Price rising, do you still shoot film?

[oldwino]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I shot a lot of film in 2020 & 2021. I bulk roll my black & white, and shot a bit of color too with a bulk roll of 250D. I do all my own processing, and my own scanning. I have no interest in going down the darkroom path again, plus it is getting too expensive now. 

This year, I've been shooting digital almost exclusively. The cameras have gotten so good now that I am finding the advantages of film (which for me are all about a certain "aesthetic" vibe) to be less meaningful. I have finally found a "look" for my digital shots that I find interesting and appealing. It is a look not easily achieved with film, and it has affected the way I shoot now - I know how the final image will look when I press the shutter button. Curiously, this was they way it was way back in the day, pre-digital. We learned a film and used it to our advantage. I guess I've come full circle in a way.

I still run a roll through my IIIa or Agfa Super Speedex on occasion, and I love the look (mostly) and the haptics of these cameras, but I am finding scanning, and the way it represents film in the digital realm, to be less than appealing. Maybe it's a phase I am going through, or maybe I've finally woken up to the facts....who knows? Right now, for me, I prefer to shoot digitally. 

There is a film "club" here in the States which offers a $99 membership. For that you get 10 rolls processed for free, plus scanning. Additional rolls after that are $10 each. That seems reasonable to me, especially if the scans are better than what I can achieve here at home (probably are!).  For the small amount of film I am using at present, it might be a good avenue, and not too expensive. I've got plenty of film in the refrigerator to use up.

[Einst_Stein]

7 hours ago, oldwino said:

I shot a lot of film in 2020 & 2021. I bulk roll my black & white, and shot a bit of color too with a bulk roll of 250D. I do all my own processing, and my own scanning. I have no interest in going down the darkroom path again, plus it is getting too expensive now. 

This year, I've been shooting digital almost exclusively. The cameras have gotten so good now that I am finding the advantages of film (which for me are all about a certain "aesthetic" vibe) to be less meaningful. I have finally found a "look" for my digital shots that I find interesting and appealing. It is a look not easily achieved with film, and it has affected the way I shoot now - I know how the final image will look when I press the shutter button. Curiously, this was they way it was way back in the day, pre-digital. We learned a film and used it to our advantage. I guess I've come full circle in a way.

I still run a roll through my IIIa or Agfa Super Speedex on occasion, and I love the look (mostly) and the haptics of these cameras, but I am finding scanning, and the way it represents film in the digital realm, to be less than appealing. Maybe it's a phase I am going through, or maybe I've finally woken up to the facts....who knows? Right now, for me, I prefer to shoot digitally. 

There is a film "club" here in the States which offers a $99 membership. For that you get 10 rolls processed for free, plus scanning. Additional rolls after that are $10 each. That seems reasonable to me, especially if the scans are better than what I can achieve here at home (probably are!).  For the small amount of film I am using at present, it might be a good avenue, and not too expensive. I've got plenty of film in the refrigerator to use up.

It seems I am following similar path as you about moving closer towards digital. I agree I can’t say it is all about price, probably more about the diminishing appealing of film for unexplainable cause. But price is definitely part of the reason. 

I used commercial scanning before, did not like it much. The Costco grade scanning is certainly not my type. Even the professional (Calypso in Bay Area, many years ago). The professional scan is simply too accurate. I prefer my own inaccurate tweak. 

[Ornello]

On 4/19/2022 at 11:24 AM, oldwino said:

I shot a lot of film in 2020 & 2021. I bulk roll my black & white, and shot a bit of color too with a bulk roll of 250D. I do all my own processing, and my own scanning. I have no interest in going down the darkroom path again, plus it is getting too expensive now. 

This year, I've been shooting digital almost exclusively. The cameras have gotten so good now that I am finding the advantages of film (which for me are all about a certain "aesthetic" vibe) to be less meaningful. I have finally found a "look" for my digital shots that I find interesting and appealing. It is a look not easily achieved with film, and it has affected the way I shoot now - I know how the final image will look when I press the shutter button. Curiously, this was they way it was way back in the day, pre-digital. We learned a film and used it to our advantage. I guess I've come full circle in a way.

I still run a roll through my IIIa or Agfa Super Speedex on occasion, and I love the look (mostly) and the haptics of these cameras, but I am finding scanning, and the way it represents film in the digital realm, to be less than appealing. Maybe it's a phase I am going through, or maybe I've finally woken up to the facts....who knows? Right now, for me, I prefer to shoot digitally. 

There is a film "club" here in the States which offers a $99 membership. For that you get 10 rolls processed for free, plus scanning. Additional rolls after that are $10 each. That seems reasonable to me, especially if the scans are better than what I can achieve here at home (probably are!).  For the small amount of film I am using at present, it might be a good avenue, and not too expensive. I've got plenty of film in the refrigerator to use up.

Unless you make prints directly from the negatives, you will not obtain the full 'film' look.

[Mr.Prime]

39 minutes ago, Ornello said:

Unless you make prints directly from the negatives, you will not obtain the full 'film' look.

Let me be the first to call 'bull crap' on that statement.

[Ornello]

3 minutes ago, Mr.Prime said:

Let me be the first to call 'bull crap' on that statement.

But it's true, mein Herr!

[gotium]

I still feel nostalgic about film, or about the time in my life when I was using film. But my two favorite films - Plus-X and Neopan 1600, loved them - were both discontinued about the same time that my favorite scanners - the Nikons - were abandoned. Add the hassle of either developing at home or dealing with labs (and lost negatives!) and now the expense, and....

I've found solace in the Monochroms. 

For color, I've found digital just as pleasing as film for a while now. Maybe I miss Ekar 100 though, in bright daylight. 

Edited April 21, 2022 by gotium

[Ko.Fe.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

26 minutes ago, Mr.Prime said:

Let me be the first...

Film looks like film, not digital, even if it is digital scan on computer screen.

But...

I'm old enough to have optical prints from regular lab. Where I was, we have services like this. Those color prints from color negs are unmatched, by scans and else prints. 

Scans files looks weak comparing to them. I like C-41scans for been different vs straight digital exposures, but it is too much monkey business, IMO. 

BW... again, I have old prints  and I have 50 YO FB SG darkroom paper. They don't make this quality anymore. But I have printed from scans on jet printer and it is OK once it is on the wall in the frame and under the glass.

 

 

[wizard]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Ornello:

Unless you make prints directly from the negatives, you will not obtain the full 'film' look.

Which is why I still love to use slide film. In my view, nothing beats a slide projected onto a large screen (180cm x 180cm or roughly 70 x70 inch in my case), plus you are able to view landscape and portrait format shots at just the same size (you'd need a rotating LCD screen or projector to achieve that with digital shots).

[erl]

Forgive the pun, but this discussion has become a bit too Black & White. Film and digital are DIFFERENT media. Just like books and the film thereof are.

One of the first decisions you should make when shooting is, which 'look' do you want? Having decided, choose the media that delivers that look. It's no rocket science.

I have spent probably 60+ years in darkrooms, constantly perfecting my output. It has a distinct look.

I have spent probably 20+ years learning and 'perfecting' digital processing.

My personal opinion is that  a 'better' print, colour or B&W, can be obtained digitally, including the hybrid process if desired. That is OPINION. Certain facts exist to support my opinion. So much for a summary of the techy POV.

When it comes to the aesthetics, everyones opinion rules and no one is wrong. It is simply a question of preference.

There is no doubt that pumping out a perfect digital print is far easier than an analog one, but as I have recently re-discovered (having re-furbed my darkroom) the satisfaction of 'organically' producing a print in the darkroom, not to mention processing the film beforehand, will never be matched by any digital process. I know there are those who have said 'good riddance' to the darkroom. That's fine for them. I am reliving the joys of the solitude of the darkroom (my man's shed) and the chemical smells, in moderation.

I acknowledge that an efficient DR is essential to experience those pleasures and I believe mine is one of the most efficient around, not that many seem to be left. One of my great pleasure is to wander into the DR after dinner (current TV is crap) and puddle around with printing with the radio on.

I have reduced the volume that I print nowadays and have optimised my setup for printing 16x20'' images. Greatest printing pleasure comes from analog, but I still produce my best exhibition work digitally, often from film and scanning to give a hybrid print.

[otto.f]

17 hours ago, Mr.Prime said:

Let me be the first to call 'bull crap' on that statement.

Which is bull crap too. One cannot speak for the eyes and brains of other people

Edited April 22, 2022 by otto.f

[Ouroboros]

Yes, the cost of film from some manufacturers has risen dramatically (reading this, Kodak?), but there are cheaper and excellent alternative sources such as Adox and Foma.

Film photography is a way of life.  

 

 

[Steve Ricoh]

I’ll continue using B&W - mainly Formapan due to the cost - but once my stash of colour negative and reversal have been used up, that’ll be it. From then on it will be digital colour.

[malligator]

I'll give up photography altogether before I give up film. I am concerned that it may get so expensive that I stop being as free with my shots for fear of wasting film. I don't "spray and pray" near as much as I did with my digital camera, but I'm still very free with questionable shots and working a scene.

[erl]

Methinks the price of film (B&W) appears to vary considerably from country to country. Fomapan (referred to above) is actually dearer than Ilford here in Australia. Importing it from B&H which I used to do years ago is not a good option any more. There was a time when any film I bought from B&H, including shipping cost, was significantly cheaper than buying locally.

The difference in costs seems to be not significant between brands, at least not worth risking an 'unknown' performer just to save a few dollars. By unknown I mean something I have not tried, not meaning to impune any product. I will stick with my tried and proven Ilford films for the present. I won't (can't) change my shooting style to save money, but I will load up less frequently, filling the gaps with digital.

My casual observation is that Kodak are clearly the most expensive for B&W, which worries me not as I don't favour it, but do prefer Kodak colour film.

[stray cat]

5 minutes ago, erl said:

Fomapan (referred to above) is actually dearer than Ilford here in Australia.

Notwithstanding the rest of what you say above, John, have you looked at local (Melbourne) stores Walkens and Decisive Moment? Foma films are actually quite a bit cheaper (eg Foma 100 $8.25 vs FP4+ unboxed $11.90 at DM. I do notice that Kentmere 100 is $8.50 there.)

All are excellent films, but like you I am more inclined to stay with Ilford (though in bulk rolls).

[erl]

Exactly, I too buy the 30mtr rolls of FP4+ and HP5+. Thanks Phil for the other local tips.

[Einst_Stein]

I get that the rising price does cause many switched towards 135 format 100 ft long roll. The price per roll ranging from $3.5~6. Either people indeed prefer the cheaper brands or just for compromise. If it is compromise, I would appreciate the motivation behind it!

But for people prefer the look of different films, that compromise makes less sense, The price of color negative and B&W is really not much difference, Kodak in particular.     

The question is, does the price difference makes any difference in how you enjoy it! May be it's not bad enough yet, but the price will continue to rise, The cost of digital vs, film will be more and more significant. I bet It's a matter of time most of film shooters will face the decision to give up.

Edited April 24, 2022 by Einst_Stein

[grahamc]

I've been shooting Gold 200 + Portra 400 + Tri-X for my main films. But at least for now, I've swapped from Tri-X to HP5 (which is x1.5 times cheaper here in Aus than Tri-X... $11 versus a staggering $16-20 for Tri-X). Portra 400 and Gold 200 (in 36 Exp rolls) are completely unavailable here due to supply issues and seemingly will remain so for some time.  So I have stocked up on trying a range of consumer 400 colour films , that cost $13-$14 instead of $22-28 that Portra was costing. 

When Portra / Gold come back I'll probably still be shooting HP5+ because of the price difference v Kodak, and will hopefully have found some consumer colour films to mix in with the Portra 400  ..... this will bring the cost per roll back down to something sensible as an average , versus defaulting to Tri-X and Portra(and a bit of Gold) like I used to. 

The price rises of the premium stocks aren't going to break the bank but it just seems a bit unnecessary and feel a bit silly purchasing Tri-X when I can buy 3 rolls of HP+ for the price of 2 tri-x.

I'm sure the consumer colours mixed in with Portra won't kill me either.  So that's the impact on me for now - I get to try more films

[Mute-on]

2 hours ago, stray cat said:

Notwithstanding the rest of what you say above, John, have you looked at local (Melbourne) stores Walkens and Decisive Moment? Foma films are actually quite a bit cheaper (eg Foma 100 $8.25 vs FP4+ unboxed $11.90 at DM. I do notice that Kentmere 100 is $8.50 there.)

All are excellent films, but like you I am more inclined to stay with Ilford (though in bulk rolls).

Thanks for this. I’ve purchased a number of times from Walkens. I just placed an order with DM (since Walkens is very low on stock). Pricing is very competitive!

Edited April 24, 2022 by Mute-on

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[grahamc]

3 hours ago, stray cat said:

Notwithstanding the rest of what you say above, John, have you looked at local (Melbourne) stores Walkens and Decisive Moment? Foma films are actually quite a bit cheaper (eg Foma 100 $8.25 vs FP4+ unboxed $11.90 at DM. I do notice that Kentmere 100 is $8.50 there.)

All are excellent films, but like you I am more inclined to stay with Ilford (though in bulk rolls).

Hi Phil

Now I've saved myself over 30% by making the switch .... I can do the same again by loading bulk (Just under $8/roll bulk-loading HP5 versus $11 per roll buying singles).  

So thanks for the heads-up on that pricing although I'm a little intimidated by the loading process - is it difficult? I notice DM have a loader available .  I assume this takes place in a dark bag (I don't have a dark room).

Is there much room for error or is it fairly easy to get the hang of ?   

The bulk rolls with tri-X didn't make much sense (Price differences versus buying rolls wasn't much) but now I'm planning to be reasonably committed to Ilford B&W then I'm sure bulk-loading will be the next step for me at some point . 

Thanks 

Graham 

 

Edited April 24, 2022 by grahamc