too true, in the end getting it right in camera is the fastest way to shoot. its so easy to overshoot with digitalSandyP said:
Upvote
0
Anyone shooting film?
- Thread starter DanielW
- Start date
- Status
S
SandyP
Guest
The first big "oh my god" moment with film was when I had this amazing location for a shoot lined up, had an assistant with me for the day (my girlfriend, ha! to hold a reflector) and a great model who I always work well with. At the last minute I decided to ditch my 5D Mark II, and ONLY use the Mamiya 645 Pro TL (I have the power winder grip and the metered prism), and only with the 80mm f/1.9 lens. So I grabbed that, and three rolls of 120 film. Portra, PanF+ and another PanF+.
Out of all 45 photos possible, 42 of them were definitely very nice shots that I was very happy with, and like 20 of them were just some of my favorite shots, and a year later, are still some of my favorite shots. It was because I really took my time, like REALLY looked around the view finder, double checked my exposures and focus, I didn't just take a shot, if things looked somewhat "iffy" I would change angles, change positions, get closer, move further back, get her to change her pose, whatever it took. And in the end, if after all that, if it didn't still look really like "WOW!" then I'd just say "there's no photo here", and we'd move on.
It was an eye opening moment for me, and one of the most important moments to date, for me photographically. YES, I did that sort of stuff with digital before, but never, ever, to that level of detail and attention.
Out of all 45 photos possible, 42 of them were definitely very nice shots that I was very happy with, and like 20 of them were just some of my favorite shots, and a year later, are still some of my favorite shots. It was because I really took my time, like REALLY looked around the view finder, double checked my exposures and focus, I didn't just take a shot, if things looked somewhat "iffy" I would change angles, change positions, get closer, move further back, get her to change her pose, whatever it took. And in the end, if after all that, if it didn't still look really like "WOW!" then I'd just say "there's no photo here", and we'd move on.
It was an eye opening moment for me, and one of the most important moments to date, for me photographically. YES, I did that sort of stuff with digital before, but never, ever, to that level of detail and attention.
Upvote
0
TexPhoto said:
Exactly my thinking when I got an EOS 1n from the used section of B&H for peanuts when I first got serious about getting good glass. I changed the viewfinder screen for the spit-prism for manual focus. Brilliant viewfinder.
But my favorite film camera (for its handling, metering, & drive) was my T90.
Upvote
0
L
loudpictures
Guest
Bought an EOS30 last summer - because it frustrated me that I never had made a picture that (for me, not for newspapers/magazines - they do 
) was worth to be printed in large format. Only did b/w with it, and I
- now have some of my own pictures on my wall, finally, and
- reduced my shuttercount on the digital around 75%, just because I ask myself "if this picture would cost 1 EUR, would I still take it?
Healthy for me and for my cameras. Sometimes frustrating, because I come home without a single picture taken. But then again- who needs the bad pictures you take when you just forget them on your harddrive?
I can recommend to try with a cheap EOS body. I still have to laugh about myself sometimes when I took a picture and stare at the camera, wait for the digital-display to lighten up with over-exposure-warning, but there is nothing but black plastic
) was worth to be printed in large format. Only did b/w with it, and I - now have some of my own pictures on my wall, finally, and
- reduced my shuttercount on the digital around 75%, just because I ask myself "if this picture would cost 1 EUR, would I still take it?
Healthy for me and for my cameras. Sometimes frustrating, because I come home without a single picture taken. But then again- who needs the bad pictures you take when you just forget them on your harddrive?
I can recommend to try with a cheap EOS body. I still have to laugh about myself sometimes when I took a picture and stare at the camera, wait for the digital-display to lighten up with over-exposure-warning, but there is nothing but black plastic
DanielW said:
Upvote
0
After first time trying a film I left digital for a long. I came back for digital only for textures and for shooting video.
I shoot 120 film with panoramic 617 camera which is 160Mpx equivalent. I shoot 135 film with Canon EOS 620 And Olympus OM-10. Olympus is just perfect.
And I love film.
I shoot 120 film with panoramic 617 camera which is 160Mpx equivalent. I shoot 135 film with Canon EOS 620 And Olympus OM-10. Olympus is just perfect.
And I love film.
Upvote
0
My film background is Olympus, too!Superka said:After first time trying a film I left digital for a long. I came back for digital only for textures and for shooting video.
I shoot 120 film with panoramic 617 camera which is 160Mpx equivalent. I shoot 135 film with Canon EOS 620 And Olympus OM-10. Olympus is just perfect.
And I love film.
I started with an OM30 when I passed my O-levels at 16; got money from family as a reward for doing well.
A couple of years ago, I got back into photography, and picked up an OM40 and some nice glass (see my sig below) on eBay.
Finally, I got an OM2-SP in beautiful condition and fully working, for £90 on eBay, last August. A bargain!
But I don't shoot it much these days because of the crippling development costs. Ouch. £15 for dev+scan (no prints) on a 24-exposure roll. (But as someone else said, I have had no hesitation dropping over £7k on digital equipment in the last 2 years. Hmmm...)
Upvote
0
OM-Zuiko are just perfect lenses. Viewfinder are incredible! I wish modern cameras were so good.Fleetie said:
But scanning is a problem. Nikon has stopped producing it perfect film scanners
When I lived in Moscow, scanning film cost me about 9$ for a 36 roll. 4000dpi, Nikon 5000. It was very cheap and very good! Now I live not in Moscow and shoot much less. I had to buy a scanner!
Upvote
0
mws said:
I have used pro labs to develop my color slides for many years - ever since a chain store returned several rolls of slides to me with a scratch across every one
They probably got some dirt in their machine and never noticed. I now go to Burne Photo in Madison, WI (USA). I've chatted with the owner there and he is completely committed to film. He has capitalized on the move to digital by becoming a niche business, and he told me he has been able to build up his film processing capability by buying up equipment from other labs that went digital. He does nice work, and I've used him for medium format transparencies as well. I go there in person when I am visiting the area, but he does accept work by mail.One thing I miss is the days of hand printed pictures using a proper enlarger. I used to go to another guy in Madison (Hyperion) who made some really fantastic prints from my slides. He was a real craftsman and would dodge and burn each print to get it just right. Unfortunately he was an early digital adopter and now only offers scanning and printing services like most, if not all, labs. I know it is easier and quicker, but I swear something gets lost in translation.
Upvote
0
I still shoot film regularly - I developed a roll of B&W film just a week ago. Since I have plenty of developing chemicals and don't need to buy any more for a while, it's the cheapest way for me to go full frame, and I get to use a 1-series body that's the same size as a 5D.
Right now I'm experimenting with different B&W films. I mostly use Ilford branded (HP5+, PanF 50, Delta 100 Pro), but the other day I loaded in some Kodak 100 TMax. It's a lot cheaper to buy than Ilford, but I've read good things about it.
As for the above films I mentioned, I've had (by far) the best results from Delta 100. It has 14 stops of dynamic range, which I understand to be the same as the Nikon D800's sensor. You can see so much detail in the shadow areas, it's mind blowing. Not bad for $12.
Right now I'm experimenting with different B&W films. I mostly use Ilford branded (HP5+, PanF 50, Delta 100 Pro), but the other day I loaded in some Kodak 100 TMax. It's a lot cheaper to buy than Ilford, but I've read good things about it.
As for the above films I mentioned, I've had (by far) the best results from Delta 100. It has 14 stops of dynamic range, which I understand to be the same as the Nikon D800's sensor. You can see so much detail in the shadow areas, it's mind blowing. Not bad for $12.
Upvote
0
Say what you like, but back in 2002 when I compared properly exposed and processed D60 (not 60D!) with drum scanned Mamiya RZ67 Velvia, I put every film body I owned on the market while I could still get a decent dollar for them. The D60 files were better. That expensive film outfit comprised of a two body, 5 lens Mamiya RZ67 kit, Hasselblad 500C with a few lenses and a pair of EOS 1n bodies. Good riddance! I've never shot a roll of film since.
In part this was a business decision. In a good year my annual film and processing bill came to around $40,000. Overnight this dropped to zero and I was sending out bigger invoices with digital's greatly increased capacity to value-add with custom, output specific post production. There was also a perception issue. Clients like to engage someone who is leading rather than following. Plus digital was heaps more fun! Never under-rate fun
I've never bought the arguments about the "look" of film. Infinitely senior to the subtle "look" variations attained with film is the quality of the content, the image, the moment captured. Go back and look at photographs that won major awards, particularly in news, sports, reportage, editorial and so on from the film era. There are certain images that would stand up as winners in 2016, but a LOT of them just wouldn't make it past the first round of judging in 2016. Digital and the rush of fantastic high performance cameras and lenses that came with the post-film revolution has given photographers the tools to create MUCH stronger images.
Film may have a relevant niche for some enthusiasts and artists, but for 99.9% of photographers it's best consigned to history.
BTW, if you were not born when the now comprehensively superseded D60 was released, here it is : http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneosd60
-pw
edit: sorry didn't realize this was such an old thread from 2012 that slclick resurrected.
In part this was a business decision. In a good year my annual film and processing bill came to around $40,000. Overnight this dropped to zero and I was sending out bigger invoices with digital's greatly increased capacity to value-add with custom, output specific post production. There was also a perception issue. Clients like to engage someone who is leading rather than following. Plus digital was heaps more fun! Never under-rate fun
I've never bought the arguments about the "look" of film. Infinitely senior to the subtle "look" variations attained with film is the quality of the content, the image, the moment captured. Go back and look at photographs that won major awards, particularly in news, sports, reportage, editorial and so on from the film era. There are certain images that would stand up as winners in 2016, but a LOT of them just wouldn't make it past the first round of judging in 2016. Digital and the rush of fantastic high performance cameras and lenses that came with the post-film revolution has given photographers the tools to create MUCH stronger images.
Film may have a relevant niche for some enthusiasts and artists, but for 99.9% of photographers it's best consigned to history.
BTW, if you were not born when the now comprehensively superseded D60 was released, here it is : http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneosd60
-pw
edit: sorry didn't realize this was such an old thread from 2012 that slclick resurrected.
Upvote
0
I'm with PWP. I did weddings and portraits professionally from about 1990 to 2001. Spent $1000's per year on film, developing and proofing. Went out of business and got a real job. I sold my Bronica setup in 2004 and bought a Digital Rebel. It was amazing! My hobby was back! Now I photograph all the things I want to. No need to think about per photo costs. I always wanted to do wildlife and birds but, really, cropping negs was a custom process and expensive. Now with a 7dii and 100-400 ii combined with Lightroom I can enjoy amazing images I could only dream of with my 35mm gear. The instant feedback is also a fantastic teaching tool. Now when I shoot a wedding I still only take about 300 images, just about the same as my Bronica days. The keeper rate is about the same (90% presentable to client, 30% purchased). The process and careful preparation that comes from the film days surely pays off even today. However now I can take 3000 images of birds in a weekend and get a dozen keepers and I'm ecstatic. In my 30 years of film photography I have 1 keeper of a bird!
No comparison! I can't go back.
No comparison! I can't go back.
Upvote
0
A week ago I would not have had a reply here. Fortunately now, I do.
There is an elderly lady I take to the doctor once in a while. We were talking and she found out I take photography very seriously as a hobby. She said she had some old cameras I could have if I wanted them.
She gave me a Polaroid 600 (which I'll never use and probably can't find film for), A really cheap plastic Keystone Regal 35mm...
But then she handed me a 1960 Voigtlander VITO CL Standard. She'd bought the camera herself brand new when she was a 20 year old. It is a very nice little camera with a 50mm f/2.8 lens. The lens is not interchangeable as far as I can tell. It is the Lanthar lens and not the Color-skopar.
I'm shooting through a 24 exposure roll of color film I picked up at Walmart. However, I'll be looking online for some black and white film.
I'm very proud to have this camera and plan on using it as much as I can. It even has a self timer that works. It is pristine.
So, it isn't medium format or anything expensive. It seems to be just a great little camera. It will hold a lot of sentimental value for me. This lady has no family left in the world. I'm very touched she gave these old cameras to me.
Any suggestions on which black and white films and where to get processed would be appreciated. Thank you for this thread. Maybe we should post pics of our film cameras?
There is an elderly lady I take to the doctor once in a while. We were talking and she found out I take photography very seriously as a hobby. She said she had some old cameras I could have if I wanted them.
She gave me a Polaroid 600 (which I'll never use and probably can't find film for), A really cheap plastic Keystone Regal 35mm...
But then she handed me a 1960 Voigtlander VITO CL Standard. She'd bought the camera herself brand new when she was a 20 year old. It is a very nice little camera with a 50mm f/2.8 lens. The lens is not interchangeable as far as I can tell. It is the Lanthar lens and not the Color-skopar.
I'm shooting through a 24 exposure roll of color film I picked up at Walmart. However, I'll be looking online for some black and white film.
I'm very proud to have this camera and plan on using it as much as I can. It even has a self timer that works. It is pristine.
So, it isn't medium format or anything expensive. It seems to be just a great little camera. It will hold a lot of sentimental value for me. This lady has no family left in the world. I'm very touched she gave these old cameras to me.
Any suggestions on which black and white films and where to get processed would be appreciated. Thank you for this thread. Maybe we should post pics of our film cameras?
Upvote
0
tntphototravis said:
Glad you posted this because I am of the same mind. I think the instant feedback is an excellent tool for learning.
I have heard old film guys say that people should be forced to use film before being allowed to use digital, going on to state that one cannot possibly learn the craft starting with digital. I have to completely disagree with that thinking.
When I was younger I had a Minolta Maxxum. I loved the camera, but it stayed in automatic mode. It took me two years to save the money for the camera. We were country poor. Buying and developing a roll of film at that time was an extravagance for us. Possibly having a roll not turn out because I didn't know what I was doing was unthinkable. There was no internet as we know it today and I had no computer anyway.
Digital really opened the door for me.
I wish I still had that Minolta (pawned it for diaper money) and I don't think I ever even took the kit lens off of it. I loved shooting black and white film in it and have some beautiful shots somewhere... even from auto mode.
Upvote
0
SandyP said:
Vinyl records too are making a comeback. That doesn't mean the quality is better than carefully crafted 100% digital. Like all things it's the care that goes into producing the result that makes the result good, and I very much doubt that analogue/film would be better than digital using current models of camera and lenses.
Upvote
0
davidmurray said:
The problem is, so much of modern recording isn't carefully crafted for the benefit of the listener, but rather for perceived demands which don't necessarily align. This may have it's roots in broadcaster demands (for louder vs peak sound which helps their station sound louder without breaking radio modulation requirements, and so shows up more easily for users tuning their radio).
Of course if the music wasn't digitised then there would be less ability to compress it and hence older vinyl can often sound much better just becasue it hasn't been ruined by crass DR compression... though some old vinyl was also horrifically compressed. I've even come across heavily compressed classical pieces, one I'll always remember is Ravel's Bolero which isn't great, it's basically one huge crescendo, but the recording I heard had compressed this and totally removed the DR killing the piece entirely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
Upvote
0
Holy resurrection batman, this thread went 4 years without a reply and zip, bam, boom, it's back!
If someone want's to shoot film because its different and fun, and a diversion, more power to them! But to respond to those people by telling them digital in 2016 is cheaper and more efficient.... seems silly. I think they know that.
This is a little like saying why restore a '68 mustang, when new ones are available down at the ford dealer. I think, because that person just wants a '68, not a 2016.
If someone want's to shoot film because its different and fun, and a diversion, more power to them! But to respond to those people by telling them digital in 2016 is cheaper and more efficient.... seems silly. I think they know that.
This is a little like saying why restore a '68 mustang, when new ones are available down at the ford dealer. I think, because that person just wants a '68, not a 2016.
Upvote
0
Only shoot film in LF (ArcaSwiss 4x5"). It is mainly for the movements (front and rear), which are impossible with any SLR (d or a). Never mind it costs about $10 per shot ($4 per sheet, $5 for development, plus tax: E6 or C41; no B&W). Shooting LF is a completely different beast. It has a meditative aspect to it. I enjoy the slowness of the entire production.
I was a late switcher to digital, first dSLR was a 5D2. I kept my Contax RTSIIIs around for a while, thought doing IR with it, but it never happened. Last year I sold all my Contax stuff for pennies. These days, for IR, I'd rather take a cheapo dSLR and have it IR-modded. I still have a Pentax LX in an underwater housing, but the flash is most likely toast. Might use it as an exhibit prop down the road.
I was a late switcher to digital, first dSLR was a 5D2. I kept my Contax RTSIIIs around for a while, thought doing IR with it, but it never happened. Last year I sold all my Contax stuff for pennies. These days, for IR, I'd rather take a cheapo dSLR and have it IR-modded. I still have a Pentax LX in an underwater housing, but the flash is most likely toast. Might use it as an exhibit prop down the road.
Upvote
0
- Status
