Can we talk about film?

[mollyc]

I know this is the Digital Photography forum, but I don't think there is a film counterpart.

I grew up in the 80s and 90s and shot film my entire childhood/early adulthood. But for the most part I just had a point and shoot and bought whatever film was at the grocery or drug store, and developed the rolls similarly. I even used some of the dumb 110 cameras that never shot anything in focus because when you pressed the shutter button the whole camera tipped.

In college I bought a real SLR, which I subsequently and regretfully sold when I started to get serious about learning photography on a digital camera. I tried shooting manual with my SLR but as a poor college student I could not afford the price of film and developing while learning, so most of my use with it was as a glorified point and shoot.

But now that I am older, wiser, and actually know how to shoot well, I am interested in trying film again. I've been considering a film camera for a couple of years but think I am ready to actually delve in. I have not purchased a camera yet but that is coming soon. I really want a film camera before we go to the beach this summer.

What I really need to know about is the actual film stuff, not the camera stuff. Like what are your favorite films? Portra? Velvia? Ilford for black and white?

What is the practical difference between film and slide? I know film is reversed and slide is developed as we would see it, but can I make prints from both? Is one substantially better than another? I don't have a slide projector, nor do I want one.

How big can I print 35mm film? I do realize this has a lot to do with grain and the base exposure. I just mean in generalities. I have some 24x36" prints in my house. Would I be able to print that large if the image is good?

My local camera store does developing and sells quite a bit of film. I am not sure if they do scans also. Do most developers provide scans as a matter of course? Because of course I am going to want to share/archive images digitally.

What else should I consider before taking the plunge?

And if anyone has some favorite film images and knows what stock they used, feel free to share here. ? You can also share medium or large format images if you want.

 

[Allyance]

With b&w the higher the speed the grainier the negative. I haven't used film in years but just searched Kodak Films and there is still a good assortment. Color was available in both positive (Ektachrome & Kodachrome) in the old days and color negative. Kodak uses a redish color mask to improve color. Kodachrome was the standard for National Geographic, it was slow (ASA 25), but fantastic color and resolution. Had to be developed by Kodak because the color dyes were not in the film, but in the way it was developed. Ektachrome was faster and had the dyes in the film. Easier to be processed by any lab. Used Cyan, Yellow & Magenta dyes in a subtractive color system. Television and color monitors, which generates the colors, Red & Blue Green in an additive color system. If you are going to archive the pictures by scanning them, then slide film will allow you to judge color and image quality by eye before scanning. Scanning software will compensate for Kodak's red mask, but probably easier to have a set of prints made to decide which images to scan. Motion pictures were all ways shot in special color negative stock, then release prints were made for the theaters. The following picture was shot on my Hasselblad on Ektachrome, then scanned for posterity. Ektachrome was not as vivid as Kodachrome. In the studio I worked before going off to college, shot 8x10 Ektachrome in tungsten for magazine ads.

 

[kenoh]

I have found that I like TRI-X400 B&W film best blend of cost and quality. I find that processing fees for 120 film is too high coming in at about £3 per frame by the time you buy the film.

Processing at home, I can get an Ilford Simplicity pack of developers and use them in my lab box reducing the cost of the film to about £2 a frame all in - plus I dont have a film developer laughing at my shots before I get them.

Ilford Simplicity Starter Pack - B&W Developing Kit

Buy Ilford Simplicity Starter Pack - B&W Developing Kit from Analogue Wonderland and get fast tracked shipping to your door! The Ilford Simplicity Starter Kit is the best place to start learning developing!

analoguewonderland.co.uk

I like analogue wonderland as they are really nice to talk to.

Some people I know bulk buy film and load their own but I am not there yet.

I got a Patterson starter set from amazon

The ULTIMATE Film Developing Starter Kit - Includes Chemicals

Buy The ULTIMATE Film Developing Starter Kit - Includes Chemicals from Analogue Wonderland and get fast tracked shipping to your door! NB: price includes free UK Tracked Shipping!Description

analoguewonderland.co.uk

and a Lab Box:

Lab-Box: the 35mm Daylight-Loading Film Tank

Buy Lab-Box: the 35mm Daylight-Loading Film Tank from Analogue Wonderland and get fast tracked shipping to your door! NB: price includes free UK Tracked Shipping!

analoguewonderland.co.uk

I had some fails with slide film - Velvia as it is really intolerant of an idiot behind the camera and dynamic range is small so it is easy to make a mess.

Portra was beautiful but as it is colour it has to be sent away to be processed and so was expensive

I have shot with a couple film cameras - shot digital first then film.... yeah if there is a hard way I tend to go that way.

What I have found is that on vintage cameras, normally it is more reliable to go full mechanical rather than electronics as they tend to be better behaved. Some of the older Nikon and Canon cameras need a weird battery that you cant get anymore and you need to fudge it to get it to work.

I have to say I prefer a camera without a light meter or electronics my two favs are the Rollieflex model A and a Leica M4-P. I have a Canon Ae-1 and a Nikon FM but they are both experiencing the need for a clean and lube but the value of them means they are pretty much better being thrown out and bought again elsewhere to be honest.

Sorry I bore myself sometimes too...

 

[mollyc]

You all know me and my penchant for color so I am likely to stick with color film primarily. However, my daughter likes film and black and white, so I might let her use whatever camera I get sometimes, although she's likely to stick to auto mode.

Ken, that lab box allows you to develop at home? Interesting. My daughter took a darkroom class so she actually knows a bit about developing. I could turn my studio bathroom into a darkroom in theory as it has no windows and no one but me uses it, but developing and chemicals seem a bit out of reach for me, at least initially. Who knows what rabbit hole this might lead me down.

 

[mollyc]

The most likely candidate right now is a Nikon F100. My biggest worry is that most reviews tell me how flimsy the film door is and I'd hate to have that break after just a few rolls.

 

[OldMacs4Me]

FWIW The now discontinued Kodachrome 32 was always the gold standard for 35mm transparencies, far more permanent images especially as compared to the older E-4, and even E-6. Photographically printing from color transparency was always trickier and more expensive than from color negs. Nowadays I would really be tempted to scan the neg or transparency and print digitally at least with color.

B&W is an entirely different universe where the film developer and print paper can really have a huge impact on the final print. Entire books have been written on this topic, and you could literally spend many years exploring all the possibilities. For smaller formats such as 35mm. I always loved working with slow films like Kodak's Panatomic-X (ISO32) or the Ilford equivalent whose name is stubbornly eluding me at the moment.

If it were me and I had access to big city supplies, I sure would be tempted go either 4x5 view camera or some version of 6x7 120/220 camera. Fuji made some nice ones that were not actual SLRs, such as this one:

Count002[Almost UNUSED] Fuji Fujifilm GW670II Pro 6x7 EBC Fujinon 90mm 3.5 JAPAN | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Count002[Almost UNUSED] Fuji Fujifilm GW670II Pro 6x7 EBC Fujinon 90mm 3.5 JAPAN at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!

www.ebay.com

BTW I have no clue as to whether that is a reliable seller.

 

[Allyance]

I used to use Nikor tanks that had special reels to hold the film away from itself, I would load film on to reels in a light proof bag.

 

[headlessmike]

For the development process you don't need a darkroom. The only process that takes place in the dark is loading the film into the development tank. That can be done in a completely dark room or in a film changing bag (I use the latter). The rest of the developing can be done in a lit room. I develop in my bathtub using a Patterson kit. Developing black and white film is actually quite easy and cheap.

A darkroom is really only needed if you want to make analog prints. Another option nowadays would be to scan the film and make prints in the same way as you would with digital photos.

 

[Allyance]

$2200 for a used Fuji camera, rather put that towards a Canon R5.

 

[Allyance]

If you really want to get into B&W, you need to read up on Ansel Adams Zone System. His motto was expose for the shadow detail and develop for the highlights. The range of light can be controlled by film developing and different contrast printing papers. Haven't done that since my college days. Trouble is, digital has made our lives easier and quicker, no dark room time required.

 

[mollyc]

I want to know about color film vs slide film and I'm not interested at present in any of my own developing. ?

I also want a 35mm Nikon camera that works with my existing lenses. The F100 fits the bill on that. So I am really wanting to know about the actual choosing of film and getting prints or scans of it. Unlike digital, I can't just "use my card reader and download to my computer." There are other important intermediary steps I want to learn about before trying to shoot something.

Y'all can chatter on about other stuff (I truly don't mind the tangents) but it isn't answering my questions. ?

 

[mollyc]

$2200 for a used Fuji camera, rather put that towards a Canon R5.

I already have two mirrorless cameras. This is for a different kind of shooting experience.

 

[Allyance]

When I was in college at RIT for photography, I had a part time job in a color lab washing and drying large 16x20 prints after the workers printed them. They would start the processing and I would finish and dry, so they could go home at a normal time.

If you shoot 35mm exclusively, Nikon makes scanners just for 35mm stock.

 

[jz0309]

What is the practical difference between film and slide? I know film is reversed and slide is developed as we would see it, but can I make prints from both? Is one substantially better than another? I don't have a slide projector, nor do I want one.

I bought my first SLR at age 19 or 20, I did shoot slides primarily because for me it was cheaper and easier to organize (cassettes vs albums), and I did have a projector of course. And yes, you can make prints from them, or maybe I should say you could as I have no idea what capabilities are available nowadays ... I always sent them off to a lab for development, so I got the "standard treatment".
Whether you do film or slides, you'll more than likely will want to bring them into your digital library at some point, I'm facing that issue soon too (again) but I don't want to derail, I think that topic deserves its own post

 

[Allyance]

There were two ways to make prints from slides (before scanners) first was a color reversal print paper (positive). Never very good. best way was to make an inter-negative and print from that.

 

[mollyc]

I bought my first SLR at age 19 or 20, I did shoot slides primarily because for me it was cheaper and easier to organize (cassettes vs albums), and I did have a projector of course. And yes, you can make prints from them, or maybe I should say you could as I have no idea what capabilities are available nowadays ... I always sent them off to a lab for development, so I got the "standard treatment".
Whether you do film or slides, you'll more than likely will want to bring them into your digital library at some point, I'm facing that issue soon too (again) but I don't want to derail, I think that topic deserves its own post

oh, you can talk about getting film into a digital library. that is a concern of mine too.

i actually bought a film breakout class a couple of years ago that i should open up and revisit again. I know the instructor talked about her favorite labs for processing and scanning.

 

[headlessmike]

oh, you can talk about getting film into a digital library. that is a concern of mine too.

i actually bought a film breakout class a couple of years ago that i should open up and revisit again. I know the instructor talked about her favorite labs for processing and scanning.

If you do not plan to develop on your own, then you can either find a lab that develops and does high quality scans, or scan the negatives/slides you get back on your own at home. With color film (negative) I send it off to a lab to get developed. I then "scan" the negatives using a digital camera (an Olympus E-M1ii) with a macro lens, having placed the film strip in a holder on a light table. I convert the RAW files in Lightroom and use a plugin called Negative Lab Pro. The results are great and superior to what I used to get with a (relatively cheap) flatbed scanner.

Here are some photos I took with a Nikon F5 and Kodak Ektar 100 film. Digitized using my old Olympus E-M1 and Negative Lab Pro.

 

[mollyc]

If you do not plan to develop on your own, then you can either find a lab that develops and does high quality scans, or scan the negatives/slides you get back on your own at home. With color film (negative) I send it off to a lab to get developed. I then "scan" the negatives using a digital camera (an Olympus E-M1ii) with a macro lens, having placed the film strip in a holder on a light table. I convert the RAW files in Lightroom and use a plugin called Negative Lab Pro. The results are great and superior to what I used to get with a (relatively cheap) flatbed scanner.

Here are some photos I took with a Nikon F5 and Kodak Ektar 100 film. Digitized using my old Olympus E-M1 and Negative Lab Pro.
View attachment 1777260 View attachment 1777261

These are beautiful! I do have a macro lens so could convert this way. ?

 

[Expos of 1969]

I recall from my film days in the 70s and 80s that Fuji film seemed to have more intense reds and greens than did Kodak film.

I recently received many full slide trays after my father died and I was really impressed with the vibrant colours in shots taken on my parents honeymoon travels close to 70 years ago.

All the best on your new adventure Molly.

 

[Steven-iphone]

If I were to do film now - since my mirrorless is equivalent to 35mm - I would do medium format black and white. You can self develop easily and print if you like, or get it digitized. Else I loved the 1980s shooting slide film - great colors and easy to store. Since it is a positive film, seems easier to self digitize than negative stock. Best on your adventure. Ilford B/W and Fuji stock films. BTW - you don't know the best film until you use it - someone can tell you their favorite, just try different stock films.

 

[mollyc]

I suspect I will like Fuji color best since I do so much nature work. But who knows!

 

[Steven-iphone]

I suspect I will like Fuji color best since I do so much nature work. But who knows!

B/W with colored filters may produce some interesting flower images. Like a red or orange filter. Or you could try some of the Lomo film stocks

 

[jz0309]

If you do not plan to develop on your own, then you can either find a lab that develops and does high quality scans, or scan the negatives/slides you get back on your own at home. With color film (negative) I send it off to a lab to get developed. I then "scan" the negatives using a digital camera (an Olympus E-M1ii) with a macro lens, having placed the film strip in a holder on a light table. I convert the RAW files in Lightroom and use a plugin called Negative Lab Pro. The results are great and superior to what I used to get with a (relatively cheap) flatbed scanner.

Here are some photos I took with a Nikon F5 and Kodak Ektar 100 film. Digitized using my old Olympus E-M1 and Negative Lab Pro.
View attachment 1777260 View attachment 1777261

I've read/heard about people "scanning" by taking photos but never seen the outcome - looks great!

I bought a film scanner (some Canon flatbed model) ~ 17 years or so back and then spent months to scan ~ 2k of slides, it could do 12 at a time if I recall right but, VERY time intensive. And when I look at those photos nowadays, I'm not impressed with the quality ... and for whatever reason, some are TIF while others are JPG - so I didn't really know what I was doing at the time

 

[glenthompson]

My experience years ago is that most 35mm film couldn’t be enlarged beyond 16x20 without noticeable image degradation. Some very fine grain films with good images might go to 20x24.

As to film choice, slides have little capability to adjust once the exposure is made. Negative film can have some development adjustments made, especially with B&W. If you’re not doing your own devolving or printing then either can work. For best print quality the negative or slide should be sent to the processing facility as opposed to scanning. Why shoot film if you’re converting to digital for processing?

 

[Steven-iphone]

I adore the film process, but digital is so much more convenient