Doug Herr
Well-known member
Yes. Nikkormat was the North American name for the consumer line of bodies. In Japan it was called Nikomat.
Anyone still use film?
- Thread starter lisam
- Start date
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).
Doug Herr
Well-known member
There are differences that some think of as advantages, mostly being forced to slow down and think about each exposure because of the expense and hassle. For myself, for practical daily use I see no advantage. When I switched from film to a 10 MP, 2 fps digital camera the transition was almost instant. I told myself the film camera would be a backup but a few years later the same roll of film was still in the camera and I had no desire to use it or to develop the exposures already on the roll.
fcotterill
Well-known member
I used my last roll of Fujichrome Provia through a Nikon F90x on the Congo river in 2008, the year I'd switched to a DSLR.
It was a privilege to use Kodachrome, with which I started off in wildlife photography. First it was Kodachrome 25 then K 64, of NatGeo fame. One learned shot discipline, especially as a student, let alone sound technique.
A Tupperware of K64 cost me a fortune for trips between university terms. The processing price was inclusive posted off in the distinctive Kodak envelope to the only processing Lab in Africa, in Joburg. Then you waited anxiously for the yellow plastic boxes to be mailed back weeks later, neatly packed with processed slides in their trademarked frames.
It was a big jump when Fujichrome released Velvia 100... wow almost a whole fStop faster! The E6 processing speeded up return on development. And buying plastic slide frames in bulk saved some money.
The modern digital sensors have moved even further beyond the resolution and ISO of chemical films since this article, which gives useful comparisons. The lowlight performance of FX sensors, exemplified in the Nikon D5 (also D6), are just extraordinary for wildlife photography, compared to when we only had film.
It was a privilege to use Kodachrome, with which I started off in wildlife photography. First it was Kodachrome 25 then K 64, of NatGeo fame. One learned shot discipline, especially as a student, let alone sound technique.
A Tupperware of K64 cost me a fortune for trips between university terms. The processing price was inclusive posted off in the distinctive Kodak envelope to the only processing Lab in Africa, in Joburg. Then you waited anxiously for the yellow plastic boxes to be mailed back weeks later, neatly packed with processed slides in their trademarked frames.
It was a big jump when Fujichrome released Velvia 100... wow almost a whole fStop faster! The E6 processing speeded up return on development. And buying plastic slide frames in bulk saved some money.
The modern digital sensors have moved even further beyond the resolution and ISO of chemical films since this article, which gives useful comparisons. The lowlight performance of FX sensors, exemplified in the Nikon D5 (also D6), are just extraordinary for wildlife photography, compared to when we only had film.
Clarkvision: Film versus Digital Summary
clarkvision.com
Last edited:
fcotterill
Well-known member
Shooting film was still an expensive operation, which I don't miss in money and tedium. I still have umpteen boxes of transparencies; my selects in hanging filing folders, most of which have been scanned. It took many hours sorting and labelling, which I also don't miss.
I started with a Nikon FM2, added a F3 then the big jump to an AF SLR, the F90x. I still keep the Nikon F3 for nostalgic reasons only - it's purely an ornament to many memories. I didn't get to afford a FM3a or F100. All these models have recovered their Used value with the film revival.
Nevertheless, several friends, mainstream digital photographers, have returned to film as a hobby. B&W mostly. But I've no desire, although the allure of film is understandable. The thought of framing, cataloguing and filing slides has zero attraction.
www.theguardian.com
artbypino.com
I started with a Nikon FM2, added a F3 then the big jump to an AF SLR, the F90x. I still keep the Nikon F3 for nostalgic reasons only - it's purely an ornament to many memories. I didn't get to afford a FM3a or F100. All these models have recovered their Used value with the film revival.
Nevertheless, several friends, mainstream digital photographers, have returned to film as a hobby. B&W mostly. But I've no desire, although the allure of film is understandable. The thought of framing, cataloguing and filing slides has zero attraction.
‘You only have one shot’: how film cameras won over a younger generation
A new wave of enthusiasts are eschewing the multi-megapixel convenience of digital photography in favour of an older, slower, ‘magical’ tech
www.theguardian.com
9 reasons Why Film Photography Is Coming Back
Film photography is gaining popularity once again, and it's not just among nostalgic hobbyists. Today, the old film cameras of yesteryear are often more expensive than some full-frame DSLR cameras. Read to understand the 9 reasons why film photography is coming back? Why the revival or resurgence?
artbypino.com
Last edited:
John Navitsky
Well-known member
nope, and i don’t miss it at all.
Ok, I read that article, "9 reasons why film photography is coming back." What a load of hooey. I don't care if people use film; go for it! But to claim that film is more "authentic" or has an "unmatched aesthetic" or has a certain "depth" not found in digital is just plain blather. People might find using film "therapeutic" for completely subjective reasons--each to his/her own. That you "have to" be more careful about each exposure because film is expensive is disingenuous, as it implies that digital photographers are necessarily "careless" and cavalier. Phooey.
I do think that some people (particularly very young people) go to film as a way to appear more "deep," "thoughtful," and "independent," but to my mind, there is a large element of pretension in all of this. Young people rebelling against the ways that Mom, Dad, Grandpa, and Grandma have done things is a timeless, developmentally driven reality. I think that the film craze among Gen Xers is another example of this.
I do think that some people (particularly very young people) go to film as a way to appear more "deep," "thoughtful," and "independent," but to my mind, there is a large element of pretension in all of this. Young people rebelling against the ways that Mom, Dad, Grandpa, and Grandma have done things is a timeless, developmentally driven reality. I think that the film craze among Gen Xers is another example of this.
Last edited:
Not necessarily advantages (and there are a lot of disadvantages), bu there are reasons some people (not me) still use it.
First reason is the attitude one has when shooting film, a more careful and slow approach, only taking a shot when you think it's a winner.
Second is just the different look. I read an article several years ago about a wedding photographer who said they have created a market for themselves because they use film and clients like the look. (Though I question how many people in the general public could honestly tell the difference).
One area where film shines is in clear blue skies, since the film grain gives it some texture whereas the solid blue of digital has a more plasticy feel. The other is in long exposures, since film does not have digital noise. You can do star trails with a single exposure on film whereas with digital you need to do dozens (or even hundreds) of exposures and use special stacking software.
One word of warning if you travel with film (I mean travel by air). Years ago airport security placed higher intensity xray machines in checked baggage that can ruin film. The different xray machines on checkpoints were traditionally okay, but now they are rolling out the higher intensity versions on checkpoints as well. If you do happen to use film and fly, it is safest to ask for a hand check. (Please note xrays have no effect on digital cameras or memory cards, another reason to just shoot digital).
Not A Speck Of Cereal
Well-known member
(Please, no political responses to this post)
In the current Alex Garland film 'Civil War', which is mostly a film about photojournalists working in a fictitious war-torn scenario, we have several PJs represented in the film. One of them is a young woman shooting film. She uses a vintage Nikon. The film has a scene where she's developing film in the field, hanging negative strips from the back of a lawn chair.
In the heat-of-action shots, the film mercifully does not bother showing us when has to change rolls, but everyone here knows it would happen often. I can't image that's a plus when you can have a large storage card with several hundred shots (and swap them much more quickly, plus the 2nd slot if you are not using it for backup).
There are a lot great scenes in the film where she takes the shot and the film gives a 3 second freeze-frame of the resulting shot, full screen and in B&W. They put a lot of care into making those all keepers. This is definitely a great film for photographers, and anyone that has fond memories of old PJs in the field (recalling films such as 'The Year of Living Dangerously').
I understand young folk using film these days, the nostalgia, the aesthetics of working with analog, etc. but I really don't see a PJ using film in a war-zone PJ situation at all unless they really needed to be independent of computers and hard-drive backups. Everyone else is using digital, especially the seasoned elder PJs.
Chris
In the current Alex Garland film 'Civil War', which is mostly a film about photojournalists working in a fictitious war-torn scenario, we have several PJs represented in the film. One of them is a young woman shooting film. She uses a vintage Nikon. The film has a scene where she's developing film in the field, hanging negative strips from the back of a lawn chair.
In the heat-of-action shots, the film mercifully does not bother showing us when has to change rolls, but everyone here knows it would happen often. I can't image that's a plus when you can have a large storage card with several hundred shots (and swap them much more quickly, plus the 2nd slot if you are not using it for backup).
There are a lot great scenes in the film where she takes the shot and the film gives a 3 second freeze-frame of the resulting shot, full screen and in B&W. They put a lot of care into making those all keepers. This is definitely a great film for photographers, and anyone that has fond memories of old PJs in the field (recalling films such as 'The Year of Living Dangerously').
I understand young folk using film these days, the nostalgia, the aesthetics of working with analog, etc. but I really don't see a PJ using film in a war-zone PJ situation at all unless they really needed to be independent of computers and hard-drive backups. Everyone else is using digital, especially the seasoned elder PJs.
Chris
Last edited:
Sawdustman
New member
Have a D850 and Z9 but also shoot a Nikon F photomic 35mm, a RB67 medium format and a Horseman 4x5 all for fun. Gallery I’m in recently sponsored a contest for high school students. I was amazed when their teacher said he had never used a film camera. Guess I’m really old.
Doug Herr
Well-known member
Film would be especially challenging to use when editors are demanding "pictures, NOW". The delay in processing alone makes film uncompetitive, add to this the time in transit to the editor's desk (or time spent digitizing before transmission). I used film for several decades but there's not the slightest chance I would again in any time-sensitive situation.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
to double down on Doug’s comment, how, exactly would you DELIVER your film to your org. you’d have to PHYSICALLY get to an office which probably isn’t practical during a war and the they’d have to convert it to digital to use it
in reality it’s going to be much more practical to maintain enough power (solar, opportunistic charging) than to deal with film, imo
in reality it’s going to be much more practical to maintain enough power (solar, opportunistic charging) than to deal with film, imo
John Navitsky
Well-known member
it’s amazing how young people are these days
Not A Speck Of Cereal
Well-known member
Yes, I hadn't thought of that. The PJs in the film were trekking in an SUV with equipment on a top rack, so it's likely they would carry a large power station. And they can charge that while driving, but they would probably also have to have a solar solution as well. They slept at night off grid (and the grid in a war-zone isn't reliable anyway).
Chris
True, the infrastructure for fast film turnaround is gone. In the 1990s I was working at a photo lab and one of our employees was sent to the 1996 summer olympics in Atlanta to work at the Kodak photo lab set up on site for photojournalists. They could drop off their film and pick it up a short while later. The US military (and I imagine other country militaries) had their own darkrooms and photo departments. Even for us regular folks, one hour photo stores could be found in just about every city (even in Walgreens). Those days are long gone and people who use film do it for the aesthetic or the philosophy of the approach, but definitely not for speed or convenience.
thraxisp
New member
When I first walked into Mike's Camera in Menlo Park, CA, I was surprised to see the same C-41 processing equipment that was in the camera store I worked in as a teen. I asked if it got much use, and they said it did. One common use was the single use waterproof 35mm cameras.
BWP
Member
I still have a large format camera, a medium format camera and several 35mm cameras. I have film in my deep freezer to preserve it, but the truth is I haven't touched film in 22 years now. I went to Costa Rica in 2000 with a load of film, but only brought two rolls of 800 ASA film, much to my regret. The huge benefit from digital is the ability to push a button and adjust your ISO speed on the fly, or better yet leave it in auto mode and manually adjust everything else. However, I have to admit, I did like the darkroom work. There was something mesmerizing about watching the image appear before your eyes under the red light. Lightroom has made it far too easy to produce a good quality print, especially for color. I'm getting too old I suspect.... I still long for the old days, despite the ease of use today in the digital world.
Not A Speck Of Cereal
Well-known member
Agreed, for B&W. But anybody that's done color in a darkroom (not a pro photo lab) knows that things need to be much more exacting and your ability to make even slight color-science modifications to the process were slim.
Even aside from composites, HDR, content awareness, layers and masks, and AI, todays' basic color development in software puts much more power into our hands. No need to scribble instructions on the envelope at the pro color lab and hope they 'get' your meaning. And black and white work is also more powerful, with 6 color 'filters' (with strength sliders) at our disposal.
The kids can have film.
Chris
BWP
Member
I had full color processing in my basement, so it was easier than sending it to a lab, however it was never as easy as today. I had to let the print processor come up to temperature and cycle fresh chemicals into the system, so it was also expensive.... but having full control was pretty nice. Today the ink jet printers and archival papers out perform the chemical process, so I don't feel a sense of loss over that part. However, as you mentioned, B&W was a much easier process to manage in a home darkroom. I started my photography love 60 years ago at the age of 9 with a roll film (120) camera and a contact printer. Thank you Dad for introducing me to this amazing hobby!
dwm55
New member
I still shoot film a couple times a year in cameras I grew up with. Yesterday I shot grandkids on a playground using a vintage 1953 Kodak Retina IIa — the first camera I shot with. I have various 35mm and 120mm cameras I shot with over the years, and try to shoot a B&W roll through them at least once a year. The mechanical cameras and the process are a nice change from shooting with my digital camera.
For all the reasons others have mentioned, I shoot primarily digital. The advantages are overwhelming. I mainly shoot film to keep the old cameras in shape. When I shoot with a film camera, I try to set a particular theme and try to finish the roll in one day. I think film has its own look, which I find attractive when shooting some subjects.
Last edited:
lisam
Member
Can you still get black and white film? I've looked on Amazon and Ebay and can't find any. Only Kodak and Fuji colour film.
BWP
Member
I'm in Canada and this store has B&W film for 35mm cameras.
www.vistek.ca
Ilford HP5 Plus 135-36 ISO400 IL1574577 B&W Film 35mm - Vistek Canada Product Detail
Ilford HP5 Plus 13536 ISO400 IL1574577 Film Professional Roll Film 35mm 135 36 films 35mm High Speed ISO 400 film with great results in varied lighting conditions. Medium contrast, suitable for action and press photography. - Vistek - Product Detail Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa...
dwm55
New member
Amazon has it (search B&W 35mm film). Also B&H Photo, Adorama, and Roberts, and my local camera store stocks it. I find film is cheaper at Adorama or B&H Photo than Amazon.
lisam
Member
BWP
Member
If you have a chance to use a medium format camera or an older roll film camera you can get 120 film from B&H Photo here: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/24735-REG/Ilford_1629017_HP5_Plus_120_Black.html