Film Photography

There are things film can do that digital cannot. So it really depends on what you are doing.

Define "oldtimer". :)

Thankyou Dan. Invested in a Canon. Can't wait to see what happens :D

HW, "oldtimer" may mean "old school", "pre-iPhone", "pre-instagram", "pre-21st Century", but I meant pre-digital in general, or at least before digital could be used instead of film. It's a megapixel thang.

You mean shoot, send it off to the lab, wait, rip open the package a week later and go "darn, the focus/white balance/composition/color etc" is off? Who needs it. I can't imagine anyone going back - oldtimer or youngster.

I have one digital, and not really excited about what it does. I still like my film better.

I don't miss film in the slightest.

I miss film something awful but have not gone back fully yet. Can't answer why, just haven't

Mark,
I'm actually excited for you!
You are about to learn a new (to you) discipline in art.
I would suggest shooting with B&W film, then learn to develop the negatives in your kitchen, and then find a community darkroom and make proof prints and then
learn simple 'hand'-dodging and burning techniques to emphasize the areas you want while producing your first 8x10s. :-)

Once you see the print sitting in the water and the image first appear, you'll be so excited. Film photography from - selecting the subject, the shooting position, the camera,
the lens, filter, aperture, shutter speed, ASA, and then take a breath-exhale and then click the shutter, to producing the prints yourself is such a feeling of accomplishment.

.... Now the fun part. The darkroom is where all the magic happens!
I can't tell you how exhilarating it is to go through all the steps to produce your vision on the final print. The whole process - the odors of the chemicals (even the paper has a distinct
odor), standing at the enlarger (not sitting comfortably in your compfy chair at your computer) with hands moving like a conductor - dodging and burning while the timer is counting down.
It's so much fun. Really!

Load the film,take the shot,process the film,make the print,mount the print,frame the print....hang on the wall.

There will be a learning curve but a fun one and a new way to express yourself. Don't let anyone discourage you.

--Ken
ps; I shot film from 1978 to 2008. Using 110 instamatic, 35mm, 2 1/4 and 4x5. Spent 1988 - 1994 in a community darkroom printing my own B&W enlargements. Would I go back YES!

Edward, that is this "send to the lab" thing that you speak of?

I develop myself (but only BW - I love B/W film!) but I'm not a darkroom fan, it's too much work. I prefer to scan the negs and process them digitally.

I am fascinated with old school 110 cameras, and I have an awesome Pentax 110 slr system. Lots of fun.

I was just looking at my old B&W photos. Nothing comes close to the contrast of working in the lab. Have fun!!

I can't imagine I'll ever go back to using film. I used to shoot slide film that was ~$10 for 36 exposures, then tack on another $8 for processing. Combine that with a lot of shooting, and it'll pay for a decent DSLR in no time.

I shoot both dag nabit, and I like it. ;)

I can't answer if it's worth it for you or not. You may just want to try it and see how you feel about. BTW, there are many more choices than 35mm slrs, all with some advantage in some way. Different things are better for different types of shots or shooting situations, as are different films. I use an slr, a rangefinder and small P&S for different things at different times. I shoot mostly 35mm, but also some medium format and am hoping to try 4x5 in the near future.

If you do it, 35mm is a great way to start. I'd recommend buying very good (not dept store) c-41 process film, unless you have a pro lab nearby. This way you can have the developing done cheaply.

I still have an old film camera. I get some nice use out of it keeping some books standing upright on the shelf.

I still actively shoot film and love it. There is a certain feel which digital just cannot fully replicate or capture. I also enjoy the process of shooting film much more. One is not better than the other, but I feel digital and film photography are definitely two different beasts.

I started out shooting digital and acquired a film camera (Nikon F6) a couple of years ago. Despite all the hassle compared to digital I have not regretted this for a single second.

Drop by http://fineartamerica.com/groups/film-fiends.html?tab=overview if you want to learn more about film or want to post your film photos. Which Canon did you buy?

I learned on a 1970's Pentax 35mm, and loved it! My friend and I would develop it in his bathroom and ended up getting a enlarger used, lots of fun, although I still have it and use it once and a while, I like the convenience and cost effectiveness of the digital. I do shoot film once and a while, but not as my main camera. I felt it was a lot more rewarding getting photos from film than digital.

Almost equal yays and nays. I can tell this is going to be some journey. I really want the deep saturation I see in film landscapes - love landscapes - and rich black and white (I've hardly explored it).

I did look at a few different types of camera, but I'm already addicted to swapping lenses around, and there's a wealth of them available.

It's a T90 by the way, my friend's dad had one, but we weren't allowed to touch it. I used to think it was the most futuristic thing I'd ever seen. I really wanted to know what that 'robot panel' was doing. I guess I'll soon find out

Normally I use an old, fully manual Nikon FE 2. I have a great old Contessa rangefinder that's fun, but I love playing with this little 110 setup:


B/W film just feels so good!

@Melany. That's pretty neat. Do you use the lomo film?

@Mark, if you don't have all the lenses you need, and you don't mind digging around thrift stores, I see a lot of those lens around. Be picky on condition.

@Mark - Maybe its a good idea to start off with an ASA 400 film; more grainy, but also easier to get used to the limitations of not being able to crank the iso up like with digital. Ilford HP5 is a cool film with nice tonality and sharpness which is also very flexible and forgiving in terms of under/overexposure.

If you want to really get bold, try a good medium format. I love it! I sometimes bring out my Mamilya 640 pro, and it is something to work that camera. 35 is what I shot mostly, but I do use the others too. Also you'll want to try pinhole as well, and that is something else that looks better on film, than it does through digital.

I've obviously moved from film to digital - I couldn't afford to use film. I just returned from a week of going up around the Great Smoky Mountains - near 1,000 images - of which, perhaps, 100 may be good enough to post - Now I can view, edit if needed, and upload - if it were film - someone else would do the processing - and I'd be stuck with their result - good, bad, ugly.

YES - there are things that film will do and capture better (don't ask what they are - I have problems with red's and white blow outs in digital that I don't remember having with film). For sure - you can't just gallop along taking quick shots of things as you pass.

@Melany - my first "professional" camera was an Asahi Pentax - bought in Japan in 1966 - I loved that camera - but couldn't afford it after I returned home - which I still had it - and that range of lenses that I bought with it. Later I tried the Honeywell (made in Europe I think) Pentax - it wasn't the same camera.

@Dan, I think when people compare digital to film, they are usually comparing 35mm. What you can get with medium format is for some subjects at a whole other level. (probably it is to the choir I am speaking.)

B&H is great place to order film.

I think at this stage it's going to be a hobby within a hobby (unless it makes a noticeable difference to my bank balance), but there's still satisfaction in a job well done.

I've used Smilla Enlarger and Focus Magic (and other tricks) to convert low rez photos into hi rez photos, so format's not really a major issue at the moment, though from various testimonies definitely something to look into in the future.

Funny how everything's going Pentax - I was browsing Pentax 67's - they're pretty chunky, but I'll see how I go with the tank first.

Melany, a few years ago, searching for a new compact, I nearly bought the digital version of that one, but there was all this hullabaloo from Nikon about their new backlit CMOS sensor, and that won out instead (still in regular use). If I find one (like yours) I might buy it for the cute factor :)

Roy, blown out reds are the curse of digital, especially in sunsets. I want to capture all the delicate detail and too often end up with meh and a lot of photoshop fiddling for an approximation. Perhaps film will be the answer?

(Edit: should add that my Red Sunset had no postprocessing done at all, though I may have had the saturation turned up in camera, can't remember)

"convert low rez photos into hi rez photos" really? Sounds a bit dodgy...

It is indeed a bit dodgy HW, but it werks I tell yer.

Smilla is algorithmic and can get reasonable results up to double size, much better than nearest neighbor or bicubic, or both combined. But by messing about in a paint program and then re-enlarging the result = four times from original. It's obviously not perfect and not as good as beginning with a high rez image, but if you have a ton of 6mp photos you want to extend the life of, it works :)