounted slides, is to manually focus the scanner for every slide.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 17:34
|
|
|
dukeku posted:C-41 isn't easy enough for home development? B&W is simpler still.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 17:35
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:B&W is simpler still.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 17:54
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Yeah, but if you're comfortable doing B&W and can read a thermometer, you're ready for C41  Diafine
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 18:22
|
|
|
If they could get C-41 chemicals to a point where they don't expire if you look at them the wrong way I could see film lasting a lot longer. It's frustrating to have to save up 4-6 rolls to process all at once.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 21:38
|
|
|
I know they aren't popular around here for what they represent, but Lomography has a new plastic toy camera out if anyone is interested in that sort of thing http://usa.shop.lomography.com/cameras/la-sardina-cameras/la-sardina-camera-marathon
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 22:21
|
|
|
Make your own! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 22:30
|
|
|
Tried some nighttime long exposures with Portra 400. Looks like +2 stops is a good adjustment for reciprocity failure past 5 seconds. Tried +1 stop, way too thin - but still scanned great:  Tried +1.5 stops, still a little thinner than I'd like but almost there: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2011 05:41
|
|
|
I've heard on the Film Photography Podcast you can shoot Portra 400 at 3200, and develop at 800 (pushed one stop) and get great results, may have to try this soon. edit: I'm going to be seriously looking into home made C41 chems, cheers for the link dukeku. Spedman fucked around with this message at 12:39 on Jun 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2011 12:33
|
|
|
I just got an old Spotmatic F and it seems that the lenses focus a hair beyond infinity. Is this likely a problem with the focusing screen or was it common for these lenses/cameras to do this? The lenses are a 55mm 1.8 Takumar and 55mm 1.4 Ricoh. It's not far beyond infinity, backing off the focus just a tiny turn brings the image into focus through the viewfinder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2011 19:40
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I've heard on the Film Photography Podcast you can shoot Portra 400 at 3200, and develop at 800 (pushed one stop) and get great results, may have to try this soon. What is the reasoning behind this, because it sounds like you would just end up with thin negatives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2011 20:14
|
|
|
6.4 Billion posted:I just got an old Spotmatic F and it seems that the lenses focus a hair beyond infinity. Is this likely a problem with the focusing screen or was it common for these lenses/cameras to do this? The lenses are a 55mm 1.8 Takumar and 55mm 1.4 Ricoh. It's hard to say. There's an infinity stop in the lens, it could be that that's just a bit off (maybe a bad repair somewhere along the way) and the lens goes too far in. It could also be the focusing screen is off which would throw all your focusing off. I'd suggest taking a picture wide open at the lens' infinity setting (to minimize depth of field) and another at your focused infinity setting (write down which is which) and look at which is sharper. If it's the lens' infinity setting you have a problem. e: The odds of TWO lenses doing this are low. It's probably your focusing screen. brad industry posted:What is the reasoning behind this, because it sounds like you would just end up with thin negatives. The idea is that Portra 400 has such wide exposure latitude that even severely underexposed/thin negatives will be usable, especially if you push a bit too. See some demonstrations of thin Portra 400 here and here. Of course, you're still giving up shadow detail (versus if you'd had a true ISO 1600 film with similar latitude, that is), but a shot where you lose some shadows is better than a shot you didn't make. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Jun 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2011 20:28
|
|
|
brad industry posted:What is the reasoning behind this, because it sounds like you would just end up with thin negatives. Well, yeah... but part of why I posted those two pictures was to show how well even super thin Portra 400 negatives scan. Definitely some ridiculous shadow detail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2011 21:12
|
|
|
The last five or so posts have basically resulted in me poring over wikipedia for the last hour and change trying to figure out what you guys mean, but as always it's been an enlightening experience 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2011 21:15
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Tried some nighttime long exposures with Portra 400. Looks like +2 stops is a good adjustment for reciprocity failure past 5 seconds. great shots
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2011 22:03
|
|
|
How does Fuji Neopan Acros 100 compare to other 100 speed films like Tmax, Delta and others?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2011 22:26
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:great shots  but after deciding to give it a shot in the scanner anyway I went all 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2011 22:41
|
|
|
brad industry posted:What is the reasoning behind this, because it sounds like you would just end up with thin negatives. I'd really appreciate it if somebody could try this and post results. I have two rolls of Portra 400 right here but don't want to waste them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2011 22:50
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Well, yeah... but part of why I posted those two pictures was to show how well even super thin Portra 400 negatives scan. Definitely some ridiculous shadow detail. Yeah but all print film has really good exposure latitude. ISO isn't set in stone or anything, it's more like an average. The same film in different cameras will vary in where it falls on the curve. I guess I don't understand why you would want to do this (or at least I couldn't see any reason looking at that article). It's better to overexpose print film, and you shouldn't chemically push anything unless you have to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
have it your weigh posted:How does Fuji Neopan Acros 100 compare to other 100 speed films like Tmax, Delta and others? From my limited experience, it's slightly more contrasty, which is a good thing. T-grained films tend to be a little bit flat. I don't shoot them in 35mm, but they work well for me in MF.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 00:34
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Yeah but all print film has really good exposure latitude. ISO isn't set in stone or anything, it's more like an average. The same film in different cameras will vary in where it falls on the curve. Maybe I'm showing my inexperience with color negative film or the amount of time that's passed since I printed optically, but I wasn't expecting to get what I got out of a negative that looks like this: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 00:56
|
|
|
have it your weigh posted:How does Fuji Neopan Acros 100 compare to other 100 speed films like Tmax, Delta and others? Tmax, Delta, and Acros are all T-grained films. Acros is great, excellent tonality, the best reciprocity characteristics around, fine grained, very sharp. I shot a single roll of Tmax and wasn't that impressed, Acros is cheaper and does great. There's also traditional-grained films like Plus-X or FP4+. I wasn't impressed with Plus-X (very flat). I've heard good things about FP4+ though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 02:42
|
|
|
Acros is my favorite 100 speed film. It's wonderful stuff. edit: I didn't like Plus-X much in 35mm but it's great with old cameras in 120. Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 06:08 on Jun 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 03:24
|
|
is go
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I wasn't impressed with Plus-X (very flat). What shooting conditions and developer combo were you using that PX is too flat? Plus-X is my main 100 speed film and I have no problem pulling plenty of contrast out of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 05:32
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:What shooting conditions and developer combo were you using that PX is too flat? Plus-X is my main 100 speed film and I have no problem pulling plenty of contrast out of it. Cloudy day outdoors, using HC-110 dil. H. I'm probably being a bit unfair on it. I was busy finishing up a project at the time, shot a roll of Acros and a roll of PX, liked the Acros better, and went with it. I probably could get good results if I experimented, but it's discontinued in 120 at this point anyway. vvv Maybe I screwed up development, then. I just remember having to bump the contrast a bit and still not being thrilled with it. vvv Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Jun 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 17:38
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Cloudy day outdoors, using HC-110 dil. H. I'm probably being a bit unfair on it. I was busy finishing up a project at the time, shot a roll of Acros and a roll of PX, liked the Acros better, and went with it. I probably could get good results if I experimented, but it's discontinued in 120 at this point anyway. Cloudy day outdoors is my preferred shooting condition. I actually pull PX slightly to 100 and develop in 1:1 XTOL. I'm just really surprised to hear you were getting flat negs. I print with pretty heavy contrast, but I still get plenty of midtones that otherwise wouldn't be there with a bad neg.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2011 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:21 |
|
|
So after a couple years of having a best friend who's a professional photographer, and helping her develop B&W film, I've finally got my own film camera - a Canon AE-1. I couldn't be happier right now! I'm shooting a test roll of Fuji Superia 400 that I had in my fridge for some reason just to make sure the camera works, but I can't wait to see how it turns out I'm excited to finally enter the world of film for myself and join you Dorkroom folks. In the meantime - have a picture I took about a month ago. Who wants some dust?!  Saint Melvin by iantuten, on Flickr Count Thrashula fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Jun 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2011 13:17
|
|
