Buying a film camera but only to use a lab?

[Roger Hicks]

For me (and most here I think), it's not a matter of "film is better", it's just we like it more. Whisky is not better than red wine, but I prefer it.

And yes, you can certainly make digital files look pretty much indiscernable from film, but you can make a quartz watch look identical to a mechanical watch, but many will still prefer the real thing, for all the disadvantages.

Complete agreement here -- with one qualification. Once you've strained film through a scanner and computer, it's more digital than I care for. For colour, therefore (a much more 'scientific' processing sequence than B+W, though no more difficult) I go straight to digital most of the time. I really have my doubts about digital monochrome as compared with wet-all-the-way B+W, especially when printed on Ilford Art 300.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

not everyone has the time, space, knowledge to self develop.
i only develop b&w at home, but have a E6 and C41 kits. im a little hesitant to do colour, lacking a bit of confidence. so for the moment i get a lab to do my colour films, then i scan and print.
my nearest lab is about 2hr drive away, so i need to sort this out.
if i had the space i would set up a darkroom.
i shoot a lot of medium and large format. not many digital cameras can match that experience.

Once you try it you may wonder why you were so hesitant -- especially if you use a Jobo, which makes it really easy.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Don't see what this got to do with Leica either.

I see no point in developing/printing at home. If you have a good lab in reach and a good understanding with them, then you cannot keep your chemicals in condition like they do. Unless you have the same volume to handle.

Certainly not when you do 95% slides like I do.

I do admit that color prints can be a bit variable in result. But then again I don't do those that much that I can be certain that it isn't my technique shooting the film that makes the difference. Or the film itself.

Uh... Yes you can. The main reasons for not developing and printing at home are (1) laziness, to which I plead guilty (2) incompetence, and developing really is pretty easy. With Tetenal E6 kits slides are REALLY easy, and no more time consuming than going to and from a lab, unless the lab is next door, on the way to work, or somewhere else that takes effectively no time to get to.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sevo]

Complete agreement here -- with one qualification. Once you've strained film through a scanner and computer, it's more digital than I care for.

What's more, there aren't really any feasible alternatives to scanning for colour prints, if you are starting now - all available colour print paper is tuned to digital (Fuji Frontier) printing. Sure, you can still wet print on current paper, but unless you put an enormous effort into masking, the result will look no better than a print from a scan. And it takes scans from bigger negatives than 24x36 to beat the higher end of direct digital.

But of course, different properties of the cameras and lenses often still make me pick a film camera for colour even where digital might arguably deliver better IQ - image quality is more than resolution and colour rendition, and besides, image quality is not all that matters...

 

[thegman]

Uh... Yes you can. The main reasons for not developing and printing at home are (1) laziness, to which I plead guilty (2) incompetence, and developing really is pretty easy. With Tetenal E6 kits slides are REALLY easy, and no more time consuming than going to and from a lab, unless the lab is next door, on the way to work, or somewhere else that takes effectively no time to get to.

Cheers,

R.

I plead guilty to laziness also.

It's just so tempting though to drop a film into the prepaid envelope, pay using PayPal, and wait for the results to drop onto my desk at work.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I can't see the link with Leica either and can think of many lenses as good for what most people do and better if digital is dragged into the argument.

As for D&P at home; FWIW, I stopped doing it myself about 30 years ago and don't miss it. We've three labs within the shopping circle but I'm in the UK where we have Ilford's excellent B&W service.

As for scanning, looking on ebay it seems enlargers are like APS P&S's and so dirt cheap...

Regards, David

 

[sevo]

Uh... Yes you can.

Indeed, it is mostly superior to accessible developing services, now that many of the remaining in-store consumer labs are only there because nobody cares for and attends to them. Only the happy few among us that live in one of the few hubs of the European, American or Japanese media industry will be in walking distance close to a pro lab whose chemistry is up to the standard of one-shot batch home processing. For the rest, it is a choice between DIY or mail order to the next quality lab - for many among us, that even implies mail order abroad (and turn around times of weeks rather than days).

 

[MartinP]

My workflow will consist of developing at home and scanning (though I don't currently have a scanner...still researching that aspect).

It sounds as though you already have a DSLR, or equivalent, digital camera? I'd suggest re-photographing your black-and-white negatives with a bellows or macro-lens (an old and unfashionable [cheap!] manual focus one is fine), stopped down a bit, then converted from camera-RAW to (for example) black-and-white tiff before working on it.

You can make a quick, vertically arranged, test to see if you like the results using the camera on a tripod, a cardboard neg-holder resting on another piece of card with a hole in, wedged somehow at a convenient height. The light source can be something like a bright desk lamp bouncing off a white card on the floor, directly under the neg-holder and camera. To stop light reflecting off the top of the neg, make the room dark and put a collar made of black paper round the top of the neg-holder, reaching almost as high as the front of the lens. This takes longer to read than to do, almost.

When you decide to take this idea further, get a piece of black foamboard (as used for backing photographs) and make yourself a box with parallel light reflector, neg-holder and marked lines for aligning the front of the camera. Then all you need to do is shine a desklight in the hole you left at the back, over the angled reflector.

Quality can easily be enough for one foot digital prints. If/when you want (infrequently?) a mural sized print then get the neg scanned on some hugely expensive, ultra-high quality graphics scanner which you could never afford (not at the corner one-hour shop).

 

[shadowfox]

For those who has never develop or print film, don't be swayed by people who has done it, but hated it, or gave it up, or found the nirvana in digital, or whatever else other reasons there are.

There is a big perspective difference, they have done it, you haven't.

At this point, film developing and printing is cheaper and available, and the journey towards the results is equally interesting and yes, even fun. So go ahead and try it. You may like it or not in the end, but at least you have done it.

 

[Photo_Smith]

I process all my own films with possibly the exception of transparencies because I shoot only 5 rolls per year.
Processing colour negative is easier than mono, you only have one development time and it is short. The only different equipment is the thermometer which must go to 38°C.
Its so simple there's no good reason to avoid doing it unless you just can't be bothered.
http://photo-utopia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/processing-your-first-colour-negative.html

I prefer the look of colour negative to digital, not just because of the way it renders highlights (bulletproof) but also i love the way my TLR renders images.

I disagree strongly with those people who think they can make digital look like film 'at the click of a button' I've never seen any evidence of that in photographic form.
Here's a chestnut tree leaf I processed in Tetenal kit in the kitchen sink.

Kodak 400vc Rolleiflex 3,5F Rolleinar II

 

[Vickko]

I don't develop my own colour. I have a very good lab do that.

I do develop and print BW. Film is easy. Getting good prints is harder though, but rewarding.

 

[NLewis]

There is no good rational reason to use a film camera today. You only do it because you are quirky.

I am quirky. I shoot mostly a Fuji GW690. The Nikon D3200, at $525 including a nice lens, has about the same resolution. But, I shoot the Fuji anyway. I like the process of it. I also have a Leica M2 and a prewar Leica III.

For processing, it is pretty much a mailorder thing today. I tried home processing and didn't like it. Too much work, and inconsistent results. I use Dwayne's, for the most part. I get the film back uncut, and then scan it at home.

With that said, the look of film, either BW or color, can be really nice. Portra 160 just has a creamy look that is really addictive for people shots. It might not be "literal" but so what. The look of Velvia 50 on sunrises and sunsets has been getting people excited for years.

 

[sevo]

There is no good rational reason to use a film camera

There is no good rational reason to use a digital camera either. Once we accept that it is sane to do things as pointless and strange as painting shadows of a mammoth onto the wall of our cave, any camera is permissible...

 

[Photo_Smith]

There is no good rational reason to use a film camera today.

Here's your rational reason:

With that said, the look of film, either BW or color, can be really nice.

You like it that's rational enough.

 

[Godfrey]

There is no good rational reason to use a film camera today. You only do it because you are quirky.

I am quirky. ...

With that said, the look of film, either BW or color, can be really nice. ...

I resemble that remark.

I like the look I get from 6x6 and some 35mm film. I like the cameras too. There's no rational reason not to use my M9, or E-1, or GXR, or X2 ... but I like using the SX-70, the SWC, the Bessa III, the Baldix, the Minox EC, the Rollei 35S, etc etc.

Nothing rational about it, and nothing has to be. I'm not in the business of being a professional photographer any more, so what I do in photography only has to satisfy me.

If I were trying to make a living with my photography still, I wouldn't even consider shooting film any more: too much effort, not enough productivity, too much cost.

G

 

[splitimageview]

If I were a pro, depending on what niche I were serving, I may shoot film just to differentiate from all the 'pros' who just bought a digital camera yesterday...

There are quite a few wedding photogs shooting film for just this reason and making very good livings doing it...and there are many pro labs that cater to them.

 

[RallyFan]

I process all my own films with possibly the exception of transparencies because I shoot only 5 rolls per year.
Processing colour negative is easier than mono, you only have one development time and it is short. The only different equipment is the thermometer which must go to 38°C.
Its so simple there's no good reason to avoid doing it unless you just can't be bothered.
http://photo-utopia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/processing-your-first-colour-negative.html

I prefer the look of colour negative to digital, not just because of the way it renders highlights (bulletproof) but also i love the way my TLR renders images.

I disagree strongly with those people who think they can make digital look like film 'at the click of a button' I've never seen any evidence of that in photographic form.
Here's a chestnut tree leaf I processed in Tetenal kit in the kitchen sink.

Kodak 400vc Rolleiflex 3,5F Rolleinar II

Crap. Now I have to start shooting color film, too. 😉 Thanks for the write up. I think I've been avoiding color because I've never really read up on processing and thought it was very different.

 

[Godfrey]

If I were a pro, depending on what niche I were serving, I may shoot film just to differentiate from all the 'pros' who just bought a digital camera yesterday...

There are quite a few wedding photogs shooting film for just this reason and making very good livings doing it...and there are many pro labs that cater to them.

If you were a pro, you'd do whatever it took to make a good living in the way that suited your interests and creativity best.

If wedding photography was your delight, your business plan makes sense. But I, and every photographer I know personally, abhor the grueling horror of wedding photography. It's a very tough and demanding business, and to me, an utterly stifling one.

I was a wedding photographer's assistant and second shooter for three years back in the day. Reasonably successful at it too. I would never want to do that again.

G

 

[splitimageview]

That's not a business plan, it's an example of what some people are doing to make a living in photography - with film. Just pointing out that not everyone would 'not even consider film.'

It's a great way to differentiate in the marketplace from the masses of digital wedding shooters.

To be clear, I would never, ever want to shoot a wedding. 🙂

 

[frank-grumman]

I'm about as amateur as you can get; just enjoy shooting pictures with digital as well as film, F5 and GA645Zi. When I'm in Philly I have the luxury, for me at least, of having Philadelphia Photographics doing the developing and hi-rez scanning and I really like the work they do. My 2 cents