digital users...what would entice you back to film?

[Chris101]

Originally Posted by back alley

digital users...what would entice you back to film?

HIE, Tech Pan and Kodachrome.

[Vics]

I never left film, but I did a flickr search today that would lure most people back to film. Just search "50mm Tri-X" and click the slideshow button. I was just amazed at the fine work people are doing wth that combo!

[back alley]

Originally Posted by Vics

I never left film, but I did a flickr search today that wqould lurew most people back to film. Just search "50mm Tri-X" and click the slideshow button. I was just amazed at the fine work people are doing wth that combo!

i've done the same with the rd1...a great slide show as well...

[loquax ludens]

Originally Posted by Chris101

HIE, Tech Pan and Kodachrome.

I've not forsaken film, but I'll join you in your wish for the improbable. I'd add EIR to that.

[bugmenot]

I would never choose one over the other. That is limiting, and human nature does not favour limitations.

I shoot film, and have several cameras with film in them quite often.
However, it may take weeks, if not months to finish off those rolls, while I tend to process hundreds of digital images a week.

So, the limiting factor for me to shoot more film is really the time it takes to process it, and the time I would have to commit if I were to process them myself (I still scan them myself, but developing is done at a lab).
Also, the lack of available labs to develop and purchase different materials is really a problem. And when too few places offer a service, the cost goes up. Yes, yes, there are online labs and shops and such, but those only ADD to the time factor I mentioned above.

So, why limit yourselves? Shoot film and digital.

PS: Oh, and just to add a note ... I find people that shoot film PRIMARILY because digital is "too mainstream" very irritating. They are NOT helping with the stereotypical image of film shooters being "Hipsters".

[back alley]

if i were to shoot film again, and in a perfect world, i'd stick to the ilford delta family...i loved the 3200, shot at 1000 in medium format.

[lynnb]

MF. Specifically, a 3.5F. Just waiting until I can afford it.

Another thing would be Polaroid Type 55.

[semordnilap]

Originally Posted by shadowfox

Don't stop at scanning.
Print your favorites big and hang it on your walls.

It makes a difference when you see your work hanging vs on the screen.

I have a few big prints from k64 slides hanging in my house, actually... All shot on an m3, most with a 90 t-e. A ciba and some c-prints... And I do love them... but really there's nothing about them that I feel I can't achieve with digital. Being largely a color shooter, there is little allure in film for me, aside from staring at 6x6 transparencies. I shoot my rollei from time to time but, as I said, I don't do much with the negs or slides once they're processed. I do have a few that I'd like to get scanned well, in order to print them, and will need to get that done at some point soon. But I'm talking about slides from 2010 here, so you can see the speed at which I move regarding film!

[bwcolor]

I shoot film when I have time and digital when I don't, but love B&W film.. 35mm and MF. Also, in love with Velvia 50, but like my x100 and NEX-7. 1966-2002 all film, 2002-2009 all digital, 2009-2011 all film, 2011-now..mixed. Why not take advantage of both?

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by loquax ludens

I can't really see the point of a product like the fictional re35. The main reason for using film is because it is film, not because you can use it in your "vintage analog" camera. If you want to shoot digital, then use a digital camera.

Actually, to me the only reason I want to use film is because there are so many cool film cameras that I feel an attachment to from past use. However, I prefer digital these days technically, aesthetically, and conceptually. Not everyone thinks the same as you.

[loquax ludens]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Not everyone thinks the same as you.

Clearly, and that is perfectly fine with me.

I was just remarking that I personally don't see any good reason to develop or produce something like that Re35 concept. I also have a fascination with old cameras, but my desire is to use them as closely as possible to the way they were used in the past, which means using them with film, or in some cases, with glass plates. If I just want the look imparted by a particular lens, I can probably find a way to adapt it to a modern digital camera.

I don't think anything like Re35 could ever be produced, even if the technology were developed. There'd be no profit in it for the big manufacturers who need to sell new bodies to stay afloat. So they wouldn't support it. They won't want to encourage anyone to keep using old bodies when they could buy something new that increases their profits.

My guess is that most people who have old film cameras would much rather have a modern digital camera than a jury-rigged recycled camera. The masses prefer the newest and latest gear, and many of them would be embarrassed to be seen using an old camera, whether capable of digital capture or not. RE35 would be a niche product for sure, not enough sales potential to repay the R&D.

Also, a product like that won't be priced inexpensively enough to outweigh the advantages of a fully modern digital camera for most people. And they won't be able to chimp.

[kanzlr]

I thought that a used LS-40 scanner is cheaper than the M9
that, and I like to have auto aperture with my Contax SLR lenses

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by loquax ludens

I don't think anything like Re35 could ever be produced, even if the technology were developed. There'd be no profit in it for the big manufacturers who need to sell new bodies to stay afloat. So they wouldn't support it. They won't want to encourage anyone to keep using old bodies when they could buy something new that increases their profits.

I don't think it'll be produced either, but not because of a lack of people wanting it but more from a design implementation standpoint. Big manufacturers would not need to be involved in this industry... there are enough old cameras in the world to last a long, long time.

My guess is that most people who have old film cameras would much rather have a modern digital camera than a jury-rigged recycled camera. The masses prefer the newest and latest gear, and many of them would be embarrassed to be seen using an old camera, whether capable of digital capture or not. RE35 would be a niche product for sure, not enough sales potential to repay the R&D.

I think you'd be surprised by how many people would like this item. Sure, it would be niche, but it would be the first digital to perform exactly like a film camera. That is the holy grail to some people.

[Dave Jenkins]

What would entice me back to film cameras?

The lack of simple, analog controls on digital cameras. Menus drive me up the wall.

[giellaleafapmu]

Only two things bring me back to film: nostalgia for a gear I own and tonal range. Tonal range, especially if coming from a large sheet of film, is very hard to duplicate using digital.

[sepiareverb]

Originally Posted by loquax ludens

I can't really see the point of a product like the fictional re35. The main reason for using film is because it is film, not because you can use it in your "vintage analog" camera. If you want to shoot digital, then use a digital camera.

Well, the simplicity of a Pentax K1000 or even a Nikon F4 over any modern offering from either company is one reason to shoot something like RE35. Another company tried this years ago, e-film, but never managed it. Sadly should something like this come to pass it would probably be insanely pricey, and make an M9 seem like a bargain.

[sepiareverb]

Originally Posted by giellaleafapmu

Tonal range, especially if coming from a large sheet of film, is very hard to duplicate using digital.

Not so much anymore. The better I get at exposing and processing RAW files the more I'm finding them better than film. But then I don't scan film.

[Traut]

If I could:
Step 1 - put exposed film in a postage paid mailer
Step 2 - received by lab next day ( like Netflix seems to receive my movies)
Step 3 - same day process, high res scan, upload to cloud based service for viewing, download or online photoshop
Step 4 - receive my negs by return mail along with another mailer
Step 5 - automatically charge my PP for $10 or prepay 12 rolls for $100.

I think this could be a viable business model if there was sufficient demand.

[FrankS]

Originally Posted by Traut

If I could:
Step 1 - put exposed film in a postage paid mailer
Step 2 - received by lab next day ( like Netflix seems to receive my movies)
Step 3 - same day process, high res scan, upload to cloud based service for viewing, download or online photoshop
Step 4 - receive my negs by return mail along with another mailer
Step 5 - automatically charge my PP for $10 or prepay 12 rolls for $100.

I think this could be a viable business model if there was sufficient demand.

With B+W film, just develop it yourself. It would be faster, cheaper, and much more satisfying. I was a hardcore slide shooter but switched to B+W film due to economic reasons. Now I love B+W and stick with it due to aesthetic reasons.

[Aristophanes]

Originally Posted by Traut

If I could:
Step 1 - put exposed film in a postage paid mailer
Step 2 - received by lab next day ( like Netflix seems to receive my movies)
Step 3 - same day process, high res scan, upload to cloud based service for viewing, download or online photoshop
Step 4 - receive my negs by return mail along with another mailer
Step 5 - automatically charge my PP for $10 or prepay 12 rolls for $100.

I think this could be a viable business model if there was sufficient demand.

+1

The Netflix hardcopy DVD model is exactly what is necessary. A few labs are into this already, though there is market room for improvements.

I cannot get over the silliness of film marketing. Who advertises "low-res" and thinks this will keep people interested?

For whoever is left shooting film, it should all be high-res at a flat rate.

[Morca007]

The elimination of the odious task of scanning, a higher income to afford film and development, and a steady supply of the filmstocks I enjoy (which keep getting discontinued).

Scanning is a chore, and a scanner that will produce top notch files costs a mint. There are send-out services, sure, but your choices are either 8-bit jpegs or paying $50 a frame for drum scans. Optical printing and not scanning is a complete non-starter since I can't build my own darkroom, much less afford to keep it running.
A few months ago I decided to stop shooting 35 and 120, and only shoot 4x5 Fuji Instant and 35mm digital on a first gen. 5d. Since, Fuji has discontinued fp-100c45, dashing that plan, and I am still trying to come to grips with the 5d. It's quite like shooting slides without the depth in the shadows.

e: I especially would like to shoot medium format again, but there is no way I would ever print something scanned on my flatbed, and a dedicated scanner for "good enough" quality comparable to the ScanDual IV I have for 35 is far too expensive.

[kanzlr]

well, scanning with VueScan + ColorPerfect is not a chore at all. It is pretty fast, as ColorPerfects presets are great and with a few sliders the image always comes out as I want it. Actually, editing the image is so fast, that I am often waiting for my LS-40 to spit out the next frame.

And after that, my images are already edited and IPTC tagged with meaningful stuff.

That new Plustek 120 looks decent...that will most likely be my next purchase

[shadowfox]

Scanning never bothers me.
I read books or RFF when I scan.
You want your images online, you do what you have to do.

If you're frustrated because you scanned 36 only to discover 2 keepers, improve your skills. Read more photo books, train your eyes and brain.
If you really hate scanning, get some slow contact print papers, developer, stop bath, and fixer, and 3 trays. Learn how to contact print in your bathroom.

If you are too lazy to do any of those, use digital.

I'm sorry, excuses don't get you where you want to be.
Thinking and start removing hurdles, does.

[Keith]

I sometimes wonder how I would get by in a non digital environment ... what would happen to my photography ... without a computer, scanner, internet access to this forum etc what would I do and how would I manage?

I'd have only film cameras ... I'd have a darkroom and learn to use it where I would produce prints having taught myself how to actually make a physical print successfully. If I wanted other people to see and enjoy my images I would have to get off my arse and take my photographs out into the real world to show them. My own walls would be covered in my images and they would change constantly as my moods and aspirations influenced and guided the type of photographs I took. People visiting me would actually see all these photographs because they are real and not 140 gigs of data stored on a hard drive. These same people may be interested in seeing more of my photographs so maybe when I visited them I could take some albums along for them to browse through over a coffee ... some may ask me to take their photographs and I'd do them some prints so they could adorn their own walls with something real! Maybe I would meet other photographers and we would exchange ideas and images over an evening meal occasionally where our common interest would feed and encourage a healthy social interaction.

"I have a dream!"

[Paul Jenkin]

Well said, Keith. Digital and the internet makes marketing more convenient but also provides so much choice to the consumer that successful marketing of one's images becomes a lottery. I'm not a pro but I am guilty of being too reliant on the web as a tool to let my friends see what I'm up to. However, I subscribe to a fantastic film-only site and many of the participants (mostly UK but members from USA to New Zealand) regularly hold postcard exchanges and those who can, meet up for a few days out shooting - and a few beers afterwards.