# Anyone shooting film?



## DanielW (Apr 5, 2012)

Anyone shooting film & digital? It occurred to me it may be cool to shoot film sometimes, and I started to look for old 35 mm cameras. I found a Pentax (sorry...) KX, which seems to have been a great camera 30 yrs ago, with a 55/1.8 lens, a flash, a little bag an so on for around US$ 120. Anyone think it's worth it, or is it just to much of a hassle for nothing?


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Apr 5, 2012)

I sometimes shoot film on a Pentax 645n (medium format). I shoot aix of Ilford pan 50 for lovely contrasty b&w with very fine grain and the 100 Ilford. You will great colour results from Fuji's Reala 100 and of course Velvia 50 reverse. Colour definition on film is something that digital cannot yet replicate.


----------



## DanielW (Apr 5, 2012)

Yeah, there's just something different about film, I guess. It's not better or worse; it's different. I think we forgive imperfections very much more when we shoot film, maybe. It looks like we're more interested in a nice composition or some interesting scene, whereas with digital it's more about exposure, noise, sharpness... Not that I don't enjoy shooting digital (never really shot film with a good camera), but I like the idea of film, kinda romantic stuff, old days, different feel to the image... (Is it about memories?) I'm having a baby by the end of the year and want to take nice pics of him/her, and maybe some taken with a film camera would look nicely different.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 5, 2012)

I recently bought a 5$ canon Rebel 2000 body out of the bargain bin at a Thrift store. Then picked up a 3$ roll of kodak 400 Color reversal film at walgreens. I took this with a 24mm 1.4L II of course ;D


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 5, 2012)

well crap it pains me to say but i dont think i've shot film since 2006. Sold my 35mm film body and LF 4x5 camera. I still have a nice bronica 645 sitting in it's case in my closet, but i'd have to go out, buy rolls, maybe even a poloriod pack for giggles for the film attachment adapter, pay for processing... ehhh or shoot digital and get instant gratification and can print the same size... The oddity is i balk at the cost of film/developing/time yet dont think twice about a $3500 5d3.... Dont ask me how that is.


----------



## hpmuc (Apr 5, 2012)

Yes, I do. In fact, I used an A-1 and an old F-1 until recently, but already scanned the negatives/slides. Then manual focusing started annoying me, in addition I realized that I would have to switch to digital sooner or later. So I decided to do a gradual switch: First I bought two EF lenses (24-70 USM L 2.8 and the 50/1.4) and just bought a quite cheap EOS 3 (I don't think I have to tell you the specs of that great camera, the AF is awesome), I just didn't have the money to buy a 5D2 as well (FF is a must for me) and I wasn't sure this was the right camera. I mainly shoot slide film, but also Adox CMS20. I am still not happy with digital image quality. On the other hand, I also have an old 350D and found out that with RAW, you can get quite good results. So the reason I visit this site is that I hoped the 5D3 would be what I was waiting for. However, the last weeks haven't made that decision easier, so I think I will stick to the EOS 3 for a little longer and wait how things develop.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 5, 2012)

I do! I've actually got my 24-70 f2.8 on my EOS-3 right now. I'm not very knowledgeable about film as digital has always been around since I got into photography but I see the beauty and value in shooting film.

I've actually got a roll of ISO3200 black and white film that I can't wait to use.


----------



## BillyBean (Apr 5, 2012)

Sure, I shoot loads of film. I have an EOS 3 and an EOS 5, both of which take EF lenses just like a modern EOS camera. And the flash works too...

The EOS 3 in particular is a fantastic camera - full frame (of course!), eye control focus, weather sealed, 8 fps, a real delight - and all for about £100 or maybe $150, on eBay !

I use a Nikon negative scanner, and then Lightroom 4 and Nik plugins, and have all the joy of digital post-process workflow...

Maybe you can the same effects with digital, and I do use a DSLR too, but somehow, you just KNOW that you have black and white film in the body, and it somehow alters your perception. Likewise, a bit of Fuji Velvia 50 for landscape or Portra for portraits. Superb.

The thing is, with 36 exposures, you have to THINK about what you are doing.

I also have a Mamiya RZ67 (medium format, 6x7 negative), which I use occasionally, but not so much joy with that yet - much tougher to use, more demanding, and harder to scan well. Manual focus, manual exposure, and a beast to lug around. I'll get there one day...

Aiming for a 5D3 later this year.


----------



## 7enderbender (Apr 5, 2012)

DanielW said:


> Anyone shooting film & digital? It occurred to me it may be cool to shoot film sometimes, and I started to look for old 35 mm cameras. I found a Pentax (sorry...) KX, which seems to have been a great camera 30 yrs ago, with a 55/1.8 lens, a flash, a little bag an so on for around US$ 120. Anyone think it's worth it, or is it just to much of a hassle for nothing?



I only converted to digital in 2010 - somewhat reluctantly to be honest. I still use my film cameras but not as often as I'd like. The problem really is that finding places that develop and print traditionally is close to impossible. There are still a few b/w places and there is always the option to do it yourself but I don't have easy access to the gear any longer - and haven't done any of this in too long. And there really is no point in my opinion to shoot film just to have the negatives run through a scanner and then print the same way the files from a digital camera print. That last step is where I'm convinced both digital and film lose out today.

I have a bunch of prints from the olden days that beat everything I've seen over the last decade or more. So I think it's not film per se but what happens during the different printing processes.

That being said - digital SLRs offer a great deal of learning options that film doesn't have that way. And I truly enjoy what postprocessing can offer in the digital world. But then again I don't think that DSLRs fully match yet where film was at it's peak. Close but not quite. So there is still room for both I guess.

What I find stunning is that only half a generation into all this younger folks already think of film as some ancient "lo fi" technology and expect results as if film only existed until the 1870s or so.


----------



## BillyBean (Apr 5, 2012)

Have a look for a book entitled 'Film is not Dead' on Amazon. It's for digital natives looking to understand film (unlike us old codgers who always understood it...)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Film-Is-Not-Dead-Photographers/dp/0321812808/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333652643&sr=8-1


----------



## SandyP (Apr 5, 2012)

Hell yes! Lots of people shoot film, in fact it's making quite the "come back". 

I shoot a few rolls a week, mostly medium format, either on my Mamiya 645 Pro TL, or the Mamiya RB67. 

There is definitely something special about the process, and the look you get from the negs. I'm a big fan.


----------



## scottcognato (Apr 5, 2012)

I love to shoot a few film shots throughout weddings - it adds something unique to the total package. I have a mamiya 645 w/80 2.8 (acts similar to a 50 on a 35mm), and it's a great little package paired w/Kodak portra 800! It's a very unique look that digital just can't seem to touch (I've tried for years, dxo film pack works ok at best, but not even close to the real thing...)

-Scott


----------



## SandyP (Apr 5, 2012)

scottcognato said:


> I love to shoot a few film shots throughout weddings - it adds something unique to the total package. I have a mamiya 645 w/80 2.8 (acts similar to a 50 on a 35mm), and it's a great little package paired w/Kodak portra 800! It's a very unique look that digital just can't seem to touch (I've tried for years, dxo film pack works ok at best, but not even close to the real thing...)
> 
> -Scott



I have the 80mm f/1.9, amazinggggggggggggg love it! Definitely something special about it. I too shoot a few rolls at most weddings during the portraits.


----------



## BillyBean (Apr 5, 2012)

7enderbender said:


> The problem really is that finding places that develop and print traditionally is close to impossible.



b/w - do it yourself ! You don't need a darkroom, just get a 'changing bag' - you stick your hands in to reel the film onto the developing tank spool, and then the tank is lightproof and pour the soup in to develop and fix. Easy. Of course, you can't see what you are doing, but that's ok.

Colour, yep, that's harder. I use peak imaging in the UK, who I can highly recommend. http://www.peak-imaging.co.uk/ They usually turn stuff around in 2-3 days door to door, which is amazing.

I don't analog print though - develop only, and then into the negative scanner. If I print, I print digitally on an inkjet (Pixma 9500).


----------



## scottcognato (Apr 5, 2012)

SandyP said:


> I have the 80mm f/1.9, amazinggggggggggggg love it! Definitely something special about it. I too shoot a few rolls at most weddings during the portraits.



I'm hecka jealous! I've had my eye on that lens for a while now, so much dof, it's insane! Makes my 1.2 on 5d3 look like a cheap nifty fifty!!

-Scott


----------



## Harley (Apr 5, 2012)

After many years without film, I am back into it. I still have my Canon Rebel 2000 and recently acquired a Mamiya M645 1000S. I wish I had gotten into medium format years ago but better late than never!


awinphoto said:


> The oddity is i balk at the cost of film/developing/time yet dont think twice about a $3500 5d3.... Dont ask me how that is.


Yeah, not to mention the costs for software, memory, printers & ink, etc! Shooting film is really quite affordable. Really good equipment is available and inexpensive and the film and developing is not hard to come by.


----------



## BillyBean (Apr 5, 2012)

Couple of examples, just for fun - they are a little compressed, so the fine details will suffer, but trust me, these in full are really nice.

A black and white from Yosemite, using a 1970s Canonet QL17 GIII, and Fuji Acros 100 film, developed by myself in R09, and an EOS 3 photo on Fuji Velvia. The latter is pretty much as it came off the scanner - unprocessed.

Both taken in the last 2 years.

I'm sure there are better photographers out there, but hopefully this gives you a taste.


----------



## SandyP (Apr 5, 2012)

scottcognato said:


> SandyP said:
> 
> 
> > I have the 80mm f/1.9, amazinggggggggggggg love it! Definitely something special about it. I too shoot a few rolls at most weddings during the portraits.
> ...




It's so bad ass!!! Get one! 

I apologize for these (not so great, cause I did them) scans of the film, but I've seen a drum scan of one of these and it blewwwwwwwwwwwwww me away like no tomorrow.


----------



## mws (Apr 5, 2012)

I've recently taken to collecting older range finders, so I shoot a few rolls now and then to try them out. I Recently discovered Illford Pan 50, this stuff is amazing! Either that or Tri-X 400, since it's easy to find. I also just bought a entire dark room set up (a color one too) from some guy on craigslist for 50 bucks. Just have to find some room in the basement for it, and see if I can't remember how to develop film/prints.


----------



## DanielW (Apr 5, 2012)

@RLPhoto: love the pic and the dog!
@7enderbender: will try harder not to call film cameras "old days stuff" from now on... (I'm 33, and shot film cameras until my 20's! Does it mean I'm old days stuff too?) 
@BillyBean and SandyP: Wow, amazing pics!
Any recommendations for a 35 mm camera? (I'm already looking for an EOS3 on eBay! Thanks BillyBean, hpmuc and EYEONE!)
Thanks everyone!


----------



## Pyrenees (Apr 5, 2012)

Sold my Mamiya RB67 kit last year. I really miss it, though - dumb decision to sell.

I still have my 35mm Pentax KX200 with a 50mm lens, which I've owned for many years. I still shoot with it, but mainly in B&W these days.

It's funny how the odd person will spot that you're using film and will totally freak out.

I immensely enjoy using it, and the simplicity of the whole process. The way it forces you to slow down and *think* a bit more about things, your composition.

Fancy being stuck on one ISO for large chunks of time and with only avg metering.

Not as many places available anymore who employ adequate quality control when it comes to wet film processing / wet printing. At least, here in Melbourne.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 5, 2012)

DanielW said:


> @RLPhoto: love the pic and the dog!
> @7enderbender: will try harder not to call film cameras "old days stuff" from now on... (I'm 33, and shot film cameras until my 20's! Does it mean I'm old days stuff too?)
> @BillyBean and SandyP: Wow, amazing pics!
> Any recommendations for a 35 mm camera? (I'm already looking for an EOS3 on eBay! Thanks BillyBean, hpmuc and EYEONE!)
> Thanks everyone!



Thanks. It goes to show that bodies still don't matter as much as your lens selection. Mounting the 50mm 1.2L on my thrift store rebel 2000 just makes it feel stupid! Invest in glass, bodies will come and go...


----------



## SandyP (Apr 5, 2012)

I have a Canon EOS 10s (3 AF points! Haha!) and was using a Canon EOS 1v (last 1 series film body they made, pro film body, etc.)...

The 10s is really just light and fun for basic stuff, I take it with me when I go out for coffee or with the girlfriend somewhere cool, or just with me in general, usually with the 50L on it. The focus is fine in daylight, but if it's pretty dark, then the AF sucks bad, and manually focusing isn't too accurate on it. 

The 1v, I shot a lot of documentary work in Cuba, 3 trips altogether over the last year, the 1v was a blessing for that, the AF was better than my Mark II, and really snappy, but not perfect, of course since it's an older AF. But it was great, and obviously built like a tank, and had lots of pro features (for a film body). 

Personally, later this year I'll get a Mamiya 7ii (6x7 in a range finder! Haha awesome), and a really tiny rangefinder, like a Canonet or something. I don't like 35mm film too much to be honest, 645/6x6/6x7 is really where it starts getting "Sexy". 



But what I mostly use 35mm film for, is what I mentioned above, especially just going out with friends, coffee, walks, bike rides, whatever fun moments (like at the fair, or festivals and such), I shoot about a roll of 36 exposures every two weeks, and just go get it printed, if I like a few of the shots to show on the web, I'll just scan the print. It's really fun, and to be honest it makes me feel good to take all those shots, sorta forget about some of them, get them printed (that's neat) and have them to physically look at. It's a fun way to shoot lots of film without any pressure. 

But my main passion is medium format film for portraits. My 645 and my 6x7 are my babies. I love them, dearly. I use them about once a week or so.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 5, 2012)

Does anyone have a recommendation for a good negative scanner? And perhaps one that isn't super expensive.


----------



## 7enderbender (Apr 5, 2012)

BillyBean said:


> 7enderbender said:
> 
> 
> > The problem really is that finding places that develop and print traditionally is close to impossible.
> ...




But that's exactly the point I was trying to make. Sure, developing b/w is pretty easy. But that doesn't help with making the prints - which is the whole point of the exercise. Scanning and then printing on some inkjet is where the bad things are starting to happen. Same with DSLRs though.


----------



## Pyrenees (Apr 5, 2012)

b/w - do it yourself ! You don't need a darkroom, just get a 'changing bag' - you stick your hands in to reel the film onto the developing tank spool, and then the tank is lightproof and pour the soup in to develop and fix. Easy. Of course, you can't see what you are doing, but that's ok.
[/quote]

I have an aversion to carcinogenic chemicals, though.


----------



## BillyBean (Apr 5, 2012)

7enderbender said:


> But that's exactly the point I was trying to make. Sure, developing b/w is pretty easy. But that doesn't help with making the prints - which is the whole point of the exercise.



Sure, but I had to compromise somewhere. I used to wrap up a room in blackout, and print using an enlarger, many years ago, but the hassle and level of investment is huge. This way, I still get the creative joy of film, and of developing, and the smell (which is somewhat addictive by the way) but not the darkroom hassle, which is hugely disruptive, especially now I have kids. It was that or go 100% digital, and to be honest, I don't miss the printing - I find I get as much creative joy from Nik and Lightroom these days. I'm sure a purist would hate it, but it works for me.

Sometimes it's amusing as well - some guy asked me the other day if my EOS 3 was a new DSLR he hadn't heard of. ha!

@SandyP: love those pictures! Amazing. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## SandyP (Apr 5, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> Does anyone have a recommendation for a good negative scanner? And perhaps one that isn't super expensive.



One of the best cheap scanners you can get is the Epson v700, it's very cheap in comparison to anything in the leagues above it, and it can produce professional results to be sure. I use the Epson v600, it's a hold over from a year ago when I started my love affair with film, and I plan to get the v700 by summer time.


----------



## DanielW (Apr 5, 2012)

@ RLPhoto: Agreed! Will look for Canon film cameras so I can use glass on both film & digital. Thanks!
@ SandyP: Do you have a website where we can see those pics you take? And about medium format, too big a step for me as a beginner right now... 
@ BillyBean and 7enderbender: will develop my own b&w then!


----------



## BillyBean (Apr 5, 2012)

Pyrenees said:


> I have an aversion to carcinogenic chemicals, though.



I read a study recently (sorry, don't have the link, but maybe Google will find it) where they looked at photographic industry darkroom staff, who had been up to their necks in darkroom chemicals their whole life, pretty much. I think they were expecting some crop of weird diseases. 

_*But in fact, they lived longer, and were healthier than the control group.*_

Fixer is a little nasty, if you do something stupid like drink it, but developers such as Xtol are mainly vitamin C, and stop bath is essentially vinegar. You use nastier chemicals cooking, frankly. Of course some are nastier, but it's not like you will be touching them, if you are reasonably careful and/or wear gloves (which I don't).

Let's not fall into the 'if I don't understand it, it must be dangerous' model of thinking, please!!


----------



## SandyP (Apr 5, 2012)

DanielW said:


> @ RLPhoto: Agreed! Will look for Canon film cameras so I can use glass on both film & digital. Thanks!
> @ SandyP: Do you have a website where we can see those pics you take? And about medium format, too big a step for me as a beginner right now...
> @ BillyBean and 7enderbender: will develop my own b&w then!




www.sandyphimester.com 


that's by main website, if you go through over a few pages (at the bottom of the main page you'll see "previous posts") you'll end up seeing a few things I've shot on film recently (A lot of film I shoot doesn't go on my websites). 

But there's lots there that I like.


----------



## DanielW (Apr 5, 2012)

@SandyP: wow! Really amazing! I just hope the 35 mm camera I buy takes pics like those... LOL


----------



## DigitalDivide (Apr 5, 2012)

I've been lurking here for about 4 months. This thread finally tempted me to make my first post 

I've been shooting film since I was about 10, like many here I'd guess. In 1991 I bought an EOS 10S, and I was still actively using it when I finally took the plunge into digital and bought a 5D2 a couple months back. I've had to replace the shutter on the 10S once for around $150, but other than that it has been absolutely 100% reliable.

As an amateur shooting maybe 20-30 rolls of slide film annually, my costs were low enough that I found it hard to justify the leap to digital, especially since I really wanted to stick with FF. For a long time I made do with inexpensive lenses but in recent years I gradually started to invest in some decent glass (within a somewhat limited budget, so sticking to the cheaper L lenses). I didn't want to have to start over with EF-S lenses.

What finally convinced me to get the 5D2 was that I was looking at investing in a new L lens, and had settled on the 24-105 F4L. I realized that if I bought it as part of the 5D2 kit that effectively meant I was getting the 5D2 body for about $1800 (lucky I pulled the trigger before the price went back up). That's equivalent to about 3 years of film costs for me, and that was enough to overcome my fear of owning a worthless outdated body when the new version came out  Maybe I'm paranoid, but I certainly don't see may people keeping a 5D for 20 years and not feeling the need to upgrade, like I was able to do with the 10S 8)

So now I have taken a couple thousand pics on the 5D2 and I'm still learning how to get the best out of it. I really love this camera (and the kit lens too), but it is clear that it will take some time for me to adapt to the digital paradigm. Yeah, it is great that I can shoot thousands of frames without any film costs, and I'm trying to take advantage of that to learn how to take better pictures. But oddly, the ability to see the shot right away instead of waiting a couple weeks for developing, I find is actually not as liberating as I thought. Yes, I can check that it is sharp, composed and exposed right, but I actually find myself spending too much time second guessing, trying to get the perfect shot when with film I would shoot two or three frames and forget it. Either I got the shot or I didn't, but I worry about that later. I guess this will become less of a problem as I get the camera set up for the way I shoot and get used to it.

The relevant question here is will I continue to shoot film? I think I might, after the honeymoon period with the 5D2, but only for certain subjects. There really is something about film that digital can't quite match, even though it has come a long way and surpasses 35mm in many respects. I also have a pretty comprehensive selection of Bronica ETRSi equipment which I have made far too little use of. I may decide to use that for my film shooting and the 5D2 otherwise. I have a good selection of macro gear for the Bronica and would like to give it a proper try.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Apr 5, 2012)

A colleague of mine in Korea, works incredibly hard. She is often shy around a camera, but will occasionally pose

Pentax 645n Pentax FA 645 75mm at f/4.5 1/90 Fuji Reala 100




Mijeong does pose occassionally! by singingsnapper, on Flickr

Pentax 645n FA 75 at f/4 1/125 Fuji Reala 100




Mijeong smiles again! by singingsnapper, on Flickr


----------



## Kernuak (Apr 5, 2012)

BillyBean said:


> Sure, I shoot loads of film. I have an EOS 3 and an EOS 5, both of which take EF lenses just like a modern EOS camera. And the flash works too...
> 
> The EOS 3 in particular is a fantastic camera - full frame (of course!), eye control focus, weather sealed, 8 fps, a real delight - and all for about £100 or maybe $150, on eBay !
> 
> ...


I actually bought a second hand EOS 3 to try out Velvia and Sensia, as well as try out the f/8 AF, but some of the early scans on my Nikon scanner were pretty soft and quite noisy. Now there is the compatibility issue with Windows 7 and 64 bit, so I haven't fully tried the experiment I'd originally intended. I since got a sturdier tripod (mainly for my 300 f/2.8, but it's also better for landscapes) and have found a company that can process the film and offers a value for money high resolution scan, so I need to look into it again.
I also still have my old Zenith 11 from the early 80's, unfortunately, it doesn't have mirror lockup, which was why I started looking for other options, plus I could then use my L glass on the EOS 3 for better image quality.


----------



## sanyasi (Apr 5, 2012)

I just purchased my first film camera--medium format Hasselblad (used) and a couple of lenses. Shot my first four rolls last weekend. I am in enrolled in a film development class that will give me easy access to a darkroom. 

I love digital and will continue to use it extensively. However, my sense after much discussion with others more in the know than I was that the black and white results with film would be very different.

What I discovered last weekend was the pleasure of working slower. I set up one shot. Knowing that I would waste one of my 12 shots on the roll and have to pay to develop it (the class is not for another couple of weeks), I decided to walk away when I realized the shot just wasn't what I wanted. Had I had a digital camera, I would have forced it--taking 40 shots that I would not have been happy with. No meter in the camera or autofocus on the lens. Not even a battery in the camera. Very primal. And I love the slap of the mirror.

Should be an interesting experience.


----------



## daveheinzel (Apr 5, 2012)

I love this thread! I'm 34 and have been shooting digital for about 10 years. Last year I bought a used Canon EOS 3 and have been shooting Ilford b&w HP5 alongside digital. I develop my own film and then scan the negatives using a new Plustek scanner (which is tolerable) and scanning software that is horrendous. But once I have the files on my computer, they're great.

I never shoot color, just black and white. Along with grain and contrast that (arguably) cannot be reproduced with digital photos, there's just something extremely enjoyable about the whole film process.

Here's an album of misc film scans from a few weeks ago:
http://daveheinzel.com/?id=2_64


----------



## wockawocka (Apr 5, 2012)

Notice the tonality and colour gradients between formats.

Medium format film:







Medium Format digital:






Canon 1Ds3:


----------



## slinky (Apr 6, 2012)

My favourite photo ever taken of me


----------



## papa-razzi (Apr 6, 2012)

I have a pentax K-1000 that I got back in '82. I have pulled it out and started playing with it, because I don't have a Full Frame digital camera. I was quite excited at first, but then .....

I tried to find a place to get a roll of film developed. No luck. I ended up at a local pharmacy and it took 2 weeks to come back, and the prints were awful. 

I found a decent lab on-line (thedarkroom.com), so I am going to try again. But, at $10/roll to develop and the cost of film, it could get costly. (I have gotten used to taking lots of shots during a shoot with digital, maybe bad habit)

For me it will be a novelty. I don't think film is better or worse, just different, and kind of cool now that the world is increasingly digital. But I personally wouldn't shoot film more than just on occasion.

I agree with the comments about scanning film and printing digital. If you do that, you are only 1/2 way doing film - but I guess it is more practical for most people to do that.


----------



## DanielW (Apr 6, 2012)

@ DigitalDivide: It was an honor to be the one responsible for your first post!


----------



## DanielW (Apr 6, 2012)

@ wockawocka: nice lighting!


----------



## adamoe (Apr 6, 2012)

hah- i have a Hasselblad 503c .. its hard to find film for it sometimes but its fun to shoot with, plus.. a ton of old people always come up to you when you're walking around with a camera like that telling you their life stories..


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Apr 6, 2012)

I brought both my 645D and 645N with me on my 19 day long trip to Korea. Using primarily colour film, a mixture of Fuji Reala 100 and Fuji Pro 160S. I found a Kodak express around the corner to develop and scan them, and am pretty happy with the results especially as they charged me the equivalent of £17.50 ($28) to develop and scan 7 rolls of 120 film. It costs me more than £10 at home to get 1 film done, albeit black and white!

These are from Jeju island again, off the south coast of Korea.

This is looking from Udo coral beach to Jeju, and Mount Halla

Pentax 645N 55-110 at 110mm f/16 1/25 Fuji Pro 160S




mount halla from udo island by thesingingsnapper, on Flickr

Back on Jeju itself and the temple. 

Pentax 645N Pentax FA 645 33-55mm @ 33mm and f/11 1/45 Fuji Reala 100




Jeju temple, Korea by thesingingsnapper, on Flickr

Pentax 645N FA 33-55mm at 45mm and f/11 1/60 Fuji Reala 100




Jeju temple dragon, Korea by thesingingsnapper, on Flickr


----------



## mws (Apr 6, 2012)

Someone mentioned full frame earlier, if you ever wanted to get the same feeling as using a crop sensor on film, there is always the EOS IX

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_IX

Just joking around with that. Anyway, where are most people getting their film developed? Pro lab? Or just Target/Walmart, etc etc ....


----------



## Orion (Apr 6, 2012)

I still need to get my hands on a 80mm for my Mamiya C330 ProF. . . . I plan on taking it along on the wedding shoot this April to get in at least 2 portraits with it, after I complete the major stuff with the mkIII. If anybody has extensive experieince with this system, any last minute pointers/opinions on mechanics, I am all ears. . . . I have an amazing composition in mind for the shoot.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Apr 6, 2012)

I always wish I'd make more time to shoot film. It's a wonderfully slow process from composition to final image (especially on an all manual RZII) but I have to be in the right mood to do it right. Not to mention, it's so gratifying to do everything by myself.


----------



## DJL329 (Apr 6, 2012)

I shot a roll of film last year... :

"Overexposed"





http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/6825398072/#in/[email protected]/


----------



## TexPhoto (Apr 6, 2012)

If you have some good canon glass, why not pick up an inexpensive film body? Today's lenses generally do great with the film bodies of ureter year.


----------



## sanyasi (Apr 6, 2012)

adamoe said:


> hah- i have a Hasselblad 503c .. its hard to find film for it sometimes but its fun to shoot with, plus.. a ton of old people always come up to you when you're walking around with a camera like that telling you their life stories..



It's not just old people. My Hasselblad (I've owned it for 12 days) is a real magnet. People just stop dead in their tracks.


----------



## pdirestajr (Apr 6, 2012)

Just bought another EOS-3 off ebay for under $200.USD (mint condition).




re-BOOT, Brooklyn NY by Philip DiResta, on Flickr


----------



## AndysRollei (Apr 6, 2012)

Hello all, this is a very appropriate topic for myself. I am currently in a black and white class at school so I get to shoot, develop and print in the darkroom, and it has turned out to be the best thing I have ever learned, so far. I actual have more film cameras than digital. Nikon F's FM, Pentax, Argus, Fujica, Canon rebel SII, Brownie box camera and a few others. 

My two main film cameras (like my user name might suggest) are two Rolleiflex TLR's, one being a 2.8E3 (80mm) and the other the 'Tele'-Rollei (135mm), that I use almost daily. They were my great uncle's cameras when he was a production photographer in Hollywood back in the day (50s-80s), and he used them to shoot on some very famous movies. 


sanyasi wrote: 


> It's not just old people. My Hasselblad (I've owned it for 12 days) is a real magnet. People just stop dead in their tracks.



I get a lot of looks with my Rolleiflex cameras too, I even had someone ask if it was a 3D camera because it has two lenses lol. 

Andy


----------



## Pyrenees (Apr 6, 2012)

BillyBean said:


> Let's not fall into the 'if I don't understand it, it must be dangerous' model of thinking, please!!



No, I fall in the 'read the msds and take note that the chemical composition of fixer and developer are known carcinogens' model of thinking.


----------



## Mikedurg (Apr 6, 2012)

Just got my first film camera last week. A friend gave me a Canon AT-1 with a 50mm f/1.4scc. Took me forever to figure out how to open the darn thing ;D couldn't wait to get it cleaned up. After getting it all nice and shiny, the first photo I took I looked directly at the back of the camera expecting to see an LCD screen  hoping to buy some FD mount lenses on eBay. Any recommendations on what I should seek out or be wary of with specific lenses. Thanks


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 6, 2012)

i picked up a canon elan 7 for around $100 it can use all EF lenses has AF and can use the 580 flashes too
its quite cool to keep around usually loaded white some b&w


----------



## SandyP (Apr 6, 2012)

For you folks who are shooting 35mm film, if you haven't..... you should really be getting into medium format! It's too awesome! 35mm feels too small, Shoot some 6x7 format stuff, oh my god. Amazing.

Here are a few favs from last year, the one black and white in the studio (head shot) is PanF+ ISO 50 film, and the other black and white (is actually a behind the scenes shot) is Tri-X 400. 

The color ones are Fuji Pro 160s (Bench shot) and Kodak Portra VC 400 (roof top).


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 6, 2012)

SandyP said:


> For you folks who are shooting 35mm film, if you haven't..... you should really be getting into medium format! It's too awesome! 35mm feels too small, Shoot some 6x7 format stuff, oh my god. Amazing.
> 
> Here are a few favs from last year, the one black and white in the studio (head shot) is PanF+ ISO 50 film, and the other black and white (is actually a behind the scenes shot) is Tri-X 400.
> 
> The color ones are Fuji Pro 160s (Bench shot) and Kodak Portra VC 400 (roof top).


i nearly bought a mamiya a few weeks ago but it went for more than i wanted to pay in ebay


----------



## SandyP (Apr 6, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> SandyP said:
> 
> 
> > For you folks who are shooting 35mm film, if you haven't..... you should really be getting into medium format! It's too awesome! 35mm feels too small, Shoot some 6x7 format stuff, oh my god. Amazing.
> ...





www.keh.com is the place to be!!! fair prices and pretty accurate gear assessments/ratings. 

I have a 645 and a 6x7, I love both. Next up is a C330f (a 6x6 Mamiya, twin lens reflex camera).


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 6, 2012)

SandyP said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > SandyP said:
> ...


do you do your own developing? In don't really have anywhere to setup a dark room, in the process of building a studio at home though and the labs charge sooo much to develop film


----------



## SandyP (Apr 6, 2012)

I do not do my own developing. I have a friend or two that do black and white for me sometimes, but color always gets sent out. It's expensive yes, but I never care about what the cost is, for me it seems worth it in many ways. Unfortunate I suppose, about the costs, but it's really not that bad. Another reason to slow down and make every shot great.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 6, 2012)

SandyP said:


> Another reason to slow down and make every shot great.


too true, in the end getting it right in camera is the fastest way to shoot. its so easy to overshoot with digital


----------



## SandyP (Apr 6, 2012)

The first big "oh my god" moment with film was when I had this amazing location for a shoot lined up, had an assistant with me for the day (my girlfriend, ha! to hold a reflector) and a great model who I always work well with. At the last minute I decided to ditch my 5D Mark II, and ONLY use the Mamiya 645 Pro TL (I have the power winder grip and the metered prism), and only with the 80mm f/1.9 lens. So I grabbed that, and three rolls of 120 film. Portra, PanF+ and another PanF+. 

Out of all 45 photos possible, 42 of them were definitely very nice shots that I was very happy with, and like 20 of them were just some of my favorite shots, and a year later, are still some of my favorite shots. It was because I really took my time, like REALLY looked around the view finder, double checked my exposures and focus, I didn't just take a shot, if things looked somewhat "iffy" I would change angles, change positions, get closer, move further back, get her to change her pose, whatever it took. And in the end, if after all that, if it didn't still look really like "WOW!" then I'd just say "there's no photo here", and we'd move on. 

It was an eye opening moment for me, and one of the most important moments to date, for me photographically. YES, I did that sort of stuff with digital before, but never, ever, to that level of detail and attention.


----------



## funkboy (Apr 6, 2012)

TexPhoto said:


> If you have some good canon glass, why not pick up an inexpensive film body?



Exactly my thinking when I got an EOS 1n from the used section of B&H for peanuts when I first got serious about getting good glass. I changed the viewfinder screen for the spit-prism for manual focus. Brilliant viewfinder.

But my favorite film camera (for its handling, metering, & drive) was my T90.


----------



## loudpictures (Apr 6, 2012)

Bought an EOS30 last summer - because it frustrated me that I never had made a picture that (for me, not for newspapers/magazines - they do  ) was worth to be printed in large format. Only did b/w with it, and I 
- now have some of my own pictures on my wall, finally, and
- reduced my shuttercount on the digital around 75%, just because I ask myself "if this picture would cost 1 EUR, would I still take it?

Healthy for me and for my cameras. Sometimes frustrating, because I come home without a single picture taken. But then again- who needs the bad pictures you take when you just forget them on your harddrive? 

I can recommend to try with a cheap EOS body. I still have to laugh about myself sometimes when I took a picture and stare at the camera, wait for the digital-display to lighten up with over-exposure-warning, but there is nothing but black plastic 



DanielW said:


> Anyone shooting film & digital?


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 6, 2012)

i took a photo of a roll of film with a digital camera once. Does that count?


----------



## Superka (Apr 6, 2012)

After first time trying a film I left digital for a long. I came back for digital only for textures and for shooting video.
I shoot 120 film with panoramic 617 camera which is 160Mpx equivalent. I shoot 135 film with Canon EOS 620 And Olympus OM-10. Olympus is just perfect. 
And I love film.


----------



## Fleetie (Apr 6, 2012)

Superka said:


> After first time trying a film I left digital for a long. I came back for digital only for textures and for shooting video.
> I shoot 120 film with panoramic 617 camera which is 160Mpx equivalent. I shoot 135 film with Canon EOS 620 And Olympus OM-10. Olympus is just perfect.
> And I love film.


My film background is Olympus, too!

I started with an OM30 when I passed my O-levels at 16; got money from family as a reward for doing well. 

A couple of years ago, I got back into photography, and picked up an OM40 and some nice glass (see my sig below) on eBay.

Finally, I got an OM2-SP in beautiful condition and fully working, for £90 on eBay, last August. A bargain!

But I don't shoot it much these days because of the crippling development costs. Ouch. £15 for dev+scan (no prints) on a 24-exposure roll. (But as someone else said, I have had no hesitation dropping over £7k on digital equipment in the last 2 years. Hmmm...)


----------



## Superka (Apr 6, 2012)

Fleetie said:


> My film background is Olympus, too!
> 
> I started with an OM30 when I passed my O-levels at 16; got money from family as a reward for doing well.
> 
> ...


OM-Zuiko are just perfect lenses. Viewfinder are incredible! I wish modern cameras were so good.
But scanning is a problem. Nikon has stopped producing it perfect film scanners  When I lived in Moscow, scanning film cost me about 9$ for a 36 roll. 4000dpi, Nikon 5000. It was very cheap and very good! Now I live not in Moscow and shoot much less. I had to buy a scanner!


----------



## DigitalDivide (Apr 6, 2012)

mws said:


> Someone mentioned full frame earlier, if you ever wanted to get the same feeling as using a crop sensor on film, there is always the EOS IX
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_IX
> 
> Just joking around with that. Anyway, where are most people getting their film developed? Pro lab? Or just Target/Walmart, etc etc ....



I have used pro labs to develop my color slides for many years - ever since a chain store returned several rolls of slides to me with a scratch across every one  They probably got some dirt in their machine and never noticed. I now go to Burne Photo in Madison, WI (USA). I've chatted with the owner there and he is completely committed to film. He has capitalized on the move to digital by becoming a niche business, and he told me he has been able to build up his film processing capability by buying up equipment from other labs that went digital. He does nice work, and I've used him for medium format transparencies as well. I go there in person when I am visiting the area, but he does accept work by mail.

One thing I miss is the days of hand printed pictures using a proper enlarger. I used to go to another guy in Madison (Hyperion) who made some really fantastic prints from my slides. He was a real craftsman and would dodge and burn each print to get it just right. Unfortunately he was an early digital adopter and now only offers scanning and printing services like most, if not all, labs. I know it is easier and quicker, but I swear something gets lost in translation.


----------



## mws (Apr 6, 2012)

Quite surprised how many are shooting MF. I just bought myself a Mamiya 645 pro off ebay this morning to join in the fun.


----------



## smithy (Apr 7, 2012)

I still shoot film regularly - I developed a roll of B&W film just a week ago. Since I have plenty of developing chemicals and don't need to buy any more for a while, it's the cheapest way for me to go full frame, and I get to use a 1-series body that's the same size as a 5D. 

Right now I'm experimenting with different B&W films. I mostly use Ilford branded (HP5+, PanF 50, Delta 100 Pro), but the other day I loaded in some Kodak 100 TMax. It's a lot cheaper to buy than Ilford, but I've read good things about it.

As for the above films I mentioned, I've had (by far) the best results from Delta 100. It has 14 stops of dynamic range, which I understand to be the same as the Nikon D800's sensor. You can see so much detail in the shadow areas, it's mind blowing. Not bad for $12.


----------



## slclick (Apr 2, 2016)

My EOS 3 just kicked the bucket and took me out of the film business (for a while) unless you count 120 Holga which I next to never shoot any longer.


----------



## pwp (Apr 3, 2016)

Say what you like, but back in 2002 when I compared properly exposed and processed D60 (not 60D!) with drum scanned Mamiya RZ67 Velvia, I put every film body I owned on the market while I could still get a decent dollar for them. The D60 files were better. That expensive film outfit comprised of a two body, 5 lens Mamiya RZ67 kit, Hasselblad 500C with a few lenses and a pair of EOS 1n bodies. Good riddance! I've never shot a roll of film since. 

In part this was a business decision. In a good year my annual film and processing bill came to around $40,000. Overnight this dropped to zero and I was sending out bigger invoices with digital's greatly increased capacity to value-add with custom, output specific post production. There was also a perception issue. Clients like to engage someone who is leading rather than following. Plus digital was heaps more fun! Never under-rate fun 

I've never bought the arguments about the "look" of film. Infinitely senior to the subtle "look" variations attained with film is the quality of the content, the image, the moment captured. Go back and look at photographs that won major awards, particularly in news, sports, reportage, editorial and so on from the film era. There are certain images that would stand up as winners in 2016, but a LOT of them just wouldn't make it past the first round of judging in 2016. Digital and the rush of fantastic high performance cameras and lenses that came with the post-film revolution has given photographers the tools to create MUCH stronger images. 

Film may have a relevant niche for some enthusiasts and artists, but for 99.9% of photographers it's best consigned to history.

BTW, if you were not born when the now comprehensively superseded D60 was released, here it is : http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneosd60

-pw

edit: sorry didn't realize this was such an old thread from 2012 that slclick resurrected.


----------



## tntphototravis (Apr 3, 2016)

I'm with PWP. I did weddings and portraits professionally from about 1990 to 2001. Spent $1000's per year on film, developing and proofing. Went out of business and got a real job. I sold my Bronica setup in 2004 and bought a Digital Rebel. It was amazing! My hobby was back! Now I photograph all the things I want to. No need to think about per photo costs. I always wanted to do wildlife and birds but, really, cropping negs was a custom process and expensive. Now with a 7dii and 100-400 ii combined with Lightroom I can enjoy amazing images I could only dream of with my 35mm gear. The instant feedback is also a fantastic teaching tool. Now when I shoot a wedding I still only take about 300 images, just about the same as my Bronica days. The keeper rate is about the same (90% presentable to client, 30% purchased). The process and careful preparation that comes from the film days surely pays off even today. However now I can take 3000 images of birds in a weekend and get a dozen keepers and I'm ecstatic. In my 30 years of film photography I have 1 keeper of a bird!

No comparison! I can't go back.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 3, 2016)

A week ago I would not have had a reply here. Fortunately now, I do.

There is an elderly lady I take to the doctor once in a while. We were talking and she found out I take photography very seriously as a hobby. She said she had some old cameras I could have if I wanted them.

She gave me a Polaroid 600 (which I'll never use and probably can't find film for), A really cheap plastic Keystone Regal 35mm... 

But then she handed me a 1960 Voigtlander VITO CL Standard. She'd bought the camera herself brand new when she was a 20 year old. It is a very nice little camera with a 50mm f/2.8 lens. The lens is not interchangeable as far as I can tell. It is the Lanthar lens and not the Color-skopar.

I'm shooting through a 24 exposure roll of color film I picked up at Walmart. However, I'll be looking online for some black and white film.

I'm very proud to have this camera and plan on using it as much as I can. It even has a self timer that works. It is pristine.

So, it isn't medium format or anything expensive. It seems to be just a great little camera. It will hold a lot of sentimental value for me. This lady has no family left in the world. I'm very touched she gave these old cameras to me.

Any suggestions on which black and white films and where to get processed would be appreciated. Thank you for this thread. Maybe we should post pics of our film cameras?


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 3, 2016)

tntphototravis said:


> The instant feedback is also a fantastic teaching tool.



Glad you posted this because I am of the same mind. I think the instant feedback is an excellent tool for learning.

I have heard old film guys say that people should be forced to use film before being allowed to use digital, going on to state that one cannot possibly learn the craft starting with digital. I have to completely disagree with that thinking.

When I was younger I had a Minolta Maxxum. I loved the camera, but it stayed in automatic mode. It took me two years to save the money for the camera. We were country poor. Buying and developing a roll of film at that time was an extravagance for us. Possibly having a roll not turn out because I didn't know what I was doing was unthinkable. There was no internet as we know it today and I had no computer anyway.

Digital really opened the door for me.

I wish I still had that Minolta (pawned it for diaper money) and I don't think I ever even took the kit lens off of it. I loved shooting black and white film in it and have some beautiful shots somewhere... even from auto mode.


----------



## davidmurray (Apr 3, 2016)

SandyP said:


> Hell yes! Lots of people shoot film, in fact it's making quite the "come back".
> 
> I shoot a few rolls a week, mostly medium format, either on my Mamiya 645 Pro TL, or the Mamiya RB67.
> 
> There is definitely something special about the process, and the look you get from the negs. I'm a big fan.



Vinyl records too are making a comeback. That doesn't mean the quality is better than carefully crafted 100% digital. Like all things it's the care that goes into producing the result that makes the result good, and I very much doubt that analogue/film would be better than digital using current models of camera and lenses.


----------



## rfdesigner (Apr 3, 2016)

davidmurray said:


> SandyP said:
> 
> 
> > Hell yes! Lots of people shoot film, in fact it's making quite the "come back".
> ...



The problem is, so much of modern recording isn't carefully crafted for the benefit of the listener, but rather for perceived demands which don't necessarily align. This may have it's roots in broadcaster demands (for louder vs peak sound which helps their station sound louder without breaking radio modulation requirements, and so shows up more easily for users tuning their radio). 

Of course if the music wasn't digitised then there would be less ability to compress it and hence older vinyl can often sound much better just becasue it hasn't been ruined by crass DR compression... though some old vinyl was also horrifically compressed. I've even come across heavily compressed classical pieces, one I'll always remember is Ravel's Bolero which isn't great, it's basically one huge crescendo, but the recording I heard had compressed this and totally removed the DR killing the piece entirely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war


----------



## TexPhoto (Apr 3, 2016)

Holy resurrection batman, this thread went 4 years without a reply and zip, bam, boom, it's back!

If someone want's to shoot film because its different and fun, and a diversion, more power to them! But to respond to those people by telling them digital in 2016 is cheaper and more efficient.... seems silly. I think they know that.
This is a little like saying why restore a '68 mustang, when new ones are available down at the ford dealer. I think, because that person just wants a '68, not a 2016.


----------



## Zeidora (Apr 4, 2016)

Only shoot film in LF (ArcaSwiss 4x5"). It is mainly for the movements (front and rear), which are impossible with any SLR (d or a). Never mind it costs about $10 per shot ($4 per sheet, $5 for development, plus tax: E6 or C41; no B&W). Shooting LF is a completely different beast. It has a meditative aspect to it. I enjoy the slowness of the entire production.

I was a late switcher to digital, first dSLR was a 5D2. I kept my Contax RTSIIIs around for a while, thought doing IR with it, but it never happened. Last year I sold all my Contax stuff for pennies. These days, for IR, I'd rather take a cheapo dSLR and have it IR-modded. I still have a Pentax LX in an underwater housing, but the flash is most likely toast. Might use it as an exhibit prop down the road.


----------



## slclick (Apr 5, 2016)

TexPhoto said:


> Holy resurrection batman, this thread went 4 years without a reply and zip, bam, boom, it's back!
> 
> If someone want's to shoot film because its different and fun, and a diversion, more power to them! But to respond to those people by telling them digital in 2016 is cheaper and more efficient.... seems silly. I think they know that.
> This is a little like saying why restore a '68 mustang, when new ones are available down at the ford dealer. I think, because that person just wants a '68, not a 2016.



Thank you. So many times most responses to posts are taken as if the OP is a complete dolt and hasn't taken in the most obvious of ideas and reasoning. Process! That's why I enjoy film. I love all the steps, the time it takes to craft a proper image. I am in no rush for something worthwhile and done with my own hands (and eyes) Using LR is great but I didn't write the software.


----------



## gsealy (Apr 5, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> davidmurray said:
> 
> 
> > SandyP said:
> ...



Digital pictures and audio are a sampling and number representation of a continuous medium. There are not 256 shades of gray, for example, there are an infinite number of them. So, in that regard digital anything can never be as good as an analogue recording. AT&T/Bell Labs figured out back in the 1960's that sound could be reasonably represented by numbers if it was sampled enough times and at the right frequencies. So Aunt Jenny sounded like Aunt Jenny even though her voice was turned into numbers and then back to audio. Aunt Jenny never knew the difference. So in the same regard, digital photos and video are samples too and are "good enough" so that that the eye usually doesn't know the difference. 

Some people's hearing is refined enough so that they can tell the difference between digital and vinyl. It is the same with photos. Once a film originated picture is scanned, then it is digital too and subject to the same inherent quality issue that a digital originated picture has. But it is "good enough."


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 5, 2016)

My biggest regret was selling my AE-1 Program I loved that camera and the AE-1 before it. I do however still have the camera that started the whole EOS system the EOS 650 film camera which is in full working order and I use for B&W film which gives photographs I feel cannot be produced digitally. I bought this camera in 1987 along with a EF 35-70mm lens which was its kit lens followed by the EF 28mm f2.8 that Ive used continuosly since 1988. 

Canon were years ahead on Nikon when they launched the EOS system and Nikon have never really recovered.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 5, 2016)

I wonder how many are not only shooting film but developing prints as well ? Probably not many. Ironically digital has given film a new lease of life because after the developing of the neg or slide, which gives you a tangible raw image, you can then very effectively digitalise it and print. I guess there are more people doing this than you might think as there are reports of film sales actually increasing in some areas. 

This way you can shoot real medium format rather than the digital apology of MF which is really FF on steroids. 

If we are talking 35 mm then in my opinion you can duplicate the 'look' of film with digital if you want to, so other than doing it for the sake of it I don't see the point.


----------



## Rocky (Apr 6, 2016)

There is another variable. It is the lens that is being used. Some says that the film give the picture a certain appearance that the digital cannot match. Has anyone try the same lens on a digital camera ? Some uncoated old lens from the film period will have the image that the modern coated lens that cannot duplicate. If the same lense use on the digital camera, it will duplicate the same effect. Also one op says there is only 256 shade of grey in digital media. That is not true. The grey is still come from 3 primary colors. Therefore there is 256X256X256. That is 16,777,216 shades of grey from the digital media. I am questioning who can tell the difference between this and the supposed infinite shade of grey from the B/W film.


----------



## slclick (Apr 6, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> I wonder how many are not only shooting film but developing prints as well ? Probably not many. Ironically digital has given film a new lease of life because after the developing of the neg or slide, which gives you a tangible raw image, you can then very effectively digitalise it and print. I guess there are more people doing this than you might think as there are reports of film sales actually increasing in some areas.
> 
> This way you can shoot real medium format rather than the digital apology of MF which is really FF on steroids.
> 
> If we are talking 35 mm then in my opinion you can duplicate the 'look' of film with digital if you want to, so other than doing it for the sake of it I don't see the point.



In the past 10 years the only film I worked with was the film I processed prints from as well. I just don't get doing half the work (the easy half)


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 6, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> I wonder how many are not only shooting film but developing prints as well ? Probably not many. Ironically digital has given film a new lease of life because after the developing of the neg or slide, which gives you a tangible raw image, you can then very effectively digitalise it and print. I guess there are more people doing this than you might think as there are reports of film sales actually increasing in some areas.
> 
> This way you can shoot real medium format rather than the digital apology of MF which is really FF on steroids.
> 
> If we are talking 35 mm then in my opinion you can duplicate the 'look' of film with digital if you want to, so other than doing it for the sake of it I don't see the point.


I can only give you this parrallel. Red, Arri & Sony make great digital cinematography cameras all successful and they would argue better than film. Fact is however in 2015 and now again in 2016 half of the Hollywood majors were shooting are on film and the reason often given is film gives more natural looking colours that digital fails to do. Its not about budget, its an artistic choice and about not producing movies that look too similar. Motion Picture cameras are using a format similar to APS-H blown up far larger normally than still images (billboards excepted) so I would disagree about 35mm full frame stills which is Vistavision in Motion Picture. 
In 2015 film saw its first increase in sales since 1991 with B&W increasing more than colour and it was the 25s and younger who drove this.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 6, 2016)

Would also add Kodak are launching a new Super 8 camera later this year!


----------



## Hillsilly (Apr 6, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> I wonder how many are not only shooting film but developing prints as well ?


I'm contact printing cyanotypes, but using digital negatives that are created from scanned negatives. Does that count? 

(One day I'll pick up a 16" x 20" camera and be able to skip the whole scanning process.)


----------



## slclick (Apr 6, 2016)

Hillsilly said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how many are not only shooting film but developing prints as well ?
> ...



I do the same process occasionally. The best part of this method is the ease of getting an 8 x 10 positive with a great tonal range for the blue vs cream tones.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 6, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how many are not only shooting film but developing prints as well ? Probably not many. Ironically digital has given film a new lease of life because after the developing of the neg or slide, which gives you a tangible raw image, you can then very effectively digitalise it and print. I guess there are more people doing this than you might think as there are reports of film sales actually increasing in some areas.
> ...



You don't get many prints in a motion picture do you ?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 6, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...


Your missing my point if you want film to look like digital shoot digital. If you want digital to look like film shoot film.
Artists can choose between water colours & oils whats the difference? I have some A3 B&W prints taken recently that I cannot recreate easily on digital so why bother.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 6, 2016)

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/02/02/is-film-dead-not-according-to-the-stats-from-ilfords-latest-analog-survey


----------



## Hillsilly (Apr 7, 2016)

Kodak is also likely to be profitable this year driven largely by film sales (although most motion picture film).

A lot of big budget movies have used film recently - http://motion.kodak.com/motion/customers/productions/default.htm - and they typically use over a million feet of film. And I suspect we're mostly talking 65mm. I'm not good at maths, but I assume that equates to a lot of 35mm canisters.


----------



## TexPhoto (Apr 7, 2016)

slclick said:


> TexPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Holy resurrection batman, this thread went 4 years without a reply and zip, bam, boom, it's back!
> ...



No problem, I get that all the time here. I post "hey have you ever tried X, cool sometimes" and the response from 80% of people is: Are you crazy, you can't shoot X in every photo you do for the rest of you life, that's crazy!


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 7, 2016)

Hillsilly said:


> Kodak is also likely to be profitable this year driven largely by film sales (although most motion picture film).
> 
> A lot of big budget movies have used film recently - http://motion.kodak.com/motion/customers/productions/default.htm - and they typically use over a million feet of film. And I suspect we're mostly talking 65mm. I'm not good at maths, but I assume that equates to a lot of 35mm canisters.


Hateful 8 shot 65mm film but most current 65mm production is on the Alexa 65 which is digital. Star Wars was film (35mm) and most others shooting film are 35mm only one company processes 65mm film globally.


----------



## Hillsilly (Apr 9, 2016)

That's the problem when you look at sites like IMDB. Eg for Star Wars VII, they list: -

Aspect Ratio	1.43 : 1 (some scenes: IMAX 70mm) 
2.35 : 1
Camera	Arri Alexa (aerial plates) 
IMAX MKIII, Hasselblad Lenses 
IMAX MSM 9802, Hasselblad Lenses 
Panavision Panaflex Millennium XL2, Panavision Primo, Retro C-, E-Series, ATZ and AWZ2 Lenses

But you have no idea of the percentage each camera was used, or even the percentage shot with film vs digital.

Bit off topic, but for those who don't know, BlackMagic's Davinci Resolve programme has a free version that allows you to colour correct movies and still shots. It has some options for making digital movies look more like some film stocks.


----------



## Pookie (Jun 6, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> A week ago I would not have had a reply here. Fortunately now, I do.
> 
> There is an elderly lady I take to the doctor once in a while. We were talking and she found out I take photography very seriously as a hobby. She said she had some old cameras I could have if I wanted them.
> 
> ...



CFB, that 600 film is alive and well. What model is it, working(?) and would you be willing to sell it if you're not interested in keeping it? 

Check out... https://us.impossible-project.com/collections/film?gclid=Cj0KEQjwvtS6BRC8pcKn8OXIg_wBEiQAqtpiz-w0D8A4_uWqc3ULT04_A2ZMCN40jYb-jgxobCzsjEEaAjJM8P8HAQ


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jun 8, 2016)

I still have a working EOS 3 that i use occasionally. Works perfectly. Im always intrigued by the eye tracking technology which never made it back into the lineup. I mostly shoot black and white with it for special events. Otherwise the dslrs get most of the wear and tear.


----------



## slclick (Jun 8, 2016)

Today in fact, Delta 400 on my Elan 7e. (it's my car camera)


----------



## Azathoth (Jun 16, 2016)

Me! Bought myself a Canonet.


----------



## Northpoint (Jun 16, 2016)

I occasionally shoot film. I have mainly Canon gear A1, AV1, Elan 7n. and a Nikon F90. I acquired a collection of 35mm cameras from my dad. 
Some of the interesting ones are the Zorki 4 - Russian knock off of a Leica M3, Ashiflex, Exacta - 35mm from East Germany. 
They all appear to work mechanically but I have yet to put a roll of film through them.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 16, 2016)

Pookie said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > A week ago I would not have had a reply here. Fortunately now, I do.
> ...



Hey Pookie! I just found it. I PM'd you that I'd have to dig for it, but it wasn't too deep down the rabbit hole. I do believe it still works. 

When it was given to me it still had film in it from God knows when. I squeezed off a shot and nothing seemed to happen. I put the camera down and went back to try again a few minutes later. A photo had popped out. 

Of course, the film had long ago died, but the camera worked. I guess the battery in the film pack was just too weak.

I won't be able to afford the film for it. At the same time, I ask nothing for the camera in return. If you PM the address you want it sent to I will be more than happy to mail it to you, priority mail. It even has two manuals!

Besides, the advice you have given me in the past is worth many times what the camera is worth to me. 

It will be nice to know the camera will be put to use.


----------



## Pookie (Jun 17, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



You da MAN !!! Much appreciated. I'll put that guy to some good use for sure


----------



## peoplemerge (Jun 20, 2016)

Since our 5Dii got stolen last month, I'm only shooting film as I await the 5Div.

Getting great results from a Fuji GX680, Leica IIIf, and Speed Graphic 4x5 I bought all in the last year, but the go-to camera has been the newest addition, a Canon EOS 3.


----------



## slclick (Jun 20, 2016)

peoplemerge said:


> Since our 5Dii got stolen last month, I'm only shooting film as I await the 5Div.
> 
> Getting great results from a Fuji GX680, Leica IIIf, and Speed Graphic 4x5 I bought all in the last year, but the go-to camera has been the newest addition, a Canon EOS 3.



The EOS 3 is a great film body. I dropped mine and the repair expense didn't justify it for me and then I did a trade for an EOS 5 and it didn't hold a candle to the 3 plus the dial spun freely so I just kept using an Elan 7. (The 5 is notorious for control dial issues.)


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jul 7, 2016)

After a break of about 5 years I returned to shoot film side by side with digital. Recently I took my EOS 3 with my 5D3 to Iceland and shot some rolls of Fujichrome Velvia, liked it much. I also got recently a Mamiya 6 set and explore that currently. Here I introduce another of my film cameras, it is a recently refurbished Kodak Retina IIIc from 1954 (my first camera, it was already quite vintage when I got it). It is a rangefinder, has a very good lens. But its viewfinder is tiny, yellowish, dark and the frames nearly faded away. So it is a bit hard to use but I love the challenge to shoot it in the street: it brings you back to the basics of watching, thinking, composing carefully. Plus: you can't chimp! Good results are gorgeous, my artist friends love those images in particular.


----------

