hinius
Member
In view of all the discussion concerning the supposed death of digital and how wonderful cameras from the 50s and 60s are, I thought it might be interesting to give a different perspective. I took up photography a bit more than a year ago and have been solely a digital boy. A couple of months ago, thanks to the rabidly tempting discussions on this forum, I took the plunge and decided to broaden my horizons by shooting with a Canonet GIII QL19 and Olympus XA. So far, I've managed to shoot a grand total of about half a dozen rolls.
Suffice to say, shooting film for the first time is... interesting. I love the bright viewfinder on the Canonet, and both cameras are in many ways very superior to the plastic boxes masquerading as compact digital cameras. Instant response is so under-rated until you finally get it. Range-finder focusing is very easy. Manual focus itself still slows me down; much of my photography is of the spontaneous grab variety and I have yet to master hyperfocal distances. Film photography also stills feels intrinsically expensive to me, given the relatively high cost of film and processing in the UK.
However, the one thing that bugs me most of all is film speed. On my DSLRS I'm used to switching between ISO 3200 and 200 in the flick of a button, and I find myself horribly constrained by relatively fixed film speeds. I know you can, as a rough estimate, over or under-expose negative C41 film by about a stop each way, but that's still not overly flexible. And I know that silver b&w film can be pushed as high as necessary, but how does that work if various shots in the roll are taken at various speeds?
I found myself in situations at night with literally half a roll of 'day' film in the camera and I found it to be rather frustrating. I want to ask, what do you guys do? Do you waste a bunch of shots by burning off your extra shots in the roll and reload with high speed film? Do you wander around with high speed film loaded all the time and compensate with neutral density filters? Or do you simply carry multiple bodies?
Thanks any advice you can provide. While I can safely say I'm never giving up digital, shooting in film has been an interesting experience. And naturally, I would kill for a full frame digital rangefinder. Or even just a digital Konica Hexar.
Hin
Suffice to say, shooting film for the first time is... interesting. I love the bright viewfinder on the Canonet, and both cameras are in many ways very superior to the plastic boxes masquerading as compact digital cameras. Instant response is so under-rated until you finally get it. Range-finder focusing is very easy. Manual focus itself still slows me down; much of my photography is of the spontaneous grab variety and I have yet to master hyperfocal distances. Film photography also stills feels intrinsically expensive to me, given the relatively high cost of film and processing in the UK.
However, the one thing that bugs me most of all is film speed. On my DSLRS I'm used to switching between ISO 3200 and 200 in the flick of a button, and I find myself horribly constrained by relatively fixed film speeds. I know you can, as a rough estimate, over or under-expose negative C41 film by about a stop each way, but that's still not overly flexible. And I know that silver b&w film can be pushed as high as necessary, but how does that work if various shots in the roll are taken at various speeds?
I found myself in situations at night with literally half a roll of 'day' film in the camera and I found it to be rather frustrating. I want to ask, what do you guys do? Do you waste a bunch of shots by burning off your extra shots in the roll and reload with high speed film? Do you wander around with high speed film loaded all the time and compensate with neutral density filters? Or do you simply carry multiple bodies?
Thanks any advice you can provide. While I can safely say I'm never giving up digital, shooting in film has been an interesting experience. And naturally, I would kill for a full frame digital rangefinder. Or even just a digital Konica Hexar.
Hin