Does anyone still use film?

Yes

So about $100/£100 then? 😮

And you would need a slide projector and a screen in a dark room to see them.

A set of 4x6" prints - much more.

Rich

And the technical quality, far below today's digital.

Rich

I thought studio room time was expensive enough. Luckily I don't have to pay for a photographer or for film or for a projector. I guess times have changed a lot and I guess I take all the portfolio sets I do for granted. Before digital I would have been a bankrupt student, not just a poor one 😂

Everyone had a 35mm projector. The most popular was the Kodak Carousel. It was an iconic fixture in most households.

Rich people had projector screens. Ordinary people just used a bedsheet or a bare wall.

Rich

I probably would have used a bed sheet being a student. I know that backdrop screens and normal screens cost a lot today, were probably more back then.

There were also monocular and binocular slide viewers. I never knew of one with anything but single, or at most double element, plastic viewing lenses. The magnification was about 2x-3x. They were atrocious. Imagine the image quality with such devices.

Rich

I've never seen one of those types of projectors before. Only an over head one with transparent sheets for drawing on that was used because the main projector had broken. Everyone laughed as it looked so old, like an ancient robot.

Color or B&W negs, of course made prints. 35mm supported prints up to about 8x10" maximum. Unless the neg image was of really high quality, the resolution wasn't there for much larger prints. Good photographers could make fairly good prints up to about 16x20 with the best equipment. But the quality was far below the kind that's so easy to accomplish now.

There was no inexpensive technology to make prints from slides. You viewed them optically, period. Commercial printers used drum scanners for magazine reproduction of slide film images. But that was far beyond anything the general public even knew about.

Rich

Today has definitely been a school day for me. I'm glad I started this thread.

Cibachrome?

Inexpensive? And an internegative would have been required.

Rich

No it didn’t. 120 film was about 75cm long, interleaved with a roll of black backing paper. 8, 12 or 16 exposures could be made on this depending on the camera, not the film length. There was also 220, twice as long and mostly without the backing paper.

Sorry, my bad. Cibachrome was positive to positive.

Rich

No - I used this process in my home darkroom in the late 70’s - no internet was required.

My point was that the maximum number of exposures was only 16. A 220 roll was twice as long. No backing paper.

Rich