Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I switched from Canon Rebel EOS 200 to advanced FujiFilm digital P&S because of the process. I went back to film from Canon DSLRs after I looked at the EOS 200 scans and liked the result. 🙂
Should I bother with film?
- Thread starter ecowarrior
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 150
- Views 20K
I switched from Canon Rebel EOS 200 to advanced FujiFilm digital P&S because of the process. I went back to film from Canon DSLRs after I looked at the EOS 200 scans and liked the result. 🙂
John Bragg
Well-known
Someone asked me yesterday why I STILL shoot film?. My reply was, "why not" ? Would you ask a watercolour painter why he didnt use oils ? The medium is MY choice and I love it. Black and white all the way for me !
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Well, yes and no. I still use MF and have used if for several years and even (gasp) made serious money with it. But in the context of this thread I think it would be wrong to push it. And for most people doing what most people do I can see a lot of advantages to 35mm and one of those excellent lenses you can get without spending a fortune.
Looking up now I can see pictures made on MF, (nearly 50 years ago), on 35mm and digital. And I can't see any serious differences between them. I've even mixed MF and 35mm pictures in a series in a book and no one commented and nowadays I can't pick which in the sequence were taken with what...
So although I agree with all you say about MF I'd not be able to justify it, if asked by a newcomer to the craft. And it's a lot easier to use these days, he said remembering 2nd exposures of 620 film for slides.
Regards, David
ferider
Veteran
I suggested to start with a hybrid flow, using a scanner, and commit to a full dark room later.
If that makes sense, using MF first will save scanner costs .... Plus there is the "wow factor" of big negatives.
Roland.
If that makes sense, using MF first will save scanner costs .... Plus there is the "wow factor" of big negatives.
Roland.
Rick Waldroup
Well-known
Film is only about slowing down if you cannot afford to shoot it. Taking photos is taking photos. I have never bought into this idea that shooting digital cameras makes you an image junkie. I shoot pretty much the same way now as I did when I shot film.
As far as it goes, after years in a dark room, I would never go back to shooting film. But that is just me.
As far as it goes, after years in a dark room, I would never go back to shooting film. But that is just me.
Ranchu
Veteran
7NE won't meter with adapted M42 lenses, so you'd be stuck with eos mount lenses. My 7N cost 14 dollars. My K1000 was $50, a much better camera, and a pentax 50mm f2 or 35mm f3.5 are so much better than canon's eos blah. Trust me.
leicapixie
Well-known
Pentax K1000 seem to last forever.
My K1000 used for over 29 years has yet to have a service or repair.
Very few camera bodies feel as nice to hold, almost as good as my Leica-M..
A Spotmatic even nicer but finding one with working meter, more difficult.
The M-42 lenses will still have automatic aperture(close down and open).
Not auto in modern sense.
Pentaxes are plentiful and very inexpensive.
I bought a mint black Spotmatic, no meter for $10.
Film may change your perspective of photography.
Medium format is both expensive to use and the results while quality is way higher, the way one works esp. with TLR or folders, the photos resemble
those done in the 40's 50's and 60's.
Maybe it's the square, the limited depth of field, whatever.
I now do square images and ersatz Polaroid SX-70 with my digital point and shoot.
My K1000 used for over 29 years has yet to have a service or repair.
Very few camera bodies feel as nice to hold, almost as good as my Leica-M..
A Spotmatic even nicer but finding one with working meter, more difficult.
The M-42 lenses will still have automatic aperture(close down and open).
Not auto in modern sense.
Pentaxes are plentiful and very inexpensive.
I bought a mint black Spotmatic, no meter for $10.
Film may change your perspective of photography.
Medium format is both expensive to use and the results while quality is way higher, the way one works esp. with TLR or folders, the photos resemble
those done in the 40's 50's and 60's.
Maybe it's the square, the limited depth of field, whatever.
I now do square images and ersatz Polaroid SX-70 with my digital point and shoot.
kiemchacsu
Well-known
+1
Since the entry barrier for FILM is relatively low, why not try yourself and check whether you like it or not.
leicapixie
Well-known
The only true way to know, is jump in.
The waters of Film will not drown you.
A modest investment in change bag, or a real dark place,
a tank, one or two reels, thermometer, measuring jar,
small hypodermic(free at Drug store), empty bottles.
Plastic clothes pegs or steel clips, with weights.
An opener to get film out of canister.
Plenty how to do it on Internet.
The rest will be fun..and wonderful.
The waters of Film will not drown you.
A modest investment in change bag, or a real dark place,
a tank, one or two reels, thermometer, measuring jar,
small hypodermic(free at Drug store), empty bottles.
Plastic clothes pegs or steel clips, with weights.
An opener to get film out of canister.
Plenty how to do it on Internet.
The rest will be fun..and wonderful.
znapper
Well-known
Don't even need to open 35mm canisters, and you don't even have to struggle to start the film on the reel, you can cut the narrowest part off, then put the first few inches of the leader into the reel, while the light is on, so there will be no fiddling. After that you turn off the light and twist the film on.
No more tears 😀
When you reach the end, you simply cut the film with a pair of scissors, usually I like to leave a little (like 1/2 inch) film outside the empty canister, great for bulk-loading later ^^
No more tears 😀
When you reach the end, you simply cut the film with a pair of scissors, usually I like to leave a little (like 1/2 inch) film outside the empty canister, great for bulk-loading later ^^
Bill Clark
Veteran
I still enjoy film. For me though, it takes more time to process and print than digital. I have many, many rolls of film developed, contact print each roll of negatives and that is it. Some here probably think I need to get going but soon i will, maybe.
Digital is so much easier to process on the computer and get printed. Why, I choose 47 photos from Christmas, processed them with my computer. Then put them on a jump drive. Drove to Target got them all printed in about 20 minutes (all 4/6) and paid less than $10 for all of them. Printed on Kodak paper. While printing did grocery shopping!
But I will still use film for black and white.
Digital is so much easier to process on the computer and get printed. Why, I choose 47 photos from Christmas, processed them with my computer. Then put them on a jump drive. Drove to Target got them all printed in about 20 minutes (all 4/6) and paid less than $10 for all of them. Printed on Kodak paper. While printing did grocery shopping!
But I will still use film for black and white.
ecowarrior
Established
Well I've given this some thought and jumped in.
I have bought a Pentax K1000. It cost me very little, and if this all turns out to be "not my thing" then it can be sold for similar.
Got lucky on a lens. A friend at work heard about this and said "oh I've got a Pentax 1.4 Super Takumar" you can have. Fabulous and thank you very much, I said, biting at his hand.
The film-developer hardware I can get cheap from our local Oxfam shop - the guy who works there used to work for a camera shop and offers a steady stream of old cameras for sale - something to do with selling the cameras traded in at his old shop. He also sells all sorts of old bits and pieces including developing "tubs" and cartridges. So the expense will be in the fluids and the film. Black and White 35mm doesn't seem very expensive for a roll. If I get hooked, well that's another matter....
And once the negatives are developed a friend at work has a film scanner. So that's the way I'll go initially but he also has, in the loft, an enlarger that he's mentioned he would sell quite cheaply. So again it's an option.
I have bought a Pentax K1000. It cost me very little, and if this all turns out to be "not my thing" then it can be sold for similar.
Got lucky on a lens. A friend at work heard about this and said "oh I've got a Pentax 1.4 Super Takumar" you can have. Fabulous and thank you very much, I said, biting at his hand.
The film-developer hardware I can get cheap from our local Oxfam shop - the guy who works there used to work for a camera shop and offers a steady stream of old cameras for sale - something to do with selling the cameras traded in at his old shop. He also sells all sorts of old bits and pieces including developing "tubs" and cartridges. So the expense will be in the fluids and the film. Black and White 35mm doesn't seem very expensive for a roll. If I get hooked, well that's another matter....
And once the negatives are developed a friend at work has a film scanner. So that's the way I'll go initially but he also has, in the loft, an enlarger that he's mentioned he would sell quite cheaply. So again it's an option.
ecowarrior
Established
Just to add:
I currently shoot Fuji - I've got the XE2 and the XPro1 bodies, plus 14, 23, 35 and 56 lenses. All fast primes, all wonderful, and I enjoy the whole process including the photoshopping and so on.
But what fascinates me is the whole photography thing. Large format, medium format, 35mm, film, digital, collodion wet plates. The whole concept of image capture is still magical to me and I adore it all.
I also think that this will only enhance my digital photography. Rather than just point, shoot, fix in photoshop later, it will (as the old cliche says) slow me down, make me think a little more. It's good practice.
I currently shoot Fuji - I've got the XE2 and the XPro1 bodies, plus 14, 23, 35 and 56 lenses. All fast primes, all wonderful, and I enjoy the whole process including the photoshopping and so on.
But what fascinates me is the whole photography thing. Large format, medium format, 35mm, film, digital, collodion wet plates. The whole concept of image capture is still magical to me and I adore it all.
I also think that this will only enhance my digital photography. Rather than just point, shoot, fix in photoshop later, it will (as the old cliche says) slow me down, make me think a little more. It's good practice.
VertovSvilova
Well-known
Should I Bother with Film?
Should I Bother with Film?
Should I Bother with Film?
Is it worth it?
Why bother even getting out of bed? Life's a bother. 🙂
But seriously, if film is something that is of interest then why not. Unfortunately it seems like making an effort at anything is no longer of value to a lot of people. And that the work process is a chore and nothing much else (not saying that's your philosophy but only that it feels somewhat prevalent these days.)
Last December I saw an early screening of Paul Thomas Anderson's new film, "Inherent Vice" (a great film if you're a Thomas Pynchon fan; he follows the book faithfully and considering Pynchon's off-the-wall and sometimes difficult narrative style, it's not a small feat. And if one doesn't know Pynchon, the film might come off as a bit bizarre in respect to conventional narrative structure.)
Anderson used Kodak Vision3 200T 5213 and Vision3 500T 5219 as his film stock. He said, “I had a kind of faded-postcard idea for this movie. And then I got lucky, because I had all this film stock in my garage from back when I made Magnolia, in 1999. It was heat-damaged and faded, and we started shooting tests with that, and it looked great. The blacks were sort of milky and everything looked instantly of the era, without being pastiche-y. It ended up that we used that stock for only a couple of shots, because it was always a gamble shooting with it – you could just **** it up and not get anything at all. But the mission came to be to try to recreate that look using different lenses on modern film stock, playing with the way we timed it, the way we printed it. That was the key.”
The cinematography is excellent (Robert Elswit) and the entire production effort is obvious. Making an effort reveals itself in anything one takes on. I wouldn't call using film a bother or whether it's worth the effort when trying to decide between applying different mediums. Make the effort and see what transpires. 🙂
Should I Bother with Film?
Should I Bother with Film?
Is it worth it?
Why bother even getting out of bed? Life's a bother. 🙂
But seriously, if film is something that is of interest then why not. Unfortunately it seems like making an effort at anything is no longer of value to a lot of people. And that the work process is a chore and nothing much else (not saying that's your philosophy but only that it feels somewhat prevalent these days.)
Last December I saw an early screening of Paul Thomas Anderson's new film, "Inherent Vice" (a great film if you're a Thomas Pynchon fan; he follows the book faithfully and considering Pynchon's off-the-wall and sometimes difficult narrative style, it's not a small feat. And if one doesn't know Pynchon, the film might come off as a bit bizarre in respect to conventional narrative structure.)
Anderson used Kodak Vision3 200T 5213 and Vision3 500T 5219 as his film stock. He said, “I had a kind of faded-postcard idea for this movie. And then I got lucky, because I had all this film stock in my garage from back when I made Magnolia, in 1999. It was heat-damaged and faded, and we started shooting tests with that, and it looked great. The blacks were sort of milky and everything looked instantly of the era, without being pastiche-y. It ended up that we used that stock for only a couple of shots, because it was always a gamble shooting with it – you could just **** it up and not get anything at all. But the mission came to be to try to recreate that look using different lenses on modern film stock, playing with the way we timed it, the way we printed it. That was the key.”
The cinematography is excellent (Robert Elswit) and the entire production effort is obvious. Making an effort reveals itself in anything one takes on. I wouldn't call using film a bother or whether it's worth the effort when trying to decide between applying different mediums. Make the effort and see what transpires. 🙂
CMur12
Veteran
Ecowarrior, you're off to a great start. Like you, I think this will be a good complement to your digital. Have a good time!
- Murray
- Murray
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I expect you'll like the K1000, most of us have fond memories of them and often wish we still had one.
Regards, David
I expect you'll like the K1000, most of us have fond memories of them and often wish we still had one.
Regards, David
michaelwj
----------------
JChrome
Street Worker
Yep... The bait has been taken. The poison is coursing through his veins slowly... imperceptibly... It's just a matter of time before he's a fanatic 🙂
leicapixie
Well-known
You are onto a good start!
Hopefully the lens is "K" mount not screw..
Pentax is not easy to load!
Make sure the cartridge has play..once the film is loaded.
A small movement up and down.
Battery is not a problem, any that fit with 1.5 or 1.35V.
Stay with one film, one developer, one fixer..
I think you are in UK (Oxfam) so go with Ilford.
I use Kentmere 400 because it is inexpensive and dries FLAT.
Needed for scanning.
Go make photos..
Hopefully the lens is "K" mount not screw..
Pentax is not easy to load!
Make sure the cartridge has play..once the film is loaded.
A small movement up and down.
Battery is not a problem, any that fit with 1.5 or 1.35V.
Stay with one film, one developer, one fixer..
I think you are in UK (Oxfam) so go with Ilford.
I use Kentmere 400 because it is inexpensive and dries FLAT.
Needed for scanning.
Go make photos..
ecowarrior
Established
Yep I'm in the UK and yes Ilford film was the film I was going to try first. And as for a battery, already got a new silver oxide 1.5 on order for it. Cos, y'know, it's my new baby 🙂
I'm definitely rather excited about the whole process now!
Similar threads
