Film resurgence in UK

Merlin5

Merlin5

Messages
2,296
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
No
But the price of film doesn't help, just think if film was say £4 per roll.....................................
 
The reason for me getting a film camera was simply interest and the fact that new cameras are pushing £1000 or more to get, and lenses are very expensive as well. So no chance of me ever getting one.
I have a SlR Nikon FG20 and lens for less that £70, bought another lens for about £60.
All fully working and great fun to use.
Film is expensive, the initial cost and the processing cost on top of that. I did buy a stock of film so there will be no more outlay for a while.
Being very lucky, I can edit my photographs on NX Studio for free, I don't have lightroom or anything like that to subscribe too.
Also own a couple of old second hand DSLRs, they were not expensive, £100 and £35.
I do use them quite a bit and I keep the SLR for places that I have already been to to try and capture or recapture shots from my past efforts. as we know your not going to take 100 shots with an SLR and only keep one, well I'm not at least.
As you can read, its done on a shoestring for me, I am happy with my lot.0021-ed22a_01.JPG
 
Last edited:
I think someone worked out with inflation that film basically cost what it did years ago. There was a good time in the 2000s where it was extra cheap but it's back at normalish sort of prices. It was always a bit expensive.

Cheap film I remember in the 1980s was about £2.99 a roll usually. Jessops did their 100 for 1.99 I think at one point. But the 400 was £2.99. That was later in the 1990s I think. It felt cheap then.
 
It's funny thinking about how many shots we take with digital and film. Back in my film-only days, on special trips I took loads. I seem to recall that on a safari in Kenya/Tanzania, using a Pentax MZ-3 outfit, I shot about 40 rolls of Fujichrome 35mm. On a superb trip to Namibia including both Etosha wildlife reserve and the Namib desert, I short about 30 rolls of 120 slide film and even more of 35mm slide (Bronica eTRSi and again the Pentax). If the location deserved it, quantity and cost of film was not going to constrain me. Locations like those were once in a lifetime.
 
srichards said:
I think someone worked out with inflation that film basically cost what it did years ago. There was a good time in the 2000s where it was extra cheap but it's back at normalish sort of prices. It was always a bit expensive.

Cheap film I remember in the 1980s was about £2.99 a roll usually. Jessops did their 100 for 1.99 I think at one point. But the 400 was £2.99. That was later in the 1990s I think. It felt cheap then.
Click to expand...
That's Interesting Suz,

in 1980, my first job, I was on 52.5 p an hour for a grand total of £21 a week. Almost six hours work for a roll of film.
 
srichards said:
Min wage is about £12.50 I think now so that's one roll earned per hour roughly. Could probably squeeze 2 rolls of Kentmere per hour :)
Click to expand...
Film is a bargain. :)
 
I'm not at all surprised to see a resurgence in film. In a world that is fast becoming ever more detached from the tactile sensation of anything physical the Zoomers seem to be rediscovering the joy of all things retro and analogue. Vinyl records never completely disappeared and they have made a huge comeback in recent years. Heck, my dad found his old Polaroid 600 camera and gave it my daughter, and she loves it.
 
Concerned Bystander said:
I'm not at all surprised to see a resurgence in film. In a world that is fast becoming ever more detached from the tactile sensation of anything physical the Zoomers seem to be rediscovering the joy of all things retro and analogue. Vinyl records never completely disappeared and they have made a huge comeback in recent years. Heck, my dad found his old Polaroid 600 camera and gave it my daughter, and she loves it.
Click to expand...

I understand that. Who doesn't like to be hands on? Although, it's to be applauded that the young uns are taking it up, I can't help but wonder what will happen once they have moved on. Still, enjoy it while you can.
 
I'm not sure I really understand the "hands on" thing. From an operation standpoint, the only difference between the Sony a7r2 I now use as a miniature camera and the OM4Ti I used before is that the Sony has less useful focusing aids and no lever wind. The results can be printed larger, and "film speeds" are more useful.

I can do without developing and scanning, as that's boring. But as a Black and white photographer, the results from film are superior (in medium format and above) to my eyes.
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
I'm not sure I really understand the "hands on" thing. From an operation standpoint, the only difference between the Sony a7r2 I now use as a miniature camera and the OM4Ti I used before is that the Sony has less useful focusing aids and no lever find. The results can be printed larger, and "film speeds" are more useful.

I can do without developing and scanning, as that's boring. But as a Black and white photographer, the results from film are superior (in medium format and above) to my eyes.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's about "hands on" really, which I agree with you is not particularly different with digital. I think the analogue difference is that it's tactile. You not only have to choose and load film into the camera, but there's also that feel of physically winding the film through the camera after each shot. I find a great deal of satisfaction in that sensation.
 
StephenM said:
I'm not sure I really understand the "hands on" thing. From an operation standpoint, the only difference between the Sony a7r2 I now use as a miniature camera and the OM4Ti I used before is that the Sony has less useful focusing aids and no lever find. The results can be printed larger, and "film speeds" are more useful.

I can do without developing and scanning, as that's boring. But as a Black and white photographer, the results from film are superior (in medium format and above) to my eyes.
Click to expand...

FishyFish said:
I don't think it's about "hands on" really, which I agree with you is not particularly different with digital. I think the analogue difference is that it's tactile. You not only have to choose and load film into the camera, but there's also that feel of physically winding the film through the camera after each shot. I find a great deal of satisfaction in that sensation.
Click to expand...

Cost and file flexibility aside, I would much, much rather use and look through the Mat 124g focus screen than the A7Riii EVF :)
 
Personally, I prefer the waist level finder on my RB/RZ cameras to the Mamiyaflex C330f (nearest to a 124g I have). But you can't best a 5x7 or 10x8 screen.

I take your point about EVF, but there are advantages over a 35mm (D)SLR.
 
FishyFish said:
I don't think it's about "hands on" really, which I agree with you is not particularly different with digital. I think the analogue difference is that it's tactile. You not only have to choose and load film into the camera, but there's also that feel of physically winding the film through the camera after each shot. I find a great deal of satisfaction in that sensation.
Click to expand...
This is how I feel about using film too. You feel more involved.

On the matter of resurgence, I’ve never seen anybody over the past 20+ years shooting film when I’m out. I almost always see dslr/mirrorless shooters. Even when I’m in the middle of nowhere I bump into at least one person with a camera and have a natter. They always appear amazed people still use film!
 
bumper said:
This is how I feel about using film too. You feel more involved.

On the matter of resurgence, I’ve never seen anybody over the past 20+ years shooting film when I’m out. I almost always see dslr/mirrorless shooters. Even when I’m in the middle of nowhere I bump into at least one person with a camera and have a natter. They always appear amazed people still use film!
Click to expand...
I quite often spot people with film cameras if I'm in the city centre, most of them young people, which is good to see.
 
FishyFish said:
I quite often spot people with film cameras if I'm in the city centre, most of them young people, which is good to see.
Click to expand...
I avoid city centres unless I have to work in one. I deal with idiots all week at work so try to avoid meeting any more when I’m off :ROFLMAO:
I hope film booms again, more new cameras and cheaper film (hopefully).
 
I don't think I've ever seen anyone else using a film camera. Most people don't even know what they are.
 
Like Nige, people I've seen with film cameras are young. Possibly Brighton has more film camera users, as there are three shops here selling film cameras, and at least two places were you can walk in to get your film processed.

I remember once in Whitby when I was using a 5x4 camera a passerby called over to tell me he had a Gandolfi; in York similarly a passerby told me he used to use LF professionally.

On the other hand, someone who looked at the focusing screen (invited to use the focussing cloth to see it clearly) expressed surprise that the the image was in colour...
 
Last edited:
Barney said:
That's Interesting Suz,

in 1980, my first job, I was on 52.5 p an hour for a grand total of £21 a week. Almost six hours work for a roll of film.
Click to expand...
I was quite lucky. I was on a YTS job at a firm who bought film in bulk and got large discounts on developing.
So it was not to expensive for me at that time.
 
It does seem to be the younger generation driving interest in film photography.

My channel stats say 60% of viewers are 25 to 44 yeas old (50% 25 to 34%). 22% are 35-44% so that means less than 20% are "old". in terms of long form videos 25% of viewers are female. Most people are new viewers and very few subscribe, this is no surprise I had always expected people to watch the video that relater to their particular cameras and then get on with their lives. The fact people do subscribe is gratifying and I am grateful to those people for doing so.

By far my most popular videos related tot he Canon AE-1 Program and the Olympus Trip 35.

About 10% of viewers select English subtitles, I assume they are watching at work and have the audio muted. I hope.
 
There might be an increase in film use but it is from a very low level. It is still very much a minority interest and even smaller when it comes to professional use.
Fortunately it is not an itch that I need to scratch as I have shot and processed thousands of films in my lifetime.
I can remember when processors were offering free film with every one processed, this was a boon to amateur families. And en pints could cost anywhere between 5p and 10p with free developing.
 
I find the resurgence very interesting. As I am in my early 40's I grew up with film photography and we had a point and shoot camera as a family.

Until recently, I never had any interest in film photography myself, but happened unexpectedly getting a Nikon F60 with a lens I wanted for another camera. I decided to throw a roll of Ilford HP5 in the F60 and found it to be extremely fulfilling shooting film, there were a few moments I looked at the back of the camera to see what I'd taken but I soon got the hang of it.

The anticipation though of wondering what shots I'd got, and even was the camera working properly was immense. Almost like Christmas morning when the email from the lab landed.

Since that roll of film a couple of weeks ago, my F60 has joined my D7500 as my other 'main' camera.

Here is one of my favourite photos from that roll.

https://flic.kr/p/2s7x1sR
 
Merlin5 said:
Quite interesting report on BBC news just now about a rise in use of film cameras. I found the article and video on their webpage.

www.bbc.co.uk

Film cameras: The resurgence of analogue from digital cameras

Film cameras are seeing a resurgence, are people are wanting to "slow down"?
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
Ah, new generations, new cycles! My first job when I left school in 1969 was in photographic retailing with Dollonds Photographic, in their Aylesbury (Bucks) branch. Film was king and I went around in my spare time with a Zenith B shooting b + w film and developing and printing the negs in a rudimentary darkroom. It was exciting and great fun. Two years later I moved down to London and worked for Dollonds again in their Tottenham Court Road (London) branch for a couple of years until an awful new manager came along. Now, after a long spell spent in digital imaging, I'm back with a Pentax MX and new emulsions. Funny old world. Still developing film but scanning negs now instead of printing! Hey ho, hybrid works well in many respects!
 
I used to shoot a lot of Orwochrome back in the 70's on my Pentax SV/S1a/SP cameras, they also did a free processing and replacement film deal as I recall.
Now I have loads more cameras to choose from and a host of different films in the fridge and freezer!
 
lindsay said:
It's funny thinking about how many shots we take with digital and film. Back in my film-only days, on special trips I took loads. I seem to recall that on a safari in Kenya/Tanzania, using a Pentax MZ-3 outfit, I shot about 40 rolls of Fujichrome 35mm. On a superb trip to Namibia including both Etosha wildlife reserve and the Namib desert, I short about 30 rolls of 120 slide film and even more of 35mm slide (Bronica eTRSi and again the Pentax). If the location deserved it, quantity and cost of film was not going to constrain me. Locations like those were once in a lifetime.
Click to expand...

In 2006 I took 120 rolls of film with me to Ecuador and Galapagos, what wasn't used was taken to Kenya/Zanzibar a year later. 60 EBX and 60 Sensia 100 on a Pentax Z-1... I think the rolls cost me about £3 each.... processing was equally inexpensive. The only worry I had was that because of the rapid uptake of Digital, laboratories were going bust left right and centre, so 50 or so films were locked with the administrations of my local lab in Voorburg. I rescued them, they had already been developed, thankfully (had it been 2 years earlier I would not have been able to get hold of them). I was glad I took film then as the images are most accessible than the digital files.
 
My first SLR, an Exa IIB, came from Dollands in Leeds.
 
srichards said:
I used Truprint. Those were the days. Send it off in a post paid envelope, pay a few quid with a cheque or postal order (!) and get prints and a free film in return.
Click to expand...


Used to use Truprint until my attention span reduced and my means increased so I could afford 1hr D&P.
 
When I was growing up we'd use Truprint or Bonusprint, when I was at college in Liverpool it was always the original iteration of Max Spielmann.

With a wage, I could afford CoLab - their shop in Peterborough was brilliant. The cost of developing after discounts was always quite reasonable. After moving away from Cambridgeshire I started using TranspaColor and then Peak Imaging...

All gone!!


This topic has reminded me to dig out one of my film cameras to take to Goodwood this weekend. Thanks!
 
I do think (and I've said this before) that when you can attribute an actual cost to each image, it makes you consider them a little more.

NB - I use the word 'you' here as a catch all term, but I'm mainly talking about myself.

With digital I certainly used to take loads and then decide which one I liked later. I'm better at it now, but will still normally take a couple of shots in each set-up just in case I missed focus etc.

With film, I think unless you're buying bulk and developing yourself, then each image can cost up to £1 depending on the film and where you get them developed.

I tend to shoot XP2 - normally buy 3x36 on Amazon for about £36 delivered. And development at FilmDev is £10 for large scans. So that's £22 per roll or 61p per shot.

But I have also bought CineStill 800T at £67 for three rolls which is £14 for large scans. So that's £36 per roll or basically £1 per shot.

That's why I've gravitated towards vintage lenses on Digital. The manual focus procedure slows you right down and feels reminiscent of the old-school film experience, and makes you consider shots a little more, but the digital camera gives you instant results and the option to retake if needed.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
There might be an increase in film use but it is from a very low level. It is still very much a minority interest and even smaller when it comes to professional use.
Fortunately it is not an itch that I need to scratch as I have shot and processed thousands of films in my lifetime.
I can remember when processors were offering free film with every one processed, this was a boon to amateur families. And en pints could cost anywhere between 5p and 10p with free developing.
Click to expand...


I do miss film cameras - MF and also SLRS without motors and with decent viewfinders and focusing screens. But I personally don't miss film

However I do feel that I am seeing an increase in the number of photographers using film - both strangers in the street and also acquaintiances who seem to be committing more time to film and the few professionals encounter seem to be using a bit more film - occasionally professionally -- but more likely personal projects..

I think there is an element of digital being established and the playing field being pulverised and levelled by it. Digital artistic camera and processing techniques spread quickly - and any novelty is transient and fades quickly. Anybody trying to do something that stands out and uses film has some barrier between their work as part of a minority against the digital masses. Using film also suggests you have the skills and technique to get it right without instant feedback.

I personally don't feel any real affinity to film. (Though I do keep roll or two of HP5 around for that odd occasion). No sentimentality. It's just a process. Digital is just a process. That said I do get sentimental about Foveon sensors.
 
bumper said:
On the matter of resurgence, I’ve never seen anybody over the past 20+ years shooting film when I’m out. I almost always see dslr/mirrorless shooters.
Click to expand...

I always go out with my film camera in the local woods or city suburbs and I never, ever see anyone with any camera at all. No digital, no film.

It's just dogs. Dogs, dogs, dogs, dogs dogs. Dogs dogs.

I almost feel out of place for not enjoying the forest with a dog. Invading their sanctuary almost. They probably think I'm dodgy and possibly looking for a dogging spot.

Btw - collect your best friends' poop, dog people!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top