Not again!

AJQS

AJQS

Messages
7,314
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
When I decided to get back into film with my OM10, it decided to throw a wobbler and destroy my first roll. No too bothered, wasn't much interetsing on it. Anyway, camera was kanckered, bought an OM30 as a replacement, stuck the Vivitar 24mm on the front and went through 2 rolls of film. They're sat here waiting for me to get developed. I noticed tht the exposure times seemed a little long on some of the shots but thought nothing of it. I'm just setting the camera up for some Kodak T-Max 3200 and the shutter speed was reading 2 seconds at ISO 1600 pointed out the window!

Turns out the lever that tells the camera the aperture from the lens on the 24mm isn't actually there, so he camera is just reading the light coming through the lens without knowing what aperture it's at, seems to be metering for around F32ish

So that's another 2 rolls knackered, and I need a new lens. :(
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bugger - thank your lucky stars those two rolls arem't wedding shots.
 
Please excuse my ignorance, but why would anybody want to use film? What does it do that digital doesn't do better? :shrug:

dave
 
Last edited:
mmmm where shall we start.....gradation of tones for starters....skin tones...bit of a 2005 argument but my 5x4 beats my 1ds mk3 hands down.

I've just had a delivery of some 20"x24" prints, drum scanned from 5x4 Ektar, if you saw them you would see why a lot of us still shoot film :)
 
Davecam said:
Please excuse my ignorance, but why would anybody want to use film? What does it do that digital doesn't do better? :shrug:

dave
Click to expand...
You're forgiven.;)

Digital is wonderful and it's here to stay - there's no denying the convenience, speed and reduced cost compared to film. It's also caught up with the quality of film in many respects while in others it hasn't. Film still copes with a wider range of subject luminence than digital and it produces a wonderful gradual tonal gradation which digital struggles to match. When the highlights blow with digital it tends to be sudden and objectionable compared to film which copes much better at the highlight end of the range.

You really need to hold up a medium format colour transparency to the light to see the vibrant rich colours - like looking at a beautiful stained glass window as someone said recently. It's also a tangible thing you can holdi in your hand, not a bundle of binary numbers lanquishing on a hard drive.

Ulitimately film and digital are two different mediums with each having their advantages and disadvantages, so comparisons are a bit pointless, and anyway -shooting film is fun!
 
Davecam said:
Please excuse my ignorance, but why would anybody want to use film? What does it do that digital doesn't do better? :shrug:

dave
Click to expand...


Why would anyone climb up a mountain - you only have to go back down again?

Why would someone drive a open top E-Type - a modern Ford Mondeo is faster and more comfortable?

Why would anyone go water-ski'ing - surely a Bidet is a more comfortable way to get a jet of water fired up your Bum?

It's simple really - it's fun!
 
Davecam said:
Please excuse my ignorance, but why would anybody want to use film? What does it do that digital doesn't do better? :shrug:

dave
Click to expand...

Why do some people like to drive classic cars? Why do some people get antique furniture instead of stuff from IKEA? etc etc

Film is more of an experience than Digital, you have to think more about the shot, and the settings you use - with digital you can snap away and look at the LCD until you have a decent shot, but with film you have to put a bit more thought in, otherwise you'll end with wasted film.
 
All of the above plus when I use digital its to take a picture, it does the job admirably, I wouldn't dream of using my film camera for wildlife for example. When I use a film camera I feel its more like making a picture. It feels more enjoyable, the anticipation of not knowing exactly whats there, the interesting mistakes and the more tactile way of working all make for a greater experience than using digital.

Of course it could just be that we are a load of old fashioned throwbacks who won't move with the times.....:D

Cheers

Andy
 
People are often suprised at how film looks when they haven't seen any for a while, I did a shoot recently for a young band and they were absolutely blown away by the grainy push processed Tri-x I did at the same time as some digital, they much prefer the film. They're both very different mediums that do different things.
 
Davecam said:
Please excuse my ignorance, but why would anybody want to use film? What does it do that digital doesn't do better? :shrug:

dave
Click to expand...

Let's not think of the end-results for a moment and think of shooting older, manual cameras. They are fun and an experience. Obviously, they are not for everyone.
 
AlanSmithee said:
Let's not think of the end-results for a moment and think of shooting older, manual cameras. They are fun and an experience. Obviously, they are not for everyone.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a definite one.... most digital cameras are much of a muchness really.. .they all have very similar modes and settings etc, older film cameras, especially fully manual non metered ones really do have a character of their own.
 
ok, I was playing devil's advocate a little there and expected the case for film to be put forward with passion, but at the same time i genuinely wondered what was to be gained. However, I think your explanations are entirely valid and i fully accept there is a mystery and magic in the process.

I did used to shoot/develop/print Black & white on my old Ricoh KR10 super and Ilford (was it XP100 or similar?), but it seems a lifetime away!

So, when that great shot ALMOST, NEARLY came out the chemicals, did you never scan it to the pc and do some photoshop magic?

oooh I bet you did! :D
 
Davecam said:
So, when that great shot ALMOST, NEARLY came out the chemicals, did you never scan it to the pc and do some photoshop magic?

oooh I bet you did! :D
Click to expand...

LOL. I suspect some of us are talking about using film long before the arrival of home computers and scanners. ;)

Actually with the arrival of home computers and scanners it made my photo restoration jobs a lot easier -prior to that it was a case repairing all the cracks in the old prints as best you could, painting in the missing bits with specialist paints and then photographing the result to get another neg, and finally a new print. Scanning and digital photo editing made life a lot easier!

But it's a fair cop - nowadays a lot of the attraction in using film for me is that I can eliminate all the darkroom tedium by scanning the film. I only need to develop the film which I can do in the kitchen with the light on once the film is safely in the developing tank.

So it's best of both worlds for me - I'm not a die-hard fanatic. :D
 
Last edited:
I'm certainly in the camp of working with film and in darkrooms prior to home computers. In fact I started messing about in the darkroom back at school. I think I'd been part of the school photographic society (yes - it was one of thise Grammar Schools run by an ex Public School Type, and he had "pretensions" for our school - hence the Photographic Society, Fencing Club and a few other highly unlikely extra-curricular activities) maybe 3 years before the school got it's first computer - a RM380Z iirc.

I too remember "spotting in" prints with the paints and a 3 strand paintbrush. Not Fondly I have to say. These days, I'm happy to have a "hybrid" process. I'll have the fun of selecting the correct type of film for the conditions - or for the effect I want. I'll have the easy part of film developing with the daylight tank - and again choosing the chemicals I want for the desired effect - a hotter or cooler developer for more or less grain in B&W, or perhaps using the "wrong" chemicals for cross-processing colour.

And then when it all comes out of the soup, I'll scan it, get it into the digital domain and lose the odd dust spot - for the colour stuff I'll do what may be needed to correct my occasional duff processing techniques to fix slight colour discrepancies. I'll do all the techniques I'd have used in the darkroom - using curves to play with contrast - where I'd have used different grades of paper, or doing a little dodge and burn where needed. After all, lots of the tools in photoshop actually originate from the old darkroom processes anyway.

And the great thing is, If I want 5 identical pictures I can just print them out on the inkjet, rather than trying to remember just how many seconds I was waving my hand about over the foreground in a given picture :shrug:
 
CT said:
Bugger - thank your lucky stars those two rolls arem't wedding shots.
Click to expand...

Indeed! I'd be on my way to Mexico by now.

I just love grainy B&W shots, the kind you can onlyget from film. Hence why I'm now awaiting some Kodak T-Max 3200.

I'm still unsure whether it's worth sticking the 2 rolls of Ilford through the mill, since they're all going to be at different exposures. :(
 
Oh and I opened the lens up - the missing lever was never there to start with!

I gather the Sigma Super wide is a highly regarded lens?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top