How many of us still use film?

[overall]

With the bankrupcy of kodak, I got to wondering how many of us still us film to photograph trains. If you do use film, why do you stay with it?

George

[nycstlrr]

I still use Fuji film. I feel more comfortable using my Minolta than I do the digital I have..... I can never get used to the delay it has after you push the shutter. Missed one too many things and said the heck with it.

Bill

[Phoebe Vet]

I quit using film when Canon began producing SLRs that are nearly indistinguishable from their 35mm SLRs.

Kodak is not liquidating, it is reorganizing.

[Victrola1]

I still drag out one of two Mamyia twin lenses on occasion. A negative sized larger than a thumbnail sized sensor is desirable at times.

[DMUinCT]

Photography has been one of my hobbies for the last 60 years.   I have not used film for the last 10. 

The name of the game is a box with a lens and a recording material.   Get the best lens you can afford, get a box (camera) that will do what you want (point and shoot with auto focus and aperture control or a full manual operation or both), a burst feature lets you get a series of full resolution photos.  5 mega-pixel will give you a good 8X10 print, 8 mega-pixel equals Kodacolor, while 18 mega-pixel equals Kodachrome. Photographing in "RAW" makes it easy for publishing companies to convert your photos.  Then you have "Photoshop" to process you prints, correct all your mistakes.

There is a reason Kodak has failed, lack of demand for film.   They do make some very good cameras (in Japan) with a good lens.

[CopCarSS]

I shoot both. When I can find a digital back for this:

I'll probably go digital only. At the moment, there's a medium format digital back that comes close quality wise (the Phase One IQ180), but I don't have the $40-$50K needed for the system and I still can't control plane of focus and depth of field and as much as I can with an 8x10 camera:

 

Film has it's short-comings, too, though. High ISO work that wasn't even dreamable with film is now routine with digital. Horses for courses...

[Victrola1]

Time exposures measured in minutes send me to the closet for a film camera.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I'm still using film.  The expense in converting to digital (new camera, memory sticks, reader, etc.) is a major barrier.  It's also a lot cozier to relax in a comfy chair and go through photo albums looking at what you've shot over the years, back to 1969 in my case.

[BaltACD]

When doing my Christmas shopping I made passes through several Camera stores - where in the past, behind the cash register there would be a rack with all the forms of film the store was selling - Kodak, Agfa, Fuji etc ... the rack was still there, but it was only populated by Fuji and that only occupied 1/8 of the rack or less.

I still have my film cameras, but most of the shot I have taken recently have been with my cheapie digital....I can throw it in my pocket and it's available to quickie grab shots in seconds.

[Paul of Covington]

    That shutter delay drives me crazy, too, but I'm not using a very expensive digital camera.     Can anyone give me a ballpark figure for minimum bucks for an immediate shutter response?

[oltmannd]

Paul of Covington

    That shutter delay drives me crazy, too, but I'm not using a very expensive digital camera.     Can anyone give me a ballpark figure for minimum bucks for an immediate shutter response?

Have you tried the "holding the shutter button down halfway trick"  I forces the camera to focus and set the exposure.  Then when you press it the rest of the way, it only has to actuate the shutter.  Gets rid of almost all the lag.  The trick it to pick the spot you want in focus so that when the train wanders into the frame, it's in focus.

[DMUinCT]

Paul of Covington

    That shutter delay drives me crazy, too, but I'm not using a very expensive digital camera.     Can anyone give me a ballpark figure for minimum bucks for an immediate shutter response?

With most Digital camers a delay between pushing the Shutter Button and the picture being taken is caused by the Lens Focusing and the Exposure being adjusted.   If you are moving the camera it's almost continuous  (tracking).

BUT !   With most Cameras you can aim where you want to shoot, press the Shutter Button half way down to lock in the values and hold the button there until your ready and push it the rest of the way.  It will take practice.    It's one inconvenience of Digtal, but then again, you never wind the film, the Memory Card can take several hundred photos (no film to carry), and you can change the ISO value at will to control night and time exposures.

[BaltACD]

My auto-focus film camera has the same delay as it has to focus then fire the shutter - the half down to lock the focus trick works.

My cheapie digital, when in flash mode, has a delay  to minimize 'red eye' as it fires a partial flash before firing the flash that takes the picture....that really drives me crazy.

Paul of Covington

    That shutter delay drives me crazy, too, but I'm not using a very expensive digital camera.     Can anyone give me a ballpark figure for minimum bucks for an immediate shutter response?

[artpeterson]

I still shoot slides - Fuji is no substitute for Kodachrome, but I still enjoy trading slides and all those other great habits gathered from a lifetime of shooting and collecting slides.  Art

[Semper Vaporo]

I don't understand why the camera has to REfocus when I press the shutter button.  It is displaying the image on the screen on the back and IT is ALREADY in-focus.  Pressing the button should be nothing more that capturing the image ALREADY on the screen.

[Modelcar]

Still have a Canon EOS Elan7e with a 28 - 200 lens in my camera drawer, and it hasn't been touched in at least 2 years....Even have a good roll of B&W filim, I never opened, and used....What a waste.

And today we hear the word of Bankrupcy filed by Kodak....What a shame.  Such an old company, and seems they couldn't see the transition coming quick enough to prepare products for the market.

[CopCarSS]

Modelcar

Such an old company, and seems they couldn't see the transition coming quick enough to prepare products for the market.

Interestingly, Kodak ruled the digital market early on. If you were shooting digital before 2001, you were either doing so with something with webcam resolution or a(n expensive)  Kodak digital camera based on a Canon or Nikon film body.

Unfortunately, in the years since (and before -- the whole APS fiasco comes to mind), there's been mistake after mistake by Kodak. It's not that they haven't been trying. It's been misreads of the market, poor execution of good ideas, inability to fully commit to the future because present sales models could have been jeopardized, and really bad decisions by the MBA crowd that ran the company.

I really hope that the film division can survive to be spun off somehow. There are true gems there that no one else makes. Classic emulsions like Tri-X as well as really tremendous new films like Portra and Ektar. The problem for the film division if they do get spun off will be learning to do everything smaller. Kodak is set up to make a LOT of film. Doing small batches isn't something that they're set up to do. And with Hollywood moving towards digital more and more every year (3D movies have really pushed this faster than it would have been otherwise) film's last true stronghold gives less and less business every year. If the film division is to survive, it will need to adapt to the niche market that film photography is becoming. It's a strong niche to be sure...but a niche none-the-less.

[Firelock76]

Yeah, I'm still one of those dinosaurs still using film.  Why?  'Cause it's FUN!  I love the looks I get from people when I pull out my Argus C-3, or my Kodak Pony, or one of my antique 35mm cameras.  Those oldies'll still sing if you treat them right.  Mind you, I'm not shooting photos all the time, just on occasion or when the mood strikes me.  I DO use a DVD camera now  when I want to shoot movies.  I used to shoot 16mm movies but the film and processing just got too expensive. 

[n012944]

I still shoot slides, when Fuji stops making slides, I will be done shooting.

[erikem]

CopCarSS

 

Interestingly, Kodak ruled the digital market early on.

And Kodak has some very fundamental patents on digital imaging. Two examples: the way the two green, one red and one blue pixels are used; having about two to three pictures worth of RAM, and using that to store raw data while the camera processor converts that into JPEG's.

Also remember that Kodak sells a lot of X-ray film.

- Erik

[Stourbridge Lion]

CopCarSS

Canon Power Shot A630 8.0MP 4x Digital Camera w/o using a tripod

Look like we have similar taste in engines!!!!!!!

[ericsp]

I still use film. When I have it developed I have them scanned to a CD. The resolution is probably lower than if I used digital but I have the photographs saved on three media. I may switch to a higher quality film or ISO200 film so that it is not as grainy. I also use a Pentax K1000 camera that is older than me.

[inch53]

I’m still using an old Praktica [German] 35 mm film camera, along with a Kodak digital easy shoot. I also have a Nikon that needs some work, but I haven’t luck finding anyone to work on it round here.

Kodak film getting hard to find also, there’s only one place I know that still carries and it’s a 25 mile drive. So, I end using Fuji when i run out of kodak. Wally World’s the only place close to get it developed anymore and it takes at least a week or so to get pictures back. But even so I’ll still keep using film as long as I can.

inch

[spbed]

With the advent of YT I gave up on stills all together since video is the real deal. My DSLR is right now in mothballs

 

 

overall

With the bankrupcy of kodak, I got to wondering how many of us still us film to photograph trains. If you do use film, why do you stay with it?

George

[henry6]

I still do...I've been told my experts that it would cost me over a thousand dollars to get the quality and ability of what i have in by  OE-1 and lenses.  I have been using 400 speed film and don't usually get anything more than a proof sheet, disk, and negs. instead of full printing.  But it is cumbersome and I am really considering changing to digital sometime...when I have the time I guess!

 

 

[Paul of Covington]

    To the responses about my complaint about shutter delay, I remember that the instructions mentioned the "half-way" technique, and I have tried it and it does shorten the delay, but the detent (if it exists at all) is so weak that it is hard to hold.

     And, ericsp, I used a K1000 for years, too, and loved it, but the felts have deteriorated, and replacing them would cost more than I paid for the camera.    Manually presetting the exposure and focus was never a problem--in fact, I always thought of it as an advantage.

[CopCarSS]

Stourbridge Lion

 

Look like we have similar taste in engines!!!!!!!

LOL! It would certainly appear that way!

[zardoz]

spbed

With the advent of YT I gave up on stills all together since video is the real deal. 

The "real deal"? I would say that that is a matter of opinion. Good luck posting a video, or putting a video in a frame to display.  Video has it's place, as does still photography.

I gave up on YT a long time ago; when searching the site looking for interesting stuff, I always felt like I was 'dumpster diving'.

FWIW, I gave up on film a long time ago.  At first, when digital first came out, the resolution was terrible--certainly no comparison to film.  But as digital became better, I eventually switched; and although at first I wasn't too impressed, the financial reasons were sound.  But then two things happened that made me a total convert: megapixel totals over 12, and excellent post-processing software.  

It used to cost me about 40 cents per slide (film + processing + mail costs).  My current digital camera cost me around $1500, and the lens around $700, software about $200.  Last month I rolled the odometer over on the camera after shooting my 9999th image (granted, I shoot much more freely with digital, as there is no incremental costs) But using my film cost as a base number, digital became cost-effective about 3,000 images ago. And now my images no longer have scratches, dust, fingerprints, damage from the processing lab, heat-related issues, damaged in mail, etc.

And while the12MP image detail from my camera is technically inferior to a good 35mm slide film (Velvia, Provia, etc), for my non-professional uses it is sufficient for a good enlargement up to 16x20.  

[Thomas 9011]

I would never go back to film again. I have been shooting digital for about 8 years now. Digital is far superior to anything film has to offer now. With digital it computes all the exposure, shutter speed, and ISO automatically and it is very accurate. 98% of the time I just set the dial for action,close up,etc and don't need to adjust anything. Even with fast action shots the camera does all the work.

The best thing about digital is you can take a picture and review it and then make changes to your settings. This is extremely helpful especially if you are shooting a train at sunset or low light and the train is moving at a fast rate of speed. You can see in real time what the picture will look like.

A good camera is not that much money. A Nikon SLR D40X which is a excellent camera can be bought anywhere from $200.00 on up. A brand new Nikon or Canon SLR can be bought for $400.00 and that includes the lens. I have been shooting for 25 years and anyone shelling out 1200 or 1400 for a camera is crazy. The main reason those are so expensive is the extremely fast shutter speed which can take up to 12 frames a second. About the only people that need those are sports photographers. If you check the specs on your average SLR to a expensive SLR you will see they are nearly identical except for the shutter speed.

I would recommend buying everything on E-bay. You wont pay taxes which is a big chunk of money. You can also get brand new memory cards for 5 or 10 bucks and those are all in the giga bite ranges.

 I also don't know what people are talking about with the slow shutter response. Mine can take 3 frames a second and those are crisp photos with great color.

There is one thing I don't like about digital and that is you really don't have a physical negative like you had with the film cameras. Yes you have the file but very hard trying to sell digital files.

I will never go back to film. It was a pain in a** to deal with, expensive to buy and to process, and took box after box to store the prints. Digital has made my photography not only fun but a way to take a unlimited amount of photographs with little money.

 

[narig01]

I still like my Minolta SRT 201. I get the film processed and converted to a CD then stash the negatives.

       I would like to hear what kind of recommendations people have for an easy to use digital.  IE something not more complicated than the Minolta.  When shooting still subjects I tend to bracket (go 1 f stop above and below the meter) the exposure to see how it turns out.  I have yet to understand how to do this with a digital.

    Thx IGN