Film photography
Discussion
Anyone still use a film camera to take and processed photos?. I'm sure there still are but likely in the minority. Despite digital cameras I still love the look of a grainy 35mm print on lovely film paper.
What annoys me about modern photography is when you get them developed (or rather printed on a machine) the quality just isn't the same. The ones I get printed from a shop (not very often mind) are on very thin photo paper. After only about a few years or less of being sat in the window gathering dust, the colours start to fade, more quickly than traditional film prints. I can bring out my old photos and ones that have exposed in the light, and the colours are still as good as they were when developed.
What annoys me about modern photography is when you get them developed (or rather printed on a machine) the quality just isn't the same. The ones I get printed from a shop (not very often mind) are on very thin photo paper. After only about a few years or less of being sat in the window gathering dust, the colours start to fade, more quickly than traditional film prints. I can bring out my old photos and ones that have exposed in the light, and the colours are still as good as they were when developed.
I like the faff. Back in the day when you sent your film in and waited for them to be developed there was something unique and exciting about it. And it didn't matter where you got em developed they always came out looking like proper photos. And none of them have faded away. Yes these days with digital you have control over what you take, deleted etc, but the printed photos you get from the supermarket or Maxx Spielmann aren't a patch on dark room developed prints.
I was a committed film user for many years, until I fully appreciated just how good digital had become. The additional flexibility, and speed at which you can correct the image as it's composed are massive advantages - and I certainly don't need numerous prints taking up loads of space in the house.
I don't shoot film very often anymore but I do really enjoy it.
Great for travelling, because you don't spend all your time shooting, tinkering with settings, shooting, trying to get the perfect shot. You see something interesting, press the shutter, move on and enjoy what you're actually doing.
I spent a fair few years messing around with 'Toy cameras' and 120 roll film, get some really interesting and authentic effects.
Great for travelling, because you don't spend all your time shooting, tinkering with settings, shooting, trying to get the perfect shot. You see something interesting, press the shutter, move on and enjoy what you're actually doing.
I spent a fair few years messing around with 'Toy cameras' and 120 roll film, get some really interesting and authentic effects.
Yes, although I mainly shoot digital, I do shoot the odd roll of film. Fairly recently bought a Canon EOS 30v film body which I can use with my existing lenses. Pretty good value at £60 including 12 months warranty for what was one of the most advanced film SLRs produced.
I was also given an old Pentax MX which I've run a few films through.
Although digital is much better for low light and action, I actually like the discipline that having only 36 shots imposes when going out to shoot a roll of film. It really forces you to think about what you are shooting and to take care with the exposure, framing, focussing etc.. I had a fun day out in London earlier in the year with a bunch of people from the Film and Conventional sub group of the Talk Photography forum. Just one roll of film for the day (photos here if anyone is interested).
Just to take this to the extreme, I'm expecting delivery in the next month or so of a 5 inch x 4 inch large format film camera, and am really looking forward to shooting some colour reversal (slide) film with it. This certainly will focus the mind (pun intended) as there is a whole process to go through just to take a single photo, and you're limited to maybe 8 or 10 photos in a shoot depending on how many dark slide film holders you have.
With regard to the quality of prints you are getting from your local shop, you can certainly still get high quality prints from digital that will not fade. Try getting some prints from the likes of Loxley. Very high quality prints are available in a range of finishes (including metallic prints).
I was also given an old Pentax MX which I've run a few films through.
Although digital is much better for low light and action, I actually like the discipline that having only 36 shots imposes when going out to shoot a roll of film. It really forces you to think about what you are shooting and to take care with the exposure, framing, focussing etc.. I had a fun day out in London earlier in the year with a bunch of people from the Film and Conventional sub group of the Talk Photography forum. Just one roll of film for the day (photos here if anyone is interested).
Just to take this to the extreme, I'm expecting delivery in the next month or so of a 5 inch x 4 inch large format film camera, and am really looking forward to shooting some colour reversal (slide) film with it. This certainly will focus the mind (pun intended) as there is a whole process to go through just to take a single photo, and you're limited to maybe 8 or 10 photos in a shoot depending on how many dark slide film holders you have.
With regard to the quality of prints you are getting from your local shop, you can certainly still get high quality prints from digital that will not fade. Try getting some prints from the likes of Loxley. Very high quality prints are available in a range of finishes (including metallic prints).
I only really shoot film. Every photo I put in to the photography competition is done on film, every photo I take is now taken with film.
Why do I do it? Well I'm not a photographer, not professional, not trained in it, I see something I like I take a photo of it. Last year I went to America on my honeymoon with a bag full of 30 rolls of film and a digital camera. The wife demanded I brought the digital one just in case the films didn't come out. Which is fair enough as I only started doing this earlier last year.
What I found was that I would take a photo with the digital camera first then the film camera. And I'd position the shot in the film camera and I'd think "That's actually a bit cack". So I then started to take photos first with the film camera and then the digital camera, and I think I took better photos that way because film isn't throwaway whereas digital is. There is no cost to digital where there is to film. A roll of my favourite black and white film (Rollei Retro 400S) is about £6-£7 for 36 exposures. So every exposure counts.
Plus, and I know this is a hipster thing to say, but I prefer the quality of the film photography over digital. And I also like the faff of developing the film. I don't bother with colour films really, if I do I take them to Jessops and then scan them in. But most of the time I shoot black and white and I develop the films myself. It's quite theraputic and there is an excitement with it that you don't get with digital.
Finally, I love the old equipment. Most of my camera collection consists of Soviet cameras because they're so cheap. My current go-to camera is a Zenit EM and it's a tank of a thing. All mechanical, and it feels lovely really. I just find it all interesting this world of cameras I never saw growing up. We only ever had disc cameras and the small flat wide cameras. Then we moved to digital and it was amazing because you could just take a photo and see it on the computer. But that's where the majority of them stay, and it feels pointless to me. So the fact I'm putting in this work to take a photo of something usually means it gets printed off and put in a book or hung on the wall if the wife likes it.
Why do I do it? Well I'm not a photographer, not professional, not trained in it, I see something I like I take a photo of it. Last year I went to America on my honeymoon with a bag full of 30 rolls of film and a digital camera. The wife demanded I brought the digital one just in case the films didn't come out. Which is fair enough as I only started doing this earlier last year.
What I found was that I would take a photo with the digital camera first then the film camera. And I'd position the shot in the film camera and I'd think "That's actually a bit cack". So I then started to take photos first with the film camera and then the digital camera, and I think I took better photos that way because film isn't throwaway whereas digital is. There is no cost to digital where there is to film. A roll of my favourite black and white film (Rollei Retro 400S) is about £6-£7 for 36 exposures. So every exposure counts.
Plus, and I know this is a hipster thing to say, but I prefer the quality of the film photography over digital. And I also like the faff of developing the film. I don't bother with colour films really, if I do I take them to Jessops and then scan them in. But most of the time I shoot black and white and I develop the films myself. It's quite theraputic and there is an excitement with it that you don't get with digital.
Finally, I love the old equipment. Most of my camera collection consists of Soviet cameras because they're so cheap. My current go-to camera is a Zenit EM and it's a tank of a thing. All mechanical, and it feels lovely really. I just find it all interesting this world of cameras I never saw growing up. We only ever had disc cameras and the small flat wide cameras. Then we moved to digital and it was amazing because you could just take a photo and see it on the computer. But that's where the majority of them stay, and it feels pointless to me. So the fact I'm putting in this work to take a photo of something usually means it gets printed off and put in a book or hung on the wall if the wife likes it.
Edited by sgtBerbatov on Tuesday 15th October 12:24
I used to work on oil rigs, one day when clearing out the office I found a Canon eos 5 film camera the 90s, along with a couple of lenses and some batteries.
Asked the right people then adopted it and took it home.
I put a couple of rolls of film through it and it works perfectly, but it turned out that I'm used to the instant gratification of digital and didn't really like the expense involved.
A background of industrial radiography has put me off working in darkrooms too.
Asked the right people then adopted it and took it home.
I put a couple of rolls of film through it and it works perfectly, but it turned out that I'm used to the instant gratification of digital and didn't really like the expense involved.
A background of industrial radiography has put me off working in darkrooms too.
SCEtoAUX said:
Shoot digital and grab Alien Skin Exposure 5. Faithful reproduction of countless film stocks.
Then get printed by Loxley and you have everything film did/does with the massive advantages that digital offers.
To those who say that limited shots make you think more I say balderdash.
But maybe we like the misery of shooting film?Then get printed by Loxley and you have everything film did/does with the massive advantages that digital offers.
To those who say that limited shots make you think more I say balderdash.
I can only go by experience, but I've so many digital photos I've taken and forgotten about because they're just there. They're cheap, and because they're cheap there's no real effort to get it right. Not for me anyway. Whereas film, if you're on a tight budget - which is ironic given digital photography - it does focus you to make every shot count.
SCEtoAUX said:
To those who say that limited shots make you think more I say balderdash.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm not going to engage in an argument about it. I would, however like to explain what I meant about putting more thought into it, if I may.If you were shooting film then maybe it wouldn't make you think any more about it. Indeed many other people - the majority even perhaps, might not think more about it, but what I do know, (and this is true regardless of anyone else's opinion), is that when I shoot film, it makes ME think more about each shot.
Having considered this, from a purely personal point of view, when shooting film, the first thing that I think about when faced with a potential photo, is:
Do I take a shot, or not?
With digital, this wouldn't necessarily happen, as there is no cost to taking a shot (or 3), and there is space on the memory card for plenty, so no reason not to take the shot. This is one of the clear advantages of digital I guess.
Next once I've decided I do want to take the shot, I will then think more about the exposure (especially if shooting slide film, due to its narrow exposure latitude). Again, if shooting digital, I'd likely rely just on the camera's normal matrix metering, and maybe bracket a couple of shots - possibly depending on what the initial results look like on the camera screen. Also, as I shoot RAW, there's an additional degree of latitude when post-processing the RAW file.
With slide film, I'm likely to take several spot meter readings from specific parts of the scene I really want to ensure are correctly exposed and set the exposure based on these. In other words, more thought goes into the exposure process than when shooting digital.
For me, it's about trying to get the "hit rate" as high as possible with film, whereas this is less of an issue with digital.
Don't get me wrong, when shooting digital I don't take an approach of shooting loads of photos in the hope of a good one, but do shoot more than film.
.... finally, when it comes to large format, there is definitely a good deal more thought and time required for each exposure. There are no automatic metering options, so manual meter reading(s) need to be taken and an exposure decided upon. Then focus the camera on the subject using the ground glass screen. Set the aperture, close the shutter and cock it, load the film, remove the dark slide, and make the exposure. Then replace the dark slide and remove the dark slide/film holder.
... that's for a basic photo, add in more thought about whether you want to use movements - tilt, swing, rise, fall to manipulate the plane of sharpest focus, and I'd say that there's considerably more thought goes into it than shooting digital.
Oh, and to further concentrate the mind, 5inch x 4inch photos work out at around £10 per exposure.
Again, limiting the number of shots, and getting me to think more about each one.
I fully understand it's not for everyone, but I just felt it a little harsh for you to simply discard the idea that, the limitation of shots made me think more, was balderdash!
Just scrolling through the forum and noticed this topic (debate for some!) - it’s a discussion I have seen through many photographic forums over the years.
It just boils down to horses for courses - there is no right & wrong or better & worse when it comes to photographic formats - the best photographic format for you is the one that gives you most pleasure and enables you to achieve the results you are looking for.
For some people it’s about rattling off hundreds of perfectly exposed, high definition, digital images while to others a single roll of film will suffice as it’s more about the challenge of obtaining a few good images with an analogue feel.
I’ve found over the years that those who dislike film tend to enjoy the immediacy of digital, the ability to quickly address errors, download images and adjust to your hearts content. Those who like film tend enjoy slowing the whole process down and becoming more immersed in the process - cost has never been in the equation as you simply adjust the amount of film you use to match your circumstances (I had a Testarossa which I loved but I didn’t drive it every day - simply couldn’t afford to).
I’ve been in both camps, having been taught to use film in the late eighties, becoming proficient with it in the nineties and moving to digital in the noughties. During my digital photography period I lost the passion for photography and began to feel disconnected from the whole process, so around 2006 I re-invested in film photography (heavily!!!) and the passion came back.
I still use digital for work based photography and video and I also use it the back up my film photography. My best mate uses digital for everything and cannot understand why I enjoy film (he’s a little older than me and wants a self driving electric car and doesn’t understand why I enjoy driving!) As I said horses for courses!
It just boils down to horses for courses - there is no right & wrong or better & worse when it comes to photographic formats - the best photographic format for you is the one that gives you most pleasure and enables you to achieve the results you are looking for.
For some people it’s about rattling off hundreds of perfectly exposed, high definition, digital images while to others a single roll of film will suffice as it’s more about the challenge of obtaining a few good images with an analogue feel.
I’ve found over the years that those who dislike film tend to enjoy the immediacy of digital, the ability to quickly address errors, download images and adjust to your hearts content. Those who like film tend enjoy slowing the whole process down and becoming more immersed in the process - cost has never been in the equation as you simply adjust the amount of film you use to match your circumstances (I had a Testarossa which I loved but I didn’t drive it every day - simply couldn’t afford to).
I’ve been in both camps, having been taught to use film in the late eighties, becoming proficient with it in the nineties and moving to digital in the noughties. During my digital photography period I lost the passion for photography and began to feel disconnected from the whole process, so around 2006 I re-invested in film photography (heavily!!!) and the passion came back.
I still use digital for work based photography and video and I also use it the back up my film photography. My best mate uses digital for everything and cannot understand why I enjoy film (he’s a little older than me and wants a self driving electric car and doesn’t understand why I enjoy driving!) As I said horses for courses!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff