If you were going to start from scratch with film, what would be your advice...

W44NNE

W44NNE

Messages
453
Edit My Images
Yes
I've wanted to play around with film for a while, and I'm hoping 2023 is the year. It would be mostly for my personal projects, so with an approximate budget of £1000, where would you begin and what advice would you have liked to know yourself when starting with film?
 
Decide if you intend to cover B&W only or include colour as well. This will affect the choice of equipment. I added colour after about 5 years or so and the better equipment I needed for colour was also better for B&W. I could have saved money if I had known in advance.

Dave
 
Do have more details on the sort of personal projects you want to use film for? As with digital, different types of photography will be better suited to certain camera and lens choices. Similarly, the format - 35mm, medium format, or large format.

Are you planning on developing and scanning (or even wet printing) your photographs yourself, or will you be using a lab service? Developing and scanning at home will save you a lot of money over time, but will require upfront investment to buy the necessary equipment.

One piece of immediate advice would be not to feel the need to buy "prestige" kit. i.e. the stuff that's had it's prices inflated due to popularity on Instagram or YouTube. There are a lot of great quality / low cost options out there to be had.
 
If it's for a project then that sounds to me that you want to take it seriously. That might effect what sort of kit you look for. Having said that you don't need to go mad. Because a good film camera can be picked up quite reasonably. I would be inclined to look at something like the Olympus OM10. Semi automatic, but you can add a manual adapter for a bit more flexibility. You can always progress to something like the OM2. And they are such nice cameras to handle as well. It would get you off to a good start.
 
Coming from digital it depends what IQ you are used to as to whether 35mm will have enough IQ for your liking. I have both 35mm and 120 systems and TBH I find the IQ of 35mm not good enough so that kit sits largely unused whereas my 120 kit is used regularly and I am never dissapointed with the IQ.
 
As I'm travelling down this rabbit hole, here are my thoughts:-

Decide what level of resultant output you are prepared to accept, since you are posting looking for GFX lenses you probably have some reasonable high-end digital kit, doing direct comparisons digital v film will leave you in a disillsuioned world! - If you are looking for that gritty grainy world of some 35mm filmstocks, then 35mm might be your answer, if you want 35mm results that star to rival digital for sharpness then you probably need to invest in some decent glass. But maybe MF would be a better route to go, plenty of 645 and 6x6 options within your budget.

Similar to @Topsy above, I have decided that 35mm is not for me, the results are inconsistent, I 'have' to use quality glass, and for some reason I find 35mm a lot harder to scan cleanly than MF. MF though is fantastic, I've had great results, love the colours from some film stocks, and end up with a scanned image that I'm very happy with (and can print them large).

I'll keep a 35mm camera for a bit of fun (I have a moidel of my first camera) though, but I know the limitations what I can produce. Others get better results, but maybe having a Fuji GFX spoils my expectations!
 
I started with film when there was no digital, so I came in to it simply as means of taking photographs. Just getting a photograph was an achievement, and I had no standard of comparison. It was also a time when financial contraints rather limited my options on cameras - a primary schoolboy in the 1950s was not a particularly wealthy individual - so a box camera (the cheapest type) and roll film (what it needed) was my way in.

If I were starting today to use film, my advice to myself would be to ask what you want to achieve, and choose equipment accordingly. But bearing in mind that unless intending to send off films to be processed and getting prints (or scans) back, then additional equipment will be needed. Doing you own black and white processing is relatively simple and the chemicals inexpensive (per film, anyway); colour simply needs greater temperature control for the higher temperatures. However, assuming you don't intend to set up a darkroom and make prints, you are going to have to scan the results. Scanners are cheaper if they are limited to 35mm film, but as Paul said above, you may well find 35mm doesn't deliver the quality you want. That said, a lot of people here are happy with 35mm, and it will depend on the image size you want. Personally, I think roll film is the happy medium (format) between 35mm and large format and delivers good results.

It can be hard when starting on a journey with no destination in mind to be sure that you're on the right road. So, on that basis, I'd suggest that if you're not sure, go with a cheap 35mm camera and see how you get on. After discovering what's missing for you, you can make a more informed decision.

Edit to add: my journey took me to ever increasing format sizes just to get the print qualities I wanted. For me, medium format is the smallest I'm happy with, and prefer to use large format film.
 
Last edited:
Having grown up with film, and then grown as I learned, I think @StephenM 's advice is spot on (as so often). Just getting your hands dirty cheaply with a cheap Olympuus or Pentax 35mm body and lens will give you a steer. Medium format is perhaps ideal as he says - films are not too many exposures so you won't be in that "got to shoot off another 10 before I can process it" bind. Bronica and Mamiya 645/66 options deliver well for rather less money than Hasselblad. I would recommend sending film off for dev and scan initially, before deciding whether to invest in your own kit, to see if it is scratching your itch.
 
I'd suggest with a darkroom project, figure out which room you can use. It's a LOT easier if you can leave a room blacked out and stuff set up. Frankly it's a PITA having to black out a room to print, then having to set up an enlarger etc, truth is you'll get fed up with the hassle after the first few times. Its what stops lots of newbies to film. Beside your SO will be well chuffed if they come home and find chemicals simering on the stove and the bathroom out of bounds with black bags over all the windows. ;)
 
I'm very much a part time film shooter. On 35mm with a Yashica that my step dad bought me in the mid 90's.

I think the IQ you want or need is going to be the biggest thing alongside the "running costs"

I shoot with some nice lenses on an original Sony A7 and the IQ difference is pretty big even with that at 24mp. If you want your project to focus on colours, mood or the 'feel' of the image etc than maybe IQ won't be so much of an issue for you.
 
My photography these days is nearly all film and almost exclusively 35mm B&W, so I am not expecting microscopically sharp images. I shoot film for the experience and the look. I develop my own films but scan the negatives rather than print from them, so I don't need a darkroom - just a changing bag. With film, you are working with a single ISO on each roll and with colour film there is no such thing as auto colour balance - most are balanced for daylight and shooting in artificial light will give you a colour-cast. 35mm film is generally lower cost for equipment and per frame. The cost of colour film is absolutely ridiculous at the moment, but even quality B&W film will set you back £7-£10 in 35mm. Don't let any of this put you off because shooting film is tactile, immersive and fun.

If you want more specific advice you will need to give more info on what you want to achieve.
 
Last edited:
Keep it simple, if you can find a 35mm body that is compatible with lenses you already have for your digital system then that's even better. If not just start off with a cheaper camera like the Canon AE-1 .

Alternatively look for something completely different to you digital. A medium format, some of the old 120 folding cameras can be had for not a lot of money.
 
There is a lot of good advice above.

35mm for light and portable. 120 for better IQ. Large Format for a vocation.

If you have a digital SLR with several good lenses, there may be a 35mm camera that is compatible (for example Canon EOS).

Personally I would urge a bit of caution with amateur cameras from 1970s as they might be getting a bit long in the tooth by now (but you might be lucky). I'm a big fan of professional models if you can get a low-medium mileage one (well achievable with your budget) as they are built to last.

I love developing my own films and scanning them, but you could start sending the film to a lab.
 
As you have the budget and are obviously happy to invest it, I'd suggest you pick up both a medium format and a 35mm camera so you can decide for yourself which suits you best. As has been said, you can pick up 35mm cameras for less than you'd spend on a few pints and a bag of chips. However, I too would prefer MF over 35mm for the reasons already mentioned.

A Medium Format camera will be an investment if you buy wisely. You could take a gamble and buy something from the Evil Bay, but having been scammed a few times, I'd recommend buying from a dealer so that it has a guarantee and has been serviced.

For the low cost of a changing bag, chemicals and a developing tank I think it's a no-brainer to develop your own - it adds so much more to the hobby and you'll get your money back in the first month or two compared to using a lab. For a beginner, IMO 120 film is a little less fiddly to get on the spool (I use Paterson tanks and they will take either 120 or 35mm film) after a little practice, the 35mm will be just as easy to do.

Good luck. (y)
 
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept according to Henri Cartier-Bresson and I agree with him. Film will not give as sharp images as digital and it does not matter. Glory in what film WILL give you.

You can get a camera with a Tessar lens (or Tessar copy such as Voigtlander's Color Skopar) which renders images much better than any modern digital lens and if used right gives a quasi-3D effect. Much my favourite lens.

A camera with a leaf shutter gives more attractive bokeh than a camera with a focal plane shutter will, with the advantage that cameras with leaf shutters are usually much cheaper to buy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
Film. I would stick to "proper" black-and-white film rather than C41 monochrome films or colour.

I like Fomapan 200 Creative or Ilford FP4+ but faster films will give more grain.
 
Don’t do it! :runaway::LOL::LOL::LOL:

Ok on a more serious note( oh how I hate having to be ‘serious’ , it’s such a ‘formal’ thing :rolleyes::LOL:),

I can’t add any anything really beneficial to what has already been mentioned except to go directly to Large Format :p

Ok so I can be a bit of a clown but I’m being serious.


Should your desires suit that type of shooting ( eg, landscapes with a field camera is hard to beat ) , , then why not?

The format can have some serious limitations but so can all the others!

It really does depend on what you want to achieve.

Looking back at the cameras and formats that I’ve used, including 35mm and MF, I wish in some ways that I’d been introduced directly into LF and concentrated solely on that format.

Saying that , I have no regrets of my experiences with other kit ….. it’s all a learning experience .

Perhaps like many of us, you may need to work your way through different cameras and formats to find what really works for you.
Personally, I found that it can be a frustrating journey , hence if you’re able to take your time assessing all the pros and cons before taking the plunge, you may drop straight into your ideal setup.

If you do end up changing kit several times, the positive thing is that generally film cameras hold their value quite well .
 
The Mamiya twin lens reflex (TLR) cameras have a good reputation and have interchangeable lenses for greater variety. Their big drawback is apparently their weight, but that might not be an issue. I happened to see that there is one with new light seals and a warranty at Vintage and Classic Cameras and it's well within your budget. I've bought from them before and was happy with the way they dealt with the purchase..
 
Interesting question, as my daughter had just decided to use her old 120 film cameras, just for fun, nothing serious, B&W and I just bought her a Patterson tank to develop the films.

If I had to start again, it would be B&W and another Kiev 88 with viewfinder. To be honest, I probably remember it as being far better than it was though :)

As I no longer have space to develop and print, it has little appeal to me, and I have had film in a Canon and a Pentax 35 mm cameras for over a year and taken about 4 shots.
 
If you wont dev yourself for while then shoot xp2 for bnw as labs can process it same as colour, in my exp labs over charge for bnw as its manual

Depending on the projects im inclined to agree with @Asha, go hard or go home with large format!
 
Asha said:
I can’t add any anything really beneficial to what has already been mentioned except to go directly to Large Format :p

Ok so I can be a bit of a clown but I’m being serious.


Should your desires suit that type of shooting ( eg, landscapes with a field camera is hard to beat ) , , then why not?

The format can have some serious limitations but so can all the others!

It really does depend on what you want to achieve.

Looking back at the cameras and formats that I’ve used, including 35mm and MF, I wish in some ways that I’d been introduced directly into LF and concentrated solely on that format.

Saying that , I have no regrets of my experiences with other kit ….. it’s all a learning experience .
Click to expand...
Can't argue with that, LF helped me rediscover my love for photography, it slowed me down, made me think, gave me time to really appreciate my surroundings, while digital camera users had a camera glued to their face for hours on end, I got my shot and I was happy, relaxed and alive.
 
acrobatic_Citron said:
If you wont dev yourself for while then shoot xp2 for bnw as labs can process it same as colour, in my exp labs over charge for bnw as its manual

Depending on the projects im inclined to agree with @Asha, go hard or go home with large format!
Click to expand...
That is because XP2 is C41 process. However, I used to process my own film and XP2 requires a longer Bleach/fix than regular C41 colour film. Towards the end of my film usage I did take a couple of short cuts and get the odd XP2 commercially processed but always had to further Bleach/fix so save little effort in the end.

Dave
 
Dave Canon said:
That is because XP2 is C41 process. However, I used to process my own film and XP2 requires a longer Bleach/fix than regular C41 colour film. Towards the end of my film usage I did take a couple of short cuts and get the odd XP2 commercially processed but always had to further Bleach/fix so save little effort in the end.

Dave
Click to expand...
Fair enough, im just bitter as good colour labs have messed up my bnw negs.

I just thought of something else important although its calmed now. Have patience with whatever you are buying, i've overpaid more than once as I just wanted it as soon as possible, but the longer I am on the forums the more bargains I see

Imo too many people think their gear is worth more than it is and they get away with it as unpatient melons like me buy it.

Also look at Japan ebay, they have EVERYTHING and its not like it use to be, all my stuff has been exactly as described, sometimes its still cheaper to pay the import tax 25-30% total as long as it can be repaired in the UK if it breaks
 
Great advice in the above posts. The biggest thing for me was getting the negative into a format I could do something with (scanning).

Dedicated scanner (more ££)? iPhone app? Get-the-lab-to-do-it? (Every roll costs more) Even decent equipment looks pants if it's been scanned badly and it's really off-putting especially coming from ultra-sharp digital.

As mentioned above, if you already have lenses that will fit, you can have money left to get a scanner, or to experiment with larger lab scans. With film, it's more about the choice of film and the lens than the box behind it.

What sort of photography do you [want to] do? Slow landscape stuff where AF isn't so important? Street photography where you can zone focus with manual lenses? Portrait work where you need critical AF? This all relates to Stephen's "what do you want to achieve" question.

Finally, think about what you want in terms of output? Realistically, the huge MP sensors of modern cameras aren't really needed for most non-professional users (Facebook, Insta and the odd A4 print) so 35mm is a viable contender. If you want to go A3 or larger with prints and have nose-up-close detail, then medium format will get you better results.

Good luck with your journey & keep us updated!
 
My suggestion is: treat film as a completely different medium. Don't make "IQ" comparisons with high end digital cameras. Quality has so many meanings; I think film has a quality all its own. It's different and the difference should be celebrated!

Those thoughts, plus lightness, convenience and flexibility, are why I pretty much stick with 135 film cameras. MF would give me higher "IQ" and various different levels of "film quality", at the price of much higher weight, reduced lens choice, slower lenses, and the whole waist level finder reversed image thing. If you're a frequent tripod-user, the significance of those issues all diminish.

If you want to give your high end digital cameras a run for their money in terms of IQ then LF with reversal film can certainly give you that... 5x4 film scanned at 2400 samples per inch is ~115 Mpixel, and there's still 10x8 or 16x20 to go. Plus you have the whole movements game.

So my inclination is: do things you couldn't or wouldn't do with digital. Get 135 cameras, and use black and white film exclusively. Get a TLR for the whole sqaure WLF experience. Get a Hassy XPAN (or a 6x17) camera for native pano photos. Try pinhole. Try Polaroid emulsion lifts. Try Velvia. Try LF with movements. Dev your own. Get an enlarger/darkroom. Try wet plate.

There's plenty of interesting options. Trying to replicate digital high IQ isn't one of the most sensible... IMHO!
 
Just to digress ever-so-slightly.

I gave up on film photography in about 2004 when I got fed up of setting up the darkroom and also because I started to get envious of the relative ease of use of digital cameras. However, this thread got me looking at the camera equipment I used to have.

The last one I owned before going digital was a Nikon FM2n: manual focus, manual shutter and aperture and the quaintest little exposure meter that had three LEDs; one red above, one red below and one green to show correctly exposed. I still miss seeing that little split image focussing screen in the viewfinder. A big advantage to the camera was the lack of concern over battery levels; the FM2n required 2 button batteries that lasted years since their only job was to light one of the three LEDs.

Being manual everything certainly slowed down ones approach to photography. Learning the zone system was a revelation and my use of an 18% grey card was a common event.

Ah, nostalgia.

Would I go back to film? Not a bloody chance! Anymore than I would want to own a rusting 1976 3-litre Capri, or flared trousers and platform shoes, or a kipper tie and Ben Sherman shirt. It was interesting looking back but it was what it was and I am comfortable with modern technology now, even in my advancing years.
 
Last edited:
ShinySideUp said:
Would I go back to film? Not a bloody chance! Anymore than I would want to own a rusting 1976 3-litre Capri,
Click to expand...

Oh I’d gladly g accept a Capri, rusty or not.

Never possessed my own but regularly drove one belonging to a friend.

As for togging , I did the dslr thing for several years …… c2005 - 2014

I’d have to be paid to return to it !
 
There's room in my life for both film and digital, each have their use for me but as I said earlier I tend to not use 35mm anymore but it's not because of the IQ difference between Digital and 35mm it's because of the far better quality of slide/neg I get from 120. These days I just find 35mm too grainy for the most part like for like films against the 120. Although I have my films developed and scanned by a Lab I'll never tire of seein those 120 slides on my lightbox.
 
Asha said:
Oh I’d gladly g accept a Capri, rusty or not.
Click to expand...
If anyone gives me one, you can have it. Don't hold your breath though :)
 
ShinySideUp said:
Just to digress ever-so-slightly.

I gave up on film photography in about 2004 when I got fed up of setting up the darkroom and also because I started to get envious of the relative ease of use of digital cameras. However, this thread got me looking at the camera equipment I used to have.

The last one I owned before going digital was a Nikon FM2n: manual focus, manual shutter and aperture and the quaintest little exposure meter that had three LEDs; one red above, one red below and one green to show correctly exposed. I still miss seeing that little split image focussing screen in the viewfinder. A big advantage to the camera was the lack of concern over battery levels; the FM2n required 2 button batteries that lasted years since their only job was to light one of the three LEDs.

Being manual everything certainly slowed down ones approach to photography. Learning the zone system was a revelation and my use of an 18% grey card was a common event.

Ah, nostalgia.

Would I go back to film? Not a bloody chance! Anymore than I would want to own a rusting 1976 3-litre Capri, or flared trousers and platform shoes, or a kipper tie and Ben Sherman shirt. It was interesting looking back but it was what it was and I am comfortable with modern technology now, even in my advancing years.
Click to expand...
Fatuous post for this forum :rolleyes:
 
ShinySideUp said:
Just to digress ever-so-slightly.

I gave up on film photography in about 2004 when I got fed up of setting up the darkroom and also because I started to get envious of the relative ease of use of digital cameras. However, this thread got me looking at the camera equipment I used to have.

The last one I owned before going digital was a Nikon FM2n: manual focus, manual shutter and aperture and the quaintest little exposure meter that had three LEDs; one red above, one red below and one green to show correctly exposed. I still miss seeing that little split image focussing screen in the viewfinder. A big advantage to the camera was the lack of concern over battery levels; the FM2n required 2 button batteries that lasted years since their only job was to light one of the three LEDs.

Being manual everything certainly slowed down ones approach to photography. Learning the zone system was a revelation and my use of an 18% grey card was a common event.

Ah, nostalgia.

Would I go back to film? Not a bloody chance! Anymore than I would want to own a rusting 1976 3-litre Capri, or flared trousers and platform shoes, or a kipper tie and Ben Sherman shirt. It was interesting looking back but it was what it was and I am comfortable with modern technology now, even in my advancing years.
Click to expand...

Cool story, bro.
 
ChrisR said:
My suggestion is: treat film as a completely different medium. Don't make "IQ" comparisons with high end digital cameras. Quality has so many meanings; I think film has a quality all its own,
Click to expand...

Ne'er a truer word spoken. Personally *I* shoot film because *I* vastly prefer how scanned film looks as opposed to a DSLR/mirrorless camera image. Resolution is not the only metric. And yes, that includes 35mm film. Dumping my DSLRs/mirrorless cameras was the best thing I did to my photography.

I'll say that again for the digital photography zealots who sometimes intrude film photography threads uninvited to let everyone know how they would 'never go back' to film: for some people out there, a well exposed+developed+scanned 35mm negative gives results that are subjectively (=creatively, artistically) preferable to any current digital camera setup output.

Fæck resolution and your £1500 Milvius multicoated lenses :)
 
Last edited:
You might well find shooting with film addictive no matter what your starting point, but don't fall down the GAS rabbit hole at the expense of enjoying the film experience, it's too easy.

I can't advise on a particular set up, too many choices. I enjoy using all my film gear.
 
excalibur2 said:
A contempt of film on a film forum...and am sure most of the members here couldn't care about his personal view as to why he wouldn't go back to film so why mention it.
Click to expand...
Contempt? That's a bit strong. I loved my film days and I gave a description of how it was and how it helped with my photography and, as an amusing aside, why I have moved away from it. None of this was said with the intention to denigrate film buffs or the activities therein and was merely an anecdote which I think served to explain how film can be good for someone to try. I still miss my old film stuff and thought I'd put this across quite well, I also said that it no longer fitted in with my current photography and I believe I was well within my rights to add that comment. As usual, what I think is entertaining and amusing in my own head doesn't always come across to some the way it is intended.

I believe that everyone should have a go at using film at some point as it teaches a lot about photography -- both aesthetically and technically. It is good for learning exactly WHY something is the way it is and what it really means to the way the photographer uses light in their images; something that many straight-to-digital photographers may well just leave to the electronics in the camera. It slows one down. It allows the picture-taker to concentrate on the reason he/she is taking the photograph and since one is limited by the number of possible frames on a roll they can't just hit continuous shooting and hope for the best.

I learned a lot from film and I hope the OP goes into it, as they suggested they wanted to this year, as their digital photography will improve because of it.

I trust this explains my post and that there is no more ill-will.

Kind regards

Shiny
 
ShinySideUp said:
Contempt? That's a bit strong. I loved my film days and I gave a description of how it was and how it helped with my photography and, as an amusing aside, why I have moved away from it. None of this was said with the intention to denigrate film buffs or the activities therein and was merely an anecdote which I think served to explain how film can be good for someone to try. I still miss my old film stuff and thought I'd put this across quite well, I also said that it no longer fitted in with my current photography and I believe I was well within my rights to add that comment. As usual, what I think is entertaining and amusing in my own head doesn't always come across to some the way it is intended.

I believe that everyone should have a go at using film at some point as it teaches a lot about photography -- both aesthetically and technically. It is good for learning exactly WHY something is the way it is and what it really means to the way the photographer uses light in their images; something that many straight-to-digital photographers may well just leave to the electronics in the camera. It slows one down. It allows the picture-taker to concentrate on the reason he/she is taking the photograph and since one is limited by the number of possible frames on a roll they can't just hit continuous shooting and hope for the best.

I learned a lot from film and I hope the OP goes into it, as they suggested they wanted to this year, as their digital photography will improve because of it.

I trust this explains my post and that there is no more ill-will.

Kind regards

Shiny
Click to expand...
Well congrats that is a much better post, and did get the impression you thought we are luddites, well we all use digi cameras in some way (some more than others). But did think when mentioning a Capri was amusing as if you visit the channel on TV selling old cars and see the prices to buy Capri. And would like to add........the latest SLRs esp Canon are the forerunner for their digi cameras in what they can do and e.g. the EOS 300v is more like a digi camera with a panel on the back showing details, of course you won't get squeekly clean shots and can't do video and limited to 36 shots and anything else I've missed..... there are ways around it using film.
And why we are still using film? well many reasons but for me I'm just not interested in using a digi camera and find it (if not going only holiday), difficult to even get through 24 shots many times and the thought of machine gunning with a digi then sifting through the shots on a computer for the best ones would be depressing (for me).
 
excalibur2 said:
And why we are still using film? well many reasons but for me I'm just not interested in using a digi camera and find it (if not going only holiday), difficult to even get through 24 shots many times and the thought of machine gunning with a digi then sifting through the shots on a computer for the best ones would be depressing (for me).
Click to expand...
Here you see is wht I see as an advantage of using digital as against 35mm film. I am working on both the Digital and Film POTY Challenges, for the Digital I can go out and grab a couple of shots for a theme and process tham straight away with the Film I have to either rush the themes to fill a film or waste part of the film to get it processed and back in time for the deadline. I too find it difficult to shoot a whole roll of 36 but equally when I go out on my weekly Blog Photowalk I use a digital camera for the walk but often my Bronica for the main shots. I can use a whole film on the walk since I double up on the shots as back up so 6 subjects that I plan to shoot, conversley taking the shots to record the walk for the Blog I will typically shoot around70-80 shots again doubles so I end up with about 30-40 keepers for the Blog (not usually portfolio shots) but I have them processed and ready for the Blog by the next day so my entry is current. I simply couldn't do that with 35mm film, the dev and scan alone these days is at least a week turnaround.
 
@Topsy That was the reason I missed March April and then so on in last years FPOTY and hence (regrettably) just dropped out of it - sorry guys! That roll with the March entry I finished in December! This year I am already ahead and almost finished the current roll - I need to finish that by the 22nd really.

The DPOTY is just so much easier because you can shoot, edit, upload within an hour if you wanted to!

Also, as a side, I don't tend to shoot much digital when out for sunrise for example anyway and I've certainly never been a machine gun shooter! Sunrise will often see me with a handful of exposures as the sky changes etc Even when I used to go to the odd track or drifting day I'd pan with the car and just fire off one shot at a time.

It's almost like I shoot digital in a film style!
 
LeeRatters said:
@Topsy That was the reason I missed March April and then so on in last years FPOTY and hence (regrettably) just dropped out of it - sorry guys! That roll with the March entry I finished in December! This year I am already ahead and almost finished the current roll - I need to finish that by the 22nd really.

The DPOTY is just so much easier because you can shoot, edit, upload within an hour if you wanted to!

Also, as a side, I don't tend to shoot much digital when out for sunrise for example anyway and I've certainly never been a machine gun shooter! Sunrise will often see me with a handful of exposures as the sky changes etc Even when I used to go to the odd track or drifting day I'd pan with the car and just fire off one shot at a time.

It's almost like I shoot digital in a film style!
Click to expand...
like you Lee I have started my roll for FPOTY and have 6 themes done already. I've made it harder for myself as I have decided to shoot each subjecton digital and film at the same time (Leica M9 for digital and MP for film) with the same focal length. I'll need, like you, to get my film finished by 22nd to have any chace of making the Jan film deadline.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top