help needed!

fallen_mathi

fallen_mathi

Messages
539
Edit My Images
No
hey all,

ok, so after talking to a few friends, who study photography at uni, they suggested that to improve my photography, i should try and play around with an old film camera. so i went ahead, liking the idea, and purchased just a everyday, cheap 35mm camera, with a standered lens and a flash, all well and good...

...

until...

...
i came to buying film...:eek: can someone please explain to me what all the codess mean,
all i seem to be seeing are codes such as:

135-24
135-36
120,


what do they all mean???:shake::bonk:

thanks:)
nathan
 
ok the first number is the size of the film 135 is 35mm the second number is the number of frames on the roll...there will be another number like 100 asa that is the films speed the higher tje number the faster the film..in low light you would want 400asa in good light 100 asa or slower..got that...
 
Also, you need to think what film to use...

If you want to shoot black and white, you might be better off starting with films that can be developed using the C41 process (the usual colour negative process that they do at boots, tesco etc). Popular choices here are...

Fuji Neopan 400CN (my fave)
Ilford XP2 Super 400
Kodak Pro BW400CN

there are many other black and white films, but they need to be processed as b&w and require sending off to a proper lab (not a big deal, but easier to use one of the above if your just starting out)

For colour film, in my opinion you need something with an asa of around 100 (i find 400 is too grainy to look nice in colour) and could use something like Fuji Superia Reala 100. This is also C41 process so can be taken to boots.

There is also slide film, which is my choice at the moment as you can get really rich and saturated colours.
 
showing your age chaps , whats all this asa stuff ?
 
man oh man oh man, makes me feel old when someone is asking about those old black film thingys, and im really not that old ....
 
i was just wondering how long its been since the asa bit was last used . and my cameras so old it only does black and white anyway !
 
yeah i know , but i was just wondering when they dropped the american bit ,and changed it to international , ( is that right ? )
 
donutagain said:
yeah i know , but i was just wondering when they dropped the american bit ,and changed it to international , ( is that right ? )
Click to expand...

To be a true ISO rating it needs the American bit (ASA - Now called ISO Arithmetic) then a forward slash then the German bit (DIN - now called ISO Logarithmic) then a degrees symbol

ASA/DIN°

So an ASA 400 film is an ISO 400/27° film in all of its proper nomenclature...

I feel so sad and nerdy now :(
 
edit: scrap that - you have a d40.

Why do people suggest a film slr?
 
with a DSLR you can review your images, make corrections and shoot again, you dont have to worry about wasting shots as a modest 1GB card can allow hundreds of frames.

the difference in film is that because a film only holds 36frames, costs money to buy and develop and you cannot see the results instantly i found that using a film camera helped me to 'think' before i shoot, think about the light, aperture, shutter speed etc as every opening of the shutter costs money. the net result of this is that when i go back to my DSLR my hitrate has increased and i throw away less rubbish shots.


add that to the fact that film has its own features which arent always replicated by digital such as grain, and black and white (whcih gives a completely different feel than putting a digital picture into mono) whcih can be used to the photographers advantage.
 
whitewash said:
the difference in film is that because a film only holds 36frames, costs money to buy and develop and you cannot see the results instantly i found that using a film camera helped me to 'think' before i shoot,
Click to expand...

funny you should say that, I've spent a couple of years shooting m/f which is 12 frames per roll, only recently have I shot 35mm and my god did 36 frames take some shooting, it was almost like shooting digital, I shot crap just for the sake of shooting crap......still doing it now.
I suppose the next step is Large Format, I can here em now saying "12 frames ?......bloody luxury that is"....:LOL:
 
I've found that I think lots about the photo, with the Film camera.

It makes you think about what you want to achieve on a technical level, although my compositions are still hit and miss :(

Also, for "available dark" photos, you can push Ilford Delta 3200 to asa 6400 and get fabulous results, and if you really want to try, you can push to asa 25000 and achieve viewable if not excellent results. You just cant do that with a digital sensor (yet).
 
I developed my first roll from a medium format last week and got a cracker of our daughter on it. The B&W is different from the output from my digital SLR converted. The blacks seem more black somehow. The photo looks almost timeless. It's how I remember photos from my own childhood.

Yes film does make you think more and check those setting before you start. Digital can make us lazy and if it is taking you 100 shots to get a keeper then I'd heartily recommend a while shooting film. Besides, it's good fun!
 
whitewash said:
12 frames, christ id need 3 rolls to get one keeper!
Click to expand...



No you won't, you learn not to shoot....err....:thinking: the more limited you are, the more selective about your shots you become.
Somebody posted a tube vid the other week, of a guy shooting large format 5x4, big tripod made out of 1 Brazilian rain forest and a camera with 2 cow hides for bellows, anyway the point is he was shooting an assignment of 3 scapes from around the country I think.
He spent some time in a place he knew well, some lakeside somewhere, faffed about for weeks visiting it, trapesing through bogland in the freezing cold and rain with the big 5x4 slung over his shoulder, looking for THE shot and THE conditions he needed, and when he found them, he shot it.....one frame....the end.

:shrug:
 
sorry if this is off on a bit of a tangent here but w.t.f. its like a thread on here somewhere ,someone asked how many pictures do you take when you do a wedding ? and most of the replies were coming back at the 1000 mark some less and some a bit more , but a thousand ???? what the ****** ?? do you really need to take that many ? get it right the first time you bloody numpties . ( was that a rant ? ) sorry if it was its now fin .
 
:LOL:

That's one of the best advantages of digital, when it comes to business and making money, you can afford to take chances and still cover yourself with alternatives.
Doesn't do you any good from a personal development pov, but that's not the objective.
There might be case for cutting time spent in pp'ing 1000 images, from a business angle...time is money an all that, but generally you give your client and yourself a much wider choice, that's got to be good for business:)
 
DiddyDave said:
Film is much harder for a newbie to photography to learn from, even if you can process your own B/W & Colour films (which most can't)

Stick with digital IMO

DD
Click to expand...

However at the start film camera's are cheaper as you could pick up a good film for around £50 just to learn the newbie stuff with. Yea you can't see what your shooting but it will make you plan more rather than happy snapping
 
It's more the fact that unless you process your own you can't be sure you were even close with the exposure either - film's latitude is much wider than digital, and the processing company with push/pull an image to show you a good-one - but you'll not know and hence can't easily learn from it

Digi (like Slides) is much less forgiving and thus easier to learn from, as well as being able to learn immediately by viewing the monitor

I can only see any point in film now for advanced users, not newbies

DD
 
I get your point DD but if you are a newbie and happy snapping how much are you actually learning? Taking time to slow down and actually having to learn some of the technical stuff COULD be the huge leap that is needed.

But buying a good book and reading it could provide as much.

The thing that digital does much better is allow us to see results instantly and correct defects at the point of taking the pic. That is where the learning can be done.

Film just makes you learn those technical things that a lot of digital beginners think they can ignore and still get cracking shots because they spent £xxxxx.
 
AliB said:
But buying a good book and reading it could provide as much.
Click to expand...


Being old-hat I always think people will KNOW to buy a book - but I guess so few do

Which is why we get "I'm just bought my first DSLR and spent £1,000 on gear - now what's this thing metering all about?"; what other hobbies can you spend so much money without a clue what you're doing?

Anyone into hang-gliding thrown themselves off a hill before finding out 'How to' !!!

BUY A BOOK !!!

:D

DD
 
Peeps are lazy, they don't want to learn initially, they want results with as little effort as possible.
With the realisation that there's more to it than £ and button pressing, comes the choice.
Can't blame em for that, its how things are with everything.
Film forces focus, gives you a foundation to build on, but it isn't for everyone, some peeps just prefer McDonalds....fast food, it suits their lifestyle...but they have to be disciplined in that format to get anywhere.
 
DiddyDave said:
Being old-hat I always think people will KNOW to buy a book - but I guess so few do

Which is why we get "I'm just bought my first DSLR and spent £1,000 on gear - now what's this thing metering all about?"; what other hobbies can you spend so much money without a clue what you're doing?

Anyone into hang-gliding thrown themselves off a hill before finding out 'How to' !!!

BUY A BOOK !!!

:D

DD
Click to expand...
:):clap: thats brilliant dave ,,,,,like ive just decided to take up clay pigeon shooting , now what end do i look down before i pull the trigger ?:bonk:
 
donutagain said:
:):clap: thats brilliant dave ,,,,,like ive just decided to take up clay pigeon shooting , now what end do i look down before i pull the trigger ?:bonk:
Click to expand...

Hmmm - the end with the hole(s) in - please post your thoughts (if any :eek::eek::eek:) afterwards

:LOL:

DD
 
I don't think that you can say that film is an advanced only thing... Whilst its taking me seven or eight times as long to develop composition skills as I could with digital, the fact that I have to use manual control all the time has meant that with my PDA or notepad to record my settings the technical aspect just comes much more naturally, in fact when my friend passed me his 400d and asked me to take some pics, he was horrified that I switched to full manual, as it had never been off program, He thought that only a pro could use manual!

Thats my two penneth anyway.
 
thanks for all your replies, and the intresting discussion that followed, the reasons you have mentioned are the exact reasons that i am going into film, not as a perminant thing (although havent tried yet, no idea how much il enjoy it), but to learn and improve my skills. so when i go back to digital it will be less guessing and hopeing, and more knowing what to do to get a good shot, and having the patiants to try and work it out.
thanks all:)
nathan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top