Price rising, do you still shoot film?

[spydrxx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hell yes I still shoot film. But the reasons aren't esthetic in nature. I still have a freezer with many rolls of film and several 100 ft. bulk film rolls. Additionally, my Barnacks, M2, and film SLR bodies would just sit on the shelf as ornaments instead of their intended use. So, while 90% of my shots are digital these days, I try to get out every week or so with film bodies to winnow down the supplies.

[Advertisement]

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

[Tom R]

It seems to me that this question comes up frequently and appears (to me)  as a question of either (1) Personal preferences, as in the case of the non-professional user, or (2) Professional requirements, e.g., wedding, event, news photographers, et al., who must deliver specific types of images "on time" and who can work in 35mm.

Frequently, contributors make arguments that appeal to various types of cost /benefits tradeoffs. But predicating an argument on "cost/benefits" is problematic to me because

1. The cost of acquiring an M11 (or almost any similar digital Leica M body) is greater than the initial capital expenditure--if I'm to believe what I read on various threads in this forum. (Of course, one should be careful to extrapolate from a small sample of "failures."); and
2. The nature of manufacturing and obsolesce in the "digital domain" suggests that the value of any product is transitory and the "after market" might be limited by the access to continuing maintenance and the consumer's demand for the latest and greatest "thing".

I have one Leica digital camera, an M8.2, and two analogue (M4-P) bodies. I can use my Leitz lenses on any of these. And honestly, I would sell/trade the M8.2 for a decent lens (very unlikely given the astronomical price of Leitz glass) or an M4 in good condition (also unlikely), because my personal circumstances allow me this option. 

[Einst_Stein]

On 11/16/2022 at 11:02 AM, Tom R said:

It seems to me that this question comes up frequently and appears (to me)  as a question of either (1) Personal preferences, as in the case of the non-professional user, or (2) Professional requirements, e.g., wedding, event, news photographers, et al., who must deliver specific types of images "on time" and who can work in 35mm.

Frequently, contributors make arguments that appeal to various types of cost /benefits tradeoffs. But predicating an argument on "cost/benefits" is problematic to me because

1. The cost of acquiring an M11 (or almost any similar digital Leica M body) is greater than the initial capital expenditure--if I'm to believe what I read on various threads in this forum. (Of course, one should be careful to extrapolate from a small sample of "failures."); and
2. The nature of manufacturing and obsolesce in the "digital domain" suggests that the value of any product is transitory and the "after market" might be limited by the access to continuing maintenance and the consumer's demand for the latest and greatest "thing".

I have one Leica digital camera, an M8.2, and two analogue (M4-P) bodies. I can use my Leitz lenses on any of these. And honestly, I would sell/trade the M8.2 for a decent lens (very unlikely given the astronomical price of Leitz glass) or an M4 in good condition (also unlikely), because my personal circumstances allow me this option. 

Acquiring Leica MP costs $5600, Leica M10 $5200. 

But the real cost is the original cost less resell value. For Leica M, it is roughly 30~50% depends on how the camera is taken cared a nd how long it was kept.

Plus the material costs, such as film and paper, processing.etc. 

It is simple. Face it,  Be real.
 

[Tom R]

1 hour ago, Einst_Stein said:

Acquiring Leica MP costs $5600, Leica M10 $5200. 

But the real cost is the original cost less resell value. For Leica M, it is roughly 30~50% depends on how the camera is taken cared a nd how long it was kept.

Plus the material costs, such as film and paper, processing.etc. 

It is simple. Face it,  Be real.
 

If we're talking about the "real" costs, then you're likely correct. I'm neither an accountant, nor an economist. I am a simple person who happens to use these cameras to make photographs. Thus, perhaps I am talking about "my perception of the costs." Viewed in this manner, I would not purchase either of the cameras you gave as examples because they, simply, are NOT worth the cost to me.  Hence, in the final analysis you are correct: "It is simple."

[erl]

A slightly different tilt at the cost!

Be mindful of the cost, but don't count it! 😁

[250swb]

Forget costs, the profit in owning an M-A or M11 comes from all the new friends people get when they report on the forum 'my M-A scratches the film' or 'my M11 is bricked'. Bonds like that never fail whichever camera you choose, unless you argue about bags.

[Viv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I gave up shooting film some years ago.

The hassle of getting film developed and scanned is not worth it to me. Cost was not a factor.

The nicest camera I ever owned, in terms of user satisfaction, was the Zeiss Ikon. My Q2 and M11 run it close, however.

[Einst_Stein]

10 hours ago, Viv said:

I gave up shooting film some years ago.

The hassle of getting film developed and scanned is not worth it to me. Cost was not a factor.

The nicest camera I ever owned, in terms of user satisfaction, was the Zeiss Ikon. My Q2 and M11 run it close, however.

That hassle started before digital became main stream. All cheap photo labs, such as Costco, etc.  were  doing crappy jobs at that time. Don’t know if they have improved since.

To shoot film today, DIY is the way to go. I think it adds a lot more fun. The end quality is guaranteed to be superb. I mean, develop film only, and complete with digitizing. 
 

I use digital camera, a close-up filter, a light panel, an old Zeiss film copy stand, and a pair of thick Acrylic/glass framing plate. 

I found Vivitar close-up filter is good enough, no need Leica or expensive brand. I have the 3 pieces set for different film size. 
The light panel must be grid-less, no pixel, mine costs about $30 from EBay (new), 11x14”..

Film copy stand is hard to find and usually expensive. A proper tripod works, but leveling is annoying.

The 1” thick acrylic pair keeps the film flat, I managed to keep the inner face unexposed to keep the clean. The 1” thickness makes the outer surface dust tolerant because they are out of focus.  

Taking the shot is quick, I use Hasselblad Phocus (freeware) to do the negative inversion, and LR to do the stitching (only for larger format films, such as 6x8, 6x9, or 24x65, 24x54 panorama).With Phocus, I found no need of negative profile, unlike the scanner tools.

Sourcing film supply is the major difficulty. I mean, for the price I am willing to pay. I am using short ended Kodak Vision 3 movie film, ordered from MonO No Aware (NY) for $80/100ft: 35mm format.  I made ECN2 developer, supplied by photo formulary and another chemical supplier that I forget their name. Ordering about 50liter worth of chemistry in powder costs about 200$. 

Film is not ended yet, but does need a lot more work and money. 

By the way, if you are willing to take the trouble of slice the 65mm film for 120/220 format, you can also special order 65mm movie film from Mono No Aware, about $150-180$/100ft, the unit price is about the same as B&H, but the good thing is the they offer much smaller and practical minimum quantity.  The bad thing is the shipping costs. For some reason, film shipping costs is a lot higher than I would expected.
 

 

 

 

 

[erl]

My particular circumstance, I suppose, are fortunate. Since the age of 13 (now 81 😜) I have always developed my own B&W films. And for mamy years also my own colour. Because of lab inadequacies I have always done my own printing, both B&W and colour. That solves sooo many problems. However, to stay on topic, processing one's own film these days is virtually essential, for so many reasons. B&W is dead easy and so is colour if you can arrange good temperature control. Actually temp control is important for both, but more so for colour.

Having produced a negative (B&W or col) the choice is either darkoom printing or scanning and desktop printing. Both are rewarding. I am lucky because I still have a very comprehensive darkroom and a number of high quality film scanners.

For me the pleasure is the 'organic' experience of shooting film. In my case I wind my own 35mm from bulk rolls. Shooting the film through a camera, then removing it and deciding on the development process to use, drying and filing, then either wet bench processing a print or scanning to finally produce a print. Look! I made that! 😇

Digital, by comparison is so close to ' hit the button', wow another picture (how did that happen? 😜)

Shooting film has to be all about the experience. You have to love every step, otherwise the cost will beat you. How much do you spend on a good night out? What do you have left of the experience the next morning? (apart from a hangover). With spending money on shooting film (if you are reasonably talented 😋) you will have a series of memorable images forever. What's not to like?

[Ouroboros]

If concern about the cost of film is dominant over enjoyment, then it’s probably time to leave it.  Personally, after more than half a century of using film, I would not enjoy my personal photography as much as I do if I only used digital cameras.  As much as I like my M10-R and dslr’s, none of them give me the same confirmation of myself as a photographer as my film cameras do, and the more operationally basic the camera I happen to be using, the more I enjoy the process.

If there is any benefit to the rising costs of film and processing, most committed film photographers are probably being forced to be less profligate through a more mindful approach with their work.

 That’s certainly true in my case, especially where one of my cameras only makes four exposures on a roll of 120 and two others take only eight exposures, let alone my two Hasselblads.  I’ve reduced the annual amount of film I put through those cameras by at least 50% compared to 5 years ago but the diversity of satisfying printed images (to me!) per roll of film has increased.

I don’t feel that I’m using the cameras less frequently than I did before the price increases, but I’m definitely more disciplined than I was, now using less film with the aim of a better hit rate. 

[Steve Ricoh]

Interesting responses here, some more recently.

I have a good stock of both colour and B&W - probably enough to see me out - I try to use film in a playful, experimental manner, not replicating what can be achieved with digital. Anything that can be seen by eye and captured as a representation fairly faithfully by camera does not deserve film, in my opinion. I like the serendipity of film shooting, guessing in a way, multiple exposure (disappointed Leica Ms don’t enable this) and one day, if I get around to self processing colour, to try ‘souping’, also deliberate light leaks. Basically in my world, film for playing, digital for more serious stuff, the realistic representation.

[Einst_Stein]

11 hours ago, erl said:

My particular circumstance, I suppose, are fortunate. Since the age of 13 (now 81 😜) I have always developed my own B&W films. And for mamy years also my own colour. Because of lab inadequacies I have always done my own printing, both B&W and colour. That solves sooo many problems. However, to stay on topic, processing one's own film these days is virtually essential, for so many reasons. B&W is dead easy and so is colour if you can arrange good temperature control. Actually temp control is important for both, but more so for colour.

Having produced a negative (B&W or col) the choice is either darkoom printing or scanning and desktop printing. Both are rewarding. I am lucky because I still have a very comprehensive darkroom and a number of high quality film scanners.

For me the pleasure is the 'organic' experience of shooting film. In my case I wind my own 35mm from bulk rolls. Shooting the film through a camera, then removing it and deciding on the development process to use, drying and filing, then either wet bench processing a print or scanning to finally produce a print. Look! I made that! 😇

Digital, by comparison is so close to ' hit the button', wow another picture (how did that happen? 😜)

Shooting film has to be all about the experience. You have to love every step, otherwise the cost will beat you. How much do you spend on a good night out? What do you have left of the experience the next morning? (apart from a hangover). With spending money on shooting film (if you are reasonably talented 😋) you will have a series of memorable images forever. What's not to like?

When I shoot film, the digital is a complement. Digital is my light meter and Polaroid, particularly when shooting 220 format or panorama. There is drawback, it reduced the surprising satisfaction when seeing the final result. 

Wet print, perhaps the best way to enjoy that surprising satisfaction. More so with B&W than color. There take two factors on this. 
The first is to see the developing of B&W image on paper in the safe light. I cannot say enough about this. The second is to explore various   treatment in developing time, chemistry and agitation combination. To me, color darkroom is more about science, while B&W is more about art.

I have an Ilford two pieces dry-to-dry develop machine, the color paper run through the 4-slot rolling develop piece and then a water ring slot, ( for Ilfochrome, RA only uses 3 slots, the last slot is also filled with water for rinse), then passes through the dryer piece. Just a few minutes per 16”-wide pater.  I tried to give it the Art ( photography) class of local communication college but no one wanted it. No one on eBay wants it either. it a shame eventually I had to junk it.

Developing film with silver masking is another fun that I can’t find working digital equivalent. No, the Photoshop contrast command does not work for me like the real contrast mask on film, I learned it from Charles Cramer when he offered the class in his 17- miles lab. Originally it is a must for printing directly from color reversal ( Ilfochrome)), but it can also apply to color negative or B&W. In some sense, it reduces the need of dodging and burning, and yet, if used properly, it offers amazing micro-contrast enhancement and global contrast reduction. I don’t know why PS does not work, maybe the bit-wise digitAl color depth is not subtle enough.

[oldwino]

8 hours ago, Ouroboros said:

If concern about the cost of film is dominant over enjoyment, then it’s probably time to leave it.  

This. 

[Einst_Stein]

2 hours ago, oldwino said:

This. 

The cost concern is definitely winning.

[oldwino]

20 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

The cost concern is definitely winning.

Don't give in to the dark side...

[Steve Ricoh]

1/2 frame is the way to go. I’ve had a film in my Pen FT for about 2 years… just another 30 or 40 1/2 frames before development can commence. 😊

Edited December 1, 2022 by Steve Ricoh

[250swb]

Meanwhile Ilford have responded to the cost of film by releasing its Kentmere range in 120. Bearing in mind this 'budget' range is no worse than (and possibly the same as) many of the boutique brands this is great news.

[erl]

6 minutes ago, 250swb said:

Meanwhile Ilford have responded to the cost of film by releasing its Kentmere range in 120. Bearing in mind this 'budget' range is no worse than (and possibly the same as) many of the boutique brands this is great news.

Has anyone actually road tested it against the more 'upmarket' films. My past experience with cheap films (distinct from discounted) is that one can see why it is cheap. I would relish the idea of cheaper film, but not at the expense of performance/quality. My past ' bad' experiences were with colour films. I wonder if B&W films at the cheaper point will stand up to their dearer counterparts. Info welcome.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[hansvons]

3 minutes ago, erl said:

I wonder if B&W films at the cheaper point will stand up to their dearer counterparts.

I have tested all the usual ISO 400 suspects and ended up with Delta 400, as it appears to be the sharpest with the finest grain and the nicest skin tones (slightly lighter than the competition), and retains the best highlights of the whole lot in Xtol at box speed, as this is my preferred developer (environment-friendly, high acuity and fine grain).

Rumour has it that Kentmeer 400 is Rollei 400 is Agfa 400. I cannot corroborate that scientifically, but all three films look and feel the same. Not bad at all, just nothing that draws me from the woodwork.

Can't say much about the ISO 100 version, as ISO 100 ins't fast enough for my stuff.

[erl]

So far I am still an Ilford and Xtol user. I do like FP4+ HP5+ as well for their 'look' but the Delta films are still sharper but less tolerant of errors in exposure. When image quality matters, I think better quality films are worth the cost. When image content matters, then any film you have is the go.