[wetigers]

Theres only one local place where I live to develop my film and its quite far, only place is Walgreens? Is that a good place, or should I drive to the farther place? Ive heard its better to go local.

[filoxophy]

I'm sorry, I've read your post three times and I don't understand your question.

I get my color film developed and scanned at the supermarket for about $5/roll. The scans are pretty bad, but I can see instant results and decide which ones to scan at home with more care.

[wetigers]

Im sorry, I have just heard its.beter to develop your film from local photography businesses than a place like walmart, or walgrees because of the quality of the prints.

[Al_Kahollick]

Developing the film is how you get your negatives, so I assume you're referring to actual prints? The difference between "corner store" and photography shop, aside from price, is one will feed your film into a machine to get "average" looking prints, the Photo Shop will likely make "custom" prints, by hand, according to your preferences. For everyday snapshots, the "Wallies" should be fine. You could also use these cheaper options to see if you indeed captured what you intended, and would be wanting / willing to spend more $$$ for a finer print.

[OregonJim]

The advice you heard may be a bit outdated. It used to be that the local photo shops had a person with real experience (perhaps even darkroom experience). They knew enough to adjust exposure/contrast/color for each print which brought out the best from your negatives. The chain stores, on the other hand, employed minimum wage workers who knew nothing about photography - they were merely "trained" to push buttons on the big machine.

Nowadays, the only way to get the person who knows what they're doing is to send your film to a pro lab (most are in Seattle, LA, or NYC). Personally, I prefer to develop my own negatives and scan/print myself as well. I still have enlargers, but rarely do wet prints anymore. It's not hard at all to develop film (you don't even need a darkroom), but it is more expensive than sending it out - but, it gives you full control. I realize that it's not for everyone, but it is an option.

EDIT: There may be a handful of good, local shops left with people who know film - I sure hope so, but they're no longer in my neck of the woods.

[hks_kansei]

Depends on what you value more, simplicity, cost, quality etc.

I usually get my film developed in a few places, most of my C41 goes to Big-W, purely because it's close by, open after work, and only $10 a roll.
I used to also get my film developed at Light Leaks, but not as often because they weren't open weekends and cost a little more (however, if I wanted scans I would have gone there exclusively since they had great results. Big-W scans can be a bit meh)
Unfortunately Light Leaks closed down, so that's no longer an option.

Black and white I tend to do myself, or will do, once I finish enough rolls to warrant me mixing a batch of chemicals.

E6 I get done at Michaels or Vanbar, both professional photo places that have been around for 30 years or so. (I very rarely shoot E6)


My shooting style with film is usually to have prints made, I don't get it scanned.
I pretty much have it printed on usual 4x5 paper and then decide from that if it's worth me having it enlarged further.

[6BQ5]

I am fortunate to have a local camera store that develops film for $3. Then I DSLR-scan the negatives and do my own processing. I know. It sounds strange, doesn't it? I shoot film and then photograph the negatives with my K-30.

[Sam Dennis]

Why does anyone shoot film. Are there advantages to it?

[hks_kansei]

Why does anyone shoot film. Are there advantages to it?

It depends.

For some it's the fact that film is "full frame"
Other's it's that theoretically film can have a much greater resolution than digital (although every day this is less, and very much depends on the scanning quality)

For me, personally, I prefer film simply because I can concentrate on photography, and making a decent image.

I find digital cameras much more difficult to get an image I'm happy with, because there is just so much going on, ISO, Megapixels, White balance, Autofocus. And then having to deal with 15 different menus to change settings.
After I've dealt with all that crap, I've normally lost whatever inspiration I had.


Another big part is that I like film cameras, apart from the far superior (in my opinion) usability, I just like how they look and feel, and how each has such a different character.
There's a big difference in style, and results, when I shoot with say my Zorki-4 (1956 rangefinder), my Practika FX3 (1957 Waist level SLR), and my Pentax ME (1976 SLR)

[6BQ5]

Why does anyone shoot film. Are there advantages to it?

Everyone will have their own reasons for shooting film. I believe that film photography has a certain purity behind it. Like hks_kansei said above, with a fully manual or aperture priority camera there are no menus to go through and less settings to worry about. It really does make you think of the image more. There's no LCD to chimp on and verify a histogram on. When you get your film developed and DSLR scan it you go through a very serious experiment in post processing. You have to do your own negative to positive development and think about the colors, white balance, tint, etc. It's a deep dive into making the image look the way you want.

hks_kansei mentioned the full frame factor and I would say that there is something behind this. It's not that I couldn't achieve a similar image with a crop sensor using a larger aperture. I probably could but I think the equivalent of my 55mm Takumar at f/2 is a 35mm lens at f/1.3 which doesn't exist.

hks_kansei also mentioned the fun factor. Yes, film is fun! I love shooting with my older Spotmatics! Not only are they a joy to use but you can attract a lot of good attention with a film camera. "Wow, is that a camera? Does it use film?"

[gofour3]

Why does anyone shoot film. Are there advantages to it?

I’m going to reverse your question and ask “Why does anyone shoot digital. Are there advantages to it?”

For me there are none so I continue to shoot film like I have been for the last 40+ years.
I don’t own a digital camera and I see no reason to, I’m happy to shoot 35mm and 6x7 film only with no digital.
If you shoot slides (E6) like I mostly do you not need scans or prints and can just view/project the slides to look at them.
There are no computers involved which is what I dislike the most about digital.


Phil.

[Sam Dennis]

I’m going to reverse your question and ask “Why does anyone shoot digital. Are there advantages to it?”

For me there are none so I continue to shoot film like I have been for the last 40+ years.
I don’t own a digital camera and I see no reason to, I’m happy to shoot 35mm and 6x7 film only with no digital.
If you shoot slides (E6) like I mostly do you not need scans or prints and can just view/project the slides to look at them.
There are no computers involved which is what I dislike the most about digital.


Phil.

Well I dont have to pay for film and processing the film. And I enjoy going on the computer and editing - fixing- playing with the digital files.

And the modern DSLR has more control, when you want that, and more automation when you want that.

I do miss Kodachrome though. Is there a modern film of that quality?

---------- Post added 05-19-14 at 01:35 PM ----------

Everyone will have their own reasons for shooting film. I believe that film photography has a certain purity behind it. Like hks_kansei said above, with a fully manual or aperture priority camera there are no menus to go through and less settings to worry about. It really does make you think of the image more. There's no LCD to chimp on and verify a histogram on. When you get your film developed and DSLR scan it you go through a very serious experiment in post processing. You have to do your own negative to positive development and think about the colors, white balance, tint, etc. It's a deep dive into making the image look the way you want.

hks_kansei mentioned the full frame factor and I would say that there is something behind this. It's not that I couldn't achieve a similar image with a crop sensor using a larger aperture. I probably could but I think the equivalent of my 55mm Takumar at f/2 is a 35mm lens at f/1.3 which doesn't exist.

hks_kansei also mentioned the fun factor. Yes, film is fun! I love shooting with my older Spotmatics! Not only are they a joy to use but you can attract a lot of good attention with a film camera. "Wow, is that a camera? Does it use film?"

I do carry the manual in my camera bag, and refer to it often to find this or that setting I want to use. I once had a K1000 which I think is a relative of the Spotmatic, just twist the dial until a needle in the viewfinder gets to the right spot. And 95 % of the time you get just as good a picture as the most feature filled camera.

And I did recently make some prints of old family Kodachrome slides from the early 1950's. I used a flatbed scanner. How do you scan with a DSLR?

---------- Post added 05-19-14 at 01:39 PM ----------

It depends.

For some it's the fact that film is "full frame"
Other's it's that theoretically film can have a much greater resolution than digital (although every day this is less, and very much depends on the scanning quality)

For me, personally, I prefer film simply because I can concentrate on photography, and making a decent image.

I find digital cameras much more difficult to get an image I'm happy with, because there is just so much going on, ISO, Megapixels, White balance, Autofocus. And then having to deal with 15 different menus to change settings.
After I've dealt with all that crap, I've normally lost whatever inspiration I had.


Another big part is that I like film cameras, apart from the far superior (in my opinion) usability, I just like how they look and feel, and how each has such a different character.
There's a big difference in style, and results, when I shoot with say my Zorki-4 (1956 rangefinder), my Practika FX3 (1957 Waist level SLR), and my Pentax ME (1976 SLR)

Sounds like some people prefer "hand made" photographs, with more thinking and less machinery. I wonder what Ansel Adams would think of a modern DSLR? I suspect he would stick with his large format cameras.

[6BQ5]

Well I dont have to pay for film and processing the film. And I enjoy going on the computer and editing - fixing- playing with the digital files.

And the modern DSLR has more control, when you want that, and more automation when you want that.

I do miss Kodachrome though. Is there a modern film of that quality?

---------- Post added 05-19-14 at 01:35 PM ----------

I do carry the manual in my camera bag, and refer to it often to find this or that setting I want to use. I once had a K1000 which I think is a relative of the Spotmatic, just twist the dial until a needle in the viewfinder gets to the right spot. And 95 % of the time you get just as good a picture as the most feature filled camera.

And I did recently make some prints of old family Kodachrome slides from the early 1950's. I used a flatbed scanner. How do you scan with a DSLR?

---------- Post added 05-19-14 at 01:39 PM ----------

Sounds like some people prefer "hand made" photographs, with more thinking and less machinery. I wonder what Ansel Adams would think of a modern DSLR? I suspect he would stick with his large format cameras.

Re: Today's Kodachrome - Some people say that modern Kodak Ektar 100 film is today's Kodachrome. I'm leaning toward "no" but you can do wonders in post processing.

Re: DSLR scanning - Here's how I do it.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/107-film-processing-scanning-darkroom/258...-film-pix.html

Re: Ansel Adams - I don't know if Ansel Adams was a camera gear fanatic as much as developing/processing guru. I'll take anyone's guess.

[gofour3]

I do miss Kodachrome though. Is there a modern film of that quality?

Yep Kodachrome is still my favorite film of all time. Kodak Ektachrome 100G was the closest to Kodachrome that I have used.

And I enjoy going on the computer and editing - fixing- playing with the digital files.

Unfortunately I have been working in the IT field since the late 1970’s. So using my home computer for anything other than the internet reminds me of work too much. I’m old school and the same applies to music, I refuse to download music.

Phil.

[Nakedgun]

I’m old school and the same applies to music, I refuse to download music.

Phil.

I'm with you on that!