Curious - anyone that still shoot the odd roll of film?

Forums › Digital Imaging › Curious - anyone that still shoot the odd roll of film?

rayonline

1734 posts

Uber Geek

#196043 17-May-2016 10:46

Yes film things with sprocket holes. Out of interest do anyone still tinker with the odd roll now and then? Some gear including medium format are very cheap these days, I've been shooting the odd slide and B/W.

I was given a slide projector by my camera club and just projecting it on our wallpaper the definition is so much better than our HDTV and the 720 (?) digital projector the camera club uses but I guess without post processing it doesn't look as slick and I am not anytime going to burn 4K definition onto a slide and project that ...

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1557459 22-May-2016 17:24

A (35mm) slide probably has similar resolution - or a little more - than 4k UHDTV "resolution". So short answer is that's why it looks more detailed than full HD or 720 - it's got (more than) double the linear resolution.

It depends very much how you measure it, some will claim that 35mm transparency is more like 15 megapixels equivalent, at that resolution film grain is clearly visible even with slow (low ISO) films if it was to be printed very large, and it gets down to a subjective opinion about impression of sharpness, detail etc.

I used to shoot slide film, 20+ years ago prints would be an optical process (ie Cibachrome - not digitally scanned then printed on a Fuji Frontier). I still have those prints, and my impression was that 6mp APS-C dslr shots printed on an inkjet was at least as good - possibly better. This is prints about 12x8 or so. By 12mp aps-c, IMO easily as good as 35mm colour transparency commercially scanned and printed on a lightjet or inkjet. By 24 megapixels and 35mm format digital, easily surpassing 35mm film and into medium-format territory. I print 24x16 from 36mp dslr - for detail/resolution etc, they eat alive anything I've ever seen printed that size from 35mm. There are opinions counter to this, but when examples are shown the process used to digitise and scan the film may be extremely complex, multiple scans of the same image "stacked", massive file sizes (over-sampling the scan) using very expensive drum scanners etc. and I'm still not convinced that seeing a hugely magnified crop of a photo of a resolution test target which may show some detail amongst the grain - beyond what may be able to be resolved using a digital camera of xx megapixels - tells the story of how the images actually look, which is after all the point of most photography.

By about 10 years ago, most digital slrs etc also easily surpassed the dynamic range of slide film, using the same technique (expose for the highlights to avoid blowing them - it was common to deliberately under-expose slide film to avoid the film equivalent of blown highlights/over-saturated colour channels). Before scanned film and photoshop, you needed to be a darkroom wizard to recover shadows, burn and dodge etc. Digital makes that easy.

I'll never go back to use film.

rayonline

1734 posts

Uber Geek

#1557618 22-May-2016 22:35

For a hobby, inconvenience can be the enjoyment. It's not always about getting the result asap but it is all part of the fun. Esp with medium format now, we can get stuff we could not dream of, ie Hasselblads, Mamiyas. One could get a RB67 body less than a 35mm film SLR intermediate model like a Nikon F80 certainly less than a F100 or a Canon EOS 3 and the lens less than a humble 50mm F1.8. Of course Hasselblads, Contax will be more. A bit like the keen home cook who makes their own bread or pasta by hand ..

I find that 35mm with a dedicated scanner does show more grain than digital including low ISO like Velvia 50. But esp with b/w film it is the film look and the how you can alter the recipe and develop your own film. Once you look at them enough you start to know which are digital and which are film. Some films have a more classic look like Ilford HP5+ and Kodak Tri-X.

I use digital for mainly family and friends and actually I have not been requested one print off friends, they just want it on Facebook. But probably more so my own hobby photography is more walk about as my mind ponders (35mm) and taking my sweet time with landscapes shooting off a tripod. In terms of price a $2-3k dSLR is not cheap compared to what film gear can be had and there are still buckets leftover for film and labs costs and the odd shot can be drum scanned but there is only so much one prints and hangs on the wall anyway. Medium format would provide something a bit more resolution than a dSLR and digital medium format are still expensive. I once read a good 6x7 medium format b/w film esp something like Adox CMS outperformed slightly a Phase One IQ180 digital back (medium format). Slide film was behind the IQ180 and ditto colour negative.

One can use graduated neutral density filters with slides :)

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1557896 23-May-2016 12:26

I just don't feel the love. Was offered an unmarked Nikon FM2 with some MF AI Nikkor lenses for free the other day, it had never been used outdoors. I declined, as I'd never have used it except as a decorative trinket. It will probably be sold on tm, proceeds will go to charity. Still worth something to collectors, if anything those nostalgic for such things seem to have lifted the prices above what they were selling for at the time it was becoming very clear that film was doomed.

I'm probably a bit hypocritical, as I did recently dig out my LP collection from the basement, go to the hassle of getting the output from the mc cartridge on the turntable I'd had in storage for many years matched to the sound system I have now, and there it is, set up on display in my lounge, sounding better than it ever did. The LP covers are much prettier than the CD's which are now in the basement where the LPs used to be, unneeded because the whole collection is on a hard drive. Most perfect for comparative purposes is that you can't do them, the flaws in the LP playback are so apparent that double-blind trial can't be done. So if I wish, I can argue that I too can hear the je ne sais quoi quality to the vinyl that digital can't match, with others who have that gift.

;-)

Jaxson

8044 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1557900 23-May-2016 12:34

I replaced my Pentax film body with digital years ago and never looked back. Kept the same lenses, so was an easy migration.

Still love the idea of film, but looked into the prices recently and baulked. Think I'd prefer to get my digital files printed large rather than pay the film and development costs.

I'm romantically attached to the concept and rose tinted glasses of it all. I get a buzz picking up a film camera, the cold hard metal, the weight, the huge bright optical viewfinder with split focussing screen, the smell of leather and the manual focussing etc. But I've moved on.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1558012 23-May-2016 15:17

I'm actually gobsmacked by the fashion trend to "retro" camera design by makers. They stick a dial knob for shutter speed adjustment etc right where it used to be in 1970, because some people confuse nostalgic feelings that "this is where a shutter speed knob should be" with the fact that back in the "good old days" the knob had to be there because it had to be mechanically connected using cogs and wheels and levers and string and prayer to the shutter mechanism which had to be where it was for obvious reasons. Thumbwheels are far more ergonomic and intuitive, even if it takes a little practice to develop "muscle memory" if perchance you just switched from using a very old camera or a cursed new one. Leica still stick the thing there, but they've got no other place to put it unless they redesigned the whole system to be ergonomic, which might sabotage a main marketing feature of their M bodies, which is to appeal to people who think they're living in 1930. Rich people - who want you to know they survived the crash of '29.

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek

#1568704 9-Jun-2016 14:36

In my perfect world I'd have a darkroom and develop black and white photos myself.

But the investment is huge in time, money and space.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

TwoSeven

1626 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1568859 9-Jun-2016 18:12

I use black and white 520 film in my box brownie when taking photos outside. And I use 35mm asa400 black and white in an old manual minolta with a flash when the brownie can't cope.

I much prefer film over digital but both have their uses.

Software Engineer
(the practice of real science, engineering and management)
A.I. (Automation rebranded)
Gender Neutral
(a person who believes in equality and who does not believe in/use stereotypes. Examples such as gender, binary, nonbinary, male/female etc.)

...they/their/them...

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1568861 9-Jun-2016 18:19

rayonline:

Yes film things with sprocket holes. Out of interest do anyone still tinker with the odd roll now and then? Some gear including medium format are very cheap these days, I've been shooting the odd slide and B/W.

I was given a slide projector by my camera club and just projecting it on our wallpaper the definition is so much better than our HDTV and the 720 (?) digital projector the camera club uses but I guess without post processing it doesn't look as slick and I am not anytime going to burn 4K definition onto a slide and project that ...

I went digital in 1998 with a VGA Agfa camera. Looks great on those 1024x768 monitors that were the peak of awesomeness back in the day.

I don't think I've shot a roll of film since. I just can't imagine taking them in to get developed at (approx) $1 / photo as in the old days. I can shoot a thousand photos now for nothing at all....though I have had to invest in a NAS (and backup drive) to hold it all and make sure it doesn't get lost. I used to write them to CD-Rs, but lost 6 months worth of photos when all three backups went bad on me. Never again.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

enzedone

63 posts

Master Geek

#1622878 5-Sep-2016 09:16

Hello

Does anyone know where I can get a camera checked over at reasonable rates. I'm on north shore, I think I need light sealing foam replaced on my Bronica S2

Cheers

dman

953 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1642942 29-Sep-2016 21:14

Wish I could still easily/cheaply develop medium format film, as UoA PhotoSoc lost their darkroom due to the earthquake red tape scare :-/

https://www.youtube.com/c/SoundSpeeding

rayonline

1734 posts

Uber Geek

#1643174 30-Sep-2016 10:34

enzedone: Hello

Does anyone know where I can get a camera checked over at reasonable rates. I'm on north shore, I think I need light sealing foam replaced on my Bronica S2

Cheers

If you approach the larger camera stores like Auckland Camera, Photo Warehouse they ought to advise you who repairs them. At a price mark, I have heard that in the USA they probably charge $100US for a CLA - clean lubricant and adjust. This guy does not have the S2 but you can look at his articles and see what the job involves, many people do the light seal themselves. I bought light seals off eBay but make sure you buy the open cell foams - so they are more airy foaming. So they squash down. If you get the closed cell foams, they don't and can be challenging to get the right size cos when they are too tight (they don't squeeze down) the doors and stuff can't close properly, some case they simply cannot close at all unless you went for a thinner thickness and assuming that it still blocks the light.

http://www.kyphoto.com/classics/sealreplacement.html

The S2 doesn't have removable film backs right? You could just use some kiwi's ingenuity and put duct tape around it ;-)

rayonline

1734 posts

Uber Geek

#1643178 30-Sep-2016 10:39

dman:

Wish I could still easily/cheaply develop medium format film, as UoA PhotoSoc lost their darkroom due to the earthquake red tape scare :-/

In the photo community I have been advised about Melbourne but they are just as expensive as NZ and they also no longer mount slides. So I just use USA labs (Dwaynes Lab) which was the last Kodachrome lab also. They mount them for like $9US (per roll) and then delivered at a batch of $34US for up to 10 or 15 rolls. Better quality, cleaner and scratch free. For b/w stuff, I just develop them myself in a Paterson tank. The chemistry is not bad, make sure you use them up and don't throw out before expiry. But again if you are overseas you can bring back powder chemistry and they cost 1/2 price to here. You can go even cheaper with the 5L kits but I find I don't shoot that much so I just use the 1L ones. The 5L ones basically cost 2x the cost of the 1L size so there are economies of scale. Yes, the Paterson tanks, the reel can be adjusted to fit 35mm format and medium format.

Hammerer

2476 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1643234 30-Sep-2016 11:37

I know that film photography is being picked up by the young and trendy.

In Australia some fashion photo shoots are using film, e.g. at sites like these:

http://www.oystermag.com/

http://bychill.com/