Film still going strong!

Messages
3,806
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
No
#41
I also know people who use typewriters. To write letters.

Old is the new new I think.

The phrase "more than one way to skin a cat" was invented because there are so many different ways to arrive at the same ending. I think it's great. It's just such a shame when people start trying to tell everyone that their way is best. Unless it's my wife.
 

Nod

Krispy and Kremey
Messages
32,859
Name
Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
Edit My Images
Yes
#45
I also know people who use typewriters. To write letters.

I use a fountain pen for letters and cheques.

On the rare occasions I now use film, I find that I have become completely detached from any images by the time I get them back from D&P whereas the immediacy of d*g*t*l allows me a chance to remember when, where, why etc. I took the snap.
 
Messages
1,871
Edit My Images
No
#46
Hmmm OK ….as you wish.
I thought 'Worst of all, they seem to be enjoying themselves!' was a bit of a giveaway, but next time I'll use smileys :)

For the avoidance of doubt, it is of course great that people born into the internet age are taking an interest in this stuff, and I can definitely understand why. Nearly everyone carries around a decent digital camera and streaming music player in their pocket, but film cameras and record players are now more popular than they have been in years. There are lots of reasons for this. The retro technology is in itself attractive - a Leica or a Nikon (maybe even a Canon!) is nicely designed piece of industrial art, and a vinyl record (maybe even a CD!) is a tangible object with space to appreciate the cover artwork (and something you can get the band to sign if you ever meet them). The process can be fun, whether it's dropping a needle onto vinyl, or developing a film. And above all, the results are different in an interesting way. Things we once thought of as defects (the added warmth of playing a record compared to the clinical sound of digital, the added grain of shooting on film) add a bit of texture and character that many find attractive. We can fake these things digitally, of course, but we already do too much of this. A large proportion of digital images, whether Instagram filtered on a phone or lovingly Photoshopped by an Advanced Amateur look as artificial as a Teletubbies backdrop. If you wanted to be tasteless back in the day, you had to work at it, underexposing Velvia with a stacked polariser and graduated tobacco filter (perhaps with a starburst thrown in for good measure). Now we stack images instead of filters, making HDR confections with lurid tones that never existed in nature with a few mouse clicks. I suspect the current enthusiasm for analogue is partly a reaction against this sort of easy 'perfection', and an attempt to create something a bit more 'authentic' (whatever that means). Or maybe records and film cameras are just cool.
 

ChrisR

I'm a well known grump...
Messages
9,164
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
#50
I use a fountain pen for letters and cheques.

On the rare occasions I now use film, I find that I have become completely detached from any images by the time I get them back from D&P whereas the immediacy of d*g*t*l allows me a chance to remember when, where, why etc. I took the snap.
Oddly, I find the delayed gratification of film helps a lot, and even when I have the results back it's still probably a couple of weeks before I can decide which (if any) of the shots are interesting.

OTOH, for learning purposes I think digital should be better as the feedback loop closes much more quickly. OYAH (work it out) with digital I find I soon start relying on all that automation, so I don't learn much anyway!
 

RaglanSurf

Forum Idiot'13/14 <span class=poty>FPOTY'17</span>
Messages
10,608
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
#51
I bought my first digital camera from Dixons (remember them?) in the Xmas sale in 1999, a 1.5 megapixel Fuji MX500 compact! I bought it to use for work as I realised it would save much time and money when taking photos to include in survey reports. I wasn't wrong, and whilst the quality wasn't a patch on what I could produce from a scanned 35mm print at the time, it was good enough for a report, especially given the time and money it saved.

I still used my two Canon T90s and A1 for 'photography' though, and I didn't get an autofocus SLR until the early 2000s. Eventually, after a 3.5mp Casio and a 5mp Minolta, I bit the bullet and bought a 10mp Canon 400D, which could use the same lenses as my then EOS-3 SLR. I now have two compact digi cameras, a 10 year-old used Fuji bridge camera with good 28-400 optical zoom range (bought recently for £16 from a charity shop) that I use for work. I also have a Canon 6D that I use mainly for 'pleasure' and more old film cameras than I want to admit to!

For work it's always digital because of the speed and convenience, for personal general-purpose use and documentary style photography (when I get time) it's usually the digital 6D, and for when I want to enjoy photography as photography (which some may not understand) it's one or more of my film cameras, that range from manual everything 6x9 medium format to autofocus 35mm SLRs that can use the same lenses as my 6D. So that's the reason I say I use digital to take photographs, but film to do photography. :)

Interestingly, I did an experiment a couple of years ago, I took two 'identical' photos of a scene, one with the 6D, and one with a 6x6 medium format TLR on Kodak Ektar 100 colour print film. I then printed both images at A4 (the digital image from a JPEG straight from the camera, which produces very nice looking JPEGs, and the film shot was scanned at standard settings on a flatbed home scanner). I then asked some friends and relatives to chose which photo they preferred the look of.

The film print was chosen by almost all of my sample group! On a computer screen the 6D had definitely produced more detail (it may have been closer or been beaten if I'd had a high-res lab scan of the film negative though), but as sharp and detailed as the results from the 6D were (and it does produce some lovely looking images), most people preferred the 'look' of the film photo.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to go back to the days without digital cameras, my 6D performs at low light levels I could only dream about with film, and the results are instant - you can check you've got the shot before you leave the location. The sheer convenience and versatility of digital makes it a given for most professional photographers.

However, there's something about film, it has a certain look to it; and there's something slightly magical about putting a roll of film in a camera - that slight feeling of anticipation! Plus there's the skill of matching the film type and speed to suit the subject. Old cameras can be so enjoyable to use as a hobby too, lovely pieces of engineering, the sound of the moving parts, the feel of the controls, etc. Then there's that slight 'Christmas morning' type feeling of excitement when the developed film reaches your hands for the first time... did I get some good shots? I find I don't get that the same with digital.

As a work tool, I think digital photography wins hands down in most everyday situations. However, as a hobby, I think film photography has a lot going for it. :)
Wonderfully and eloquently put.
 

RaglanSurf

Forum Idiot'13/14 <span class=poty>FPOTY'17</span>
Messages
10,608
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
#52
It has parallels: I was reading today on the BBC website that cassette tapes are becoming popular again, at least with a small group of people, partly as a result of a few major artists releasing their music on that medium; vinyl is already a growing thing again. In both cases the sound quality is judged to be poorer, but the overall enjoyment factor greater.
Cassettes I can’t really comment on as I never bought my music in tape format but an album on vinyl played on quality equipment could never be regarded as inferior to a CD.
 
Last edited:
Messages
635
Name
Lindsay
Edit My Images
Yes
#53
I don't disagree personally Nick, just acknowledging generally-held opinion. I like and still play my vinyl from the 60's and 70's, on fairly decent audio kit (I'm not one of those who listens for the noise rather than the actual recording).
 
Messages
4,396
Name
Gareth (Not Gary!)
Edit My Images
No
#54
That is weird isn't it - same basic aim to produce photos and two completely different approaches to it :)

Dave
Yep. I HATED digital but didn't know why.

Most of us on here who shoot film will also have one or more digital cameras which we'll use in certain circumstances, so I'm not sure what you mean by weird? I can appreciate that many can't be bothered with the faff of film, but that's because they don't see the enjoyment factor. It recalls when people used to say that real ale was a passing fad that would never last, and "clean" beer was vastly better, but now you can't move for craft beers and it's a big market. Celebrate the difference Dave. :cool:
As Dave said, he was replying to my post about my experience being the opposite to his. I still don't feel like a photographer as such and never use the term to refer to myself, however I feel more one since I discovered shooting on film than I ever did using digital (which is what I started with). I am one of the few who doesn't own a digital camera at all any more and honestly can't see myself buying one every again. It would just feel a complete waste of money for me.

My first decision to shoot entirely on film was when I took a trip with members of this very forum to Iceland. It was a massive revelation for me. I used two cameras, a Hasselblad 500cm and a Leica M2, although mostly the medium format. I had a single lens for each and it was the most fun I have had shooting, not worrying about which focal length to use because there were no options. It's an approach I try and stick to now and I only have one lens for each the cameras I have (which I think is too many at times).
My recent trip to Vietnam involved two camera bodies (35mm) and I shot 17 rolls of film.

I don't disagree personally Nick, just acknowledging generally-held opinion. I like and still play my vinyl from the 60's and 70's, on fairly decent audio kit (I'm not one of those who listens for the noise rather than the actual recording).
I actually don't think the generally held opinion is that vinyl is inferior, though. I have friends who acknowledge it sounds better when they hear mine, although they don't do it themselves as they prefer streaming services on their device, connected by bluetooth to the car or a home speaker or whatever.
I finally purchased What's the Story Morning Glory on vinyl yesterday. Bit late to that party but I look forward to playing it this afternoon.
 
Last edited:
Messages
635
Name
Lindsay
Edit My Images
Yes
#56
I am very fond of and love playing my vinyl copy of Arlo Guthrie's Alices Restaurant, bought contemporaneously.
I equally love using all of my old Pentaxes and trying different films in them.
I have a fountain pen but would like a better one, and am terribly jealous of my sister's copper-plate script.
I use cheques occasionally, though will admit to preferring bank transfers.
I write few letters by hand but often fancy the idea of a snail-mail pen-pal like when I was young.

However I'm also rather keen on my D500 and what it can enable me to do to a modest level that I would be completely useless at with my film kit.
So there is a place for all of it
 
Messages
1,221
Edit My Images
No
#58
So there is a place for all of it
...which is a sensible way to look at things. The world is so much nicer when we say "vive la différence".
 
Messages
37
Edit My Images
Yes
#59
That's the really irritating thing. Time was when vintage gear shops and camera fairs were the exclusive province of grumpy men of a certain age, looking for that Nikon or Rolleiflex they couldn't afford when they were 16. Now they're being invaded by annoyingly stylish young people of both sexes earnestly enquiring about the relative merits of Leica screwmount lenses from the 50s, looking for a good deal on a Pentax Spotmatic, or discussing which is the best developer to push HP5 by two stops. Worst of all, they seem to be enjoying themselves!
This hits home. As a teen I shot, developed and printed myself and am now looking to get back into it. When I was young I lusted over Leica and Hasselblad. So here I was thinking no one is going to want these old film dinosaurs anymore and I can go back and pick up the cameras of my dreams and have enough change from a tenner for a Happy Meal. How wrong I was....
 
Messages
635
Name
Lindsay
Edit My Images
Yes
#60
...and a valve radio (receiver and/or transmitter) is so much more interesting to operate, and slightly challenging to operate well.

G8PMA
 
Messages
4,512
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
Yes
#61
as the thread is going all over the place I might as well add:-- valves amplifiers sound better (or more musical) than transistor ones o_O
I use transistor amps during the spring and summer months, and have just swapped them out for the valve amp I use during the colder months.. Part of the reasoning is that I will actually sit and listen more during the winter months, while I'm more likely to be moving between rooms during the better months. :cool:
 

simon ess

Just call me Roxanne.
Messages
7,742
Edit My Images
No
#62
I have a class D amp. It replaced my class A Sugden.

My phono pre is a valve amp.

Works for me.
 
Messages
47
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
#63
This hits home. As a teen I shot, developed and printed myself and am now looking to get back into it. When I was young I lusted over Leica and Hasselblad. So here I was thinking no one is going to want these old film dinosaurs anymore and I can go back and pick up the cameras of my dreams and have enough change from a tenner for a Happy Meal. How wrong I was....
Point me to where you can get Leicas for less than a tenner please.............
 
Messages
1,221
Edit My Images
No
#64
Point me to where you can get Leicas for less than a tenner please.............
No can do. I did buy an M2 with 35, 50 and 90 lenses for £250 in the 1990s, which I thought was pretty reasonable. Moreover it was entirely legitimate. :cool:
 

Nod

Krispy and Kremey
Messages
32,859
Name
Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
Edit My Images
Yes
#65
You use cheques?!
Never had a cheque hacked or similar. Am resisting online banking as long as possible - it's bad enough having to trust banks let alone all the stages between my fingers and them!

as the thread is going all over the place I might as well add:-- valves amplifiers sound better (or more musical) than transistor ones o_O
I would agree at the music making stage but once a musician/band/producer has decided on a sound, the best reproduction of that sound is the "best" sound. Valves (generally) add warmth which may not be what the originator(s) intended.
 
Messages
47
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
#66
No can do. I did buy an M2 with 35, 50 and 90 lenses for £250 in the 1990s, which I thought was pretty reasonable. Moreover it was entirely legitimate. :cool:
I just bought an M2 with 50mm Elmar collapsible but it cost £1100 and I had to send it away for CLA as soon as I saw the first shots.

Leica M2 50mm Elmar Collapsing Lens LUF.jpg

It was suffering from a sticky shutter through lack of use. Still waiting "patiently" for it to come back from CLA.
 
Messages
1,221
Edit My Images
No
#68
I just bought an M2 with 50mm Elmar collapsible but it cost £1100 and I had to send it away for CLA as soon as I saw the first shots.
To be honest I wasn't taken with the M2 outfit and after a year or so did a straight swap with Morgan Cameras (when they were in Tottenham Court Road) for a new Compaq computer. As the computer was around £650 I think I did quite well. :naughty:

A few years later I bought an M3 with the 50mm Summicron and that suited me much better...

Leicawith90mmlens.jpg
 
Messages
1,871
Edit My Images
No
#69
This hits home. As a teen I shot, developed and printed myself and am now looking to get back into it. When I was young I lusted over Leica and Hasselblad. So here I was thinking no one is going to want these old film dinosaurs anymore and I can go back and pick up the cameras of my dreams and have enough change from a tenner for a Happy Meal. How wrong I was....
A few years ago you might not have done so badly. Prices for Leica etc. were at least static, and most lower end gear was pretty cheap. There are still some bargains around (e.g. unfashionable AF SLRs) but the price of something like a Leica M6 has almost doubled over a decade. The weak pound doesn't help, of course, as the specialist Leica dealers do a lot of international trade.
 
Messages
47
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
#70
To be honest I wasn't taken with the M2 outfit and after a year or so did a straight swap with Morgan Cameras (when they were in Tottenham Court Road) for a new Compaq computer. As the computer was around £650 I think I did quite well. :naughty:

A few years later I bought an M3 with the 50mm Summicron and that suited me much better...

View attachment 257061
My preference is for the 35mm FOV so the M2 was the natural choice, Horses for courses though.
 
Messages
47
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
#71
..but you still might be able to get a Canon T70 body under a tenner to use with all those lovely Canon lenses o_O;)
No need I still have one of my old Canon New F1s with a bunch of lenses. To be honest though I now prefer rangefinders because I now need glasses for up close and I don't need to wear them to focus the rangefinders whereas I do for the SLR.
 

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
10,096
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
#72
No need I still have one of my old Canon New F1s with a bunch of lenses. To be honest though I now prefer rangefinders because I now need glasses for up close and I don't need to wear them to focus the rangefinders whereas I do for the SLR.
Canon MF SLR cameras are not helpful with dioptre adapters for the viewfinder (the super duper T90 doesn't have an adjustable viewfinder o_O:rolleyes: ), I think Canon ones exist but Nikon ones are much easier to obtain.
 
Messages
4,337
Edit My Images
Yes
#73
Cassettes I can’t really comment on as I never bought my music in tape format but an album on vinyl played on quality equipment could never be regarded as inferior to a CD.
Cassettes were always a bit of a compromise, used mainly for in car entertainment, I thought the sound quality from 8 Track was better, but the size and bulk of the tape cartridges probably killed that market.

However, when it comes to tapes and home entertainment, it took a reel to reel to cut the mustard. I have my Dad's old Sony TC 630 reel to reel, which I must get round to finding the power lead for and seeing if it will fire up again. A nice, big portable semi-pro unit with clip-off 'optional' speakers that fold shut to form a protective lid over the deck. For analogue entertainment value, the VU meters are worth watching on their own! Here's one in action.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aVLFxWH_sg
 
Messages
37
Edit My Images
Yes
#74
Cassettes were always a bit of a compromise, used mainly for in car entertainment, I thought the sound quality from 8 Track was better, but the size and bulk of the tape cartridges probably killed that market.

[\QUOTE]

In some genres (underground punk and metal) tape never went away and is still going strong. It’s the quickest and cheapest way to distribute small press music and sell stuff at gigs.

By small press I mean runs of 100 or less. If I hear something new and exciting I will pick up a tape to support the band even if I never play it. These days, however, youve got to rush to get most stuff as anything remotely quality sells out very quickly.
 
Messages
184
Name
Conrad
Edit My Images
Yes
#75
I have a class D amp. It replaced my class A Sugden.

My phono pre is a valve amp.

Works for me.
I'm mixed up all over the place!

I still use my old Sugden class A/AB pre-power amps I had as a student (C28/2xP28) with a Marantz CD player (my first hifi) and have added a Sonos Connect.

I also got into buying LPs in the last 15 years and play them on a Nottingham Ace Spacedeck turntable via Ecko valve amp.

After years of being "paperless" I recently got into renovating old fountain pens (some from the 1920s), and particularly enjoy using some old Parkers (Duofold, 51, 61, 65, 75) and more modern Pelikans and Pilots.

When it comes to taking pictures, I love my digital Canon 5Dmk3 - especially for action and low light gig photography, but also use film with a Canon EOS 30v (bought only 18 months ago), and am awaiting delivery of a Chroma 5x4 inch large format film camera.

So I guess you can have the best of all worlds and enjoy each for the specific joy and experience it gives! :)
 
Messages
529
Edit My Images
No
#76
Then I pulled my Travelzoom camera out of my pocket and took this picture which was cropped and resized ready for posting about 3 minutes after I pressed the shutter release.

So now I remember why I don't use my film cameras any more
If you had used your phone you could of posted it to the forum from the same device.

Which kinda illustrates why people are using film cameras and why digital cameras sales are falling.
For the majority of people, a phone camera is all they need for photography. They have no need to buy a standalone digital camera.
Film gives something different that a phone can't replicate.
 
Messages
4,512
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
Yes
#78
Surely a VG reason to use a film camera (even just for something important) is for archival for the future...I've posted shots here (scanned from my negs) going back 60 years.
And you could shoot brand new technology film in a 60 year old camera that still works just fine. :snaphappy:
 
Messages
1,221
Edit My Images
No
#79
Film gives something different that a phone can't replicate.
Yes it does: a great deal more expense and effort plus the poser factor. :naughty:
 
Messages
4,337
Edit My Images
Yes
#80
Yes it does: a great deal more expense and effort plus the poser factor. :naughty:
One of the reasons I quite often use a latter-day Canon EOS film camera, it looks very similar to a modern DSLR, so no poser factor accusations or distractions from old people coming up to me to talk about film cameras! ;)
 
Top