Film still going strong!

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
3,300
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
#82
Peter, you must be out of your mind to go to the expense of spending £20 on an Ensign Selfix when you could almost as good results if you spent only £2,500 on the latest Sony a7r....:)
 
Messages
323
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
#83
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.
For me it’s the exact opposite. I like that I can’t dwell over an image as soon as I’ve taken it like I can with digital. I also like the anticipation of seeing an exposed roll of film. And I like the distance in time between taking a photo and seeing it as I can usually remember taking (due to the fact that you take more time over a single shot with film). I use digital for landscapes, due to the higher technical requirement and post processing possibilities. But for people/family/friends etc I much prefer the process of film. My enjoyment of the medium grew when I started developing my own negs too :)
 

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
3,300
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
#84
For me it’s the exact opposite. I like that I can’t dwell over an image as soon as I’ve taken it like I can with digital. I also like the anticipation of seeing an exposed roll of film. And I like the distance in time between taking a photo and seeing it as I can usually remember taking (due to the fact that you take more time over a single shot with film). I use digital for landscapes, due to the higher technical requirement and post processing possibilities. But for people/family/friends etc I much prefer the process of film. My enjoyment of the medium grew when I started developing my own negs too :)
Strange; I'd use digital for people/family/friends simply because the technical requirements are lower; for landscapes, film just blows the Sony a7rii I use out of the water. On the other hand, it is large format film. In my opinion, the Sony beats 35mm hands down for everything.
 
Messages
323
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
#85
Strange; I'd use digital for people/family/friends simply because the technical requirements are lower; for landscapes, film just blows the Sony a7rii I use out of the water. On the other hand, it is large format film. In my opinion, the Sony beats 35mm hands down for everything.
That’s interesting. I think I enjoy the additional artistic input available with digital: tweaking contrast, white balance, dodge and burn (I know, it’s a film technique, but I don’t have a dark room), cloning out distractions etc. I’m more perfectionist with digital, in that I’m aiming for a higher standard in the end product.

I’d love to try medium or large format though, but it’s cost per shot is higher and medium format cameras are fairly pricey compared to 35mm.
 

Andysnap

<span class="poty">POTY (Film) 2015</span>
Messages
15,590
Name
Andy Grant
Edit My Images
Yes
#86
I’d love to try medium or large format though, but it’s cost per shot is higher and medium format cameras are fairly pricey compared to 35mm.

Actually, although the cost per shot is higher, you can get some wonderful medium format cameras for next to nothing. Have a look at the Ross Ensign range, the 16-20 is the size of a small 35mm camera but has an excellent lens and you get 16 shots per roll. I did a quick review of it in the Massive Review thread.
 
Messages
4,337
Edit My Images
Yes
#87
There's also its big brother, the Ensign Selfix 820 with Ross Xpres lens, which gives 6x9cm negatives on 120 roll film, but you only get 8 shots so make them count! The detail you can see in negs that large is a good compromise before going daft on a large format 'one shot wonder'. It also has optional built-in fold out masks to convert it into a 6x6 giving 12 shots per roll. Expect to pay from £70 upwards for one in excellent or better condition with all shutter speeds working, lightproof bellows and a clear lens. So not too pricey.
 

ChrisR

I'm a well known grump...
Messages
9,164
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
#88
Presumably both of these have wind-on knobs and red windows to determine when to stop? The cameras sound great, but I find I really don't like that system. What are the viewfinders like? The one in my late father's Zeiss 6*6 feels rather approximate...
 
Messages
4,337
Edit My Images
Yes
#89
Presumably both of these have wind-on knobs and red windows to determine when to stop? The cameras sound great, but I find I really don't like that system. What are the viewfinders like? The one in my late father's Zeiss 6*6 feels rather approximate...
Yes, wind on knob and red window. It depends which version of the 16-20 you get. The one Andy has features a small viewfinder window in the top casing to look through, the one I have has a large flip-up Albada type sight on the top of it. The standard 820 also has the Albada type flip up viewfinder, but the 820 special has a built in viewfinder with non-coupled range finder... and looks like a tank! There's also the rather rare 820 Autorange with coupled rangefinder, but that will set you back around £1500+ in excellent condition, if you can find a collector prepared to sell one!
 
Last edited:
Messages
5,893
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
#90
Presumably both of these have wind-on knobs and red windows to determine when to stop? The cameras sound great, but I find I really don't like that system. What are the viewfinders like? The one in my late father's Zeiss 6*6 feels rather approximate...
The super ikonta doesn't use the red window after you've wound on when you first load the film, it's got a proper range finder and it is properly sharp, down sides it can be quite dear and you only get 11 6x6*instead of 12 due to the wind on mechanism.
 

Andysnap

<span class="poty">POTY (Film) 2015</span>
Messages
15,590
Name
Andy Grant
Edit My Images
Yes
#91
Presumably both of these have wind-on knobs and red windows to determine when to stop? The cameras sound great, but I find I really don't like that system. What are the viewfinders like? The one in my late father's Zeiss 6*6 feels rather approximate...
I will admit that the red window is a pain, I have finally got into the habit of winding on after I've taken a shot (mainly ), but being red / green colour blind on all but the brightest days I struggle to see through the window. A tiny red light torch helps.
 
Messages
4,512
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
Yes
#92
I will admit that the red window is a pain, I have finally got into the habit of winding on after I've taken a shot (mainly ), but being red / green colour blind on all but the brightest days I struggle to see through the window. A tiny red light torch helps.
I've not got Andy's red/green issue, but I still miss numbers even when I think I can see well enough through the red window. I'm guessing maybe backing paper had higher contrast numbers when red windows were the big thing, but I find Acros best of the b&w films and I was pretty much OK with a roll of Ektar the other week. Ilford uses numbers and dots which are a bit too grey, unfortunately., and they definitely need the torch.
 
Messages
45
Edit My Images
No
#93
I thought the following was a good read, and perhaps of relevance here:

Here’s what’s behind the comeback of vinyl and printed photos

Key paragraph:

In the photography industry, the first generation of analogue films has been almost entirely replaced by a second generation of digital cameras. A third generation, based on smartphones and social networks, was not originally designed for physical printing.
As more and more consumers now use the third-generation, abandoning digital cameras – according to data by the Camera and Imaging Product Association, shipments of digital cameras have decreased by more than 60% between 2010 and 2019 – the physical dimension of analogue photography seems to have become a useful complement. As a result, photography on film has started to return as a niche product – and discontinued products such as Kodak’s Ektachrome or Fujifilm’s black and white films are being reintroduced.
Some consumers, who had abandoned products of the first generation start using them again as a complement to the third one.
 
Messages
16
Edit My Images
Yes
#94
And you could shoot brand new technology film in a 60 year old camera that still works just fine. :snaphappy:
And this is one reason why I am using film - so that my grandchildren can see the negatives and be able to exactly that.
I had no great interest in photography until the (debatable) reality of 'digital disposability' crossed my radar.
 
Messages
4,512
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
Yes
#95
I've not got Andy's red/green issue, but I still miss numbers even when I think I can see well enough through the red window. I'm guessing maybe backing paper had higher contrast numbers when red windows were the big thing, but I find Acros best of the b&w films and I was pretty much OK with a roll of Ektar the other week. Ilford uses numbers and dots which are a bit too grey, unfortunately., and they definitely need the torch.
I put a roll of Fomapan 400 in the Ensign today and am pleasantly surprised at the visibility of the numbers, so that's a plus. (y)
 
Top