Photography: How many people still use film?

[Gostav]

In the last year l shot over 70 rolls film and most are color negatives. Being a bus-fan l almost the only one who keep to take photo by film.
England has excellent black and white film from Ilford but unfortunately, l hardly use b/w film.

 

[Lucan]

I am in a photography forum and there is an active minority group who use film. One reason is that you can now buy what were once very expensive professional film cameras quite cheaply (ie 5-10% of the price of an equivalent new DSLR) on ebay etc. Either that, or people still have their old film cameras, and digital cameras, overloaded as they are with software gimmicks, fail to create the same affection (I still have a Pentax LX and a bunch of accessories - best 35mm film camera ever made IMHO ), and selling them will never fetch what they think they should be worth.

There seems to be a bit of a revival of film photography, like with vinyl records. Some people are even suggesting that quality film cameras might be made again, reviving some classic designs, but I don't think that will happen.

 

[Busaholic]

My family would say it's because I'm a Luddite (which is only partly true) but I still use film when I wish to capture something for posterity. My late father-in-law, who kept up with all technical developments, was never able to get to grips with the digital camera I was bought one Christmas so I took the line that if it was too complicated for him, then there was no way I could begin to master it. As an aside, on my only visit to the Soviet Union in 1974 I took a (then novel, even in the West) Polaroid camera and amazed a crew who were shooting a Napoleonic era film in Moscow when I produced instant photos of them on set! I think it was probably only by giving the cast most of the snaps I'd taken that I wasn't reported to the KGB!

 

[birchesgreen]

Only very occasionally with a Kodak Instamatic.

 

[thejuggler]

One reason is that you can now buy what were once very expensive professional film cameras quite cheaply (ie 5-10% of the price of an equivalent new DSLR) on ebay etc.

Same can be said for DSLRs. 10 or so years ago my current Nikon DSLR was about £2,300 with a lens. I paid £250 6 years ago. I can now buy the same used body in good condition for less than £100.

I still have a Canon AE1 somewhere in the loft, but as I took 300 photos yesterday the film and processing would cost a fortune!

 

[PeterC]

Digital cameras are far better now. I stuck with film for action shots for a while because of the quicker response when pressing the button. What I have found is that I took more care over composition of a shot when I had to pay for every picture, now I just hammer off a couple of dozen and pick the best.

 

[Bevan Price]

I gave up film about 10 years ago. I used colour slide film and got tired of waiting up to a month for Kodak to return the slides. I preferred Kodachrome for the colour quality & longevity; I had tried other brands, but did not like any of them enough to change from Kodachrome - which now is no longer available.
The advantage of digital is that you can delete "failures" for zero cost. "Failed" slides wasted a bit of your money.

 

[najaB]

I have a film camera but haven't used it in ages. As others have said, while colour-positive film can't be beaten for quality, a good digital camera comes very close and I'm much more likely to try 'What if?' shots when they don't cost me anything to get wrong.

 

[cactustwirly]

I have a film camera but haven't used it in ages. As others have said, while colour-positive film can't be beaten for quality, a good digital camera comes very close and I'm much more likely to try 'What if?' shots when they don't cost me anything to get wrong.

But what digital camera are you comparing it with?
A DSLR should be better, especially a full frame one.

 

[Gostav]

I have a film camera but haven't used it in ages. As others have said, while colour-positive film can't be beaten for quality, a good digital camera comes very close and I'm much more likely to try 'What if?' shots when they don't cost me anything to get wrong.

l usually only use color negatives and develop at home. I will browse and save images from the negatives by Epson V700 scanner, and then if l find some wonderful shot will go to darkroom to enlarge but only a few can processing RA4 color printing today. Reversal film is very attractive but almost impossible to printing by enlarger since Ilfordchrome was discontinued.

 

[najaB]

A DSLR should be better, especially a full frame one.

To my mind there hasn't been a sensor developed yet that beats slide film for colour depth and range. There are a few that come close but you're talking £10K medium format.

 

[xc170]

I have an old Minolta film SLR that I got in a charity shop a few years ago but I've never actually used it, I've also got a Fujica stx-1 rangefinder style film SLR, I've got a roll of film in it that I've used about half of the exposures on, will get around to getting it developed one day!

It's a good looking camera though!