Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-05-2018, 09:34 AM   #16
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 66
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by CarlJF Quote
And this is also my conclusion. I don't want to be misunderstood. I haven't say it could not be interesting to learn film photography, if only out of curiosity and to feel what it is/was like. If someone wants to try film just for the sake of learning it, why not, as anything else ? I just don't see any great lesson that could be learned on film that couldn't be learned on digital in a more efficient way.

It's somewhat similar to people working on antique cars. They don't do it to become better drivers, and knowledge learned is of limited practical use on a modern car. But there's nothing wrong if someone likes to work on these antiques if they like it and it makes them happy.

In the end, it depends on what the OP have in mind in terms of "benefits" and "lessons" to be learned.
I was toying with the concept of placing limitations on me that would force me to consider my composition and other factors more closely in order to get a shot I'm happy with. I have nothing to compare this to directly but I was wondering if the convenience factor associated with digital made me a bit lazy in my fundamentals. In hindsight, I realize that I could probably learn the same lessons I could in film; just differently.

However, I just have a vast curiosity with trying new things in general; especially in photography. And for what is being offered (some film comes with the deal as well), it seemed like a low entry to barrier; especially since some of those other items could be used with my more modern equipment. Some of those old 50mms get a lot of recognition. I suppose the other thing that triggered this was the fact I picked up an old Tak 135mm not too long ago and was having a lot of fun playing with a lens older than myself. But yeah, even if I didn't enjoy using film, I'd still benefit from this transaction.

04-05-2018, 09:38 AM   #17
Veteran Member
CarlJF's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Quebec City
Posts: 1,185
QuoteOriginally posted by pres589 Quote
...you can't just "spray and pray" with film. It's costly and it's a hassle. I definitely spend more time framing the shot, and not taking shots that seemed okay until I saw them in the viewfinder, and realized that my composition just wasn't there enough to justify taking the picture. I got my first film negatives & scans back last night from shooting my first few rolls of film after a decade with digital... lazy focusing is not rewarded with this thing. I also need to learn about exposure, as many of the shots were under-exposed. But I really want to keep improving and I think film will help me do that.
But there's nothing there than can't be done just as well with a digital camera. Nobody prevents anyone to set camera in single shot mode, AF-S (or MF), take care of the composition, exposure, and focusing, even with the latest digital cameras... It's not because a camera allows "spray and pray" that it has to be used in this way all the time...
04-05-2018, 09:45 AM   #18
Veteran Member
E-man's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 678
Being in my mid-50s, I started out taking pictures in the film era and have only fully made the transition to digital within the past five years. My 35mm SLR cameras were all manual focus Minoltas. Even though digital affords me the ability to shoot indiscriminately—what I refer to as the machine gun approach—I still find myself trying to make each shot count, which I think of as the sniper approach. Back in my newspaper days (1987-1991), the mantra we used to justify taking lots of shots of a single subject was "film is cheap". These days, with the rise of digital photography, film has become an increasingly niche product and has thus lost its commodity status and associated pricing so that no longer holds true. When shooting with film, you really do have to think carefully about every shot, both in terms of composition and exposure. That said, it has been almost 30 years since I have set foot in a darkroom and the experience of editing photos on a laptop simply doesn't match it. There was something about darkroom photography that made me feel sort of like an ancient alchemist. Editing photos with a few clicks of a mouse, I might as well be surfing a Web site. So as to your question of whether that camera outfit is worth purchasing, go for it if the price is right and learn what you can from the film experience. It could well make you a better digital shooter.
04-05-2018, 09:51 AM   #19
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pres589's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Wichita, KS
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,497
QuoteOriginally posted by CarlJF Quote
But there's nothing there than can't be done just as well with a digital camera. Nobody prevents anyone to set camera in single shot mode, AF-S (or MF), take care of the composition, exposure, and focusing, even with the latest digital cameras... It's not because a camera allows "spray and pray" that it has to be used in this way all the time...
I never suggested that the only way to use a DSLR or similar is to shoot the thing as fast and as often as it will allow. I'm saying, you really can't do that if you wanted to with film, unless you're got piles of money and don't mind reloading every 36 (or fewer) shots.

In my very limited, take it with a grain of salt experience, the film body doesn't help you as much as the DSLR. The split prism focusing screen is about the only real advantage I've got with my film body vs. my K-5 II. Well, that and size, the film body is smaller. In any case, stop-down metering with an old lens is nicer on the K-5 II (I am more likely to get the level of exposure I want), I can "chimp" to find out how I'm generally doing if I want to vs. sending film off to a lab to find out well after the fact, and I can adjust ISO on the fly vs. having the whole roll shot at some sensitivity. I simply have to think more, trust my eye more, and consider what limited information I'm getting from the camera really means. With film I'm just flat-out more involved in the process.

04-05-2018, 09:59 AM   #20
Veteran Member
CarlJF's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Quebec City
Posts: 1,185
QuoteOriginally posted by 24thNomad Quote
I was toying with the concept of placing limitations on me that would force me to consider my composition and other factors more closely in order to get a shot I'm happy with. I have nothing to compare this to directly but I was wondering if the convenience factor associated with digital made me a bit lazy in my fundamentals. In hindsight, I realize that I could probably learn the same lessons I could in film; just differently.
To learn and improve the fundamentals, digital is much more efficient IMHO. Mainly because there's immediate feedback on the changes done to your settings or setup. It's more a question of working with a specific goal in mind and working toward this result than a question of digital vs film. The fundamentals are the same with both. A typewriter will not make you writes better than a word processor...

QuoteOriginally posted by 24thNomad Quote
However, I just have a vast curiosity with trying new things in general; especially in photography. And for what is being offered (some film comes with the deal as well), it seemed like a low entry to barrier; especially since some of those other items could be used with my more modern equipment. Some of those old 50mms get a lot of recognition. I suppose the other thing that triggered this was the fact I picked up an old Tak 135mm not too long ago and was having a lot of fun playing with a lens older than myself. But yeah, even if I didn't enjoy using film, I'd still benefit from this transaction.
As said above, there's nothing wrong with curiosity. Just try it and see for yourself what it's like.
04-05-2018, 10:23 AM - 1 Like   #21
Veteran Member
johnha's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Lancashire, UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,155
Other have alluded to the differences (or otherwise) of analogue & digital approaches. I've shot film for decades and now prefer it over digital. There are reasons to try film:
1) Many of those who have shot only digital seem to have an opinion that film is really difficult to get results from (harder yes, perhaps because you can't chimp). Shooting film will dispel this opinion, there's a learning curve, but once you're on your way everything starts to fall in to place.
2) Unless you're shooting a FF DSLR, film offers a cheap way into FF photography. This is a big difference over APSC DSLRs, narrower depth of field offering more creative potential* and a different perspective through a bigger viewfinder.

* I don't understand why APSC lenses are slower than their film equivalents - they should be faster, having only to cover a smaller area.

There will be bits you lose that make things harder: SR, high ISOs (ISO 400 is considered a fast film, the fastest film is generally ISO 3200 and they're very grainy) - both of these mean that you need to keep an eye on your shutter speed (1/15th second usually causes camera shake unless using a tripod). Many digital shooters let the camera decide the ISO and are shooting at much higher ISOs without even realising it.

IMHO the benefits of film will make you a better photographer.

John.
04-05-2018, 10:28 AM   #22
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 66
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by johnha Quote
Other have alluded to the differences (or otherwise) of analogue & digital approaches. I've shot film for decades and now prefer it over digital. There are reasons to try film:
1) Many of those who have shot only digital seem to have an opinion that film is really difficult to get results from (harder yes, perhaps because you can't chimp). Shooting film will dispel this opinion, there's a learning curve, but once you're on your way everything starts to fall in to place.
2) Unless you're shooting a FF DSLR, film offers a cheap way into FF photography. This is a big difference over APSC DSLRs, narrower depth of field offering more creative potential* and a different perspective through a bigger viewfinder.

* I don't understand why APSC lenses are slower than their film equivalents - they should be faster, having only to cover a smaller area.

There will be bits you lose that make things harder: SR, high ISOs (ISO 400 is considered a fast film, the fastest film is generally ISO 3200 and they're very grainy) - both of these mean that you need to keep an eye on your shutter speed (1/15th second usually causes camera shake unless using a tripod). Many digital shooters let the camera decide the ISO and are shooting at much higher ISOs without even realising it.

IMHO the benefits of film will make you a better photographer.

John.
I guess one of those roadblocks wouldn't be that much of a roadblock to me. I tend to shoot in Av or M a lot and I rarely let my camera choose my ISO; I usually do it myself. One of the first things I did when I picked up my first setup was learn to shoot completely manually. I honestly helped me tremendously.

04-05-2018, 10:44 AM   #23
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Just1MoreDave's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Aurora, CO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,331
I certainly didn't learn a lot from film, and I would describe my experience just like Carl's post.. But people don't all learn stuff in the same way. That's why Alex gets different results - same teacher, sometimes even the same students, at least similar goals. For someone who describes themselves as a hobbyist, it is worth trying just to discover "hey, this film stuff is annoying". Cost is fairly low, you end up with an A50/1.7 and some knowledge.
04-05-2018, 11:03 AM - 4 Likes   #24
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,524
QuoteOriginally posted by CarlJF Quote
And this is also my conclusion. I don't want to be misunderstood. I haven't say it could not be interesting to learn film photography, if only out of curiosity and to feel what it is/was like. If someone wants to try film just for the sake of learning it, why not, as anything else ? I just don't see any great lesson that could be learned on film that couldn't be learned on digital in a more efficient way.

It's somewhat similar to people working on antique cars. They don't do it to become better drivers, and knowledge learned is of limited practical use on a modern car. But there's nothing wrong if someone likes to work on these antiques if they like it and it makes them happy.

In the end, it depends on what the OP have in mind in terms of "benefits" and "lessons" to be learned.
And I didn't say you said it could not be interesting...I understand what you're saying, but respectfully disagree. The working on antique car analogy doesn't quite work for me unless we're talking about repairing film vs digital cameras. For a car analogy, perhaps driving a manual transmission and choke without a map in a foreign city might be a better analogy vs. auto trans with a nav and voice assist.

The biggest difference I see is "vision" and "intentionality". Imagine shooting with a digital camera where:
a) Each memory card costs $5 and holds 12-36 shots. You can only use that memory card once.
b) To process and see your shots, you have to take it or mail it to a lab, drop it off, and go back and pay $5-$20 to see those 12-36 shots (if you don't want to spend hours developing, printing, and/or scanning it yourself). All this can take anywhere from an hour to weeks.
c) You can change your "sensor" (film emulsion), but each sensor essentially has a native ISO, and the color/contrast/tonality/dynamic range/noise rendering of each "sensor" is different, and many sensors only shoot black and white.
d) Processing and post-processing is not dominated by Adobe. Handful of legit color options and dozens of monochrome options. Lots of customization by the user tweaking their own codes.

It's harder, more time consuming, easier to screw up, and demands patience and forethought. With each failure or mistake, the pain is greater. With each success the elation and sense of satisfaction and achievement is higher. And for us using darkrooms, some folks hate sitting at the computer but love the isolation, standing in the darkroom with safelights and the smell of photo chems, etc. Of course, the opposite is true as well. The experience is as different as being a studio photographer with 'total' control vs. street or nature photography where one is making and the other is capturing.

But....totally agree that "in the end, it depends on what the OP have in mind in terms of "benefits" and "lessons" to be learned." I was trying to share with the OP the potential benefits. Obviously for the masses, the convenience, speed, and perceived economy of digital is the way to go.

---------- Post added 04-05-18 at 12:23 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by johnha Quote
Unless you're shooting a FF DSLR, film offers a cheap way into FF photography. This is a big difference over APSC DSLRs, narrower depth of field offering more creative potential* and a different perspective through a bigger viewfinder.
John.
John makes a good point here and it is the main reason I still shoot film (as well as digital). I can't justify a digital MF like the 645D or Z, but with my 645N, I can continue to shoot with 120 film that is larger than the digital 645D/Z sensor. I love the aspect ratio, the depth of field, the easy to see contact sheets, reduced grain and high res due to less magnification.
04-05-2018, 11:56 AM - 2 Likes   #25
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
robgski's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,733
If you do purchase camera, you may find that you become a more meticulous photographer who pays more attention to every aspect of composing the shot and choosing the proper setting to get what yourceye sees captured in that shot, knowing you only have a few shots per roll of film. I know those habits I developed under the limitations of not having much money to buy film nor the wherewithal to develop it on my own made me a more conscientious photographer. I rarely shoot film now, but I have a k1000 and an ME that I cannot bear to part with.
04-05-2018, 12:28 PM   #26
Veteran Member
mcgregni's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 2,603
QuoteOriginally posted by CarlJF Quote
Outside of learning how things were done in the film era, there's nothing to learn or benefits from a film era camera if you want to improve your photography.

But you can have an idea of what is was to shoot slide with your K3-II. Set the camera in jpg only, select a picture mode, set the ISO at max 400, the WB to sunny, and keep these settings for the next 36 shots, no matter the situation. You can change these settings only after each 36 shots (you can use a 256MB or 512MB SD card). For each of these 36 shots, give 20$ to someone (film and developing weren't free). Use MF and only M, Av and Tv exposure modes. If you use a flash, you can only use it in manual mode. Shut down the back LCD, chimping is completely forbidden, you can only look at the pictures once they're downloaded to your computer, and you can look at them only 2-3 days after they were taken. No PP is possible, not even cropping. Enjoy!

Brilliant Carl

Whats amazing though is that there are people around who relate to those exact procedures as equating to "real photography", as opposed to the "fakery" of digital and "photoshopping".
04-05-2018, 12:41 PM - 2 Likes   #27
Veteran Member
CarlJF's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Quebec City
Posts: 1,185
QuoteOriginally posted by robgski Quote
If you do purchase camera, you may find that you become a more meticulous photographer who pays more attention to every aspect of composing the shot and choosing the proper setting to get what yourceye sees captured in that shot, knowing you only have a few shots per roll of film. I know those habits I developed under the limitations of not having much money to buy film nor the wherewithal to develop it on my own made me a more conscientious photographer. I rarely shoot film now, but I have a k1000 and an ME that I cannot bear to part with.
And this is a double-edged sword.These limitations also meant that, in the film era, people were mostly playing it safe. Going with the "good enough with 100% succes rate" rather than taking a chance with a more ambitious or creative shot but with a low chance of success, or needing to shoot an whole roll hoping to get a good one. This is another reason why I think film isn't that good to learn or improve one's skills in photography: film doesn't push you to go outside your comfort zone or experiment new things, because failure has a significant finacial cost. This added to the fact that the low level of available shots often means to decide to pass on what could have been a good shot just in case a better opportunity arise, which often doesn't happened. Unless being professionals having their consumables paid for by their employer or through payment by clients, most people couldn't afford a lot of experimentations or trial and errors. Once you got something that work decently enough, you tended to stick with it. At least, this was my case and also for most people at the club I was at the time. The only guy who could afford to shoot a lot was a lab owner that has bulk fims at cost and processing for basically free... But for the average amateur, 1-2 rolls a month was about it, leading to very slow learning and progress in skills compared to digital.
04-05-2018, 01:02 PM - 1 Like   #28
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 151
I shoot film because it's a superior medium, you should try it simply because of that. I think the Super program and 50/1.7 are worth 50-75 if they work.


Analog Film versus Digital Photography - Page 4 - PentaxForums.com

Last edited by Ranchu; 04-05-2018 at 01:14 PM.
04-05-2018, 01:17 PM   #29
Pentaxian
dsmithhfx's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,113
QuoteOriginally posted by Ranchu Quote
I shoot film because it's a superior medium
I shoot film because I already own film gear, I'm too cheap to get kitted up with the digital equivalent, and too stupid to know that were I to do so, I'd probably wind up saving money and a whole lot of heartache.
04-05-2018, 01:18 PM   #30
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 151
QuoteOriginally posted by rdenney Quote
You forgot to set the camera to high contrast, or move the tone curve end points in editing software to clip the histogram down to six stops (for slide film emulation) or 9 stops (for negative film emulation), with an S-shaped curve in between.
Negative film has 15 stops of DR, including an S curve, there's no digital that can accomplish that. Even if there was a digital camera that actually produced 15 stops, adding the S curve would add midtone contrast. Negative film decreases midtone contrast .7/1

---------- Post added 04-05-18 at 02:19 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by dsmithhfx Quote
I shoot film because I already own film gear, I'm too cheap to get kitted up with the digital equivalent, and too stupid to know that were I to do so, I'd probably wind up saving money.
You're doing the right thing, dsmithhfx, your pictures look great.
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!
accessories, analogy, benefits to film, camera, car, color, composition, contrast, curve, depth, dr, era, exposure, ff, field, film, film era, flash, format, images, insight, mamiya rb, op, photo, photography, photos, scan, shots, sinar, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
General discussion about 50-55mm lenses - film era. cieslikowski Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 05-06-2016 12:42 PM
How much did film bodies and film-era lenses originally cost? Outis Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 90 12-30-2015 01:19 AM
Film-era lenses on FF cameras utak Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 04-08-2013 02:26 AM
Film Era vs. Digital Era lenses for K-x steveknj Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 23 08-19-2011 05:36 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:07 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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