how to view the days pictures without shooting a whole roll

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Tim_Mac, Mar 31, 2005.

  1. Tim_Mac

    Tim_Mac Guest

    hi,
    i'm a newbie photographer on a low budget. i have an old Canon AV-1
    with a 100-300 zoom lens.
    i often find i go out for an hour or two and maybe only take a few
    photos. it sometimes takes a few weeks before i use up a 24 or 36
    negative roll. i'd love to be able to see the pictures soon after i
    take them, while they are still fresh in my mind. i'm guessing this is
    a common problem and i'm wondering is there a solution to it?
    obviously if i go digital i can download the prints to my PC straight
    away, but maybe you can get rolls of film with 5 or 10 exposures or
    something?

    i've read a ton of posts on slide film (but never used it), and the one
    thing i couldn't figure out is if it comes in a roll like negatives and
    loads and winds on the same way. if so then it may not help me quickly
    process or view (in whatever way) only a few pictures at a time.

    also, i'm thinking of getting a desktop film scanner so i don't have to
    pay €8 to get them developed each time. this might give me more
    options for shooting a short roll of film?

    thanks in advance for any suggestions
    tim
     
    Tim_Mac, Mar 31, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Tim_Mac

    Chris Brown Guest

    This is one of my peeves with 35mm, and why when I go out with a film
    camera, it's more likely to be my Rolleiflex (12 pictures per roll) than my
    35mm rangefinder, which makes the problem even worse.
    Yes, it does. It's essentially just like print film, only you get a
    "positive" instead of a negative.

    I only shoot slides in colour, since I scan my film and don't get lab prints
    made. Slides are much easier to "preview" than negatives, as you can just
    hold them up to the light.
    Realistically, with 35mm your options in this area are a bit limited to 24
    and 36 exposure rolls for commonly available films.

    Medium format doesn't have this problem (645 gets 16, 6*6 gets 12 shots on a
    roll, 6*7 gets 10, and 6*9 gets 8), but that won't work with your current
    camera, of course.
     
    Chris Brown, Mar 31, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Tim_Mac

    Bob Hickey Guest

    hi,
    i'm a newbie photographer on a low budget. i have an old Canon AV-1
    with a 100-300 zoom lens.
    i often find i go out for an hour or two and maybe only take a few
    photos. it sometimes takes a few weeks before i use up a 24 or 36
    negative roll. i'd love to be able to see the pictures soon after i
    take them, while they are still fresh in my mind. i'm guessing this is
    a common problem and i'm wondering is there a solution to it?
    obviously if i go digital i can download the prints to my PC straight
    away, but maybe you can get rolls of film with 5 or 10 exposures or
    something?

    i've read a ton of posts on slide film (but never used it), and the one
    thing i couldn't figure out is if it comes in a roll like negatives and
    loads and winds on the same way. if so then it may not help me quickly
    process or view (in whatever way) only a few pictures at a time.

    also, i'm thinking of getting a desktop film scanner so i don't have to
    pay ?8 to get them developed each time. this might give me more
    options for shooting a short roll of film?

    thanks in advance for any suggestions
    tim
    I hate to waste film myself, so I generally just shoot what I
    want and tear off the film to use the rest later. But if you're sending it
    out, I'd haunt the large drug and dept stores for buys on 4 packs. You can
    get some excellent buys and the store brands are generally made by Agfa or
    Fuji. I like the Agfa colors. Then, of course you have to look for a lab
    that charges by the print instead of the roll. OR, the 1-Hour joint I used
    to go to will charge $2 for a CD and 0.50 for each shot. Bob
    Hickey
     
    Bob Hickey, Mar 31, 2005
    #3
  4. You can get some films in 12 exposure, and even 6 exposure rolls, but it
    works out a lot more expensive per photo than 24 or 36 exposure rolls.
    Sometimes 12 exposure rolls even cost more than 24 exposure, because 24 is
    where the volume is. Some labs charge nearly as much for processing 12
    exposure as they charge for 24, so you may not save much. In some cases you
    might be just as well off to to use 24 exposure rolls and rewind the film
    early.

    On occasions I have opened my camera (in the dark of course), and cut the
    film, removed the exposed film and continued to use the remainder of the
    roll. This wastes a little bit of film, and it is imperative that it is done
    in the dark. This is ok when you are doing your own processing, as you can
    load the film into the developing tank immediately. If you rely on a lab to
    do your processing though, you would probably have to load the film into a
    spare film cassette - talk to your lab before you attempt this, as some
    might not like developing partial rolls or home loaded rolls.
    As far as taking photos goes, it loads into your camera etc identical to
    negative film. It is only when you process it that things change - it has a
    different processing procedure so that you get postive images instead of
    negative images. It is of course easier to view these than it is to view
    negatives, but it is harder to print slides than negatives.
    You will still have to get the film developed - but this will give you the
    option of not having to have prints made. most labs will do developing a bit
    cheaper than develop+printing. Your other option is to invest in the gear to
    develop your own film - it's not real expensive and can give you a lot of
    satisfaction (and frustration if you do it wrong).
     
    Graham Fountain, Mar 31, 2005
    #4
  5. You can get some smaller rolls of film, but it will not help much as the
    cost per roll is not much less and the cost per image is higher. You also
    are not likely to save on the processing of the film. You might as well
    just use the regular easy to find 24 exposure.
    Same as negative film for this problem. No faster and you may find it
    will take even longer for processing.
    Not likely to save you money. You still have to have the negatives
    processed. You should be able to have a "proof" sheet made of all the
    images and save over having regular prints made.
     
    Joseph Meehan, Mar 31, 2005
    #5
  6. Tim_Mac

    Owamanga Guest

    Digital definitely has this advantage - a much faster way to learn
    photography. Immediate results with full EXIF data (shutter speed,
    aperture used etc encoded onto each picture). Per shot shooting costs:
    zero.
    It looks and loads just like regular film. Most labs (esp min-labs)
    can't process this in 1hr, and I've had to wait up to 14 days before.
    That being said, if you can't switch to DigitalSLR, you really should
    be using slide when learning exposure. It's a lot harsher on you and
    the print-processing won't destroy any mistakes or artistic influence
    you have on the exposure (as they do when printing from negs).

    Trying to learn photography with regular film is a bit like trying to
    learn the violin at a rock concert - you can't hear it.

    Unfortunately, slide film costs more to buy and process than regular
    film.
    Okay, this would be a partially digital solution. Definitely think
    hard about this, cheap desktop film scanners aren't going to be much
    good. Expensive film scanners start to get close to the cost of the
    low end DSLRs, think carefully, it's 2005, do you want to invest
    heavily in film at this point?

    According to buddies I have in the UK, E6 (slide) capable labs there
    are getting harder and harder to find (and that's London).

    Anyway, you don't even need to pay £8 for processing if you start out
    by processing your own negs. This isn't difficult, the equipment
    needed comprises of a tank, some chemicals, film-retrieval tool and an
    appropriately scaled thermometer. Try B&W first. This way you can
    shoot a roll of 24, and process them within an hour all at home.

    E6 slide processing can be at home too, the only (optional) additional
    requirement here is some plastic mounts and scissors to cut the strips
    up. Get some books on this, and make sure you buy the right film for
    the chemicals/process you want (at least to start with,
    cross-processing can also be fun).
    If the home-processing doesn't sound like your thing, take a look at
    the second-hand/used DSLR market and see if there isn't something that
    fit's your budget.
     
    Owamanga, Mar 31, 2005
    #6
  7. Tim_Mac

    Alan Browne Guest

    Kodak have an 8 frame negative roll that I've used. I don't remember
    what emulsion. You can get 12 frame rolls all over. On some quickie
    projects I've had the negatives developed (sometimes with only a few
    frames out of 24/36 shot) without prints and then scanned for content.

    Slide film loads and shoots like negative film. But the exposure
    latitude is narrower, so a bit harder to get proper exposure. Either
    expose for what you know is a mid tone, or spot meter the highlights and
    open 1.7 to 2 stops. Sensia 100 and EliteChrome 100 are good GP slide
    films. You can view them on a light table, with a projector or scan them.

    Needless to say, the fastest click to review is digital.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Mar 31, 2005
    #7
  8. Tim_Mac

    Chris Brown Guest

    Crikey! I guess I'm fortunate then - I can drop off E6 slide film at my
    loacl lab in my lunch break and pick it up on my way home in the evening.
    Doesn't matter if it's 35mm, 120 or sheet film.
    I'm in the UK, 60 miles outside London, and as hinted at above, getting E6
    processing isn't hard. I'm surprised your friends are apparently having so
    much trouble. There are plenty of places I can go locally to get E6
    processing. Some will even do it in an hour.

    In fact, when I needed some E6 processing doing in a hurry in London a few
    weeks ago, I was able to get a 120 roll of Provia 100F processed in an hour
    at short notice on Saturday afternoon just by walking into a branch of
    Jessops, handing them the roll, and saying, "can you put this through in an
    hour?". They did, but their machine ruined a couple of frames by chewing the
    film up (for which they were very appologetic and gave me loads of free
    stuff). I suspect that had more to do with their machine not handling much
    120, and having the area outside the central 35mm covered in gunk than the
    fact that it was E6 film though.
     
    Chris Brown, Mar 31, 2005
    #8
  9. Tim_Mac

    Owamanga Guest

    The UK is still better than S.Florida, obviously. Each city here seems
    to have either one or zero places that still do it.
    One in particular does 120 E6, and works near or in Camberwell I
    think. He was complaining recently that about half of the places that
    used to do it (a few years ago) have since stopped. The other one used
    to use 35mm E6 near Crystal Palace, but he moans about everything.
    But it's events like that where the upper management say: you gave
    away *what* because of this film screw up? Okay, sod that. No more
    120. And let's dump all E6 whilst we're at it.

    ....just wait.
     
    Owamanga, Mar 31, 2005
    #9
  10. negative roll. i'd love to be able to see the pictures soon after i
    Most of the expense of shooting film comes from printing the
    photographs, even at 4x6. If you only have, say, 10 exposures on a
    roll, I would recommend developing just those 10 exposures, even if
    you have a roll of 36. The difference in price between 12exp, 24exp
    and 36exp rolls isn't all that significant if you buy film at a good
    place, and if you develop your film at a good place, they'll only
    charge you a couple of bucks for the develping, but a per-print
    charge.

    There's another reason to develop your film right away. If you don't
    develop exposed film quickly, you degrade the image quality.

    -Joel
     
    Dr. Joel M. Hoffman, Mar 31, 2005
    #10
  11. Tim_Mac

    Chris Brown Guest

    That does sort of explain it. Not massively familliar with Camberwell, but
    Crystal Palace is a bit suburby. I suspect the problem is more one of a lack
    of facilities in general than anything to do with film. There's quite a
    trend at the moment for property developers to acquire any bit of city land
    they can and build houses (and *just* houses) on it, as getting permission
    to build on undeveloped land is getting very hard these days.

    As a result, lots of businesses in residential parts of cities (e.g.
    suburbs) tend to get made offers they can't refuse, relocate to business
    parks, or just shut down, and the place is cleared and redeveloped for
    housing.

    And suburbs aren't exactly known for their local amenities at the best of
    times. I expect he has trouble getting a decent pint as well...
     
    Chris Brown, Mar 31, 2005
    #11
  12. Tim_Mac

    Matt Clara Guest

    I'm going to say something crazy here--try shooting the full 24 exposures.
    No, I don't just mean fill up the end of the roll with boring pictures of
    your cat, or whatever, what I mean is, try to take 24 meaningful pictures a
    week. Carry your camera with you a little more often, take pictures of your
    subjects from multiple angles, with different exposure settings. Think a
    little about composition, and in just a few months, I guarantee you'll see
    some improvement in your photography.

    Alternatively, yeah, get the digital, but I bet you'll be taking more
    pictures with that, too, 'cause once you've got one, it doesn't cost a thing
    to take pictures all day long!

    --
    Regards,
    Matt Clara
    www.mattclara.com


    hi,
    i'm a newbie photographer on a low budget. i have an old Canon AV-1
    with a 100-300 zoom lens.
    i often find i go out for an hour or two and maybe only take a few
    photos. it sometimes takes a few weeks before i use up a 24 or 36
    negative roll. i'd love to be able to see the pictures soon after i
    take them, while they are still fresh in my mind. i'm guessing this is
    a common problem and i'm wondering is there a solution to it?
    obviously if i go digital i can download the prints to my PC straight
    away, but maybe you can get rolls of film with 5 or 10 exposures or
    something?

    i've read a ton of posts on slide film (but never used it), and the one
    thing i couldn't figure out is if it comes in a roll like negatives and
    loads and winds on the same way. if so then it may not help me quickly
    process or view (in whatever way) only a few pictures at a time.

    also, i'm thinking of getting a desktop film scanner so i don't have to
    pay €8 to get them developed each time. this might give me more
    options for shooting a short roll of film?

    thanks in advance for any suggestions
    tim
     
    Matt Clara, Mar 31, 2005
    #12
  13. Get an old Exakta Varex (VX):
    You can use an empty film casette as the take-up reel. When you've
    finished shooting for the day, just cut your film (the Exakta even has a
    built-in film cutting blade for that purpose) and remove the take-up
    cassette.

    This really only makes sense if you do your own developing, though...
     
    Chris Loffredo, Mar 31, 2005
    #13
  14. Tim_Mac

    ian lincoln Guest


    Minolta 5400 scanner costs £550. Canon 300D with lens £489. We've all made
    harder decisions than this ;P
     
    ian lincoln, Mar 31, 2005
    #14
  15. Another film option I haven't seen mentioned here is to buy film in bulk
    rolls. Most major b&w, slide, and color negative films can be purchased
    in 50 or 100 foot rolls from specialty labs or web sites such as B&H.
    There can often be a substantial savings in 'per frame' costs this way,
    and you can purchase reloadable cassettes to roll your own in whatever
    lengths you require. I did this for decades with E-4 and E-6 slide
    films.

    But then I discovered digital...

    Bob ^,,^
     
    Bob Harrington, Mar 31, 2005
    #15
  16. Tim_Mac

    Sander Vesik Guest

    Umm.. Jessop is in a not too good situation and probably doing a lot to
    try and maintain clients, so I don't think so.
     
    Sander Vesik, Mar 31, 2005
    #16
  17. Tim_Mac

    Tim_Mac Guest

    hi Matt,
    that's a great idea to just take more pictures (why didn't i think of
    that!). i'm setting up a bird hide to study a pair of kingfishers that
    live near me (limerick, ireland) and they are the hardest things to
    catch. you could be sitting there for an hour and only see them shoot
    by 3 times, at 30mph. but i think i will try easier subjects for half
    the time. i'm a real beginner so i suppose going for that amazing
    freeze-frame close up of a kingfisher in full flight is a hard target
    :) specially with manual focus.

    thanks to everyone else too for the excellent and most helpful input.
    i'm amazed at the level of response. i think i will end up going
    digital SLR in about a year, i'll just stick with regular film
    developing until then.

    thanks again.
    tim.
     
    Tim_Mac, Mar 31, 2005
    #17
  18. Tim_Mac

    ian lincoln Guest

    Buy process paid film. Kodak or fuji. I've sent stuff to small independant
    labs and always been dissappointed. Even when i've paid alot of money,
    still had huge drying marks. That and the ridiculous amount of effort and
    expense to scan afterwards i would either go down the full darkroom route
    for prints or go fully digital. Having worked 14months at jessops and seen
    so many films get bolloxed up i would either do the whole thing myself or
    shoot digital. They even managed to lose a negative that was sent off for a
    reprint. Also stuff has come back with white lines across, sent back and
    then come back with a big white wiggly hair then sent off again. That was
    after kodak packed up processing. We were all hoping matters would improve
    once they had gone but instead they got even worse.
     
    ian lincoln, Mar 31, 2005
    #18
  19. HUH? I go through 3 or 4 rolls on a casual stroll!

    You're not using anywhere near enough film!
     
    uraniumcommittee, Apr 1, 2005
    #19
  20. Tim_Mac

    Matt Clara Guest

    Hi Tim,
    I spent 3 weeks in Ireland two years ago (almost 3 now), and had the time of
    my life. The irish treated my wife and I so well, I can't imagine feeling
    more at home in any other nation, including the USA, where the testosterone
    runs a little bit high. We've considered moving there several times now,
    and might just do so yet . Some of the best photography I've ever produced
    came while there, too.
     
    Matt Clara, Apr 1, 2005
    #20
    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.