Anybody still mess with film (analog) photography?

[TheHound 0]

This is more out of curiosity than anything. I know with younger people that film is making a little comeback. I used to work in a photography gallery with a public darkroom and it seemed that a large majority of the users were younger people experimenting. I was in charge of the darkroom and helped teach basic classes so I always got to see the excitement first hand of making an image from nothing. This was especially true of really young children who had no idea what the heck film was.

I know these days its pretty hard unless you have your own darkroom, have a public darkroom near you, or pay to have your film processed.

So does anyone still use film? 35 mm, 120, 220, big sheets?

[mikechell 0]

I did my own processing back in the 70's and 80's, just after school and while I was in the Corps. I don't remember when I got my first digital camera, but I do know that I've never looked back since.

It was fun, playing with exposure times, enlargements, negative layering, color filters and a plethora of other dark room experiments ... but digital is almost as fun, with none of the mess and clean up.

[FlaFly 0]

I've been thinking about it. I have an old analog Canon EOS and several lenses. To get really good bird and wildlife shots you need a 400 mm lens, which I'm not thinking about buying. But I used to get nice closeups of little things like Dryfly Purist does, using a zoom lens.

I took a class from Art Morris (renowned bird photographer) some years back. He used a Canon EOS and slide film, then made prints from the selected slides.

[jimk 0]

I have not used film for years. Still have the equipment but digital has replaced all of that by now.

[TheHound 0]

FlaFly,

Slide film was always great for that reason, a bit easier than looking through sheets of contacts with a magnifying lens. If you decide to go the B&W route I suggest you load her up with some Tri-X, can't get any better in my humble opinion. I always found that using a film camera forced me to take better photographs, and what I mean by that is it made me more selective. That usually carried over to digital photographs also.

[mikechell 0]

"I always found that using a film camera forced me to take better photographs"

 

It forces you to take FEWER photographs, thus forcing you to try to take better shots. But if you want to bracket your settings, get different perspectives or aspects, etc. ... then you went through a lot of film.

 

Enter Digital ... now you have all the benefits of photography, saving those memories, special moments or fantastic views for all time, or for all to see. But, you can just throw away all the shots that SUCK ... and it doesn't cost you a dime.

Plus ... and this is a BIG plus ... you can make some shots, that on film would be worthless, and digitally enhance them into something you're glad to display.

 

The bad side of that is ... there are a lot of people who are glad to display anything, and they probably shouldn't.

[TheHound 0]

I'd still say it forced me to take better photographs. Knowing that it costs money is an incentive to make every shot count. There are a lot of bad shots for sure, buty you learn from them. Digital photography enables people to do the "Fish Egg Laying" concept. That is fish lay a lot of eggs knowing that many will not make it. By having more eggs, there is a better chane that some will survive. Same with photographs, by taking more pictures, it helps ensure that possibly some will be good. That really does not make you a better photographer. Also by experimentng you can enhance the same image in darkroom.

[FlaFly 0]

When you or I take film photos, you're right... we are careful to frame the shot perfectly, and take fewer shots. Art Morris did the careful framing of his subject, but then he used rapid shutter release and took as many as ten shots. The reason is that when you are photographing birds, rather than stone monuments, invariably something happens... the bird moves his head, raises his wings, etc. and messes up your shot. I've seen a series of Art's shots of a shore bird, any one of which I would have been proud of, but one of which was the perfect one. He would discard all the rest, and make a fortune selling his selection to magazines, book publishers, calendar makers, and so on. (I can use rapid shutter release with my digital camera, and it's a good idea when your photographing animals.

Incidentally, I was surprised that Art simply sent his film to the local drugstore to get them developed and mounted. He threw away thousands of mounted slides. After digital, he traded in his Canon EOS for a digital Canon EOS.

[TheHound 0]

FlaFly,

Quite a lot of professional photographers did that. Many famous fine art photographers did also. Two of the more famous ones being William Eggleston and Henri Cartier Bresson never stepped foot in a darkroom. I think they figured their job was to press the shutter button, that was it. You are right about the variable toos. I personally believe a lot of photography is luck. Being in the right place, right time, and pressing that button at the right time. Sometimes...even when you do those all correctly the final image still is not right.

[manrickson 0]

We can choose the best photographers we like to have the most amazing photography with us.

 

professional pet photography melbourne

professional pet photography

[Crackaig 0]

Originally learned the wet process, and still carry a lot of that over to digital. The limitations are different making the creative process different. I don't use film any more, mostly for reasons of cost and convenience. Some of the things I can now do in moments with an image in Photoshop, took hours of painstaking work when I learned to do them. Never again will I have to spend hours removing cluttered backgrounds with Chinese white and making countless copies.

 

One thing I get sick of hearing is "I don't use Photoshop, I didn't adjust my pictures when I used film, so I don't now." The answer is no you didn't adjust your photos, the person, or machine, that did your printing did it for you.

 

Cheers,

C.

[troutguy 0]

I have a Pentax 35mm. It was top of the line in 1980. I have 1250, 500 and 400mm lens. I use it every once in a while. I have one Nikkor tank to develop with. I still enjoy playing with film. I wished I still had my old Bessler enlarger.

 

I still manually focus the digital often. I miss the shutter release timing of the 35 mm camera. There is often a timing difference between pushing the button and the picture is taken. Action shots are sometimes missed.

 

I also have a Pentax digital. I love it and the old telephoto lens fit the digital. I appreciate that they kept the K mount.

[ckpj99 0]

I'm a professional photographer and journalist. However, I've still hung on to film. It's more of a hobby, as I pretty much never shoot paid jobs with film. However, I have far more invested in film cameras and my darkroom than I do in my digital equipment.

 

Film is doing ok. Lomography has done a lot to keep it alive, for better or worse. APUG is a great forum for film users.

 

I learned on film when I got serious about photography when I was 16. When I went to college digital wasn't a viable option, by the time I graduated, there wasn't a newspaper in the country that was still using film.

 

I prefer it for a lot reasons, and I'm glad that at 30 years old, it's still around. However, I'm afraid in another 30 years, it will be insanely expensive to keep doing.