Someone else post a film thread.

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.

Scott

 

How many rectangular holes are in a roll of 36 exposure Tri-X Pan Film
TX?

Discuss.

 

Points for nearest, and also fastest response? I'm stabbing at 628.

 

Ok, a film thread.

So there are 16 hole/frame, but there is the leader to think about, I
am guessing about 3 frames worth of leader.

So I put my guess in at 624, I could go look at a strip but too lazy
right now.

Scott

 

What's 35mm "film"?

 

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.

Scott

I'm sorry Scott but this group charter does dot include the word "film",
therefore using the word film would be off topic.

Regrads.

Pete

 

tony cooper, 9/7/2008 6:02 PM:

None; the holes are not rectangular, they have rounded corners.

Ok, so I'm a pedant

Colin D.

 

Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 7/09/2008 3:05 PM:

the real film users left ages ago. the only
thing left is the shills and scammers for Canon
and pbase. been like that for a long time.

 

I use film now and then. As a matter of fact one of my SI submissions
(the old man) was done using film on an old rangefinder camera back in
July. I used TMX 400 ISO.

 

I am not saying that there are not people on this group who use film.
What gets me is there are a few film users who complain about posts
dealing with DSLRs, but who never seem to be able to do a post that is
35mm film realated.

So far Noons is the only one to step up and do a film related post, I
sure hope he is not the only one.

Scott

 

Yes it would.

At one time you said you were going to keep shooting some 35mm film
even after getting the DSLR, how much 35mm film are you shooting a
year do you figure?

Scott

Scott

 

Not completely true. There are still a few on-topic posts about 35mm
film usage here. Far fewer than in the days of yore, but there are still
some.

Yup.

 

: 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

 

Then you know two more then I do.

Scott

 

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

 

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

 

Then you know two more then I do.

THAN I do, not then I do

ACK!

 

I stand corrected.

Still, I don't know anyone that is still shooting film, at least
people I know in real life.

Scott

 

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

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!"...

 

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.

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

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

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.

No running around with hands over ears yelling "la-la-la-la!", just
looking around at the signs of the times.

So if I don't use 35mm film cameras why am I here, simple the camera
has always been the cheap part of photography, it all the other stuff
you need to go with the camera that really counts, like lenses for
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.

Scott