35mm slr

zach30345

why do people say 35mm slr's take better black and white picutures and that they have better depth, i have digital slr and i was thinking of getting a film slr its 75 dollars, so its not that expensive just wondering if its even worth it just take a few picutres here and there with, afterall i do want to go to college for photograpy and i know how to use a darkroom so i just want to experiment with all kinds of equipment.

ziggy53

ZacharyBarron wrote:

why do people say 35mm slr's take better black and white picutures and that they have better depth ...

There are a number of people who insist that B&W film has a "special" tonality that cannot be duplicated in digital. I would insist that digital has unique advantages in processing color to gray scale that are just as important in providing creative freedom.

Working in film is important in developing discipline and technique, so I suggest some experience is valuable. Defining subjects by grays alone is both challenging and liberating.

ZacharyBarron wrote:

... i have digital slr and i was thinking of getting a film slr its 75 dollars, so its not that expensive just wondering if its even worth it just take a few picutres here and there with, afterall i do want to go to college for photograpy and i know how to use a darkroom so i just want to experiment with all kinds of equipment.

I am not sure that we have enough information to help you make a decision. Not all film SLRs are created equally and a $75 SLR may or may not have value.

NikonsandVstroms

ziggy53 wrote:

Working in film is important in developing discipline and technique, so I suggest some experience is valuable. Defining subjects by grays alone is both challenging and liberating.

This would be the biggest reason I would go for it, one specific way it helps is when you limit yourself to 36 or 72 shots, each frame has more significance, you need to get the exposure, focus, composition all right and you don't find out till agitating the development tank for way too many minutes.

Plus if you're going to college for photography you will most likely be working with film at least for your early courses, so it would be a good early start in the medium

dadwtwins

The camera is not the real cost nor is shooting B&W alone. The technique comes into play when you are able to go through the whole work flow process.

Picking the type of film for a particular look, developing the film in a particular way to achieve good contrast etc...., choosing the paper, and developing the prints in the darkroom are all parts of a true film work flow.

All of these steps will help anyone from beginner to pro to develop hands on techniques to develop your photography skills. Local community colleges are great places that offer these work flows and are well worth looking into.

I am extremely biased about this since I spent hours upon hours in the darkroom and loved every minute. It is simply very satisfying, gratifying and rewarding to control a particular shot from the start of taking the picture to the final steps of developing the shot onto paper.

Art Scott

dadwtwins wrote:

The camera is not the real cost nor is shooting B&W alone. The technique comes into play when you are able to go through the whole work flow process.

Picking the type of film for a particular look, developing the film in a particular way to achieve good contrast etc...., choosing the paper, and developing the prints in the darkroom are all parts of a true film work flow.

All of these steps will help anyone from beginner to pro to develop hands on techniques to develop your photography skills. Local community colleges are great places that offer these work flows and are well worth looking into.

I am extremely biased about this since I spent hours upon hours in the darkroom and loved every minute. It is simply very satisfying, gratifying and rewarding to control a particular shot from the start of taking the picture to the final steps of developing the shot onto paper.

I think the only reason to ever go to film is:
1- to keep the art of chemical developement alive for both paper and film
2- teach restraint in shooting
3- having a film back up is a great thing as I just ran into a situation where my batteries all got to cold and had no life until warmed for a couple of hours in the sunlight.....if I had taken a film camera and at least one lens I could have had some spectacular Ks landscapes and a shot of a Whitetailed buck standing in a wide open pheasant field looking right at me at 50 yrds literally a cover shot and he was a trophy buck to boot............at least all of my film cameras will fire the shutter when the batteries are dead....it may be a manual 1/125 or 60th of a sec but you can make photos........


Do I miss the chemical stains and smells....NOT one bit.....I am so glad I no longer have to conform to environmental rules dealing with the dumping of chemicals down drains I can almost jump for joy.......

ZacharyBarron wrote:

why do people say 35mm slr's take better black and white picutures and that they have better depth, i have digital slr and i was thinking of getting a film slr its 75 dollars, so its not that expensive just wondering if its even worth it just take a few picutres here and there with, afterall i do want to go to college for photograpy and i know how to use a darkroom so i just want to experiment with all kinds of equipment.

Do try and get a film camera that will use the same lenses as your digital......I am going back to Nikon and I already have a Nikon F70 (similar to the USA n70....this is a Euro model) and I can use my Nikon lenses on the film or digital camera.....the dx lenses will give a slight vignette, but that is a slight price to pay for that kind of back up.
If you using Nikon I would suggest a total manual camera....one of the Russian brands are fantastic and can usually be had for less than $100 for body only and then the adapter for fitting digital (electronic ) lenses is very minimal also.....they only require a battery for the meter, evey thing else is manual.

dadwtwins

Art Scott wrote:

Do I miss the chemical stains and smells....NOT one bit.....

Are you kidding me??? Those are the best things about film

I even have a cologne that smells like T-Max RS developer, ok I realize I am a little differentrofl

zach30345

it is a canon rebel 2000

ziggy53

ZacharyBarron wrote:

it is a canon rebel 2000

That's a fairly nice body and the price you quoted is about correct for a good copy. Do get counsel from an experienced photographer who can guide you in the purchase.

KEH has a couple of the Canon Rebel 2000 cameras in stock and they have an "EX+" condition body for $76, if you don't want to take the risk. (KEH has a very nice grading system and a gracious return policy.)

zach30345

i was looking into buying just the body from a site like KEH but the promblem is i am on a tight budget and i need the lens, 18-55 or something like that not sure what it is on a film camera because all my lens from my digital slr will fit the film one except for my 18-55 and this one comes with three lens that will be use to both my film and digital slr's, he lists the lenses as 58mm +3, 58mm 1A,and the zoom lens, im not sure what lenses he talking about, but i am going to go look at the camera tonight heres the ad for it http://boston.craigslist.org/sob/pho/906679761.html tell me what you think?

swintonphoto

The vast majority of my artistic digital photographs are black & white. After working as a darkroom B&W photographer for years with a Hasselblad, I can honestly say I can do more digitally than I ever could in the darkroom. See my galleries: www.jonathanswinton.com

jdryan3

swintonphoto wrote:

The vast majority of my artistic digital photographs are black & white.

Very nice photos of Qingping. Wonderful tonality across the board. Mind if I ask what is your favorite conversion method?

swintonphoto

jdryan3 wrote:

Very nice photos of Qingping. Wonderful tonality across the board. Mind if I ask what is your favorite conversion method?

Thanks! I am glad you like them! I would be happy to tell you what I do:
B&W conversions:
1. First I load the images into Lightroom (really an amazing B&W tool).
2. I put the image in grayscale mode.
3. Then I usually do some minor adjustments with the tone curve tool.
4. Then I do my last adjustments with the grayscale channel mixer. The channel mixer is the best kept secret in B&W digital photography. The power you can have with that tool is remarkable. Try swinging the mixer bars all the way to one side or another to see what creative adjustments you can do. I can usually find one or two that produce some adjustments I like.
5. Then once I have completed these 3 steps and my image is mostly like I want it, then I save it as a PSD.
6. I then load the image in photoshop.
7. If I have any other adjustments to do that I can't do in lightroom I do it now.
8. Then I add a photo filter layer. My favorite filter by far is the Warming Filter (81). It is the 3rd preset filter - much better than the other warming filters in my opinion. I usually add around 18%-24% density depending on the image. This filter gives me tones very similar to what I use to get using Ilford warmtone milticontrast paper with Dektol developer in the darkroom. Quite lovely.
9. Save it and it is done!

It should be said, if you don't have lightroom, you can still do channel mixing and tonal curve adjustments in photoshop as an added layer - similar to the photo filter layer, i just find it easier to do it in Lightroom.

Hope this helps! Give it a try!

jdryan3

swintonphoto wrote:

Thanks! I am glad you like them! I would be happy to tell you what I do:
B&W conversions:

It should be said, if you don't have lightroom, you can still do channel mixing and tonal curve adjustments in photoshop as an added layer - similar to the photo filter layer, i just find it easier to do it in Lightroom.

Hope this helps! Give it a try!

One of the reasons I originally waited to jump to LR from PS was I had a fairly decent B&W conversion method. I had tried them all: Channel Mixing, Calculations, Hue/Saturation layer method, you name it. But I agree: LR is the way to go. Do most of it there and final tweaks in PS, if needed.

I got LR2 a couple weeks back, but have not had a chance to work with Local Adjustments/brushes yet. They will be a great help. And I'll have to try your filter method with LR. I had used those in PS 7 & CS, but moved away when I started shooting RAW and using Bridge/ACR.

colourbox

jdryan3 wrote:

One of the reasons I originally waited to jump to LR from PS was I had a fairly decent B&W conversion method. I had tried them all: Channel Mixing, Calculations, Hue/Saturation layer method, you name it. But I agree: LR is the way to go.

FYI for those who have Photoshop but not Lightroom: If you have Photoshop CS3 or later, it has the same specialized Black and White nondestructive mixer that Lightroom has, except that it's in Camera Raw or in an Adjustment Layer. Good to know if you don't want to spend another $300 you do not need to get Lightroom just for B&W.

I prefer Lightroom myself too, though, for things like the Virtual Copies to keep color and custom black and white versions without making duplicate files.

cmason

I think one reason someone may say this about B&W isnt the camera or software, but rather the printing method. Often printers (like EZPrints, Walmart etc, as well as most inkjet printers) print B&W using color inks, approximating B&W. This often does not look all that convincing, perhaps carrying a purple or blueish tone....at least my B&W prints from EZPrints have.

Some printers use true B&W processes, like MPIX. Some inkjets can be adapted to B&W (well ok black and grey) inks as well.

jovitta

Hi
If you decide to go to college for photography and have a intrest in a certain school. Find out if they still use 35mm, I know for a fact that Brooks Institute of Photography has gone digital. They use digital backs or film for the medium format, But they do still use film for the 4x5 large format, and they do not use the dark rooms any longer the students use Sammy's Camera to develope their film now. Or other local professional film developers in the area. (Santa Barbara CA.) Jovita

jovitta

hi
I use photoshop and I print on a Epson photo R2400 the results are very good using this printer.

Art Scott

swintonphoto wrote:

The vast majority of my artistic digital photographs are black & white. After working as a darkroom B&W photographer for years with a Hasselblad, I can honestly say I can do more digitally than I ever could in the darkroom. See my galleries: www.jonathanswinton.com

Not to mention it is soooo much less expensive doing it digitally.....as a matter of fact I see Tiffen is offering their line of filters digitally so there is a ton of creativity that no longer needs to be screwed on to the lens and you no longer have to worry about scratching those little glass disks (filters):D