Advancements in film and film cameras?

Seeing that you can still buy film and film cameras on the market.  Anyone happen to know if these companies are researching the technology behind the film or optimizing the cameras and coming out with new film cameras/technology?  

The short answer I get is yes:  years ago... it's called digital.  

That's not what I'm talking about.  You know, like increasing ISO performance as an example in both the film camera or in the film it self? 

There isn't much being spent on emulsion based R&D. It is what it is. I am nostalgic and still own many film cameras, but I don't yearn for those days. Digital is here to stay.....

I don't see where the profits would be here?  

Lots of film and film cameras are going off the market all the time. Research will be throwing good money after a decreasing market.

Agree, you buy film camera now, not because of the latest and greatest film camera.  You buy it to enjoy the roots of photography IMO.  

I just do not understand why anyone could possibly care. Photography is about capturing light. We have better tools to do that now.

Film for the sake of film?. Meh.

Only reason I went digital in the first place was cost. Now I do like the ability to throw a bad photo out and move on. My D70 is a lot better feeling than my D5000. And me F5, Pentax 645, RB 67 and even my Yashica 635 feel better to use. I don't shoot the F5 at all any more but the other's I like to drag out now and then. Even have a small stash of 120 film in the fridge. For all the advantage's of digital, I'd never part with my film cameras. Seem's to me I read where oversea's there is still a good market for film camera's.

I have often been tempted to buy an old Leica or something... because I want to play with a rangefinder and can't afford a digital leica... (poor me)

What I can think of that might be considered advancements of a sort are updated ways of doing early processes - tintypes, ambrotypes, daguerreotypes, etc. There are workshops at the Eastman House in Rochester NY and I think at the Talbot House/Museum in the UK, and some of the ways the processes are done now seem to be safer and use less toxic chemistry etc. (Daguerreotypes in particular created fumes that apparently were toxic enough to cause brain damage, and the number of people using that process seems very limited.) The Eastman House has workshops on making/coating emulsion for people who want to do their own for plate photography etc.

New types of film being developed seem to be more for experimental or creative uses. Lomography did some that replicated aerial ir film (although was not true ir). I've used film by The Impossible Project for Polaroids that are monochromatic, in cyan and magenta.

Many newer cameras replicate vintage cameras. Some made by Lomography are similar to ones made in Europe and Asia in the '60's and '80's and others are similar to midcentury cameras like vest pockets made out of bakelite. 

If a film was made in a higher ISO it wouldn't be usable with existing film cameras and I don't think there's that large a market for new film cameras to use higher ISOs. I never liked the results I got with 800 or 100 speed film, I use 400 or 100. I find that if I'm losing light late in the day outdoors it pushes the limits of what a camera can do; I can sometimes still get pictures as it's getting dark out a little longer using my digital camera but either way it just gets too dark eventually to get good pictures (unless you want to set up and do a long exposure).

Usually when getting film developed the lab will scan the negatives or some people scan their own so it's not hard to go from film to a digital format. I use the same lenses on my film rangefinders and my digital camera so it's possible to get good quality images either way.

Well yeah Sharon the old tin/wet plate types would kill you for sure. Somehow vaporizing quick silver/mercury does that to a body, will also make you mad as a hatter.
Films Achilles heel has always been that you can only get the silver grains so small, and still able to capture in lower light. Granted you can hyper/cook film to make it more sensitive, but that only works so much, and still falls way short of what digital can do. Like some other old film shooters, I may at times get nostalgic, but then I wake up and remember processing, and what it took to get a print. Then I snap back into a happy reality that the nightmare is over. Film as far as profitability is dead for the most part, and is declining more each year. Just say no to film.

One of the aspects of film photography that still attracts me is simpicity, the economy of means that demands more of me compared to shooting with a D3s or D7100, for instance. A different pace of shooting, more reflection, more pause to imagine what I'm trying to achieve, rather than seeing what I can make out of one or two of a couple of hundred digital captures ( which certainly has its place).
Why would I want to complicate that process by using a digital-wanna-be film camera?

Really film?  

Part of the thing that appeals to me about film is the lack of advancements. You can actually spend years, even decades getting to know your medium, which is film. I now prefer to shoot black and white film and enjoy it very much. My go to cameras are now a Nikon F3 and a Voigtlander Bessa. The attraction to both of these cameras is the simplicity in use and their durability. I don't need to worry about spending big bucks on a camera upgrade because with proper care these cameras are going to continue to do what they have done for decades...Take photos. I do a little bit of Lightroom if I scan, but for the most part I'm off the computer most of the time. Emulsions are being upgraded here and there, but for the most part they are the same as they have been, consistent. I'm officially off the hamster wheel of camera upgrades and megapixel wars which feels great.

Anyone here never used film camera's? I love the feel and sound of film camera's. Waiting for film to get back to see what you got is like waiting for a new mail order catalog to come in. I also think that film require's a lot more talent than digital. You can't shoot something, view it and decide to throw it away, your gonna get what you get! I know you can scan film and probably enhance it in a computer, I've scanned don't remember if I post prepped much, I don't do much with digital. Just can't figure it out. Ever wonder how good you really are? Cover the screen on the back that lets you see your shot's as they happen. Shoot off 20 of 30 then go home and see what you got. Gonna need post prep? I think so as it seem's a very very small percentage of people don't post prep!

I'm really not anti digital at all, I've just realized that I am pro film!


Voigtlander Bessa I w/color-skopar 3.5

Tri-X 400 in D-76