anjoca76
Well-known
I understand this thread is about film, but really the same could be said for many other consumable products as well--the physical stores are closing because they can't match the prices and convenience of the online chains. Look at independent bookstores, for example. Why spend full price at the local bookstore, if you even have one around, when you can order it on amazon for half the price? And that's just one example. I am as bummed as anyone to see labs closing, but this has been going on for a long time, albeit at a slower pace than it seems to be happening lately. It's because we can't have it both ways. We can't have tons of mom-n-pop local labs and camera stores and still buy our film and get it processed on the cheap. I never buy film locally--I almost always go to B+H, or Adorama, or freestyle. It's not that I don't want to support local businesses, but why would I buy a roll of Velvia for $14 when I can get it online for less than half? I can't afford it otherwise.
I'm too young to really know how much film and processing cost back in the day, but from my recollection, the prices today aren't that much greater than they were, say, 20 years ago, once you adjust for inflation. Am I wrong? You can't really include scanning because that wasn't an option back then (and it's the scanning part that usually adds up quickly, at least for me). Also, though the overall quality of the non-pro labs perhaps has decreased recently, but I can remember being a kid in the late 70's and 80's and my mom sending her film away to be processed, only to have someone else's negatives and prints come back. If they came back at all! Mail order is definitely much more reliable these days because we have tracking and more express options. Just my 2 cents...
I'm too young to really know how much film and processing cost back in the day, but from my recollection, the prices today aren't that much greater than they were, say, 20 years ago, once you adjust for inflation. Am I wrong? You can't really include scanning because that wasn't an option back then (and it's the scanning part that usually adds up quickly, at least for me). Also, though the overall quality of the non-pro labs perhaps has decreased recently, but I can remember being a kid in the late 70's and 80's and my mom sending her film away to be processed, only to have someone else's negatives and prints come back. If they came back at all! Mail order is definitely much more reliable these days because we have tracking and more express options. Just my 2 cents...
jbot
Jared Krause
Is it just me, or does getting someone elses prints in the mail sound like a lot of fun in a weird hipster sorta way?
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
E-6 actually is a little tricky, you have to be precise about keeping your process at 100°F and getting the pH right, and you have the choice between the six-bath version that is a hassle but more precise, and the "amateur" three-bath version that is easier to use but less robust with regards to colour shifts and process precision.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Mail order labs have always been around, quality or otherwise. Some, me included, don't want to go back to the way it was with mail order. Soooo, went digital.
Perhaps a sticky with what mail order labs are currently operating might help. Labs can be added and deleted if they go under. The same could be done for current sources of mail order film and kept updated also. This would make it easier for those still using film and those wanting to try it.
Bob
loquax ludens
Well-known
I agree, the temperature control is more critical and the process is slightly more involved for E-6 than for C-41. But it can be done well, even in small daylight processing tanks. I have done that successfully using the 6 bath process, and have gotten excellent results. I've even processed 50 foot rolls of Super 8mm film that way (Ektachrome 64T) in a Lomo UPB-1A cine film tank. I use a Jobo TBE-2 tempering bath when I process in daylight tanks.
But granted, something like a Jobo CPP-2 (what I use for most color film processing) definitely makes it easier to achieve good results with E6.
Correct...
Seriously? Whats your monthly income?
If I could shoot only 1 to 2 rolls a month (!) because of cost (!) I´d quit photography.
goamules
Well-known
Two rolls is an incredible 48-72 shots. About one or two shots a day. That's a lot of photographs, unless you're the type that takes many shots of everything you can think of hoping for a good one. With large format, I may only shoot 2 sheets of film twice a month. Digital has taught people to shoot a ton and look for a good frame among many bad ones that are quickly deleted.
jbot
Jared Krause
Every noteworthy photographer that shot anything candid was shooting significantly above 2 shots a day. This isn't because they're shooting everything they can think of, it's because their artistic process requires that they shoot in high volumes. In fact, I'd bet 90% world class photographers shoot a large amount of photos and keep a small amount. Every interview I've ever read that touched on the topic has implied this. Don't get me wrong, it's totally fine if you don't shoot more than a few shots a day, but you can't imply that this is the best practice. No one mastered their craft by skimping on film.
goamules
Well-known
You may be right. I was just making a tongue in cheek comment that one doesn't have to shoot a roll a day to get good. And in some ways, I think being a slow, methodical photographer does help. Have you ever had your camera with you all day, and at some point find a perfect thing to photograph? I have, and it feels good to think about what I want to do, and carefully compose and shoot one or two shots. But then, I'm a wetplater...
zauhar
Mentor
Because
a) You support human beings who love books and who also need to eat and pay rent.
b) You deny money to f-cking Amazon and it's slave labor gulag archipelago. If you don't know how Amazon treats its "employees", find out.
There! Two good reasons to support your local bookseller, provided one still exists.
Randy
Corto
Well-known
I agree.
While im pretty much in the film camp and think that the process of slow shooting is a good thing you still need to take a lot of shots to learn from your mistakes.
jwicaksana
Jakarta, Indonesia
I'd like that too..as long as I get my own prints back
May I ask, where do you live? I am in Indonesia, developing+scanning cost me USD2
Although I don't know about the quality compared to the pro labs out there.
jbot
Jared Krause
Different strokes for different folks. There's definitely something to say for carefully selecting shots. When you find that one shot, it's like a gift.
clayne
shoot film or die
The issue with APUG is that he just wouldn't shutup about it, much like he's taken to doing on RFF instead. One day he just up and deleted all his posts and left - mainly because people were tired of him turning every thread into a "film is dead guys! Listen to me! Listen to meeeee!" kill-joy.
No **** film processing volume has dropped but I'd rather shoot it then keep informing my fellow photographers how dead end it is.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Well, it would go away if people would stop mentioning film labs closing in their area or their favourite films being discontinued or even Kodak is going under. If it is posted no need to comment in the thread or better skip even reading it.
Bob
Aristophanes
Well-known
The issue with APUG is that I was actually issued a refund by the owner because some old time contributors did not like having real Kodak financial data spoiling their fantasy about film supply. I actually requested the deletion.
I never once said "film is dead". That is simply you turning real data into hyperbole to start an argument through some sort of "defender complex".
What I have consistently said is that labs are critical to ANY and ALL film supply because only lab processing can keep up enough volume to allow for the symbiotic and necessary volume of film production.
If the lab networks fail, then all film manufacture will stop. I had Kodak and Ilford insiders confirm that with me as well and I get current information from my old network in the pharma/grocery chain sector. The home development market has nowhere near enough demand or economy of scale to keep the manufacture of film viable.
The surest way to kill of film is:
1) Complain about loss of local processing without looking at alternative mail-order systems. Understand the price dynamics have changed, and with it understand that film as a viable medium now depends largely on some integration with digital services (scanning in particular).
2) Advocate home development. If labs lose more biz and close, and home developing and printing does not make up the demand, then the loss of film supply will not stop at esoteric b/w emulsions, but will not stop at all.
In all threads I have participated in I have detailed mail-order labs for recommendation all but one (RPL) I have personally tried. I put my money where my keyboard is.
Killjoys are people like you, clayne, who try and make rational and accurately informative discussions into emotional flame wars. Look in the mirror.
And as an aside, I just recently purchased a Hexar AF, a Rollei 35 (both from users on this forum), and a bucketload of Kodak and Ilford film from B&H.
So wait, are you really saying you only make good photos?
People have always taken a lot to get a little with small format cameras. It's a looser style of shooting than larger formats, but no less worthy. Nobody shows stats next to a photo in magazines, books, galleries and musuems. It simply doesn't matter how many photos you make to get to the good ones. Some of us actually enjoy the process of using the camera on a daily basis.
v_roma
Well-known
I'm glad this is not something you have to worry about but I have other expenses in my life and operate under a budget. Because said budget is not unlimited, I shoot mostly digital and shoot film as a treat. When I do shoot film, I like to use nice color film ($5+ per roll) and nice processing/scanning lab ($10+ per roll) so it kind of adds up. I could probably use cheaper film and process/scan at home but the former doesn't much appeal to me and I have not time or inclination for the latter (especially with color film).
EDIT: I also find that I have more keepers when shooting film than digital because I do tend to put more thought into my shots when shooting film. Sure, I can try to do the same when shooting digitial but it would be an "artificial" thing and I find that my brains does well with actual limitations (single lens, limited number of shots per roll, etc.).
EDIT: I also find that I have more keepers when shooting film than digital because I do tend to put more thought into my shots when shooting film. Sure, I can try to do the same when shooting digitial but it would be an "artificial" thing and I find that my brains does well with actual limitations (single lens, limited number of shots per roll, etc.).
igi
Well-known
Before there was digital, there was Garry Winogrand.
... and oh, shooting 1 or 2 shots a day is a sure way to kill film.