What would make you shoot more film?

[sc_rufctr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For me it's mainly about money. I shoot and develop about 25 rolls a month and that's not getting any cheaper.

It's never been cheap to shoot film but sadly it's only going one way now.

 

Sure digital is cool but with film you have a robust archive and that's priceless IMO. (pardon the contradiction)

 

---------------------------

 

So if you could invent a cheaper overall process for film you'd have the market all a buzz.

 

New chemistry and complete system. Sadly there's very little research in this area nowadays.

 

 

 

 

[Robert M Poole]

I read on RFF that someone had invented a new one bath developing process. Making it easier/less time consuming to process might make me shoot more film. Plus the obvious cost.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Peter H]

Having 36 hours in every day.

[Mijo]

Having 36 hours in every day.

 

That's the issue I have as well, not enough time.  I only shoot about 5 rolls of film a month but shoot a lot more digital.  Printing is the one aspect of shooting film that I really love but it's so time consuming.  It's frustrating to have more digital keepers than analogue but if I were able to spend more time in the darkroom I would shoot more film so that the numbers are a little more even. 

[earleygallery]

I process my own B&W film but I've got a few rolls to do which I'm struggling to get time for, even though it's easy and fairly quick, I also need to be in the right mood to do it! 

 

I used to work near a mini lab and would usually drop a roll off each week. Since moving offices I now can only get to a mini lab shop at weekends and I've got a backlog - I intend sending them all off to a place I've found who are a fraction of the price for bulk processing. 

 

So I guess I'm saying time/convenience. Then there's the scanning of course…...

[hamey]

Perhaps if I was younger, at the ripe age of 66 it starting to slow me down and don't get out to much nowadays.

However I still love film and film cameras as after all it's my first choice.

When a bought the M240 I was happy with it at first then become very disappointed with it, it's images still didn't equal the M7 and Fuji Provia slide film using the same lenses.

Thankfully that over expensive electronic thing is gone and good riddance to it.

The other day I picked up a beautiful mint condition Nikon F3 and the 50mm 1.4 nikkor lens another real camera for my collection.

 

When I am on holidays I shoot more slide film however now it's around one roll per month, the classic  fuji X-T1 is used for secondary and low light shots

 

Long live FUJIFILM.

 

Ken.

[Trivette]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There is a strange madness that I associate with the digital camera cult: the feverish lust for the latest and greatest equipment regardless of cost. I have a modest D-Lux 4 and an X2, and the potential IQ of these is much greater than that required by my photographic skills. However, if I wish to escape entirely the insane world of digital cameras, I have recourse to an M2, an M6, and an FM2N, graced with some superb Leica and Zeiss glass. To my eyes, the IQ of film is capable of matching (and perhaps exceeding) that of the latest and greatest digital photographic extravagance, which actually is just an elusive will-o'-the wisp anyhow. Thus film is blissfully satisfying and not too costly for me, since I don't run around madly snapping pictures of everything that enters my visual field.

[semi-ambivalent]

I need to get off this damn computer. No, actually, I'm washing film right now so I'm really multitasking. But James is right; printing is a different kettle of fish and the mood must be right (as well as the wine and music). Other than that I just need to get off this damn computer...

 

s-a

[batmobile]

Someone developing the film.

... then contact sheets.

....then top quality 20x16" prints from my selected shots.

... all for free.

 

Too little time and too much else to do. Its not a cost thing for me, but the massive demand on time and the extra hassle getting work online from prints.

[Doc Henry]

Hi Ruf

Look at this link :

EK has calculated

http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2012/01/10/10-reasons-why-you-should-shoot-street-photography-with-film/

another link :

https://fstoppers.com/education/why-ive-gone-back-shooting-filmand-why-you-should-too-30630

Best

Henry

Someone who has 5 years of digital Leica M (my 2 M now as back up) 

and now returns to film (M7-MP) and stays : more beautiful, more faithful, no doubt.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Doc Henry

[philipus]

I shoot neither too much, nor too little because film is the only thing I shoot so I shoot as much as I need to shoot to shoot the things I shoot. 

 

I've finally managed to develop the rather large (40+ rolls) backlog I had during the spring. Great. Now, with all the colour negs and slides I've shot in the meantime, I have an inch-high (literally) stack of film sleeves waiting to be scanned. The answer to the question "how do you eat an elephant" springs to mind - bit by bit. And so I scan a roll or two many or at least most evenings while doing other things.

 

Even though I find that it is time consuming and costs money these aspects don't register with me as being problematic because I have long since accepted them as part of my photography.

[chrism]

Over the fall and winter I had eight months away from work and shot a film or two most days. I even got seduced into seeing what a film camera might be like with modern technology (the F6) and what it was like with sheet film (Crown Graphic, Chamonix 10x8). Since I went back to work I have managed a couple of films at the weekend and that's it (rural docs have to stay within five minutes of the hospital and I'm it, 24/7). So it's back to annoying my wife all the time, and the nurses at the weekend. However, events are shaping up that my plan to work for a couple more years might be changing, and I may find myself back at the film freezer each day. I hope I can use it all up!

[250swb]

For me it's mainly about money. I shoot and develop about 25 rolls a month and that's not getting any cheaper.

It's never been cheap to shoot film but sadly it's only going one way now.

 

 

Quality and not quantity may be the answer.

 

I fully endorse the idea of shoot as much as you can with film or digital, but also appreciate that your dilemma may be answered by going up a format, or going up two formats to Large Format. All the procesing is the same, you just shoot less film with 4x5 and get into a calmer place where there simply is no having to keep up with digital, the two disciplines are poles apart with nothing that directly compares. 

 

Even if LF won't meet your needs there are MF cameras that can get you into the handling zone of a Leica, Mamiya 6 or 7 for example, or even larger format Fuji 690 GW etc. So I reckon look outside the box, not try to find an answer with what you already know.

 

Steve

[Robert M Poole]

A film reel in developing tank that was easy to load! I've just bought my first set of equipment to start developing my own film and struggling...

[pico]

I read on RFF that someone had invented a new one bath developing process. Making it easier/less time consuming to process might make me shoot more film. Plus the obvious cost.

 

You might be referring to R3 Monobath.

 

Given that we can expose 36 frames per roll, I do not consider processing in a conventional way a time-consuming thing.

 

I process 8x10" one film at a time.

Edited July 25, 2015 by pico

[chrism]

 

I read on RFF that someone had invented a new one bath developing process. Making it easier/less time consuming to process might make me shoot more film. Plus the obvious cost.

 

You might be referring to R3 Monobath.

 

Given that we can expose 36 frames per roll, I do not consider processing in a conventional way a time-consuming thing.

 

I process 8x10" one film at a time.

 

 

And I have developed 10x8 one at a time in the monobath! 

[Robert M Poole]

I read on RFF that someone had invented a new one bath developing process. Making it easier/less time consuming to process might make me shoot more film. Plus the obvious cost.

 

You might be referring to R3 Monobath.

 

Given that we can expose 36 frames per roll, I do not consider processing in a conventional way a time-consuming thing.

 

I process 8x10" one film at a time.

It is time consuming when you are an amateur like me. And frustrating! Very rewarding though. Now scanning is another thing...

[250swb]

It is time consuming when you are an amateur like me. And frustrating! Very rewarding though. Now scanning is another thing...

 

30 minutes is the same time for an amateur or a professional, unless this is something Stephen Hawking should be investigating?

 

But if you want it to be quicker process two films at a time, then its only taken 15 minutes per film.

 

 

 

Steve

[Robert M Poole]

30 minutes is the same time for an amateur or a professional, unless this is something Stephen Hawking should be investigating?

 

But if you want it to be quicker process two films at a time, then its only taken 15 minutes per film.

 

 

 

Steve

I'm sure it takes me and Prof Hawking's longer to load a film into a tank than it does you

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[250swb]

I'm sure it takes me and Prof Hawking's longer to load a film into a tank than it does you

 

Well film loading can be slow until you get the knack, practice with your eyes closed in daylight. Another tip would be to still close your eyes even if you are in a darkroom or have your hands in a changing bag, it helps orientate what your hands and brain are trying to do.

 

But monobath developers used for speed are nonsense considering between developer and final wash you only have 30 seconds rinsing and then 5 minutes fixing. The final wash can be done in five minutes using the Ilford archival water saving method. What really makes processing film easier is getting better results, and to do that finding a good developer is far better than disappointing average results from an 'easy' process that ultimately has many downsides.

 

 

Steve