Anyone still use film?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

lisam

lisam

Member
Member's gallery
Hello everyone,

I've never used film. All I've ever known is digital photography. Does anyone here still use film? I have seen negatives / slides but never taken photographs using film. Does anyone still use film? even if its for authentic purposes?

Lisa
 
  • Like
Reactions: JAS
Member's gallery
I can't remember when I last used film. This is my 40+ year old Nikon FE2.

.
FE2 Front 2.jpeg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
FE2 Back 2.jpeg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Egads!…..You’ve called out all the dinosaurs! I’ve actually considered shooting some film again for landscapes. Film was fun and obviously lower tech. My Nikon “F” would be familiar to use again and I can convert film or slides to digital with the D850….or just get quality prints.
IMG_0164.jpeg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Larry S. said:
Egads!…..You’ve called out all the dinosaurs! I’ve actually considered shooting some film again for landscapes. Film was fun and obviously lower tech. My Nikon “F” would be familiar to use again and I can convert film or slides to digital with the D850….or just get quality prints.
View attachment 86741
Click to expand...
My first SLR was a Nikon F. I bought used from an architect when I was going to college. I wish I still had it.
 
Member's gallery
I have a Nikon F100 that was a gift from a dear friend who has since passed. That camera will remain in my hands as long as I am around. It works great with the F-mount lenses I have and I take it out a couple of time a year to shoot a roll or two. I will have it developed with a set of prints and then scan the negatives to my Lightroom catalog. The added attention required as compared to the current high end mirrorless systems reminds me of where I started back in the 1960's. Film is not necessary and can be a bit of a pain, but I will keep shooting as long as I can get the film developed.
 
Member's gallery
Larry S. said:
Egads!…..You’ve called out all the dinosaurs! I’ve actually considered shooting some film again for landscapes. Film was fun and obviously lower tech. My Nikon “F” would be familiar to use again and I can convert film or slides to digital with the D850….or just get quality prints.
View attachment 86741
Click to expand...
I have a very similar collection. Probably a few more. 😂
 
Member's gallery
Larry S. said:
Egads!…..You’ve called out all the dinosaurs! I’ve actually considered shooting some film again for landscapes. Film was fun and obviously lower tech. My Nikon “F” would be familiar to use again and I can convert film or slides to digital with the D850….or just get quality prints.
View attachment 86741
Click to expand...
A Brownie movie camera! I haven’t seen one of those in years. Does it still work?
 
Member's gallery
Way cool thread. I'll try to post a few photos of my old Nikon FG and my wife's F. Beautiful machines. I still use our old lenses. I think some have a wonderful look.

I will say that still consider myself an intermediatly skilled photographer and that most of my skills came from when I was able to take lots of pictures without developing costs.
 
Member's gallery
Not any more. When I got my first digital SLR (Canon 5DmkII) I also kept a film Canon EOS 1N for a couple years. I used it on one (or was it two) Europe trips with one roll loaded to do occasional double exposures. Only one of these came out really well and in fact is a 40x60 inch enlargement in my living room (made possible due to use of Kodak Ektar 100, the finest grained color negative film available, though in my all-film days I shot slide film). I will post it below. I did one shot at dusk which provided the red glow on the horizon and the second shot on the same frame of film about half an hour later to get the night lights on the city and Notre Dame (before the fire). I carefully guarded my tripod on the bridge to make sure no pedestrians bumped it between exposures, since everything had to line up perfectly.

As well as it came out, I get similar results just shooting a single frame with digital at dusk (blue hour). For the trouble of carrying an extra body and getting the film developed and scanned it was not worth it so I sold that film camera. I am now all digital (and more recently switched from digital SLR to mirrorless). Also at the time I was working at a photo lab so getting film processed and scanned was easy, but these days it would be much harder and more expensive for me.

paris_notre_dame.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
JAS said:
I have a Nikon F100 that was a gift from a dear friend who has since passed. That camera will remain in my hands as long as I am around. It works great with the F-mount lenses I have and I take it out a couple of time a year to shoot a roll or two. I will have it developed with a set of prints and then scan the negatives to my Lightroom catalog. The added attention required as compared to the current high end mirrorless systems reminds me of where I started back in the 1960's. Film is not necessary and can be a bit of a pain, but I will keep shooting as long as I can get the film developed.
Click to expand...
I've never handled a film camera before. I think there are places near me that still do film development. Do you see any advantages using film over digital?
 
Member's gallery
Not I. Having used film for well over 40 years I'd almost given up photography before I got my first digital camera. Now, as it was in the 1970s and early 80s, photography is my main hobby. Let me count the ways in which film is a pain: 36 (maybe 37 or38) shots before you have to stop, rewind the film, open the camera back, insert a new roll and close the camera; top ISO for color slides is about 400; sending the film off for processing and waiting for slides to be returned; film lost in the mail; expensive per "keeper"; boxes and boxes of stored slides taking up space; no BIF shots; no post-processing; etc. etc. I'm gradually digitizing my old slides and am amazed how many, including some that were published, are really terrible compared to what I get with my digital cameras.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top