Anyone still shoot film?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Patrick L, Jan 25, 2010.

  1. Patrick L

    Patrick L Guest

    I've got four dSLRs, but I miss shooting film, so come Christmas, my mom
    wanted me to take pictures so I dusted off my old ElanII, 28-105 lens, and
    bought a roll of Kodak Gold ( nothin' particularly fancy about this rig )
    with a 580ex flash took some snaps and had the pictures developed at a local
    drugstore. The shots were beautiful, or at least I thought so and so did my
    family. The "white balance" ( as we now call it in the digital world ) was
    stunning. I couldn't get 50 bucks for that camera now ( minus the lens and
    flash, of course), so no point in selling it. In fact, I bought it at a
    flea market for 10 bucks.

    I picked up an old Polaroid Land 250 and a bulb flash unit for a song, and
    I can still get batteries and film ( fuji ) for it, so I'm looking to have
    some fun with it. I found a guy that sells bulbs for it, but, I was a
    little boy the last time they used them, and these bulbs have been sitting
    in a warehouse for a long time. Expensive 'cuz they no longer make them.
    I'm doing some math, and I think each shot, with flash, is going to cost
    about 4 bucks. Sheesh -- better get it right the first time !!

    Patrick L, Jan 25, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  2. Patrick L

    Jeff R. Guest

    Do you mind, Bret?

    "RULZ" please.

    Get it right, son.
    Jeff R., Jan 25, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  3. Patrick L

    Bruce Guest

    There are still many happy users of the Electro 35 GS/GT. I regret
    selling my GSN. I replaced it with a Canon GIII QL which had a better
    lens (nicer bokeh) but wasn't as versatile. The very long exposure
    capability of the Electro 35 was a remarkable achievement.

    Which batteries do you use in yours?
    Bruce, Jan 25, 2010
  4. Patrick L

    Paul Furman Guest

    I shot one roll recently for the first time in a decade. Photo CD at
    walgreens with kodak gold 200 was pretty crummy looking. Can anyone
    recommend a mail-in service with good scans? There are stores here where
    I could no doubt get it done but assuming that'd be expensive. Maybe I
    should try some really nice b&w film, like something that can do stuff
    digital can't with dynamic range or resolution. I really don't want to
    get a film scanner or get into it too heavily.

    Paul Furman

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Jan 25, 2010
  5. Patrick L

    K W Hart Guest

    I am 100% committed to film. I buy film in 25 or 50 roll packs, and color
    printing paper in rolls of (about) 200 or 600 feet, depending on the width.
    I have a well-equipted color darkroom, capable of printing up to 20" wide

    As for your results at the local drugstore, I think you got lucky! Many
    times, the person running the machine at the one-hour photo place (whether
    it's CVS, Walgreens, WalMart, etc), is a part-timer, who last week was
    working the checkout register. If you find a one-hour store with very low
    employee turnover, and a processing machine that gets regular factory
    maintenance, stick with them!
    (The automated one-hour machines want to see a certain mixture of colors and
    densitites. I suspect your holiday snaps probably were within the normal
    limits. If you had taken a picture of a black cat in the middle of a
    snow-covered field on a sunny day, or a yellow pear in front of a red barn,
    your results would probably have been less than stellar.)

    I've worked with digital photographers, and at the end of the day, the
    digital shooter might have shot ten times the number of frames as I did on
    film, but the total number of "keepers" is nearly the same. If people 'grow
    up' on film shooting, they are used to making sure the shot is going to be
    good before tripping the shutter. A digital shooter can just keep firing,
    hoping that one of the frames will be good.
    K W Hart, Jan 25, 2010
  6. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 25/01/2010 5:46 PM:
    Why do dogs lick their balls?
    Because they can.
    Noons, Jan 26, 2010
  7. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    pbromaghin wrote,on my timestamp of 26/01/2010 5:30 AM:
    But I must admit shooting at 100000ISO must be essential for good photography...
    Noons, Jan 26, 2010
  8. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 26/01/2010 9:43 AM:
    And yet remarkably that doesn't stop you from emitting opinions about shooting
    Noons, Jan 26, 2010
  9. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Paul Furman wrote,on my timestamp of 26/01/2010 9:58 AM:
    Do yourself a favour and shoot decent film, instead of 30 year old emulsions!
    You wouldn't shoot a Mavica nowadays, would you?

    Adox CMS 20 on Technidol LC or their own developer.
    It'll beat the sweet thingie off any medium format, digital or film.
    And it prints with amazing range, same for scanning.
    But you have to do your own development and scanning, I doubt
    any commercial place would be involved...
    Not that hard, the development bit.
    Noons, Jan 26, 2010
  10. Patrick L

    tony cooper Guest

    "decent HDR image" is very close to being an oxymoron.
    tony cooper, Jan 26, 2010
  11. Here's my saga: up until last year I had just such a lucky combination;
    the local Longs store had a photo staff that really knew what they were
    doing and actually paid attention to the printing process, and I
    consistently got very good results from them on their Frontier. (And
    they were cheap.)

    Then CVS took over Longs. I tried them out; the first roll I had
    processed there, they didn't even print all the exposures (and gave me
    doubles of some others). And the results were uniformly shitty. (They
    now use a Kodak system.)

    So I tried another roll at Walgreens. The results were even shittier, at
    least part of which seemed to be due to the system they use (forget the
    name of it).

    Then I started looking around for local (i.e., non-drug-chain)
    processors. Ended up with one in downtown Berkeley that makes *optical*
    prints (my preference) on a Noritsu processor that are truly spectacular.

    The moral of the story is: find a small, dedicated, conscientious photo
    lab. It's worth it.
    David Nebenzahl, Jan 26, 2010
  12. The last time I bought Walgreens branded film, it turned out to be Agfa.
    Not bad. (This was several years ago, though.)
    David Nebenzahl, Jan 26, 2010
  13. I'm doing some math, and I think each shot, with flash, is going to cost
    I pay about 6 bucks a shot when I use my 4x5" field camera, not
    counting printing and/or scanning. I could use it with flash bulbs --
    I have a couple of dozen M2 and M3B bulbs and a Nikon BC-7 flash to
    fire them in, but I've yet to try that.

    Today, I picked up from the lab a roll of Velveeta 100 I shot this
    weekend with my Pentax 645n. The macro shots look pretty good, but
    the landscapes are, alas, simply boring. The 35mm shooting schedule
    includes some Ektar 100 and some Agfa APX 100, but with New England
    weather you have to be a bit flexible about one's shooting schedule.
    Michael Benveniste, Jan 26, 2010
  14. Patrick L

    Paul Furman Guest

    Jumping topics - I think that's the reason to play with film; to shoot
    slides and be able to project them, as digital cannot do (yet) (for a
    reasonable budget). Forget scanning. That's mostly what I shot over the
    years - slides. It would be nice to pull them out again. The chore of
    scanning them doesn't sound fun but projecting them does.

    Paul Furman

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Jan 26, 2010
  15. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 26/01/2010 11:36 AM:
    Obviously, no clue what film is all about and what it does...

    Indeed. I use it all the time for close-up and macro photography.
    Very convenient. Then, I take a shot with film.

    Given that there is not a single digital camera that can do a decent HDR image,
    you have a long way to go to find a film one that does it...
    Once again, totally confused:
    HDR is post-processing, ignoramus.
    It has nothing to do with the camera, digital or otherwise...

    As for the adjective "decent" being used together with HDR,
    I'll let others comment.

    Oh wait, hang on: they did!
    Ah well...
    Noons, Jan 26, 2010
  16. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Paul Furman wrote,on my timestamp of 26/01/2010 1:01 PM:

    Try some of the latest Fuji Xtra-400 and you will never use any other colour
    neg! Ektar 100 is no slouch either. Use it indoors with tungsten light and it
    gives amazing colour tonality, even though it's supposed to be "daylight".

    Again: Adox CMS20 on Technidol. It easily exceeds the best my 9000 ED scanner
    can do, and that is no slouch. Easily more than 10 stops exposure range,
    without even doing anything extra. And it's not just profiles: doing a positive
    scan of the negative still exceeds the dynamic range of the 9000!
    There you go: Tri-X + Xtol. Push 1.5 or even 2 stops. The best combination ever
    for street shooting. And the EM is just perfect for that. Plonk a 50/1.8 on it
    and have a heap of cheap fun!
    Not with Technidol or their own developer. It's a high contrast microfilm, but
    developed with a low contrast soup it has immense dynamic range and a clear

    B&W is worth developing at home, it's fun and easy as pie. Then later, you
    start getting into the real interesting stuff: Rodinal at 1:200, no agitation,
    half an hour development time. Now, *that* is fun! Smoothest grey gradation I
    have ever seen! Superb with Fuji Acros 100.

    Dunno if there is any. Well in a sense they all are, as they all are sensitive
    to UV, I suppose?
    Noons, Jan 26, 2010
  17. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Paul Furman wrote,on my timestamp of 26/01/2010 3:35 PM:

    Grab hold of some Astia 100 and shoot it for slides.
    The result will be as near to K64 as you can get and still be legal!
    Noons, Jan 26, 2010
  18. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 26/01/2010 2:58 PM:
    And that is mostly the case nowadays. But they all discuss number of angels on
    a pixel in the online forums as if they knew lots about it. The same ones whose
    photos are never visible...
    Er, no. Same number of keepers, a lot more shooting. Film shooters take good
    care to make sure each image is a keeper. Not always the case, but a good thing
    to aim for.

    With digital, folks basically merrily shoot away. Some are smart and attentive
    enough to check the histos and make sure what they got is minimally usable.
    Others just photoshop the heck out of whatever they got and fabricate their
    images. Different strokes.

    In fact, I'd say he'd end up with an even higher percentage
    Well, if he's trying out techniques and angles, presumably those won't be
    keepers? The trials, I mean.

    Therefore the ratio won't be 10 times more shooting, 10 times more keepers...

    Or else maths are really strange today?
    Noons, Jan 26, 2010
  19. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 26/01/2010 3:06 PM:
    Noons, Jan 26, 2010
  20. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Michael Benveniste wrote,on my timestamp of 26/01/2010 2:07 PM:
    Hmmmm.... I paid 50 pacific pesos for my last 30m roll of Tri-X.
    In Rodinal ($15 bottle) at 1:200, it works out at about 8 cents a shot including
    the fixer. Darn, I better watch the finances this summer...

    Ektar 100 is great indoors with tungsten light. The colours are superb.
    Try a roll with a wide open small tele and get it processed by someone who knows
    what they are doing: you'll love it.
    Noons, Jan 26, 2010
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.