Anyone still using 35mm film?

[edfck]

I still use film as my main source. Was using digital back then. But the lure or "creating" your own picture still drives me to use film. i like the moments of creating rather than post processing. The thrill of taking, developing and printing is jus too much to describe in words. You have to experience it to enjoy it.

Also the limited number of exposures like having a 32Mb card each time u shoot. Really have to think well before shooting. Not shoot a lot and select a nice one. Also the ISO for 1 roll is fixed, so when u are in very low light conditions, you have to use the breathing technique and look for a place to hold the cam steady and so on... Film just sets u thinking.

in other words... digital is for trigger happy ppl :bsmilie:

 

[edfck]

I still use film as my main source. Was using digital back then. But the lure or "creating" your own picture still drives me to use film. i like the moments of creating rather than post processing. The thrill of taking, developing and printing is jus too much to describe in words. You have to experience it to enjoy it.

Also the limited number of exposures like having a 32Mb card each time u shoot. Really have to think well before shooting. Not shoot a lot and select a nice one. Also the ISO for 1 roll is fixed, so when u are in very low light conditions, you have to use the breathing technique and look for a place to hold the cam steady and so on... Film just sets u thinking.

in other words... digital is for trigger happy ppl :bsmilie: n analoge is for snippers

 

[nightwolf75]

in other words... digital is for trigger happy ppl :bsmilie: n analoge is for snippers

really? obviously u dunno abt the 'arms race' among SLR makers of yonder years in making the faster motordrives ard.... i've met film users who burn thru like 20 rolls in a 1hr period. dats really trigger happy IMO, considering dat the shoot still has another 2-3 hrs more to go.... :sweat:

 

[sweat100]

really? obviously u dunno abt the 'arms race' among SLR makers of yonder years in making the faster motordrives ard.... i've met film users who burn thru like 20 rolls in a 1hr period. dats really trigger happy IMO, considering dat the shoot still has another 2-3 hrs more to go.... :sweat:

That time is like competition who has the fastest motodrive and brightest lens. Jus like now, who has the full frame, who has nosie free images at high ISO. I think to burn 20 rolls of film is . Should be a paid assignment i believe. For me, my record was burn 15 rolls in 1 day. Not 1 hr though. :embrass:

 

[ricohflex]

Just yesterday heard a $13K used very good condition digislr was sold for $5K. I think within 3 years.

Some pro once wrote something like that (not exact words):
Film is cheap.

The occasion/event/natural/model/setup/transport arrangement/lighting is not cheap and may never be replicated; even if you can pay $$$ all over again.
Shoot 20 rolls if you have to.

e.g. you are employed by oil rig company to shoot, they pay you to hire a helicopter fly out to sea and take the shot.
The sea is calm that day. The lighting just right.

You want to save on film? !!!!
and stinge by taking only a few shots?

Even if you pay all over again and get helicopter to fly out, conditions at sea are not within your control. Next time may be stormy or lighting not right.

e.g. you are employed by firm to shoot a super model in say, Greece.
Fly there. The super model costs the client (say)$300,000 for the assignment.
There is a slot in her schedule. Muck up this shoot and you have to wait till next year to hire her again, even if you pay $300,000 out of your own pocket.

You want to stinge on film? !!!

 

[nightwolf75]

That time is like competition who has the fastest motodrive and brightest lens. Jus like now, who has the full frame, who has nosie free images at high ISO. I think to burn 20 rolls of film is . Should be a paid assignment i believe. For me, my record was burn 15 rolls in 1 day. Not 1 hr though. :embrass:

u're right. its a paid gig. and if u wanna know why, ricohflex provided the rationale nicely. ;p

my record was 3 rolls, and already heartpain when i had to take out my wallet... :what:

 

[fWord]

If things pan out, I might actually start getting into film as well, but only on a very small-time basis. I've gone digital throughout my hobby life, and am only just beginning to desire an old film SLR for the odd film shots. I think it's less likely that I'd get mugged if I were to use an old film camera. A DSLR in rougher areas just calls for trouble.

That said, I don't even know when I'd ever land myself in the more seedy places for photography, unless something really calls for it...and that would probably be the need for a unique shot. It appears that photography has become so ubiquitous that it is crucial to get a shot that is unique, and not simply a 'nice' postcard photograph.

Neither film nor digital is going to get a unique shot for me unless I have the brains to find one first. But it's nice to have the best of both worlds just in case.

 

[waileong]

It's "stint" actually.

But more importantly, for those who are not getting it as a paid assignment, film is expensive because they have to pay out of their own pocket, and they don't have anyone to bill to.

Even for pros, like all businesses, photography is subject to competition, margins are thin, so if you shoot too much film, poof goes your profit too.

You may be able to suffer a loss once or twice just to maintain the client relationship, but if you can't control your film costs, eventually you'll be driven out of business.

Film is cheap?

Wai Leong
===

Just yesterday heard a $13K used very good condition digislr was sold for $5K. I think within 3 years.

Some pro once wrote something like that (not exact words):
Film is cheap.

The occasion/event/natural/model/setup/transport arrangement/lighting is not cheap and may never be replicated; even if you can pay $$$ all over again.
Shoot 20 rolls if you have to.

e.g. you are employed by oil rig company to shoot, they pay you to hire a helicopter fly out to sea and take the shot.
The sea is calm that day. The lighting just right.

You want to save on film? !!!!
and stinge by taking only a few shots?

Even if you pay all over again and get helicopter to fly out, conditions at sea are not within your control. Next time may be stormy or lighting not right.

e.g. you are employed by firm to shoot a super model in say, Greece.
Fly there. The super model costs the client (say)$300,000 for the assignment.
There is a slot in her schedule. Muck up this shoot and you have to wait till next year to hire her again, even if you pay $300,000 out of your own pocket.

You want to stinge on film? !!!

 

[Patryk]

Film is still my favourite...although i shoot only with B/W films..heh..

 

[doug3fflux]

Neither film nor digital is going to get a unique shot for me unless I have the brains to find one first. But it's nice to have the best of both worlds just in case.

the lump above the thing behind the camera and lens...
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[student]

It appears that photography has become so ubiquitous that it is crucial to get a shot that is unique, and not simply a 'nice' postcard photograph.

Neither film nor digital is going to get a unique shot for me unless I have the brains to find one first.

This "quest" for something "unique" - the "holy grail" of many serious photographers, has, in my opinion nothing to do with cameras - film or digital.

I think it also has very little to do with "brains". It is not too difficult to make something "unique". But to make that "unique" photograph meaningful is another matter.

A simple example, not related to photography, is to drink your own urine as an "art form". Remember that? Unique, yes. Meaningful? You decide.

I think the truly unique and meaningful photograph is about life, ( or an aspect of life that consumes you), a deep passion about that aspect of life, and the camera a tool to put that passion into an image.

 

[doug3fflux]

A simple example, not related to photography, is to drink your own urine as an "art form". Remember that?

.

hurh hurh. i still remember..the accpetance of waste because it gives meaning and purpose to life..

 

[sathea]

I think the truly unique and meaningful photograph is about life, ( or an aspect of life that consumes you), a deep passion about that aspect of life, and the camera a tool to put that passion into an image.

well said. :thumbsup:
i totally agree with you.
the camera is just a tool to create that image, what is important is that passion and right attitude that one has in photography, and it pretty much applies to life too.

 

[germ_boi]

recently just got one of those disposable film cameras!

very interesting to shoot from a non-zoom, non-previewable perspective! and i am very hesitant to shoot, see ya... 3 days le only use 2 frames. haha.

i am a dominantly digital user, first time using film. haha

 

[edfck]

really? obviously u dunno abt the 'arms race' among SLR makers of yonder years in making the faster motordrives ard.... i've met film users who burn thru like 20 rolls in a 1hr period. dats really trigger happy IMO, considering dat the shoot still has another 2-3 hrs more to go.... :sweat:

excuse me.., of course i know abt the 'arms race'!!! wat ya saying was then. i'm not comparing motor driven slr to motor driven slr. i comparing slr to dslr. if a photograher has a trigger happy habit n only print his best photo, then digital might b more economical. however, if a photographer is one who makes ever shot counts just like a snipper, n still appreciate the quality of a print, then he shd stick to film.

don't get me wrong, i've nothing against film, i've bn shooting for many years n started out using manual film slr. now, i shoot both film n digital... depending on my assignments n requirements. i started this thread for a reason, n tats to look for genuine film users. not 2 ridicule them but to applaud them for their dedication towards photography.

 

[student]

i started this thread for a reason, n tats to look for genuine film users. not 2 ridicule them but to applaud them for their dedication towards photography.

I am not sure if I can agree with you.

I cannot get myself to believe that dedication to photography has anything to do with the format of the equipment. The equipment is only a tool. The personal choice of tools is governed by many factors.

Besides what I wrote earlier about the "price" (for me, that is), my basic decision to use B&W films is that I simply love the look of silver halide prints. Inkjet B&W prints just do not appeal to me

 

[Ben1223]

I hope camera and film manufacturers see that there are still a lot of people out there who still use analogue equipment and film and still put money into R&D. I hope they don't force us into digital by completely withdrawing from this branch of photography.

It's also sad that most organizations are not encouraging photography in general. Just digital photography. Most require submissions in digital format.

 

[edfck]

I am not sure if I can agree with you.

I cannot get myself to believe that dedication to photography has anything to do with the format of the equipment. The equipment is only a tool. The personal choice of tools is governed by many factors.

Besides what I wrote earlier about the "price" (for me, that is), my basic decision to use B&W films is that I simply love the look of silver halide prints. Inkjet B&W prints just do not appeal to me

true, but think abt it, ppl who uses film tend to know more abt the fundamentals of photography, like yrself. whereas, ppl who started with digital fully auto cam won't b v much bother by the technical aspects. they will pro go on auto n figure it out later. i'm not saying that tat digital users dont make better photographers.

u have yr point n i'm not disagreeing with wat u said, my views r base on overall in general n may not neccessory apply to everyone.

 

[KCLow]

I bought my first Minolta SLR 20 years ago. Have never been an avid shooter. Since going digital 1.5 years ago, I have shot more than the past 20 years put together. Have been experimenting with Macros, Portraits, Landscapes etc. Trying to find my place in photography. My interest in photography has never been so strong. In the last year, I ended up buying more and more film cameras. I currently shoot mainly digital, but always carry a film camera with me for that special shot.

I feel many people will express greater interest in photography due to digital and the ability to learn 'on-the-spot', aside from 'lower costs'. However, as they grow, will actually get into trying film. Anyone else who went thru the same path?

 

[fWord]

This "quest" for something "unique" - the "holy grail" of many serious photographers, has, in my opinion nothing to do with cameras - film or digital.

I think it also has very little to do with "brains". It is not too difficult to make something "unique". But to make that "unique" photograph meaningful is another matter.

A simple example, not related to photography, is to drink your own urine as an "art form". Remember that? Unique, yes. Meaningful? You decide.

I think the truly unique and meaningful photograph is about life, ( or an aspect of life that consumes you), a deep passion about that aspect of life, and the camera a tool to put that passion into an image.

Well, the trick here is to find something unique that would be meaningful, for whatever reason. If drinking one's own urine (a seemingly meaningless activity) brings attention to whoever performs it, and that is his/ her desire, then it has then become meaningful! :bsmilie:

It is this word, 'meaning' that has sparked off things such as the mid-life crisis...for what really IS the meaning of life? And there are so many answers to that. :think: