Why does it make any sense at all to use non-professional grade film stocks in this day and age???

[A miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having read this magnificently volatile thread from beginning to end, and very much appreciating the images you produce on our favourite thread, Adam, I think that the above statement is probably close to accurate, and is why you are not open to accepting the following:

 

1) You have agreed that some people may like the look of specific "amateur" (an anachronism in terminology) films.

2) You have accepted that "cost-beneficial" is, in the first place, determined by getting a result that one wants (which is why we have Leicas, knowing full well that similar physical results could be achieved with much cheaper cameras, but we include the touchy-touchy-feely-feely component in our assessment of results).

3) You are very clear that the amateur films do not provide you with what you want.

Therefore, amateur films cannot be cost beneficial for you, but can be cost beneficial for others (refer (1) above).

 

I applaud anyone who shoots any film for any reason. Shoot what you like, with what you like and, if money is an issue, assess the opportunity cost that is applicable at the time.

 

Alan has raised some very good points along the way, but it seems to be they get passed over by some on the basis of an assumption that they are an attack on film (no matter how often he has stated that they are not).

 

Eoin - I am genuinely open to anything if it is going to get me what I want!!  The fact that I took the steps to buy the consumer film and will take the further steps of conducting test shots (just to not leave any stone unturned) proves, I think, that I am not a completely stubborn mule.     And I really don't think that Alan made very many genuinely sensible points.  For one reason or another he has become totally disenfranchised with still film photography and takes it out on us every chance he gets. I have become similarly disenfranchised with digital cameras; but you don't see me trolling on the digital forums in the same manner that Alan does on a regular basis on the film forums.  

[graphlex]

Apologies if it's been said already on the thread (I haven't been following it):

 

Saul Leiter would use outdated and off-brand color film (like Anscochrome) out of economic necessity and applied his technique to use the defects to his advantage. 

[erl]

Harking back to Adam's contention about the cost of film, with which I am sure he is very familiar. I must state that his experience with costing would appear to be unique to America, or even NY. I have done a bit of price comparison with here (Australia, specifically Melbourne) and can report that costing for film is more than double, sometimes nearly triple the American price, using B&H as the reference.

 

I checked across Kodak and Fuji films, both Pro and Amateur. The costing formula holds up across the board. I will post actual prices if anyone is interested. Alternatively check prices at the largest supplier in Melbourne here:

http://www.vanbar.com.au/catalogue/index.php

 

This is largely why my film shooting is somewhat curtailed, as I now live mainly on a pension.

[A miller]

Harking back to Adam's contention about the cost of film, with which I am sure he is very familiar. I must state that his experience with costing would appear to be unique to America, or even NY. I have done a bit of price comparison with here (Australia, specifically Melbourne) and can report that costing for film is more than double, sometimes nearly triple the American price, using B&H as the reference.

 

I checked across Kodak and Fuji films, both Pro and Amateur. The costing formula holds up across the board. I will post actual prices if anyone is interested. Alternatively check prices at the largest supplier in Melbourne here:

http://www.vanbar.com.au/catalogue/index.php

 

This is largely why my film shooting is somewhat curtailed, as I now live mainly on a pension.

 

Thanks, Erl.  Great info.

I am not sure it is that much different, though, when you use Portra 400 as a baseline for pro and an dagga vista or fuji superia as a baseline for consumer.  If I am reading correctly these consumer films are right around half the price of the portra 400, with the superia even more than 1/2 ($18.87 vs 13.88)

[AlanG]

Eoin - I am genuinely open to anything if it is going to get me what I want!!  The fact that I took the steps to buy the consumer film and will take the further steps of conducting test shots (just to not leave any stone unturned) proves, I think, that I am not a completely stubborn mule.     And I really don't think that Alan made very many genuinely sensible points.  For one reason or another he has become totally disenfranchised with still film photography and takes it out on us every chance he gets. I have become similarly disenfranchised with digital cameras; but you don't see me trolling on the digital forums in the same manner that Alan does on a regular basis on the film forums.  

Thanks for the kind words.

[david strachan]

 

This is largely why my film shooting is somewhat curtailed, as I now live mainly on a pension.

Try the famous on-line market.  I get my film from Thailand, cheap and quick delivery. Always current and fresh.

all best Dave S

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Try the famous on-line market.  I get my film from Thailand, cheap and quick delivery. Always current and fresh.

all best Dave S

Thanks David, I fear I will have to venture there. I have always been a great supporter of local traders (I used to be one) but with such price differentials I just might succumb.

[EoinC]

Try the famous on-line market.  I get my film from Thailand, cheap and quick delivery. Always current and fresh.

all best Dave S

Is that Film Carnival, Dave?

[ShivaYash]

Thanks David, I fear I will have to venture there. I have always been a great supporter of local traders (I used to be one) but with such price differentials I just might succumb.

I've ordered many rolls from here during my short stint in Melbourne. Postage was free of charge (included in the price no doubt) and prompt. No issues with customs or anything. Have not tried ordering from the uk but West End Camera's eBay store is pretty competitive and they have a shop front in town. Ps. I have nothing to do with them but have been a customer for many years now. Always good service and pricing.

[erl]

ShivaYash, I had a look at Film Carnival site. There stock seemed limited. I had another look at B&H in NY and that seemed close to FC but with better range of films. Their shipping costs have improved since last I looked. I may consider going there again.

[ShivaYash]

ShivaYash, I had a look at Film Carnival site. There stock seemed limited. I had another look at B&H in NY and that seemed close to FC but with better range of films. Their shipping costs have improved since last I looked. I may consider going there again.

Thanks. Good to know. I've just picked up ten rolls of cinestill for a bargain. ₹600 each. 50 and 800. Half the price of home! #delighted. Edited April 18, 2016 by ShivaYash

[sblitz]

I guess film users need to move to NYC metro :-) ; here life is close enough to the way it was to make film shooting possible....going a little off topic (I think the OP topic has been beaten to death several times) the film developer/printer/scanner etc that I go to, off the beaten path in SOHO (NYC Version) is now processing over 300 rolls of film a day (120,135, slide, color, b&w) .... upside is turnaround is now around 7/8 hours without paying up .... and they are far from the only lab in town.... this keeps me from moving to LA :-)

[rpavich]

It is obvious to all why some use film.  But it certainly is not about getting the most out of the Leica lenses.  Technology has simply moved on.

So "most" equates to what exactly....?

[AlanG]

Resolution.

[sblitz]

Resolution.

Really!!???!!!! Resolution is the answer to using digital versus film? May I suggest trolling through some of the iconic photos taken this year, past years (saw many wonderful at the AIPAD expo in NYC last weekend), and see how many are valued (that is in demand, Pulitzer prize winners as well, see this year's crop) on the basis of resolution alone. Digital is faster, cheaper, easier, etc., especially if you are in a commercial world. And, sometime you have more latitude as well. But, please, do not tell me digital is better because it gets more out the lens. And BTW, check out how many people are using older Leica lenses on new digital cameras.

[AlanG]

Ok people spend thousands on Leica glass but few of them care about resolution. Yes I am aware great photos have been made with all kinds of cameras.

 

In the examples adam posted, resolution and grain was the main difference I saw between them.

Edited April 20, 2016 by AlanG

[adan]

In the examples adam posted, resolution and grain was the main difference I saw between them.

 

Adan, Alan, not Adam. (see, I knew that would get us in trouble. )

Edited April 21, 2016 by adan

[AlanG]

I'm typing on a cell phone from Cusco. So between the altitude and the tiny buttons, I expect many mistakes.

 

I can't see any point in arguing film vs. digital but your test results were very clear to me if not to all others. And some other 35mm sensors have even higher resolution.

Edited April 21, 2016 by AlanG

[sblitz]

I am not arguing digital vs film, I am arguing your point that the reason to use digital is you get better resolution from the lenses.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[adan]

Seems to me we're getting into an "either-or" debate where there really isn't one.

Some photographers prefer and use digital because it has higher resolution (per square unit of image area, same ISO, same color capability) - I am one of those.

 

Some photographers prefer and use digital for reasons having nothing to do with resolution - and I am one of those.

 

Some photographers use Leica lenses because of their resolution - and I am one of those.

 

Some photograhers use Leica lenses for reasons of macro-contrast, color rendering, feel and build-quality, size and weight, and other reasons having nothing to do with resolution - and I am one of those.

 

Some photographers use film and don't care about resolution - and I am one of those.

 

Some photographers use film, and care a great deal about getting the most resolution possible within the context of using film - and I am one of those.

Edited April 21, 2016 by adan