Shooting film?

pseudonym · February 22, 2005

I do hope film is not a taboo subject here otherwise I could be in strife :uhoh

Just wondering how effective people have found converting from film to digital photography. I ask mainly because I am keen to start taking better (read: more artistic) pictures and since I am a poor student I figure maybe the best way could be to get a cheap 35mm SLR off ebay (Nikkon F65's are going for about 160-80AUD, hell I even saw an EOS 5 for $500) and start to learn all about handling a camera manually (as opposed to the pre-programmed or auto modes available to me with my current gear).

I think ultimately a DSLR will make shooting the sorts of things I like easier (more convenient) but I am in no position to afford and nor will I be for a good few years yet, an ebay job I could save for in a few months though.

Just wonder what someone with some experience of both sides of the fence rekons.

Colin

luckyrwe · February 22, 2005

I still have several film cameras and always will. My digital is worthless without a computer, CD burner, Photo software, blank CDs, a way to dump the memory cards, and a way to charge the battery.

With a Nikon FM and 100 rolls of film I can go to the jungles of Thailand and make it out with 3600 pictures in 30 days. Try that with digital.

On the other hand if you have guaranteed access to electricity, computers, storage methods, and other necessities due to the digital age, you're probably okay.

Folks are not learning photography with digital like they did with film. With digital there is no real cost per image, so they can shoot hundreds or thousands of images in hopes to get one good picture. The Pentax K1000 was the best tool to teach people hopw to make pictures, and that has been lost to time. Today everyone has zoom lenses, everyone has a winder or motor drive, and everyone relies on photo labs that can correct for legions of their technical errors.

Just my 2 cents.

fish · February 22, 2005

luckyrwe wrote:

With a Nikon FM and 100 rolls of film I can go to the jungles of Thailand and make it out with 3600 pictures in 30 days. Try that with digital.

Lucky, I think I understand the overall point of your post, but the above quote isn't working for me. Why can't you take 3600 images in 30 days with a digital camera?

I figure about 1000 large images on a 2gb card (and waaaay more mediums), so I'd only need four of those cards. Is it batteries you're concerned with? I can get a solar battery charger for AA batts for under $20, and my BG-E2 grip came with an AA holder.

So help me find the error in my thinking here.

gus · February 22, 2005

fish wrote:

Lucky, I think I understand the overall point of your post, but the above quote isn't working for me. Why can't you take 3600 images in 30 days with a digital camera?

I thought the same thing....i took somewhere like 5000 shots when i went on my trip & used a few sets of AA batteries. I stored them all on a tiny portable drive that takes all cards which i didnt have to charge for the entire month. It holds about 30 000 photos.

pseudonym · February 22, 2005

Humungus wrote:

I stored them all on a tiny portable drive that takes all cards which i didnt have to charge for the entire month. It holds about 30 000 photos.

what kinda drive is this you're using mate ? I have been looking for something to hold my photos on when i am away from a 'puter but haven't come up with much.

luckyrwe: I must say I am a little confused by the jungles of thailand concept, this is actually the kind of thing I was thinking digital would be better for when I said digital would be more convenient for my favourite shooting situations (i.e. extended periods away from civilisation) - I don't know much though

. To me 2x2gb cards and a solar charger is easier to stow and carry than 100 rolls of film. Good to hear that learning on a film camera is considered normal enough though

)

gus · February 22, 2005

pseudonym wrote:

what kinda drive is this you're using mate ? I have been looking for something to hold my photos on when i am away from a 'puter but haven't come up with much.

)

This one...nothing special about it. About $300 0z. Takes a laptop H/D & you just plonk a new one in to upgrade...nothing tech about it at all. It takes all cards including xD...hold music.

5MP photo is about 1 meg so a 30 gig can hold more than you will need for a trip.

http://www.xs-drive.com/xsdrivepro/

.
Got it here..
http://www.jaldigital.com.au/

.

pseudonym · February 22, 2005

Humungus wrote:

This one...nothing special about it. About $300 0z. Takes a laptop H/D & you just plonk a new one in to upgrade...nothing tech about it at all. It takes all cards including xD...hold music.

Oh righto i see, I thought there might have been some special type they've come up with, I've thought about a normal HDD but they are more than I had hoped to spend (and more than I need spacewise for the price).

Angelo · February 22, 2005

Pseudo: I've enjoyed photgraphy for as long as I can remember but developed a real love for it in high school when I worked on the school paper and took a class that included developing. We had a nice, well equipped lab in my HS.

Back then I had a Pentax (don't recall the model) with split target focus and absolutely no automatic anything! I'm relearning most of those old skills now but more recently with a Nikon N50 and now my D70, I never liked all the auto settings. It's too easy for me to set the darn camera to auto and snap away. I've become lazy.

Before, you really had to "feel" the camera / "work it", to achieve your results.

And as someone mentioned cost per image, with film you do think about that when heading out for a shoot. Every shutter release equals a real cost in film and developing, no delete features here, so you tend to develop a sharper eye for what you want to shoot IMHO.

So I guess I'm saying... get the film camera (an inexpensive one is fine) and take time learning to develop a different "feel" to your photography. It can only help enhance your experience.

Nir · February 22, 2005

Colin,

I'm going to skip the Thailand Jungle issue and try to confuse you even more

I did film for many years. I tried to teach myself 'manual' settings and exposure (even took a few courses) - I really tried!
What happened? Cost per picture was slowing me down and by the time I developed the film I couldn't remember the exact details of the shot, the lighting, my settings, etc. I was often dissapointed with the results in print and couldn't learn anything from it.

Then came digital (trumpets please) - first of all I have an immediate feedback on the viewfinder or LCD. I can learn from my mistakes and I can correct them on the spot. I can shoot again and again until I get the result I want and learn how to do it next time with less attempts. When I download the images from camera I am rewarded with satisfying images that motivate me to go out again and maybe even try something more daring next time. It costs me close to nothing (after 1st investment).
My photography, and my fullfilment from it, have progressed more in 3 years of digital than they have in 30 years of film. But that's just me...

I hope I have added to your confusion

fish · February 22, 2005

Nir wrote:

My photography, and my fullfilment from it, have progressed more in 3 years of digital than they have in 30 years of film. But that's just me...

Well put, Nir. My experience is identical. I started with my dad's TLR camera, then spent a lot of years with my Nikon FM and processing my own B&W film and prints. I have no intention of going back to 35mm film, but I wouldn't rule out the idea of large format film someday. Unfortunately, the cost of LF is so much higher than dSLR that it may be prohibitive for me.

I also agree with Angelo, that when you work a manual camera, you really learn a lot about photography...much more than with a point-and-shoot (digital or film). However, my 20D has all the same manual controls that my Nikon FM has...but with the added benefit of shutter or aperture priority (like my FE) modes. Nothing forces you to use auto-everything, just because those features exist.

Angelo · February 22, 2005

fish wrote:

I also agree with Angelo, that when you work a manual camera, you really learn a lot about photography...much more than with a point-and-shoot (digital or film). However, my 20D has all the same manual controls that my Nikon FM has...but with the added benefit of shutter or aperture priority (like my FE) modes. Nothing forces you to use auto-everything, just because those features exist.

Fish: You're quite right about manual options on a dSLR. I am trying to force myself to relearn all that I've forgotten. I have a LOOOOONG way to go (

).
But I still enjoy occasionally running a roll of film. There's something fun and exciting about "discovering" how well your pictures turned out in the darkroom. Especially for B/W. At the risk of starting a war... I still think film is the best for B/W. (ducking for cover).

I guess an analogy of film to digi would be whether or not you test or wait to find out if your wife is carrying a boy or girl.

Nir · February 22, 2005

Angelo wrote:

I guess an analogy of film to digi would be whether or not you test or wait to find out if your wife is carrying a boy or girl.

Suppose it's twins and you're caught by surprise :nah

fish · February 22, 2005

:soapbox

Would you guys PLEASE signal before making such sharp left turns?

I did a LOT of B&W in my younger days, and really enjoyed it. Since I developed and printed my own work, the time to "discovery" was much shorter than someone who has a lab do it. In fact, after developing and drying a roll, I'd stick it on a lightbox and evaluate before even printing a contact sheet. It still took too long for me.

Funny that you say B&W is better on film than digital. I think you can produce really good B&W in digital, now with the in-camera modes/filters, and post processing. I'm willing to bet you could put a tri-x/ilford B&W 8x10 up against a digitally produced image and have a difficult time telling the difference. Where I think film really rocks over digital is in enlargements from large format negatives (B&W or color) and particularly good, rich slide film, such as velvia, or sensia. However, there's always an exception to the rule, and I'm certain there are some very talented photogs and digital darkroom masters who could even duplicate the latitude and richness of velvia in digital.

{right turn blinker} Another note on digital SLRs: it's like having a high performance automatic transmission, like Porsche's Tiptronic. You can let it do the work in traffic or you can choose to do the shifting yourself in the twisties. It's nice to have the option.{/right turn blinker}

postscript: It's not a war...it's a great discussion. There's no one right answer. There are a lot of right answers. :cool

dragon300zx · February 22, 2005

Hmmmm...... If you are thinking of spending $500 on a good used film slr I see alot of 10d's going for $750 used and 300d's even less. However I bought a 35mm slr first (then realized ADD and Film Don't go together) and bought my 10D. I still have the film and even use it (required for class but hey i get free darkroom, and studio time).

NHBubba · April 18, 2005

Colin (Nice name BTW..),

My advice would be pretty much inline w/ what has been said. Film gear is cheaper, but in my opinion making mistakes in film is far more expensive. The film and processing costs being the problem here. W/ digital you have instant feedback and each click of the shutter costs nearly nothing! W/ digital all you really use is electrons, which are pretty cheap up my way. Contrast that w/ the (increasing?!) cost of film and processing (services and/or equipment, consumables).

Now digital gear DEFINITELY has a steeper buy in. As you noted, film camera body prices have dropped like a rock in the last 10 years or so. My first film SLR (a Pentax ZX-5n) went for something like $600 USED when I got my paws on it. Nowadays a camera of that caliber can easily be had for under $200. Meanwhile most dSLRs run in the $700+ range.

So you need to ask yourself how many shots you are going to take.. including those you will take learning. Try to figure out how much each shot will cost you and figure out how long it will take you to displace the additional cost of the digital bodies.

..Another point is what your target media is. Do you want prints of everything to fondle and pass around to friends/co-workers? Or do you want your images on CD or DVD for easy backup and preservation? Me, I found myself scanning all my good prints anyhow! It has gotten to the point where I prefer to look at my stuff on the screen and print only the very best, where previously I'd have prints of everything and only scan the very best. This issue is entirely up to you though. Each of us will feel diferently about that.

I still have my film gear, and I'll keep it too. After all it isn't worth much anymore! But even still, it is fun to dig it out and 'play' for a roll or two every now and then. And I can deal w/ the costs on a roll or two basis. I recently dug out my fully manual Pentax K1000 w/ 50mm f/2. This setup cost me all of $25 via ebay some years ago. (I was actually after the 50 for macro use on my digital!) The camera is a sheer pleasure to use and is just so much fun!

-Colin

Nikolai · April 18, 2005

Nir,
Excellent point!
My experience is almost identical to yours.
I advanced more in 1 year of having my "small" 828 (well, there were 5 more years of really small digital models) than during previous 30 years of shooting film.
To our new friend: get used dslr off ebay (you can find 2-3 y.o. used stuff pretty cheap). Your main concern is the glass, not the body. And the glass is not getting much cheaper anyway. So, decide on the glass and then pick up decent used body for it.
You'll recover your initial expenses due to the lack of paying for film, development and prints within the next year (or two). But you'll grow up like you can never imagine:-)

HTH

mercphoto · April 18, 2005

pseudonym wrote:

I do hope film is not a taboo subject here otherwise I could be in strife :uhoh

Just wondering how effective people have found converting from film to digital photography. I ask mainly because I am keen to start taking better (read: more artistic) pictures and since I am a poor student I figure maybe the best way could be to get a cheap 35mm SLR off ebay (Nikkon F65's are going for about 160-80AUD, hell I even saw an EOS 5 for $500) and start to learn all about handling a camera manually (as opposed to the pre-programmed or auto modes available to me with my current gear).

If you're wanting to learn, then a camera is a camera. Get anything that has full manual (M) and partial manual (Av and Tv) modes and learn.

The cost aspect can be tricky though. I've seen forum discussions with professional wedding photographers who go back and forth on whether digital really saves them any money or not over film. No film and developing costs with digital. But the digital bodies are much more expensive, those bodies are updated frequently, digital require computers and software, etc.

As per moving from film to digital, if you go that route, there are many skills that will translate directly over to digital. Then there will be new skills to learn, such as paying attention to white balance (think of shooting with slide versus print film), nailing the exposure, digital image manipulation, etc. But you need the foundations: camera operation, composition, expsure, and "feel". And that you can learn with film.

bkriete · April 18, 2005

I've taken approximately 2000 pictures in the 4 months I've had my Digital Rebel; figure a roll of 36 exposures of decent quality film plus processing runs about $8, I've "saved" $450. By the end of this summer I'll have more than amortized the cost of the camera.
I've also been able to get instant feedback on the quality of an exposure; if I was working with film I'd still be at the "one week" point of my learning curve. I'm at the point now where I can guesstimate an appropriate aperture, shutter speed, and ISO using the camera fully in manual, or set it in one of the "semimanual" or "automatic" modes and still have a pretty good idea of what it's doing.
I think much of the prejudice against digital comes from people who think you haven't "earned" something unless you've done it the hard way. Seems like a sour grapes perspective to me. From a cost perspective, digital may require a somewhat higher investment (not much, comparing the cost of a used 10D to a used EOS 5) assuming you already have a computer. If you plan on doing your own developing, chemicals and darkroom equipment will probably cost you about as much as a cheap PC. If you don't plan on doing your own developing, you can enjoy being at the mercy of your lab and paying for every shot you take long after you've purchased the camera. I respect people who feel film is a more artistic medium or who prefer medium/large format film for bigger enlargements, but as a tool for learning about taking pictures, I think digital is cheaper and more readily informative.

NHBubba · April 27, 2005

mercphoto wrote:

But the digital bodies are much more expensive, those bodies are updated frequently, digital require computers and software, etc.

Very true. And I personally usually ignore this point. The computer I'd have anyway, as my profession and nature (hey, I'm a computer geek!) pretty much require it. Software is available on the cheap. You don't NEED the full on version of PS CS from day one. Many digitals ship w/ Elements or the LE/Lite version of SOME photo editing software. And you don't NEED the cutting edge double processor monster of a PC to get into it, the same PC that does your word processing and web browsing will likely do.

As has been said, focus your money on the glass, not the software, PC, or body as all will be outdated by the time you wake up tomorrow..

mercphoto · April 27, 2005

NHBubba wrote:

Very true. And I personally usually ignore this point. The computer I'd have anyway, as my profession and nature (hey, I'm a computer geek!) pretty much require it. Software is available on the cheap. You don't NEED the full on version of PS CS from day one. Many digitals ship w/ Elements or the LE/Lite version of SOME photo editing software. And you don't NEED the cutting edge double processor monster of a PC to get into it, the same PC that does your word processing and web browsing will likely do.

Please remember, my comment was in regards to professional photographers, which both responses to my posts seemed to not catch on to. And those guys watch their pennies very closely, so while I might question their conclusions, I have to admit I don't have their numbers in front of me, but they do.

It is quite likely they (meaning those who find the switch too costly) don't already have the computers, so that cost factors in. One of the top pros in Austin is in that camp. A pro is not going to run Elements either.

In regards to the guy who talked about how many more photos he now takes as a result of digital, please remember that a wedding photog, just because he switches from film to digital, won't all of a sudden take ten times as many photos at a gig.

What I'm saying is that digital might be cheaper for many of us, but certainly not for all of us. The original person who wrote this post needs to consider this and not blindly accept that "digital is always cheaper".

NHBubba · April 27, 2005

I was trying to take the point that you made and demonstrate how the buy-in cost applies (or does not) to us mere amateurs as well. Most amateurs are likely to already have a PC capable of doing basic photo editing.

Now I think the cost per shot applies moreso to us in my opinion. As you said, pros are likely to take nearly the same number of shots regardless of medium. Very few of us amateurs are likely to walk into a shooting situation w/ 10+ rolls of film on hand.. I know I never did. Bracketing used to be nearly unthinkable for me. I either nailed the exposure and got the shot or I didn't. Now I'll gladly bracket away and even snap another shot of the EXACT same thing just to ensure I got the focus right. Like I said, electrons are cheap..

colourbox · May 5, 2005

It's a very complicated question. There are hidden costs on both sides. With film, as was mentioned, the costs of mistakes are very high, in time, film/paper, and chemicals. Sitting by the tray for five minutes just to find out the print didn't come out right. Wasting uncountable gallons of water washing prints, even more if they were fiber, and flushing chemicals into the environment. The cost of mistakes in digital is low in terms of memory cards, but can still be high on the printing end, as we all know, ink cartridges and good inkjet paper are not cheap. The cost of mistakes in digital can be just as high as a darkroom during that early part of the learning curve, where one learns about color management and what all the endless sets of controls in the hardware and software from the camera to the printer actually do. It's easy to waste a great deal of ink and paper.

But now that I feel I "get it," I am wasting far less time and energy than I did in the darkroom. Not only that, but the time+materials cost difference between getting good color print quality from digital is tremendously lower (in my case) than what I could achieve in a chemical darkroom, and my control over black and white is also far better and less wasteful in digital.

Digital is cheap to shoot, but this creates costs in processing. In a situation where I might have taken two or three rolls of film and ended up with 100 frames, I can now fill memory cards and have to sort through hundreds more frames. More to evaluate, more to correct, more to print, more to store. On the other hand, I love the digital workflow compared to scanning film. Scanning film (properly) is a pain. Removing film scratches is a pain. Knowing that each time I handle the film I'm probably damaging it, and as the years go by the color dyes are fading. On the digital side, files pile up and you must find a place for them. At times, processing raw files can resemble scanning sessions if the images require a bit of adjustment. The software is still growing up, but just now the raw workflows are coming together and processing raws is starting to go much more smoothly than scanning film.

Still, every time I look at my Pentax K1000 I thank it for what it taught me. Just last week I was shooting under conditions that caused me to put my Canon S60 point-and-shoot into manual mode so I could dictate the shutter speed and aperture, and I was glad I knew exactly what to do. And I appreciate the idea that the K1000 can take pictures even with a dead battery - try that with a digital.

However, I don't think it's necessary for someone to learn with film. What's important is to learn about the relationship between shutter speed and aperture, the relationship of exposure to highlight and shadow, and the relationship of aperture to depth of field. A properly designed class can achieve all of these goals with digital cameras. For example, they could simply require that the camera be set to manual mode so that the student can record and analyze the effects of their settings.

Bodwick · May 5, 2005

I've moved from film to digital and think they both have a place (I can't remember the last time I shot a roll of 35mm though).

The biggest advantage of digital over film for me has been the ability to learn a new type of photography very quickly. This goes with the comments that the learning curve with digital photography is vastly increased. Learn in 3 years the same or more than the last 30 years is also true for me.

I can for example go into my garden and shooteither 1 or 36 digital macro shots of a flower at all sorts of settings and withing just seconds be viewing the files on a computer to compare the shots and see just what difference the different setting I used effect each shot.
You can then go back outside and re-shoot around the best setting you decided on from your test shoot.

This works for any method you choose. You can read an article and have a print in your hand by the end of the same day.

The money wasted on film to do/learn the same thing, which really had to be in B&W for home developing, can be huge. You will need to keep good written records of your settings to repeat them later.

If you want to shoot slide film like post paid Kodachrome or Fuji then the wait can seem forever untill you see the results.

IMO I think you'll learn more, quicker with digital.
(Then buy a medium format camera and shoot film through that)

Not forgeting those chemicals after long hours in a darkroom can't be good for you......Far better sitting at a computer than standing in a darkroom. Been there, done that and it is safe to say for me it's not missed.......

Bod.

Shooting film?

Comments