Does anyone out there still shoot on film?

[Consultant]

Nope.

Haven't had film in my Nikon F4 or Hasselblad for years.

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.

Might want to look into F1.4 lens and F2.8 zooms. I can handheld even for low light situations.

 

[parambyte]

i still shoot film and prefer it

yup! still prefer film, though have a Nikon D80 as well.

I shoot on an old Canon A1 with a 55mm 1.2 lens.

Anyone who thinks film is slow, doesnt know much about photography.

I am essentially a Cinematographer. So I like to shoot my stills at 1/50 or 1/60 shutter speed and at full open (F1.2 or F1.4 orF 2.8 depending on my lens). I find that a challenge even with 100 ASA film on a good sunny day, because the light is toooo much for that setting.

Most interiors expose very well with 250 ASA.

Most night exteriors DO NOT REQUIRE MORE THAN 500 ASA.
But again, it depends on what you are trying to image. Its an artistic choice, really.

The amount of NDs (Neutral Density) filters I use, I could easily be using a 4 ASA film, still getting ample light to expose a healthy negative.

Film has a tremendous dynamic range. I am amazed every time I scan my negative. And if you know your photography, it can be faster than Digital, and yes, requiring less light as well.

Try having fun with over exposure, under, bleach-bypass, cross process, push process, pull process, flashing etc. Lots to explore.

 

[munkees]

I was given a Canon AE1, I have take a few rolls of BW, on a 50mm lens, I just purchased a 28mm lens (they are so cheap) looking forward to taking some pictures once the rain clears up.

I am new to photography, but what I have been learning on my digital I have been transferring to my film.

 

[parambyte]

its actually the other way around. if you learn on film, digital is a breeze.

play with composition, colour, colour temperature, contrast, depth of field

play with processing etc. have fun. photography is great fun!

 

[merkinmuffley]

Just curious. I have recently moved to using film for almost everything but fashion work (weddings, portraits, personal work). Mostly for the lack of post processing needed (no blown highlights, amazing contrast and saturation right out of the camera, etc), and the beautiful look not easily replicated with digital.

Just curious if anyone else shoots on film still.

Yes, but only when the client requests it. I kept my Nikon F5 and my Hasselblad 503 just for these reasons. I'm not asked to use film much anymore, it's really not convenient when the client is far away from where I'm shooting which is often the case. I've been asked only once for both; they wanted digital shots immediately and were happy to wait for the film. Had to have an assistant for that one, it was a real pain in the ass (I like working alone).
For my doodling around with a camera, nothing beats digital. It's fast, fun and painless.

 

[mynewromantica]

yup! still prefer film, though have a Nikon D80 as well.

I shoot on an old Canon A1 with a 55mm 1.2 lens.

Anyone who thinks film is slow, doesnt know much about photography.

I am essentially a Cinematographer. So I like to shoot my stills at 1/50 or 1/60 shutter speed and at full open (F1.2 or F1.4 orF 2.8 depending on my lens). I find that a challenge even with 100 ASA film on a good sunny day, because the light is toooo much for that setting.

Most interiors expose very well with 250 ASA.

Most night exteriors DO NOT REQUIRE MORE THAN 500 ASA.
But again, it depends on what you are trying to image. Its an artistic choice, really.

The amount of NDs (Neutral Density) filters I use, I could easily be using a 4 ASA film, still getting ample light to expose a healthy negative.

Film has a tremendous dynamic range. I am amazed every time I scan my negative. And if you know your photography, it can be faster than Digital, and yes, requiring less light as well.

Try having fun with over exposure, under, bleach-bypass, cross process, push process, pull process, flashing etc. Lots to explore.

I know this is VERY delayed, but how did you lie your 55 1.2 lens? I just sold one because I found it to be way to soft wide open.

 

[Azurael]

I do still occasionally shoot film, I'm impressed to see Fuji and Kodak's latest C41 emulsions have much finer grain than I have seen in the past. Good, since I don't really get on with E-6... Still, I rarely actually get round to developing and archiving/printing my film. Which is a bit poor, when my job consists of... Well, running a Fuji minilab, actually... Oops.

 

[stockscalper]

Got a roll of Ecktar I'm going to shoot later this fall. Also have a refrigerator full of Fuji and Kodak pro slide film, which will need to be shot before it goes bad.

 

[someoldguy]

Yup, still run a couple of rolls of Ilford B&W through my M4 and Nikon F each ear , mostly to see if I am still able to screw up exposure .

 

[Policar]

I am essentially a Cinematographer. So I like to shoot my stills at 1/50 or 1/60 shutter speed and at full open (F1.2 or F1.4 orF 2.8 depending on my lens).

If you're essentially a cinematographer, I feel sorry for whomever is "essentially" your first AC.

You do realize that most day exteriors are shot somewhere between t4 and t5.6 and that the reason lower-light material is shot at shallower stops is generally budgetary, not aesthetic--that most of the time such shallow focus material is incidental and something DPs avoid for the sake of the AC's sanity and because most lenses are best two stops closed down?

And yes, film is way slower than digital for the amount of visible noise/grain you get. Your post is rife with ridiculous misinformation.

 

[Edge100]

Just picked up a Voigtlander Bessa R3A and a Nokton 40 f/1.4, which is my new walkaround street photography kit. Shooting with Portra 160, 400, and 800, and Tri-X.

I'm very much back into film. Obviously it cannot touch digital for convenience, and each frame costs me a certain amount, but the quality of the images is simply incredible, even in 35mm.

 

[Efrem]

If you really want to find out how many people use film, a site devoted to the premier digital photo processing platform is the wrong place to ask!

The fact that so many people who visit a Macintosh digital photography forum still use film at least some of the time is undoubtedly significant. If one were to take a random sample of serious photographers overall, the fraction who do would almost certainly be higher.

 

[ppc_michael]

You do realize that most day exteriors are shot somewhere between t4 and t5.6 and that the reason lower-light material is shot at shallower stops is generally budgetary, not aesthetic--that most of the time such shallow focus material is incidental and something DPs avoid for the sake of the AC's sanity

Now that's ridiculous.

 

[Peace]

Film has become a lost art. I have a 1960'ish Canon AE-1 35MM that I use when I want to give a photo an older look to it. works great.

 

[xStep]

Film has become a lost art. I have a 1960'ish Canon AE-1 35MM that I use when I want to give a photo an older look to it. works great.

You mean 1970'ish, as that camera was produced from 1976-1984. That was my first SLR. I upgraded to the A-1 which I still have and used recently.

 

[Policar]

Now that's ridiculous.

Explain to me how.

I'm looking forward to this one; it will be fun to see how misinformed you are.

And I'm not talking about whatever footage you shoot personally, I'm talking about the conventional wisdom among competent professionals for what stops to aim for when shooting day exteriors on 35mm film. (And don't cite the few counter examples--magic hour photography that's shot at shallower stops because there's less light; The New World, which was shot around t11-t16 to give it an unusual look, etc. We're simply talking what's the starting point for day exterior cinematography. It ain't f1.4.)

 

[Xeperu]

I have an old Leica with a nice 50mm lens which I sometimes shoot with.

I want to try LF once though.

 

[Peace]

You mean 1970'ish, as that camera was produced from 1976-1984. That was my first SLR. I upgraded to the A-1 which I still have and used recently.

When your old like me the times blur

 

[xStep]

When your old like me the times blur

I'll take that to mean you were many years out of high school in 1976. I was still in it.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Just curious. I have recently moved to using film for almost everything but fashion work (weddings, portraits, personal work). Mostly for the lack of post processing needed (no blown highlights, amazing contrast and saturation right out of the camera, etc), and the beautiful look not easily replicated with digital.

Just curious if anyone else shoots on film still.

I do. Rather, I did when things were very different in the world of film. Still shoot, but the range of sensitized materials available now equals zero compared to my day.

Large format up to and including 11 x 14, but not so much these days. Some banquet work when banquet film was available. Some Cirkut camera work when film was available. Hell of a lot of aerial; 5/8/10 inch.

Also some dye transfer and Vectograph printing. Again, when film was available and Kodak was not insane.

Great deal of experience, daily, printing all formates including Minox/110/127/616/many others like Instamatic (Kodak offered some exceptional Instamatic reflex cameras). Pretty much everything. I worked for Bill Shipler Photo in Salt Lake City, and I printed everything that came through the store including our own commercial work. The business was established in 1890.

I miss the work, the materials, and especially, the darkroom. Still manage to shoot a few stereo images with my Realist as well as some stuff on the Graflex, the Kodak 8 x 10 Master View and the Linhoff stuff. Too bad Kodachrome is gone, I love the stuff in 35/120.

Remembering makes Bob sad.

----------

When your old like me the times blur

That makes two of us. Do you ever find yourself asking what the heck happened? I do.

----------

Just picked up a Voigtlander Bessa R3A and a Nokton 40 f/1.4, which is my new walkaround street photography kit. Shooting with Portra 160, 400, and 800, and Tri-X.

I'm very much back into film. Obviously it cannot touch digital for convenience, and each frame costs me a certain amount, but the quality of the images is simply incredible, even in 35mm.

Interesting to see that name. I own a few Bessa Rangefinders made long before most here were likely born.

the quality is by today's standards exceedingly high because of the optics and size of the film. Big, beautiful negatives that were/are a joy to print.

 

[Bob Maxey]

yup! still prefer film, though have a Nikon D80 as well.

I shoot on an old Canon A1 with a 55mm 1.2 lens.

Anyone who thinks film is slow, doesnt know much about photography.

We use to photograph interiors of public spaces using extremely slow exposure times. This was often done on very slow sheet film. The technique allows you to capture the building sans people. It worked well when there were few people and when they were moving around. Things that do not move are recorded and things like people do not because there was not enough time.

Most of my personal work is done on slow film. I was a huge Kodachrome lover and in the day, I seldom required anything faster than 25 ASA. For the sake of fine grain and extremely sharpness, it was king.

Even most of my race photos were made on slow film. Once you learn a few tricks, you can avoid fast emulsions and gain a little more quality. What we did with masking, Morse Contact Printers, intimate knowledge of developers and papers has been replaced with Photoshop.

I know a dye transfer printer that still practices his craft. and with great skill. the interesting thing is he manufacturers his own matrix film because EK no longer sells the stuff. Old school and extreme quality.

Digital is better than it was, but we were once the photographers for three Salt Lake City daily papers. We worked with Plates and Nitrate based film (not me, I am not THAT old) and we never missed deadlines.