Film:: Is it for me?

SimplyShane

Yes, as the title suggests, I've been flirting with the idea of buying a film camera.

Ever since beginning my journey into photography two years ago, I've always used digital equipment. In fact, I freely admit that I know absolutely **nothing** about film cameras or how they work. Nothing at all.

And to be honest, this really bothers me. It is my goal to someday become a professional, and yet I have no experience in the medium that brought Photography itself to the masses.

By using a film camera, I would hopefully become more cautious and considerate of the shots I do take, as each roll costs money. Furthermore, the lack of an LCD screen also forces me to be much more careful on how I choose to expose certain situations under difficult lighting situations. I can't just look at the monitor and adjust accordingly. I have to actually KNOW what I'm doing and why I'm doing it.

Overall, I guess film presents limitations that might force me to become more knowledgeable about photography itself, rather than just relying on a machine to do the work for me. Plus, I am interested in film's apparent capability to handle dynamic range more accurately, and I do like the overall "feel" of images made with film. I enjoy the grain and the look of color apparent in certain models... (Like Fuji's Velvia.)

Granted, photoshop is more than capable of mimicking these effects. And though film cameras themselves are dirt cheap, rolls will always cost money and scanning negatives to create a digital image to share on the internet would probably be a VERY expensive endeavour. Plus, I don't have a film scanner so maybe this topic is utterly pointless based on that knowledge alone??


Any thoughts out there on all this? Am I just going insane? :dunno

SteveLongPhoto

SimplyShane wrote: »

Any thoughts out there on all this? Am I just going insane?

I've been pretty much buying every cheap film camera I can find and playing with them. I picked up a Canon AE-1P for $12.50 last week. Mint condition with a 50 1.8 lens. It's fun to go thrift store shopping. e-bay is going to be a risk, KEH.com is going to be safe but more expensive than finding one in a bargain bin.

colourbox

SimplyShane wrote: »

By using a film camera, I would hopefully become more cautious and considerate of the shots I do take, as each roll costs money.

Recently I pulled some older memory cards out of the closet. 512MB and 1GB. On today's 20-megapixel cameras, you don't get to shoot many frames on cards that small...in some cameras, you can't shoot more than the equivalent of 1 or 2 rolls of film before a card that small is full! I have found that this gives me the same "shoot carefully, don't waste your few frames!" mentality.

SimplyShane wrote: »

Furthermore, the lack of an LCD screen also forces me to be much more careful on how I choose to expose certain situations under difficult lighting situations. I can't just look at the monitor and adjust accordingly. I have to actually KNOW what I'm doing and why I'm doing it.

The thing is, if you get to advanced digital exposure, you're never supposed to believe the LCD image anyway. You learn to look at other indicators like the clipping points, and again you reach the same "beyond the LCD" knowledge film would have given you.

SimplyShane wrote: »

Plus, I don't have a film scanner so maybe this topic is utterly pointless based on that knowledge alone??

What I said above is not intended to discourage you from trying film, just saying it's not necessarily true that film is the best/only way to get there. Still, trying film can only increase your experience and knowledge of photography in general so if you think it would be fun, go for it.

You don't need a film scanner if you are satisfied with the job your drugstore or camera store does when they scan your film. In many cases you can simply check the box on the film envelope that says "Scan 'em too, and hand me the CD with my developed film." I own a film scanner because I wanted total control.

Matthew Saville

SimplyShane wrote: »

...By using a film camera, I would hopefully become more cautious and considerate of the shots I do take, as each roll costs money. Furthermore, the lack of an LCD screen also forces me to be much more careful on how I choose to expose certain situations under difficult lighting situations. I can't just look at the monitor and adjust accordingly. I have to actually KNOW what I'm doing and why I'm doing it...

Bingo. I love to shoot film because it makes you think twice about each photo before you take it. You could cover up your DSLR's LCD, and shoot with a 256MB card, but it's not entirely the same. On film, every 36 pictures is costing you $10-20. So you don't mess around.

And with the manual focus, manual advance, manual exposure Nikon FM2 I use, you time your shots very carefully in general. You teach yourself to anticipate moments and pounce on them at their peak action.

Lastly, I would disagree that photoshop can perfectly immitate a film image. From the look of the grain to the color response, each film has it's own unique fingerprint, like DNA.

I shoot about 1 roll per month, just for fun. It's a fun hobby and helps me hone my eye...

=Matt=

Grainbelt

Matthew Saville wrote: »

And with the manual focus, manual advance, manual exposure Nikon FM2 I use, you time your shots very carefully in general. You teach yourself to anticipate moments and pounce on them at their peak action.

In addition to this, which is spot-on, I love the simplicity of it, particularly shooting with primes. I'll frequently use f8 and set to hyperfocal distance, then simply walk around, expose, click, and advance. No ISO adjustments, no chimping, no histogram to check.

Cathartic.

gtucker

I was thinking of getting a Canon AE-1 to start doing film but I don't really know where to start. I was thinking I could just read Ansel Adams series of books he wrote to get a good foundation and go from there but I'm not entirely sure it's going to be that simple.

Overfocused

I used film along side digital when I first started, and as a less expensive starting point, I can suggest buying one or two old film lenses for your digital camera and trying to shoot an event, or some place with action. You can get decent telephotos for $20-50 that will at least let you take usable pictures as well as practice this. It will force you to anticipate and think ahead about your shots much more carefully since you'll only have split seconds to focus and take a photo. You are still granted the rapid-fire feature if you really need it, but, there usually isn't that much time to hold the shutter down before moments are gone. Its not exactly the same as a full film camera, but it still forces you to have that thought process and make choices as you would with film photography.

I still hate the impractical side of processing film though. My two cents. Lol.

Matthew Saville

Grainbelt wrote: »

In addition to this, which is spot-on, I love the simplicity of it, particularly shooting with primes. I'll frequently use f8 and set to hyperfocal distance, then simply walk around, expose, click, and advance. No ISO adjustments, no chimping, no histogram to check.

Cathartic.

Yep, it's like a classic car or any other mechanical device that brings joy to hobbyists around the world. You get a certain kind of thrill (and relaxation) from operating something that is completely opposite the current standards of speed and functionality...

It helps me feel like more of an ARTIST, after racing through 5,000+ images per week, digital, for my "job"...

=Matt=

studio1972

SimplyShane wrote: »

Yes, as the title suggests, I've been flirting with the idea of buying a film camera.

Ever since beginning my journey into photography two years ago, I've always used digital equipment. In fact, I freely admit that I know absolutely **nothing** about film cameras or how they work. Nothing at all.

And to be honest, this really bothers me. It is my goal to someday become a professional, and yet I have no experience in the medium that brought Photography itself to the masses.

By using a film camera, I would hopefully become more cautious and considerate of the shots I do take, as each roll costs money. Furthermore, the lack of an LCD screen also forces me to be much more careful on how I choose to expose certain situations under difficult lighting situations. I can't just look at the monitor and adjust accordingly. I have to actually KNOW what I'm doing and why I'm doing it.

Overall, I guess film presents limitations that might force me to become more knowledgeable about photography itself, rather than just relying on a machine to do the work for me. Plus, I am interested in film's apparent capability to handle dynamic range more accurately, and I do like the overall "feel" of images made with film. I enjoy the grain and the look of color apparent in certain models... (Like Fuji's Velvia.)

Granted, photoshop is more than capable of mimicking these effects. And though film cameras themselves are dirt cheap, rolls will always cost money and scanning negatives to create a digital image to share on the internet would probably be a VERY expensive endeavour. Plus, I don't have a film scanner so maybe this topic is utterly pointless based on that knowledge alone??


Any thoughts out there on all this? Am I just going insane?

If this is your idea of fun, I'm not going to poo poo it. However, I would like to put a point against the idea that having experience from using film makes you a better photographer because you take less shots with more planning going into each one.

The ability to take lots of images in a situation where many factors are randomly changing (e.g. reportage shots at a wedding reception) is something that is really only enabled by the low cost of taking a digital image. These shots often don't work out, but when they do they look great.

I think that there is actually an advantage in being a newcomer who never used film as it enables you to be creative with the new technology without being hampered by outmoded ways of thinking (e.g. 'I shouldn't risk taking a bad picture as it will cost me').

just my 2p

entropysedge

I just got done shooting my first rolls of film in about 8 years. What prompted this was a discussion with someone about the first camera they ever used. That got me to thinking about the camera that I started out with (Kodak Retina IIa), and taking advantage of the internet, found an example of one on ebay, which I bought. It arrived several days ago and is a very clean camera and seems to function well (only problem is the film counter) and I shot a roll of Tri-X and a roll of Fuji Superia 400, just need to drop them off to get processed.



I also picked up a Nikon F100 since that body will work with my existing glass ... what a sweet camera and super fast auto-focus! I am looking forward to seeing the pictures when I get them back.

damonff

I love film. I shoot digital of course, but sometimes I like the way film turns out. I couldn't make a digital image of my boy look like this with my digital camera:



B&H has great film. Buy some.

And you don't necessarily need a film scanner. I just take my rolls to CVS and they put the images on a cd for me for like $3. If you are not going to make huge prints, you're good with this set up.