Filmapocalypse

C

colpepper

Messages
655
Edit My Images
No
Since washing up on this board a few weeks ago I've realised I'm not the only silver survivor from the digital revolution. As I don't buy enthusiast magazines I feel like those Japanese soldiers still fighting the war in the pacific twenty years after it finished. Not that I wasn't aware of digital - you see the stuff in every camera shop window - but I'd never been tempted to enquire beyond point and shoot compacts.

What strikes me is the pace of change in digital and the willingness of some people to pursue every new bit of technology. Photography has always had gear addicts and tackle tarts but most users eventuallly settled on a classic piece of kit from a prestige maker and concentrated on making pictures. Now the digital camera itself seems to be the event and frankly, the number of great images appear to be as rare now as they ever were in spite of the number of photos being taken.
Am I just a cumudgeon? Is this board for Canutes ;) hoping to hold back the rising tide of can-do technology or does film have a different set of values? And what has happened to the mountain of quality SLRs that were once people's pride and joy?

I suspect the discussion has been had a thousand times but I'm completely out the loop so what exactly is going on?
 
Are you a Curmudgeon ? Bit early to tell, but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt so far :LOL:

Is this board for Canutes ? I think you'll find a lot of us shoot both film and dijikal, depending on the job, the timescales, and for the pro's, the customers requirements.

What happened to the mountain of Quality SLR's etc.? They're on ebay, and available for money so low, that I can purchase camera's i'd never have had a sniff of when they first came out. And the ones that aren't on ebay are in Arthur's workshop :LOL:

I started out shooting film, for that was what was available at the time. I purchased a digital point and shoot, an Olypmus 1mp that ate batteries at an alarming rate, and produced pictures 1200x900 or thereabouts. Barely above web usage, though it was a useful visual notepad for my work. I carried on shooting film, from 35mm and MF. As digital improved, I bought a better point-and-shoot - a Ixus v3 - 3.5mp, and that became my main camera - at the time, the only shooting I would do, would be on walking holidays, and a camera that would fit in a shirt pocket, and still do a 10x8 enlargement was all I needed. Christmas 2008 I bought a digital SLR, and re-took up photography as a main hobby. Since then, I've also gone back to film, I've bought 2 rangefinders, 2 35mm slr's,3 MF cameras and (whisper it in here) a 10mp Point-and-shoot digital camera. I've also finally got a setup to process black and white, C41 or E6 films, scan them and print via the computer.

That's what's going on chez BigYin :)
 
Cheers TBY, the jigsaw is beginning to fit. The last time I spent any real money on cameras and lenses was about 15 years ago when digi was in its infancy. Around the same time I looked at the price of digital backs for 5 x 4 as one would have been useful for the place I worked. IIRC the asking price was about £25k!

Now I know 15 years is a long time, especially as it included a new millenium and an internet revolution, but I'm slightly surprised how quickly film has been abandoned by just about everyone but a few folk on this board and the occasional recidivist like myself. In the last five years I can recall noticing one person using a film SLR. That's a huge shift from one technology to another and leaves me wondering whether a) digital is yet at a competitive price for the demanding print user (16 x 12"+ fine print) compared to the price you could pay for equivalent silver technology, b) if camera user's are just blasting off shots because they can, without thought for the photograph, c) whether photographers are content to keep trading up every year or two just to keep pace with progress in a way they never had to do with film, and d) am I missing some blindingly obvious point that everyone else is seeing?

As an example I noticed on classifieds someone was selling an A1 and a barrage of Canon lenses for about a tenth/twentieth of what they'd have cost new and a fraction of what a quality DSLR and equivalent lenses would cost. Film and silver print is more expensive than digital clearly but even so the difference in cost to purchase similar quality digital image making tools would be immense!
Like I say, digital has sort of passed me by and I expect these conversations were being had ten years ago in the magazines, so forgive me if it's old hat but if you're interested in making quality photographic prints rather than technology for its own sake and images on screen, film seems like an absolute bargain nowadays.
 
colpepper said:
...... if you're interested in making quality photographic prints rather than technology for its own sake and images on screen, film seems like an absolute bargain nowadays.
Click to expand...

Hush. Dont let the secret out of the bag. :D
 
when I'm out and about with a medium format film body I often find myself chatting to other film users or people that used to use film and are no longer photographers
 
I think digital makes it easier for *everyone* to get the shot and without having to think too much about it either. That and the fact that you can shoot with your wallet on display appear to be the main reasons why digital has grown so fast. In a "wannitnow" society the speed and thoughtlessness required for digital fits in perfectly when you can fire off 10 shots a second for 30 seconds and have no worries about changing film or changing conditions. I would question the cost per usable image relative to film though when equipment and computer costs are taken into account but that's neither here nor there - digital cameras suit the age and while there are those that like the tranquility and simplicity of old cars, there will always be those that are blowing their horns trying to overtake on the inside. Are they better? Worse? Or just different?

As By notes, I may have one or two film bodies around here but I also have a few digital as well and for me it is a case of the right tool for the job - a situation brought about by having been a film user a long time and so having the experience that allows an apperciation of the required skills and methods. Digital needs none of these and I suspect that green square has more to do with the fading use of film than any other of the above points.


Arthur
 
colpepper said:
...leaves me wondering whether a) digital is yet at a competitive price for the demanding print user (16 x 12"+ fine print) compared to the price you could pay for equivalent silver technology, b) if camera user's are just blasting off shots because they can, without thought for the photograph, c) whether photographers are content to keep trading up every year or two just to keep pace with progress in a way they never had to do with film, and d) am I missing some blindingly obvious point that everyone else is seeing?
Click to expand...

a) for digital printing, accepted standard is 300px per inch - 4800x3600 in your example, or around 17 Mp. Canon for example has just released the EOS550D, a entry-level camera that can be had for under £700 - okay, the kit lens isn't fantastic, and for my type of photography (mainly landscape/architectural) then you'd probably have to drop at least another 600 for some L glass to get the best out of all those ikkle photosites (or a £20 adaptor and some old M42 manual lenses, but that's another thread :LOL:)
Alternatively, fleabay regularly throws up Bronica's for £300 - another £200 for a good scanner, £50 for chemicals and you've £150 for film stock :shrug:

b) Not all of us blast away on full gas, at least not unless the situation demands it. I don't normally shoot moving objects, unless you count water, but every now and then, I get the urge to shoot something different. New Years Day I took some shots of the local pub's Soapbox Derby. At the end of 3 hours shooting, I came away with maybe 1400 shots. Now, I'm carp at shooting moving targets, so a quick weed-down of blurred, missed, out of frame and just rubbish pictures took my total down to around 650. I've maybe 35 that I'm happy with. Since then I've sold about 50 10x8's to the participants - maybe 5 of those shots were ones that I was happy with, and theres a good chance had I been shooting on film I'd have had the same keeper rate - for 4 rolls of film that'd be 65 shots without problems, and maybe 3 I'd be happy with. For this kind of use, digital is good.

c) I'm not feeling the need to trade up my digital camera, though it's paid for itself a couple of times over in last 15 months. Instead I'll invest in glass for it. Eventually, as it's a consumer model, it's going to get a case of the electrical never-get-overs, and I'll swap to something more robust that can use the same glass. I think that this site may give a skewed impression of what people do, as it has a large proportion of gear-heads (as does any "enthusiasts" site) and also a good chunk of pro's who treat camera's as a tool of the trade, and budget in replacement of camera bodies on a regular basis, much as they used to with film - though with digital, the body budget is combined with what used to be the film and developing budget :shrug:

d) I don't know if you're missing something or not - I can only say from my viewpoint, that making Images is good. If they're on film, that's good, If they're on a computer disk, thats good... If they get printed onto paper and handed around friends and family thats great. And if they get printed onto BIG paper, framed, and put on the wall then that's bloody well magnificent :LOL:
 
Interesting replies. Arthur's comments on the 'wannitnow' society ring true. My question has always been will the trade up in body, lens, etc allow me to do something I couldn't before that I'm actually likely to want to do? Even in pre-digital days I saw little point in buttons beyond aperture priority auto for the stuff I did, which was to make the finest prints I could. You can make fine prints from a toy camera image or a Hasselblad, the hard stuff begins once you've got the negative.

If you translate the same approach to digital, which I accept is not the only one, we're not talking photography Taliban here, the gear required to make large portfolio quality images hasn't become more accessible. I suppose I'm saying from what I can tell image taking has become more democratic, fine image making is where it always was, expensive in time, money and commitment. It could be that I'm a late adopter or just a skinflint but of the thousands of negs I'm in the process of scanning from the 70s onwards, there's maybe a dozen make a statement I'm completely happy with and none of them have anything to do with the gear I was using.

As most people here accept the medium is just a tool to say things with, the benefits shown from the digitalisation of 'art' photography aren't as obvious as the digitalisation of other objects and aren't reflected in the abandonment of silver film so quickly. I think my position may be quirkier than most but I don't see the rush to abandon the old stuff born out in the images emerging.
 
I have read your posts over the last 6months with interest, and appreciation of your wealth and depth of knowledge of our "hobby"
but really - this is a bit elitist!...:)

Ambermile said:
I think digital makes it easier for *everyone* to get the shot and without having to think too much about it either.
I could do that with a film camera too - Canon A1 30years ago set to Av

digital fits in perfectly when you can fire off 10 shots a second for 30 seconds and have no worries about changing film or changing conditions
I can do that with a Canon Power Winder

and for me it is a case of the right tool for the job - a situation brought about by having been a film user a long time and so having the experience that allows an appreciation of the required skills and methods.
good point

Digital needs none of these
implying anyone having NOT used film isn't capable - not a good point

Arthur
Click to expand...

not a personal attack on your views, but i feel your reasoning is just too sweeping
changes and advances occur in all areas of human endeavor - I hope you will agree that the digital side has opened up an affordable world of photography to a new generation who have not grown up with film, developing and printing

the pros/cons will always be there - you like the specific benefits film gives you - I prefer digital developing and home printing - it doesn't mean I don't have "an appreciation of the required skills and methods"

best regards, (y)
 
Everyone get the shot - no, you are missing the point here; With a digital you can take shot after shot after shot, safe in the knowledge that if it's crap you can throw it away, no cost.

A Canon power winder is not an add-on that most wanted, or could afford, and it is only now with the latest 1D that 10fps has actually become a reality. You must have one hell of a PW there - got speed stripes too - even the pellicle mirror Canon can only hit 6fps!

Digital needs none of these - no, that's not the implication, rather that anyone can take up a digital, point and click to their heart's content and maybe get one in a hundred nearly right. No film worries, no developing to worry about, no worrying that the entire developing lab will be giggling at your pictures of close-up fingers...


Yes, as I said, digital suits the world of today and yet I cannot help but wonder if those that have never tried film were to actually have a go things may be different. I develop bw here, I will soon be developing colour as well, not because it's cheap, not because it is is easy, not because it is clean, not even because I can - but simply because it is part of the process I choose to use.

I also use digital and the corresponding process cost me £300 for a piece of software before I even started paying for a PC and widescreen :LOL: developing kit for BW cost about £40 all in (~tank included).
 
Ambermile said:
Everyone get the shot - no, you are missing the point here; With a digital you can take shot after shot after shot, safe in the knowledge that if it's crap you can throw it away, no cost.

Digital needs none of these - no, that's not the implication, rather that anyone can take up a digital, point and click to their heart's content and maybe get one in a hundred nearly right.

Yes, as I said, digital suits the world of today and yet I cannot help but wonder if those that have never tried film were to actually have a go things may be different. ...
Click to expand...

ok .. could we assume 2 levels of digital users
one - the enthusiast [who posts here maybe] and the "shooter" who gets his digital from Comet to go on holiday

the second group are quite happy with what they bought, and will never go down your route of trying out film

My "elitist" comment ;) was that you implied that WITHOUT a film background digital users were somehow lacking

I dont believe the first group " point and click" .. but plan as thoughtfully and with experience as you do with your film camera
cheers
 
Ambermile said:
A Canon power winder is not an add-on that most wanted, or could afford, and it is only now with the latest 1D that 10fps has actually become a reality.
Click to expand...


From Wikipedia..

Professional grade cameras are faster, with speeds up to 10 frames per second. The first 35 mm SLR to achieve such a shooting speed was Canon's F-1 High Speed Motor Drive camera, first developed for the 1972 Winter Olympics in Sapporo, Japan
 
Long time ago I used to work in a camera shop in the days when Canon and Minolta changed there mounts and went down the AF route.

Even in those days there were always people 'wanting the best camera' waiting for the next gen of AF/Metering/Lens etc to come out so they could upgrade. Bit like what happens in this digital age, but now you seem to get more people jumping from one brand to the another looking for that elusive winning image.

As for the 'throw away image society' that has always been around, why do you think the all in one throw away film cameras were made and sold by the bucket full too use on holiday, stick on the table at weddings, photo your mate snogging a moose on new years eve :LOL: etc etc. This is all done now with the camera phones (I would like a phone I can use as a phone :cautious:)

Digital has made more people "photographers" becuase the technology and the clever marketing campaigns make us want to upgrade or change our gear.

Other than that there is very little if anything that you cant do on either digi or film. Scan you film in to a computer and you now have a digi image to do what ever you wish. :LOL:

Oh and on a side note my Canon EOS 1RS will crack 10fps :razz:, however I doubt the EOS RT would and none of the power winders from the film days would do 10fps either, unless you got one the special built cameras that were made for the Olympics. Check out the Mir site about them under the EOS 1 RS links
 
I think that the main reaso for "Upgrade-Itis" with digital is that it is a relatively immature technology that's having shed-loads of money shovelled at it (probably the equivalent of colour film when it was first released) So, the main feature (as far as enthusiast shooters are concerned - ie the sensor end associated hard/firmware keeps getting upgraded on a regular basis. Sadly - a better sensor is difficult for the marketing men to sell to punters, so they have to build in a load of bells and whistles as well. The resolution of the 7D was great, but needs good glass to get the best from it. Next thing we know, it's being built into a entry level body as well. Most digital slr's conform to the 80/20 rule from computing - 80% of the users use 20% of the facilities provided. Sadly, it's difficult to know which 20% :shrug:

I don't want to get bogged down in the whole Film vs Digital debate - I shoot both, as appropriate, and enjoy each for what they are, and for what they do.

I do feel that shooting film has given me a more measured approach to shooting (the whole compose, meter with the handheld meter, wind on, focus, set the aperture & shutter speed, cock the shutter, check composition, press the release thing will always do that) - however, I've learned things using the digital through being able to take 300 shots, for approaching zero cost until I get it right - I'd have never been able to (read afford to) experiment with macro stuff or off-camera flash without the digital.

The other thing digital brought to me for a learning process was the EXIF data - i could look at a shot, see what worked, then read off what shutter speed/aperture/focal length the camera was set at. That closed loop speeded up my learning of the whole process immeasurably. I learned more about the technique of photography in the first 6 months with the digital than 25 years of occasional film shooting. All because I had instant feedback. The information is nothing I couldn't do with a notepad and film I know, but who really does that? And is the shot still fresh in your memory, when the slides come back from processing 5-7 days later. And who's organised enough to still have the notepad around 9 months later when you want to set up a similar shot - i can pop up a image that worked, grab the settings from there, and have a fairly instant first approximation to work from.

Film / Digital it's all good if it gets me outside shooting :)
 
everyone seems to have missed the bit where Arthur said "you can fire off 10 shots a second for 30 seconds and have no worries about changing film or changing conditions"

By my reckoning thats 300 shots on a single roll of film - I don't care how fast your motordrive is, there's no room in a film canister for that much film :)
 
TheBigYin said:
everyone seems to have missed the bit where Arthur said "you can fire off 10 shots a second for 30 seconds and have no worries about changing film or changing conditions"

By my reckoning thats 300 shots on a single roll of film - I don't care how fast your motordrive is, there's no room in a film canister for that much film :)
Click to expand...

Bulk film backs. You bought film in long lengths and loaded it into the back in a darkroom. The Nikon one could hold up to 250 frames worth of film so not quite 300 but close.

Edit
Link to picture http://www.mir.SPAM/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf4/filmbacks/index1.htm
 
Halflap said:
Bulk film backs. You bought film in long lengths and loaded it into the back in a darkroom. The Nikon one could hold up to 250 frames worth of film so not quite 300 but close.

Edit
Link to picture http://www.mir.SPAM/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf4/filmbacks/index1.htm
Click to expand...

Like the man in the orthopaedic shoes... I stand corrected!

So can you get one for MF? :LOL:
 
Hardly the point this speed thing is it? How many amateurs (which to be fair is what we are talking about) would have even know in existed let alone could find/afford/justify one? I was semi-pro in the early 80's and certainly couldn't.

There was also no "elitist" comment, it was trying to say (and still does as I re-read it) that those without the film background don't know about it. Photographs are pictures printed on paper, not displayed on a screen.
 
Ambermile said:
Photographs are pictures printed on paper, not displayed on a screen.
Click to expand...

And, for me, taken on film, not a digital sensor.

I sure am an elitist

( Elitism, as defined by the Collins Dictionary, sitting on my desk : the belief that society should be governed by a small group of people who are superior to everybody else. I I definitely believe in that, much better than mediocrity):D
 
Ambermile said:
Hardly the point this speed thing is it? How many amateurs (which to be fair is what we are talking about) would have even know in existed let alone could find/afford/justify one? I was semi-pro in the early 80's and certainly couldn't.

There was also no "elitist" comment, it was trying to say (and still does as I re-read it) that those without the film background don't know about it. Photographs are pictures printed on paper, not displayed on a screen.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. If the limit of your aspiration is sharing images on screen among friends, plus the occasional print, DSLRs seem way over the top when a hundred quid compact will match the resolving power of your average laptop screen and be a darned sight easier to carry. And chasing technological innovation to share photos on screen is positively barmy (IMHO) because you simply wouldn't be able to see what you'd paid for two digital generations ago.
At the risk of repeating myself, if your aim is a fine print, silver technology is as good as most contemporary processes and better than most. Where digital really comes into its own is scanning fragile negs and transparencies so that working prints can be made from a digital record without compromising a delicate artifact that can be kept for archive/gallery prints.

Of course if close contact motor sport or air displays are your bag digital has its place, but such images have always been about sharpness and colour reproduction for editorial purposes, not fine printing.
 
colpepper said:
...Of course if close contact motor sport or air displays are your bag digital has its place, but such images have always been about sharpness and colour reproduction for editorial purposes, not fine printing.
Click to expand...

I'd probably add long distance photography of birds/wildlife, as again my keeper rate at such is far lower than I'd find acceptable on film. Plus the in-built crop factor of certain digital cameras make distance shooting more affordable.

None of this particularly bothers me, I'll keep the digital for what it's suited to - banging out 200 shots from a light-tent setup for a clients online shop application for example - shooting tethered, and with 30 seconds in lightroom and in a day, the site was online. Alternatively, I could spend half a hour faffing around with the film camera on some wild hillside, getting everything right, then 4 hours waiting for the light, only for the rain to come in, and not get a shot. I'd still get home happy - a bad day on the hill shooting, beats a good day in the office hands down.
 
As I sit here I have a Canon Ixus 50 digital in one pocket and a Kodak Retina 1 in the other - colour film in the Retina. I have just put the Canon Elan II (bw film) on the desk as I came in the door and the Nikon D70 is in the pickup. That just about sums up my philosophy on this 'ere film/digital lark really. Use all the tools you can to get the result you want. I believe it is the last two words in the previous sentence that is the main issue though in this thread - and my point earlier about if one has not used film one simply does not know about it bar imaginings of darkrooms, weird chemicals, red lights and soggy paper.
 
Speaking personally, if I think a shot might work I know it won't. I could press the trigger to get myself in the mood but it would be a wasted frame. The photographs that really work manifest themselves in the viewfinder and from then on every stage is about getting that original image to emerge fully. The hit rate for a day out with a single roll of film wouldn't be higher if I had a thousand frames to work with, it would just be a bigger editing job.
If I shot sports or wildlife I may have a different take on technology.
 
being 20 and only geting into photography in the last few years I have only known digital photography. however a few months back I was given a holga. I know its not a great film camera but after shooting a roll through it I was hooked! after that digital seemed sort of boring. anyway needless to say after getting the photos back most were pretty crap but I really enjoyed the whole process of film. I have bought quite a few film cameras since then ranging from slrs to rangefinders. Whilst I still shoot digital im finding im shooting film more and more often. Like someone said there are great bargains to be had! my next stage is to develop my own photos!
 
walsh said:
I know its not a great film camera but after shooting a roll through it I was hooked! after that digital seemed sort of boring.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the dark side :naughty: When I was eighteen (many a long year ago) I turned my bedroom into a darkroom and slept among the dev and fix. Then it was a slippery slope into gum bichromate and now I do etching with full mask and rubber overalls. Any process that burns holes in your skin and makes you wear kinky clothing is not to be overlooked.

Good to hear you young'uns are still digging fillum.
 
From speaking to the owner of my nearest camera shop he says there are quite a lot of young un's into film thanks to the lomo society. thats what got me into the serious side of film and surely that cant be a bad thing? :) from what I can gather it seems quite a few people arent big fans of the the LSI...
 
A friend of mine used to shoot similar stuff on a Diana in the 70s. The finest duff camera images I ever saw were from a chap who build a pinhole camera in a shoebox and used 5 x 4 sheet colour film taped to the back. By trial and error he'd perfected his exposures until they were as accurate as a studio camera.
Another guy left his slides in a damp shed until fungus attacked the gelatine layer with millions of tiny brilliantly coloured lichens eating into the image then printed Cibachromes from them - fantastic stuff. You can have great fun with film.
 
colpepper said:
Welcome to the dark side :naughty: When I was eighteen (many a long year ago) I turned my bedroom into a darkroom and slept among the dev and fix. Then it was a slippery slope into gum bichromate and now I do etching with full mask and rubber overalls. Any process that burns holes in your skin and makes you wear kinky clothing is not to be overlooked.

Good to hear you young'uns are still digging fillum.
Click to expand...

I wanna try a more aggressive process or at least something new, got any ideas?
 
*more* aggressive than burning holes in skin and kinky rubber?
 
How aggressive do you want it? Photo etched aquatint has attendant mobidity if you get it wrong. Nitric acid baths (including the use of a feather in heavy rubber gloves to remove oxydisation bubbles), toxic rosin dust and the requirement to wear a twin filter mask and full gimp suit.

Most aquatinters will be happy to show you their melted flesh scars. Lovely prints, mind.
 
how easy is it to get all the chemicals? if so what would I need to get me going?
 
walsh said:
how easy is it to get all the chemicals? if so what would I need to get me going?
Click to expand...

Woah there! It's time for the 'don't do this at home kids' warning. Join a print workshop, they'll have the equipment you need such as enclosed acid cabinets and a rosin chest - a kind of Cabinet of Death that shakes a fine toxic dust onto a prepared plate when you crank a handle, and it'll all work out much cheaper, usually a small annual sub and a couple of quid per hour. I don't know where you'd begin to obtain nitric acid for domestic use without having your phone tapped and unmarked vans park outside your house. The advantage of print workshops is they nearly all have a conventional photographic darkroom too and you can try your hand at other print media while you're at it.

If you get a taste for the dark arts there are courses, one-day, weekend and proper degrees. The definitive book is Etching by Alan Smith who is the head technician at the Royal College of Art. It has an excellent chapter on photo etching. Good Luck!
 
If you want something less demanding, try developing photographic paper in lith (line film) dev as used for making print positives, and/or flash fogging the paper, over-printing and bleaching back, taking the enlarger lens off and shifting it around like a studio camera, mirrors and the thousands of other darkroom experiments you can dream up.

Be methodical, keep a record, use extensive film and paper clips till you get it bang on and in a few years you'll emerge from the dark and tell us how to do it.
 
:) well from what ive gathered here, B&W developing is easier than colour so obviously that would be a good starting point?
 
walsh said:
:) well from what ive gathered here, B&W developing is easier than colour so obviously that would be a good starting point?
Click to expand...

BnW isn't much different to colour processing in one of the kits (eg tetenal c41 - apart from the colour is shorter time and a hotter temperature. BnW is a good starter, and after a couple of rolls, try a C41 kit. It's easy, honest, it must be, or i wouldnt be able to do it.
 
I was assuming a familiarity with traditional processing and development Walsh, my mistake not your's. B&W processing is a doddle, so long as you follow basic rules, are systematic and read the instructions on the packet. A processing drum and some spirals to load the film on isn't expensive, and then it's dev, wash, fix, wash, dry. All widely available.

If you have access to a darkroom the world's your lobster, otherwise you can scan your negs and put them through whatever filters and tweaks you like. 120 is exactly the same process as 35mm, only the film size differs.
 
Any process that burns holes in your skin and makes you wear kinky clothing is not to be overlooked.
Click to expand...

THAT worries me lol :p

Bry
 
walsh said:
maybe a daft question but which is easier 120 or 35mm?
Click to expand...

Only thing that differs as far as I'm concerned is that I found it more difficult to get the 120 film into the spiral than the 35mm. After the first couple of rolls, i'd worked out a technique that works for me, and now it's easy with either film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top