If you shoot film, this thread is moot. It's all a matter of perspective. When Nikon introduced the F3, I called it a day for Nikon bodies. I shoot film with an FTN and an F2SB. Everything that came after these two completely manual bodies was useless garbage to me. But that's really besides the point.

If you still want to shoot film, it is a field day for availability of film cameras. What the hell are you complaining about? WTF would be so important about this non-existent F7? You have a universe of fantastic cameras and awesome LENSES to shoot with. Not just Nikon either. Pick of the litter guys. Take what you want, it's there for almost free. While we still have film, ENJOY! Life is short, live it up.

Thanks for the welcome.

To answer the questions:

Don't ask me about my nickname, let's just say I was born in 1337 ;-)

Yes I'm a photographer, an amateur tho. I make $0 from my shooting, just my hobby.

I really don't know what the film camera model was at my wedding other than Canon (I could see it was an L lens because of that red line), really I had other things to think about obviously :-) I know the other photog (they were 2 working together) was shooting digital with a 5D because I asked him for the RAW files for my archives and I've checked the EXIF.

Anyway, the film photog was the main one and he has quite a reputation in the photo business apparently, from what I was told. He shoots for fashion mags and also he does photo reportages for other mags. And he also does weddings in a photojournalism style like mine. He seems pretty booked up and people don't seem to care much for what camera technology he uses, they just like the results. I certainly did. Because he's such a traditionalist (he's rather young tho), I bet he created my album entirely analog with no scanning in order to preserve the film advantage. There was no set-up shots and everything just flows great, I can really relive all the emotions just looking at the photos. I guess some people are gonna see the photos and go like "it's blurry", "too much noise", "I want this one in color". But I appreciate the "roughness", it just looks real. It's hard to describe. I just like it better than all the digital wedding photos I see on the forums, where people are super-static like they were statues at their wedding. I can tell you my wedding was anything but static or set-up and you can definitely see that in the photos. Oh yeah and I like being different :-)

haha it only works for b&w, chrome positives and color negs are composed of dye clouds formed of the chemically released dye couplers, with the silver bleached out afterwards. And it won't look nearly as good.

Film is film, that's it. The cameras are also way cooler looking.

NikoDoby said:
Unfortunately most every job is always done under a tight deadline and budget and that's the problem with film when compared to digital :^(

Very true.

Yes those photogs still shoot film, but they retouch their work digitally. Well if they don't all do retouching digitally they still scan to distribute electronically. Unless it's fine art stuff. That is usually snail mailed as old school prints. Though even then I'm seeing more and more digital printing on fine art paper instead.

Unfortunately most every job is always done under a tight deadline and budget and that's the problem with film when compared to digital :^(

Does anybody know how much those optical projectors cost? Maybe for archival purposes I should shoot digital and later archive the image on film ;^)

Lots of professionals still shoot it. Big ones too. Examples include Platon, Pep Bonet, John Sexton, Salgado, Don McCullin, Alex Webb, Constantine Manos, and more.

It doesn't really matter, but the archival nature of silver negative is far superior to a digital file, so far.For anything on tight deadline, digital is the answer, but personally if I was given the option, I'd choose film almost every time. Nothing beats the awesome grain of TX pushed two stops in a low dilution Rodinal mix. Grainy as hell, but real flavor and personality.

Yeah, I doubt I'll use film for anything serious ever, unless specially requested. But I think using film is just asking to lose business.

I haven't done any paid film work in years. Nobody wants film exclusively. Even the wedding stuff is easier to do in digital because clients always just ask, "can we get this one in black & white or do you have it but in color". Digital is just so much more versatile.

I only shoot now for fun and to keep my creativity going. I'm enjoying a Polaroid phase at the moment but only after a day of shooting I'm already out of film packs :^(

I hate waiting...

Welcome ns1337!

Do you know what camera your wedding was shot on?

Welcome to the forum, ns1337. Are there really that many "ns"s here or were you born in 1337? ;-)
Congrats on the wedding. Are you a photographer, too?

NikoDoby said:
Because there are still some photographers who still only shoot film! I met a few at my local help-portrait.com session.

Half of my own wedding in 2009 was shot on film (and of that half B&W). The look of it is great, it really stands out when compared to the usual wedding album nowadays. I like digital but I can't deny the artistic appeal of film.

Chris, I wasn't kidding! The buttons don't look the same as the new digital bodies!

Was doing some flash reading last night, and realized the F6 does support i-TTL - something I was curious about since the SB-900 (and therefore likely the SB-700 if and when) dropped support for film TTL. I was curious what current model flash Nikon would have to offer the film shooter. Now I have my answer. ;)

alphanikonrex said:
You've got a point soap. I think I'm just complaining though because the F6 looks so "old" compared to the digital cameras!

And if it could use EN-EL3e batteries that would be nice.

The F6 looks 'old'?!

hahahahahahahaha, alpha you're a funny one.

I'm using an F6, and a D700. Both superb machines, but I feel the F6 is the pinnacle
of design for film and frankly I was very surprised to see Nikon issue the F6. Most
felt the F5 was the end of it for pro film cameras. I commend them for 'improving' on
the F5. As for the F7...'if it don't stink, don't stir it!'.

I doubt we will see f7, or if any then not before 2014, AFAIR f6 was reales in 2006, and Nikon analog slr lifespan is app. 8 years.

What you wrote at the start of the post alpha actually made me want to test something.
So i went up to the addict and got my old computer, petium 133 mhz with a 1gb hdd in it, its been up there for.... quick calculation says 16 years aprox. and our addict goes from +40C in the summer to minus 10C in the winther.
And yes, windows 95 is still on it and its working still!.
So if a hdd isnt in use for a while i reckon it should work fine.
Still have an old raptor in one of my other machines running fine, its been running 24/7 for many years now in my 2nd server.

Don't think there will be no more film cameras comming out tho, hehe.

alphanikonrex said:
We already did that—it's called the D3! DUH! :^P

It is actually called D700, almost identical body and I prefer the smaller size ;]
D3 is more like F5 update ...
But seriously how F6, being a film camera, could possibly be updated, it even has EXIF info recording capability!

jonnyapple said:
Now, if you were going to put a digital sensor in the F7, that's an upgrade I'd get behind. ;-)

We already did that—it's called the D3! DUH! :^P

+MB-D10 compatibility?

Those Dylan pictures weren't taken with even an F6. I'm with soap. Now, if you were going to put a digital sensor in the F7, that's an upgrade I'd get behind. ;-)

Ahh - EN-EL3e batteries! THAT's an upgrade I could get behind.
(though, honestly, I'd likely stick with my F100 ;) )

You've got a point soap. I think I'm just complaining though because the F6 looks so "old" compared to the digital cameras!

And if it could use EN-EL3e batteries that would be nice.

alphanikonrex said:
Not a D3(H), just a cousin to the D3 series. Similar features and such.

what