Using a film camera

Gregory Mason said

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

I need to set something like this up now that I've retired.

Kizer totally agree as today kids just want to be on electronic devices and never learn the was of the world so standing bin a muddy field with my son taking the shot then processing it is great bonding that we can never do on a play station

Timmee said

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'm sorry you are having to agree again with me. Perhaps I can make up for it by saying that I regard cameras in much the way I regard hammers.

Just a tool to do a job and preferably, simple and reliable....much as I am myself.

My first camera was a 1934 Agfa folding camera which I still have....somewhere. That was simple and reliable and fitted into your pocket. Basically, all the other cameras I have had have been little better. 

And the eye behind them likewise.

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.

Have a look at Simon Carter and Huw's work and I think you will se what you are looking for.

JPea said

Timmee said

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'm sorry you are having to agree again with me. Perhaps I can make up for it by saying that I regard cameras in much the way I regard hammers.

Just a tool to do a job and preferably, simple and reliable....much as I am myself.

My first camera was a 1934 Agfa folding camera which I still have....somewhere. That was simple and reliable and fitted into your pocket. Basically, all the other cameras I have had have been little better. 

And the eye behind them likewise.

"hammers" eh! Normal service resumed. ;-)

JPea said

Timmee said

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'm sorry you are having to agree again with me. Perhaps I can make up for it by saying that I regard cameras in much the way I regard hammers.

Just a tool to do a job and preferably, simple and reliable....much as I am myself.

My first camera was a 1934 Agfa folding camera which I still have....somewhere. That was simple and reliable and fitted into your pocket. Basically, all the other cameras I have had have been little better. 

And the eye behind them likewise.

I like your thinking.

The most important part of any camera is the person behind it.

Edited by Kizer

JPea said

Have a look at Simon Carter and Huw's work and I think you will se what you are looking for.

Just gone to have a look at Simon Carter And found something a bit strange, Why has he done that Ive never met the guy or know him. pmsl

Just posted an image I processed last night to my port 

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've seen" is the crucial bit here...

I've seen Salgado's exhibitions - recent prints on Canon digital, earlier work on Leica and Pentax 645 with Tri-X.
The digital work matches the earlier work perfectly. 

Which film?

Can you tell the difference between a print from Tri-X and HP5+ at a glance?
They are different.
Different rendering of colours.
Different C.I. curve.

T-Max 400 and FP4 very different again.

Edited by Huw

http://povmagazine.com/articles/view/the-pov-interview-sebastiaeo-salgado

http://elrectanguloenlamano.blogspot.com/2015/11/genesis-by-sebastiao-salgado-black-and.html

I have to admit I'm currently fighting an urge to shoot 5"x4" film again... but that's about the process and the lenses.

JPea said

...It was when I finally came to processing Cibachrome that I became terminally fed up with darkrooms ...

I printed Cibachrome in trays in a downstairs loo for a while.

Process a 12" x 16" print, go outside to cough my lungs out, repeat...    bloody silly now I come to think about it!

Huw said

JPea said

...It was when I finally came to processing Cibachrome that I became terminally fed up with darkrooms ...

I printed Cibachrome in trays in a downstairs loo for a while.

Process a 12" x 16" print, go outside to cough my lungs out, repeat...    bloody silly now I come to think about it!

Years ago I went to a speech by a photographer and he was always sipping water and voice kept going and he was coughing a lot  And he explained when he was younger he was having problems with his throat and voice went the doctor on numerous occasions    the doctors were asking him if he worked in chemicals and he kept saying no, Them one time he was in his darkroom when it dawned on him chemicals to late the damage was done.

A sorry case I know but true. 

ILFORD HP5 VS. ILFORD DELTA 400

https://carmencitafilmlab.com/hp5-delta400/

KODAK 400TX VS 400 T-MAX

https://carmencitafilmlab.com/kodak-400tx-vs-400-t-max/

This might be of interest.

One camera (Nikon F2), one lens (55mm micro-nikkor), one roll of Tri-X each.
Passed from one photographer to the next

https://www.instagram.com/400txproject/

and the guy who started the project:

https://www.instagram.com/renatorepetto/

Edited by Huw