Analog photography anyone?

[Oracle1729]

I did that for years as a teenager. It's dirt cheap. buy the stuff from a place called "freestyle" in Hollywood california. They still catter to studnets and fine ar photographers.

Get a 100 foot rool of their house brand film (artisia, as I remember), a loader and a box of re-usable plastic screw-top 35mm film cassettes. Then you spool the film using the loader . Each 100 foot roll costs about $30 and makes 30+ rolls of film. So about $1 per roll.

Full frame 35mm cameras use 38mm of film per frame (36 for the frame, 2 between frames). So a 36 exposure roll is 54 inches for the actual image area. Add about 10 inches more for leaders and you're looking at 18 36 exposure rolls from a 100 foot roll of film. I used to buy 30m rolls of HP5 and FP4 several rolls at a time. Fun days.

Personally I never bothered with a film loader, I found it easier to load the film by hand in the darkroom, but then I had *a lot* of practice handling film by touch. I even knew just how far apart to hold my arms to measure to make a 36 exp roll. Some of my friends used loaders and I found that they spoil enough of the end of the roll that your last shot is always ruined.

The developer is not expensive and you can re-use it. Figure $2 per roll of B&W film if you try or $3 is more normal.

The developer slows down as it gets consumed. The crappy quality developers say they're reusable and even they want you to adjust the development time to compensate as it becomes used.

*ANY* film developer worth using will call itself a one-shot. (commercial lab equipment does change things).

Fixer is reusable.

 

[lizardofwoz]

Yup.

http://thephotosmith.com/about/my-gear/

Get a patterson 3 reel tank -- that way you can develop both 35mm and 120, if you choose.

The hard part, for you, is figuring out what developer you want to use, and why.

The Paterson reels expand to handle both 35mm and 120. They also have a loading assist mechanism that makes film loading easy.

Durability of the Paterson reels? I used them professionally for over thirty years. They still work

Go to the basics for developers: Kodak D76 with 1:1 dilution yields marvellous shadow details. It can also be used to 'push' process uprated film speeds. Kpdak Tri-X uprated to 800 or even 1600 ASA still produce great prints.

(I have retired and I am not familiar with the current availability of film. Kodak have gone under and their materials may no longer be available. Who is still going? Ilford?)

One last comment... I notice that some of you are advocating scanning negatives and using ink-jet printers instead of enlargers. You are kidding yourselves. There is nothing so magical as watching your prints appearing in a developer tray, and you will NEVER match the quality of those prints with an ink jet.

 

[Edge100]

The Paterson reels expand to handle both 35mm and 120. They also have a loading assist mechanism that makes film loading easy.

Durability of the Paterson reels? I used them professionally for over thirty years. They still work

Go to the basics for developers: Kodak D76 with 1:1 dilution yields marvellous shadow details. It can also be used to 'push' process uprated film speeds. Kpdak Tri-X uprated to 800 or even 1600 ASA still produce great prints.

Agreed. D76 is a terrific multi-purpose developer.

(I have retired and I am not familiar with the current availability of film. Kodak have gone under and their materials may no longer be available. Who is still going? Ilford?)

Kodak still makes professional-grade C-41 (Portra in 160 and 400 and Ektar 100, as well as BW400CN black and white) & traditional B&W film (Tri-X 400 and T-Max in 100, 400, and 3200 speeds). They discontinued all of their E-6 films last year (and of course haven't made Kodachrome since 2009). Most films are made in 35mm and 120, and some in sheet formats, too.

Fuji has gone the other way; they make a wide-assortment reversal film; Velvia (50 and 100, as well as a tungsten-balanced 50), Provia (100 and 400). However, they only offer 400H in C-41 (allegedly they still make 160ns, but I havent seen it for sale in a long time). They just discontinued Reala in 120 format, which was a shame. They have some traditional and C41 B&W emulsions, too.

Ilford makes loads of B&W emulsions, from PanF+ at 50 ISO to Delta 3200, and everything in between.

Film prices aren't too bad, with the exception of Provia 400x, which is VERY expensive (~$14/35mm roll at B&H). The big problem is getting colour film developed at a lab that is both high quality and reasonably priced. My solution is to do it at home. B&W can of course be done at home very easily.

One last comment... I notice that some of you are advocating scanning negatives and using ink-jet printers instead of enlargers. You are kidding yourselves. There is nothing so magical as watching your prints appearing in a developer tray, and you will NEVER match the quality of those prints with an ink jet.

I agree that optical printing is the way to go if you can, but scanning and in-jet prints still offer all of the benefits of film (particularly the huge highlight latitude and the film aesthetic).

 

[ayres]

I've looked into developing color at home and it's not for me. I do have a film scanner but it is an epson flatbed scanner and the quality of the scans are not as good as I'd like. A dedicated film scanner is expensive. I might switch back to digital, but still gonna stick with analog for now.

www.thedarkroom.com $10 for one roll?! That's out of my price range. It's less than $5 to get them on a CD at costco. The reason I don't do that is because I don't have a costco card, so everytime I go I need to ask a friend to go with me.

the first thing to remember about shooting film is that you must budget. there's no way around it - shooting film is much more expensive than shooting digitally and keeping images on your computer. yes there are ways to save money - buy 100ft rolls b&w, avoid transparencies and e-6 processing, home developement, etc. but the fact is, it is more expensive. i think that's one reason why so many young people try it, and then go back to digital.

but i don't want to scare you away... shooting film, developing, and printing it yourself will make you a better photographer - in part because it does cost more, and resources are more limited, and the process is more laborious.

the n80 is a great camera - i had one and it did a lot of globetrotting with me. give it a try. also, be very careful trying to wade through the abundant information regarding films and developing. your head will spin. i recommend reading ansel adam's 'the negative'... if you like it, then read his, 'the print'. on photo.net and flickr, everyone swears by his/her combo and process. best thing to do is commit to one or two films for starters. get the hang of them and learn how to expose them.

 

[acearchie]

the first thing to remember about shooting film is that you must budget. there's no way around it - shooting film is much more expensive than shooting digitally and keeping images on your computer. yes there are ways to save money - buy 100ft rolls b&w, avoid transparencies and e-6 processing, home developement, etc. but the fact is, it is more expensive. i think that's one reason why so many young people try it, and then go back to digital.

Whilst I agree with you in parts I think I look at it a different way.

I really like shooting film and feel it really does offer me a different aesthetic to my digital camera. Many of my friends by chocolate bars or expensive lunches each week. If I make my lunch at home and take it in I still get full but it gives me that extra bit of cash to by a roll.

I think like any hobby it's going to cost you money and if I look at the costs involved and the enjoyment I take out of it I have always been net positive. In fact, I would actually like to know of some other hobbies that can cost so little that I could get this much enjoyment out of.

At the moment I am on the look out for a sharp P&S and a box of Portra 400 to take on a France road trip with some friends to accompany my 500CM, 6D and GoPro! All those cameras offer a different aesthetic and have a different purpose and that's why I want to take them all!

 

[Edge100]

Whilst I agree with you in parts I think I look at it a different way.

I really like shooting film and feel it really does offer me a different aesthetic to my digital camera. Many of my friends by chocolate bars or expensive lunches each week. If I make my lunch at home and take it in I still get full but it gives me that extra bit of cash to by a roll.

I think like any hobby it's going to cost you money and if I look at the costs involved and the enjoyment I take out of it I have always been net positive. In fact, I would actually like to know of some other hobbies that can cost so little that I could get this much enjoyment out of.

At the moment I am on the look out for a sharp P&S and a box of Portra 400 to take on a France road trip with some friends to accompany my 500CM, 6D and GoPro! All those cameras offer a different aesthetic and have a different purpose and that's why I want to take them all!

100% agree. Film is different. Not necessarily better or worse than digital. Just different.

As for the cost issue, again it's different. With digital, almost all the cost is upfront, while with film, the cost is amortized out over time due to film and developing costs. If you shoot with Leicas and medium format cameras like I do, the upfront cost of digital is so high that it becomes prohibitive to shooting digital at all. An M6 is $1200 and a 500cm kit is $1000. Their digital equivalents are $7000 and perhaps $25000, respectively.

 

[farbRausch]

the first thing to remember about shooting film is that you must budget. there's no way around it - shooting film is much more expensive than shooting digitally and keeping images on your computer. yes there are ways to save money - buy 100ft rolls b&w, avoid transparencies and e-6 processing, home developement, etc. but the fact is, it is more expensive. i think that's one reason why so many young people try it, and then go back to digital.

In my opinion shooting film is almost cheaper than digital. For example, I bought a nice Nikon FE2 for ~100EUR. While I agree, that modern DSLRs outperform the FE2 in terms of features (AF, burst mode etc.), I have to pay way more for a digital camera. For the difference I can process lots of rolls. The point becomes even more valid for medium format. I bought a Hasselblad 500cm for ~500EUR and this camera clearly outperforms even full frame DSLRs. Even a Nikon D600 costs >1500EUR and I could spend the difference of 1000EUR for film processing. Furthermore, I probably can sell both cameras in 10 years without loss of value.
I don't want to disagree with you, this is just my view on film. I'm just trying to think of it positively Considering the cost of the gear compensates a bit the processing costs.

 

[MacCruiskeen]

If you shoot with Leicas and medium format cameras like I do, the upfront cost of digital is so high that it becomes prohibitive to shooting digital at all. An M6 is $1200 and a 500cm kit is $1000. Their digital equivalents are $7000 and perhaps $25000, respectively.

Though to be fair, you're comparing the cost of used, depreciated equipment with the cost of new. A new Leica M7 is five grand just for the body and buying new Leica lenses will quickly drive you into bankruptcy.

On the other hand, I was able to put together a nice RB67 kit with several lenses and backs for about $800. One thing, though, when you are out on the street with an RB67 or a Speed Graphic, you are pretty certain to end up in conversations with random strangers, half of which will begin "is that a Hasselblad?"

And darkroom work is half the fun.

 

[Edge100]

Though to be fair, you're comparing the cost of used, depreciated equipment with the cost of new. A new Leica M7 is five grand just for the body and buying new Leica lenses will quickly drive you into bankruptcy.

On the other hand, I was able to put together a nice RB67 kit with several lenses and backs for about $800. One thing, though, when you are out on the street with an RB67 or a Speed Graphic, you are pretty certain to end up in conversations with random strangers, half of which will begin "is that a Hasselblad?"

And darkroom work is half the fun.

Fair enough, but why does that matter? An M6 takes photographs, and so does an M9, M-E, M Monochrom, or M 240. Yes, the digital cameras have more features, but at the end of the day, they all just take photographs.

And the lenses are a wash; if you buy digital or film, you need lenses either way.

I'm not arguing that Leica is cheap. I'm arguing that when shooting with a Leica (or a medium format camera), film can make economic sense because the upfront costs are far lower than digital.

 

[lizardofwoz]

Though to be fair, you're comparing the cost of used, depreciated equipment with the cost of new. A new Leica M7 is five grand just for the body and buying new Leica lenses will quickly drive you into bankruptcy.

On the other hand, I was able to put together a nice RB67 kit with several lenses and backs for about $800. One thing, though, when you are out on the street with an RB67 or a Speed Graphic, you are pretty certain to end up in conversations with random strangers, half of which will begin "is that a Hasselblad?"

And darkroom work is half the fun.

35mm is not really suitable for professional quality work. If you are looking for large prints - 16x20, 20x24 and larger you need to look at medium format, or even 5x4. Although the Hasselblad is beautifully made with fine lenses it has some inherent drawbacks.

The Blad is rather old-fashioned in its design and operation. The 6x6cm format forces you to lose one centimetre of the negative when printing - both vertical and horizontal - because printing papers are rectangular.

The Mamiya 6x7 uses the entire negative - two centimetres more negative with each print (about four times the size of a 35mm negative). The film holder revolves to portrait and landscape and allows you to see and compose your picture without allowing for cropping in printing. The camera itself is VERY robust, and the lenses are - in my opinion - the equal of the Blad.

Second hand Mamiyas and lenses will cost you much less, and your results will be indistinguishable from the Blad. Hasselblads are like Rolls Royces... it is all in the name. I have owned and used both brands. I still have the Mamiyas, but ditched the Blads long ago.

There is a place for professional use of 35mm, but it is NOT for the production of high quality prints. Journalism and live events - where size and weight of camera, and rapidity of use are more important - are the ideal environment for 35mm.

As a footnote: Do NOT venture into developing your own 5x4 B&W negatives. Let the pro labs do it, then do your own printing. 5x4 negs are a completely different animal. If you are really serious about working in several B&W formats - from 35mm to 5x4 - you will be looking at an enlarger like the Durst L1000.

 

[Edge100]

35mm is not really suitable for professional quality work.

Blanket statements are always wrong!

Ahem...actually, it depends on the 'profession'. Street photographers relied on small 35mm film cameras for years, because their output is generally in book form, rather than large print form.

Nevertheless...

If you are looking for large prints - 16x20, 20x24 and larger you need to look at medium format, or even 5x4.

...I agree, except...

Although the Hasselblad is beautifully made with fine lenses it has some inherent drawbacks. The Blad is rather old-fashioned in its design and operation. The 6x6cm format forces you to lose one centimetre of the negative when printing - both vertical and horizontal - because printing papers are rectangular.

...which I disagree with. The Hasselblad is certainly old-fashioned, but that's not necessarily pejorative. 6x6 allows you to save the critical landscape vs. portrait decision until after the shot is taken, whereas a 645, 6x7, or 6x9 camera makes the decision for you.

The Mamiya 6x7 uses the entire negative - two centimetres more negative with each print (about four times the size of a 35mm negative). The film holder revolves to portrait and landscape and allows you to see and compose your picture without allowing for cropping in printing. The camera itself is VERY robust, and the lenses are - in my opinion - the equal of the Blad.

6x7 is certainly a step up from 6x6, and Mamiya glass is absolutely stellar, particularly the lenses for the Mamiya 6 and 7 rangefinder cameras, but then again, it's more difficult (and more expensive) to find enlargers and slide projectors that work with 6x7.

There is a place for professional use of 35mm, but it is NOT for the production of high quality prints. Journalism and live events - where size and weight of camera, and rapidity of use are more important - are the ideal environment for 35mm.

Yep.

 

[lizardofwoz]

...which I disagree with. The Hasselblad is certainly old-fashioned, but that's not necessarily pejorative. 6x6 allows you to save the critical landscape vs. portrait decision until after the shot is taken, whereas a 645, 6x7, or 6x9 camera makes the decision for you.

Really?

You don't know at the time of shooting whether or not your picture is going to be portrait or landscape?

Really?

Cameras do not make decisions, photographers make decisions.

 

[Edge100]

Really?

You don't know at the time of shooting whether or not your picture is going to be portrait or landscape?

Really?

Cameras do not make decisions, photographers make decisions.

Yep, that's exactly what I meant.

 

[MacCruiskeen]

Second hand Mamiyas and lenses will cost you much less, and your results will be indistinguishable from the Blad. Hasselblads are like Rolls Royces... it is all in the name. I have owned and used both brands. I still have the Mamiyas, but ditched the Blads long ago.

The one drawback to the Mamiya is that it is an enormous, weighty beast. But everything you say is true. For a while I had a Koni-Omega, very fine lenses, but much harder to work with, and less reliable mechanically.

As a footnote: Do NOT venture into developing your own 5x4 B&W negatives. Let the pro labs do it, then do your own printing. 5x4 negs are a completely different animal. If you are really serious about working in several B&W formats - from 35mm to 5x4 - you will be looking at an enlarger like the Durst L1000.

Oops, too late! I splurged on a Jobo tank & reel before they went bye-bye. That makes it a lot easier. I know folks who do it in trays, but I've never managed it. I share my home office with an Omega D5.

 

[lizardofwoz]

The one drawback to the Mamiya is that it is an enormous, weighty beast. But everything you say is true. For a while I had a Koni-Omega, very fine lenses, but much harder to work with, and less reliable mechanically.

Oops, too late! I splurged on a Jobo tank & reel before they went bye-bye. That makes it a lot easier. I know folks who do it in trays, but I've never managed it. I share my home office with an Omega D5.

In defence of the RB, you do get used to the weight, and the mass has an advantage. It is less susceptible to quick movements - vibrations - and it can be hand-held at slower shutter speeds.

This thread was intended to assist those interested in using film. It seems to have turned into a pissing competition

 

[MacCruiskeen]

In defence of the RB, you do get used to the weight, and the mass has an advantage. It is less susceptible to quick movements - vibrations - and it can be hand-held at slower shutter speeds.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "slower"--the mirror slap has a kick on it like a mule.

Also, I tell people that the steel plate on the bottom is for crushing plastic digi-toys.

This thread was intended to assist those interested in using film. It seems to have turned into a pissing competition

Using film is easy. Buy camera. Buy film. Go out and shoot. Next, go to Freestyle or Photographer's Formulary and buy chemicals and paper, make like mad scientist. Bwahahahaha. Lots of books to tell you how to do that stuff--the basic process has not really changed much in a long time. Wash hands before returning to work.

 

[farbRausch]

As a footnote: Do NOT venture into developing your own 5x4 B&W negatives. Let the pro labs do it, then do your own printing. 5x4 negs are a completely different animal. If you are really serious about working in several B&W formats - from 35mm to 5x4 - you will be looking at an enlarger like the Durst L1000.

Just out of curiosity, what's so different for 5x4? As a layman I thought it's just bigger.

Using film is easy. Buy camera. Buy film. Go out and shoot. Next, go to Freestyle or Photographer's Formulary and buy chemicals and paper, make like mad scientist. Bwahahahaha. Lots of books to tell you how to do that stuff--the basic process has not really changed much in a long time. Wash hands before returning to work.

This surely is the coolest post I've seen so far. I really laughed. +1!

 

[lizardofwoz]

Just out of curiosity, what's so different for 5x4? As a layman I thought it's just bigger.

Others may have had a better experience than I did, but I found developing 5x4 B&W sheet film really problematic. I tried big reels, and sheet film hangers in deep tanks, but had difficulty in getting even development. The pro labs use nitrogen burst bubbles to agitate the solutions for better results... I failed and gave up. Luckily at the testing stage before losing important shots.

The optics of the enlarger have to be optimised also with different condensers, glass film carriers and lenses. Printing from 5x4 is straightforward, but developing 5x4 not so easy.

 

[coolspot18]

The first time I saw a digital SLR camera was at the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles. Some other guy in the pass box had a Nikon/Kodak SLR. He took some shots then went to a pay phone (remember those?) and took out a phone modem (remember those?) and transmitted the image to the paper. Now days this is routine but in 1984 it was something I had never seen first hand before. I was shooting color negatives.

The Canon RC-701 prototype, didn't know Canon had a workable prototype so early considering Digital Cameras didn't become available in the market until the late 80s.

Technically the RC-701 stores its information in analog format, so that makes it analog photography?

The 1986 edition of Popular Mechanics had a short article on the camera: http://books.google.ca/books?id=zuM...anon&pg=PA56#v=onepage&q=RC-701 Canon&f=false

 

[MacCruiskeen]

Just out of curiosity, what's so different for 5x4? As a layman I thought it's just bigger.

Being bigger makes it harder to handle. The traditional way is loose sheets in a tray in the darkroom. If you aren't careful you end up with scratches. Hardcore "zone system" practitioners still do this for frame-by-frame adjustment of processing. Tank development is a pain because the sheets are hard to load and the tank has to be rotated in alternating directions for even development. The Jobo system is one of the easier to use, but the tanks are relatively expensive and not made any more. Otherwise it is not very different--the emulsions and chemicals are the same, timing is adjusted due to the different rotation.

 

[secretpact]

Question to photography experts:

I'm thinking of joining the digital revolution. I want a camera that is inexpensive and compatible with my Nikon lenses that I bought for my N80. I prefer something that's discontinued so I can get it for a steep discount. Any suggestions? I'm okay with buying used.

 

[sarge]

...thus ends the analogue quest.

Regardless of the benefits/drawbacks of the film vs digital debate, the fact is that film will eventually go the way of the dodo. In many ways that is lamentable. Film is a rich medium - I personally prefer to look at images made on film to digital, especially where moving images are concerned but I won't miss the chemical waste and cancer.

Went to Adorama just this Friday for some Kodak HC110 B&W developer and they were out - had to go to B&H instead. They told me that Kodak had discontinued it briefly. It is doubtful that even with all the enthusiasts around the world that the economies of scale will be enough to prevent the manufactures from abandoning it altogether. Of course the alternative processes will always be around, but I wonder how much of a cottage industry will remain in light of this thread. BTW, I find that a flatbed film scanner is fine as long as you get either Silverfast or VueScan - the scanner software is paramount in achieving a good scan.

 

[Edge100]

HC110 wasn't discontinued. Kodak is just refining the sizes that will be available.

I don't think film is going anywhere for a while. Perhaps E6 reversal film, but colour neg is still widely used for movies, and B&W film for the fine art crowd. It will continue to be a niche product, but will still exist for long enough that I dont have to worry.

 

[sarge]

HC110 wasn't discontinued. Kodak is just refining the sizes that will be available.

I don't think film is going anywhere for a while. Perhaps E6 reversal film, but colour neg is still widely used for movies, and B&W film for the fine art crowd. It will continue to be a niche product, but will still exist for long enough that I dont have to worry.

Yeah, the salesperson said she thought they had discontinued it because they couldn't get any for awhile. I normally buy the 16oz bottle and had to purchase a 32oz. Luckily it keeps a long time in the fridge. As for the longevity of film, I think it is totally contingent on the studios in Hollywood to keep it going. With Panasonic and ARRI going digital it remains to be seen whether that holds true.

----------

Correction: unless you plan on making an early exit, I think film will disappear in your lifetime.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...s-dodd-distribution-digital-exhibition-315688

 

[MacCruiskeen]

It is doubtful that even with all the enthusiasts around the world that the economies of scale will be enough to prevent the manufactures from abandoning it altogether.

I'd guess that of the remaining manufacturers, Ilford is most likely to stick it out to the bitter end. At least for B&W, the chemicals are not really a problem--kits like the ones sold by Photographers' Formulary can be produced and sold on a fairly small scale as long as the raw chemicals are available. Even paper can be made fairly small scale. Film itself is a problem. Making a good-quality film product requires pretty sophisticated industrial equipment and a high degree of quality control (the difference between Ilford and the stuff from eastern europe is noticeable). But there's always the freezer.