Old 02-10-2007, 11:48 PM   #1
jason15c
Member
 
jason15c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 45
Default Anyone still using film?

Just wondered how many on this forum were still using conventional film, or has everyone now gone totally digital?

I still use film, Fuji Provia 100F for daylight photography, and Fuji 64T tungsten for night photography (where appropriate).
I have also caught the digital bug though, and currently use a Nikon D50 alongside my film camera, but just cannot bring myself to ditch the slides and take nearly every shot using both mediums.

I'd be interested to hear what others, especially those in the USA, are using, and if there are many who still use film.
__________________
Jason Cross

http://www.15c.co.uk
jason15c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 12:02 AM   #2
J. E. Landrum
RailPictures.Net Crew
 
J. E. Landrum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Posts: 136
Default

I'm still mainlining Provia 100F with no immediate plans to switch.
J. E. Landrum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 10:30 AM   #3
alan-crotty
Senior Member
 
alan-crotty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ashford Kent England
Posts: 349
Default Digital Now

Hi Jason,

Digital for 4 years now. Mind, as you know it's handy for an instant lighting check at Loughboro!

Alan
alan-crotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 12:23 PM   #4
jason15c
Member
 
jason15c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 45
Default Lighting Checks

Hi Alan,

Yes, digi is extremely handy for helping to get the lighting right when doing a night shoot. Also, since I started using digital alongside film, I have found that I take far fewer film shots when on a night shoot. This is because I can take the shot with the digi, use the histogram to get the exact exposure, and then transfer those settings across to the film camera. Far less need for bracketing. Before I got the digi, I used to bracket a lot and would probably take each shot on about four different exposures. Now, I take only one or two exposures of each scene with the film.

I suspect I will go totally over to digital in the not too distant future, but until then, I will continue doing both film and digital simaltaneously courtesy of a double frame (see attached pic).

Jason
Attached Images
File Type: jpg frame.jpg (129.4 KB, 378 views)
__________________
Jason Cross

http://www.15c.co.uk
jason15c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 06:04 PM   #5
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,655
Default

Looks like KODAK intends to join the digital crowd, too.

"Kodak is considering hiving off its traditional photographic film arm and selling or spinning off the business it created more than a century ago.

The business, which has long been in decline, could raise as much as $1.5 billion (664 million), according to Wall Street analysts.

Antonio Perez, the chief executive of Kodak, who came in three years ago to turn around the ailing company, believes that the traditional film business has just a decade of growth ahead of it.

The business has been in decline for years as the photographic industries have been overtaken by the digital revolution. The Hollywood movie industry is the last big film customer in the world, but that digitisation is gathering pace."

From the "Timesonline".
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 06:56 PM   #6
alan-crotty
Senior Member
 
alan-crotty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ashford Kent England
Posts: 349
Default Film/Digi

Nice engineering Jason,

I used to do that with a Mamiya 645 and an EOS 5.

I had muscles on top of muscles!!

Alan
alan-crotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 09:12 PM   #7
jason15c
Member
 
jason15c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 45
Default Film / Digi

Alan,

Yeah, it does build up the old biceps a bit.

That frame received an update today. No longer does a Nikon D50 dangle upside down from the top, as I took the plunge and replaced it with a D80. I have passed the D50 on to my son, so watch out for a few more posts to rp from him......
__________________
Jason Cross

http://www.15c.co.uk
jason15c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 11:46 PM   #8
skyliner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Virginia
Posts: 125
Default Still using film

I continue to put Provia 100F (and very occasionally, 400F) through my Nikon FM2. I've acquired a D50, but haven't put it into service yet.
George
skyliner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2007, 01:37 AM   #9
Pat Lorenz
Senior Member
 
Pat Lorenz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 326
Default

I am using fuji provia, and i have no plans to switch in the next 5 or more years. I do not belive any of those stories about film discontinuing soon, it will happen but not in the next decade. As far as i know fuji just re-relaeased velvia 50. Which is more good news, meaning that at least fuji isnt giving in.

However, manufactures are doing alot of discontinuing of film products, but this has no negitive effect on film users, considering that the Nikon f6 is about as hi-tech of film body there could ever be. I really dont see any more usable designs for film bodies, other than whats out now.

But as far as the film itself goes, there is alot more film users than people think.
Pat Lorenz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2007, 02:19 AM   #10
fullreversal
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lawrence, KS
Posts: 34
Send a message via AIM to fullreversal Send a message via Yahoo to fullreversal
Default

Good question....

I'm still looking for an excuse to use up some extra film on my Nikon FG, but the digital is just so easy and cheap! (that is, once you buck-up and get something).

Regarding Kodak getting into digital...I'm going to be verrrryyy skeptical of their stuff. A fellow graduate student of mine works in a lab on campus that uses high speed digital imaging to study impact loading, and crack propagation. One of their rigs has a high dollar Kodak imaging chip in it, and one of the other guys in the lab found a serious flaw in it, that Kodak engineers didn't even pick up on.
fullreversal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2007, 02:46 AM   #11
Northern Limits
Senior Member
 
Northern Limits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: B.C. Canada
Posts: 611
Talking Thoughtful sarcasm

Just thinking about the process of using film and digital. The advantage in digital is in the ability to edit out the undesirable characteristics before printing. So one could conclude that there are photographers (film) and editors (digital) posting on this site.

There Jason, see if that stirs up a reaction.
__________________
Cheers, Jim.


Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
Northern Limits is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2007, 02:50 AM   #12
tomt
Senior Member
 
tomt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: cali
Posts: 126
Default the shame

Quote:
Originally Posted by fullreversal
(that is, once you buck-up and get something).

i use these-

http://www.zalmar.com/images/QUICKSNAP-FLASH400.jpg
tomt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2007, 04:16 AM   #13
WembYard
Senior Member
 
WembYard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bedfordshire, UK
Posts: 646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Limits
Just thinking about the process of using film and digital. The advantage in digital is in the ability to edit out the undesirable characteristics before printing. So one could conclude that there are photographers (film) and editors (digital) posting on this site.
Ah yes, but to get the film picture onto the 'net, it has to be scanned, and once scanned it can be manipulated in the same way as a digital image
WembYard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2007, 09:09 AM   #14
alan-crotty
Senior Member
 
alan-crotty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ashford Kent England
Posts: 349
Default Proud

Jim,

I'm proud to be an editor!

It's the image that counts, film, glass plates or digital, the medium doesn't matter.

Alan
alan-crotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2007, 11:31 AM   #15
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Limits
Just thinking about the process of using film and digital. The advantage in digital is in the ability to edit out the undesirable characteristics before printing. So one could conclude that there are photographers (film) and editors (digital) posting on this site.

There Jason, see if that stirs up a reaction.
The reaction from here is ... that's ignorant!

Ansel Adams was well known for his superb editing prowess.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2007, 11:46 AM   #16
alan-crotty
Senior Member
 
alan-crotty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ashford Kent England
Posts: 349
Default Stirring Stuff

JRMDC,

You are correct, film base photographers have been editing since film began, (glass neg men before that) look at the link below to see one of Frank Hurley's shots taken during WW1.

http://www.greatwar.nl/frames/default-hurley.html

Then navigate to Thumbnail page 1 then, The Battle of Zonnebeeke.

That shot is made up of three plus negs and caused a lot of controversy at the time.

Nothing is new is it.

The main thing as far as I'm concerned is to enjoy your photography, film or digi.

Alan

Last edited by alan-crotty; 02-12-2007 at 11:50 AM. Reason: adjusted link info
alan-crotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2007, 01:18 AM   #17
Northern Limits
Senior Member
 
Northern Limits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: B.C. Canada
Posts: 611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alan-crotty
Jim,

I'm proud to be an editor!
Alan
Greetings Alan,

Yes, I enjoy editing. It is amazing how much I have learned about photography by sitting down and editing my pictures. As a result, I think my skills as a photographer and editor are improving. Plus the ready help in these forums is priceless.
It is definitely more convenient to shoot digital for RP, but [in answer to the original thread question] as a mostly hobby type photographer I'm having fun with my film camera.

BTW Janusz, (if you are reading) I had no intention to be an ignoramus, but rather give a tongue in cheek response to the comments on the ability to make field adjustments while shooting digital. Sorry, I'll try to curb my sarcasm from now on.
__________________
Cheers, Jim.


Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
Northern Limits is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2007, 02:12 AM   #18
Mark Rosnick
Senior Member
 
Mark Rosnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Shiremanstown, PA
Posts: 200
Unhappy Anyone using Kodachrome???

I think George Eastman must be spinning in his grave. I remember when the"Great Yellow Father" ruled photography. Fuji was considered a joke, Agfa was cheap, but prone to fading quickly, and Ilford was the only b&w to compete with Kodak. I shot Kodachrome 25, Ektachrome 200, and Tri-X for b&w. Now Kodak dropped Kodachrome, Polycontrast b&w paper and turned their backs on what made them great. I considered going all 35mm in early 2005, whenever the 'photobug" bit again. I carefully weighed the pros and cons of digital and 35mm. I could buy from KEH Camera Brokers all of the high speed fixed lenses that I once owned. I discovered that I could buy used, 20mm Nikkor, 35mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4, 180mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/2.8 NIKKOR!! as well as 2 F3's with MD4 motordrives for about the same $$ as a D70 and a couple of zooms and flash. Then I realized, I don't have my darkroom equipment anymore, slide processing is hit or miss with turnaround times, and I may have all the fast lenses that I missed....but one problem. It's still 20+ year old technology with no real resale value. I decided digital was the way to go. I'm glad I switched, and I haven't run a roll of film in my trusty F2 in over 2 years. I feel bad for all of the former Kodak employees who lost their jobs. I have a friend who was a Kodak Pro-rep, his grandfather was a Kodak lifer, his dad a Kodak lifer, and now Jeff sells real estate, his division eliminated due to poor decisions by the higher-ups. It's hard to believe that in the past 10 years, as an industry, we lost Konica, Minolta, Agfa and other long time companies have gone the way of the Dodo Bird. I never dreamed silver imaging would go away...but it is.
Mark Rosnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2007, 02:35 AM   #19
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Limits

BTW Janusz, (if you are reading) I had no intention to be an ignoramus, but rather give a tongue in cheek response to the comments on the ability to make field adjustments while shooting digital. Sorry, I'll try to curb my sarcasm from now on.
I knew that. In my book, "ignoramus" is a sufficiently quaint word in this world of f-bombs and the like that I figured my light-hearted tone would be apparent.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2007, 04:32 AM   #20
Fotaugrafee, Ink.
Banned
 
Fotaugrafee, Ink.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 93
Default

Film? Yeah, slide film. No print film for me, digital replaced that, and I highly suggest the same for any one shooting conventional 35mm print film (medium format being a different animal).

I use Kodachrome 64 for the time being, since I haven't any issues with the processing these past couple of years. I was double-fisting between Provia 100F and K64 until September 2005, but my sales have spoken, and it saves on the decision process with "what to use" when I have to change rolls on a certain subject.

I do have certain criteria with what I'll use (slide) film on, and others where I shoot exclusively digital.
Fotaugrafee, Ink. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2007, 04:40 AM   #21
Fotaugrafee, Ink.
Banned
 
Fotaugrafee, Ink.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 93
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WembYard
Ah yes, but to get the film picture onto the 'net, it has to be scanned, and once scanned it can be manipulated in the same way as a digital image
Not really, if one takes a proper photo to begin with, all they need to do is scan & resize. With all the photoshoppers removing poles; garbage; changing exposures, etc. - the editor vs. photographer is extremely valid.

I can think of MANY a photo where all I've done is scanned right from the slide. The only maniupulation was resizing it for web use (since I usually scanned @ 3600x2400 for most images), or an occasional drop to change the scenery up a little.
Fotaugrafee, Ink. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2007, 05:28 AM   #22
jason15c
Member
 
jason15c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 45
Default

It is interesting to see that there are still some film users out there. Recently, the lab that I use for processing had to increase all their lead times on E6 processing due to the demand for this process. It would appear that many professional photographers have gone back to film. The reason I am given for this is that some find it difficult to get skin tones right on digital, but certain films get it right first time. I guess a busy professional photographer doesn't necessarily have the time to sit in front of a PC trying to get the right skin tone on their photos. So at least in my neck of the woods, film still has a future.
__________________
Jason Cross

http://www.15c.co.uk
jason15c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2007, 12:09 PM   #23
goremirebob
ex-teenager
 
goremirebob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Carluke, Scotland, UK
Posts: 87
Default

I still use a bit of 100F in my Canon EOS600. But I only shoot a slide if the light is perfect (about once every 6 months in Scotland).

I have found I get a far better quality picture from a digital file than a scanned slide or negative, though admittedly my Minolta scanner is no longer state of the art. Also with digital it's easy to submit to magazines and websites and saves me an amazing amount of money on film and processing.

The main reasons why I still take a few slides are
1) I enjoy looking at them - a projected image is a probably the best way to enjoy railway pictures (though RP.net comes a pretty close 2nd!). A slide evening with a few like minded friends is an enjoyable pastime.

2) I still get asked to give slideshows. Yes I know you can get a projectable transparency made from a digital file - I have had several done - but it's nice to take a genuine slide sometimes.

3) Quality digital projection is still not a practical proposition for the common railway photographer, both in terms of cost and technical limitations. We're told the cost will come down, but it seems to be taking a long time to happen. You still need to connect a digi projector to a computer, and seemingly spend a good 15 minutes making adjustments, though admittedly once its set up the results can be impressive.

Our local camera club is encouraging competition entries in digital form for digital projection, but we're uncovering a can of worms with issues like projector resolution and contrast, and, like digital printing, a projected picture doesn't always look like it did on the computer screen. Yes I know you can get relatively inexpenside calibration gizmos, etc, but my point is its far simpler to simply get out the trusty Leitz Pradovit and have a conventional slideshow!

All that being said, I still take about 20 digital shots for every 1 frame of 100F.

Bob

Last edited by goremirebob; 02-13-2007 at 12:12 PM.
goremirebob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2007, 12:29 PM   #24
CG_F45
Senior Member
 
CG_F45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 413
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goremirebob
Yes I know you can get a projectable transparency made from a digital file
...did I read that correctly? You can make a slide from a digital image? Does that mean I could have a few of my digital photos made into slides to show at the next model rr club slide night in their old Kodak projector?

By the way, Bob, I love looking at your photos...true works of art.
__________________
Chris G

My photos at RailPictures.Net
CG_F45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2007, 03:07 PM   #25
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotaugrafee, Ink.
Not really, if one takes a proper photo to begin with, all they need to do is scan & resize. With all the photoshoppers removing poles; garbage; changing exposures, etc. - the editor vs. photographer is extremely valid.

I can think of MANY a photo where all I've done is scanned right from the slide. The only maniupulation was resizing it for web use (since I usually scanned @ 3600x2400 for most images), or an occasional drop to change the scenery up a little.
Regarding your "all they need to do" point, the same is true of digital, if you take a photo in the right way, you don't need to manipulate it. Janet (WembYard) did say "can be" manipulated, not "must be." I see no difference between scanned film and digital in terms of process, in both you can choose the extent to which you manipulate.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.