Beginner Film Photography

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr Badger said:
Snip:
To use a guitar analogy, using a fully manual film camera is the equivalent of having to change the tone and volume settings after each number to get the sound you need. Using a multi-mode camera with full auto, such as the A1, is the equivalent of being able to play the full set by just changing the 5 position pickup switch... but with the option of leaving it on the same pickup and changing the vol and tone if you want to work harder than necessary for the sake of your art. ;) Well, that's the nearest analogy I can think of!

@ancient_mariner likes his guitars too, so may have an alternative one. :)
Click to expand...

Good analogy! And I guess it also works the same with different cameras and deciding between models vs. guitars - essentially guitars all do the same thing, but the intonation/handling/quality/and personality etc. differs with each. Update: I managed to have a look in person at a couple of cameras - paired with the knowledge you've shared and content online I feel much more confident now :D
 
woof woof said:
Just in case they're of any interest...

I used to like fixed focus 35mm cameras as they really are just point and shoot although some have a sunny or cloudy setting. The first camera I had was a Kodak Instamatic 36 and the last I film compact bought was a Jessops Quick shot which I still have. I also liked the Olympus Trip 35 but that was limited in what ISO films it liked.
Click to expand...

I think I'm veering away from point and shoot (those fixed focus ones) just because it's a bit limiting in terms of creative experiments with aperture/shutter/iso - and the ability to find interesting pairings. But thanks for the heads up!
 
I know you’ve said you prefer film, - as a both film and digital shooter I don’t want to dissuade you - but have you considered the Fuji X100 series? Can be fully automatic, fully manual, or anything in-between. Just a thought.
 
Stephen L said:
I know you’ve said you prefer film, - as a both film and digital shooter I don’t want to dissuade you - but have you considered the Fuji X100 series? Can be fully automatic, fully manual, or anything in-between. Just a thought.
Click to expand...

I think at this point in the journey I'd like to work solely with film, but thank you for the recommendation and I'll bear it in mind as I continue along :)
 
Not sure if it has been said already (I'm sure it has) but there are a few SLR's that also have a P mode which essentially turns the camera into a point and shoot aside from having to manual focus. You also have the advantage of having the option of interchangeable lenses, and can obviously go full manual too.

I would avoid the Point and Shoot too in your situation.
 
Craigus said:
Not sure if it has been said already (I'm sure it has) but there are a few SLR's that also have a P mode which essentially turns the camera into a point and shoot aside from having to manual focus. You also have the advantage of having the option of interchangeable lenses, and can obviously go full manual too.

I would avoid the Point and Shoot too in your situation.
Click to expand...

Yes! The A1 has the ability to shift into fully auto (program) mode, so it's on my radar. Actually, I've noticed it's very versatile - offering 4 shooting modes (aperture or shutter priority, fully manual or fully auto). Thank you for your recommendation
 
ark0101 said:
Yes! The A1 has the ability to shift into fully auto (program) mode, so it's on my radar. Actually, I've noticed it's very versatile - offering 4 shooting modes (aperture or shutter priority, fully manual or fully auto). Thank you for your recommendation
Click to expand...
You also get 'stopped down AE' which gives depth of field preview (letting you see how much depth of focus you have as you change the aperture on the lens) and automatically sets the shutter speed to go with the aperture you've selected.

You need to read the manual carefully to do that though; if you get the sequence wrong the camera can show an EEE EE error message on the viewfinder display, but that's easily cleared by engaging the double exposure lever and winding on. Best to avoid it happening in the first place though.

And as for analogue tape, I still have my Dad's old reel to reel. The sound recording on my smart phone video doesn't do it justice though (click to open and play in Flickr). :)

 
Last edited:
Looks a very nice set-up, Ampex?. Unfortunately, mine could do with a service and replacement drive belts, it's not been done since the late 70s, but it's trying to find the right place to do it. A bit like finding a good film camera repairer really.
 
Mr Badger said:
Looks a very nice set-up, Ampex?. Unfortunately, mine could do with a service and replacement drive belts, it's not been done since the late 70s, but it's trying to find the right place to do it. A bit like finding a good film camera repairer really.
Click to expand...

The end result was great; the delay is very fun to experiment with! Yeah, very precious pieces of equipment... o_O (also, apologies for anyone who came to the thread for the original topic! I accidentally side-tracked us...oops)
 
Apologies for adding to the negativity; but I’ve tried to get back into film photography and it’s a case of style over substance. It becomes about the process rather than the image.

Unlike with the guitar analogy though; where the latest whizz bang technology can’t properly fake the sound of a classic guitar and amp combo (good enough to fool an expert). Modern cameras aren’t just as good as, they’re intrinsically better than their film counterparts. I can shoot stuff now that I couldn’t dream of 30 years ago.

After not much practice I can set up a camera so that all of my energy can be spent on the image rather than the process.
 
Looking at your question have you considered Nikon as my 22 Yr old shoots both Digital and film and has an F65 or N65 if American and the lenses are fully interchangeable with most of the Current Nikon Digital Camera's. I myself am using 30 year old glass from the pre digital days on my D750 and also on my F90 film camera. I know due to adopting the4/3 mount this is not an option with olympus Camera's not being a Canon camera user I do not know if there are any backward compatability issues.
 
I apologise if what I have said above has been said before but writing this whilst commuting.
 
ark0101 said:
I think I'm veering away from point and shoot (those fixed focus ones) just because it's a bit limiting in terms of creative experiments with aperture/shutter/iso - and the ability to find interesting pairings. But thanks for the heads up!
Click to expand...

The appeal for me in these cameras is that the gear and settings are almost completely removed from the experience as all you do is frame the picture and press the button. That way of taking pictures does have it's place, IMO, but you're right, they don't really allow creative use of aperture and shutter effects.
 
Phil V said:
Apologies for adding to the negativity; but I’ve tried to get back into film photography and it’s a case of style over substance. It becomes about the process rather than the image.

Unlike with the guitar analogy though; where the latest whizz bang technology can’t properly fake the sound of a classic guitar and amp combo (good enough to fool an expert). Modern cameras aren’t just as good as, they’re intrinsically better than their film counterparts. I can shoot stuff now that I couldn’t dream of 30 years ago.

After not much practice I can set up a camera so that all of my energy can be spent on the image rather than the process.
Click to expand...

It was the same for me.

I resisted going digital for quite some time but the quality of prints I was getting back nosedived and it was only in anger and frustration that I turned to digital. Years later I went back to film, gosh knows why, but it didn't last long and now I'd only go back in some reality I can't at the moment imagine.

I still have three film cameras though, just in case.
 
Last edited:
Geoffb1964 said:
Looking at your question have you considered Nikon as my 22 Yr old shoots both Digital and film and has an F65 or N65 if American and the lenses are fully interchangeable with most of the Current Nikon Digital Camera's. I myself am using 30 year old glass from the pre digital days on my D750 and also on my F90 film camera. I know due to adopting the4/3 mount this is not an option with olympus Camera's not being a Canon camera user I do not know if there are any backward compatability issues.
Click to expand...
Canon EOS DSLR users have arguably the best deal in that respect, as a genuine Canon EF lens (not EF-S) will fit and work with full functionality (including Image Stabilisation if the lens has it) on every EOS SLR ever made, regardless of whether it's a film or digital EOS SLR. So a Canon EOS DSLR owner can buy a Canon EOS SLR film camera body and share any Canon EF lenses they own between camera bodies.

With Nikon, some lenses will only work with partial functionality on some Nikon SLRs. Knowing which lens works fully with each camera is quite confusing, particularly for someone new to Nikon who hasn't grown up with the Nikon SLR system.

However, as Alice appears to want a manual focus 35mm SLR (and as far as I'm aware doesn't use Canon or Nikon DSLR) the above info is not much use, but might help someone else, hence me mentioning it.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
Apologies for adding to the negativity; but I’ve tried to get back into film photography and it’s a case of style over substance. It becomes about the process rather than the image.

Unlike with the guitar analogy though; where the latest whizz bang technology can’t properly fake the sound of a classic guitar and amp combo (good enough to fool an expert). Modern cameras aren’t just as good as, they’re intrinsically better than their film counterparts. I can shoot stuff now that I couldn’t dream of 30 years ago.

After not much practice I can set up a camera so that all of my energy can be spent on the image rather than the process.
Click to expand...

Isn't this relative to each individual? I appreciate your opinion, but personally I feel this is the antithesis for me. Within a digital era where refinement, fine-tuning and alteration becomes more important (by default), compared to a slower approach. To rethink before you take a shot because you have 24-36 shots in a roll of film, compared to endless using digital. Sure, editing and post is fun, but it comes down to how each individual would like to capture, the reason, and each visual vision :) I find that all of my energy is pushed into the image from the offset, because I'm forced to look at composition, lighting and really make sure this is the shot (out of 36) I would like to take. Again, not saying you're incorrect, just my personal opinion entirely. Thanks for your input!
 
ark0101 said:
Isn't this relative to each individual? I appreciate your opinion, but personally I feel this is the antithesis for me. Within a digital era where refinement, fine-tuning and alteration becomes more important (by default), compared to a slower approach - thus resulting in style over substance. To rethink before you take a shot because you have 24-36 shots in a roll of film, compared to endless using digital. Sure, editing and post is fun, but it comes down to how each individual would like to capture, the reason, and each visual vision :) I find that all of my energy is pushed into the image from the offset, because I'm forced to look at composition, lighting and really make sure this is the shot (out of 36) I would like to take. Again, not saying you're incorrect, just my personal opinion entirely. Thanks for your input!
Click to expand...
I’ve seen this point put forward before; and I can’t accept the premise that having a self imposed limited number of shots makes me take more care. It’s just making an excuse for a lack of self discipline.

I shot manually focussed film for 20 years, and AF and digital improved my photography more in 5 years than shooting on film would have in another 20.

Again I can understand the attraction, it’s just a ball ache I’m happy to live without.
 
Phil V said:
I’ve seen this point put forward before; and I can’t accept the premise that having a self imposed limited number of shots makes me take more care. It’s just making an excuse for a lack of self discipline.

I shot manually focussed film for 20 years, and AF and digital improved my photography more in 5 years than shooting on film would have in another 20.

Again I can understand the attraction, it’s just a ball ache I’m happy to live without.
Click to expand...

Not sure how a "lack of self discipline" transpires from taking more care for the surroundings you selectively capture?... This sounds like more of a bias/grudge against something you merely found a distaste for. Also, not sure why you joined a thread if you're dead set against capturing with film anyway... seems to dampen the mood. But again, I can respect a difference in opinion :)
 
Phil V said:
I’ve seen this point put forward before; and I can’t accept the premise that having a self imposed limited number of shots makes me take more care. It’s just making an excuse for a lack of self discipline.

I shot manually focussed film for 20 years, and AF and digital improved my photography more in 5 years than shooting on film would have in another 20.

Again I can understand the attraction, it’s just a ball ache I’m happy to live without.
Click to expand...

This really, although I do occasionally shoot film, but that's more about handling the cameras than the results having a special quality. If I can take time to compose with a film camera, I can do it with a digital camera (you could go out with a 256/ 512MB SD card to limit the number of images if that makes a difference). What digital does offer is an opportunity to experiment without concern, though I appreciate that's not what you're after.

It's worth mentioning there's a trap with film photography in believeing that film is a better, more noble or worthwhile medium that can validate your output (not saying that's you). There's a more 'artistic' site I post on where at one time there were a lot of film images being posted that were simply poor work. Tedious composition, uninspiring subjects, dull processing. They were accaimed by the posters as special because they were shot on film, when they were simply weak photographs with little merit that should have been binned.

I'm no film hater - I still have a couple of pictures hanging here that I shot in the 80s using medium format gear - but it's important to realise the magic about film is inside your own head and the value you can give it rather than the medium itself. In this respect it's not at all like playing through or recording on analogue gear (film is a digital process too, but the 1s and 0s are chemical rather than electronic).
 
Retune said:
Retune's Law: When the number of posts in a film camera thread exceeds 50, the probability of it becoming a film vs digital thread approaches 1.
Click to expand...

Hence why I've changed the title, perhaps it was misconceiving.. ;)
 
ancient_mariner said:
This really, although I do occasionally shoot film, but that's more about handling the cameras than the results having a special quality. If I can take time to compose with a film camera, I can do it with a digital camera (you could go out with a 256/ 512MB SD card to limit the number of images if that makes a difference). What digital does offer is an opportunity to experiment without concern, though I appreciate that's not what you're after.

It's worth mentioning there's a trap with film photography in believeing that film is a better, more noble or worthwhile medium that can validate your output (not saying that's you). There's a more 'artistic' site I post on where at one time there were a lot of film images being posted that were simply poor work. Tedious composition, uninspiring subjects, dull processing. They were accaimed by the posters as special because they were shot on film, when they were simply weak photographs with little merit that should have been binned.

I'm no film hater - I still have a couple of pictures hanging here that I shot in the 80s using medium format gear - but it's important to realise the magic about film is inside your own head and the value you can give it rather than the medium itself. In this respect it's not at all like playing through or recording on analogue gear (film is a digital process too, but the 1s and 0s are chemical rather than electronic).
Click to expand...

I posted the thread hoping to find suggestions on different film SLR's and get a better understanding from people who have experience or could offer advice before I purchase - I wasn't necessarily looking as to why I should not use film, but I understand people may think they're helping by sharing their opinions on how using film isn't for them :)

I agree and think there is a definite 'trend' happening with people buying film cameras to hop on the bandwagon; feeling more entitled because it's 'vintage', or that you automatically end up with 'better' photos (albeit a broad descriptive). Which is definitely not the case. The magic for any artistic creation is always inside your own head - that's where it's sown anyway. Also, yes analogue gear is a digital process but I was personally referring to simply using a different format and experimentation.
 
ark0101 said:
I was personally referring to simply using a different format and experimentation.
Click to expand...

And that's good - go for it!

I don't want to put you off at all, and where I've thought I could bring useful advice about film cameras then I've offered it. In part, I feel there's a responsibility when we're talking about film in a context like this, to give a background of understanding. Just like it was useful to know about the auto modes of the A1, so it's good to be clear about some of the other background stuff.
 
Phil V said:
I’ve seen this point put forward before; and I can’t accept the premise that having a self imposed limited number of shots makes me take more care. It’s just making an excuse for a lack of self discipline.
Click to expand...

Thank you!

Not at all, it's crucial to have a balanced overview when learning and developing - constructive information based on others' experience is always worth noting, and I do appreciate it (otherwise I wouldn't reach out).
 
This is an interesting thread that I've dipped in and out of, but now feel the need to chip in. I totally understand the film vs digital arguments, and as a pretty mediocre photographer I have no axe to grind: I just enjoy using my old film cameras, but for quality of image I use my digital; although the occasional film shot feels artistically interesting. @ancient_mariner summed it up well.

Re the kit: I am a Pentax fan, and have a collection of 60's-90's Pentax SLRs. For the OP, there are some really good later Pentax film SLR's that are cheap as chips: the MZ50 etc, although to have the option of more control the MZ5/5n/MZ-S would be good options. The K-AF lenses are not at all bad, and the mount allows use of old manual focus/aperture PK lenses or newer digital K-AF lenses (with some loss of automation). Worth including in the search if you're not already wedded to the Canon/Nikon duopoly or the very good Olympus options.
 
Lindsay56 said:
This is an interesting thread that I've dipped in and out of, but now feel the need to chip in. I totally understand the film vs digital arguments, and as a pretty mediocre photographer I have no axe to grind: I just enjoy using my old film cameras, but for quality of image I use my digital; although the occasional film shot feels artistically interesting. @ancient_mariner summed it up well.

Re the kit: I am a Pentax fan, and have a collection of 60's-90's Pentax SLRs. For the OP, there are some really good later Pentax film SLR's that are cheap as chips: the MZ50 etc, although to have the option of more control the MZ5/5n/MZ-S would be good options. The K-AF lenses are not at all bad, and the mount allows use of old manual focus/aperture PK lenses or newer digital K-AF lenses (with some loss of automation). Worth including in the search if you're not already wedded to the Canon/Nikon duopoly or the very good Olympus options.
Click to expand...

This thread wasn't posted for a digital vs. film comparison - I was looking for personal experience with different film SLR's as I'll be purchasing one for a particular project. Digital cameras aren't in the equation (but that isn't to say they aren't on their own league!) :)

Thank you for the info on Pentax, interesting sources that I shall look into.
 
ark0101 said:
I was looking for personal experience with different film SLR's as I'll be purchasing one for a particular project.
Click to expand...

FWIW I have 3 different SLRs:
Minolta 7000 that I bought used around '86 or '87. I've just started running a roll of Tri-X through it as the first film in almost 20 years. It's probably not a camera I would especially recommend for the auto-focussing, but the screen is nice & bright, controls simple and it's very easy to use.
Nikon F301 - bought last year in order to go out with a bunch of guys shooting film, the focussing is manual and because the screen is dull & grainy it's harder to focus than the Minolta. It's otherwise a nicer camera to hold & use.
Bronica ETR - bought in the late 80's, this was my professional camera and it takes roll film instead of 35mm. It's all manual, built heavily and is an excellent tool for photography.
 
ark0101 said:
Not sure how a "lack of self discipline" transpires from taking more care for the surroundings you selectively capture?... This sounds like more of a bias/grudge against something you merely found a distaste for. Also, not sure why you joined a thread if you're dead set against capturing with film anyway... seems to dampen the mood. But again, I can respect a difference in opinion :)
Click to expand...
Forcing yourself to ‘only’ take the 36 shots by shooting film is what you were defending. My point is you can choose to shoot as few or as many as you like, it’s a matter of self discipline. I don’t have a grudge, the digital process is just so much more efficient.
 
Phil V said:
Forcing yourself to ‘only’ take the 36 shots by shooting film is what you were defending. My point is you can choose to shoot as few or as many as you like, it’s a matter of self discipline. I don’t have a grudge, the digital process is just so much more efficient.
Click to expand...

Yes, and again, I'm not sure why you class this as a lack of self discipline... I find it quite contradictory. When shooting digitally you can take multiple shots of the same object (say you end with 4 or 5), only to whittle them down to one shot that you concentrate on further during post. You're asking yourself the exact same questions that you could've done from the outset (comparing 3 shots, analysing the layering, the lighting, any unwanted noise etc), but you choose to lean on the fact you don't "have" to ask those questions whilst shooting = a lack of self-discipline. It takes a few extra minutes to answer these questions before taking a shot.

Shooting for efficiency was not my reason for posting this thread. I was asking for help selecting a film camera. I'm sure there is a thread for discussing film vs. digital on here anyway, but just not this one. :)
 
I think film cameras are only going to get more expensive over the next few years, mainly due to supply and demand. The F&C regulars were debating last year as to whether or not all the good ones had gone now, with only the less than mint ones left. I know this is a slight exaggeration, as it's still possible to find something in fully-working, mint (or very close to it) condition, but unless you drop lucky, it seems we have to look longer and harder to find a nice example of any of the more desirable models, and the price usually reflects that situation too. I'm sure there are still some bargains to be found, but I'm not exactly tripping over them these days.

Luckily, I stocked up while the going was good, so I've plenty of toys in the cupboard, with the exception of a Bronica or Mamiya 6x4.5 which I'd have liked before the prices rose past £200. Still, no one can have everything they'd like.
 
Mr Badger said:
I think film cameras are only going to get more expensive over the next few years, mainly due to supply and demand. The F&C regulars were debating last year as to whether or not all the good ones had gone now, with only the less than mint ones left. I know this is a slight exaggeration, as it's still possible to find something in fully-working, mint (or very close to it) condition, but unless you drop lucky, it seems we have to look longer and harder to find a nice example of any of the more desirable models, and the price usually reflects that situation too. I'm sure there are still some bargains to be found, but I'm not exactly tripping over them these days.

Luckily, I stocked up while the going was good, so I've plenty of toys in the cupboard, with the exception of a Bronica or Mamiya 6x4.5 which I'd have liked before the prices rose past £200. Still, no one can have everything they'd like.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I managed to source a couple that ticked most boxes so I've made arrangements to have a look at them. That was wise stocking up, glad you managed to get your hands on what you wanted before the surge.

Are those medium format? Mamiya seems to be very popular indeed; a friend has one (I believe the RZ67) and he adores it.
 
ark0101 said:
Yes, and again, I'm not sure why you class this as a lack of self discipline... I find it quite contradictory. When shooting digitally you can take multiple shots of the same object (say you end with 4 or 5), only to whittle them down to one shot that you concentrate on further during post.
Click to expand...
I‘ll attempt to remove your confusion.

I can shoot however I like, film or digital (though processing gets expensive if I choose to shoot prolifically)

Your opinion seems to assume that everyone will shoot film in one way and digital in another (less disciplined) way.

Frankly it’s nonsense. It might be true for you, in which case you should revisit my description re discipline;)
 
Phil V said:
I‘ll attempt to remove your confusion.

I can shoot however I like, film or digital (though processing gets expensive if I choose to shoot prolifically)

Your opinion seems to assume that everyone will shoot film in one way and digital in another (less disciplined) way.

Frankly it’s nonsense. It might be true for you, in which case you should revisit my description re discipline;)
Click to expand...

I didn't create a thread to be lectured on discipline, I'm doing just fine thank you :LOL: But if it'll help your sense of entitlement then go for it! Please only continue this thread if you wish to provide constructive information or help on film SLR's.
 
ark0101 said:
I didn't create a thread to be lectured on discipline, I'm doing just fine thank you :LOL: But if it'll help your sense of entitlement then go for it! Please only continue this thread if you wish to provide constructive information or help on film SLR's.
Click to expand...
Firstly - the internet doesn’t work like that ;)
You can’t decide whether I post, but you’re entitled to block me if I’m bothering you :)

Secondly, I’ll sell you a film camera if you’re interested - I have no use for them.
Canon EOS 5
Or a couple of really old weird ones :)
 
Phil V said:
Firstly - the internet doesn’t work like that ;)
You can’t decide whether I post, but you’re entitled to block me if I’m bothering you :)

Secondly, I’ll sell you a film camera if you’re interested - I have no use for them.
Canon EOS 5
Or a couple of really old weird ones :)
Click to expand...

Well, thanks for attempting to disrupt and ruin a perfectly good thread with your negativity. Have a great day!
 
ark0101 said:
Well, thanks for attempting to disrupt and ruin a perfectly good thread with your negativity. Have a great day!
Click to expand...
I offered an opinion - apologies if you're unable to deal with an opinion that differs from your own. :)

I assume you're not interested in a decent quality EOS 5 ;)
 
The medium of chemical photography whilst expensive, is a great tool for teaching and learning of composition, patients plus lighting. Being a 55yr old I spent many years looking at shots and trying to compose/frame the best picture of a subject, and I remember the long wait to see the end results, for many of us the beauty of the pre digital age was the reward of getting back from the processors your slides or prints.
As I said earlier I am a Nikon user so have a bias and when migrating to digital due to my arsenal of lenses stayed with the Brand. My advice is choose a brand which allows your film lenses to be compatible with a Dslr as Glass is your biggest investment. I had friend who used every brand of SLR from the 70s and 80s and all had their quirks Praktica was cheap but the Zeiss of Jena lenses were good however the cameras had technical issues with the electronics. The Om Range were good so was the AE1 I had an Fg20 and upgraded to an F801 and F90 Nikon then moved to D50, D90 and recently a D750. So my advice would be see which suits you in the Analogue world but also think will I want digital interchangeability in the future.
I was Lucky all my camera choices have meant I still use my antiquated lenses but do understand if I bought the Nikon D3xxx and D5xxx I would have been caught out as an early adopter I was lucky. My trusty 35-70mm F2.8 and its big brother 70-200 which cost a packet worked I would have been gutted if they did not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top