Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-06-2008, 10:22 AM   #16
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Stamford CT
Posts: 2
Film.....

Most everything that can be said on this, probably already has. But I'm new here and anxious to make a post....

Learning the basics of exposure, etc., w/ a digital set to manual mode is great -- mistakes are cheap, if you don't count the cost of the camera -- but nothing teaches you as quickly as laying out cash to the lab and finding 36 really lousy exposures on the film because of a basic error -- say, using the wrong sync socket on an older camera, or not checking DOF by using the preset lever and getting a tack-sharp pic when you wanted selective focus.

Yes, I learned on film, but when I did folks considered 35mm an amateur format, so if you'd told them one day we'd shoot without film ... well, you can imagine.

Don't worry about chemicals unless you're shooting traditional B&W film, e.g., Tri-X. Processing it yourself is best, but unless you do it all the time can be hit-and-miss; at least that's my experience, but maybe I'm not as fastidious as some folks. You can send B&W to a lab for just processing, then scan it yourself, too.

I shoot C41, take the film to the lab for processing but not printing; my local guy does it for $3/roll, in an hour. I edit the negs and scan the frames I want at home. Shoot color, and you can convert to B&W w/Photoshop if that's what you want. It's isn't quite as good as Tri-X or other traditional silver, but I've found the chromogenic film scans better, and if you're printing on an Epson photo printer or similar will look as good as scanned silver halide.

For a few bucks more, you can get all the frames scanned onto a CD at the lab, too.

In any case, try film; at least you'll know.

As for the Pentax 67, I think the original poster was referring to its weight and bulk. I bought one, shot about 10 rolls, then got tired of lugging it around and traded it for something else. The images were good, but no better than, maybe not as good as, those I get from my old Rolleiflex F. But if you need interchangeable lenses, maybe the size won't bother you.

Enough from me.

Best wishes,

Mike Smith

OK, enough from me.

03-06-2008, 02:33 PM   #17
Forum Member
APEHAUS's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Whittier, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 93
To digitize or not to digitize...

I've had this debate for a long time with myself. Film or digital?

Since 2001 or so I've been using my ZX-M for all my shots. Within the last two years my interest in taking serious, technically proficient photographs has really heated up. I've taken all my rolls since 2006 to one Target store or another, to have them processed and scanned, all for about $3 a roll. Problem is I've encountered several inconsistencies with them, ranging from weird image sizes, to dirty negatives, to scratched negatives.

All along I've said 'oh no, no digital for me, I like to kick it old school.' I had it in mind to home process my film, and scan the negatives myself. But, still, I'm intrigued by digital, and I can't find anyone I know, so far, to tell me NOT to get a digital camera. At this point, then the question becomes, 'will I take BETTER pictures with a digital camera?'

So I'm faced with the following:
1) buy a digital camera, in this case a K10D, and use my film camera topursue learning the darkroom process for the 'artsy' aspect.
2) invest in a film scanner, ala the Microtek M1 Pro, for instance, and develop and scan my own film.

Like woof mentioned, I don't like the 'shoot 30 images and pick the best one' that comes along with a digital camera. I'd rather the one or two shots I make be the best ones. But perhaps from what I've already learned from film shooting, I might be more conscientious of the digital pictures I take, where each one will be exactly as I intended them to be...

This is the stuff that keeps me up at night.
03-06-2008, 02:57 PM   #18
Veteran Member
Tom M's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lincoln Park, NJ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 782
Buy my K10D and go digital. You'll be happy you did and so will I
03-06-2008, 03:03 PM   #19
Forum Member
APEHAUS's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Whittier, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 93
QuoteOriginally posted by Tom M Quote
Buy my K10D and go digital. You'll be happy you did and so will I
You're not helping

03-07-2008, 04:44 AM   #20
Veteran Member
Mike Cash's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,952
The great thing, and something it is important not to forget, is that film vs. digital is not an "either-or" proposition. You're allowed to do both.
03-07-2008, 05:07 AM   #21
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Perth Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 293
Best 35mm film has around 4000 pixels horizontal resolution - determined this professionally in an image processing job.
35mm film camera with any film tops out at around 12 megapixels per image.
Pentax K20D at 14 megapixels surpasses any film resolution.
You learn anything through recognising mistakes.
Digital photography enables cheap and instant learning.
Garth
03-07-2008, 07:51 AM   #22
Site Supporter
Buffy's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Greater Boston area, Massachusetts
Posts: 303
QuoteOriginally posted by R.ticle One Quote
But for some reason I'm suddenly finding myself drawn to film, too...
Understandable, I think, especially for B & W.

QuoteQuote:
But - I still think film is probably the best damn way to really "learn"
I couldn't disagree more. I think film is the most expensive way to learn.

QuoteQuote:
So, I guess what I'm asking is, if I ever go for film...it seems like the ME Super is a very popular choice. Would you think this a good one for someone's first film SLR who's never done it before?
That's a question with a very subjective answer. Some would say the PZ-1p since it's controls are very similar to the K10D. On the other hand the K1000 has a near cult-like following. It depends on the feature set you want and your budget.

I bought an MZ-S because I am nearly blind and needed the best autofocus I could get and, for reasons I can't really describe, I dislike the *ist.

QuoteQuote:
What about any of Pentax's Medium Format offerings? (Probably quite costly).
Perhaps not as costly as you'd think, film-wise. MF Digital is expensive, though.

The problem with MF is that it is so good you'll never want anything else ... except perhaps large format.

Buffy

Last edited by Buffy; 03-07-2008 at 10:17 AM. Reason: Spelling errors.
03-07-2008, 08:50 AM   #23
mel
Veteran Member
mel's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,531
I wanna jump in now. But be forwarned, my opinion is rather biased.

In regards to cameras, if going from digital to film I'd go more primitive rather than try to reproduce all the options you have with your digital.

I have a K1000 and a ZX-50. I FAR prefer the K1000 for film. Having manual everything on your camera really forces you to understand the relationships between shutter speed and aperture for various effects. I know with the more advanced film cameras you can easily set them to manual mode for the same thing but there's something, for me at least, about NOT having that option and having to do it the "hard" way. The split-screen focusing makes it very easy to focus. I have more out of focus shots with the AF on the ZX-50 than I do with my K1000. I also think it just takes better shots. But that's probably my bias. (I think I saw a mention of cult-like following?)

I'm taking a trip to London next week and I'm taking of course the K10D but I'm also taking one film body, the K1000.

03-07-2008, 10:25 AM   #24
Site Supporter
Buffy's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Greater Boston area, Massachusetts
Posts: 303
K1000

QuoteQuote:
there's something, for me at least, about NOT having that option and having to do it the "hard" way.
It appeals to me, too--a purely mechanical (save for the meter) camera. I find something elegant in it's utter simplicity. Sadly, I don't think the split-screen focus aid is enough help for me.
03-07-2008, 10:33 AM   #25
Forum Member
APEHAUS's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Whittier, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 93
QuoteOriginally posted by mel Quote
I wanna jump in now. But be forwarned, my opinion is rather biased.

In regards to cameras, if going from digital to film I'd go more primitive rather than try to reproduce all the options you have with your digital.

I have a K1000 and a ZX-50. I FAR prefer the K1000 for film. Having manual everything on your camera really forces you to understand the relationships between shutter speed and aperture for various effects. I know with the more advanced film cameras you can easily set them to manual mode for the same thing but there's something, for me at least, about NOT having that option and having to do it the "hard" way. The split-screen focusing makes it very easy to focus. I have more out of focus shots with the AF on the ZX-50 than I do with my K1000. I also think it just takes better shots. But that's probably my bias. (I think I saw a mention of cult-like following?)

I'm taking a trip to London next week and I'm taking of course the K10D but I'm also taking one film body, the K1000.
I can see where you're coming from. I like the 'hard way' approach too. If given the choice I'd rather do things myself, I mean, I roast my own coffee, why shouldn't I process my own photographs, right? As I stand now, I am interested in the 'artsy' aspect of photography, I like 'lo-fi' images and the 'characteristics' of certain film types. I feel that digital will make my images too 'hi-fi' and clean. I'm not sure I want that right now. (yes I know I can make it look like I want in Photoshop, but that seems kinda like cheating)
03-07-2008, 10:50 AM   #26
Veteran Member
Tom M's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lincoln Park, NJ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 782
I'll add as well that in 8 weeks I'll be darting about England and Spain with the K10D and the K1000.
03-07-2008, 08:00 PM   #27
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wolfville, NS
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 197
I have to agree with the above post. Cost is a great incentive to slow down and consider your images, but you can apply those same rules to digital. Its pretty straightforward to do that now, and to be honest, if you just capture a bunch of rather poor digital images that you delete later, why even both caring the weight in the first place and just enjoy yourself?

Oh, and as for the $1 per 6x7 images...

Try working 8x10, or even 4x5 for that matter. 4x5 Astia is $7 a sheet now, and $5 a sheet just for processing, not for scanning or anything else. But if you care to also pay to drum scan the stuff, 1gb file sizes will be coming back home to you! And are they ever gorgeous!

Oh, one last thought on film vs digital.

You may want to start looking at how the sky compares with the same exposure. You will notice your film will capture a lot more in the way of colour range. And also look for the tonality shifts, and where the image gets harsh gradients. Thats the true power left in the film market.
03-08-2008, 05:18 AM   #28
Junior Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 45
Original Poster
Yowch! That's pricey. But a 1 GB file - massive!

One of my friends always ragged on against digital images. I understood his points (he's a film guy all the way), but he didn't seem to take into consideration the cost of making mistakes on film when you're starting out and may not have a lot of cash to spend.

R.

QuoteOriginally posted by scribble Quote
I have to agree with the above post. Cost is a great incentive to slow down and consider your images, but you can apply those same rules to digital. Its pretty straightforward to do that now, and to be honest, if you just capture a bunch of rather poor digital images that you delete later, why even both caring the weight in the first place and just enjoy yourself?

Oh, and as for the $1 per 6x7 images...

Try working 8x10, or even 4x5 for that matter. 4x5 Astia is $7 a sheet now, and $5 a sheet just for processing, not for scanning or anything else. But if you care to also pay to drum scan the stuff, 1gb file sizes will be coming back home to you! And are they ever gorgeous!

Oh, one last thought on film vs digital.

You may want to start looking at how the sky compares with the same exposure. You will notice your film will capture a lot more in the way of colour range. And also look for the tonality shifts, and where the image gets harsh gradients. Thats the true power left in the film market.
03-08-2008, 05:34 AM   #29
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,675
QuoteOriginally posted by Mike Cash Quote
The great thing, and something it is important not to forget, is that film vs. digital is not an "either-or" proposition. You're allowed to do both.
Mike is right. Personally, I live blissfully in both worlds.
03-19-2008, 03:37 PM   #30
Veteran Member
heatherslightbox's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gainesville, FL
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,594
QuoteOriginally posted by APEHAUS Quote
Since 2001 or so I've been using my ZX-M for all my shots. Within the last two years my interest in taking serious, technically proficient photographs has really heated up. I've taken all my rolls since 2006 to one Target store or another, to have them processed and scanned, all for about $3 a roll. Problem is I've encountered several inconsistencies with them, ranging from weird image sizes, to dirty negatives, to scratched negatives.
I say, go ahead and get the scanner. I plan on picking up one myself one of these days. As for the developing, if there's a professional lab in your area, then take it there and have them develop it. Since they're doing the same thing for the pros in the area, they know what they're doing, so you shouldn't have any of the problems that you've been having with Target.

Heather
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, film, heck, k100d, lot, slr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
help! pentax K-M requires adjust date time all time carl zeiss Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 10-05-2012 07:27 PM
Black & White My very first time using a film camera dorkatebluecandy Post Your Photos! 14 09-01-2010 09:52 AM
K1000 first time film user jezza323 Pentax Film SLR Discussion 4 03-19-2009 08:06 AM
First time with B&W Film miniheli Pentax Film SLR Discussion 9 11-11-2008 02:23 PM
long time since I last posted some b&w film shot with k-1000 gratefulbruce Post Your Photos! 0 08-07-2008 10:21 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:31 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top