Film is alive and living in Maine....

[namreg]

Hi guys

Don't know if this guy is a member of this forum, but take a look at these images:

Analog Astro Photography - a set on Flickr

The beauty of film. No bloated stars, just stars as you see them (well, about 1% of them where I live). I hope film never dies, but of course it will. Very sad.

[GazOC]

What is this "film" of which you speak?

[Black Knight]

Nightfly .... I'm pretty sure I remember seeing him around these parts just recently

[Black Knight]

Just checked, he's on the newest members list on the main page

[Polar Bear]

Cracking wide field images. Certainly got me thinking .

I don't think film will die out. There is already a backlash against digital.

The price of film cameras hit a low 3 - 4 years ago and has climbed ever since.

I am looking for a Kowa 6 at the moment to supplement my G9

My brother only uses film and a Leica M6 with a single 35mm lens.

He went the digital route and has returned to film as many are doing.

Digital storage is a pain, I have lost 100's of photos with hard drive and CD failures

I still have every image I have ever taken on film.

Film is dead....long live film

[namreg]

Certainly does make you think. I might try and pick up a film camera just for the hell of it. Bit of manual guiding like Nightfly and I'll be sorted (Apart from the cost of processing of course!)

[Naz]

I was think off getting rid of my F80, hmmmmmmmmmmm think I will wait.

[Polar Bear]

I was think off getting rid of my F80, hmmmmmmmmmmm think I will wait.

I wouldn't if I was you , best to mate it with an inexpensive manual focus 35mm F2.8 Nikkor and get snapping !

Just think of the anticipation of getting the 'snaps' back.

No stressing in front of a computer screen for hours worrying about 'flats', 'luminance' and all the other stuff associated with a decent digital photo.

Aperture set, focus, fire shutter, wait...............not much to worry about camera wise.

leaves you to put all the effort into setting up and getting the guiding spot on.

Best thing is no noise to worry about just reciprocity failure and colour cast !

Is a revival on the cards maybe ?

Paul

[Photosbykev]

The biggest problem is no major manufacturer is making film anymore except for specialist suppliers because of the health and safety and environmental issues surrounding some of the key chemicals used in the manufacture. The only film available is being cut from existing stockpiles which won't last much longer and film cameras will then become a thing of the past.

I've got 200 rolls of Kodak 120 Tech pan film stockpiled in my freezer that I use only when another film type wouldn't be suitable.

[Polar Bear]

The biggest problem is no major manufacturer is making film anymore except for specialist suppliers because of the health and safety and environmental issues surrounding some of the key chemicals used in the manufacture. The only film available is being cut from existing stockpiles which won't last much longer and film cameras will then become a thing of the past.

I've got 200 rolls of Kodak 120 Tech pan film stockpiled in my freezer that I use only when another film type wouldn't be suitable.

Leica, Kodak and Fuji must know something we don't then ?

Mark my words there is a revival about to happen

[namreg]

Mind you, how would I use my Bahnitov mask with a film camera? That might be difficult!

[budski]

As a film-maker in a bygone age I can well appreciate the rose-coloured nostalgia associated with silver halide i.e. film. Using a Beaulieu R16 16mm motion picture camera, I shot miles of promotional or TV newsreel material which after its initial screening was usually dumped soon after. I shudder to think how much it all cost i.e. film stock, processing and telecine. We all whooped for joy when the first 3 Tube (RGB) video cameras arrived with the 'portable' Sony Umatic recorder (I've still got a groove in my left shoulder to show for it). We were devastated, however, when we saw the quality of the playback. "How could we ditch film in favour of this ****?" we cried - but as usual over a period of time video quality improved to the point where today I have a Hi Def 3 chip pro camera which completely outclasses the best that my venerable R16 (using top film stock) could ever achieve. I suspect that somewhere deep in the bowels of NASA or Langley, someone is working on a hybrid organic sensor that will blow away anything we've seen so far. The trick with digital photos is to PRINT the ones you think are worthy, put them in an album (like our mums and dads did) and bring it out every Christmas so everyone can have a good laugh at how much hair we used to have.

[Astro_Baby]

The problem though with printing from digital is that most of us have ink jets and the inks are not terribly stable, they fade out very easily.

Digital I think will give us huge problems in the future. Think 20 years ahead. JPG will die out. Anyone with a slide projector can view any 35mm slide no matter when it was taken or on what.

How many of us could read a 7.75 disk these days or an Iomega Zip cartridge.

Large organizations are already finding that digital info has headaches when you have to think of legal records. People always get smug and say "oh but we can convert with each new standard" but people never do. It's always too time consuming and too expensive. Result - an awful lot of lost data.

Like someone said further up the thread...I have pics going back to when I was a baby. I doubt modern kids will have the same. Their images will be lost when PCs crash, get stolen, formats change etc.

I think archeologists if the future will hit a big blank spot after the 80s where no records exist. Rather like some of the lost ancient civilizations whe the recordings just vanish like the Hittites.

There was another great advantage to film, you could buy a decent camera and it would last forever most likely. Film technologies could change but your camera could still use the film. Compare that to digital where the technology is constantly moving and chances are any memory cards won't be useable in the new gear.

I'd love a return to film myself.

[budski]

When I said PRINT your worthwhile pix I meant take them to your local supermarket/Boots/Jessops where they use chemical photo processes. I too once tried to use 'photo' inkjet printers for this purpose but despite the full blown 7 or 8 cartridge units (at horrendous ink costs) they still failed to deliver the quality of chemical prints. You say that standards change and today's stuff becomes obsolete tomorrow but that was also true in the film and photo world. The past is littered with such instances. Take home movies for example: How many people can show a Standard 8, Super 8 (including sound) - ok maybe a few - but 9.5mm or 16mm? I know there are thousands of attics across the planet containing the yellow Kodak 50' reels which will never come out of their boxes. As a business, I've sat through countless hours of film2video transfer - mind numbingly out-of-focus, over/underexposed, poorly held images - but with the odd absolute gem in amongst all this dross. At least with digital you can learn from your results almost immediately and delete then retake. If my Jupiter images were like the one shown in the Flickr reference (in the first post) then I'd probably give up.

[russ]

For 15 years I tried my best to get some decent photos from film based astrophotography and failed miserably. It was a hobby for the elite. Fine for some widefields and great for star trails but not a route i would want to take ever again. Could have bought a fair few Canon 550D's with the money wasted on film. Still have the Zenith II and Practika MTL5B, and tempted to dust them off for some star trails.

[namreg]

If my Jupiter images were like the one shown in the Flickr reference (in the first post) then I'd probably give up.

The guy on Flickr is happy to yield planetary imaging to digital - he says as much in the text accompanying that image.

Jupiter aside, in my opinion, for what it's worth, he has a fine set of images there, and the widefield results I think are far superior to any I've seen in digital. But then I haven't seen much yet!

There are pros and cons to both methods I guess - I was just surprised at how excellent his results were (Jupiter aside) hence the original post.