1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why I've pulled out of film photography.

Discussion in 'Everything Film' started by peterkin1010, Sep 28, 2012.

  1. dangie

    dangie Senior Knobhead

    I gave up on film in 2003 when after a holiday in the Austrian Alps I put eight films into Kodak for D&P and they lost them all. Somehow I believe approximately 30,000 films and their address labels had got separated. It took nine months and numerous visits and phone calls to the lab to get reunited with my prints. I eventually got the prints back but by then I had bought a Pentax 330GS compact. At least Kodak didn't charge me for the prints..!!

    I still have my Pentax Spotmatic which gets a loving caress from time to time.
     
  2. Yebisu

    Yebisu Well-Known Member

    I still use film but mainly black and white which I develop at home and scan on a V700.

    I gave up on c41 a couple of years ago and I'm thinking of leaving slide film as well. I shot a roll of Velvia 100 last weekend trying to capture the Autumn colour. The colours look great on the light table but the scans from my v700 are poor (even after pp).
     
  3. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    I've hardly shot film this year. A number of reasons, one of which which is growing - those chemicals are potentially quite nasty and washing them down the sink plays on my conscience... I still prefer the experience of shooting film, but whereas previously I shot digital for better results in some situations and film for better results in others, my NEX is just so competent in all situations to make me not want to carry a second (film) camera unless it is a specifically photo-orientated trip. Not sure if I should :) or :(.
     
  4. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Not really. If they were, they'd be banned by everyone on the grounds of scientific evidence, not banned in a few places on the basis of chemophobia. Chemophobia is a branch of what I call "arts graduate science".

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  5. alindsay

    alindsay Well-Known Member

    Safe practice is sensible in the darkroom, but I think you pour far nastier stuff down the sink with household cleaners and bleaches, and far more regularly.
     
  6. peterkin1010

    peterkin1010 Active Member

    Recently got my first roll of Fuji Superia 200 from my EOS-3/100mm f2 combo processed and printed by Boots in Leicester.

    So-so results which IMHO had more to do with the so-so printing. But it showed at least the camera was working properly and the potential for some great results. For more serious work I'll be using EKTAR 100 and printing via a Pro lab
     
  7. 2lude

    2lude Well-Known Member

    The reason I didn't get into photography heavily until now was cost of films and processing and not being able to experiment without wasting film and paying for it with processing . Digital age has made it far easier for people like my self to play with setting and find a instant result I try not to be trigger happy but digital does make it easier and if the shot fails you can simply delete and not worry about cost
     
  8. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    The quality of fim d&p has been a problem for some time. The majority of labs don't print direct from the negative, they use a fast (low res) scan and print from that.
     
  9. Malcolm_Stewart

    Malcolm_Stewart Well-Known Member

    And in my last use of a "Professional" E6 Process and Archival Scanning service, I paid much more for their top end service, only to find that the scans were obviously up-ressed from a quick and dirty basic scan. Once the film has been cut into 4s or 6s, no laboratory oik is going to ask permission to do another loss making scan, so I was sent rubbish. Since then I've never used them again, and I've bought a decent scanner.
     
  10. Atavar

    Atavar Well-Known Member

    I don't understand why they do not simply adapt high megapixle 35mm full-frame sensors for contact printing 35mm negatives... Imagine scanning a roll of 36 exposures to 36 megapixel output in four and a half seconds?

    With the pixels so small in a crowded sensor, I can't imagine the end result will be effected by it being a contact print rather than a scan...?
     

Share This Page