35mm film photography?

[awa355]

Does anyone here still use a film camera?. I have been thinking of picking up a 35mm film SLR as a sideline interest to my digital photography. Some quite cheap on turd me, but how hard would the films be to get?.

Also is there any digital age technology available that allows developing film at home, apart from making a darkroom?.

[Katman]

Does anyone here still use a film camera?. I have been thinking of picking up a 35mm film SLR as a sideline interest to my digital photography. Some quite cheap on turd me, but how hard would the films be to get?.

Also is there any digital age technology available that allows developing film at home, apart from making a darkroom?.

The digital age has well and truly done away with darkrooms and there is no way of developing 35mm film other than the chemicals and total darkness method.

There really is no logical reason for dabbling in 35mm any more.

In the early days of digital, 35mm was superior - but those days are long gone.

[R650R]

For the absolute purist there is still some advantages in using film. No matter the dynamic range of your camera sensor or what version of photoshop and plugins there is something in the analogue action of film that produces better tonal graduations from dark to light in black and white images.
But really you have to be pixel peeping and a pro to see the difference.
I don't like colour film but Black and white has seduced many funds out of my bank account experimenting. The only problem is most shops that still process film only do colour, expect a week or more delay to have black and white films sent away. I recommend filmsoup in wellington.

This stuff here produces fantastic results and is quite tolerant of your exposure being off slightly. http://photogear.co.nz/ilford-fp4-plus-black-and-white-negative-film-35mm-roll-film-24-exposures.html

There is something to in accepting the image as you shot it and not fluffing around in photoshop or camera raw for hours tweaking images to perfection. An old camera is good ice breaker and conversation starter too.
I'll upload some samples shortly.

[awa355]

There really is no logical reason for dabbling in 35mm any more.

In the early days of digital, 35mm was superior - but those days are long gone.

So have the days of VMX, Blackpowder muzzle loaders, etc but to some keeping the past alive is what they enjoy.


For the absolute purist there is still some advantages in using film. No matter the dynamic range of your camera sensor or what version of photoshop and plugins there is something in the analogue action of film that produces better tonal graduations from dark to light in black and white images.
But really you have to be pixel peeping and a pro to see the difference.
I don't like colour film but Black and white has seduced many funds out of my bank account experimenting. The only problem is most shops that still process film only do colour, expect a week or more delay to have black and white films sent away. I recommend filmsoup in wellington.

This stuff here produces fantastic results and is quite tolerant of your exposure being off slightly. http://photogear.co.nz/ilford-fp4-plus-black-and-white-negative-film-35mm-roll-film-24-exposures.html

There is something to in accepting the image as you shot it and not fluffing around in photoshop or camera raw for hours tweaking images to perfection. An old camera is good ice breaker and conversation starter too.
I'll upload some samples shortly.

You are right about B &W scenes. It brings out the mood of many subjects, but is not for all people, or for all scenes. I have never had any interest in raw format or photoshop. I would sooner try for an acceptable image from the camera. At the moment, My pet interest is night time street scenes and light patterns.

http://i1074.photobucket.com/albums/w420/awa355/night%205.jpg
http://i1074.photobucket.com/albums/w420/awa355/night%206.jpg
http://i1074.photobucket.com/albums/w420/awa355/night%207.jpg
http://i1074.photobucket.com/albums/w420/awa355/b%20amp%20w%201.jpg

[AllanB]

Where do you event get that shirt developed now?

My old man build a dark-room in his garage decades ago. Has not been used for decades either. Guess that gear will be worthless now.

[Swoop]

Fucking expensive if you can get hold of it.
http://www.photowarehouse.co.nz/shop-by-product/film-and-film-cameras-2/35mm-slide-colour-2/

Developing...:(

[pete376403]

Where do you event get that shirt developed now?

My old man build a dark-room in his garage decades ago. Has not been used for decades either. Guess that gear will be worthless now.
pretty much. My bro-in-law has a pile of Nikon bodies and glassware, all very close to top of the line (for its day) gathering dust. His main camera now is a cell phone

[FLUB]

Ilford XP2 is a B&W film that is processed in the same chemicals as colour film (C41) so can be processed by the same labs and at the same price.

[Akzle]

Does anyone here still use a film camera?.
nope, gave it away a year or more ago. didn't even "upgrade" to a digital. as mention. cellphone camera capture most of what i want.


how hard would the films be to get?.
more and more so.


Also is there any digital age technology available that allows developing film at home, apart from making a darkroom?.
no, but a darkroom can mask your meth lab as the chemicals smell the same and you need the same extractor fans and stuff <_<

you can develop b&w inside the tank inside a heavy black bag, can be done in the outdoors even.

but printing photos is light-sensitive. (mmmmmmobviously, if you have any grasp of how it's done)

you can of course, develop the negatives and have someone else print them. or develop them and then use a film scanner, or even a high res flatbed scanner to then print them digiomatically (which is a fuckload cheaper)

[Akzle]

...there is something in the analogue action of film that produces better tonal graduations from dark to light in black and white images...

dye sublimation, nikka. most sensors (probably all) now days will get enough info, and if that get all the way to the correct printer, it can be pretty hard to pick...

[Katman]

I used to print my own colour photos.

Colour requires precise temperature control throughout the chemical process to give consistent results.

Hard work in trays in a bathroom/darkroom.

[ellipsis]

...the stuff to do your own developing is still there, nothings changed...only us...

[Big Dog]

For the absolute purist there is still some advantages in using film. No matter the dynamic range of your camera sensor or what version of photoshop and plugins there is something in the analogue action of film that produces better tonal graduations from dark to light in black and white images.
But really you have to be pixel peeping and a pro to see the difference.
I don't like colour film but Black and white has seduced many funds out of my bank account experimenting. The only problem is most shops that still process film only do colour, expect a week or more delay to have black and white films sent away. I recommend filmsoup in wellington.

This stuff here produces fantastic results and is quite tolerant of your exposure being off slightly. http://photogear.co.nz/ilford-fp4-plus-black-and-white-negative-film-35mm-roll-film-24-exposures.html

There is something to in accepting the image as you shot it and not fluffing around in photoshop or camera raw for hours tweaking images to perfection. An old camera is good ice breaker and conversation starter too.
I'll upload some samples shortly.
Ironically I think the reason I don't use my dslr as much as I used to use my slr was how much it cost for film.
The excitement was palpable as you watched your previous develop. Knowing there could only be 36 frames a week makes you take better pictures.
I have probably taken more pictures with my digital. But then I don't display display them or sell then like I used to and I don't get the camera out of the cupboard very often.

Sent via tapatalk.

[awa355]

Here is a paragraph scanned from a book I'm reading. This lady must have had a level of dedication not many today would bother with.

http://i1074.photobucket.com/albums/w420/awa355/76bceba4-afac-49eb-976e-955da470fd5e.jpg

[Paulo]

Does anyone here still use a film camera?. I have been thinking of picking up a 35mm film SLR as a sideline interest to my digital photography. Some quite cheap on turd me, but how hard would the films be to get?.

Also is there any digital age technology available that allows developing film at home, apart from making a darkroom?.

I still shoot film but only Medium format (but I get the negs scanned at a pro lab and I make my adjustmenst before printing so it's a semi digital workflow)

I see you live in Te awamutu, this limits your options on getting stuff developed in colour or developed and scanned at a lab.

There's real no at home option other than the traditional darkroom. (or you buy a 35mm film scanner but you still need to get the negative developed first if using colour or you dev your own BnW at home then scan it, note film scanners are expensive and hard to find and finding a current software driver is a pain)

OR you can shoot 35mm film and send it to a lab for a DEV and SCAN they will develop your neg and sleeve it and scan the photo's at the resolution you ask onto CD. BUT this costs about $20 per roll so it' not cheap.
(I think 'Photo Warehouse' or PCL in AKL is the nearest option)


regarding old film gear sitting on shelves collecting dust
I recently bought a cheap sony Nex 6 body on TM you can put other lens's on them from different manufactures this allows me to utilize all of my old 35mm film lens's with the help of an adaptor rings (which cost about $20) which has given a new lease of life to that gear and the lens's are better quality then a lot of glass on new Digi cams (especially for the price).

One thing I love about film (and it depends on what you want to shoot is it slows me down, I get 10 shots per roll of 120 neg (thats about 5 times bigger than 35mm) and that means I make a lot of decisions before I take a photo (because it's so frikken expensive) so my keeper rate on film is very high, on digital it's easy to just spray away and get 100's of images at the end of a day but the ratio of good to bad won't be as high.

and Yes you can still by film just nowhere near as many options as ten years ago but Kodak and Fuji are still making it (just)

hope some of this is of help

[jonbuoy]

Diana's seem to still find a niche:

http://microsites.lomography.com/diana/about/

[awa355]

I still shoot film
regarding old film gear sitting on shelves collecting dust
I recently bought a cheap sony Nex 6 body on TM you can put other lens's on them from different manufactures this allows me to utilize all of my old 35mm film lens's with the help of an adaptor rings (which cost about $20) which has given a new lease of life to that gear and the lens's are better quality then a lot of glass on new Digi cams (especially for the price)

hope some of this is of help

Some of the film SLR camera equipment on TM is quite reasonably priced, I had wondered about the using of the lens's from film cameras on digital camera's. For the cost of setting up for film photography, I am better to stick with digital. It just seems a shame to see old school photography going out the door.

[Big Dog]

Some digital gear will take old lenses. Google up a storm.
During the 90s I worked in camera sales along other things.
Nikon dslr lenses for slrs. Canon some models needed adapter kit. Ricoh had adapters for just about every lens there is.
Some canons would not turn on without responses from the servo self tests though.
I have recently seen quite a few modern dslr users with older manual prime lenses because they are massively cheaper for often higher quality sturdier lenses and bodies. Even if you have to also buy an adapter ring.

Sent via tapatalk.

[Ruahine]

Some of the film SLR camera equipment on TM is quite reasonably priced, I had wondered about the using of the lens's from film cameras on digital camera's. For the cost of setting up for film photography, I am better to stick with digital. It just seems a shame to see old school photography going out the door.

If you use Nikon then I am pretty sure all their SLRs are backwards compatible with regards to lenses. Not sure about other camera makes but certainly there is nothing special about digital SLRs with regards to lens technology. The only thing to look for is that lenses designed for some digital SLRs (so called crop sensors or DX in Nikon-land) are smaller and won't fully expose a 35mm film or full frame. However older lenses developed for 35mm film should work on digital cameras but you might be carrying more glass than you need.

Certainly some very good bargains to be had with older SLR lenses as, motion reduction/autofocusing aside, the older lenses are just as good quality as newer ones.

[Akzle]

i was always nikkor sigma lenses (bayonet) which were fairly interchangable. (Nikon f series) were compatible with the early d1s i think. Dont know bout now.
I'd still rank sigmas as the best glass you can get. Steel bodies and clipped in lenses, none of this foggy glued in shit.
The fuken pentax m42s were a bitch, though i believe you get get the adapter. Still have to unscrew your shit though unless you had one for each lens.

[Akzle]

If you use Nikon then I am pretty sure all their SLRs are backwards compatible with regards to lenses. Not sure about other camera makes but certainly there is nothing special about digital SLRs with regards to lens technology. The only thing to look for is that lenses designed for some digital SLRs (so called crop sensors or DX in Nikon-land) are smaller and won't fully expose a 35mm film or full frame. However older lenses developed for 35mm film should work on digital cameras but you might be carrying more glass than you need.

Certainly some very good bargains to be had with older SLR lenses as, motion reduction/autofocusing aside, the older lenses are just as good quality as newer ones.

i though stabilisation happened cmos side?

Auto focus is for pussies.
But some/many of the later higher end electric bodies had servo control so those lenses should line up with newer Ds.
Had one, nikon f something that would peel a roll of film in a couple of seconds shooting full auto...

[Big Dog]

If you use Nikon then I am pretty sure all their SLRs are backwards compatible with regards to lenses. Not sure about other camera makes but certainly there is nothing special about digital SLRs with regards to lens technology. The only thing to look for is that lenses designed for some digital SLRs (so called crop sensors or DX in Nikon-land) are smaller and won't fully expose a 35mm film or full frame. However older lenses developed for 35mm film should work on digital cameras but you might be carrying more glass than you need.

Certainly some very good bargains to be had with older SLR lenses as, motion reduction/autofocusing aside, the older lenses are just as good quality as newer ones.
Older lenses are often higher quality if they are in the same condition. Less micro parts.
Because the lenses are not limited by what the servo can prime ther is more freedom for the lens maker to use precision ground lenses with less of them instead add opposed to thinner stamped lenses that are only ground to polish them.

This is more significant in prime lenses abs very long zoom lens.

Sent via tapatalk.

[trustme]

You can develop E6 slide film at home without a dark room. Velvia is cool shit , I used a bulk loader & loaded my own canisters to reduce costs. Photowarehouse used to sell the E6 develpoing chemicals as a kit but it is no longer listed on their site. I have a bit of gear including a colour enlarger, developing tank, etc , no trays they went to a higher calling, motorcycle parts .
You can have if you want to try it. I'd rather see it go to a good home than continue to lurk in a cupboard in the garage.

[OddDuck]

Does anyone here still use a film camera?. I have been thinking of picking up a 35mm film SLR as a sideline interest to my digital photography. Some quite cheap on turd me, but how hard would the films be to get?.

Also is there any digital age technology available that allows developing film at home, apart from making a darkroom?.

To add to others...

Yep, still shooting film, love it.

Getting film: online is best for anything specific - look at B&H Photo, Adorama, Photo Warehouse (here in NZ), even TradeMe (if you don't mind expired stock with possibly dodgy colours). B&W film tends to age pretty well and is still usually good even after a decade at room temperature.

Developing it: B&W is best done at home, costs an absolute fortune if you farm it out. You need at least one film tank, reels, somewhere to hang film too - the shower is usually the best because it's generally dust free. If you shoot a lot then you'll need as many reels as you can get, these really can only be loaded when they're bone dry.

Chemistry can be bought through the web, too - look for powder developers. The best B&W film or paper dev I've ever used was through Moersch Photochemie, in Germany - takes ages to arrive but so much better for the home worker than anything from Ilford or Kodak. Colour film can be done (with reservations), look for the C-41 or E-6 Press Kits that Tetenal make - but you need extremely tight temperature control on your film tank and solutions.

Printing it: if you're skipping the darkroom, get a film scanner, a computer that can handle big files (45 - 80 MB TIFFs aren't uncommon), and a photo-quality printer, A3 if you can afford it. If you can, stay away from flatbed film scanners, or the cheaper 35mm only options like the Plusteks. The Epson V700 / 750 / 800's are alright and they can do medium format and large format (exaggerated res and range aside), otherwise try to find a dedicated film scanner. I have a Nikon Coolscan V ED and it's great. Hanging out for a good MF scanner.

Lenses: I've used adaptors on Canon EOS bodies - these cameras will shoot through anything, if you can put it in front of the camera then you can shoot through it.

Digital wins hands down for convenience and sharing on the internet, but I've shot everything I've ever wanted to hang on the wall in film.

[Ruahine]

Older lenses are often higher quality if they are in the same condition. Less micro parts.
Because the lenses are not limited by what the servo can prime ther is more freedom for the lens maker to use precision ground lenses with less of them instead add opposed to thinner stamped lenses that are only ground to polish them.

This is more significant in prime lenses abs very long zoom lens.

Sent via tapatalk.

Interesting. I have often heard that many of Nikon's older prime lenses outperformed their modern equivalents.

[Ruahine]

i though stabilisation happened cmos side?

Nikon's vibration reduction (VR) and Canon's image stabilization (IS)-equipped lenses contain sensors which adjust movable lens elements to compensate for lens shake.

http://www.nikon.com/about/technology/rd/core/software/vr_e/

[Akzle]

This is more significant in prime lenses abs very long zoom lens.

Sent via tapatalk.

i miss my 600mm (literally, 600mm) :crybaby:

my neighbours wife has great tits though.

[Maha]

i miss my 600mm (literally, 600mm) :crybaby:

my neighbours wife has great tits though.

They're teats you sick bastard.

[Akzle]

Nikon's vibration reduction (VR) and Canon's image stabilization (IS)-equipped lenses contain sensors which adjust movable lens elements to compensate for lens shake.

http://www.nikon.com/about/technology/rd/core/software/vr_e/

riduculous .