I meant develop the 35mm film yourself…not by any particular process.[;)]
Of course if all these developers are tossing their one-hour machines, you could theoreticly pick one up for cheap and indeed, go into business for yourself![8)]
“E6 is not difficult? Interesting.”
I’ve never done E-6 myself, although it’s not that difficult in theory. The biggest thing is the temperature needs to be very tight, as you have no latitude. Possibly worse is that with the correct(or incorrect) conditions, the colors can develop wrong, and of course you can’t fix it with printing like you can with C-41.
Most of the people I know who do E6 at home do so with a Jobo or some other type of rotary processor. These machines take a daylight tank and automatically agitate it while regulating the time and temperature. They also generally include a water bath to hold your chemicals at a constant temperature when they’re not in the processing tank.
The biggest problem with commercial processors is they take a rather large volume of chemistry, and need to have a fair amount of film run through them every day in order to make it economical to maintain that chemistry.
The ability to obtain processing services at a fair price drove me away from film, around here, E-6 processing is expensive and a very poor value for my $$![banghead]
I guess I have been pretty lucky to play with the stuff I do. Take this shot for example (not rail-related, sorry):
That was shot with a Canon EOS 10D with an EF 300mm f2.8L IS. I’ve got it printed and hanging above me at 20"x20." Had it not been cropped to a square, that would be 20"x30." If I so chose, I could count the velvet hairs on his antlers. Even using Astia, or some similar fine grained film, at that size, film grain would start to be a problem.
While I haven’t done any direct comparisons, I’d doubt that in most real life situations I’d be able to equal the quality out of any 6Mp+ DSLR with a film body, all things being equal. The only areas where I might beg to differ is REALLY long (Read 1 Hr.+) exposures (like star trails), or REALLY extreme ISO’s (like using some of the specialty B&W films at ISO 25,000 or so).
25 Mp+ digital backs are out there for Medium format cameras. They not only quite effectively toast 35mm and Medium Format film, they are starting to get close to equalling 4
I agree that digital-v-film isn’t really worth splitting hairs over. They’re both great these days, and it takes a fair amount of skill to even extract the full resolution out of either.
What’s far more important than sharpness or anything else is the content displayed in the image. Of course, sharpness or lack there of, bokeh, etc can be used to great effect to enhance the content of an image, but by themselves don’t make a great image.
Digital obviously works for Chris, which is great, and he gets great results. I’m satisfied with what I get from film, and don’t wish to change, especially considering the equipment investment I have(Chris, I can’t wait for the 20mm).
Actually, the temperature range is wider than advertised. I’ve done E6 for years with no special equipment other than my B & W tanks, a bath tub and a fairly accurate thermometer. I kept the chemicals in 16 oz pop bottles (stoppered) and put them in the bathtub. I, then, ran water into the bathtub at a few degrees higher than the optimum required. When the water in the tub cooled to the right temperature, I did my developing.
Never had a color issue. Never over/under developed.
Kodak to quit making film? That’s as unthinkable as General Motors selling off EMD or Lionel buying American Flyer[:O]! Oh wait. Those things happened too.What next? GE building a good diesel loco that will last as long as an SD40-2?
I’m of two minds about this news. Did the news that Kodak plans to either sell-off or discontinue manufacturing film come from Kodak itself? On the other hand the fact that Kodak wants to get out of the film business doesn’t surprise me since they spun off their Kodachrome slide processing two years ago.
There are other signs that film photography is declining rapidly. For example, digital based cameras now outsell film cameras. Today 6 mega-pixel digital SLR’s can be purchased for $500 -$600 or perhaps a little less. And, of course cell phones have built in cameras that are improving all the time.
I have partly gone digital because I think slide processing will be the first to go, and I have no desire to have to become a chemist to do my own slide processing. But for railroad photography ( and aren’t trains what this forum is about?) You can take a test shot of the location before the train comes, and immediately see your results. If you don’t like the results you can change the f stop, the shutter speed, or the film speed,and until get the shot that you want. However, one of my film-based cameras has a 70 - 210 mm zoom lens which I can use until I either get another digital SLR camera or I can get an 18 -200 mm zoom lens. But most important is the instant gratification I get when I can immediately look at the photos I took with the digital camera, and keep the ones that I want.
I think 35 mm print film will soon disappear except for the lower ISO versions (ISO 25 to 100).
But slide film will still be around due to the excellent sharpness of slide film. Larger film sizes such as film for 6 x 4.5 cm and 6 x 7 cm medium format cameras will still be produced because no digital sensor can match the extreme detail available with larger negative frame sizes on film for some time to come.
I would like to thank all of you that gave such interesting and informative contributions to this thread.
Nope, sorry, but digital cameras reached the “equal quality” level with film about 5 years ago.
A 4 or 5 megapixel camera will give quality equal to or better than film at 4X6 print sizes. And 6-megapixels is equal to film for most purposes. (4X6 and 8X10 print sizes)
dont need anything remotely close to 25 megapixels.
back when digital cameras were only in the 1 or 2 megapixel range, it was true that film had better quality than digital…but that stopped being true years ago.
There is still no official word from Kodak management about Kodak selling off the film business, but IMO its a distinct possibility.
We will probably know for certain by the end of the day today.
Scot (who works for Kodak in Rochester)
You have to be very, very careful with megapixel comparisons to film. If you’re comparing 35mm to a DSLR, I would tend to agree that you can get more resolution under most circumstances, although comparing straight out of the camera to a film scan, the film will appear sharper. This is a moot point, though, since you can sharpen digital to your heart’s content. I would say this is true even for second-generation pro DSLRs such as Nikon’s D1X.
At the same time, though, many people who try to make comparisons just look at compact digitals, which are a huge market. I myself own a Canon A540, which has a 6 megapixel sensor. At its nominal ISO of 80, I would put it about on par with a modern medium-speed color negative film such as Kodak’s new Portra 160 films or 100UC. At around ISO 200, Portra 400 or 400UC look great in comparison. At ISO 400 on the digicam, any 400 speed print film on the market looks better. ISO 800 on the digicam looks about like a color version of Tri-X pushed to 6400-in other words, not at all pretty. At the same time,most of my SLR lenses are much faster than the 2.6-5.6 variable aperture zoom on the digicam, so in the same situation, I could ge
While I still prefer film (13 years on an Argus C-3 and 25 years and counting on a Canon AE-1), I would consider going digital except for a few issues. One of the big ones is what happens when the format you use for storing your pictures becomes obsolete and can no longer be read. Another is that it’s a lot harder to hold your camera steady at arm’s length as opposed to right against your eyeball, especially as you get older. It’s also harder to see your shot if you’re trying to take several shots in rapid succession.
More excellent information:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/index.html
Some discussion amongst photographers:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=21848336
No, you really dont! [:D]
A 6-megapixel camera, “point and shoot” or DSLR, will give you 4X6 and 8X10 prints that are of equal quality to film…period. You wont be able to tell them apart.
interesting…
then I guess all the thousands of 4X6 and 8X10 photos I have seen over the last 5 years, made from $200 - $500 digital point-and-shoot cameras, that are indistinguishable from film, must be…I dont know…optical illusions? [:-^]
a table from one of the links posted above:
the Human eye cant see more than 300 ppi or dpi, so anythign more than that is irrelevant, because it cant be seen.
6 megapixels will do it… and a 6 megapixel camera can be bought for $250.
thats a long way from 25 megapixels and $30,000.
Scot
“interesting… then I guess all the thousands of 4X6 and 8X10 photos I have seen over the last 5 years, made from $200 - $500 digital point-and-shoot cameras, that are indistinguishable from film, must be…I dont know…optical illusions? Whistling [:-^]”
I’m talking about 4x5 and 8x10 sheet film. You put a piece of film in the camera that’s 4 inches by 5 inches, or 8 inches by 10 inches. This means that you’re starting with a transparency or negative that’s already as big as the ultimate size of many 35mm negatives or digital captures.
I challenge you to find any digicam on the market that can make an 8x10 that will top a contact print from an 8x10 negative or transparency.
While Kodachrome is definately king of longevity (at least when stored properly), I know some of the older Ektachrome/Fujichrome emulsions have begun fading, some terribly. The newer E6’s are supposed to be better, but will they last as long as Kodachrome? I don’t know. I do know that my digital files will not degrade with time. There may come a time when I have to change the media that they are stored on (currently on external hard drives and CDs). However, given the number of pros, news agencies, stock agencies, etc. that are using digital images now, I guarantee that there will be a way to view your files down the road.
True, provided that you have no interest in using a Digital SLR. If you get a DSLR, it’ll function exactly the same as your AE-1 in this respect. As an added bonus, if you pick a Pentax or Sony body, you’ll get Image Stabilization built into the camera, and any lens you buy automatically becomes a stabilized lens.
I take pictures at basketball games for a friend of mine. I use his 20D with a 70-200mm f2.8L IS for most of my shots. Generally speaking, I shoot in continuous mode at 5 Frames Per Second. I could use a 1D Mk. II and up that to 8.5 FPS. Apart from the EOS 1v HS (which can do 10 FPS), there are very few film cameras that could top the 8.5 FPS of the 1D Mk. II (I believe Canon and Nikon
Within the last couple of months the local paper Parsons Sun [Parsons,Ks]. had an article about this; it mentioned that they[KODAK] had done away with all certified KODAK auithorized locations for lab film processing in the US. Dwaynes Photos [415 S.32nd ST. Parsons,Ks. 67357. ph# 620.421.3940] is the only one in North America; while there is only one other, it is located somewhere in Europe.
I’m going to agree with Ben on this one. My 4x5 View Camera and my 4x5 Crown Graphic are the only film cameras I use with regularity. Even if there was an affordable digital that could match the image quality out of them, I’d doubt I’d use it. All the movements get kind of addictive. I’m hoping someday scanning backs drop down a bit, and I’ll pick one up. Of course, there might still be instances where shooting film would be better in a 4x5 (say…moving trains for example! [;)]).
I haven’t made the 8x10 leap yet, as I’m a little scared I would REALLY become addicted to the image quality from that. I might have to sell all my digital gear just to buy a couple lenses that would cover 8x10! [:O]
oh! ok…
when you said “It’s really hard to even get close to 4x5 or 8x10 in digital without laying out $30,000 plus in cash.” I thought you were talking about 4X6 and 8X10 prints in 35mm land. I didnt catch the discussion about larger formats.
well sheet film is different…but a sheet film discussion has no meaning to 99.99% of photographers.
For average photographers, (35mm) and for this discussion in general, digital has surpassed film with 6 megapixels.
I wouldnt be surprised in sheet film manufacturing also goes away completely. [V] The three of you who still use it arent enough to support it! [;)] and Pro photographers (the traditional users of medium and large format film) are going digital in droves.
Still no news yet on Kodak selling the film units…hmmmm…might be just a rumour, although IMO its still likely to happen eventually.
Scot