Thats a heartwarming picture !
A great one! Nice to see that.
Too bad the "film culture" has been (almost) abandoned in spain. Seems like most people want a camera that works like a machinegun.
I seen a man with an FM2 walking close the digital section yesterday in a mall. I see someone with a film camera from time to time. But rarely anyone under 30.
Originally Posted by stradibarrius
The economics of overhead costs and obsolescence.
The $1800 D200 I bought when they were released a few years back is showing it's age electronically, hot pixels (again), and the like. I've had it repaired several times, shutters, sensor, LCD. At $200 to $500 each repair it is essentially at the point for me where it not worth repairing. I might be able to sell it for 2-300 bucks.
That cost is a serious economic limit for a guy that is only shooting 300 shots a month. That doesn't even consider the support equipment, Computers, Printers, Software.
Had I bought the equivalent film camera, an F100 brand new for $750, instead of the D200, at 300 shots a month it would probably last nicely into my son's old age with a $150 CLA every 5 years or so.
On fine art side the cost 50-100 sheets of 4x5 Tri-X a year with the chemicals needed is almost inconsequential and it is going to be very tough to wear that camera out.
Work is actually the bigger issue for me.
For paying event work, like weddings, my strength and role is as a photographer; I don't want to be an editor, lab, or layout artist.
When I finish a roll of film and pop it out of the camera, I drop it in a padded envelope.
Monday morning the envelope is sealed and labeled and UPS takes it on a ride to Richard Photo Lab. 2 weeks later I get back all the film, prints, and scans, color and brightness corrected, ready to use and show the client. I plan on paying a buck a frame for that service.
Sure I could do the same thing digitally an have the prints and files in about a week, but I'd actually pay more. Most of the Pro-Labs charge a $1 per frame just to correct the color and brightness, plus the print cost, plus I'd need to spend time downloading cards and uploading images.
Speed comes with a price.
Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin
Odd place to put a first post but I'll go for it.
I've been shooting film since I was a kid and my grandmother showed me how to use a Yashica A. I wish I still had that camera. I learned how to use an AE-1 next. Wish I still had that one too. Unfortunately the Canon got stolen in Frankfurt and the Yashica got gotten by an uncle after Grandma passed away.
I'm a dabbling amateur these days. I've got a Maxxum 50 for most things and I drag out a Zenit ET when I am feeling like a real Luddite. I've got drawers full of 110's, and even a couple of 110 SLRs. . . filled two shelves of the freezer with 110 when it went bye-bye a few years back.
Still, I use digital at work and can't imagine using film for that (I'm a cop) and I picked up a little point and shoot 8mp Kodak for that. . . photographing the location of recovered property/evidence, photos of assaults, wrecks and the like. Prior to digital, patrol officers would shoot all their pictures on one roll of film until it was full and then send it off the the (former) mini lab down the block. There would be much mirth and amusement when the photos came back and everyone had to figure out who's was who's and just what was what in the prints. Plus you had to slice up the negatives for evidence as they were the evidence. With digital, the unadulterated file becomes the original when it is burned to a CD-R. No wait, no lab, no dissemination of possibly sensitive information outside the department. If I need prints to give to the DA, I print it at the computer when I burn the CD.
By that same standard, if I am shooting for myself, there is no other medium I'd choose than film. Film makes me think about what I am doing, engage the artistic side of my brain, and slow down. The exact opposite of what I need to do at work! Plus, after loosing two hard drives, I'm less than thrilled about the archival capability of JPEGS. Shoe boxes don't crash. Also, after finding an exposed ten year old roll of AAFES house brand film in my very non climate controlled attic a few years back, I was very impressed at just how normal the prints turned out. A little hybrid processing and PS fixed the purple cast and rescued very cool jump photos. I've had SD cards croak from being mailed, let alone being stored in a moth ridden attic in the South for most of a decade.
On a side note,our traffic unit just dropped $3000 of federal grant money on a digital Nikon kit and it took the better part of a day for them to figure out how to review the photos on the LCD screen. . .
Last of all, as many have pointed out on the Internet, DSLRs go obsolete nearly as fast as computers do (having the life span of mayflies), but the negative from my camera (that bargain basement Minolta, purchased on sale for $80) can be printed and enlarged traditionally, printed at home on my all in one, or scanned on a drum scanner and give like "pixel for pixel" quality to cameras that currently cost a minimum of bout 33 times as much.
I laugh at people that say their digital camera saves them money.
I'll keep shooting film till they quit making making it and the last lab dries up. Personally I'm hoping to take a nice drive up the Blue Ridge parkway this fall to use my last roll of Kodachrome 64 hiding in the freezer. Hoping for a few keepers from that.
Last edited by Surat; 08-24-2009 at 02:09 AM. Click to view previous post history.
I sincerely suspect that the camera/film industry looked at the computer business in the late 90's and saw the consumer behaviour patterns, every one bought a new computer every other year, while they could get pro-quality shots with their late 70's F2s.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Actually I tend to think that every consumer-oriented business did this in the late 80s. Just look at all the crap that was pumped out around and after that vs what was manufactured before.
Originally Posted by olleorama
Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.
11x14 Deardorff for portraiture in China
Just thought I'd add an observation to the thread on the "resurgence of film."
We've been back in business for a couple of years now, and have a real treasure trove of parts from the old Chicago Deardorff company, including many parts for the massive 11x14 Studio Deardorff Cameras. We wondered how many calls we would get for parts and service on these beasts. Then, last December we received an inquiry from a portrait photographer in China who wanted to purchase one of these beasts, brand new. We restored one for the customer, photos of it are posted on our new web site. Imagine packing and crating an 11x14 Commercial Studio camera and shipping it to China, to enable someone to use 11x14 film for portraiture.
How's that for a "resurgence in film photography?"
Barry & Monica Cochran
LF Deardorff & Sons, Inc.
Find us on the web by doing a google search for "Deardorff Cameras."
Originally Posted by Surat