experimenting with 35mm film

Discussion in 'UK Photography' started by simon, Mar 17, 2008.

  1. simon

    Tony Polson Guest


    People who learned their photographic technique in the days of film
    tend to try to make every shot count. If you 'machine-gun' shoot to
    get one good image from many, as people with digital cameras tend to
    do, then you are not a photographer. You are taking an almost wholly
    random approach to image making in the hope of getting just one
    keeper.

    This can work, on the same basis that an infinite number of monkeys
    playing with an infinite number of typewriters will produce the
    complete works of Shakespeare in among a few galaxies' volume of
    complete dross.

    I do some picture editing for stock image agency and there is a
    colossal difference between the submitted work of competent
    photographers and those who think that owning an entry-level DSLR and
    a couple of kit lenses makes them into a "freelance photographer".

    Most of the workload at such agencies consists of sorting the wheat
    from the chaff. The chaff makes up over 90% of submissions, which is
    why several agencies have introduced a method of grading the
    contributors to ensure that more time is spent on selecting the better
    images and less on eliminating the chaff.
     
    Tony Polson, Mar 23, 2008
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. simon

    Paul Giverin Guest

    I agree with what you say and I am guilty of taking lots of shots but I
    look at what I've shot and try and learn what makes the good shots good
    and the dross shots dross. In time I may not need to take so many shots.

    Having said that, I don't see the problem with taking many shots if
    there is no additional cost involved. I accept that you wouldn't want to
    do that with film because you would be wasting a lot of money but the
    advantage of digital is that once you have bought your kit, there are no
    additional costs.

    I'd rather fire off a few extra shots than to get home and find I'd
    missed the shot I really wanted.

    --
    Paul Giverin

    British Jet Engine Website:- www.britjet.co.uk

    My photos:- www.pbase.com/vendee
     
    Paul Giverin, Mar 23, 2008
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. simon

    Hugh Spence Guest

    Funny, the same was said about 35mm vs plate cameras when Tony
    Armstrong-Jones was one of the first to use it in Fleet Street.
     
    Hugh Spence, Mar 23, 2008
    #23
  4. In message <fs5hdm$b5u$1$>, Fred Anonymous
    Likewise I used Nikon film bodies and lenses until Nikon offered a
    digital body that met my needs (D200, since added a D300). I'd been
    buying digital compatible lenses for a while which made the move less
    painful, but still used some of my older lenses for a while until I
    could justify upgrading them.

    I do a lot of motorsports photography where it's not unusual to shoot
    1-2000 frames in a day which is a lot of film to lug around. I don't
    take many more shots on digital than I did on film, just that a day's
    motorsport can be 15-20 races and I tend to shoot bursts of 3-5 shots at
    a time. Shooting/processing costs are lower due to film costs but the
    time expended is greater. I used to just get contact sheets from film
    and pick the best images from them to enlarge, with digital I miss out
    that step but spend much longer on the PC processing so have a greater
    outlay in time. Kit costs are higher, mostly due to the greater cost of
    decent bodies, but not excessively so unless you feel the need to
    upgrade every couple of years. I don't anticipate upgrading either of my
    digital bodies for the next 5 years unless one gets damaged which was
    the usual reason for replacing film gear as well.

    The ability to change ISO on the fly is extremely useful - I'd often end
    up processing half exposed films before the move.

    I've also been able to add a couple of DX format lenses to my kit for
    travel use which has significantly reduced the weight of my travel kit.
    I spend several weeks/year in wilderness areas (5 weeks in Greenland
    this summer) so having a lighter travel option that doesn't
    significantly impact image quality is very useful. The lack of film to
    carry also helps significantly - it's easier to protect CF cards in
    difficult conditions than film (film also tends to become rather brittle
    at extreme low temperatures).

    Saying all the above, I still find uses for my film kit but have reduced
    the number of film outfits to 3 from 5 - 1 Nikon body (used to be 3), 1
    Kiev range-finder with a selection of lenses and a Semflex TLR.

    Will
     
    Will Wilkinson, Mar 24, 2008
    #24
    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.