Using a film camera

Huw would love to see you try load s film into your digital camera lol

MACRAE Photography & Images said

Huw would love to see you try load s film into your digital camera lol

I can get results that look like Tri-X and Kodachrome 64 out of my digital camera.
That's good enough for me.

I encourage you to touch his face rather firmly with your first, as you would be defending your property with minimum necessary force as allowed under the law. :-)

Never going back to film, I hate the term analogue. Mainly on health reasons with a respiratory disease the days of spending hours in darkroom are over for me. Then there is the cost of film which I find prohibitive to shoot more than a couple of rolls per shoot and then to spend more time scanning it to digitise it seems counter productive . Having said that my new project with another lockdown approaching is to build a set up that will allow me to scan my negatives and transparencies onto my old Fuji S5 tethered to my laptop

A R G E N T U M said

[snip]

I remember Tomorrow's World claiming you could eat your dinner off compact discs.

Must have been on a diet?  ;-)

I do quite a bit of film - mainly 120, some 35mm and 5x4 too.

I develop the b&w myself as it's easy, never tried E6 or C41 but there's no reason not to - but I don't shoot that much colour film.

I enjoy the process - I think about shots more with film, which I need to try and take across to digital work.

Huw said

Kizer said

MACRAE Photography & Images  I love the look of black and white film and no digital camera can get close to it for the shear look and feel you get from an image 

+1

Edited by Kizer

Can't really agree...  personally, I can do anything I used to do with film, but better, with digital.
I used film for about 40 years.

Now the old lenses do have their own character - and I  enjoy using them on a digital camera.
Currently enjoying a set of Nikon lenses from the 1960s which cost me very little.

I'm with you. I sometimes shoot b&w film and I can't quite convince myself it's worth the effort and expense. For me the biggest differences come from the combination of manual focus and limited exposures. That means I'm more tolerant of slight focusing or exposure errors on film - and maybe that adds more character to the images. Maybe not.

But I have zero desire to print in a darkroom again - I never enjoyed that and it's hugely time consuming!

I scan/digitise my negs & slides now. I know some think that goes against the philosophy of it but frankly I don't care and it works for me!

Even though I have never been anything but an Amateur amateur, I spent many long hours from the age of 14, playing in a darkroom developing and printing films.

I soon got into bulk buying black and white film and loading my own cassettes as even then I liked to bang off lots of shots.

It was when I finally came to processing Cibachrome that I became terminally fed up with darkrooms and just took holiday snaps and had them processed at Boots or wherever.

The advent of digital has re-galvanised my enthusiasm for photography and I can take lots and lots of shots without worrying about expense. And not only that, I can sit in a pleasant room and have people walk in and out without descending into shouted warnings.

I would not go back to film and as Huw says, it is possible to get the film effects you want with digital.

All I need now is to actually become as competent as I want to be.

Edited by JPea

Emotive, nostalgia-loaded ramble.

I never felt the affection for any digital that I felt for my Nikon FE: there was just something so solid, simple & Right about it. Similarly -  printing on Agfa warm tone paper in a large tray from FP4 negs. However, I was always lazy - so seeing results on the back instantly & plugging into the PC was ultimately seductive for me. When I got my Nikon D700, something of that old FE feeling finally returned. Will we have the same discussions about mirrorless vs mirror? We already are. Will the penny-pinching, Luddite Timmee want to try the sensor/processor improvements in a Z6 when they become unfashionable & cheap? Yup

If an over-enthusiastic, and curious stranger touched my camera I'd probably let it slide cos I like to chat & I can be a curious, idiot stranger myself.

Simon Carter said

Huw said

Kizer said

MACRAE Photography & Images  I love the look of black and white film and no digital camera can get close to it for the shear look and feel you get from an image 

+1

Edited by Kizer

Can't really agree...  personally, I can do anything I used to do with film, but better, with digital.
I used film for about 40 years.

Now the old lenses do have their own character - and I  enjoy using them on a digital camera.
Currently enjoying a set of Nikon lenses from the 1960s which cost me very little.

I'm with you. I sometimes shoot b&w film and I can't quite convince myself it's worth the effort and expense. For me the biggest differences come from the combination of manual focus and limited exposures. That means I'm more tolerant of slight focusing or exposure errors on film - and maybe that adds more character to the images. Maybe not.

I'm happy that some of you find that digital is producing better B/W.

For me I've seen very few digital B/W that are as good as what film produced.

Thats my 2p worth.

This is another of those rare occasions when I find mysel in agreement with JPea . The Cibachrome, filter pack, Jobo drum, water bath, digital thermometer, Nova Tank experience would be enough to make even Rembrandt go digital.

I tend to use Digital for model shoots but I still like messing around with film, but like the OP i know photography didn't start with digital, hell the first camera I used wasn't even a SLR. 

Kizer said

Simon Carter said

Huw said

Kizer said

MACRAE Photography & Images  I love the look of black and white film and no digital camera can get close to it for the shear look and feel you get from an image 

+1

Edited by Kizer

Can't really agree...  personally, I can do anything I used to do with film, but better, with digital.
I used film for about 40 years.

Now the old lenses do have their own character - and I  enjoy using them on a digital camera.
Currently enjoying a set of Nikon lenses from the 1960s which cost me very little.

I'm with you. I sometimes shoot b&w film and I can't quite convince myself it's worth the effort and expense. For me the biggest differences come from the combination of manual focus and limited exposures. That means I'm more tolerant of slight focusing or exposure errors on film - and maybe that adds more character to the images. Maybe not.

I'm happy that some of you find that digital is producing better B/W.

For me I've seen very few digital B/W that are as good as what film produced.

Thats my 2p worth.

I agree with Kizer I love the convenience of digital but there is just something about seeing that image appear in the dark room, B & W film is way better than B & W digital.

SimonHendy said

But I have zero desire to print in a darkroom again - I never enjoyed that and it's hugely time consuming!

I scan/digitise my negs & slides now. I know some think that goes against the philosophy of it but frankly I don't care and it works for me!

Life years ago when we were kid was at a lot slower pace, Dads and their offsprings didn't mind spending time on their hobby, Todays life is at a lot faster pace and the younger generations just do not have the time doing stuff we did.

One example most people lived closer to there work place and walked to work ( as cars were for the rich in the 50s and 60s) Some people think nothing of traveling 2 and 3 hours to get to work.