A digital photographer's thoughts on film

[Robert S Donovan]

I borrowed a ZX-5n and shot some film for the first time in 10 years. I was surprised at how much better I have progressed in my camera handling ability since the last time I shot film but came away reassured that digital is the best choice for me for 99% of what I use photography for. The filmcurious can click over to my latest blog article for the complete run down.

Cheers!

[schmik]

Thanks for tha twrite up. I was considering shooting some film soon but i won't bother..... I need to save every penny for the K7 or more lenses.

The section where you compared costs was very useful!

I agree totally that digital has the distinct advantage of being able to shoot copious amounts of photos just to learn techniques. The speed of it helps too. Shoot, upload review. It can all be done within hours. Waiting for film processing makes you forget how you shot and why.... and no exif.

mike

[Digitalis]

I still use my Pentax Me super alongside My leica M3/M6/M7 - I only take one M RF and leave the rest at home, the M6 TTL is my current favourite. I use Ilford XP2 and rate it at Iso 320 and I get decent results. I find that film cameras with their small size(and quiet shutters) are very good for street photography....the K10 is a bit too chunky..and besides manually focusing lenses especially leica and pentax ones is a sheer joy. The FA31mm f/1.8 fits beautifully on a ME super, so does the FA77. the K50mm f/1.2 is front heavy but it's the fastest lens I work with on SLR's at the moment. - the Leica Noctilux 50mm f/1.0 takes the crown of the fastest lens I use, but the pentax 50mm f/1.2 more than holds it's own against it.

[jgredline]

Originally Posted by Digitalis

I still use my Pentax Me super alongside My leica M3/M6/M7 - I only take one M RF and leave the rest at home, the M6 TTL is my current favourite. I use Ilford XP2 and rate it at Iso 320 and I get decent results. I find that film cameras with their small size(and quiet shutters) are very good for street photography....the K10 is a bit too chunky..and besides manually focusing lenses especially leica and pentax ones is a sheer joy. The FA31mm f/1.8 fits beautifully on a ME super, so does the FA77. the K50mm f/1.2 is front heavy but it's the fastest lens I work with on SLR's at the moment. - the Leica Noctilux 50mm f/1.0 takes the crown of the fastest lens I use, but the pentax 50mm f/1.2 more than holds it's own against it.

Great post!....
I am not going to get into a film vs digital debate. They are both good with digital being better in some things while film is better at others. Both are tools. Personally I shoot film most of the time and my digital stuff tends to stay home. For some fine film images from various members, click on the link.

:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots

[whatever7]

Film still have better dynamic range. Once I leart to see it its very hard to unseen it.

[Digitalis]

I agree, you can push Ilford Delta 100 to ISO 800 -sure you have to literally cook the film but you got usable results.

[RioRico]

I'm just getting back into film after being away for 8 years, and no darkroom work for 30 years. Why? (Besides being nutz, that is.)

1) I have all these great film cams that just cry out, USE ME! and I can't resist.
1a) I bought too many camera-lots on eBay last year and can't sell them now.
2) As noted, film gives depth and tonality that digital still can't approach.
2a) Expired film, and 135 film in MF cams, produces unexpected results.
-- "Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative." --Oscar Wilde
3) I have a zillion M42 lenses that DEMAND screwmount cams. Good, cheap lenses.
3a) I have 21mm & 24mm lenses that are actually WIDE and only cost US$20 each.
4) Backup: I have a pile of PK-mount lenses that work just fine on my Pentax ZX-M.
5) Hi-Res 4 less: I have 6x6 & 6x9 Zeiss folders that fit into (loose) pants pockets.
6) My bro-in-law is giving me his Bronica system 'cause it isn't worth selling now.
6a) He's also giving me a pile of (expired) 120, 220, and 135 film. Oh goodie!
7) You think & see differently with film. No chimping, no do-overs. Bracket or die.
8) To upgrade film resolution, buy new film. To upgrade digital, buy new camera.
9) Sis gave me a handmade wood 6x9 pinhole cam - I must use it or she'll kill me.
10) I'm bored, I don't work, I can afford this stuff; I'll do whatever the hell I want.

EDIT: Yes, there are supplementary costs and efforts. I'll send a couple dozen color rolls off the Dwayne's for processing and high-res scanning, whilst I re-assemble a film-souping lab and get a reasonable scanner. Then I'll do a lot of B&W film with ordinary and exotic emulsions, just like back in my wasted youth, except that I'll only need darkness to load rolls and do contact printing.

HOW-2 ENLARGE WITHOUT AN ENLARGER: Scan a neg. Inkjet-print it on OHP (overhead projector) transparency film, available at OfficeMax etc. Contact-print THAT on the moody photo paper of your choosing. Easy as cake, eh? And the messy stuff can all be done in a bathroom or kitchen, unmodified but light-tight.

HOW-2 TINTYPE: Take that OHP negative, probably 8x10". Get an 8x10 picture frame, with glass. Line the back with tinfoil. Mount the OHP neg on that. Insert into frame behind glass. Voila! Of course, you can do this with digital pics too, but why pollute the experience?

[RioRico]

In your blog post, and in responses above, are bewailings of the lack of instant feedback, and lack of photo data ("no EXIF"). There are simple solutions: 1) process your own film right away, and 2) take notes. Copious notes.

I was a software engineer; I didn't write down notes, didn't have to, I let computers do that for me. My father was a mechanical engineer and he took detailed notes. Good thing, as his job was routing gas pipelines -- you don't want those built wrong because someone isn't paying attention.

Dad started shooting around 1936, and he noted everything about every photo he took. He used one camera, first an old Kodak 6x9 folder, then a Minolta Autocord TLR; and one film, Verichrome Pan; and one light meter, an old Weston. He noted every exposure reading, every camera setting, time and date and place. He souped his own film, printed his own paper, as soon as possible after shooting. His B&W pictures were ALWAYS technically perfect, well-composed, well-lit. He won prizes. He paid attention.

He worked 40 years for a public utility, 1946-1986. When he retired, he bought a TTL-metering film camera and shot Kodacolor, and stopped taking notes - and it showed. He sent the film out to a cheap lab and got cheap color prints. His photos went from precise to sloppy. He stopped paying attention.

Now I'm getting back into film, not just with TTL 135 SLRs, but also hand-metered hand-focused 135 and 6x6 and 6x9 folders. I find that to use manual cameras right, I have to pay attention, have to take notes. And I have to soup my own film too, cause I ain't rich nor professional. No, I won't toss out the K20D. But film has a way of concentrating consciousness, accentuating awareness. You gotta think before you shoot. What a concept!

[tranq78]

Originally Posted by RioRico

He noted every exposure reading, every camera setting, time and date and place.

That's exactly what I do right now. Sometimes I even sketch out the lighting arrangements. Plus whenever I learn something new, I transcribe my notes onto the print and put it in some albums I've set aside for reference.

It's amazing how fast my learning curve progressed once I took notes and reviewed them afterwards.

The most important thing note taking has given me is the ability to previsualize an image. For me, that's the difference between making a photograph versus taking a snapshot.

[wll]

Originally Posted by Robert S Donovan

I borrowed a ZX-5n and shot some film for the first time in 10 years. I was surprised at how much better I have progressed in my camera handling ability since the last time I shot film but came away reassured that digital is the best choice for me for 99% of what I use photography for. The filmcurious can click over to my latest blog article for the complete run down.

Cheers!

I have the same film camera in mint shape and it is a beauty ! ----- but:

I can't see myself ever going back to film. For ME digital is what I use. I shoot, process right away, and can store or send images anywhere in the wold in a matter of minutes. Image quality is very, very fine for MY needs and I can't see myself changing.

The ONLY thing that digi does not have yet, and they are getting there, is the dynamic range of film ... but I think in a few short years, maybe less it will be the same or better. JMHO


wll

[monochrome]

Originally Posted by tranq78

That's exactly what I do right now. Sometimes I even sketch out the lighting arrangements. Plus whenever I learn something new, I transcribe my notes onto the print and put it in some albums I've set aside for reference.

It's amazing how fast my learning curve progressed once I took notes and reviewed them afterwards.

The most important thing note taking has given me is the ability to previsualize an image. For me, that's the difference between making a photograph versus taking a snapshot.

Shooting in manual with the K10D has a similar effect.

1. I slow down and think about the composition, lighting and EV
2. I set the camera, rather than the camera setting me
3. I learn from the notes

[RioRico]

Originally Posted by wll

The ONLY thing that digi does not have yet, and they are getting there, is the dynamic range of film ... but I think in a few short years, maybe less it will be the same or better.

Digital still can't approach film in resolution and grainlessness, except by spending megacash. To improve analog resolution, buy new film. To improve digital resolution, buy costly new camera. Ouch. With digital, the camera *IS* the film, and you're stuck with its limitations. Sure, you can do fine work within those limits - art needs bounds, either to impose discipline or to have a frame to break out of - but it'll be a long time IMHO before a consumer digital sensor will match the quality of a large sheet of film.

Digital is convenient and fast, easy to play with -- those are its main selling points. Digital is NOT superfine, nor is it always cost- nor time-effective. These are different tools for different jobs. They require different skills and types of discipline, different modes of seeing and thinking. I don't toss out my acoustic guitar just because an electric is louder. I don't abandon a calligraphy pen because felt-tips are faster and cheaper. The more tools, the merrier.

[jgredline]

Originally Posted by monochrome

Shooting in manual with the K10D has a similar effect.

1. I slow down and think about the composition, lighting and EV
2. I set the camera, rather than the camera setting me
3. I learn from the notes

Yes, I agree. I just received my new to me SP2 and the meter was not working in it, but no problem. One thing that shooting film has taught me is how to read the light, first and foremost. secondly, I would bet that most people have no idea what affect aperture setting has on their image and what it does. How does shutter speed affect the overall look at what your shooting. So going back to my sp2 and no meter. No problem for me. I set my camera based on what little I do know and my results where pretty spotmatic SP2 on

[elkarrde]

Originally Posted by jgredline

I set my camera based on what little I do know and my results where pretty spotmatic SP2 on

my spotmatic results showed two stops of overexposure.

it appears that i am constantly consistently overexposing photos for good two stops when i'm using cameras with non-working (or inconsistent, like in my SP) lightmeters, it seems i'm underestimating film i'm shooting "a bit".
so i really found new love for that red LED overexposure warning.

[Robert S Donovan]

Just for the record, I wrote this post because I have run across a number of people who have expressed an interest in getting back into film. The point of my post was to point out that film requires a commitment and a different kind of mindset than shooting digital. My concern is that too many folks will pick up an old film camera, shoot it like they do their DSLR, become disappointed at the results, cost, quality, etc., and not give it another thought. As this thread has proved, shooting film requires a commitment and a willingness to do whatever it takes to get it right.

For me, I have been there and done that- detailed shot notes, bathroom darkroom, printing, scanning, and the lot. As I said in my blog post, for film to work for me the entire experience will have to be considerably different than what I get with the digital workflow I use today with my DSLR. Shooting the ZX-5n and processing my film to digital scans at Sam's Club isn't it. I'm sure there's another bathroom darkroom in my not-so-distant future