[monochrome]

No, no ... Yaschicas I'm are scrappy enough to have street cred where a Rollei might just be so "everyone-has-that". You need a Ricohflex or Flexaret to really up your hip-game, depending on which continent you'd like to inherit your authentic swagger from.

Ha Ha Ha - see? Total nerd! I don’t need/have cred anyway - I’m just shooting film while I still can. This one will do just fine, thank you very much.

[ChrisPlatt]

I'm not sure swagger is a good thing when there's a heavy camera around your neck...

Chris

[Alex645]

I'm not sure swagger is a good thing when there's a heavy camera around your neck...

Chris

No it isnʻt, but swagger is perfect for hipster camera holsters.

[TwoUptons]

I'm not sure swagger is a good thing when there's a heavy camera around your neck...

Chris

That’s why the TLR is ideal... light enough for swagger.

It’s only the lightweight hipsters doing the dainty Canonets that are making the Yashicas seem heavy.

someone swaggering with a Pentax 67 or a Mamiya RB without falling right over, now that’s impressive.

Staggering, on the other hand, well that’s expected...

-Eric

[Eyewanders]

someone swaggering with a Pentax 67 or a Mamiya RB without falling right over, now that’s impressive.

True there! That's hip-ness bought and paid for.... due diligence. Earned!

---------- Post added 04-08-18 at 01:50 PM ----------

"I couldn't carry my camera easily way before it was popular."

[monochrome]

IMHO the ultimate cool is to be totally unhip. Cool. Take the photos like its every day.

It’s so cold (below freezing) and gray here all I’ve gotten done is scouting locations. Yesterday the Botanical Garden. Today a mid-19th C. River community about an hour north of my house. Crazy neat old houses built chock-a-block up against the limestone bluffs, just crying out for large negatives.

[LesDMess]

A great benefit is free film from generous Pentax Forum members -> Give away: Seven rolls of Kodak Gold Royal 25 ISO. Especially when it is great film that was kept well!


Click for larger version Kodak Royal Gold 25_013


Click for larger version Kodak Royal Gold 25_016

[bjolester]

I have just read this very interesting thread, and cannot stop the urge wanting to comment (even though the thread is a bit old).

One benefit with shooting film is that it is very simple compared to a DSLR. With a basic MF film camera like the KX or MX there are only very few parameters that one needs to take into consideration before taking a shot: Aperture, shutter speed and focussing. The whole photographic experience becomes more enjoyable IMO when using a basic MF film camera. When I photograph with my K-5iis I know I pay much more attention to all the different choices available and also checking the histogram, image preview, etc. In a way I spend much more time focussing on the DSLR than on being present in the photographic moment.

I am fortunate to have a very good Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 scanner that can produce breathtaking scans from both 35mm slides and negatives, and when comparing these scans with files from the K-5iis I do not feel 35mm film, being it Provia 100F or Ektar 100, is inferior in any way.

As a conclusion, MF film cameras gives me a different photographic experience that often results in better photographs than with my digital cameras. I have a much higher procentage of "keepers" from my film photography than with digital, especially with the Pentax 67ii. Fortunately we can choose to photograph and enjoy both film cameras and digital cameras.

*I have to add that a Pentax DSLR like the Pentax K-5iis is unbeatable for night photography and astro.

[nickthetasmaniac]

I'm a digital native who shot dSLRs for about 6-7 years before getting seriously into film about 5years ago. I now shoot both 35mm and 120 film alongside digital, and tend to use them for specific things (ie. I rarely shoot street with digital, and I rarely shoot macro with film).

So, with that in mind, here's the main reasons I shoot film.

- The shooting experience - I love the tactile feel and process of using old, mechanical cameras and lenses. With the slight exception of the LX, all of my kit is manual and mechanical, and this provides an experience you just can't get with digital. For me, the act of shooting is probably more important to my enjoyment than the resulting image, so shooting experience matters. Note that this doesn't actually have anything to do with film itself, just that this gear isn't made in the digital age.

- The gear - In line with the above. Shooting film gives you access to a fantastic and diverse array of cameras and lenses that can be bought for not much money, and are just great fun to play with. Beware GAS.

- Technique - Shooting manual cameras (most of which don't have built-in light meters) and using single-speed emulsions has taught me to think consciously about light in a way I just didn't learn with digital. Likewise, slowing down the shooting process and having a limited number of frames to use has taught me to be much more thoughtful of subject and composition. Not that you can't learn these things with digital (or course you can), just that for my learning they've been very helpful.

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.

Never trust someone who says 'there's nothing to learn'...

---------- Post added 09-16-2018 at 02:02 PM ----------

I wouldn't advise trying this; 36 frames plus leader is the practical limit.

I get 37-39 full frames from all of my cameras. No loading in the dark, no scratches, no rolls that didn't take up (all of my cameras have some indication that the film is advancing).

[Astro-Baby]

Its an interesting thread - as someone who learnt with film (because thats all there was) and then moved too digital during my professional career I can see both sides. Digitals do give you the chance to mess about more readily and in fact my brother in law (who is also a professional photographer) runs most of his non-pro work off an iPhone where he adds in the special effects and he turns out some pretty stunning images. It would be easy to think that all you needed was the same iPhone and you too would take great images like his. You'd be very wrong because the trick is he has a fantastic eye for composition and finds gallery quality pictures where most of us, and I include me in that, would never find 'the shot'.

Thats the problem with a pro - they make it look easy

Is digital better - I can only relate personal experience which would be this..................

Back in the day when I was young and bright eyed and didn't need to worry about diopter adjustments with a viewfinder I bought myself an OM-1 when they were cool and then I bought an OM-2 and some lenses and before long I had a kit bag stuffed full of Olympus lenses, motor drives and probably almost every filter ever made - sepia, polarisers, soft focus, fog, red and yellow and blue and green, starbursts in 4, 6, 8 point and on and on. Weirdly the more gear I bought the worse the pictures became. When I look back at stuff I was shooting then the pics were bland but the effects were awesome (Hoya and Cokin should have hired me). The output was a bit like a Hollywood spectacular - the CGI is amazing but the storyline sucks.
Lucky for me an old pro lived round the corner and he was running some evening classes. Being young and already knowing far more than any person living (or so I thought) I felt it would be a waste of time but in the end I grudgingly parted with my money and signed myself up for a class. The learned old wise man looked over my stuff and, puffed on his pipe and then handed me a Mk1 Box Brownie and said 'here - take this and put a roll of black and white in it and don't come back until you have exposed the whole role and work at getting 10 solid pictures that show you actually thought about stuff. With a basic wooden Brownie photography becomes a real challenge. Fixed 30/60th shutter speed, steady hands essential and of course you have a fixed lens and its totally down to getting solid composition and a shot thats within the limits of what the box can actually take (motor racing and airshows are most definitely out ).

I can honestly say I learnt more from that exercise than any other lesson. The problem you see was believing the marketing and PR and believing the tech could produce the picture for me - we all do it and anyone who says they don't is fooling themselves. We are hard coded to want to believe its going to be better but the PR had spoofed me and I had gotten sloppy - don't worry about the camera being level it can be post processed out, don't worry about framing because you can always crop at the developing stage. Don't worry about depth of field because that can be masked and faked in the darkroom. Doing even bother choosing the right film because it can all be handled in the darkroom afterwards. Don't worry about great composition the filters will make the back of a bus look amazing !!! The consequences were much wasted film, much angst and an awful lot of bland pics and wasted chemicals. I shot so much back then I could probably lay a claim to being part of the planets pollution problems.

Digital carries with it the same curse - yes you can experiment faster and get quicker results but I have found with digitals I very quickly drop back into bad habits and rely on the post processing to sort out the flaws rather than focusing (pardon the pun) on getting it right from the start. With a modern digital I can put 3000 pics on the memory so why not just keep shooting but the problem is I never really learn much so when by chance the good shot emerges its hard to know exactly what I did so its tough to repeat. On the upside the pollution to the planet is maybe less

Is digital better than film or vice versa - its horses for courses and at the end of the day if its your hobby you do what makes you happy and thats a personal choice - far be it from me to issue diktats on what people should do with their time and money. For me I found turning pro turned my hobby into a profitable business but at the cost of killing the hobby and any enjoyment I got from photography became strictly financial and I ended up scarcely ever taking pics when someone wasn't paying.

I packed it up about 10 years ago and only recently the bug has bitten again to get shooting. I still own a small digital pocket cam and its fun to run some stuff on but I dread spending the time in front of the PC editing stuff down which is why I probably have about 10 bazillion pics that have never even been looked at and thats why I just bought into film again. It will moderate my shooting and. I hope, reteach me the lessons of that old Black Magic Brownie. For me as well its a bit about a post mid life crises and going back to my roots but theres also a charm in older cameras that modern digitals seem to lack - I have my dads Agfa Silitte sat next to me and I know it will take pics todays as good as it ever did - it was manufactured in 1958 when dad was a senior manager at Agfa. It outlived him and will probably outlive me - can you honestly say any digital will last a fraction of that time. Cameras back then were crafted - today they are all coming off some robot droid production line and for me at least they seem soulless. You can't pitch soul to people - they either feel it or they don't. Its a charm in the way that some people like too drive old cars or play vinyl LPs.

Heres something to think about though - someone smarter than me once said 'The greatest art is produced when the resistance of the medium is at its strongest' - in other words if its too easy you don't get much art because its the limitations that force the creativity out of you.

And now I am off to puff on my pipe and give some young person a box brownie in my turn

[Astro-Baby]

Heres what I mean about composition versus special effects. On a walk around Santiago this year my Brother in Law and myself were having a sort undeclared friendly shoot out. Him with his iPhone and me with my Lumix pocket camera. Walking down a street we each hit on a subject and fired these off within second of each other in fact I think I took the pic of the girls while he was composing his shot. Mine was a long lensed shot of two girls talking - the dark shadows, reds and whites attracted me. It was subsequently processed to deepen the contrasts and provide a luminance glow and its kind of ok. I have to concede the brother in laws pic shot with no effects is so much simpler and much more beautiful as a composition. This was a digital dance off though and we are both old enough to have learnt photography with film but it kind of shows my faults with digital. Thanks to sloppy camera work the shot I took turned into a post process job. His on the other hand transferred directly to disk.

[bjolester]

Heres something to think about though - someone smarter than me once said 'The greatest art is produced when the resistance of the medium is at its strongest' - in other words if its too easy you don't get much art because its the limitations that force the creativity out of you.

I have a background as a musician, and I have heard similar things about playing a musical instrument. There is a difference in resistance between an acoustic piano vs a keyboard, or a classical guitar vs an electric guitar with thin strings and low action, and the end product, the music, comes out differently. There is a well known background story to the jazz pianist Keith Jarrett’s epic "Köln Concert" ECM recording (1975), where they did not manage to provide Jarrett with a grand piano that met his very high standards. He had to play the concert on a mediocre instrument. On top of this he had not slept much for several nights due to logistical problems with a concert tour. However, the concert went very well, he played one of his best solo piano concerts ever, much because of the resistance of the instrument and in the concert preparations (he has talked about this in interviews). This recording has become the best selling solo album in jazz history.

[24thNomad]

I didn't realize this thread would remain active all this time. But I enjoyed reading all the observations and comments so far. I am actually exploring film photography now. Too much curiosity on my end not too. Additionally, I recently decided I am going back to school to get another degree. This time in photography. I want to see what kind of skills are fostered through formal education. All of my experience is self taught or from watching/reading other people and techniques. And since I am going back to school, film is something I must learn. Definitely excited. Also, I have really admired some of the examples other users have posted. Film has a dreamy kind of quality to it that I want to capture.

[Alex645]

I recently decided I am going back to school to get another degree. This time in photography. I want to see what kind of skills are fostered through formal education.

That's great. I assume you will research your options well. Many colleges and university's have dropped film photography, but many have maintained their wet labs. Also note that every school has a different focus on photography. Some are more technical and about craft, others are more about the aesthetics and conceptual art. Some are strong in photojournalism, others in studio work, while others are more into fine (aka modern) art.

The hardest part to research are the professors which will really make either a positive or negative impression on the student. Don't be discouraged if you get a turd. The world is half full of them.

Usually I've found the 'visiting lecturers' are more engaging teachers than the tenured icons of the department. Also junior colleges often have excellent teachers and facilities vs. large universities.

And to go back to the "Benefits to Film Era Cameras?".....Students with a background in any amount of film these days, have a leg up in the eyes of the professor to the digital only natives. Most self-didacts (self-taught) photographers don't seek a formal education (although there is much others can teach you) and most high schools have dropped their film programs, darkrooms, and art classes altogether.

[Astro-Baby]

Don't be discouraged if you get a turd. The world is half full of them.

More than half - I would estimate about 69.6%