Film photography

[tigerburnie]

Does anyone still use film cameras? I used to have a Mamiya 120 roll film medium format twin lens job, swapped it for a telescope and went digital and kinda regret doing so. Digital is perfect for my wildlife, but I used to love film for portraits and landscapes. I see you can buy brand new film these days rather than old out of date stuff, but who does the developing these days? I want to work mostly with colour negative film and no point shelling out for a camera and lens if I can't get the pictures developed, I don't have room to make a dark room, so diy is out of the question.

[spikey]

Speaking as an ex-professional snapper who was still on film (both 35mm and 120) when I started shooting weddings 25 years ago, I can see the attraction for portraits.  Can't comment re landscape as I was never into that either as amateur or pro, but for portraits I personally would stick to 35mm for colour neg on account of less cost, more choice of film and far more choice of processor.

 

FWIW using Ilford HP4 in a Canon EOS 1V,  35mm negs shot handheld by available light would go to 30" x 40" no problem for exhibition at wedding fairs, and for that matter my portrait panel prints for both LMPA and LBIPP were all shot on 35mm.

Edited February 23, 2022 by spikey
clarity

[daryll]

I still use my Nikon F4 , great for mushroom and fungi , always use Velvia film , in a dark , damp wood , it`s F16 and a 30sec exposure , great results , but its getting the film processed , and at a reasonable price

[Classsix T]

I've still got three reels of 35mm film that need developing, I believe Boots still offer the service.

 

I'll likely not go back/continue with film, done the hobby with two Practika bodies with differing lenses. But the easiest £20 I ever earned was from just whipping the 'phone out and Rail Express paid.

 

C6T. 

[tigerburnie]

I'm a published wildlife photographer, amateur, who instead of dragging a 500mm lens, tripod and hefty Canon 1d camera, I was planning on getting a Hasselblad as it was something I always thought I would do at some point, primarily for landscape, macro and family portraits just for fun, wandering round Scotland(and England when visiting family) without giving myself a hernia carrying it. Maximum of a 50 or maybe 80mm lens in a small bag rather than having a full sized rucksack on my back. I will enquire about developing in the local outlets.

[spamcan61]

I always hated the faff of hours in the darkroom trying to get decent prints, so I switched to digital as soon as I could afford it. Maybe just shooting slides would've been a better idea. I'm quite tempted to try film again as I have a film scanner and never found developing film particularly tricky, still got my more or less worthless film cameras.

[4630]

4 hours ago, tigerburnie said:

Does anyone still use film cameras? I used to have a Mamiya 120 roll film medium format twin lens job, swapped it for a telescope and went digital and kinda regret doing so. Digital is perfect for my wildlife, but I used to love film for portraits and landscapes. I see you can buy brand new film these days rather than old out of date stuff, but who does the developing these days? I want to work mostly with colour negative film and no point shelling out for a camera and lens if I can't get the pictures developed, I don't have room to make a dark room, so diy is out of the question.

If you need a film processor I’ve had good service from this company. 
 

https://www.peak-imaging.com/about/film.processing

 

 

[Nearholmer]

I used to take a fair number of photos, mostly transparencies, but I enjoyed b+w too, in the analogue days, but have never warmed to digital. I don’t count pointing a phone as ‘photography’, and can no longer see the point, given that everything and everybody seems to be ‘photographed to death’, so my rather nice Nikon camera is now a sort of personal museum piece.

 

Oddly enough, I would rather fancy a go at ‘very slow photography’, using one of those monster Victorian cameras and glass plates, because they seem to produce something seriously different from the often rather clinical, slight hyper-reality of digital.

[Florence Locomotive Works]

I was just given this on Monday, a 1920 Kodak Brownie and I intend to use it pretty frequently.

 

 

 

Douglas

[tigerburnie]

I still have my late Dads 35mm Practika with the famous sticking shutter mechanism and a heap of lenses and extension tubes I used for macro work, I shall keep it, but hadn't planned to use it, maybe I should for old times sake.

[Quarryscapes]

I'm a happy customer of AG Photographic for developing when I need them, but I do normally dev my own including C41. I still use an Olympus OM4-T 35mm SLR occasionally, and usually shoot Ilford XP2 and develop in Caffenol (a home made developer made from Coffee, Vitamin C and Soda Crystals , an excellent fine grain developer, very similar to Kodak Xtol)

[Classsix T]

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I don’t count pointing a phone as ‘photography’, and can no longer see the point, given that everything and everybody seems to be ‘photographed to death’, so my rather nice Nikon camera is now a sort of personal museum piece.

I'm not that elitist Kev. Whilst I'll concur any fool can take a picture, a photograph to me suggests someone at least knows what they're trying to achieve artistically. The difference between a doodle and a portrait if you like.

 

This was the image Rail Express published:

 

They were also eager to print this one, but I couldn't supply the necessary train working gen:

 

Both taken on a Sony Xperia smartphone. I've gone for Sony equipment for many years specifically for the superior image capture capabilities.

No gear lugging or secondary media faff, point, click, done.

 

C6T.

[Nearholmer]

3 hours ago, Classsix T said:

point, click, done.

That’s sort-of my point, or rather sort-of why I find the whole (lack of) process unsatisfying.

 

Its got nothing to do with elitism, and everything to do with a bunch of absolutely, fantastically clever electronics doing all the work, and me doing none of it.

 

One thing I find especially unsatisfying about taking pictures with a phone is the inability to control depth of field to any worthwhile extent. Maybe yours has got a facility to do that, but mine hasn’t, and although you can trick it into it to a tiny degree, it is pretty hit and miss.

 

Maybe it’s about what an individual enjoys: I always liked the quasi- technical involvement, the actual process, probably more than the end result.

 

Anyway, this thread might tempt the old, and very old cameras out of hiding. I’ve still got the first one my father gave me, a Voigtlaender Bessa, similar to Florence’s bellows brownie, and if I hunt for long enough I might be able to find the exposure calculation sheet that I used to use with that.

[mikes rail]

I have digital  but started using my old Nikon 35mm camera again  a couple of years ago for landscape shots  wanted something that you had to stop and think is it worth use of the film instead of just clicking away with the digital 

[spikey]

8 hours ago, Florence Locomotive Works said:

I was just given this on Monday, a 1920 Kodak Brownie and I intend to use it pretty frequently ...

 

Back in the days when some folk still used folding cameras for their holiday snaps (and were happy with contact prints - even from 127 film!) I worked in a darkroom after school and in the holidays, and based on that experience I would caution you to check it out for light leaks from two sources.

 

Put a film in it, wind to #1, open the bellows and leave it in daylight, frequently changing its position relative to the sun.  Then wind to #2 and repeat with a bit of gaffer tape over the slot on the back with the sliding shutter via which text could be written on autographic film.  Then in due course you'll know for sure where any light leaks are coming from.

 

Ref 'blads, don't forget that you need to wear a shirt with a breast pocket into which you can pop the dark slide, and on an old one, beware of light leakage from the body/mag joint.  Some old-school wedding snappers who used a 'blad on sticks had no shame and solved the problem with a shower cap ...

[Hroth]

Still got my film photographic gear. Apart from 35mm, I dabbled with medium and large format when professional and keen amateurs were swapping to digital and I was able to find a Mamiya C3, a Bronica ETRSI and a 5x4.5" MPP (all with various lenses) very inexpensively. I used to enjoy darkroom work too. The main reason for not using my film cameras nowadays is a lack of opportunity to set up a darkroom.

[tigerburnie]

For my fast moving hand held wildlife shots a digital is far more forgiving in getting some decent shots, but my memories of getting the light meter out and composing a shot and experimenting with the various manual functions on my old Mamiya are still vivid and pleasant, so I may indulge providing I can get the film developed for me.

[spikey]

2 hours ago, Hroth said:

 5x4.5" MPP (all with various lenses) 

 

Ooooh! Now the 5 x 4 MPP was a proper camera.  Still used by many press snappers well into the 1960s  ... 

[Hroth]

4 hours ago, spikey said:

 

Ooooh! Now the 5 x 4 MPP was a proper camera.  Still used by many press snappers well into the 1960s  ... 

 

MPP made two large format cameras, the MPP Micro-Press, which had simplified adjustments and a built in rangefinder

 

 

and the MPP Mk VIII technical/field camera which had full adjustments*

 

 

I have a Mk VIII

 

You can see how a Micro-Press would be easier to handle in a media scrum!  One of the things I don't have for the MPP is the flashgun, which became stupidly priced when it got out that it was the basis for the Star Wars Light Sabre...

 

 

* Shifting and tilting front panel, tilting back, falling bed, etc.

 

Edited February 24, 2022 by Hroth
Just realized I'd left out another adjustment. And spelin...

[boxbrownie]

14 hours ago, tigerburnie said:

I'm a published wildlife photographer, amateur, who instead of dragging a 500mm lens, tripod and hefty Canon 1d camera, I was planning on getting a Hasselblad as it was something I always thought I would do at some point, primarily for landscape, macro and family portraits just for fun, wandering round Scotland(and England when visiting family) without giving myself a hernia carrying it. Maximum of a 50 or maybe 80mm lens in a small bag rather than having a full sized rucksack on my back. I will enquire about developing in the local outlets.

Hasselblads are surprisingly light weight considering their size, and wonderful cameras for portrait and studio macro work. I had everything from the 30mm to the 500mm and the zoom, now that lot was heavy!

 

I started out in the early 70's with a Nikkormat and 35mm lens for press work, then onto real work with Leica and sub/periscope lenses for architectural modelling, 5x4 MPP for onsite building and industrial progress work, then onto studio brochure stuff with a Sinar, that didn't last as the Blads were almost as good but after twenty or so years then of course digital came along and everything went mad, only sold the last of my Blad gear about six years ago as it was sitting in boxes doing all, presently wondering when to get rid of my Nikon lenses, the D3X went ages ago and have been hanging onto the lenses wondering if i'll ever use them again.

 

TBH my iPhone takes the kind of pictures I like of the family now and if I feel like a boost I reach for a red spot.

 

I admire anyone that wants to get into film nowadays, but not so easy in the bathroom with a plank over the bath and Knome enlarger balancing over the dishes below, those were the days 

[boxbrownie]

5 minutes ago, Hroth said:

 

 

 

 

Still have one of those in a case somewhere, just couldn't get rid of it......might even have a couple of lenses also, but think I have lost the mounts 

[Tim V]

What did Galen Rowell say?

 

"F8 and be there"

 

The real advantage of the phone camera is that it's there - in your pocket.

 

Having said that, I've just treated myself to an M4/3 camera, plus an adapter so I can attach  my Zuiko lenses to it. Plus I've dug out my notes on the Zone system of exposure. Ansel Adams has a lot to answer for!

 

My experiments with the Zone system and some slide film I made many years ago - the details are lost. A better film camera that records the exposure information would have been good (didn't the Nikon F4 record it on the side of the film?). The exif data from digital does give that crucial information.

[boxbrownie]

Just now, Tim V said:

 

 

The real advantage of the phone camera is that it's there - in your pocket.

 

I used to get loads of people at work coming into the office and asking what's the best camera to have for holiday/family/sports/landscape etc...I always answer first "the one you have with you"

 

So many buy masses of gear then don't bother, or cannot be bothered to take it with them because its a pain.

[boxbrownie]

In my avatar I am using the Nikon E2Ns……a rather clunky DSLR but it was useful bridge as it could use all the standard Nikon mount lenses but to be frank it was just a “feeler” to test imaging PC software and was hardly ever used.

[tigerburnie]

All this talk of film, I take my Canon 1div out today and I've got an error 30 fault on shutter speeds higher than 1/44, it must have thought I was going to abandon it and it's throwing a wobbly.............pah