Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Does anyone out there still shoot on film?

To those of you who still shoot film, is it a good learning experience? I'm just about a week into my DSLR, and I do have my fathers EOS10 (which needs repair, unfortunately) and a bag full of Ilford SP2 400 rolls.

Just want to know if it'll be a worthwhile to get that EOS10 fixed.
 
At one time I thought that I'd never touch film again. Well, that has changed - eventually I'll be shooting even more. I can't wait to try the new Portra 400 - it appears to be a very flexible emulsion.

For one assignment in 2008 I made the mistake of using a Leica when I should have been using an SLR, but I had no regrets about using film per se.

If you love b&w and don't mind low ISO speeds, there is at least one film, Spur Orthopan, which out-resolves any 24x36 digital sensor. This is cool, but not useful for most projects.

If I had the space I'd have a darkroom for b&w.
 
Funkatronic said:
To those of you who still shoot film, is it a good learning experience? I'm just about a week into my DSLR, and I do have my fathers EOS10 (which needs repair, unfortunately) and a bag full of Ilford SP2 400 rolls.

Just want to know if it'll be a worthwhile to get that EOS10 fixed.
Click to expand...

It's just different. Light reacts differently to a physical emulsion than it does on a sensor.

You'll want to use a normal B/W film. If memory serves, SP2 is a psuedo infra-red film. Get some HP5 or Delta 400 and shoot with it.

You can get an F100 or EOS 3 for about $200 these days. Both cameras are among their respective companies best-ever.
 
old color chromes:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/sets/72157603671370361/

beautiful


i've shot my share of film in 35mm, 6x7, 6x6 and 4x5

i enjoyed working with the cameras but film was/is too expensive and scanning is too time-consuming for me

i don't miss color negatives but B&W MF and LF and also color chromes were great

i work primarily at night and in that context, there is no contest, digital doesn't have reciprocity failure. i can make a lot more images
 
If anyone is interested in shooting more film. Check out this guy. formspring.me/jonathancanlas

Doesn't even own a digital camera and is one of the most sought after wedding/portrait photographers in the country. AMAZING.
 
mynewromantica said:
If anyone is interested in shooting more film. Check out this guy. formspring.me/jonathancanlas

Doesn't even own a digital camera and is one of the most sought after wedding/portrait photographers in the country. AMAZING.
Click to expand...

You actually made me doubt myself enough for a minute to Google for a Canon Speedlite 480EX and 480EX II until I realized there is no such thing as a 480EX and 480EX II.

And simply to also stay on topic, I shoot with film purely for the false sense of superiority it provides me over people shooting with digital. There's no shame in that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I still like to shoot film. I especially like to use my wide angle lens as I don't have anything wide at all for the dslr.

I enjoy rummaging through various thrift stores for film and have found many expired and new films of various kinds. I also like to remove a roll or two from those many dumped point and shoot cameras and reuse them to see if a double exposure comes out.
 
Policar said:
$6 for processing, but $100-$200 for a drum scan (by local rates). I agree with you that if you're going to shoot LF it's worth drum scanning, though, I just can't afford it for my less-than-inspiring shots.
Click to expand...

I bought a used drum scanner back in 2006, for $1800. The drum scanning business for service bureaus has dropped dramatically in the last five years, so many are selling off their scanners for very low prices. The guy I bought mine from got two for $40,000 apiece in 1997, and they paid for themselves many times over during their nine years in service.

I had been paying $80 a pop for scans, so 23 scans covered the cost of buying the scanner. Still much cheaper than buying a MFDB.
 
Half of the images on my site are taken w/film and the other half digital. I'd be curious if anyone could tell which were which:

http://www.brianchristophersargent.com/

EDIT: Nevermind. I forgot I list the process at the head of each series. To answer your question I prefer to shoot film for night shots and if I intend to print very large. I honestly don't think film is cheaper than digital and in my experience I have saved thousands in lab costs, whether that means processing fees or darkroom rental fees. Once you get out of a university situation the cost of film skyrockets.
 
Last edited:
I still shoot 35mm film on my EOS 1N RS (love that camera), and 120 6x6 on my Hasselblad 500C/M. Digital just isn't the same, but the job dictates digital for speed reasons for nearly every shoot.
 
There is a local art school in my area that requires all students interested in digital photography take their film photography class as a prerequisite.
 
Pikemann Urge said:
At one time I thought that I'd never touch film again. Well, that has changed - eventually I'll be shooting even more. I can't wait to try the new Portra 400 - it appears to be a very flexible emulsion.

For one assignment in 2008 I made the mistake of using a Leica when I should have been using an SLR, but I had no regrets about using film per se.

If you love b&w and don't mind low ISO speeds, there is at least one film, Spur Orthopan, which out-resolves any 24x36 digital sensor. This is cool, but not useful for most projects.

If I had the space I'd have a darkroom for b&w.
Click to expand...


The new Portra 400 is nothing short of epic. Push it up to 3 stops, underexpose it up to 2. It will bring film back with a vengeance.

TWLreal said:
You actually made me doubt myself enough for a minute to Google for a Canon Speedlite 480EX and 480EX II until I realized there is no such thing as a 480EX and 480EX II.

And simply to also stay on topic, I shoot with film purely for the false sense of superiority it provides me over people shooting with digital. There's no shame in that.
Click to expand...
Shows you how much I use them. I need to change it anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, I have an old Olympus PS-100 here with some accessories, haven't used it in years though mainly to the lack of places to get the pictures printed, and the price. I have a friend who still shoots with his Canon EOS 650 though, says he will use it until it dies, and I don't think that'll happen in the next 10 years!
 
mynewromantica said:
The new Portra 400 is nothing short of epic. Push it up to 3 stops, underexpose it up to 2. It will bring film back with a vengeance.
Click to expand...

Only 2? ;-)

http://www.twinlenslife.com/2010/12/its-our-favorite-time-of-light-new.html

AFAIK negative film doesn't really need pushing - it makes sense for slides, naturally, but negatives are not the final product and it seems that 'pushing' is done in the scanning or printing process. All one has to do really is rate it at whatever ISO one wants.

Obviously there are some technical points which I haven't yet looked into. Back before there were digital cameras I only shot negs for fun - slides were the only worthy medium for serious colour work intended for publication - and never got to grips with what negs could really do.
 
Pikemann Urge said:
Only 2? ;-)

http://www.twinlenslife.com/2010/12/its-our-favorite-time-of-light-new.html

AFAIK negative film doesn't really need pushing - it makes sense for slides, naturally, but negatives are not the final product and it seems that 'pushing' is done in the scanning or printing process. All one has to do really is rate it at whatever ISO one wants.

Obviously there are some technical points which I haven't yet looked into. Back before there were digital cameras I only shot negs for fun - slides were the only worthy medium for serious colour work intended for publication - and never got to grips with what negs could really do.
Click to expand...

Close. It's not that color doesn't need to be pushed, it's that color hasn't been able to be pushed without awful color shifts...until now.
But it definitely needs to be pushed sometimes. If I am shooting 400 speed film but rating it at 1600 and I don't push I am essentially underexposing it 2 stops. That is BAD on most color neg film. BAD! With Portra 400 it works fine, or you can push it and get results that look identical to if you were actually able to shoot it at the rated speed at the correct exposure.

Getting the result you want in camera/developing is ALWAYS better than making changes in scanning and post.


But, great link by the way.
 
I recently placed a roll of film in my Canon A1, which I bought in the early 80s. I'm experimenting with the control I don't have with my digital point & shoot. The P&S has a manual mode, but doesn't have fine control over the aperture or a large enough sensor to control the depth of field.

I bought the digital P&S camera several years ago and prefer its portability and ability to quickly use the result. I take many more pictures and experiment more, within it's capabilities.

Digital has a big advantage over film I appreciate; Cost. Given your initial investment, the cost per shot declines over time. Some might say it is zero, after your buy-in costs, since film adds cost every time you use it.

For an amateur like my self, the digital P&S is fine for most things I do. When I want to stretch beyond it's means, it reminds me that I want a DSLR too. Film may be dead to me when I make that jump. The only exception I can think of is infrared photography.
 
xStep said:
The only exception I can think of is infrared photography.
Click to expand...

It is easier to do IR with a modified digicam.

Just search for "remove infrared filter" and you will see hits for do-it-yourself, and also technicians who can do it for you.

IR film fogs easily. It should be kept frozen/refrigerated until just before use. You have to load the camera in darkness, and you have to be careful to keep the camera away from heat sources and out of the sun so the film doesn't cook inside if the body gets too hot. Then care and darkness are essential when getting the film out of the camera and through processing.

It is also extremely difficult to judge the exposure, so bracketing is required. And then there is the IR focus shift (unless your lens is apochromatic), so you have to adjust focus after you have found the "normal" focus.

With a digicam, you get immediate feedback on exposure and focus, and you can adjust them until you've got it right. With film, it is a crapshoot.
 
chmilar said:
It is easier to do IR with a modified digicam.

...

With a digicam, you get immediate feedback on exposure and focus, and you can adjust them until you've got it right. With film, it is a crapshoot.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tips.

Infrared isn't on my radar really. I've only used it once or twice in my life.

Sure infrared is tricky. I have a zoom with an infrared focus guideline, and it does warn that it is only approximate. At least I wouldn't have to irreversibly modify a camera.

I see even something as fancy as a Canon 5D Mark II can be converted. Saw such a conversion for sale last week. I guess there is a small market for such things that I'll keep in mind for the future.

I have taken my P&S camera apart before to remove dust from the glass over the sensor. As I understand it, if I remove that glass, I have removed the IR filter. I'll keep that in mind when I buy a replacement camera. It would be a fun experiment. :D
 
Now that I have Aperture 3 and my MBP is rejuvenated, I have been printing more stuff again. Interestingly, the shots I like the best, the ones that I think are making the best prints, are from film

It isn't better quality, just looks better as a print much of the time. When I show my photos on a plasma via Apple TV, my kids can always determine which ones are film and which are digital.
 
Yesterday I saw the China through the lens of John Thomson exhibition as it's toured to my home city. I was blown away by the quality of the 140 year old photographs. It's left me feeling pretty confused about my own relationship to digital, the quality of it and, more specifically, the longevity of the storage of it. There is no way my HDs are going to last that long. And I'm beginning to wonder if I could even afford a digital camera that could take photos as beautifully. I going to have to have a wonder past my local second hand camera shop today to look at the prices of medium formats.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/picturegalleries/7079331/China-through-the-lens-of-John-Thomson.html
 
Yes, I'm still using film. Nearly two years ago, on my way back to work in the Caucasus my trusty Nikon F100 was stolen from my suitcase which, due to delayed flights, took 24 extra hours to catch up with me. At the time, I debated switching to digital, and even posted a thread on this forum asking for advice on the matter as I had never used digital. MR members were their usual helpful selves, for which I remain grateful.

Anyway, I decided to go retro instead, and treated myself to a Leica R7 and a few Leica lenses. It is a beautiful (but somewhat demanding) camera; unlike the later film SLRs (such as my feloniously removed Nikon), it is almost entirely manual. Therefore, while it takes excellent pictures (and the quality of the light is amazing, at times, it is almost like a painting), it insists that you work at composing and thinking about whatever picture you are about to take. In a sense, it brings you right back to basics, making you think, and work. But when you get it right, the results can be exquisite.

Cheers
 
Apologies, I wasn't very clear in how I expressed myself.

I had read that Leica lenses were excellent, and what I should have said is that the lenses capture, or treat, light sources extremely well. There is a clarity to the way light is expressed that wasn't there before, when I shot with Nikon, or Pentax lenses (and these were also extremely good cameras).

Cheers
 
The first thing a newcomer to film will find is that it is so slowwwww. If you use slower fine-grained film, you will almost never be able to use smaller apertures and high shutter speeds. That is why they made tripods and big wide lenses, items not usually necessary with digital.

You will find yourself looking for some sun and of course that means annoying shadows.

I like and use film, but now only for scenics and architecture, historical stuff. These things don't move and can be shot at slow speeds and whatever aperture is best. A tripod is no problem then either. And the film look is often beneficial for these subjects, more than for people.

I remember the old days when people were walking around with tripods, big lenses and bags of stuff just to get a photo of the kids at the park or a vacation photo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back