Anyone Still Using Film Rolls Cameras?

[bunnspecial]

No, but I have read about it.

Purity and the preservation of tradition is one thing, but, even as a historian, I'd argue that sometimes, one can take it a bit far, for we can run the risk allowing modernity and easier ways of doing something - in.

However, compared with the utter ease of landing my Nikon F100, or F80, (or even my lovely Pentaxes), loading the Leica - shall we say, requires focus and close concentration.

I am rather fond of and actually enjoy using the Nikon F, although I will take using an F2 any day over an F(the F2 essentially takes everything about the F and tweaks or refines it into a nicer to use camera).

One of the things, though, that made the original F so wildly successful, though, was the fact that it took a whole lot of features that were already present in other cameras and combined into one easy to use, well integrated package with a comprehensive lens system.

Film loading in the F is still somewhat more involved than even an F2 as the entire back must be removed(the hinged back at the time was reserved for the consumer-oriented Nikkormat) but at least it is significantly easier to load than a Leica in any form. In fact, the only thing really complicated about loading an F is figuring out where to put the back while it's off the camera, but it can be done in the field even if it means holding it between two fingers or up in your armpit. Of course, the F2 solved that problem completely with a hinged back.

 

[Healer Flame]

The last time i used analog film camera was 25/26 years ago, i would struggle to use one now days.

 

[bunnspecial]

Of course, if one wishes to shoot film, it helps to have a good stockpile of it.

This is a selection of both current production/in date stuff from the "big 3"(Kodak, Ilford, and Fuji) plus some interesting discontinued stuff(like Fuji Astia, Kodak EPP, and my all-time favorite Kodak Plus-X) and even some legitimately rare stuff like the 120 Technical Pan. There's some oddball stuff that I'm likely to never shoot(120 Kodachrome-I don't think processing for that has existed since the 1990s, along with some high speed color negative and slide film from Fuji and Agfa) and also plenty of stuff just to shoot to test cameras.

One big "hole" missing here is I'd like to find some 4x5 Plus-X.

 

[Healer Flame]

Of course, if one wishes to shoot film, it helps to have a good stockpile of it.

This is a selection of both current production/in date stuff from the "big 3"(Kodak, Ilford, and Fuji) plus some interesting discontinued stuff(like Fuji Astia, Kodak EPP, and my all-time favorite Kodak Plus-X) and even some legitimately rare stuff like the 120 Technical Pan. There's some oddball stuff that I'm likely to never shoot(120 Kodachrome-I don't think processing for that has existed since the 1990s, along with some high speed color negative and slide film from Fuji and Agfa) and also plenty of stuff just to shoot to test cameras.

One big "hole" missing here is I'd like to find some 4x5 Plus-X.

View attachment 876729

Wow any reason why keep them in the freezer?

 

[bunnspecial]

Film is supposed to be kept cold prior to use. It slows down a lot of natural aging, which can lead to an increase in base fog(plus color shift in color film). It doesn't stop it completely, but slows it down.

There's film in that photo that expired 40 years ago and still works fine, albeit with decreased total contrast due to increased base fog(some is inevitable regardless of the storage conditions at sea level due to background cosmic radiation. Kodak actually stores master rolls in a salt mine where they keep essentially indefinitely due to both the low temperature and almost complete absence of background radiation).

 

[D.T.]

Well, that means that you must "think" about how you compose (when studying art, in school, years ago, there was a section of the course called "pictorial composition") and each shot; you might shoot off two or three, but rarely more, of a specific group, or setting.

Depends on your use case. I'm friends with a pretty well known (in his circles) motorsports photographer, he's covered events all over the world, when you're dealing with that subject matter, it's tricky to pre-plan when things are happening at 200MPH In fact, in his field, having massive capacity without reloads is a major perk (and eventually, the digital tech got so good, there was zero compromise vs. film).

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Depends on your use case. I'm friends with a pretty well known (in his circles) motorsports photographer, he's covered events all over the world, when you're dealing with that subject matter, it's tricky to pre-plan when things are happening at 200MPH In fact, in his field, having massive capacity without reloads is a major perk (and eventually, the digital tech got so good, there was zero compromise vs. film).

Sure, horses for courses, and all of that sort of thing. Different needs, and so on.

But, even in the film days, he would have had several cameras and some serious (and supremely heavy) - and probably massive - fast lenses when attending such events; even in the days of film, what a motorsports photographer used for photography would have been pretty specialist stuff by way of equipment, and he probably would have taken at least two cameras - if not three - to each and every such event.

However, when you shoot with a rangefinder, motor sports (or any sports) aren't really going to be your thing, and, to be honest, they were never my thing, even when I shot with SLRs.

 

[D.T.]

But, even in the film days, he would have had several cameras [...]

Hahaha, he still carries a bunch, even with the move to digital

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Hahaha, he still carries a bunch, even with the move to digital

Yes, that is pretty much what I would have imagined.

 

[Healer Flame]

I was a bit surprised people still using film cams but its good to see that. From what i heard many years ago Kodak is not operating anymore.

 

[bunnspecial]

From what i heard many years ago Kodak is not operating anymore.

That is most certainly not correct.

Kodak has even re-released two discontinued films in the past 2 years.

 

[Healer Flame]

That is most certainly not correct.

Kodak has even re-released two discontinued films in the past 2 years.

Probably i misunderstood something back then...

Why Kodak Died and Fujifilm Thrived: A Tale of Two Film Companies

The Kodak moment is gone, but today Fujifilm thrives after a massive reorganization. Here is a detailed analysis based on firsthand accounts from top

petapixel.com

 

[bunnspecial]

Kodak film was split off under the umbrella of a separate company called "Kodak Alaris", which has a bit of a weird arrangement in that they essentially market and distribute products made by Eastman Kodak.

None the less, Kodak film is still coated at the absolutely massive coating plant in Rochester, NY. It's been a bit of an albatross for Kodak, as it was state of the art in the 1990s and designed to produce massive quantities of all sorts of different emulsions ranging from the Gold line(the cheap consumer stuff) all the way up to the Vision motion picture films, and could coat B&W, color negative, Kodachrome, and Ektachrome. There were 6 lines that were designed to run around the clock to supply both the then current demand and also anticipated future demand.

As I understand it, building 36 still keeps operational only one of the six original coating lines, as that's all the demand there is. When Ektachrome was reintroduced last year, there was talk that they had built a smaller and more flexible coating line that didn't necessarily require that you run a couple of miles of a 6-foot wide master roll through it every time you fired it up. That's made Kodak a lot healthier, and there again able to actually do things like bring Ektachrome or TMAX P3200 back to the market.

Of the three major film companies, though, Ilford is probably the healthiest. They stick to a few core products, but do them well. They also do things that make photographers REALLY happy like the once-a-year special order where they will cut any of their emulsions to just about any size/format you could want provided that you commit to a reasonable quantity(Kodak apparently will do the same, but their minimum quantity is a lot larger). The common requests for Ilford's annual program are ultra large format sheet film(think 16x20 and larger) but I've also heard of folks ordering things like 70mm type-2 perf roll film(used in Hasselblad long roll backs). Unfortunately, the one thing off limits from anyone seems to be 220 film. I love it(it's 2x the film as a roll of 120, but usually at 1.5x the cost per roll and most labs charge about 1.5x the processing fee) but Fuji discontinued their last 220 in mid-2018, and neither Kodak or Ilford have made it in years.

 

[Healer Flame]

That makes sense thanks for the informative info

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Kodak film was split off under the umbrella of a separate company called "Kodak Alaris", which has a bit of a weird arrangement in that they essentially market and distribute products made by Eastman Kodak.

None the less, Kodak film is still coated at the absolutely massive coating plant in Rochester, NY. It's been a bit of an albatross for Kodak, as it was state of the art in the 1990s and designed to produce massive quantities of all sorts of different emulsions ranging from the Gold line(the cheap consumer stuff) all the way up to the Vision motion picture films, and could coat B&W, color negative, Kodachrome, and Ektachrome. There were 6 lines that were designed to run around the clock to supply both the then current demand and also anticipated future demand.

As I understand it, building 36 still keeps operational only one of the six original coating lines, as that's all the demand there is. When Ektachrome was reintroduced last year, there was talk that they had built a smaller and more flexible coating line that didn't necessarily require that you run a couple of miles of a 6-foot wide master roll through it every time you fired it up. That's made Kodak a lot healthier, and there again able to actually do things like bring Ektachrome or TMAX P3200 back to the market.

Of the three major film companies, though, Ilford is probably the healthiest. They stick to a few core products, but do them well. They also do things that make photographers REALLY happy like the once-a-year special order where they will cut any of their emulsions to just about any size/format you could want provided that you commit to a reasonable quantity(Kodak apparently will do the same, but their minimum quantity is a lot larger). The common requests for Ilford's annual program are ultra large format sheet film(think 16x20 and larger) but I've also heard of folks ordering things like 70mm type-2 perf roll film(used in Hasselblad long roll backs). Unfortunately, the one thing off limits from anyone seems to be 220 film. I love it(it's 2x the film as a roll of 120, but usually at 1.5x the cost per roll and most labs charge about 1.5x the processing fee) but Fuji discontinued their last 220 in mid-2018, and neither Kodak or Ilford have made it in years.

Great post, and very informative.

I've used Ilford quite a bit in recent years, - they have very good black and white film - and, in the past, always preferred both Fuji, and Agfa to Kodak.

 

[Huntn]

Yes, I do.

I still use (and, for now, prefer) to use film rolls in my film camera.

They still make film cameras? I assume you are using an antique.

 

[bunnspecial]

They still make film cameras? I assume you are using an antique.

Nikon F6 among others.

 

[Huntn]

Nikon F6 among others.

I assume that film is still better than digital, but has digital caught up? As a professional photographer, I assume there could be a reason to go through all the extra work working with film.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

They still make film cameras? I assume you are using an antique.

Leica M6.

Not an antique (although, my very first camera, a Minolta rangefinder, a gift given to me when I was a teenager and developing an interest in photography, was what a French camera shop described "une vielle Minolta"), but no longer produced.

 

[bunnspecial]

I assume that film is still better than digital, but has digital caught up? As a professional photographer, I assume there could be a reason to go through all the extra work working with film.

It really hasn't even been a contest in pure image quality in comparing 35mm film to digital cameras with decent sized sensors for a while now. The Nikon D3, from 2008, as an example MIGHT be bettered when comparing base ISO to something like Provia 100, Ektachrome 100, Ektar 100, or TMAX 100-basically any slow speed, extremely fine grain film. By the time you get even to 400, the D3 pulls ahead by a long shot.

Now, 36mp+ DSLRs will destroy 35mm film and even smaller medium format sizes like 645. 40mp+ is starting to encroach on 6x7.

4x5 and larger sheet film still holds its own, but the gap is narrowing.

 

[Healer Flame]

If this is the very first camera invented then who shot this picture ?


[automerge]1573768302[/automerge]
Looks like a war machine.

 

[bunnspecial]

Great post, and very informative.

I've used Ilford quite a bit in recent years, - they have very good black and white film - and, in the past, always preferred both Fuji, and Agfa to Kodak.

I've never been wild about Fuji's B&W products. Acros(which, by the way, is about to be reintroduced) to me was a pretty uninspiring film. It's fine grained, but the tonality is a bit weird to my eyes and I never quite got the results like I could get from the mainstay B&Ws from the other two(Plus-X, Tri-X, FP4+).

Color is a bit of a different story. I've never used any of Fuji's "alphabet soup" negative products like NPH or NPS, but their slide film was and is amazing. Nothing beats the over-the-top color of Velvia(as long as you don't have caucasian skin in the photo), while Provia is a great all around film. Astia, which is unfortunately long gone, has its own interesting and subdued color palette.

I still like my Ektachrome-both in old E100G and current E100 form-for a good all around slide film, though. Ektar is phenomenal as a color negative film with punchy color, while the Portra line is great for caucasian skin. You can't beat Tri-X as an all around B&W material, too, although HP5 is close. FP4+ is ALMOST as good as much much beloved and now gone Plus-X, but still has somewhat of a different "feel".

 

[Tech198]

Just wondering if anyone prefers or still using film rolls cameras over digital now days?

Its a pain taking pictures with the old film cameras.
First, you buy the expensive 24/36 Kodak film rolls, then very carefully without burning the film you have to insert it in the camera.

After its finished you have to pay again to process the film and also wait a few days

Wow, it was time consuming and expensive to take pictures before digital cameras were introduces.

And i still can't believe film is still better than digital in terms of re-creation to today resolutions and restorations.

To think if it wasn't for the old stuff as a foundation, there would be nothing today.

If this is the very first camera invented then who shot this picture ?

View attachment 877131
[automerge]1573768302[/automerge]
Looks like a war machine.

I do like B&W photos.

 

[Healer Flame]

All in all cameras are one of the greatest and most important inventions of our time as they capture, record and reserve of our greatest moments life's timeline from Birth, marriage to death.

Huge respect to those who invented and improved cameras through out the years.

It will be interesting to read the history because i have no clue who invented them, when and where?

 

[bunnspecial]

And i still can't believe film is still better than digital in terms of re-creation to today resolutions and restorations.

To think if it wasn't for the old stuff as a foundation, there would be nothing today.

Wet plate colloidion, which is only done by a few specialized practitioners these days and is a whole lot of work, is theoretically resolution limited by the resolution of the lens(and many of the lenses with an image circle large enough for a big plate aren't that great).

Aside from that, you have to do everything perfectly before exposure to pull the equivalent of 24mp out of something like Kodak E100, Fuji Provia 100F, or Kodak Ektar. You can generally manage ~50mp out of the same emulsions if you jump up to a quality 6x7 frame, or maybe out of 6x6 there again if you do everything right and use something like the "perfect" Zeiss 100mm Planar on a Hasselblad(that's a special and fairly expensive lens that came about because the ubiquitous 80mm Planar has some compromises and leaves a bit to be desired in critical use).

If we're talking the 400 speed negative film that a lot of folks used-APS-C format DSLRs were better in the mid-2000s, especially at equivalent higher sensitivities.

I don't mean to trash film, as I shoot more of it than many people do, but I do it because I like the look of slide film and enjoy working in the darkroom(plus nothing can match the look of a good negative properly printed on an enlarger). I don't do it because it's better.