I don't use film cameras any longer, did that for 35 years.
Anyone still use film?
- Thread starter lisam
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
I still shoot an occasional roll of Tri X to record images of family. Prints can outlast technology to read electronic media. This struck me when I saw pictures my dad shot close to 90 years ago and they are excellent and easy to see. I think my great grandchildren could appreciate a few B/W prints in decades to come.
PS I use a Nikon FM and 50mm f1.4. My film is processed by "The Darkroom". I get prints, negatives and a CDROM of digital images.
PS I use a Nikon FM and 50mm f1.4. My film is processed by "The Darkroom". I get prints, negatives and a CDROM of digital images.
lisam
Member
Are you based in the UK? Where would you recommend the best places to get film processed to?
O
Well-known member
Yes there are advantages and disadvantages, the disadvantages are mainly cost and effort, but as to advantages in film photography that's another whole story.
Film has a different look, done very well it can have a connection that distinguishes it clearly from digital.
If your into wild life with 800mm lenses then that's a challenge for film to compete with digital, unless you adapt a 800mm lens and use it manually, that would be mind blowing and someone should try that LOL, if your into street, photojournalism, portraiture or even landscape then hey foot on the brake a little here as in ways that gap in difference of film versus digital can be smaller if at all, and, is dependent on what the viewer sees and more so feels.
Lets face it today for ease your smart phone is a no brainier, modern mirror less cameras are also much easier and endless in the amount of images you can take, film as a medium is now very expensive by comparison.
Back on point, If you using a land camera like Ansell Adams or as i did in the past Medium Format Rollie Flex 80mm or Rollie Prego compact for on the run travel with a Schneider F2 lens the unique outcomes are clearly evident, the look at and the connection is just different, is it better or not is purely up to the interpretation by the viewer.
The best way to gauge appreciate or dismiss the interest outcome benefits in film is to view in person some quality film exhibitions in photography, the last one i did was at our state library in Sydney, the theme was war days gone by and the annual Walkley awards being news media awards for photography.
One side was immersive intriguing amazing, evoked emotion, made a meaningful engaging connection partly because of its history and especially the skill sets used reflecting moments being caught on humble simple film camera where you couldn't just spray and shoot and automatically track.
The other side was for me more clinical disengaging mostly looked the same flat and super super sharp and detailed and in my case made no connection emotionally, the internet is saturated with that type of digital record materiel.
If you can see but above all feel the difference with Film and Digital then hey that's it.
In Short, with film you may have 12, 24 or 36 shot rolls, so you need to completely slow down, think create focus and get it right in camera as best as possible, is that a bad thing, no, i do this with my digital Nikon DF and a 50mm F1.4 manual Ziess and 16mm F2.8 Fish eye, i shoot in JPEG mono at the same time to keep a colored version i also use RAW, this is good practice and brings out more emotion thought and composition strength, as does film, just not with the huge cost.
There are some people going back to film, to be creatively different.
Many people are collection older manual lenses to use on modern digital cameras for video, they actually want that imperfection for good reason, one is to fit the era of a film, or look different to the over clinical cold detailed eye popping detailed saturated versions of today.
Film is expensive, and if you do develop film i recommend using an experienced Lab.
The use of a combination of TIME LIGHT and SPEED fundamentally is no different since time in photography began.
Only an opinion
Last edited:
Not A Speck Of Cereal
Well-known member
And a great opinion too. Very well said. As someone who started in film 55 years ago, I totally understand the almost ineffable quality of film that you speak of.
That said, I still prefer digital. I appreciate fine B&W film photography produced by anyone else, I just have no more desire to work with it anymore my self. This is partially due to the expense and effort, true.
But by no means does it mean that I'm settling for someone lesser / inferior to save money and/or make life easier. I very much enjoy digital work. Aside from the claims that we can do more (and we can), I am perfectly happy with output from my digital workflow without bothering comparisons to analog.
What's more, I was always dissatisfied with with any analog work migrated to digital, even with the best drum scanners. If I'm going to work in analog, it's all the way to the print. If I'm going to work in digital, it starts as digital so there is no conversion from analog going on—it's a digital capture from the get-go.
Chris
I'm digital only these days, but I still have several film cameras, from 35mm SLRs to a 4x5 Field Camera. To me, there are inherent advantages to working with some film cameras, such as my field camera, with it's independent tilt and shift features. These are offset by the disadvatages of film, as compared to digital. In some instances, the tradeoffs are worth going to film. In some instances, they are not.
However, I've tried to introduce my children to photography, and their introduction was initially with film. That first experience with film helps them to really appreciate digital imaging. An experience with film also emphasizes the importance of planning and patience in the craft.
I keep planning to use film one of these days, but I'm unable to get out with any camera at all these days.
However, I've tried to introduce my children to photography, and their introduction was initially with film. That first experience with film helps them to really appreciate digital imaging. An experience with film also emphasizes the importance of planning and patience in the craft.
I keep planning to use film one of these days, but I'm unable to get out with any camera at all these days.
I thought that Ektar 25 was the finest-grained color negative film available to the public. Was I wrong to use 25 when it offered no benefit in detail over 100?
I used a lot of Ektar 25, Ektar 100 and Fuji Velvia in 35mm "back in the day." I also used some of these in 120 rolls with my Hassy 500. Some where, some time, I lost track of those negatives. How I wish I still had them. I'm currently going through some of my Dad's photos, and I'm hoping that some of my old shots got mixed up with his over the years.
Not A Speck Of Cereal
Well-known member
I don't get this. The kids can't learn discipline of the art with digital?
I keep hearing that the best camera is the one you have with you. I don't always agree with that, but I think the general consensus is that it's the gray matter that counts.
You should be concerned about your composition and how you're going render that on your medium even if you're sketching with charcoal.
Chris
At the time of my trip, Ektar 25 had been discontinued. Also I think Ektar 100 had been updated.
O
Well-known member
I did a couple landscape works for a friend, and they held printed up to 1.8 meters by 1.2 meters high, they came out very well, the dynamic range and unique look had mood with amazing feel.
But now as i outsource most of my editing for digital works, ie: i just say i want it to look film like, there are endless options in post, it looks great, but no matter how much they edit and fiddle, it doesn't seem to have that magical feel of film taken very well.
Film is not where many people want to really go anymore.
Do i do film photography anymore, No sadly, if i did it would be the Rollie Flex 80mm MF.
Only an opinion
JimmySchoster
Active member
I complement my Nikon D850 with a Hasselblad 903 SWC and a Nikon F (1967 version). I love to occasionally capture situations on film. I use a hand held light meter with the latter two. With the film cameras I shoot either black and white film (Kodak TMY TMAX 400 (B/W) or Fuji Velvia 50 asa (color). I have the film processed at a pro shop as well as scanned. For images scanned that I want printed, I some times have the image(s) rescanned at a higher resolution for printing. I love film but it has really become almost too costly for me. So I may have a roll in the camera for months or longer before processing, I just use film in very select situations. So, I keep the two film cameras in my camera bag in the car when I go out just in case. FUN!!
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
BW image with Hassy and Color with Nikon F and (16 mm Nikon Lens)
Last edited:
fcotterill
Well-known member
‘He could create beauty out of horror’: the extraordinary life and photography of Tim Hetherington
He joined rebel convoys in Africa and turned his time with GIs in Afghanistan into an Oscar-nominated film. But his subject wasn’t war – it was people. Ahead of a major show, our writer remembers his former colleague
www.theguardian.com
"Typically, tellingly, Tim worked at his own pace. At a time (the early 00s) when most photojournalists were crossing to digital, he shot colour negative film on an analogue camera: 10 frames on each roll. This forced him to think carefully about each composition, lifted him out of the frantic news cycle and nudged him towards such long-term themed projects....
JimmySchoster
Active member
10-4!!! Takes me minutes or often longer to take one shot on film. Compared to "fully automatic" on my D850 for BIFs!!!
fcotterill
Well-known member
fyi
www.dpreview.com
Ricoh’s big bet on a film renaissance: We interview the team behind the upcoming Pentax film camera
A few weeks ago in Japan, we had the opportunity to interview the team at Ricoh behind the new Pentax film camera that's expected to arrive later this year. Find out why the designers settled on a half-frame design that favors a vertical format, what inspired the optics, and the added complexity...
www.dpreview.com
JimmySchoster
Active member
My feeling is that the final image quality with a manual film camera (assuming proper exposure) is mainly the LENS and the Film type first, not the body. In my mind the body is just the holder of the lens and film for an all manual film camera.
Last edited:
Since someone metioned film scanning and high resolution, I will interject my knowledge from two decades at a professional lab (film and digital). We learned that there was an optimum dpi level for scanning film (bigger file obviously for 120 than 35mm). If you scanned at a higher dpi for theoretically more resolution, the results were actually worse because you started magnifying the film grain. Some photographers did not believe us and wanted a higher dpi scan so they could have a bigger file for printing. So we did a test with one of our regular pros. We did a scan at our recommended level and one at the higher level he requested. We then printed a 16x20 inch from each and had him look at both and tell us which one he liked better. He chose the one printed from our recommended lower dpi scan.
Hi Fred- very interesting! What was that dpi? I'm scanning old historic photos from my family's archive and have been using 300 dpi generally, creating color tiff files. I then convert these later to pdfs or jpgs, depending on what the needs are.
And a comment to get my contribution back to the OP's question, I hope to put a roll or two of film back into my old Nikon FG or my wife's Nikon F and try them out again. We have an old 200mm f4 AI-S and a couple other lenses to play with, one being a very nice 55mm f2.8 micro ai-s. Most of my photography skills however, are a direct result of shooting digital where I could make many mistakes quickly.
I think the light meter works on the Nikon F but getting a battery could be hard. It used mercury batteries that aren't available anymore. I think B&H sells a replacement, but they have a short shelf life.
Since I did not do the scanning myself I am afraid I cannot say. If I remember correctly (which I may or may not), I think for 35mm film the resulting file size in JPEG was 25MB? If you are doing 300 dpi I think you are fine.
Mark1776
New member
He, he. Memories. My first Nikon was an FE2. I basically wore it out and then gave it to a friend after getting it refurbished. I then had an 8008s which I also wore out. At the time I was developing and printing my own color slides and prints in a Jobo processor. At the very end, I bought a used F100, which I did not use more than a couple of times. About 2003 I got a D300 and shortly after that I got rid of the Jobo and never looked back. I still have some film to digitize, but the D300 made images almost as good as the N(?)5000 35mm film scanner. In the last few years I got a D850 and now a Z8. Those two are incredible cameras, and there is no reason for me to shoot film. If I had medium or large format equipment, I might still shoot film. Kodak discontinued Ektar25, which was the only film that I really wanted to use for my wildflower photos, as it was slow enough that I could completely eliminate the background while lighting the subject with flash. I made a few totally awesome 11x14 prints from that film. Grain focusing was almost impossible.
I admit to being a dinosaur. I can still tell time from an analog clock.
I admit to being a dinosaur. I can still tell time from an analog clock.
O
Well-known member
My feelings exactly, when i even take out my DF and 50mm 1.4 manual Ziess as the only lens, i challenge my self and become far more creative.‘He could create beauty out of horror’: the extraordinary life and photography of Tim Hetherington
He joined rebel convoys in Africa and turned his time with GIs in Afghanistan into an Oscar-nominated film. But his subject wasn’t war – it was people. Ahead of a major show, our writer remembers his former colleague
"Typically, tellingly, Tim worked at his own pace. At a time (the early 00s) when most photojournalists were crossing to digital, he shot colour negative film on an analogue camera: 10 frames on each roll. This forced him to think carefully about each composition, lifted him out of the frantic news cycle and nudged him towards such long-term themed projects....
Today's new technology while excellent for its purpose, it has allowed many of us to become more record shot takers as virtually everything is done for us automatically.
A recent portraiture model shoot, a) had a Z8 85mm 1.8s, the other b) had a Canon 5D mk II and a 24-70 F2.8, the end results you couldn't tell the images apart, the Z8 shooter had little to no skill sets and was new to photography in the club but had simply used eye tracking etc, the 5 D mk II user had 35 years of skill sets, what narrowed the gap also was studio lighting that really made everything look good or similar as often is the case.
Where would film fit in this scenario, well its greatest friend is light, its best asset is good glass, could it achieve the same outcome, yes dependent on the user having a much much higher degree of skill sets.
Modern day mirror less cameras have enabled more people with far less skill sets to deliver incredible results, that's progress, so in an abstract way you now can buy a photo as making it has become no longer as challenging, one can always buy some film and an old camera and enjoy the journey, myself i wouldn't ever go back to 35mm film, only MF.
Only an opinion
O
Well-known member
Be a good time to sell the old gear in the garage LOLfyi
Ricoh’s big bet on a film renaissance: We interview the team behind the upcoming Pentax film camera
A few weeks ago in Japan, we had the opportunity to interview the team at Ricoh behind the new Pentax film camera that's expected to arrive later this year. Find out why the designers settled on a half-frame design that favors a vertical format, what inspired the optics, and the added complexity...
Sure they can. But variations in experiences lead to a broader spectrum of learning.
And as far as which camera is best, I'm quite sure that it's never the one that you don't have when you need or want it.
Mal Paso
Active member
It's not B&W anymore but Silver Gelatin Prints presented with the air of a French Waiter, one eyebrow raised. Can you afford it?
Robert S
Well-known member
Bit of trivia: we see with our brain not our eyes. Obviously without eyes it would be impossible to see in the ordinary way but that's another rabbit hole. It took me a while to accept digital photography. These days I only use digital, and most of the time that is mirrorless.
People are still able to paint, draw, write poetry. Wish I could but I can't.
Dumb question: "How long before we have smelly video?"
People are still able to paint, draw, write poetry. Wish I could but I can't.
Dumb question: "How long before we have smelly video?"