Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-11-2011, 12:03 AM   #16
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: New York
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 388
I feel that its become a "Hip" thing to use film, if anything the demand is probably going up, look at the whole Holga thing happening, I see plenty of people my age(early 20's) using film all the time while walking around nyc....So should stay stong, I hope. That goes for medium format and 35mm.

I mean look at Polaroids, as soon as they abandoned the medium someone came in and filled it, The Impossible Project, even though expensive....its there.

02-11-2011, 01:48 AM   #17
Site Supporter
Steve Beswick's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ontario, California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,580
QuoteOriginally posted by Steinback Quote
I thought that movies were often shot on negative film, scanned, digitally processed, transferred to an intermediate film as a duplication master and then moved to a slide film for projection?

Kodak still lists quite a range of colour negative camera films in its motion picture catalogue, many of them available in 65mm, 35mm, 16mm and 8mm.

Kodak cinema catalogue with prices: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/QA_MotionPictureCatalog_June30_2010.pdf
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
That was my understanding as well. Traditionally, commercial motion pictures were shot on negative film (non-C41) and printed through for distribution. Positive film has also been used, but primarily for home and hobbyist use. About 28 years ago I used to buy my film from Seattle Filmworks. They marketed 35mm cine negative film bundled with processing. For about 2/3 the price of a roll of Kodachrome with processing, you got negatives, prints, and slides. Woo! Hoo!

These days there are many different paths to the final product.


Steve
Hmm ... well look at that! My bad!
02-11-2011, 05:56 AM   #18
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,270
QuoteOriginally posted by Abstract Quote
I feel that its become a "Hip" thing to use film, if anything the demand is probably going up, look at the whole Holga thing happening, I see plenty of people my age(early 20's) using film all the time while walking around nyc....So should stay stong, I hope. That goes for medium format and 35mm.

I mean look at Polaroids, as soon as they abandoned the medium someone came in and filled it, The Impossible Project, even though expensive....its there.
It is there when they have it, but they really haven't perfected their process yet. their film is hit and miss a lot of the time. I'll stick to the Fuji for now, unless i'm looking for an effect film like the brown and blue stuff from the impossible project
02-11-2011, 06:03 AM   #19
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,270
QuoteOriginally posted by Steve Beswick Quote
It must be a localized thing. The Costco by my house still does film.





You guys might want to re-evaluate your positions - movies are shot on slide film, not print film.
You would be wrong on this the vast majority are now shot on Neg film now, if you look at Kodak and Fuji Cinema film sites most films are negs. I had thought the same thing until someone pointed me in the direction of the site
Kodak for instance makes 5 neg films and only ektar as a reversal
Fuji makes 9 negative and 3 reversal films
this is for the shooting stage, there are also still intermediate films and print (display) films
not to mention the b/w which also come in reversal as well as neg

02-11-2011, 07:41 AM   #20
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,445
QuoteOriginally posted by Abstract Quote
I feel that its become a "Hip" thing to use film, if anything the demand is probably going up, look at the whole Holga thing happening, I see plenty of people my age(early 20's) using film all the time while walking around nyc....So should stay stong, I hope. That goes for medium format and 35mm.

I mean look at Polaroids, as soon as they abandoned the medium someone came in and filled it, The Impossible Project, even though expensive....its there.
Film is becoming an artist's medium with all that implies. No, you can't buy Kodak Gold 200 at the mini-mart. Yes, you can get a wide range of high quality materials online or by special order.

As mentioned above, I live in one of the centers for film photography (Portland area). Costco quit doing processing, but Walgreens and Target stores all have minilabs. I have easy access to three pro labs and there may be more that are not as handy. Twice last week, I ran into people shooting film while walking to get some lunch. The high-end wedding photographers here in town all shoot a mix of film and digital. (If people are paying premium money for the photos, the want at least some of them to be on archival media. Yes, these guys are shooting b&w!)

The younger photographers I know shoot a mixture of film and digital with a strong orientation to Lomography. That being said, there is also a growing appreciation for more sophisticated tools. A friend's daughter just bought herself a Mamiya C-33 to supplement her film SLR, dSLR, and bevy of Brownies. I showed her my Canon P and she spent the next 20 minutes just working the controls and listening to the shutter. (Wonderful shutter sound on the P.)


Steve
02-11-2011, 11:19 AM   #21
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,103
Note, too, that negative film for motion pictures that some people have adapted to rolls for still photography such as Kodak's Vision 3 500T have really high ISO capabilities. If Kodak would package that 500T for still photography, I think we would be blown away by the high ISO. You can find examples of ISO 3200 that are really clean. And from what I hear it could be processed as C-41 if they removed the lubricant coating on it for motion picture cameras.

Last edited by tuco; 02-11-2011 at 11:29 AM.
02-11-2011, 11:27 AM   #22
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,270
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
Note, too, that negative film for motion pictures that some people have adapted to rolls for still photography such as Kodak's Vision 3 500T have really high ISO capabilities. If Kodak would package that 500T for still photography, I think we we would be blown away by the high ISO. From what I hear it could be processed as C-41 if they removed the lubricant coating on it for motion picture cameras.
I've heard that as well. the samples I've seen from a motion standpoint blew me away, the exposure latitude on some of these films is astounding. I think the tech is flowing down, the new portra 400 is apparently very wide latitude, though i haven't had a chance to try it yet
02-11-2011, 02:12 PM   #23
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
The newest ISO 400 negative films are simply amazing. Both the Fuji 400H and Portra put many ISO 100 negative films of 30 years ago to shame.

02-11-2011, 02:44 PM   #24
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 828
These "Is film dead?" threads pop up with regularity. It is a legit question.

But what is completely ignored by the "film is dead" boosters is that the equipment used to make negatives is fully depreciated by now and the technology is pretty stable.

So because the fixed cost is declining it don't cost a whole lotta money to continue running those production lines. Plus if your variable cost structure is too high, it's easy to move to a low cost region. Think of Pentax's shift of assembly of lenses from Japan to Vietnam. Why? Because of lower costs.

One of these days the film-is-dead crowd will load a film body with Velvia and become instant converts. That will be the ultimate irony.
02-11-2011, 03:12 PM   #25
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,103
QuoteOriginally posted by tranq78 Quote

One of these days the film-is-dead crowd will load a film body with Velvia and become instant converts. That will be the ultimate irony.
Maybe but still there is an issue with film for a wide-spread return. If you are shooting where money is on the line, digital really helps ensure you captured the money shot in addition to its work flow. And on the lower end of the photography spectrum where the masses are, you have people getting their pictures now. Are they going to give that up?
02-11-2011, 03:42 PM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Winnipeg MB
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 346
Original Poster
I wish some one would make digital back to fit on the old camera; full frame CCD at film plane and supporting electronics.
02-11-2011, 04:54 PM   #27
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,103
QuoteOriginally posted by violini Quote
I wish some one would make digital back to fit on the old camera; full frame CCD at film plane and supporting electronics.
They make digital backs for several MF cameras as well as view cameras. Mostly MF cameras that have replaceable backs. One problem I found when looking at one for my Hasselblad is the cost and feature limitations for the vintage of my Hasselblad. For the price, I'd be better off getting a 645D, IMHO.
02-11-2011, 05:22 PM   #28
Pentaxian
ChrisPlatt's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Queens NYC
Posts: 4,862
Technology is changing rapidly. No camera, film or digital, can or should be viewed as a long-term investment.
Why worry? Enjoy film now.

Chris
02-11-2011, 05:30 PM   #29
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
QuoteOriginally posted by ChrisPlatt Quote
Technology is changing rapidly. No camera, film or digital, can or should be viewed as a long-term investment.
Why worry? Enjoy film now.

Chris
In the case of film, it's not like I haven't gotten my money's worth already.
02-11-2011, 05:38 PM   #30
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,270
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
They make digital backs for several MF cameras as well as view cameras. Mostly MF cameras that have replaceable backs. One problem I found when looking at one for my Hasselblad is the cost and feature limitations for the vintage of my Hasselblad. For the price, I'd be better off getting a 645D, IMHO.
completely
the same for my bronica where an inferior setup would cost more than a 645d
for mme though i look at it and say how many rolls of ilm will i have to shoot to make this change viable
right now it's more than i will shoot in the next several years even if i drop all digital
that and i still don't see any digital i think looks as good as say some of your b/w slow exposure shots Tuco
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
film, films
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I need longer levelred Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 05-31-2010 04:21 PM
Want To Last Longer? Nowhere Matt Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 3 07-16-2009 01:09 PM
A Longer DA Limited Sailor Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 01-19-2009 07:10 PM
FA*85 on longer distance Syb Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 11-21-2008 09:13 PM
I can't hold it in any longer... photo_mom Pentax DSLR Discussion 20 11-22-2006 04:45 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:52 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top