Someone else post a film thread.
 

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 22:05:21 -0700 (PDT), Scott W wrote:
: I note that there has been virtually no threads dealing with film on
: this group, other then the few I started. If no one else is going
: start a film related thread then I really don’t want to hear about how
: this is a 35mm “film” group.

Richard Nixon always claimed that a vast "Silent Majority" of American voters
favored his policies (such as maintaining an "enemies list" and prolonging the
Vietnam war). When the Watergate scandal broke and the future of his
presidency was in doubt, Nixon's retainers couldn't understand why this Silent
Majority didn't finally break their silence and rally to his defense. The
answer was quite simple: the Silent Majority didn't exist except in their (and
Nixon's) imaginations.

I know two (2) photographers who I think still use film.

Bob

Someone else post a film thread.
 

On 9/14/2008 8:24 AM Robert Coe spake thus:

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 22:05:21 -0700 (PDT), Scott W wrote:

: I note that there has been virtually no threads dealing with film on
: this group, other then the few I started. If no one else is going
: start a film related thread then I really don’t want to hear about how
: this is a 35mm “film” group.

Richard Nixon always claimed that a vast "Silent Majority" of
American voters favored his policies (such as maintaining an "enemies
list" and prolonging the Vietnam war). When the Watergate scandal
broke and the future of his presidency was in doubt, Nixon's
retainers couldn't understand why this Silent Majority didn't finally
break their silence and rally to his defense. The answer was quite
simple: the Silent Majority didn't exist except in their (and
Nixon's) imaginations.

I know two (2) photographers who I think still use film.

Note that this may say more about you than about how many photographers
still use film.


--
Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.

- Paulo Freire

Someone else post a film thread.
 

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:55:54 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:
: On 9/14/2008 8:24 AM Robert Coe spake thus:
:
: On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 22:05:21 -0700 (PDT), Scott W wrote:
:
: : I note that there has been virtually no threads dealing with film on
: : this group, other then the few I started. If no one else is going
: : start a film related thread then I really don’t want to hear about how
: : this is a 35mm “film” group.
:
: Richard Nixon always claimed that a vast "Silent Majority" of
: American voters favored his policies (such as maintaining an "enemies
: list" and prolonging the Vietnam war). When the Watergate scandal
: broke and the future of his presidency was in doubt, Nixon's
: retainers couldn't understand why this Silent Majority didn't finally
: break their silence and rally to his defense. The answer was quite
: simple: the Silent Majority didn't exist except in their (and
: Nixon's) imaginations.
:
: I know two (2) photographers who I think still use film.
:
: Note that this may say more about you than about how many photographers
: still use film.

Really? What does it say about me? That I associate only with digital
photographers? That film photographers won't associate with me? That I have
any control at all over what equipment others use? (Well, I have bought my
wife a couple of digital cameras. But her old Nikkormat is still in the closet
if she ever wanted to use it.)

It's over, David. Time to move on. You know those guys who drive antique cars
in Fourth of July parades? You're their photographic equivalent. But even they
drive real cars the other 364 days of the year.

Bob

|GG| Someone else post a film thread.
 

Then you know two more then I do.

THAN I do, not then I do

ACK!

Someone else post a film thread.
 

Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 15/09/2008 11:09 AM:


It's over, David. Time to move on. You know those guys who drive antique cars
in Fourth of July parades? You're their photographic equivalent. But even they
drive real cars the other 364 days of the year.

Funny enough, with all the "it's over" and
other utter crap, there are thousands of film
photos being posted daily in flickr and other
sites where film users are not ridiculed by
morons who should concentrate more on real
photography and less on how it is taken.

Oh, and BTW: Kodak just released yet another
new 35mm film. Not bad for a "dead" medium,
isn't it? Then again: the only ones calling
it "dead" are those running around with their
hands over their ears yelling "la-la-la-la!"...

Someone else post a film thread.
 

Scott W wrote:

Even a couple of years ago I saw a few strips of negatives at Costco
being printed, now I can't remember the last time I saw negatives
there. I did see a film camera being used a couple of weeks ago
however.


My local Costco minilab does over 30% of its D&P turnover in film. My
local Wal-Mart minilab estimates it is around 40%.

So film is a long way from being dead.

Someone else post a film thread.
 

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:37:12 +1000, Noons wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 15/09/2008 11:09 AM:
: It's over, David. Time to move on. You know those guys who drive antique
: cars in Fourth of July parades? You're their photographic equivalent.
: But even they drive real cars the other 364 days of the year.
:
: Funny enough, with all the "it's over" and
: other utter crap, there are thousands of film
: photos being posted daily in flickr and other
: sites where film users are not ridiculed by
: morons who should concentrate more on real
: photography and less on how it is taken.
:
: Oh, and BTW: Kodak just released yet another
: new 35mm film. Not bad for a "dead" medium,
: isn't it? Then again: the only ones calling
: it "dead" are those running around with their
: hands over their ears yelling "la-la-la-la!"...

You tell 'em, Noons. As for this moron, I'll stand by my previous statement.

Bob

Someone else post a film thread.
 

"Scott W" wrote in message
...

snip

The only shutter I have had go bad so far was on an older Canon film
SLR, we got a whole lot of photos with only one half exposed.

----------------------------------------------

Please don't be offended if I state what may be obvious to you, but by any
chance could this have been pictures taken with a strobe and the shutter
speed set too high? As some may know (and some may not know), with a focal
plane shutter and strobe, the fastest shutter speed that can be used is one
where both shutter curtains are fully open. At faster shutter speeds, the
first curtain starts to open and the second curtain starts to close shortly
after-- at no time is the entire frame exposed.
On some of my older SLR's, the "X" sync speed (typically 1/50 second for a
horizontal shutter) has gotten faster or out of sync, and I have to drop
down to 1/30 second for flash.

Someone else post a film thread.
 

Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 16/09/2008 6:58 AM:


Over all I agree that getting out and taking photos is far more
important then what one uses to take the photographs. But this is an
equipment forum after all, so some discussion on what photographic
equipment makes sense here.

Sure, no problem. Let's leave it at discussion of
digital or discussion of film, where appropriate.
To try and deride one over the other, I'm afraid
doesn't score much as "discussion"...


As to film photos being posted, I just found something on pbase of
interest, if you go to the camera data base and then go to Fuji, at
the bottom them have user images taken with different Fuji films, the
same is true of Kodak and Ilford.

For example here are the photos from people using Ilford films,
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/ilford

Cool! Thanks a lot, an invaluable resource.
I use this one a lot in flickr, for MF:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/120/pool/
Not as well split by film type, but huge
amount to go through.



Well... film may not be dead, but around these parts I see almost none
being used any more.


See? That's what you get for living in a backwater...
(just kiding!)



For me there is little point if 35mm film anymore, MF film still seems
to have a use, it is still not easy for to beat the resolution of a
6x7 or 6x9 format camera with an afordable digital camera.

Two generations from now, it'll be very near.
If 35mm dslrs survive that long in their current
format:
http://www.bythom.com/
read the bit about "other developments"...
This is along the lines of what I see as well.

I reckon in the medium term, aps-c dslrs as we know
them will mostly vanish, replaced by much more convenient
EVIL cams. The ones left will be the top of the line
"pro" FX dslr gear. With rez approaching MF. Which
will then be more convenient than existing MF film, of
course.

The *real* trend imho is for miniaturization,
with weight a major consideration. In the consumer
volume market. Of course there will always be
enthusiasts prepared to haul around a cartwheel
of equipment. And guess what? 4X5 as well!
:)


example. My tripod and tripod heads cost more then a new DLSR, and
you could get two nice DSLRs for the cost of my 300mm lens. And this
is as it should be, the tripod and lenses I will use for many years to
come, the body will last me 3-4 years.

If FX takes off to 25-35MP, you and I *will*
need new lenses all over again...
Fortunately, I'm perfectly happy with
16MP tops: don't need anymore even if available.

I use film camera bodies I bought 20 or more years ago and many manual focus lenses which ceased manufacture not long after that. Strangely, with an occasional service, and with my 20 years of additional experience, the results are often superb and when they are not it is usually my fault.

For the car analagy, those who drive the best e.g Rolls Royce, Bentley, are not over-concerned as to the year of the model, which they drive everywhere, and the performance and reliability are legendary.