Anyone shooting film?

[Pyrenees]

Sold my Mamiya RB67 kit last year. I really miss it, though - dumb decision to sell.

I still have my 35mm Pentax KX200 with a 50mm lens, which I've owned for many years. I still shoot with it, but mainly in B&W these days.

It's funny how the odd person will spot that you're using film and will totally freak out.

I immensely enjoy using it, and the simplicity of the whole process. The way it forces you to slow down and *think* a bit more about things, your composition.

Fancy being stuck on one ISO for large chunks of time and with only avg metering.

Not as many places available anymore who employ adequate quality control when it comes to wet film processing / wet printing. At least, here in Melbourne.

 

[RLPhoto]

@RLPhoto: love the pic and the dog!
@7enderbender: will try harder not to call film cameras "old days stuff" from now on... (I'm 33, and shot film cameras until my 20's! Does it mean I'm old days stuff too?)
@BillyBean and SandyP: Wow, amazing pics!
Any recommendations for a 35 mm camera? (I'm already looking for an EOS3 on eBay! Thanks BillyBean, hpmuc and EYEONE!)
Thanks everyone!

Thanks. It goes to show that bodies still don't matter as much as your lens selection. Mounting the 50mm 1.2L on my thrift store rebel 2000 just makes it feel stupid! Invest in glass, bodies will come and go...

 

[SandyP]

I have a Canon EOS 10s (3 AF points! Haha!) and was using a Canon EOS 1v (last 1 series film body they made, pro film body, etc.)...

The 10s is really just light and fun for basic stuff, I take it with me when I go out for coffee or with the girlfriend somewhere cool, or just with me in general, usually with the 50L on it. The focus is fine in daylight, but if it's pretty dark, then the AF sucks bad, and manually focusing isn't too accurate on it.

The 1v, I shot a lot of documentary work in Cuba, 3 trips altogether over the last year, the 1v was a blessing for that, the AF was better than my Mark II, and really snappy, but not perfect, of course since it's an older AF. But it was great, and obviously built like a tank, and had lots of pro features (for a film body).

Personally, later this year I'll get a Mamiya 7ii (6x7 in a range finder! Haha awesome), and a really tiny rangefinder, like a Canonet or something. I don't like 35mm film too much to be honest, 645/6x6/6x7 is really where it starts getting "Sexy".



But what I mostly use 35mm film for, is what I mentioned above, especially just going out with friends, coffee, walks, bike rides, whatever fun moments (like at the fair, or festivals and such), I shoot about a roll of 36 exposures every two weeks, and just go get it printed, if I like a few of the shots to show on the web, I'll just scan the print. It's really fun, and to be honest it makes me feel good to take all those shots, sorta forget about some of them, get them printed (that's neat) and have them to physically look at. It's a fun way to shoot lots of film without any pressure.

But my main passion is medium format film for portraits. My 645 and my 6x7 are my babies. I love them, dearly. I use them about once a week or so.

 

[EYEONE]

Does anyone have a recommendation for a good negative scanner? And perhaps one that isn't super expensive.

 

[7enderbender]

The problem really is that finding places that develop and print traditionally is close to impossible.

b/w - do it yourself ! You don't need a darkroom, just get a 'changing bag' - you stick your hands in to reel the film onto the developing tank spool, and then the tank is lightproof and pour the soup in to develop and fix. Easy. Of course, you can't see what you are doing, but that's ok.

Colour, yep, that's harder. I use peak imaging in the UK, who I can highly recommend. http://www.peak-imaging.co.uk/ They usually turn stuff around in 2-3 days door to door, which is amazing.

I don't analog print though - develop only, and then into the negative scanner. If I print, I print digitally on an inkjet (Pixma 9500).

But that's exactly the point I was trying to make. Sure, developing b/w is pretty easy. But that doesn't help with making the prints - which is the whole point of the exercise. Scanning and then printing on some inkjet is where the bad things are starting to happen. Same with DSLRs though.

 

[Pyrenees]

b/w - do it yourself ! You don't need a darkroom, just get a 'changing bag' - you stick your hands in to reel the film onto the developing tank spool, and then the tank is lightproof and pour the soup in to develop and fix. Easy. Of course, you can't see what you are doing, but that's ok.
[/quote]

I have an aversion to carcinogenic chemicals, though.

 

[BillyBean]

But that's exactly the point I was trying to make. Sure, developing b/w is pretty easy. But that doesn't help with making the prints - which is the whole point of the exercise.

Sure, but I had to compromise somewhere. I used to wrap up a room in blackout, and print using an enlarger, many years ago, but the hassle and level of investment is huge. This way, I still get the creative joy of film, and of developing, and the smell (which is somewhat addictive by the way) but not the darkroom hassle, which is hugely disruptive, especially now I have kids. It was that or go 100% digital, and to be honest, I don't miss the printing - I find I get as much creative joy from Nik and Lightroom these days. I'm sure a purist would hate it, but it works for me.

Sometimes it's amusing as well - some guy asked me the other day if my EOS 3 was a new DSLR he hadn't heard of. ha!

@SandyP: love those pictures! Amazing. Thanks for sharing.

 

[SandyP]

Does anyone have a recommendation for a good negative scanner? And perhaps one that isn't super expensive.

One of the best cheap scanners you can get is the Epson v700, it's very cheap in comparison to anything in the leagues above it, and it can produce professional results to be sure. I use the Epson v600, it's a hold over from a year ago when I started my love affair with film, and I plan to get the v700 by summer time.

 

[DanielW]

@ RLPhoto: Agreed! Will look for Canon film cameras so I can use glass on both film & digital. Thanks!
@ SandyP: Do you have a website where we can see those pics you take? And about medium format, too big a step for me as a beginner right now...
@ BillyBean and 7enderbender: will develop my own b&w then!

 

[BillyBean]

I have an aversion to carcinogenic chemicals, though.

I read a study recently (sorry, don't have the link, but maybe Google will find it) where they looked at photographic industry darkroom staff, who had been up to their necks in darkroom chemicals their whole life, pretty much. I think they were expecting some crop of weird diseases.

But in fact, they lived longer, and were healthier than the control group.

Fixer is a little nasty, if you do something stupid like drink it, but developers such as Xtol are mainly vitamin C, and stop bath is essentially vinegar. You use nastier chemicals cooking, frankly. Of course some are nastier, but it's not like you will be touching them, if you are reasonably careful and/or wear gloves (which I don't).

Let's not fall into the 'if I don't understand it, it must be dangerous' model of thinking, please!!

 

[SandyP]

@ RLPhoto: Agreed! Will look for Canon film cameras so I can use glass on both film & digital. Thanks!
@ SandyP: Do you have a website where we can see those pics you take? And about medium format, too big a step for me as a beginner right now...
@ BillyBean and 7enderbender: will develop my own b&w then!

www.sandyphimester.com


that's by main website, if you go through over a few pages (at the bottom of the main page you'll see "previous posts") you'll end up seeing a few things I've shot on film recently (A lot of film I shoot doesn't go on my websites).

But there's lots there that I like.

 

[DanielW]

@SandyP: wow! Really amazing! I just hope the 35 mm camera I buy takes pics like those... LOL

 

[DigitalDivide]

I've been lurking here for about 4 months. This thread finally tempted me to make my first post

I've been shooting film since I was about 10, like many here I'd guess. In 1991 I bought an EOS 10S, and I was still actively using it when I finally took the plunge into digital and bought a 5D2 a couple months back. I've had to replace the shutter on the 10S once for around $150, but other than that it has been absolutely 100% reliable.

As an amateur shooting maybe 20-30 rolls of slide film annually, my costs were low enough that I found it hard to justify the leap to digital, especially since I really wanted to stick with FF. For a long time I made do with inexpensive lenses but in recent years I gradually started to invest in some decent glass (within a somewhat limited budget, so sticking to the cheaper L lenses). I didn't want to have to start over with EF-S lenses.

What finally convinced me to get the 5D2 was that I was looking at investing in a new L lens, and had settled on the 24-105 F4L. I realized that if I bought it as part of the 5D2 kit that effectively meant I was getting the 5D2 body for about $1800 (lucky I pulled the trigger before the price went back up). That's equivalent to about 3 years of film costs for me, and that was enough to overcome my fear of owning a worthless outdated body when the new version came out Maybe I'm paranoid, but I certainly don't see may people keeping a 5D for 20 years and not feeling the need to upgrade, like I was able to do with the 10S 8)

So now I have taken a couple thousand pics on the 5D2 and I'm still learning how to get the best out of it. I really love this camera (and the kit lens too), but it is clear that it will take some time for me to adapt to the digital paradigm. Yeah, it is great that I can shoot thousands of frames without any film costs, and I'm trying to take advantage of that to learn how to take better pictures. But oddly, the ability to see the shot right away instead of waiting a couple weeks for developing, I find is actually not as liberating as I thought. Yes, I can check that it is sharp, composed and exposed right, but I actually find myself spending too much time second guessing, trying to get the perfect shot when with film I would shoot two or three frames and forget it. Either I got the shot or I didn't, but I worry about that later. I guess this will become less of a problem as I get the camera set up for the way I shoot and get used to it.

The relevant question here is will I continue to shoot film? I think I might, after the honeymoon period with the 5D2, but only for certain subjects. There really is something about film that digital can't quite match, even though it has come a long way and surpasses 35mm in many respects. I also have a pretty comprehensive selection of Bronica ETRSi equipment which I have made far too little use of. I may decide to use that for my film shooting and the 5D2 otherwise. I have a good selection of macro gear for the Bronica and would like to give it a proper try.

 

[itsnotmeyouknow]

A colleague of mine in Korea, works incredibly hard. She is often shy around a camera, but will occasionally pose

Pentax 645n Pentax FA 645 75mm at f/4.5 1/90 Fuji Reala 100


Mijeong does pose occassionally! by singingsnapper, on Flickr

Pentax 645n FA 75 at f/4 1/125 Fuji Reala 100


Mijeong smiles again! by singingsnapper, on Flickr

 

[Kernuak]

Sure, I shoot loads of film. I have an EOS 3 and an EOS 5, both of which take EF lenses just like a modern EOS camera. And the flash works too...

The EOS 3 in particular is a fantastic camera - full frame (of course!), eye control focus, weather sealed, 8 fps, a real delight - and all for about £100 or maybe $150, on eBay !

I use a Nikon negative scanner, and then Lightroom 4 and Nik plugins, and have all the joy of digital post-process workflow...

Maybe you can the same effects with digital, and I do use a DSLR too, but somehow, you just KNOW that you have black and white film in the body, and it somehow alters your perception. Likewise, a bit of Fuji Velvia 50 for landscape or Portra for portraits. Superb.

The thing is, with 36 exposures, you have to THINK about what you are doing.

I also have a Mamiya RZ67 (medium format, 6x7 negative), which I use occasionally, but not so much joy with that yet - much tougher to use, more demanding, and harder to scan well. Manual focus, manual exposure, and a beast to lug around. I'll get there one day...

Aiming for a 5D3 later this year.

I actually bought a second hand EOS 3 to try out Velvia and Sensia, as well as try out the f/8 AF, but some of the early scans on my Nikon scanner were pretty soft and quite noisy. Now there is the compatibility issue with Windows 7 and 64 bit, so I haven't fully tried the experiment I'd originally intended. I since got a sturdier tripod (mainly for my 300 f/2.8, but it's also better for landscapes) and have found a company that can process the film and offers a value for money high resolution scan, so I need to look into it again.
I also still have my old Zenith 11 from the early 80's, unfortunately, it doesn't have mirror lockup, which was why I started looking for other options, plus I could then use my L glass on the EOS 3 for better image quality.

 

[sanyasi]

I just purchased my first film camera--medium format Hasselblad (used) and a couple of lenses. Shot my first four rolls last weekend. I am in enrolled in a film development class that will give me easy access to a darkroom.

I love digital and will continue to use it extensively. However, my sense after much discussion with others more in the know than I was that the black and white results with film would be very different.

What I discovered last weekend was the pleasure of working slower. I set up one shot. Knowing that I would waste one of my 12 shots on the roll and have to pay to develop it (the class is not for another couple of weeks), I decided to walk away when I realized the shot just wasn't what I wanted. Had I had a digital camera, I would have forced it--taking 40 shots that I would not have been happy with. No meter in the camera or autofocus on the lens. Not even a battery in the camera. Very primal. And I love the slap of the mirror.

Should be an interesting experience.

 

[daveheinzel]

I love this thread! I'm 34 and have been shooting digital for about 10 years. Last year I bought a used Canon EOS 3 and have been shooting Ilford b&w HP5 alongside digital. I develop my own film and then scan the negatives using a new Plustek scanner (which is tolerable) and scanning software that is horrendous. But once I have the files on my computer, they're great.

I never shoot color, just black and white. Along with grain and contrast that (arguably) cannot be reproduced with digital photos, there's just something extremely enjoyable about the whole film process.

Here's an album of misc film scans from a few weeks ago:
http://daveheinzel.com/?id=2_64

 

[wockawocka]

Notice the tonality and colour gradients between formats.

Medium format film:

Medium Format digital:

Canon 1Ds3:

 

[slinky]

My favourite photo ever taken of me

 

[papa-razzi]

I have a pentax K-1000 that I got back in '82. I have pulled it out and started playing with it, because I don't have a Full Frame digital camera. I was quite excited at first, but then .....

I tried to find a place to get a roll of film developed. No luck. I ended up at a local pharmacy and it took 2 weeks to come back, and the prints were awful.

I found a decent lab on-line (thedarkroom.com), so I am going to try again. But, at $10/roll to develop and the cost of film, it could get costly. (I have gotten used to taking lots of shots during a shoot with digital, maybe bad habit)

For me it will be a novelty. I don't think film is better or worse, just different, and kind of cool now that the world is increasingly digital. But I personally wouldn't shoot film more than just on occasion.

I agree with the comments about scanning film and printing digital. If you do that, you are only 1/2 way doing film - but I guess it is more practical for most people to do that.