Film still going strong!

Messages
4,911
Edit My Images
Yes
#1
Today I went to Kettering (Northants) and happened to go into a photographic shop which has been there for at least about 15 years, and the guy who runs it told me that a very large part of his business is film and developing etc, and that it is actually growing and he has customers in Sweden and elsewhere.
He also kept Kodak Ektachrome and other films which I must admit I had assumed went out years ago.
Personally I would never go back to film, but it seems there are a very large number of people out there who still love film - weird - lol!:)
 
Messages
3,807
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
No
#2
Personally I would never go back to film,
It starts with a single post in the F&C section. Then a second post... Pretty soon you'll be buying another film camera... Won't be long...

Then you'll be weird.... Mwah ha ha.....
 
Messages
635
Name
Lindsay
Edit My Images
Yes
#3
I've always been a little proud to be labelled weird. Rather sets one apart, don't you know...
 
Messages
1,476
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
#4
You might as well get back into sooner rather than later before the camera prices go up any more! :D
 

Woodsy

POTY Winner 2009
Messages
7,308
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
Yes
#5
Not weird at all, it’s still a perfectly viable route to capturing images and has certain advantages over digital depending on your objectives / taste. Personally, I couldn’t imagine going back to digital!
 
Last edited:
Messages
496
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
#6
Today I went to Kettering (Northants) and happened to go into a photographic shop which has been there for at least about 15 years, and the guy who runs it told me that a very large part of his business is film and developing etc, and that it is actually growing and he has customers in Sweden and elsewhere.
He also kept Kodak Ektachrome and other films which I must admit I had assumed went out years ago.
Personally I would never go back to film, but it seems there are a very large number of people out there who still love film - weird - lol!:)
That's probably the shop I buy film from, plus Skears in Northampton...
 

Asha

Blithering Idiot
Messages
8,748
Name
Asha
Edit My Images
Yes
#7
I personally see human beings behaving like monkeys ( ie "chimping") to be a darned sight more wierd than seeing a person using a film camera!
 
Last edited:

Asha

Blithering Idiot
Messages
8,748
Name
Asha
Edit My Images
Yes
#8
Personally I would never go back to film,
So other than to "advertise" the shop, what is the point to the thread ?
but it seems there are a very large number of people out there who still love film - weird
To express an opinion on how wierd film users may or may not be .........based on what?......the fact that film is still produced, sold and developed by labs that still exsist?

Most people have a motorised vehicle of some description however pushbikes ( those without motors built in!) are still manufactured and ridden by some folk.......Wierd folk, obviously!:rolleyes:
 
Messages
851
Name
Brad
Edit My Images
Yes
#9
I just get something more from using film over digital ( I still use both) but I couldn't really tell you exactly what it is ! + I'm one of those weirdos who prefer to use a bicycle than a car !
 
Last edited:
Messages
3,807
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
No
#10

Asha

Blithering Idiot
Messages
8,748
Name
Asha
Edit My Images
Yes
#11
The point is that someone has ventured into the F&C section.
A WIERD thing to do for someone who, it would seem, has no interest in (shooting) the medium.


That's excessive use of dots there Asha. Steady.
............................................................................................. I thought being ...................................dotty ( or should that be "wierd") was a necessary requirement to access this part of the forum..................................:LOL:
 

Asha

Blithering Idiot
Messages
8,748
Name
Asha
Edit My Images
Yes
#13
If a things worth doing, it's worth doing to excess.

That's why we all start small with 35mm and gradually work up to 20x16...
I acually started with 6x9 MF as my very first camera was a Box Brownie handed down from grandad.
From there I stupidly went smaller, 127, 126, 110 and disc before ( eventually )reverting back to larger formats of which now there is no turning back!
 
Messages
635
Name
Lindsay
Edit My Images
Yes
#14
That's probably the shop I buy film from, plus Skears in Northampton...
I like Skears, nice shop with very nice staff
 
Messages
4,337
Edit My Images
Yes
#15
Personally I would never go back to film, but it seems there are a very large number of people out there who still love film - weird - lol!:)
Yep, it's a growing hobby. Ektachrome was reintroduced last year due to popular demand, nice stuff too, I had a slide show for the first time in about 20 years one evening earlier this summer; I'd forgotten how nice it was to see photographs displayed that large on a projector screen. :)

You ought to give it film a try again, get something like an EOS 30 for about £50 (while they can still be found in excellent condition for that price) and all those lenses you currently have listed in your profile will fit it and work (particularly the 28-135 IS as that's from the film era anyway), and see what fun a bit of old fashioned photography can be. I shoot digital and film and thoroughly enjoy them both.
 

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
10,096
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
#18
Personally I would never go back to film, but it seems there are a very large number of people out there who still love film
H'mm well for many (or quite a few) it's using film with digi gear, so e.g. someone could use a digi 99% of the time and film 1% (for something different etc).....for me it's film 99% of the time and digi 1% :D
 
Messages
178
Name
jo
Edit My Images
Yes
#19
My entrance into film, was due to a debate on 'Digital killed photography' and being a individual who likes to be fair minded and see both sides of the debate, decided that has I've actually never really done film (well apart from the tradition point and shoot, happy memories type) thought I'd would kind of get a SLR thankfully one given, and brought 5 HP5 B&W films... Idea run the 5 films through (at this point I'm not really a lover of B&W) develope Bob's your uncle, I can then debate fairly:exit:

What I didn't anticipate was not only enjoying the process and the simplicity of using film... But actually B&W photography takes on a very much different medium when using film rather than digital... Nor did it dawn on me, I'd want to develope the film myself...

So I'm a convert..
 
OP
OP
petersmart
Messages
4,911
Edit My Images
Yes
#21
Yep, it's a growing hobby. Ektachrome was reintroduced last year due to popular demand, nice stuff too, I had a slide show for the first time in about 20 years one evening earlier this summer; I'd forgotten how nice it was to see photographs displayed that large on a projector screen. :)

You ought to give it film a try again, get something like an EOS 30 for about £50 (while they can still be found in excellent condition for that price) and all those lenses you currently have listed in your profile will fit it and work (particularly the 28-135 IS as that's from the film era anyway), and see what fun a bit of old fashioned photography can be. I shoot digital and film and thoroughly enjoy them both.
Err...no thanks - I had years of film back in the day when I was a pro 'tog, firstly working at Kodak and then later as a pro 'tog on my own and then later still as a ship's photographer in the Merchant Navy.

It may be interesting for those who like to explore the difference between digital and film but for me, these days, digital wins every time.
 
Messages
4,777
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
#22
Film will have its enthusiasts always, the only reason it may die out eventually will be that its no longer economically viable for someone to make it, which will be a shame if & when it happens :(

Having used film for my first 30 years or so I don't get it at all, I only truly became a photographer with digital, as up to that point I felt I was just messing around taking snaps - but each to their own :)

Dave
 
Messages
47
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
#23
Film will have its enthusiasts always, the only reason it may die out eventually will be that its no longer economically viable for someone to make it, which will be a shame if & when it happens :(

Having used film for my first 30 years or so I don't get it at all, I only truly became a photographer with digital, as up to that point I felt I was just messing around taking snaps - but each to their own :)

Dave
I agree with Dave, each to their own. I shoot both sometimes side by side. I've been photographing for 40 years now and in the past used 35mm and Med Format to earn as a second income. I "progressed" to digital selling my Bronica kit to fund the change and although I don't regret the decision I have recently bought another SQ-Ai kit and a film Leica to go with my last remaining Canon New F1 form the old days. I no longer shoot for money and pick my weapon of choice depending on mood and subject. Horses for courses.
 
Last edited:
Messages
4,396
Name
Gareth (Not Gary!)
Edit My Images
No
#24
Having used film for my first 30 years or so I don't get it at all, I only truly became a photographer with digital, as up to that point I felt I was just messing around taking snaps - but each to their own :)
Aside from the 30 years part, it's interesting how I am exactly the opposite to you, Dave. It's a good thing as it would be terrible if we were all the same. We could switch digital and film around in your last post and it would reflect my findings.

Started with medium format, bought 35mm to supplement it, now shoot both very regularly and don't own nor have any desire to own anything digital. :)
 
Messages
4,337
Edit My Images
Yes
#25
I bought my first digital camera from Dixons (remember them?) in the Xmas sale in 1999, a 1.5 megapixel Fuji MX500 compact! I bought it to use for work as I realised it would save much time and money when taking photos to include in survey reports. I wasn't wrong, and whilst the quality wasn't a patch on what I could produce from a scanned 35mm print at the time, it was good enough for a report, especially given the time and money it saved.

I still used my two Canon T90s and A1 for 'photography' though, and I didn't get an autofocus SLR until the early 2000s. Eventually, after a 3.5mp Casio and a 5mp Minolta, I bit the bullet and bought a 10mp Canon 400D, which could use the same lenses as my then EOS-3 SLR. I now have two compact digi cameras, a 10 year-old used Fuji bridge camera with good 28-400 optical zoom range (bought recently for £16 from a charity shop) that I use for work. I also have a Canon 6D that I use mainly for 'pleasure' and more old film cameras than I want to admit to!

For work it's always digital because of the speed and convenience, for personal general-purpose use and documentary style photography (when I get time) it's usually the digital 6D, and for when I want to enjoy photography as photography (which some may not understand) it's one or more of my film cameras, that range from manual everything 6x9 medium format to autofocus 35mm SLRs that can use the same lenses as my 6D. So that's the reason I say I use digital to take photographs, but film to do photography. :)

Interestingly, I did an experiment a couple of years ago, I took two 'identical' photos of a scene, one with the 6D, and one with a 6x6 medium format TLR on Kodak Ektar 100 colour print film. I then printed both images at A4 (the digital image from a JPEG straight from the camera, which produces very nice looking JPEGs, and the film shot was scanned at standard settings on a flatbed home scanner). I then asked some friends and relatives to chose which photo they preferred the look of.

The film print was chosen by almost all of my sample group! On a computer screen the 6D had definitely produced more detail (it may have been closer or been beaten if I'd had a high-res lab scan of the film negative though), but as sharp and detailed as the results from the 6D were (and it does produce some lovely looking images), most people preferred the 'look' of the film photo.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to go back to the days without digital cameras, my 6D performs at low light levels I could only dream about with film, and the results are instant - you can check you've got the shot before you leave the location. The sheer convenience and versatility of digital makes it a given for most professional photographers.

However, there's something about film, it has a certain look to it; and there's something slightly magical about putting a roll of film in a camera - that slight feeling of anticipation! Plus there's the skill of matching the film type and speed to suit the subject. Old cameras can be so enjoyable to use as a hobby too, lovely pieces of engineering, the sound of the moving parts, the feel of the controls, etc. Then there's that slight 'Christmas morning' type feeling of excitement when the developed film reaches your hands for the first time... did I get some good shots? I find I don't get that the same with digital.

As a work tool, I think digital photography wins hands down in most everyday situations. However, as a hobby, I think film photography has a lot going for it. :)
 
Last edited:
Messages
635
Name
Lindsay
Edit My Images
Yes
#26
I think that @Mr Badger sums it up really well for me (except I don't use cameras for work)
 
Messages
47
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
#27
I bought my first digital camera from Dixons (remember them?) in the Xmas sale in 1999, a 1.5 megapixel Fuji MX500 compact! I bought it to use for work as I realised it would save much time and money when taking photos to include in survey reports. I wasn't wrong, and whilst the quality wasn't a patch on what I could produce from a scanned 35mm print at the time, it was good enough for a report, especially given the time and money it saved.

I still used my two Canon T90s and A1 for 'photography' though, and I didn't get an autofocus SLR until the early 2000s. Eventually, after a 3.5mp Casio and a 5mp Minolta, I bit the bullet and bought a 10mp Canon 400D, which could use the same lenses as my then EOS-3 SLR. I now have two compact digi cameras, a 10 year-old used Fuji bridge camera with good 28-400 optical zoom range (bought recently for £16 from a charity shop) that I use for work. I also have a Canon 6D that I use mainly for 'pleasure' and more old film cameras than I want to admit to!

For work it's always digital because of the speed and convenience, for personal general-purpose use and documentary style photography (when I get time) it's usually the digital 6D, and for when I want to enjoy photography as photography (which some may not understand) it's one or more of my film cameras, that range from manual everything 6x9 medium format to autofocus 35mm SLRs that can use the same lenses as my 6D. So that's the reason I say I use digital to take photographs, but film to do photography. :)

Interestingly, I did an experiment a couple of years ago, I took two 'identical' photos of a scene, one with the 6D, and one with a 6x6 medium format TLR on Kodak Ektar 100 colour print film. I then printed both images at A4 (the digital image from a JPEG straight from the camera, which produces very nice looking JPEGs, and the film shot was scanned at standard settings on a flatbed home scanner). I then asked some friends and relatives to chose which photo they preferred the look of.

The film print was chosen by almost all of my sample group! On a computer screen the 6D had definitely produced more detail (it may have been closer or been beaten if I'd had a high-res lab scan of the film negative though), but as sharp and detailed as the results the 6D were (and it does produce some lovely looking images), most people preferred the 'look' of the film photo.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to go back to the days without digital cameras, my 6D performs at low light levels I could only dream about with film, and the results are instant - you can check you've got the shot before you leave the location. The sheer convenience and versatility of digital makes it a given for most professional photographers.

However, there's something about film, it has a certain look to it; and there's something slightly magical about putting a roll of film in a camera - that slight feeling of anticipation! Plus there's the skill of matching the film type and speed to suit the subject. Old cameras can be so enjoyable to use as a hobby too, lovely pieces of engineering, the sound of the moving parts, the feel of the controls, etc. Then there's that slight 'Christmas morning' type feeling of excitement when the developed film reaches your hands for the first time... did I get some good shots? I find I don't get that the same with digital.

As a work tool, I think digital photography wins hands down in most everyday situations. However, as a hobby, I think film photography has a lot going for it. :)
I also think Mr Badger sums it up very well and I agree that for work photos it's digital all the way, convenience and cost being but 2 of the advantages.
 
Messages
1,871
Edit My Images
No
#28
Since film is becoming very popular, I'll stay away until becomes less fashionable.
That's the really irritating thing. Time was when vintage gear shops and camera fairs were the exclusive province of grumpy men of a certain age, looking for that Nikon or Rolleiflex they couldn't afford when they were 16. Now they're being invaded by annoyingly stylish young people of both sexes earnestly enquiring about the relative merits of Leica screwmount lenses from the 50s, looking for a good deal on a Pentax Spotmatic, or discussing which is the best developer to push HP5 by two stops. Worst of all, they seem to be enjoying themselves!
 

Asha

Blithering Idiot
Messages
8,748
Name
Asha
Edit My Images
Yes
#29
That's the really irritating thing. Time was when vintage gear shops and camera fairs were the exclusive province of grumpy men of a certain age, looking for that Nikon or Rolleiflex they couldn't afford when they were 16. Now they're being invaded by annoyingly stylish young people of both sexes earnestly enquiring about the relative merits of Leica screwmount lenses from the 50s, looking for a good deal on a Pentax Spotmatic, or discussing which is the best developer to push HP5 by two stops. Worst of all, they seem to be enjoying themselves!
Would there be a tad of jealousy in there?

I'm of that "grumpy" age and no as a young man I didn't have the funds to own such exclusive outfits.
Indeed much as I've used a lot of gear there is also a lot of top end stuff ( from years gone!)that I haven't but do I feel irritated if a younger person picks up a deal and enjoys him / herself?
For me I actively encourage the youngsters ...They are our next generation ( not that I have children to pass knowledge or gear to!), so why begrudge them searching for leic lenses etc, learning about what once was etc etc.…..I know cats have green eyes as a general matter of course, for humains they often come about through envy!
 
Messages
1,221
Edit My Images
No
#30
This thread prompted me to pull my 35mm outfit bag out from under the bed and contemplate why I no longer use it. So I hefted the bag which contains the 2 bodies and lenses shown here plus a 17mm, 300mm, 28-200mm and a 2x converter. Then I pulled out my day bag which holds 3 M43 bodies with lenses covering much the same range, weighs slightly less than just the 2 cameras shown here and gives me true WYSIWYG viewing.

Then I pulled my Travelzoom camera out of my pocket and took this picture which was cropped and resized ready for posting about 3 minutes after I pressed the shutter release.

So now I remember why I don't use my film cameras any more

:tumbleweed:

Panasonic TZ70 8GB H05 P1030467.JPG
 

Asha

Blithering Idiot
Messages
8,748
Name
Asha
Edit My Images
Yes
#31
Then I pulled my Travelzoom camera out of my pocket and took this picture which was cropped and resized ready for posting about 3 minutes after I pressed the shutter release
Fine from a practicality pov and if all you wanted to achieve was the final result.
Personally when doing a voyage, be it photography or any other form of voyage I start from pouint A and head for destination point Z
I could simply ignore the often interesting intervals inbetween ( B-Y) by going direct to B but does it give me pleasure ….Usually not!
Every one to their own choice;)
 
Messages
4,512
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
Yes
#33
This thread prompted me to pull my 35mm outfit bag out from under the bed and contemplate why I no longer use it. So I hefted the bag which contains the 2 bodies and lenses shown here plus a 17mm, 300mm, 28-200mm and a 2x converter. Then I pulled out my day bag which holds 3 M43 bodies with lenses covering much the same range, weighs slightly less than just the 2 cameras shown here and gives me true WYSIWYG viewing.

Then I pulled my Travelzoom camera out of my pocket and took this picture which was cropped and resized ready for posting about 3 minutes after I pressed the shutter release.

So now I remember why I don't use my film cameras any more

:tumbleweed:

View attachment 256975
Why not advertise them on here and let someone else enjoy them?
 
Messages
4,777
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
#36
Aside from the 30 years part, it's interesting how I am exactly the opposite to you, Dave. It's a good thing as it would be terrible if we were all the same. We could switch digital and film around in your last post and it would reflect my findings.

Started with medium format, bought 35mm to supplement it, now shoot both very regularly and don't own nor have any desire to own anything digital. :)

That is weird isn't it - same basic aim to produce photos and two completely different approaches to it :)

Dave
 
Messages
4,512
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
Yes
#37
That is weird isn't it - same basic aim to produce photos and two completely different approaches to it :)

Dave
Most of us on here who shoot film will also have one or more digital cameras which we'll use in certain circumstances, so I'm not sure what you mean by weird? I can appreciate that many can't be bothered with the faff of film, but that's because they don't see the enjoyment factor. It recalls when people used to say that real ale was a passing fad that would never last, and "clean" beer was vastly better, but now you can't move for craft beers and it's a big market. Celebrate the difference Dave. :cool:
 
Messages
4,777
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
#38
Most of us on here who shoot film will also have one or more digital cameras which we'll use in certain circumstances, so I'm not sure what you mean by weird? I can appreciate that many can't be bothered with the faff of film, but that's because they don't see the enjoyment factor. It recalls when people used to say that real ale was a passing fad that would never last, and "clean" beer was vastly better, but now you can't move for craft beers and it's a big market. Celebrate the difference Dave. :cool:
I was referring to Gaz's comment (that I'd quoted), and that it was weird that I started on film and was 'born' as a photographer when I discovered digital, and his journey has been the exact opposite

That's the weird bit - nothing more than that - an no beers came into it either - and I'm happy to 'celebrate' that folks like to do things differently, however wrong they are ;)

Dave
 
Messages
635
Name
Lindsay
Edit My Images
Yes
#39
It has parallels: I was reading today on the BBC website that cassette tapes are becoming popular again, at least with a small group of people, partly as a result of a few major artists releasing their music on that medium; vinyl is already a growing thing again. In both cases the sound quality is judged to be poorer, but the overall enjoyment factor greater.
 
Messages
4,337
Edit My Images
Yes
#40
That is weird isn't it - same basic aim to produce photos and two completely different approaches to it :)

Dave
I equate it to being similar to a comparison between a commute and a cruise. They both involve a journey, but one is usually done as quickly and economically as possible, and the other is usually looked forward to, savoured and enjoyed.
 
Top