Considering film for the first time...

travlpix · 03-06-2008, 10:22 AM

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.

APEHAUS · 03-06-2008, 02:33 PM

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.

Tom M · 03-06-2008, 02:57 PM

Buy my K10D and go digital. You'll be happy you did and so will I

APEHAUS · 03-06-2008, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Tom M

Buy my K10D and go digital. You'll be happy you did and so will I

You're not helping

Mike Cash · 03-07-2008, 04:44 AM

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.

garth1948 · 03-07-2008, 05:07 AM

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

**Buffy** · 03-07-2008, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by R.ticle One

But for some reason I'm suddenly finding myself drawn to film, too...

Understandable, I think, especially for B & W.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

mel · 03-07-2008, 08:50 AM

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.

**Buffy** · 03-07-2008, 10:25 AM

Quote:

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.

APEHAUS · 03-07-2008, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by mel

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)

Tom M · 03-07-2008, 10:50 AM

I'll add as well that in 8 weeks I'll be darting about England and Spain with the K10D and the K1000.

scribble · 03-07-2008, 08:00 PM

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.

R.ticle One · 03-08-2008, 05:18 AM

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.

Originally posted by scribble

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.

J.Scott · 03-08-2008, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

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.

heatherslightbox · 03-19-2008, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by APEHAUS

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

03-06-2008, 10:22 AM	#16
travlpix 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
APEHAUS Forum Member 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.

03-07-2008, 10:25 AM	#24
Buffy Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Greater Boston area, Massachusetts Posts: 389	K1000 Quote: 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.

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	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	4	03-19-2009 08:06 AM
First time with B&W Film	miniheli	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	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

03-06-2008, 02:57 PM	#18
Tom M Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Lincoln Park, NJ Photos: Gallery Posts: 780	Buy my K10D and go digital. You'll be happy you did and so will I

03-06-2008, 03:03 PM	#19
APEHAUS Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Whittier, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 93	Originally posted by Tom M 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
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	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
garth1948 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
Buffy Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Greater Boston area, Massachusetts Posts: 389	Originally posted by R.ticle One But for some reason I'm suddenly finding myself drawn to film, too... Understandable, I think, especially for B & W. Quote: 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. Quote: 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. Quote: 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 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, 10:33 AM	#25
APEHAUS Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Whittier, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 93	Originally posted by mel 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
Tom M Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Lincoln Park, NJ Photos: Gallery Posts: 780	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
scribble Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Kentville, NS Photos: Gallery Posts: 208	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
R.ticle One 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. Originally posted by scribble 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
J.Scott Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,675	Originally posted by Mike Cash 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
heatherslightbox Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Gainesville, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,599	Originally posted by APEHAUS 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