[Abstract]

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.

[Steve Beswick]

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

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!

[eddie1960]

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

[eddie1960]

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

[stevebrot]

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

[tuco]

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.

[eddie1960]

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

[GeneV]

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.

[tranq78]

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.

[tuco]

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?

[violini]

I wish some one would make digital back to fit on the old camera; full frame CCD at film plane and supporting electronics.

[tuco]

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.

[ChrisPlatt]

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

[GeneV]

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.

[eddie1960]

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