Film Constipation?

stevebrot · 11-20-2010, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by SpecialK

It was the film of gods. I used Fujichrome :-)

Steve

**Digitalis** · 11-20-2010, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by SpecialK

It was the film of gods.

I used Tech pan.

Wombat · 11-21-2010, 03:29 AM

Why is it that we have no problem blasting off 300-400 shots in a session with a digital camera but struggle to finish 36 measly frames of film over months (even years, I confess)? Are we too cheap? Too lazy? What is it? I can sit for hours clicking away with an empty film camera just for the sheer pleasure of handling it, but to actually load a film in it and finish it off is torture! I don't understand...

GeneV · 11-21-2010, 09:38 AM

One is a bit more careful when the click is not free.

However, for me it is getting out in the right situation with the right body. I have a lot of film bodies and too many of them with film inside. On top of that, if I am shooting something I know I need right away, or shooting indoors, it is easier to grab a digital body.

stevebrot · 11-21-2010, 10:29 AM

What Gene said...

Steve

stevebrot · 11-21-2010, 10:39 AM

What Gene said...

Steve

Nesster · 11-21-2010, 11:30 AM

In my case it was a combination of the wrong film in the wrong cameras. The best known cure is a new camera or two, of course:

I now have film-diarrhea

newpentaxman · 11-21-2010, 11:49 AM

fortunately there's a cure both...

Nesster · 11-21-2010, 12:20 PM

Lol :d

stevebrot · 11-21-2010, 02:41 PM

Another one bites the dust. I finished the roll of Acros in the Super Program this afternoon doing photos for a tripod/head review.

It is snowing outside, so there should be some opportunity for some B&W work maybe this evening.

Steve

Wombat · 11-22-2010, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by stevebrot

Another one bites the dust. I finished the roll of Acros in the Super Program this afternoon doing photos for a tripod/head review.

It is snowing outside, so there should be some opportunity for some B&W work maybe this evening.

Steve

Do one for me while you're about it, mate. I've actually got as far as loading some film into a couple of tanks, but that was several months ago...

Les

PS It's 35degrees Celsius outside here. Why don't you come on down and warm up a bit?

Votesh · 11-22-2010, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by Nesster

Has anyone resorted to keeping track of what's where - or what went through what camera + lens - on an index card?

I keep a Moleskine notebook with film info in it.
For every roll I go through I record the body used, start and finish dates, general notes about what I took pictures of and any other pertinent info. I mainly do it for record keeping and easy organization and recall of both the analog and digital versions of film pictures, but if I check out my list and see a roll has been in the process of being exposed for too long I'll usually just finish it up ASAP.

Votesh · 11-22-2010, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by Wombat

Why is it that we have no problem blasting off 300-400 shots in a session with a digital camera but struggle to finish 36 measly frames of film over months (even years, I confess)? Are we too cheap? Too lazy? What is it? I can sit for hours clicking away with an empty film camera just for the sheer pleasure of handling it, but to actually load a film in it and finish it off is torture! I don't understand...

Digital leads to obsession over the image presented on/in the LCD. If a shot doesn't come out "right" on that little LCD, I try to get it to until I succeed, or give up. If a shot doesn't come out right on film I don't know about it for at least a few hours, generally much more.

For me, that is the main reason for the difference in number of attempts. I might spend half an hour and dozens of exposures trying to get a "perfect" picture of something with digital, but due to the waiting period with film I'm more inclined to walk away from a subject without "the" shot. If I didn't get the photo I wanted, I won't know until later.

tuco · 11-22-2010, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by Nesster

In my case it was a combination of the wrong film in the wrong cameras. The best known cure is a new camera or two, of course:

That looks like some old 120 Tri-X Pan in that picture. I haven't seen TXP in green for years.

Nesster · 11-23-2010, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by tuco

That looks like some old 120 Tri-X Pan in that picture. I haven't seen TXP in green for years.

Yep, came with the Ikoflex. I'm of two minds about developing it or leaving as is.

11-22-2010, 06:17 AM	#42
Votesh Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 817	Originally posted by Nesster Has anyone resorted to keeping track of what's where - or what went through what camera + lens - on an index card? I keep a Moleskine notebook with film info in it. For every roll I go through I record the body used, start and finish dates, general notes about what I took pictures of and any other pertinent info. I mainly do it for record keeping and easy organization and recall of both the analog and digital versions of film pictures, but if I check out my list and see a roll has been in the process of being exposed for too long I'll usually just finish it up ASAP. Last edited by Votesh; 11-22-2010 at 06:22 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Any horror film buffs know this film?	K-9	General Talk	12	09-24-2010 05:43 PM
Returning to Film: Would I be put-off by using consumer film	pcarfan	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	39	07-06-2010 06:49 AM
Newbie SLR film and film develop qestion	winglik	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	11	06-15-2009 03:13 AM
favourite film camera and other film cameras?	k100d	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	54	03-25-2009 09:13 PM
Walgreen film same as Fujifilm film?	Kentax	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	6	05-15-2008 04:50 PM

11-20-2010, 09:12 PM	#31
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by SpecialK It was the film of gods. I used Fujichrome :-) Steve

11-20-2010, 10:29 PM	#32
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by SpecialK It was the film of gods. I used Tech pan.

11-21-2010, 03:29 AM	#33
Wombat Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 901	Why is it that we have no problem blasting off 300-400 shots in a session with a digital camera but struggle to finish 36 measly frames of film over months (even years, I confess)? Are we too cheap? Too lazy? What is it? I can sit for hours clicking away with an empty film camera just for the sheer pleasure of handling it, but to actually load a film in it and finish it off is torture! I don't understand...

11-21-2010, 09:38 AM	#34
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	One is a bit more careful when the click is not free. However, for me it is getting out in the right situation with the right body. I have a lot of film bodies and too many of them with film inside. On top of that, if I am shooting something I know I need right away, or shooting indoors, it is easier to grab a digital body.

11-21-2010, 10:29 AM	#35
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	What Gene said... Steve

11-21-2010, 10:39 AM	#36
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	What Gene said... Steve

11-21-2010, 11:30 AM	#37
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072 Original Poster	In my case it was a combination of the wrong film in the wrong cameras. The best known cure is a new camera or two, of course: I now have film-diarrhea

11-21-2010, 11:49 AM	#38
newpentaxman Inactive Account Join Date: May 2010 Location: ohio Posts: 218	fortunately there's a cure both...

11-21-2010, 12:20 PM	#39
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072 Original Poster	Lol :d

11-21-2010, 02:41 PM	#40
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Another one bites the dust. I finished the roll of Acros in the Super Program this afternoon doing photos for a tripod/head review. It is snowing outside, so there should be some opportunity for some B&W work maybe this evening. Steve

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-22-2010, 01:17 AM	#41
Wombat Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 901	Originally posted by stevebrot Another one bites the dust. I finished the roll of Acros in the Super Program this afternoon doing photos for a tripod/head review. It is snowing outside, so there should be some opportunity for some B&W work maybe this evening. Steve Do one for me while you're about it, mate. I've actually got as far as loading some film into a couple of tanks, but that was several months ago... Les PS It's 35degrees Celsius outside here. Why don't you come on down and warm up a bit?

11-22-2010, 06:44 AM	#43
Votesh Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 817	Originally posted by Wombat Why is it that we have no problem blasting off 300-400 shots in a session with a digital camera but struggle to finish 36 measly frames of film over months (even years, I confess)? Are we too cheap? Too lazy? What is it? I can sit for hours clicking away with an empty film camera just for the sheer pleasure of handling it, but to actually load a film in it and finish it off is torture! I don't understand... Digital leads to obsession over the image presented on/in the LCD. If a shot doesn't come out "right" on that little LCD, I try to get it to until I succeed, or give up. If a shot doesn't come out right on film I don't know about it for at least a few hours, generally much more. For me, that is the main reason for the difference in number of attempts. I might spend half an hour and dozens of exposures trying to get a "perfect" picture of something with digital, but due to the waiting period with film I'm more inclined to walk away from a subject without "the" shot. If I didn't get the photo I wanted, I won't know until later.

11-22-2010, 08:59 PM	#44
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,023	Originally posted by Nesster In my case it was a combination of the wrong film in the wrong cameras. The best known cure is a new camera or two, of course: That looks like some old 120 Tri-X Pan in that picture. I haven't seen TXP in green for years.

11-23-2010, 10:03 AM	#45
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072 Original Poster	Originally posted by tuco That looks like some old 120 Tri-X Pan in that picture. I haven't seen TXP in green for years. Yep, came with the Ikoflex. I'm of two minds about developing it or leaving as is.