Beginner Digital to Film. Advice please.

[Photopaque]

My first camera was an Olympus film point and click. I can't even remember the name of it.
My first real experience of photography
was a canon powershot when digital first became somewhat affordable. I then moved to a Eos 350d and various cameras since.
So basically I'm all digital as far as knowledge, processing etc.
After trawling through the tens of thousands of images on my PCs I realise that for me digital photography is just now something I do. I want photography to become my hobby again. Something I can engage with and something to challenge me.
I feel going to film we enable me to achieve this. Of course keep my digital cameras for the daily captures if my kids etc.

When I start to shoot film I really don't want to go anywhere near my pc with these images as that just kind of defeats the whole point I feel.

Why would you shoot film to then digitally scan the image and tweak in Lightroom? Surely by definition this is now a digital picture?

Also to find the look you are after I guess is by trying various films until you find the type that gives you the look you want? As opposed to just clicking apply vsco filter in Lightroom.

Any advice from members who have gone to film from only previously digital would be appreciated.

 

[excalibur2]

Hi..well there is so much to tell you and as I haven't spent a penny on digital cameras the guys who use both will come in...but using film is a new world as instead of machine gunning with digi and picking the best picture on a computer you slow down and spend more time in getting the picture right in the beginning..whether you like this approach is up to you to find out...if you enjoy this way then there is so much to do as a hobby from developing your own film to printing in a dark room.
Also there no is no reason why you can't combine digi and film as some guys here do.

 

[TheBigYin]

Any advice from members who have gone to film from only previously digital would be appreciated.

Unfortunately that's sort of dismissing the thoughts and valuable contributions that most of the members in here could make - seeing as most of us started using film before digital was even "a thing"...

But, from one member who's outside your specified member profile...

Why would you shoot film to then digitally scan the image and tweak in Lightroom? Surely by definition this is now a digital picture?

I scan my negatives or transparencies because it's bloody difficult to share them on here without doing so. Why do I tweak them in Lightroom - well - mainly to crop, straighten and dust spot. And of course because Lightroom is effectively my catalogue system - so - its there for search and retrieval purposes.

Also to find the look you are after I guess is by trying various films until you find the type that gives you the look you want? As opposed to just clicking apply vsco filter in Lightroom.

If I haven't already used the film before, I'll look in here, or on Flickr for examples of the look/feel of the shots - but by now (after 30-odd years) I've got a reasonable handle on most of the available film's response characteristics and grain qualities. I certainly wouldn't piddle about using someone's "preset" botch (no matter how popular they are with a certain sector of the photography sector (cough; Hipsters/Wedding Toggers cough

But really, there's one big reason why I shoot on film... It makes me happy - at least when I get it right. All I ever see with my digital shots are the faults - when I look at the film images, I occasionally actually like the odd one.

feel free to ignore all this of course, after all - i'm not someone "who have gone to film from only previously digital"

 

[stevelmx5]

I personally don't think that scanning your negatives devalues the whole appeal of shooting film. Whilst I'd like to try darkroom printing at some point, realistically it's not going to be any time soon so I'm happy with scans.

The main appeal for me to shooting film is the mechanical nature of a lot of film bodies (of course, if you shoot a more modern film SLR it's not entirely different to digital apart from waiting longer to see the results!). I enjoy the way they function and how I can modify them to do something different. I can't do that with digital so easily or cheaply.

I see the same slightly agonising decisions on a few Facebook film photography groups over whether digitally scanning somehow means you're not getting a 'true' result. Personally, I'd suggest you go out and find a camera you like (and probably end up buying 5 more afterwards..) and just shoot it. Get the film developed and scanned so you can see your results and enjoy the overall process.

 

[Photopaque]

Unfortunately that's sort of dismissing the thoughts and valuable contributions that most of the members in here could make - seeing as most of us started using film before digital was even "a thing"...

But, from one member who's outside your specified member profile...



I scan my negatives or transparencies because it's bloody difficult to share them on here without doing so. Why do I tweak them in Lightroom - well - mainly to crop, straighten and dust spot. And of course because Lightroom is effectively my catalogue system - so - its there for search and retrieval purposes.



If I haven't already used the film before, I'll look in here, or on Flickr for examples of the look/feel of the shots - but by now (after 30-odd years) I've got a reasonable handle on most of the available film's response characteristics and grain qualities. I certainly wouldn't piddle about using someone's "preset" botch (no matter how popular they are with a certain sector of the photography sector (cough; Hipsters/Wedding Toggers cough

But really, there's one big reason why I shoot on film... It makes me happy - at least when I get it right. All I ever see with my digital shots are the faults - when I look at the film images, I occasionally actually like the odd one.

feel free to ignore all this of course, after all - i'm not someone "who have gone to film from only previously digital"

I didn't mean to offend / cut out anyone. I was simply meaning how people who had never used film before adapted to the changes of using film may have some pointers. Of course any advice from anyone is greatly appreciated.

I would be wanting to get a fully mechanical camera maybe an M2/3.

I was just curious re the Lightroom issue as yes it's a digital version of a processing lad.
I guess I am also getting scanning confused a little as a scan is not the same thing as a digital image I guess.

Anyway no offence meant to anyone who is film only as you will of course have plenty of valuable advice and experience.

As I said previous I will keep digital for every day use but for a hobby and a feeling of connection to an image I feel/ hope film will give me this.

Worth a try as nothing ventured etc!

 

[robhooley167]

I didn't mean to offend / cut out anyone. I was simply meaning how people who had never used film before adapted to the changes of using film may have some pointers. Of course any advice from anyone is greatly appreciated.

I went from digital only to film, my advice is to shoot a lot, be prepared to make lots of mistakes, oh and don't worry about metering too much unless you're shooting slide film.

For example
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/show-us-yer-hooleyd-film-shots-then.486228/
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/101-ways-to-ruin-a-roll-of-film.341025/

 

[excalibur2]

I didn't mean to offend / cut out anyone. I was simply meaning how people who had never used film before adapted to the changes of using film may have some pointers. Of course any advice from anyone is greatly appreciated.

We are a bit thick skinned here and take things in humour and rarely is anyone offended But just to add to my previous post the type of camera you use depends on the quality you want.... the medium format cameras we use would give better results compared to 35mm but there is a trade off as it can be from 10 shots per roll, next would be 12 then 15 and last would be 36 shots for 35mm. So you can sorta machine gun with 35mm as I sometimes do but with 10 shots per roll...h'mmm

 

[ChrisR]

For me, 35mm film is the perfect combination, light enough to carry anywhere, and excellent results achievable. Sure, you can get better results with medium format or large format but... the limitations for me are always me, not the camera or the film!

I use Pentax SLRs, this is just accidental as the first SLRs I ever bought around 45 years ago were Pentax, and I still had one lying around when I came back to film. I never had a DSLR, only point and shoots in the digi world. I did dabble with rangefinders for 6 months or so (did a One Camera, One Lens, One Film exercise), but I sold them off and came back to my Pentax MXs. Simple, robust and reliable full manual mechanical cameras, with a built-in light meter and great lenses. Just hits the spot for me.

I go the hybrid route, never been in a dark room in my life. Doesn't bother me at all, or make me feel that I'm not using film. At least one person on here (I think) doesn't scan negs or transparencies, but perhaps does scan wet prints for sharing. But if you shoot transparency film, you can project the resulting slides, but AFAIK since the demise of Cibachrome it's pretty much impossible to print them other than digitally. And for any film, if you send off the film and ask for prints, unless you specify otherwise to the few labs that will do it, you'll get prints from scans.

Bear in mind that film to viewable output has always been a two stage process: first capture the image on film (and process the film to make the image permanent). In the second stage, the image on film is transformed into something usable. For negative film, this second stage allowed for lots of manipulations of the image. It's one of the reasons for the flexibility of negative film; you could under-expose or over-expose and compensate for it in processing or the printing stage. We're just doing that second stage of compensation on the computer, capturing and cataloguing the results in a convenient form (compared to stacks of envelopes from labs or books full of negative sheets), sharing and printing them with modern technology. You can bring some of your digital expertise to these later stages without losing the magic of film.

But as said, buy film and shoot. Even if you plan to go darkroom later, my advice would be to go hybrid for now. Keep the number of variables under control!

Good luck, and please do share the results with us... and welcome to F&C, the best bit of TP.

 

[Sir SR]

Have a look in the film and conventional section - I started out as a total novice on digital and have recently bought a medium format film camera - I get scans which I tweak in LR.

I love the whole process of shooting film - with digital its all about the final image. With film it feels so much more involved!

 

[Andysnap]

We are a bit thick skinned here and take things in humour and rarely is anyone offended But just to add to my previous post the type of camera you use depends on the quality you want.... the medium format cameras we use would give better results compared to 35mm but there is a trade off as it can be from 10 shots per roll, next would be 12 then 15 and last would be 36 shots for 35mm. So you can sorta machine gun with 35mm as I sometimes do but with 10 shots per roll...h'mmm

Well I'm offended.... but I'm always offended about everything....

Actually I was in a similar position and felt the same way. Now I do both digital and film, I love the output from digital but I much, much prefer the process of film.
As to scanning, it's what I do as I don't have a darkroom. I develop my own colour and black and white and this, for me, rounds of the whole process, scanning is a necessary evil, a bit boring but it allows me to show off my brilliance on here...
35mm is great, medium format is stunning and large format is supernaturally good.
Get yourself a camera a lens and some film and get shooting, much fun will be had and much frustration endured.

 

[skysh4rk]

When I start to shoot film I really don't want to go anywhere near my pc with these images as that just kind of defeats the whole point I feel. Why would you shoot film to then digitally scan the image and tweak in Lightroom? Surely by definition this is now a digital picture?

I would encourage you to break away from such rigid thinking. Film affords you the capability to take many different routes with photography, from very traditional to more modern approaches and many places in between. While you may see this as an opportunity to break away from the computer, and often I do as well, I'd be careful not to belittle those who combine film and digital practices and entirely dismiss this workflow right from the start.

Also, a scanned film photograph is not the same as a digital photograph for a variety of reasons.

Personally, I use a mix of practices. Typically, I develop my own black and white films and print those in the darkroom and I send my colour negative rolls to a good lab for development and scanning. This workflow involves minimal, if any, time on the computer and the results look great to my eyes. Sometimes I will scan negatives myself though, so it just depends.

 

[abdoujaparov]

When I start to shoot film I really don't want to go anywhere near my pc with these images as that just kind of defeats the whole point I feel.

Why would you shoot film to then digitally scan the image and tweak in Lightroom? Surely by definition this is now a digital picture?

Getting the obvious out of the way - practicality. Scanning is easy (but tedious). Darkroom printing needs a darkroom and still needs a digital stage to share it on t'internet.

Edit: and as far as tweaking goes, it's just the same tweaks that you can do in a darkroom, but much easier.

More generally, though, it isn't all about the final product (not for everybody, at least). Some people here prefer old film cameras to modern digital ones, and can afford MUCH better film cameras than they could digital. Some people prefer the film process to the digital one (no chimping, scattergun shooting too expensive, the literal processing of film). Some people prefer the colour or tone produced by film, or like being able to change their "sensor" depending on subject. We're a broad church. Welcome!

(For me: old cameras are beautiful, and modern ones rarely are. I have two digital cameras and I've lost count of the film ones, because almost all of the film ones were a few pounds from charity shops or car boots. Processing film is a magical experience. My keeper rate on film is an order of magnitude higher than digital because I'm religiously one-composition-one-frame on film and scattergun on digital. Film photos look nicer in general. One day I'd like to do some wet-printing.)