Yea, I really miss carrying 10 pounds of camera equipment in the trunk of the car and not shooting because I'd have to spend approximately $18 between the film and processing to see the results of what I wanted to shoot in less than a week.

I wrote an article titled The Perfect Digital Camera last week and it's already coming in the top 10 on Google and I'm receiving a few messages a day from photographers all over the world agreeing with me.

It will be 4 yrs this july since I have shot a roll of film.
No, I do not miss it at all!

"It will be 4 yrs this july since I have shot a roll of film." Sounds like a recovering film addict.

Well, I'm still lugging the heavy stuff - MF, LF and yes, digital, too - plus the heavy Bogen tripod. Probably, the one thing that will eventually make me give up film is the slow disappearance of nearby pro labs that still do C-41 processing. Either that, or a bad back. But, I'm still addicted to film, with no hope of recovery in sight.....

Hi Bill. The loss of a good pro lab here is what really turned me around. When Agfa went out that also had a impact on my decision. Shooting on a film budget always put me at the mercy of having the money to have and process film. Other thing was I still scanned to digital so not much advantange there. The Nikon gives me pretty much what I want. I would still like to shoot 4x5 format but probably won't now.

Just for info, a couple of days ago, I got back my negatives from Specialty Color Services in Santa Barbara. Excellent job! Looking at the bill, I paid a total of $29.98 for two rolls of 120 and 3 4X5 sheets. If you subtract the $16 for shipping and the $1.07 tax, that leaves $12.91 for processing, which ain't too bad. That's comparable to what I was paying at the Tennessee Tech lab before they discontinued C-41 work. And, I'm sure I burned at least $16 worth of gas for the two 60-mile round trips to deliver and pick up. So, I'm happy.....

Bill,

If anyone should be thanked that processing for film is still available in Santa Barbara, CA at Color Services it should maybe be the fact there are a lot of Brooks Institute of Photography students who need and use the services of that lab. If the school abandons film, very likely Color Services might not have enough processing volume to continue offering C-41 and E-6 processing.

That is what happen here. There no longer schools or very few photographers in this area that use film now so the lab that did most of the work here abondoned their BW process but still does E6 and C41 but the price is high now. and the turn around time is about a week or so because they wait to have enough film to make a run. We have a darkroom equiptment donated to our local art group and they are looking for a building to set up in. If and when they do I might consider doing 4x5 format. For now though it is not going anywhere.

Every so often, I think about packing up the 4x5 or one of the medium formats, and taking a walk down nostalgia lane. However, the reality is that I can't really physically manage a bunch of gear any more, so the 4x5 will probably go on the market soon, followed by the medium format stuff.

Also, I have picked up a Macbook, and am using it for image editing - this is pretty much impossible to do with film.

~EdT.

Quote:
Also, I have picked up a Macbook, and am using it for image editing - this is pretty much impossible to do with film.

As I too thought a number of years back. I was aware of scanners but those that could handle medium and large format were breathtakingly expensive.

My first darkroom and my first real camera were almost simultaneous acquisitions. Ansel Adams books were of enormous influence upon me as a beginner, and his musical metaphor stayed with me for life: "The exposure is the composers score, but the print is the performance". I never could stand behind a print of my exposure, printed by someone else. It may have been my vision, but it was someone else's art.

When I closed my last fume-room in the mid-1980s, I pretty much stopped doing personal photography. I would only pick up a camera when someone paid me to do so. It was the end of my life as an artist-photographer.

The renaissance came in the late 1990s with digital. I did not see it as a viable means of photography yet at that time, but wanted to be ahead of the curve when it eventually matured. In the year 2000 I bought a Nikon Coolpix 990 to begin setting the foundations. It was amazed - an incredibly good camera, and each generation got better, a CP5k, CP8400 and now a D200. I had begun image processing on an Amiga computer in the late 1980s, and with the digital cameras it all came together. I was back into personal photography with a vengeance!

I still had an arsenal of medium format cameras and 35mms. My experiences with a high-end - but early - flat-bed scanner was REALLY discouraging. I began to sell off equipment. First to go was my Brooks VeriWide 100 - a superb Schneider 47mm SuperAngulon over a 6x10 format. What was the point? The price of the Nikon medium format scanner was just too high to justify, and I would never have a place for a fume-room again. Depressing. It was capable of truly outstanding quality and had been my workhorse for everything from landscapes through architecture to environmental portraiture.

In July 2004, David Brooks in Shutterbug Magazine gave the Epson 4870 a glowing review. While I have the highest respect for David, I don't always agree with him - including in these forums. I Googled other reviews and the opinions were in line. I still had reservations. "Everyone knows" that a flatbed will never be a capable film scanner.

With a distinct lack of enthusiasm and low expectations, I bought one, really wishing it was the Nikon. I checked the local dealer, and the Nikon was $3,399Cdn that day. I was paying $600Cdn for the Epson, so it had to be pretty dismal in comparison, right?

First scan was of a carefully made exposure with the Linhof on tripod - ISO100 colour negative. I printed it 13x19 on my Epson 1280. I was stunned, confused and rocked back on my heels. It was as good or better than any print in my portfolio. My most picky client in all my years as a shooter would be totally satisfied with it. It was THAT good. No problem getting a super 24MB image out of a 6x7 negative. Compare the price of the scanner to a 24MB back.

My film equipment suddenly became viable again. I shot a roll in my WideLuxe 140

Too bad you missed out on the 90's doing digital photography on the bleeding edge, it was as you indicated expensive to be involved, but the journey was worth it. No one really knew what they were doing and there were no expert guru's to ask. But we traded what we learned in places like the Compuserve PhotoForum and were much amused by all who were sitting on the fence waiting until someone (usually a client) pushed them off and into the drink, sink or swim.

The opportunity to be on a new frontier comes rarely, so I was glad I had my fill of film and a wet darkroom when digital imaging became a real possibility with a PC at the end of the 80's, it was time to try something new, Ansel Adams had just Published Portfolio with all of the images scanned to make duotone plates, and he raved about what scanning allowed him to do for the first time, so it was exciting jumping into those unknown waters. It was hard to afford the price of admission, but then if I hadn't it would probably have gone into some bad investment like a fast car - and where would that have gotten me?

Larry - I pulled the trigger on that comment too soon. What I meant to say what that I use the Macbook for image editing on site (or later that day, when I am at my destination.) This is something I don't think you can do with a film camera.

Certainly, the modern scanner has opened up new opportunities for photographers that use film. While I still really like film, the increasing difficulty of finding someone to process it, combined with my physical limitations, make it unlikely I will do that much more work in film.

~EdT.