| Author |
Message |
    
Harryrag
Tinkerer
Username: Harryrag
Post Number: 95
Registered: 05-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - 07:12 am: | 
|
I was not the only one using film based SLR equipment on holiday in Normandy and Britanny, I saw two more individuals doing so.
All the many thousand others were taking pictures either with their mobiles or, like the more elitist ones, using gadgets imitating the sound of a mechanical shutter when the button was pushed. How absolutely weird!
This summer I had to use slide film branded "Agfa", I wonder what's inside, because Kodak Ektachromne is no longer available I was told, and Fuji had to be bought in too large quantities. And, yes, the assistant at the chemist's said, they are still doing slides.
Is this film's dying away summer? |
Brianshaw
Tinkerer
Username: Brianshaw
Post Number: 76
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - 08:42 am: |
|
No, maybe next summer though. |
Tom_cheshire
Tinkerer
Username: Tom_cheshire
Post Number: 114
Registered: 04-2009
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - 09:07 am: |
|
Here is a link to the Kodak slide film webpage showing Ektachrome and others:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/colorReversalIndex.jhtml?pq -path=1229
Never used slide film. Only color or black and white prints.
Film is alive. It is the old photographers who use film who are dying away leaving us with about 50 to 100 really good cameras per survivor. |
Fredster
Tinkerer
Username: Fredster
Post Number: 28
Registered: 06-2009
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - 01:29 pm: |
|
Went on vacation through Northern California. I always look at the other folks camera gear, and almost all was digital. I did see some film cameras among the obvious tourists in San Francisco and Tahoe. Not just middle aged guys like me, but also some younger folks - boys and girls - in their 20's were toting old pro gear (a Canon F1 and a few Nikon) as well as a Pentax SLR and some compact 35mm Olympus, etc. It was refreshing to get that Fight Club kind of wink and nod from fellow travelers.
I'm mixed about the availability of great gear cheap. It's so easy to justify upgrading when a lens or camera body that use to cost a fortune can now be bought for the price of a filter or two. I went through a digital phase where every outing was hundreds of fairly crappy digital snaps that might accidentally give a few good pictures. I'm now back to film where a scene really needs to earn it's spot on a 24 or 36 shot roll and you plan a trip to try to use up remaining film. I think I'm OK with scanning negs for digital printing of snapshots, but it does make going to the 'trouble' of setting up soup for real photographic prints that much harder. |
Chiccolini
Tinkerer
Username: Chiccolini
Post Number: 49
Registered: 06-2009
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 13, 2009 - 06:01 am: |
|
"Film is dying"
I was wondering what that smell was.  |
Fredster
Tinkerer
Username: Fredster
Post Number: 30
Registered: 06-2009
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 13, 2009 - 09:33 am: |
|
The smell? Stop bath, perhaps? |
Gez
Tinkerer
Username: Gez
Post Number: 132
Registered: 09-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, August 15, 2009 - 02:35 am: |
|
Don't panic! As long as the movie industry uses 35mm cine cameras we will be able to buy neg and slide film for 'proper' photography. |
Tom_cheshire
Tinkerer
Username: Tom_cheshire
Post Number: 117
Registered: 04-2009
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, August 15, 2009 - 08:26 am: |
|
And as long as there is a back alley factory in China producing 35mm and dumping their waste in the local river we will always have $1./roll film.
But, seriously, I heard hospitals are going to digital x-ray. Now, how does that work? |
Brianshaw
Tinkerer
Username: Brianshaw
Post Number: 77
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, August 15, 2009 - 12:41 pm: |
|
"But, seriously, I heard hospitals are going to digital x-ray. Now, how does that work?"
My dentist changed a couple of years ago. For the patient the procedure is the same. For the dentist... he has instant results with lots of interesting image-enhancing capabilities. |
Tom_cheshire
Tinkerer
Username: Tom_cheshire
Post Number: 119
Registered: 04-2009
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, August 15, 2009 - 01:59 pm: |
|
Alright, Lucky 35mm film from China Lucky Film Corp. of Baoding Hebei. New life for old cameras. |
Fredster
Tinkerer
Username: Fredster
Post Number: 32
Registered: 06-2009
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, August 15, 2009 - 11:01 pm: |
|
As if there is no toxic waste produced with digital cameras, memory, printers. I can go 70 years with a couple of film cameras. I think digital lifespan is less than a year if you count camera and camera-phone upgrades or just plain failure. |
Harryrag
Tinkerer
Username: Harryrag
Post Number: 97
Registered: 05-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, August 16, 2009 - 03:05 am: |
|
Brianshaw wrote "instant results with lots of interesting image-enhancing capabilities", well, yes, if that is what you expect to get from photograpy, digital should be be the thing to go for.
I am after something else, for me photograpy means buying the right film for the right job, putting in my camera, doing the adjustments necessary. And I like working with enough time with a lens chosen to be suitable, etc. All this is part of some special kind of apperceptive experience I would definitely not want to miss. Otherwise photography is no longer an option.
I was recently asked by a young father to take one of those typical family pictures of him and his folks, so he gave me his digital camera that had no self-timer, obviously. I could make out the group of people in front of me on the screen, but I have no idea of whether the camera was properly focused or not. The young man had probably selected me because of the gear I was toting around. In fact, he had picked the only non-digital there was.
Yes, I have a digicam. It is my son's first one he bought when he went digital. He handed it over to me after soon buing a new one, only weeks later. But I do not use it, because I don't like it. My son buys a new one on a more or less regular basis, becasuse the "old" ones develop issues, or there are "better" ones available, which is always the case.
And now we know what is happening: long-lasting regular photo gear is treated like crap because the game of selling it had come to a halt. It is novelty boom time again, and it is computer companies that are now producing cameras, many camera makers have quit, cheap labour and big profit go hand in hand. The eager Japanese are learning it the hard way that sound craftsmanship and solid products belong to the past, nowadays it has to be plastic good-sounding Chinese throw-away crap. I despise that a lot. |
Marty
Tinkerer
Username: Marty
Post Number: 33
Registered: 11-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, August 16, 2009 - 09:22 am: |
|
A few personal thoughts...
Back about 1970, I took a college photography course. (I used an Argus C3, which the instructor discouraged, but it was all I had, and I got a good grade. ) I signed up for the latest shift in the darkroom, so that I could stay until the campus police ran me out. I'm a "straight" photographer, but I loved to play with a negative in the enlarger, burning things in, dodging things out, altering the contrast, etc. until it was the best I could make it. Yes, adjustments can be made digitally, but I would never gain the satisfaction from pushing buttons that I'd get from physically handling the paper, chemicals, and darkroom tools.
Over the years, I've accumulated many old glass negatives, many from the 1890's. Good prints can still be made from many of them. My kids are all grown up, but I still have negatives of their baby pictures. How long will an image last on an electronic chip, and will they be able to be accessed 100, or even 20 years from now after formats have changed and electronics have evolved?
I wrote a research paper for a physics class about the history and development of photographic emulsions back about 1971, and I've been trying to dig it out to see what the predictions of the day were for the future... which is now. If I find it, I'll have to post something. |
Harryrag
Tinkerer
Username: Harryrag
Post Number: 98
Registered: 05-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, August 16, 2009 - 11:20 am: |
|
There is really nothing to say against darkroom arts which I once tried out, but never really accomplished.
What I am criticizing is something of a different nature. If, for example, one sees all those dolled-up overstyled fancy no-name beauty queens in their shiny fashion mags. Does any sensible person really think they look like that in real life? Electronically processed fantasy beings, that is what they are. And that is what makes me really sick, makeshift reality produced according to the bad or wishful taste of those who pay on demand. This also applies to pictures in art or nature mags, everything is close to pure forgery.
Composing pictures is done in the photog's head when using slide film which is rather relentless in that respect. |
Marty
Tinkerer
Username: Marty
Post Number: 34
Registered: 11-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, August 16, 2009 - 03:25 pm: |
|
Harryrag was saying
If, for example, one sees all those dolled-up overstyled fancy no-name beauty queens in their shiny fashion mags. Does any sensible person really think they look like that in real life?
Electronically processed fantasy beings, that is what they are.
Really?? Darn! Next you're gonna tell me there's no Easter Bunny... |
Tom_cheshire
Tinkerer
Username: Tom_cheshire
Post Number: 120
Registered: 04-2009
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, August 16, 2009 - 04:45 pm: |
|
I'm still looking for that perfect woman but I want mine airbrushed, not Photo-Shopped. Also waiting for the new Contax G3 to be produced.
Privately, I just wonder how many old guys committed ritual suicide who used to work at Minolta or Bronica or Yashica, etc.? The pride those guys put into their SRt or AutoReflex line. They were so anxious to prove their stuff was world-class. It boggles the mind to think what products like that would cost today.
The only reason I use digital is to get pic.s quickly onto the web.
I have to say, it is wonderful and also sad to have so many good cameras being dumped. I can have my pick of bodies and lenses. Stuff I never thought possible twenty years ago. But, still, holding all these things in my hands it is just another sign that it is over. The mountain has moved. It makes no difference if you have finally reached the peak. It is not important, except to a few guys like us, who has the best Leica or Rollei. It is so depressing.
And my own favorite imaginary scenario: a photographer with 50 film slrs shooting like mad and tossing the "empty" slrs on the ground while grabbing the next one. Sort of like the macho hero guys in war movies who keep ejecting the empty clips from their guns. |
Glenn
Tinkerer
Username: Glenn
Post Number: 642
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, August 16, 2009 - 05:12 pm: |
|
Film may eventually fall into an expensive niche market - cost being dependent on the actual market volume requirement and what type of company is actually producing the film stock. You may only have a mediocre and limited range from an off shoot of a Chinese chemical company, on the other hand we could have another 'Ilford' and have excellent film stock available.
Sadly I doubt that this will actually happen, demand for film will not be large enough for viable production on any commercial scale what so ever.
At the risk of upsetting the contributors to this thread and the many similar threads on other forums; instead of spending hours on the computer bemoaning the situation, get out there and expose a few extra rolls each week!
On his own admission, the loudest/biggest moaner in my local club hasn't exposed a roll of film for over two years! If we all act like that, then we deserve the outcome.
In the end the situation may be out of our control; however, at least I will have the satisfaction of knowing I actually tried to stop the rot. I am now going out with my Leicas to escape the wrath that will be coming my way!! |
Brianshaw
Tinkerer
Username: Brianshaw
Post Number: 78
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, August 16, 2009 - 08:22 pm: |
|
Harryrag said, "Brianshaw wrote "instant results with lots of interesting image-enhancing capabilities", well, yes, if that is what you expect to get from photograpy, digital should be be the thing to go for. I am after something else, (snip) "
Yes that is fine, and I'm happy for you. I was simply talking aboput digital xray imaging for medical/dental... not anything about digital vs film for photographic purposes.- |
Brianshaw
Tinkerer
Username: Brianshaw
Post Number: 79
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, August 16, 2009 - 08:25 pm: |
|
"all those dolled-up overstyled fancy no-name beauty queens in their shiny fashion mags. Does any sensible person really think they look like that in real life?'
Who cares... real life is never as good as a good fantasy! |
Shutterbug2
Tinkerer
Username: Shutterbug2
Post Number: 63
Registered: 10-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, August 16, 2009 - 08:58 pm: |
|
i,ve been collecting camera,s over 10 years now. was introduced to photography back in late 60,s by my father that mainly shot color slides. i have,nt shoot roll of film of any kind in 30 years. i,ve got a bunch of camera,s i,ve collected in past i could use that would work as they are without any issues. of many different film formats. i would like to get back to developing and printing my own at least b/w pics. at one time i had everything i just slowly gave most of it away over years. that i go from my father. poor hind sight on my part. it might take couple more decades before 35mm film gets to be less of a selection on what,s available . worse case scenario guy with most shiny toys does,nt win . my generation probably won,t live to see that happen i hope. James |
Fredster
Tinkerer
Username: Fredster
Post Number: 33
Registered: 06-2009
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, August 17, 2009 - 10:57 am: |
|
Film will always cost more than digital, just as an oil painting/watercolor will always cost more than a photograph. As I mature, I see more clearly that it's value, not cost and ease. And when technology shifts to portable full color lifelike holograms, people will lament digital photos, too. |
Glenn
Tinkerer
Username: Glenn
Post Number: 643
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, August 17, 2009 - 05:57 pm: |
|
As Fred hints in his latest post, this lament is a old as photography its self. Frederick Scott Archer and his friends probably had the same discussions in the 1880s when the dry plate replaced the wet collodion process.
The method of recording the image has changed over the years, and will continue to change as science and technology continue to advance. However; the process of selecting the subject, view point, lens choice, lighting and exposure etc is still in the hands and mind of the individual photographer - no matter what the recording medium is or may be, this 'black art' is down purely to the individual photographer. Hence the reason why a dozen photographers can all produce images of the same scene/subject, but only one will exhibit that undefinable quality that makes it memorable or stand out from the rest.
Up to the point I release the shutter of my Leica M8, my actions and thought processes are no different to the ones I used on that bright September afternoon in 1956 when I exposed my first cassette of film in my father's M3. (A seemingly insignificant act that was eventually to influence my future career.) Digital in no way demeans the total photographic process, it's just another piece of kit in the bag.
Much of my present output is film based but my 'darkroom' is all digital, except for a collection of developing tanks and a good selection of film developers. Obviously one needs decent equipment, but I certainly have no regrets about dumping the darkroom - only wish I could have done it years ago.
Doctoring of glamour/portrait shots didn't come out of the Photoshop box, you should see some of the work done on 10 x 8 plates by the really skilled retouchers of the 1940s/50s/60s. Some of those guys could teach present day digital operatives a few things. |
Tom_cheshire
Tinkerer
Username: Tom_cheshire
Post Number: 123
Registered: 04-2009
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, August 17, 2009 - 06:39 pm: |
|
"However, no matter what the recording medium is or may be, this is down purely to the individual photographer."
Ah, well, there is an area that can stand improvement. I gag over the scores of egotistical little pups who think they are suddenly someone simply because they can own a higher priced Canon digital. I laugh when it becomes apparent they have no idea of the mechanics of photography itself like depth of field, etc. They will praise their camera one day and spit on it the next when a new model appears with only the most minor difference.
A crazy thought: if your parent gives you a camera and it influences you in your career choice can you sue them later on claiming "I could have gone on to greater things if only I hadn't been siderailed by that camera." |
Karl
Tinkerer
Username: Karl
Post Number: 36
Registered: 03-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 - 03:24 am: |
|
I use film all the time,all kinds 35mm,medium format,APS etc.The only film so far I have had problems with getting processed on the high street is 110,but in reality 110 should have died in the 1980s.Where I work we sell hundreds of single use cameras,people prefer them for holidays as they dare not take expensive digitals to foreign countries for fear of them being stolen,strange but true.So there is still in this area a demand for film and the processing of.(by the way the single use camera mostly just has a normal 35mm cassette in the back so if you are in a jam buy one break it open and put it in your camera)
As for the future of film I don't know,all I can say is if there is a market film will still be made,the more we use the better for us.Before film people painted pictures of their world,when film was invented people still painted and still do paint and I would guess more paint and canvas and paper are sold now than ever in the past.We I hope will always want to express ourselves differently,I like to use a spray can now and again! We will not all be digital clones,or is that clowns. |
Karl
Tinkerer
Username: Karl
Post Number: 37
Registered: 03-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 - 03:45 am: |
|
Just another thought,more and more people seem to prefer to take photo's using their mobile phone and the phones are getting better at doing it,I would say the digital camera as is,is doomed.Nikon,Canon,Pentax,leica etc,please take note. |
Tom_cheshire
Tinkerer
Username: Tom_cheshire
Post Number: 124
Registered: 04-2009
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 - 08:31 am: |
|
Yeah, that Dick Tracy wristwatch is getting closer every day. Cell phone, camera, MP3, satellite radio, tv, etc. all in one. But no coffee maker yet. |
Karl
Tinkerer
Username: Karl
Post Number: 38
Registered: 03-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 - 12:01 pm: |
|
I'm going to hold out for the coffee/time machine model,then I will change my outfit. |
Ethostech
Tinkerer
Username: Ethostech
Post Number: 128
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 20, 2009 - 03:38 am: |
|
In 1994 I moved from Melbourne to sub-tropical Queensland (both in Australia of course) but never re-established my darkroom because of the sheer expense of airconditioning my outside workshop and providing running water. But the truth and reality is that there is a million times more resolution in a 35mm negative than the best which the most expensive digital camera can produce. And unlike my Nikon F2 there is nothing instinctive about digital camera menu nightmares.
Now .. I was aware that Fuji Mini-Labs will develop grandma's films and return them as low res jpg's on a CD. That's great for emailing pictures of the new Siamese cat to grandchildren but otherwise of little use. I borrowed a very expensive film scanner to reproduce my film frames as digital jpgs but the results fell a thousand miles short of my expectations.
However, from Fuji film HQ here in Brisbane, I learned that Fuji Mini-Labs have state of the srt $100,000 scanners and upon request they will develop my Nikon F2 films and return them to me as 6000 x 4000 pixel resolution TIFFs on CD. From there my "darkroom" is my Macintosh and a high quality Canon photo-quality inkjet Printer.
Sure - I cannot make 20" x 16" Exhibition Prints - but that's not so much my scene these days. Certainly the above methodology yields stunning A4 prints from anything greater that two thirds of the negtive size - so I can significantly crop and still get the results. If occasionally I want a 40 inch print - then I get it done at a local professional lab - but that happens about once ever three years.
As you can perceive, this makes my Nikon F2 a hybrid digital camera. And I use that camera as though an extension of myself - instinctively and enjoyably.
Oh - and as to Fuji-Minilab processing prices. $15 (Australian) buys a thumbnail sheet plus hi-res images on CD - irrespective of whether 12, 24 or 36 exposure film.
Of course - I could pay $8000 for the only digital camera which can utilise my battery of Nikkor lenses - but why would I want to do that?
I am simply saying that film cameras are a long way from being obsolete - provided you know how to interface with today's digital mania. My favourite Perspective-Control Nikkor continues to live :-))
Stuart Willis |
Clay
Tinkerer
Username: Clay
Post Number: 26
Registered: 12-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 20, 2009 - 11:25 am: |
|
Hi Stuart,
I am with you on my F2AS.
Served me well since new and still rocks along fine!
Best regards,
/Clay |
Shutterbug2
Tinkerer
Username: Shutterbug2
Post Number: 64
Registered: 10-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, August 21, 2009 - 08:43 pm: |
|
well i stopped by local walmart today.for other things but checked out photo section again. asked employe if they still developed 110 film in house. they do but they don,t carry 110 film any more since feb. this year. she said they on average only develop 50 rolls film a day now.their odd size camera battery selection has shrunk to almost nothing if it does,nt cross over to other electronic devices. hardly any selection of 35mm film . now it,s reduced to 4 x 4 space with mostly disposable camera,s for single use. glad theirs other places on internet that you can find batteries and better film selection. you might ask why bother with 110. i,ve got few nice one,s rollei 110A some minolta,s/ 110,s can produce pretty sharp pics. and their light weight easily fit in your pocket and if dropped lost or stolen their more likely to survive than our 35mm friends in drop test. i,m sure 110 will long phase out before 35mm. till that happens might as well try and use them while film is still available. i do have few compact 35mm camera,s also i can use. i figure the 110,s are less likely to have any issues. all camera,s in my collection are un proven with film. James |
Bill_alexander
Tinkerer
Username: Bill_alexander
Post Number: 20
Registered: 12-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, August 30, 2009 - 11:45 am: |
|
Nice subject..having to deal with new tech Cameras seems to evolve everyso often, I have seen many changes since the early seventies.back
then people were lamenting the demise of older
systems and films 620 127 etc..When you could
pick-up Kodak Autographics for a buck..As the years progress and all these new innovations
replaced the former. I recently used a Nikon D-60
with several lenses..was astonished at the results..however is was daunting to figure out
all the programs.I shot some fireworks this summer with a Pentax K-1000 and a 135mm Lens..all
the people there were using Digital..they seemed
confused as to why I keep putting my Black baseball cap over the lense? Most of the people
around me could not figure out how to disable their flash modes.Needless to say I retrieved
48 of the shots taken with one underexposure..The
point is I guess as long as there are People out
shooting film..it will still be sold by somebody.. |
Tom_cheshire
Tinkerer
Username: Tom_cheshire
Post Number: 158
Registered: 04-2009
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, August 31, 2009 - 07:37 pm: |
|
If you really want to freak people out, next time, show up with a folding camera. If they ask say, "Digital? Uhm, yes, it is. I use one of my digits to shoot the shutter." |
Paul_ron
Tinkerer
Username: Paul_ron
Post Number: 165
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 02, 2009 - 01:44 pm: |
|
HAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahaha That's great.
My doctor keeps offering me a digital, but I nicely decline and explain I'm very happy with my old analog. |
Karl
Tinkerer
Username: Karl
Post Number: 40
Registered: 03-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 02:01 am: |
|
Good news from Fujifilm, September 2009.
Fujifilm re-think Pro 800Z withdrawal
Due to demand from its customers, Fujifilm Professional has decided to continue production of Fujicolor Pro 800Z. It was announced recently that the company was to discontinue the film from September 2009.
Fujifilm’s Product Manager for Professional Film, Russ Gunn, explained the turnaround: “We were amazed by the reaction from our customers following the announcement that Fujifilm was going to discontinue Pro 800Z. We have received many calls and emails from photographers who appreciate the natural skin tones and fine grain that Pro 800Z gives them. Many people were genuinely upset about the withdrawal so we have bowed to this pressure and decided to continue production for the time being.”
For further details on the Fujifilm range of Professional film visit, www.fujifilm.co.uk/professional
Fujifilm relaunches E6 processing vouchers
Fujifilm Professional has announced the re-introduction of E6 processing vouchers. The new vouchers replace the black professional processing envelopes and E6 processing vouchers offered by the previous Fujifilm lab in Warwick.
The vouchers allow photographers to send to the new Fujifilm laboratory in Leeds any professional reversal 35mm film for process only, or process and mount, as well as 120 for process only. In addition to the E6 vouchers, the company is also simultaneously launching a new ‘Image To CD’ scanning voucher.
Fujifilm’s Product Manager for Professional Film, Russ Gunn, explained the reasons behind the vouchers: “We know that many photographers are finding it increasingly difficult to find a quality E6 lab close to their home so we’re delighted that they will now be able to utilise the Fujifilm lab for mail-order processing. We are dedicated to providing a quality E6 service and our sales figures show that our range of transparency films is still hugely popular.”
Each E6 processing voucher carries a unique code that can be used to track the status of the relevant order via the lab’s website, www.fujifilmprocessinglaboratory.co.uk
The E6 vouchers, costing £6.33 (including VAT), are available now, direct from Fujifilm, via www.fujilab.co.uk and all good Fujifilm Professional stockists. Image to CD vouchers are available from www.fujilab.co.uk only.
For further details on the Fujifilm range of Professional film visit, www.fujifilm.co.uk/professional |
Glenn
Tinkerer
Username: Glenn
Post Number: 673
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 04:54 pm: |
|
Lets hope that all those customer demands actually result in film stock moving off the distributor's shelves. In many other instances where there has been an intimation of 'service' withdrawal, all those customer demands have turned out to be nothing but hot air and the product/service has eventually disappeared! |
Gez
Tinkerer
Username: Gez
Post Number: 146
Registered: 09-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, October 01, 2009 - 02:10 am: |
|
For E6 processing in Britain I can recommend Metro Colour Labs, www.metrocolourlab.com. Fast turn around and excellent quality. Perhaps a little pricey. |
Glenn
Tinkerer
Username: Glenn
Post Number: 674
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, October 01, 2009 - 11:24 am: |
|
The above mentioned Fuji lab in Leeds does very good work - almost on my doorstep! |
Krafty5260
Tinkerer
Username: Krafty5260
Post Number: 42
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, October 30, 2009 - 02:25 pm: |
|
Hey, I'm getting in on this demise of film thing a bit late. There's one thrill about film I was reminded of last week. No digital photographic pretender will ever get the rush of dropping the back off the old Contax only to discover he hasn't rewound the roll. That feeling is topped only by shooting most of a roll with the lens cap on. That's what makes photography now.
Digital for me is for making a quick image of an air compressor crankshaft so a parts supplier in Houston can get me the right seal in a hurry. Photography means film. Just knowing I can't take 800 shots makes me compose more carefully and think about the image more.
Michael |
Paul_ron
Tinkerer
Username: Paul_ron
Post Number: 176
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 - 12:44 pm: |
|
No just old photogrpahers are. Film is still alive n well... just go over to APUG n see for yourself. |
Harryrag
Tinkerer
Username: Harryrag
Post Number: 133
Registered: 05-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 05, 2009 - 07:50 am: |
|
Yep, alive, as alive as one can be under exclusive living conditions. Very interesting, though, thank you for the info. |
Kevininsky
Tinkerer
Username: Kevininsky
Post Number: 5
Registered: 09-2011
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2011 - 10:40 pm: |
|
This thread was interesting...and although it has died out, film still has not. I'm still shooting film, and now, digital as well. I'm as likely to be out taking pictures with a Kodak 120 brownie, or a Yashicamat 124 G, or a Pentax Spotmatic II, or one of my 35mm film Canons--Ftb, F-1, A-1--as I am my Canon G-9 or 60D. Honestly, I DO miss the darkroom; I don't make any "real" prints anymore, I just scan the film after developing. The pictures all end up being shared digitally anyway--unless I'm in the mood to print some 120 negative scans on watercolor paper, or send an inkjet-printed postcard to someone, from a picture I made with a 4 X 5 Graflex. There are a lot more fun toys to play with nowadays...film and digital have essentially merged, but photography will always be about making pictures, so no regrets. |
Paul_ron
Tinkerer
Username: Paul_ron
Post Number: 262
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2011 - 02:58 pm: |
|
Funny this thread came back to life. I was talking to my son last week about this. He's upgraded to an expensive Mach someting Cannon digital n has been popping off shots like a bag of MnMs falling on a glass table.
So I ask him are your pictures any better now that you've gone over to the dark side? He say absolutely not, in fact he is bogged down by more crap to sort through as a result of unlimited film rolls in digital.
He's gone back to film just so he can relax n think his shots through more carefully instead of popping em off to see absolutely no difference between frames other than minute differences in movement like looking over movie film.
. |
Glenn
Tinkerer
Username: Glenn
Post Number: 954
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - 08:12 am: |
|
Sorry but that argument does not wash, why should you need to use digital in a more undisciplined way than film? The average 'frame' count is no different on my M6, to that on the M8 or M9 when I use both media on assignment.
The undisputed advantage of digital is twofold - To the professional the critical image is seen to be there. For the cash strapped student or beginner the infinite exposure count is a godsend, allowing much more cost effective progress than was available to me in my student days.
However to the disciplined or practised photographer the thought process, that is pursued prior to the shutter being released, is the same no matter what the recording media. One always frames, composes and even crops (by change of lens) the required image within the viewfinder, then make the exposure. If one does follow an ordered and practised procedure for film, why should digital suddenly become such a disorganised and chaotic crap shoot? |
Paul_ron
Tinkerer
Username: Paul_ron
Post Number: 263
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - 11:19 am: |
|
My post wasn't an argument, it's an opinion, a discussion I had with my son who does both film n digital for business n pleasure. A personal experiance.
So whether it washes or not is irrelevent, it's the reality of what was said that is important.
I understand what you are saying,but perhaps not a reality to many born after film with much less discipline, newbies, the majority of shooters on the strets today. Pop em off till someting looks good is the general attatude with most, n keep shooting so you won't miss anything since roll size is not a limiting factor anymore. Chaotic crap shoot? Not by any means in the professioanl world but in reality for the majority it is.
For some, more experianced n pro photographers,it is a well thought out thinking process, no different in any pro media. But we aren't talking about the minority of users in digital driving the market killing film as the topic of discussion here, are we?
But we can thank digital for making top of the line professioanl film equipment more accessable to amatures at dirt cheap prices!
. |
Waynemel
Tinkerer
Username: Waynemel
Post Number: 89
Registered: 08-2009
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - 12:32 pm: |
|
One of the most ridiculous and telling comments I heard from a digital shooter was "with digital photography, quantity means quality", meaning that the more you shoot, the more chance you have of getting a keeper. This is like giving a soldier a machine gun and calling him a sniper.
Unfortunately, for the majority of "photographers", the art of composition has been lost and has somewhat been superceded by post production techniques (Photoshop) that try to salvage the image and raise it to the level of art.
I'm not anti-digital, in fact I have a very nice digital camera and several lenses that are great to shoot. However, I don't go out and fill my memory card with hundreds of photos in one outing, only to use a handful. Most people take way too many photos just because they can. What do they do with them all anyway?
I prefer using film, even though it isn't as convenient. Film makes me think more, and provides a certain amount of suspense instead of instant feedback. |
Karl
Tinkerer
Username: Karl
Post Number: 85
Registered: 03-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2011 - 01:15 pm: |
|
Thank you Waynemel,you brought some memories back with (suspense instead of instant feedback).That was exaclty how it felt when I first started taking photos in my teens,the wait was half the fun.The,did I get the shot or not,was a great feeling and the result was sometimes an even bigger high.I think you learn more when there are no second chances. |
M_currie
Tinkerer
Username: M_currie
Post Number: 270
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2011 - 08:14 am: |
|
My wife and I shot a bunch of film last week on vacation, and when I took it to the local processor, he said he'd gotten a lot of film in recently. I don't think it's dead yet.
I sure hope not anyway. I think there will still be film for some years to come, just fewer choices. |
Fallisphoto
Tinkerer
Username: Fallisphoto
Post Number: 193
Registered: 09-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2011 - 03:04 pm: |
|
I've been hearing that for years now, and they are still making it. |
Msteen1314
Tinkerer
Username: Msteen1314
Post Number: 33
Registered: 04-2010
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2011 - 11:29 am: |
|
While no one can contest the speed at which digital results can be obtained for immediate viewing, film does indeed "force" you to slow down and give each exposure the respect it deserves.
While not ideal, I take my rolls of 35mm to the pharmacy who will process the negatives and burn them to CD right away. For a total cost of $2.99 Canadian, they will process up to 6 rolls and burn them to the CD. No prints, just an index card.
The scans are jpeg and are generally in the region of 500kb. I've asked if the have any control over the file size however they do not as it is all done in a single pass.
This has allowed me to keep shooting film with less cost than before and have the added benefit of a digital copy. Most scans are okay up to 8x10.
I inquired if they can accommodate 120 film on the machine, however they do not have the required attachments, pity.
Thought this may help others to keep shooting film at a sensible cost as it is becoming increasingly difficult these days to find a location of any sort that does any type of in house processing.
This, as well as obtaining expired film and freezing certainly helps the overall expense. |
Waynemel
Tinkerer
Username: Waynemel
Post Number: 119
Registered: 08-2009
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2011 - 12:15 pm: |
|
Where can you get processing for $3? I can take my film to Shoppers Drugmart and it costs $7 with prints (they do not have the option of scans and negs only). |
Msteen1314
Tinkerer
Username: Msteen1314
Post Number: 34
Registered: 04-2010
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2011 - 12:51 pm: |
|
I thought the price may surprise some.
We have a Shoppers Drug Mart in Moncton, New Brunswick that process the film and does a straight scan to CD. The cost is $2.99. Whether you process 1 film or 6, the price is $2.99 as long as they are going to CD. If you have a 7th roll then another CD is needed and therefore another $2.99.
It's a great price however I fear that it may not be around for the future as long as digital is here. |
Waynemel
Tinkerer
Username: Waynemel
Post Number: 122
Registered: 08-2009
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2011 - 05:58 am: |
|
That's a good deal.
I have recently started processing my own C-41 at home, so the cost is also very cheap. If I could get 35mm done for $3, the home processsing wouldn't make much sense. Medium format however is about $8 to have processed, negs only. I can do it at home for about $3 per roll, or less, depending on how much you stretch the developer. |
Jeffk
Tinkerer
Username: Jeffk
Post Number: 28
Registered: 10-2011
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2011 - 01:46 pm: |
|
I notice that the local supermarkets and drug stores no longer sell film, so I either buy some at the professional shop that I use to develop and print/mount my negatives or slides, or lately I just buy it online. 35 mm, 120, 4x5, 5x7, or 8x10, fine, but otherwise good luck. You can find at least 127, 8x11 submini, 122 (one source I know of), and probably still 110 and 126 if you dig around, but developing and printing these films can be a challenge beyond the capability of shops that don't cater to odd jobs.
One benefit of the digital age is the availability of excellent cheap flatbed scanners - for 122, I had a shop develop the negatives by hand, scanned the results at home at max resolution, gave the shop the TIFF files on a CD, and had them print them on gigantic photoprint paper. Fantastic results. |
Electricnerve
Tinkerer
Username: Electricnerve
Post Number: 1
Registered: 11-2011
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2011 - 01:59 am: |
|
Film is dying? Then fogging an entire roll is one sure way to kill it ;)
Karl was talking about grabbing rolls of film from disposable cameras:
"the single use camera mostly just has a normal 35mm cassette in the back so if you are in a jam buy one break it open and put it in your camera"
Not unless you are in total darkness. The film inside a disposable camera is pre-installed to wind back IN to the cassette as you shoot. Ever see a rewind button or rewind crank on a disposable camera? |
Neuberger
Tinkerer
Username: Neuberger
Post Number: 68
Registered: 01-2010
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 04:34 am: |
|
Let us be brave.
The short pragmatic answer to OP's question is yep, meanwhile film is as dead as a dodo, no, deader as any dodo could ever be. In other words, game over, gone forever. Sad but true. No film available, no lab processing it, not many of the manifold services of the past offered any longer by photo equipment dealers, and if, at very unrealistic prices.
Kodak? Agfa? Orwo? Fuji? Names of the past with (almost, as regards the last of the Mohicans) no current meaning. All gone down the drain, like Leica, Minolta and the rest of the bunch.
But obviously, consolation is lurking around every corner, as even here people can catch sight of what they call the "benefit of the digital age is the availability of ...". Oh, well. |
Paul_ron
Tinkerer
Username: Paul_ron
Post Number: 301
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 07:41 am: |
|
Well here we are again 3 years later n film is still alive n doing just fine.
I love when this thread comes back up, it is like our journal, documenting the survival of a good old friend suffering from a terminal desease.
So how many of us went over to the dark side.. raise your hands?
I'm still shooting MF, cranking up the old RBs buying 120 in bricks. Love my wet enlargers n the smell of fixer in the morning.
Oh BTW to the post about all the diggitals he sees when on vacation?... how many people did you see sitting around with an easel n paints? Seems to me paintings are still being sold... another art form hardly noticed anymore but still alive. |
Brianshaw
Tinkerer
Username: Brianshaw
Post Number: 138
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 23, 2012 - 07:43 am: |
|
Well, film is faultering slightly. Let's face realityin a realistic manner. But as long as it is still staggering we'll be OK. |
Brianshaw
Tinkerer
Username: Brianshaw
Post Number: 139
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 23, 2012 - 07:44 am: |
|
p.s. Still shooting film 99% of the time... but less of it than ever. |
G3bill
Tinkerer
Username: G3bill
Post Number: 37
Registered: 12-2012
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 26, 2012 - 01:17 am: |
|
I'm glad to see the finer camera shops are carrying many types of film and some at not bad prices. I'm glad this thread proves some things can continue but perhaps not exactly as before. In my area Costco used to have many bins to pic up your prints and now only one small one for the one or two developing machines. Once my A-1 is right I'll be exposing some rolls also |
Biloraguy
Tinkerer
Username: Biloraguy
Post Number: 4
Registered: 06-2013
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, June 10, 2013 - 12:24 pm: |
|
I just read that 35 million rolls of film were bought in this country last year. When that figure hits 27, I will start to worry. And then I'll make my own film. |
