Film Series (Blog Note)

A question.

I'm thinking of writing regularly about film photography this Winter, and I wonder what you think of that. Not entirely—maybe about a third or half the posts. And not forever—maybe for November, December, and January. Possibly into March if the subject has enough energy. Just wondering what you think of that, and whether you would welcome it, regardless of whether you shoot film or not*. Or, whether it would cause you to stop reading TOP, which I don't want!

You can let me know in a comment or privately. I'll publish all the comments on this post, unless you ask me not to, but I probably won't feature any of the comments on this one. (I'll read all of them, as I always do.)

And, thank you!

Mike

*My friend Jim Schley was Editor at Chelsea Green when they published The Straw Bale House, which became a surprise best seller, and I remember that the book sold a larger number of copies than the number of straw bale houses that existed in America at the time. Which means, obviously, that even if the owners of every single straw bale house bought the book, there still were people buying the book who didn't live in straw bale houses. I assume the same thing would be true of posts about film photography. But you tell me.

Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Comments

[Lloyd Ringley]

I will probably read a few, I am not much into film anymore.

[James Weekes]

I will always read your writing. The film posts will strictly be nostalgia for me as I will never shoot film again. Too costly and too time intensive, even though I have a great darkroom still set up. Film is godawful expensive and my old favorite papers are gone.

Write on MacDuff

[David Dyer-Bennet]

For me personally, I'd be somewhat amused by some of it, but it's an "attractive nuisance". I periodically find myself thinking about how I could have improved my film photographic practice in the 70s or 80s, and really, that's not a very productive use of brain power for me! I have no interest in resuming use of film, digital is much superior for every sort of situation I shoot in.

[Bruce Bordner]

There is certainly an interest in film techniques, although I would just watch.... just don't limit it to monochrome and print output.
Many are put off by "how do I get this online?" A discussion on film scanners may be useful if one could find one. I managed to get a Nikon years ago - any around? Do the phone scanners work? That's something that you can't ignore. Give current sources for materials and equipment for processing; it isn't at Best Buy.
In general, update the old info wherever possible. That's always valuable.

[Andrew Lamb]

I would be interested for sure.

[Michael Wayne Plant]

Hi Mike,
I would love to have your input on film photography over an extended series of posts along with follow up as people comment. As your extensive film and darkroom experience would be appreciated and I for one would think a 3/4 month stint on film photography would enable you to make a significant contribution to the canon of film photography especially for those who are new to it. I am constantly encountering younger photographers who are film curious but go on about how hard it is, so giving them an excellent resource would be a good achievement.
Best regards,
Michael

[Thomas Allen Bethune]

Perfect timing. I was preparing to "go a photographing" later today with my newly acquired Minolta SRT 101 and some lenses. Back in the day, I used a 101 with a 28mm lens almost exclusively. When I look back on my early work from thirty and forty years ago, I see that that combination was ideal for my vision.
A 28 and a 24 came with the camera. I think I will start with only the 28.
I bought a roll of Tmax 400 and I will attempt to
follow your advice from the past and use only the
one focal length for an extended time (one year). I will take it one day at a time. It does not matter to me if you post this or not - I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your blog, and that I've followed it for many years.

[Herman Krieger]

I still remain a still photographer. I'm now too old to movie around.

[louis mccullagh]

No interest. It's a niche area which so far as I understand you no longer do yourself. My interest is the actual photographs which you are moving away from more and more.
It's your choice as always. Thank you for everything so far but I would still checkin occasionally.

[Stelios]

I’d enjoy that.

[Steve Belanger]

Go for it, Mike!

[Richard Tugwell]

Good idea. I'm stil using film for various reasons and I'm always interested in hearing other folks opinions / stories. I'm sure you will attract quite a few of those.

BTW, where I am in the UK we get a lot of Japanese tourists. I'm seeing more and more of them carrying film cameras, and although I don't have much of a sample size, quite a proportion are female. And they are using them

[Phil E]

I doubt that articles about film photography would be of any interest to me. Mainly, because I haven't bought film in 25 years, and I have no idea where to get it processed.This assumes you would be focusing on black & white. Color film is out of the question. I would read about old cameras, but that is a different discussion. And I probably have 20 in the closet to play with if I get inspired by one of your articles. What we need is a new type of 35mm media that needs no processing to enjoy, just a viewer of some sort. Did you ever wonder why stereo took over the music field, but failed in the visual world?

[Sal Santamaura]

Yes, please "do" film. Those of us still using it in large format are excited to learn that an excellent emulsion, missing for years, is now back:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1206983-REG/bergger_pc400_81025_pancro_400_black_and.html

[Jeff Hohner]

I no longer shoot film, but I'd be very interested in whatever you have to say about film photography.

(Jeff is now wondering where his tanks and reels are...)

[Harry B Houchins]

I would find your articles on film to me interesting. So, do it.

[Speed]

Film photography would be interesting but not more often than ... twice a month. That would be once every two weeks although an occasional three or four-times month would be OK -- emphasis on "occasional."

[Bob Keefer]

Count me in. I was a film photographer for many years before being seduced by digital. I'd like to read your take on the differences between the two media, and where and how film fits into the contemporary photo world.

[robert e]

So it's come to this, finally? Film photography is now off-topic? Alack! [Semi-kidding. :-/ ]

As a fan of your writing, regardless of subject: Yes, of course! You should write about whatever you're most energized about writing about at the moment; or whatever energizes your writing, if that's different.

As a fan and occasional user of film, and still very much a student: Of course! Yes!

As someone all too aware that we're losing all kinds of craft know-how and lore by the day, and believes he sees the quality of film photography deteriorating rapidly (at least what gets posted online): Yes! Please! Yes!

[Bob F]

I had three different B&W “darkrooms,” in one of which the enlarger sat on a plywood panel on the bathroom sink and the developing trays were laid side by side in the tub. While I am never going back to film, it would be interesting to read what you, as a former expert practitioner, have to say about film in a digital world.

[Patrick Cooney]

Hi Mike,
Concerning your proposed series on film use, I'll probably at least skim what you post just to see if I'm at all interested in it. But, I doubt I will be.
I just turned 80 and I started in photography in my teens, so much film in many formats has passed through many cameras and enlargers. With the advent of usable digital imaging, say about 20 years ago, that all ended for me. I have since sold almost almost all my film cameras and related gear, keeping only a few meaningful items for their nostalgic value.
Will I quit reading TOP if you opt for this? Probably not, but I am already drifting away as your posts drift more and more away from my current photo interests.
BTW, I'm also currently puzzled by the "X Post" link that follows each of your recent posts. When I click on it, it seem to want me to login to X.com. Is this just harmless or does it link me in some way to Elon's evil X empire? What happened?
One of your long-time readers,
--Pat Cooney

[What are your current photo interests, Pat? --Mike]

[André Moreau]

I haven't used film in years but I do follow SFLAB on Youtube. So yes, I'd be interested.

[J. Paul Thomas]

Mike,
This is a dangerous thing to do. After a lifetime of film photography I have finally reconciled myself to digital but have never lost that feeling of wonder after printing from a negative to see the image magically appear in the developing tray. In all seriousness, I would love to read what you have to say and relive the experience again, even if only vicariously.

[William Pooel]

As a film photographer who has been patiently waiting since the days of the "single use device," I would welcome this content. (Hope I remembered that correctly.).

[Roger Bradbury]

I do hardly any film photography, but I would like to read about it. 'Tis darkroom season, after all.

[Bill S.]

Sounds good to me. Might help your SEO.

[Dan Khong]

Film photography is largely supported by young people with emerging buying power. The older ones who jettisoned their valuable film cameras when they thought "Film is dead" and dove into digital are a dying breed.

When you write about film, you are also widening your circle of readership to include the young ones interested to learn and use film and those who are already using both film and digital. Film is like oil art and digital is like watercolor - if that can be considered one way to describe the two.

So Mike, continue to write about film. I did not jettison any of my film cameras when they cried, "Film is dead" and followed the herd.

[Keith]

I look at everything you publish, since it's typically up at the top of my blog roll. But if it is of little interest, I'll close the page and go on. No judgement, it's your blog, you publish what you want.

That said, I've been exposing lots of film lately, and am in the process of setting up my own darkroom, so I'll be curious to see what you publish.

[Moose]

" The Straw Bale House, which became a surprise best seller, and I remember that the book sold a larger number of copies than the number of straw bale houses that existed in America"

From the description: "The Straw Bale House describes the many benefits of building with straw bales:"

Why would someone who already has, and most likely, built, a straw bale house want this book? It's not "Maintaining and Improving Straw Bale Houses"

Much more likely buyers were/are those considering building or buying one, the just plain curious, the folks who watch TV shows about living as though in the past, those who like to fantasize about living differently and so on.

[Lothar Adler]

I think the film photography project is a very nice idea. I would hope that this project could also be an excellent opportunity to attract the younger generation as readership, exactly those who are interested in and practicing film photography, but so far know nothing about the existence of TOP.
That would be a great win-win situation for everyone involved, because it would be too sad if you would only preach to the choir.
Unfortunately, at the moment I don't have a brilliant idea of how to find and address this existing target group. But it would be worth thinking about this point. –
In the later course of the discussion about film photography, the topic of film scanning and post-production seems very important to me.

[Steve Jackson]

Mike,

I spent many years shooting film, developing film, and printing from film. I am now 77, and my photography has been totally digital for years now. Although I still have my film cameras and some left over darkroom stuff, I would prefer NOT to have that many articles about film photography. I think I would just skip the blog for a while. Sorry.

[Jean-Pierre Koenig]

I love this idea as somebody who has gone back to shooting a lot of film (mostly B&W but even some color film this year). YEAH!

[Chris Nicholls]

I'll be very happy to read more of your writing about film photography. After all, your writing was a big part of what fired up my interest and enjoyment of photography. More please!

[John Krumm]

I think it's a good idea. There's lots of overlap, and many of us have shot film at one time. I still have a Pentax film slr, an autofocus ZX-5 with a so-so viewfinder that works pretty well. It has a half finished roll of Tri-X in it, so maybe I will feel inspired to finish it. I also have an OM4 that kills batteries and needs work.

[Mark B]

I vote aye for posts on n film photography, especially black & white.

[Andrew]

Sounds great to me!

[David Drake]

Really!?! I would love to see more about film photography on TOP! For my personal images, I have been shooting colour digital for a while but held out for B&W film for a long time; getting further into large format film. But then my darkroom went by by, so now I’m making the best of it and becoming more proficient in digital imaging and editing. But some day. . . I will have a darkroom again! And if silver gelatine no longer exists (or becomes even more prohibitively expensive), I’ll explore alternative processes further. So, yes please! Even one post every week or two would be fun.

[Patrick W]

Film writing wouldn't cause me to stop reading Online P, but I would check in as usual and if I see a film post I'd skip it, not a subject I have any interest in.

[Mike Kukulski]

Please talk about film. I have many digital cameras (Fuji, Leica, and Nikon] and a bunch of film cameras, 35mm, MF, LF, and wet plate. To be honest, my digital work probably looks better, but I have much more fun with the analog stuff, I find it an enjoyable challenge to attempt to master the vintage techniques, and my long term goal is to become a passable wet darkroom printer.

Mike

[darlene]

You're not shooting film currently, right? If you decide to explore it again and share how you approach it today, I'd be interested in seeing your images and reading about it.

While I can appreciate your enthusiasm for revisiting your past experiences with film, my focus has been on exploring the current practices and evolving techniques in film photography, as I've continued shooting it all these years. For me, the changes in process and materials keep it engaging.

If you will not be shooting film and then sharing your results, I will more than likely not put a lot of attention into your articles. But, I hope your series connects with those who enjoy reflecting on the past, but as I stated above, I'm more interested in present-day explorations with film

[Grant]

Given the number of your posts that go (OT), I don't understand why you would need our permission to write about film. I still shoot film from time to time, so your posts might encourage me to shoot more.

Just don't write about vegetarian film.

[Frank Gorga]

Go for it, my engagement with TOP won't change.

Personally, I haven't looked back since converting to digital twenty years ago. (I bought a Nikon D70 a couple of days after they were first available in January 2004... seems like yesterday!)

I had be making photographs close to 35 years at that point. However, the ability to experiment (because of the lack of cost associated with tripping the shutter) and the instantaneous feedback allowed a quantum leap the quality of my photos.

I still own a 4x5 camera and sometimes miss the movements of a view camera but I have not used it at all for a very long time.

Additionally, I have become a much better digital printer that I ever was in the darkroom.

I am also a longtime (and still currently active) alternative process printer (cyanotype, cuprotype, salted-paper and platinum/palladium). Digital negatives have revolutionized this area of photography. The ability to print different size negatives allows one to proof at small sizes and then seamlessly scale up for a final print. The ability to dodge and burn on the negative results in more nuanced prints than is possible with film negatives.

[James McKearney]

I would welcome some focus on film photography, even though I currently do not do too much of it.

[Albert Smith]

You can of course write on any topic, including film. Just me, but I'd be interested to know the ratio of film to digital shooters on your forum. Maybe you could post a survey and then present the results. I'd guess it would be heavily skewed towards digital, but I'm sure there is still some film shooters out there.

Personally, I have cameras that anyone in the '80s to the early '00s would have killed for, all of course film bodies, but I could not imagine reincorpororationg them back into use. Cost and the lack of supply or ease of processing make the thought of going back to film undoable.

[Omer]

Good idea. But please don't get bogged down in the past with either technique or aesthetics. Also, I believe there are more than a few women working with film. Let's hear from them.

[Rand Scott Adams]

To loosely paraphrase Guy Tal in one of his videos about returning to film / analog photography. To return to film for a more “authentic” look is like ripping out your plumbing and returning to a well and an outhouse for more “authentic” living.

[Joel Bartlett]

You write well, always happy to read what you have to say on most any topic.

[Bill Bresler]

Well, we know that most younger people don't read blogs, but if your film posts help them figure out the film thing you might pick up a new crowd of regular visitors. That's a good thing. I'm a geezer, knocking on 70, and I shoot maybe a half-dozen 120 rolls of 400TX a year, plus a ton of digital. I read every one of your posts and that won't change.

[Kenneth G Voigt]

no

[Mark]

Funnily enough I just bought a Rollei 6006 outfit after deeply regretting selling one years ago, and I also find all the photographers I look at use film, so this 65 year old will read all you have to say on the matter. I've had a darkroom in every house I've lived in since I was 14, but I'm always open to learning more.
Anyway there can't be much left to write about digital surely...

[Mike]

Do it.

[Bear.]

I'm awaiting delivery of my first brand new film camera in 40 years, the Rollei 35AF. I won't have time for darkroom work but am going to play with having film professionally developed and scanned. I'll definitely read and have a special interest in hybrid analogue/digital working models, which I suspect is the future of film.

[Joseph Kashi]

Yes, absolutely please intersperse articles about digital photography and film. Film photography has become the new hip approach over the past several years, with digital photography now the ho-hum mainstream.

For certain types of photography, such as fine art print-making, there's a lot of value combining digital and analog approaches.

And, no, you don't need to give up digital printing if you scan film negatives with something like an Epson V700-V850 scanner, or contact print large negatives like 5x7 or larger.

Disclosure: Most of my photography has been digital since about 2006, but for certain sorts of photography, particularly BW, I prefer large format film even though I own a Pentax monochrome digital camera.

[Gary Nylander]

I mainly shoot digital cameras these days, but I will always be a film aficionado, so I would gladly read your articles about film-based photography with great interest.

[Dave Karp]

Mike, I would love it.

[jp41]

I'm interested in whatever you have to say.

I would be specifically interested if you took interest in a hybrid approach. Scan/copy some of your film negatives and digitally post processs.

[Jeff in Colorado]

Depends on whether you plan on resuming a bit of film photography or not, because IMO, part of the fun is not simply nostalgia, but playing with medium in ways that I didn't do in the past. In a sense, digital has "freed" me to create super grainy half-frame 35 mm photos on ISO 800 color negative film.

Pentax 17 is an example of a product which combines classic elements but updated for modern sensibilities, with a close focus setting indicated with fork and knife(!) I like it, even if I haven't yet achieved a fetish-worthy film food photo.

[Pierre Charbonneau]

Yes, I would love to read your observations or appreciation of film photography.

I have kept shooting film, for personal pictures, since the digital tsunami of twenty-five years ago. I have switch the printing from wet darkroom to Epson printers. Which means the black and white home-processed negatives are being scanned, at first with a Nikon scanner and since few years with a digital camera with a macro lens mounted on a converted enlarger stand. Compared to digital capture, it is indeed a lot of work.

I wonder often if it is worth all the trouble.

But the thing is, my favorite prints are most often coming from this hybrid approach. But I cannot really point out why I liked them better. The prints seems to me as softer, of course, but with more depth, less plasticky, and « kindlier » to the people I have photograph. These analog/hybrid prints are more gratifying, for me.

I am very much looking forward reading from you and your readers about this holy quest on TOP.

[DB]

One-third to half of *all* your posts, or just the ones about photography?

I jest. Your plan sounds great.

[Peter Tutt]

Count me in Mike. I have a CM500 and a F3 HP sitting not far away so yep, fire me up..!

[olivier]

If that is a way to see more photo-related content, why not? Having abandonned the lab nearly 30 years ago, I will not be interested in purely technical matters, and this should not be a place for nostalgia. In any case I am interested in seeing how you will renew your pages. Best wishes!

[Tony Miller]

I still use film. Sinar, MamiyaTLR and a recently acquired Ricoh GX500 (junk shop purchase, gooey light seals replaced). So, yes I’d be interested.

[Graeme Scott]

I'm 61 & have no interest in analogue photography but know some young'uns ( late 20's / early 30's ) who are into film photography. I'm sure they'd be interested in your articles.

I suspect these kids are also into vinyl records, WTF?

[Jez Cunningham]

Done film. Done DSLRs. Write more about iPhone photography…
Yup, srsly.

[Stan B.]

It's all good.

[William Lewis]

I would like to read your thoughts on the subject. While most of my work is in digital these days, I still use my Rolleiflex Automat & my Nikon F4 regularly (if mostly with Ilford XP2+ Super. Love that stuff and its flexibility).

So please do!

[Dave B]

You’re kidding……right! Once a week for three/four months. Please…NO!

[ChrisC]

I did pop a couple of rolls through an old film body over the last couple of years and keep thinking I should try a bit more even though logic says otherwise.

To keep people interested, I think the articles will need to look forward with current trends and practices, not just a nostalgic look at the classic era of film in the past.

[Trevor Johnson]

Writing about film on a regular basis would be welcomed. It would be even better if you restarted using film again and could enhance the relevance of what you wrote. Although that might prove to be something of a rabbit hole for you, which you may feel like not entering.

[Stephen Jenner]

Hi Mike,

I would welcome the occasional post on film photography.

Personally, I currently use it for pinhole, it is the closest I ever get to making art, since I cannot draw or paint.

It is in my view an interesting distraction. Looking at my camera shelves, I note that along with some excellent digital cameras, I have three pinholio's, a Rolleiflex TLR and a Zeiss Super Ikonta. I also have a Canon Digital Rebel, yet another distraction, old timey digital snapshottery.

I am currently considering ordering a Chroma Camera, with a pinhole that one can adapt to 4x5 use by changing the 3D inkjet printed front for a nominated used 4x5 lens. Other formats like 5x7 and 8x10 are available, and the boss of Chroma, Steve Lloyd, is open to one off projects too.

I reckon that such variety adds to the craft of painting with light, rather than diminishing it, and 3D printing is hardly old technology either.

Another variation comes from a gentleman called John Coffer who travels around the USA with a horse drawn caravan, teaching these old techniques. Participants in his courses make their own wet plates to take away along with their new found skills.

Gary Winogrand had a lot to say about such things, though I fully accept that he was making his wonderful pictures before the practical advent of digital photography.

Ultimately the pastime is about pictures and there are many ways to skin a cat.

[Simon]

I'm not at all interested in reading about USA politics, tennis, snooker or pool yet I read your posts on those topics.

I most definitely *am* interested in (and still practising) film photography, and your opinion of it today, so will definitely read those articles.

I'm told there is a large volume of of film/analogue-related content being posted on TikTok. Perhsps you could encourage a TikTok-er to post about TOP and encourage a wider audience to become regular readers.

[Wolfgang Lonien]

Yes please! Cannot wait :-) And I still have two B&W film rolls laying around, of the (new) Agfa brand, both ISO 100 and 400. Wondering when I'll start using these...

[Ben]

I wouldn’t have any issue if you wrote a series on film, but if it basically consumed the blog, or became the vast majority of photo related content, I'd probably be bored. I think systematic approaches to other topics would be more widely interesting.

Would love to see a deep dive series on B&W tonality-you’ve written on it of course but something a bit more systematic would be of interest to me. This could include comparisons on film vs digital b&w as well as how-tos on achieving different tonal feels.

I also always enjoy your photo book recommendations and wish there were more of them these days. Miss random excellence posts too.

[Matt O'Brien]

I have no interest in film photography. I respect the art of using film... but it is not for me.

I also respect your choice to do what you want with your blog.

I think I might be able to handle, perhaps, one post every 5 post... but I am highly likely to ignore such posts.

[Andy Munro]

Yes for me. I read (and enjoy) TOP no matter what the subject.

The subject would be relevant for me as I have just bought a Pentax 17 (new). That in turn has triggered a purchase of a Nikon FE2 and 50mm. There is something very pleasurable about the care need to check everything before taking a photo with film.

My digital gear has gradually fallen into disuse. I'm not sure why but some of it is the lack of involvement. I am using my phone more and more for family photos and ones to share.

Andy

[Ilkka]

Iwould be interested to see what exactly you would be writing about, about film photography. I have been hoping for the past 15 years to one day at least try film photography again. I still have many good cameras. But every passing year it gets more and more remote. Film is expensive, it is hard to get processed, hard to get printed well, so would need to scan it. That is also hard or expensive. I would end up putting a slide on a light table and taking a picture of it with a digital camera and macro lens. Hardly a sensible work flow.
But as I said, I am interested to read what you would say about it.

[John Abee]

Thanks, but no thanks. We all have limited bandwidth and I'd prefer to see you spend yours on something else. It's not that I'm anti-film - I still own film cameras and way too much film in the freezer - but at some point I will gift them all to someone who enjoys the process a lot more than I do. If we take film processing out of the equation, what is there really to talk about?

[V.I. Voltz]

For a really long time you have promised (threatened!) to write an article about black and white tonality. Please write it!

Voltz

[Chris Gibbs]

There are many of us with pre-digital film archives who're looking for cost effective ways of digitizing them with maximum efficiency. This subject is a proverbial minefield, I would appreciate any and all info of digitizing and archiving pre-existing film archives.

[Luke]

Film, all film, is now firmly in the realm of "alternative processes", just an arcane curiosity. As such, yeah it's interesting to read about.

Like so many of your readers, I shot loads of film, rolled my own, processed it, printed it myself. Never again!

Saint Ansel's zone system was a huge, complicated workaround for the limitations of film (and paper, and chemicals). Film makers tried for a hundred years to control the problems with bad color and contrast, etc. Now the big gimmick on cameras is "film simulation" to recreate all those problems.

I would enjoy your reminiscing about film, but otherwise, good frikkin' riddance.

[Peter F]

I would very much like to read your thoughts on film. I came to analog after digital and don’t shoot it these days, but I’m still interested in it, and so much that’s written about it online is from people with relatively shallow experience…

[Trygve Strömberg]

But of course!

I still shoot B&W film, process it myself and scan it with a Fuji X-T2 on a repro stand. Slow but rewardig. It’s the journey, not the goal, as the cliché goes. Using a TLR and a separate light meter makes me appreciate the things around me much more. Pure zen. The cost is there, obviously, but as this is my hobby and not my profession I can live with it. Digital is more rational and practical (catching my 3 yo grandson eg), but since when do emotions and rationality go hand in hand?

[Van Heddegem Pros]

Excellent idea: 1 subject, 3 months, once a week: "In der Beschränkung zeigt sich erst der Meister.'

[Daniel]

This would be a wonderful topic!
Please find room to talk about new chemistry available nowadays, like Cinestill Df96, and how it’s results compare to older and more labor intensive processes.
Also, I think it would also be great if you could talk about old masters of film photography, who later in life converted to digital and how it affected (or not) their vision and work (Saul Leiter comes to mind - no one talks about his digital work, is it available? Is it any good?).
I am a late convert to film, but only 1/2 way, like a lot of folks, probably. I shoot film, develop at home (both BW and color) using Cinestill chemistry and then I scan the film. I think this where most people stop (I do). I have a wonderful Canon 300 printer at home, but somehow I can’t get my head around it to try to use it (frequently). A great topic would be how do classical, darkroom prints compare to prints of scanned digital files.
I cannot stop thinking what would Ansel Adams have produced nowadays with the advances in scanning and processing software…

[Bob Johnston]

Well timed for me. I have just got the darkroom cleared out and ready and I will load the Minolta Autocord with HP5. Mainly for the pleasure of nostalgia though. Someone commented on film scanners. By far the best method nowadays is to use a digital camera to copy the negative or slide.

[Richard Alan Fox]

I started reading you in our film days, so a stroll down memory lane would interest me.
I still have most of my film cameras, but the only user is my 22 year old son.
For me film was b&w self developed and printed, for my son it is color negative brought to a camera store with jpegs posted to the web or prints from the store.
I am twenty one years film sober, digital capture only desktop pigment printer printed.
I enjoy your enthusiastic writing on any topic so click away at your esoteric keyboard and I will read every post.

[Nick VanZanten]

I would enjoy it. I cut my teeth on film in the sixties and until 2002,when desperate for a camera I bought an open box Nikon CoolPix. Now I've cleaned off the old Asahi Pentax, just to see.

[Terry Letton]

Well this got a lot of feedback for you. For me it would mean that you would at least be writing about photography and presumably also doing some. Personally I’m never going back to film, especially not setting up an environmental disaster (darkroom!). I have lots of old film cameras around that I never expect to run another roll thru. Come to think about it I also have a pile of old record albums and no record player, I think I see a pattern here.
I won’t delete you from my phone over it and I may well enjoy some of the articles, but my world is digital these days.

[Rick Neibel]

As a retired (after 37 years) commercial photographer, I am THRILLED (!!) to never, ever have to buy/store/develop/proof/deliver/file another frame of film ever again. I'd probably (OK, definitely) feel the same even more so if I wasn't retired.

So write away, and enjoy. Doubt if I'd read much of it.

[GHS]

Sure, why not. Looking forward to it.

[Tex Andrews]

Absolutely you should be writing about film photography! I can't believe that's even a question. This is where you have the most expertise, and it seems clear now that film photography is not going to vanish from the earth. Please go for it!

[Ken]

Why? If you're not "out there" shooting film and engaged in the film community right now, what are you going to offer that's new on the subject?

Besides, while some younger photographers are playing with film (and some older photographers have never stopped), their numbers are a fraction of the people shooting with phones and digital cameras (and in some cases creating amazing new stuff).

Saying film photography, as opposed to just plain photography, leads me to think you want to revisit old topics like b/w tonalities, printmaking, and darkroom techniques. But all that is available with a quick online search, especially about b/w, your main interest, and most of it has already been done to death.

[Rusty]

By discussing film photography, you may bring a younger cohort to your blog...

[Eric]

I won't be reading those posts.

[Dave Riedel]

While you're at it, cover wet plate techniques and Polaroid as well. Just post some kind of alert when you've worked through it all. On the other hand, I would like to see some articles on the future of photography rather than its nostalgic past. What about computational photography? How will smartphone cameras evolve and will camera makers ever adopt smart phone features in their cameras? In my view the topics of interest are where are we going rather than where have we been.

[Hans Muus]

Film, good idea, good subject Mike. And timely, as far as I am concerned : After very short adventure with the Pentax 17 (a disappointment, to say the least), I have now bought a rangefinder film camera of old, the Zeiss Ikon ZM. (The Leica M6 was too expensive and too heavy.) Digital is slowly but securely becoming too uniform and too A.I.-sh to my liking, and also demanding a level of purely technical perfection (easily accomplished) that makes it less appealing to me - impressive though it may look at first sight. Recently I got a copy of a photobook by the Magnum photographer Sergio Larrain, ‘Londres, 1959’, and it occurred to me that part of the appeal of his (black and white) pictures is that sharpness as we know and demand it now, in the digital era, is simply absent - without any loss of visual information, to say the least.
So, I am very much looking forward to in this way slowing down -taking pictures on film, having them developed and scanned, and then ‘enlarging’ and printing them via lightroom and my epson printer.

[JoeB]

I still have a changing bag, film developing tank, just have to find chemicals- I suspect dumping used chemicals down the sink is not a good thing to do these days. So I won't be doing that.
I still have all (and that is many) my film cameras and can never sell or give away those any more than I can sell or give away away my LP's as I still have a very good turntable and associated electronics.
I look forward to your work writing of all things film, film cameras and turning film into lovely images.

[Timo]

I would be interested in reading about your opinion with regard to what film does well -- in service of making great pictures -- and perhaps especially in comparison to digital. That is, compare and contrast and teasing out differences can be interesting.

Otherwise, the more yours (or anyone's) writing about e.g., film veers into nostalgia or lament, the less I find it interesting.

[DavidB]

I would read the articles not because I am interested in film but because I am interested in your writing.

Also, if writing more articles on film means fewer articles on pool/snooker, then yes!

[As you must know, I never write about pool and snooker. :-) --Mike]

[JH]

Phil E mentions having a new 35mm medium that self-processes. Polaroid did that in the early 1880s - Polachrome and PolaPan. You got processing chemicals with the film canister and used a hand-cranked processor to develop it.
I used a ton of it in the mid-1980s to create slide shows for presentations using a Kodak Ektagraphic projector. Much more professional looking than using an overhead projector and easier to carry.
See this Wikipedia article for more details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polavision