Why film?

I stopped shooting film in 1998 after getting the Agfa 1680.
My old Canon AE1-Program basically died from not being used
in years. I started printing from digital early on and dropped film
altogether since.

Never looked back.

=============================
For those of you still shooting in film (in addition to
digital)....why? What is it about film that makes you still eager to
shot with your SLR? Some claim SLR's still offer more dynamic range.
Yet I've read in a recent issue of Outdoor Photographer say that
DSLR's offer more "quantity and quality of data". Does that mean that
DSLRs actually now offers more dyanmic range?

Thanks.
 
For them who know, no explanation is needed. For them who don't, no
explanation is possiable...
Film still has many advantages (so far) however, the use of film in
todays fast environment is no longer fast enuf. Hence, it's somewhat
fall from grace.. and digital has taken over..
To be honest, it's the image that is there 1st, the quality is
sometimes 2nd place....
Really. The first landscape wins over the better quality landscape. Odd priorities!
Bob - Tucson
--
Does the equipment make the man..? No..! But it sure can make the man
money...
 
I just purchased a nikon n90s from a old pro in my area, she threw in 15 rolls of tri-x iso 400 and 8 rolls of fuji nph iso 400 . So , none the less I will soon begin to experiment with film. Total cost : $75 Dollars . She only sold it cause the market demends digital due to faster turn around time, instant results.

1) I figure as cheap as old professional film equipment has become everyone should be experimenting with film
2) I get full frame very cheaply
3) Each time I try a different film it is like trying out a new sensor

4) I like the way the tones , color and light gentle increase and decrease with film giving it a smoother look, at least , "I THINK" that is what I like about it. Not sure , but I know my eyes see a difference.

5) cause I dont worry about which is better . I look at the whole picture hanging on the wall (or on my monitor) not a pixel within that picture.

6) Used film bodies are cheap and last a long time as compared to digital . I figure that will more than make up for the cost of film.

7) It is a cheap back up camera and the results are just as good, maybe just not as fast.

A better question would be , as cheap as used professional film equpiment is right now , why are not more people begining to experiment with it.

No one says you have to give up digital to use film. You can use both and even consider one of them your back up camera

--
Tom
Photography is the hobby that you can legally shoot people and blown them up
see my ugly pics at :
http://www.pbase.com/tom1468
 
I agree . . . especially for those who have never shot film . . . it is a good experience if you do your own darkroom work!

Nothing will teach you correct exposure like developing and printing your own negatives in a darkroom.

However . . . I did all of my experimenting with film back in the early 70's . . . to the point where I made my living with it for a major portion of my adult life.

Now . . . I like to think that I'm experimenting with digital!

--
J. D.
Colorful Colorado



Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that came in it!
 
Hi,

As you say this is the ideal time to look around and pick up film cameras being given away for pennies.

There must be millions of (say, for example) Olympus Trip 35's and XA2's out there which are robust and fairly simple old cameras with excellent lenses. Also the Yashica 35-ME's. If a CRF is wanted then there's the Ricoh 500's and the Olympus XA, 35 RD's etc but the RF must be working: otherwise a huge bill will loom before it can be used.

Then there's the old Pentax K1000 - almost indestructable. Several of the old former USSR SLR's (Zenit TTL) and the Praktica's (MTL 3's come to mind). Not spectacular spec's on paper but good solid cameras with classic lenses in them and minimal battery costs. Canon AE-1's turn up from time to time. And their EOS film range.

Just a start to a new direction for this thread (with a bit of luck and a fair wind).

Regards, David
 
One thing to look for when buying older used film cameras . . .

Many of them are not the bargain they may seem as they might need to go to the repair shop for an overhaul.

And . . . often they need to be retro-fitted for a new battery as some of those old batteries from the 50's and 60's are no longer available.

And, for many old cameras, there are no longer parts availble for a fix! * (see below)

Older film cameras are mechanical, which means they need to be lubed, just like cars need it.

Often these cameras have been sitting around for years and the lube has dried up.

Other things that often need a fix . . .

The light seals on the film door dry up and flake off, thus creating light leaks and the foam around the mirror box also does the same thing.

This foam can get in the shutter if left unchecked and redone . . . and I've actually seen broken mirrors due to this cushioning foam not being replaced.

Same for old used lenses . . . they need to be lubed as well!

Plan on $150-$300 for an overhaul, depending on the camera model . . .

I had my Canon F1n overhauled three years ago . . . cost me $260 (even after my employee discount) because it is a 'Pro' camera!



USED CANON 'A' SERIES FILM CAMERAS:
(great cameras, but be on the lookout when buying one)

As for older Canon 'A' series cameras, like the AE-1. AE-1 Program and the A-1 (I have two A-1's) are notorious for what is known in the trade as a 'squeeky shutter'!

It really isn't the shutter, though . . . but the mirror box!

If one of these cameras has this problem . . . you'll know it.

It makes a really loud squeeky scrunchy sound when the shutter button is pressed.

And left unchecked, eventually it will ruin your photos as the mirror will start to move slowly, often raising only halfway when the photo is taken.

I've literally seen hundreds of these with this problem over the years . . .

One of my A-1's, which I've basically totally wore out (having been a photojournalist for many years) has this so bad that the mirror actually moves after the shutter has already been fired.

Perhaps I'll dig it out of my camera equipment morgue and shoot a video clip and post it here tomorrow (my day off).

All it takes to fix it is a lube job, but is generally considered an overhaul by camera repair shops at roughly $150!

However, I used to work in a camera repair facility and the Canon tech told me that on A-1's that he sometimes just removed the prism cover (the other models the prism cover is not a separate piece like on the A-1) and would lightly run a drop of lighter fluid on the mirror box springs (for those who are technically inclined to take one apart themselves).

I tried to do this on mine, but since I used mine as a newspaper photographer and got it wet countless times, the prism cover screws are rusted and stripped out easily.

If any of you try this . . . please don't blame me if it doesn't work out . . . {:-)}
  • OLDER CAMERAS THAT NO LONGER HAVE PARTS AVAILABLE:
We get people all the time (and I used to see this frequently at the repair shop I worked at) that would buy a second used camera, thinking they could use it for parts to fix the other.

The problem with this is two-fold . . .

1) Chances are, the second camera has the same problem as the other.

2) If it can be used for parts, the repair facility will charge DOUBLE the standard repair rate as they are actually disassembling two cameras to make one good camera.

--
J. D.
Colorful Colorado

Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that came in it!
 
Hi,

I must have been very lucky with mine as I've only sent one in for repair and overhaul and it cost £40 (that's $40 at the photographic, software and gadgets rate of exchange). Alas, I got the thing off ebay. But the majority I've bought have been perfectly OK.

You can check most things in the shop just by trying it out and one or two items like the light seal (faoom) failing are cured by removing it and replacing. If you can put a stamp on an envelope it is similar. I've used the felt light trap from used cassettes too many times to worry about: free from a processer.

Also many older cameras have fan clubs on the http://www where you can pick up tips etc and learn about them.

The real pain are modern ones with electronics. They can be disposable imo. The older mechanical ones are easily sorted if they've been looked after and mercury batteries have modern replacements. I use one in the Leica CL... Again, look on the web and you'll find what you want.

And, btw, all those I mentioned take modern batteries and are no problem. Except the Olympus Trip 35 which is solar powered.

Regards, David
 
I'm not going back to using film, but there sure isn't any harm from using it... :)

My old Minolta has a justified reputation as a "tank." I took uncounted thousands of images, and I've digitised the best.

There are serious photographers who value the edge film gives them - Film will be around for a long, long time, but while it's not as cheap as digital to use, it's certainly not expensive - Enjoy it while it's still cheap.

Dave
Hi,

As you say this is the ideal time to look around and pick up film
cameras being given away for pennies.

There must be millions of (say, for example) Olympus Trip 35's and
XA2's out there which are robust and fairly simple old cameras with
excellent lenses. Also the Yashica 35-ME's. If a CRF is wanted then
there's the Ricoh 500's and the Olympus XA, 35 RD's etc but the RF
must be working: otherwise a huge bill will loom before it can be
used.

Then there's the old Pentax K1000 - almost indestructable. Several of
the old former USSR SLR's (Zenit TTL) and the Praktica's (MTL 3's
come to mind). Not spectacular spec's on paper but good solid cameras
with classic lenses in them and minimal battery costs. Canon AE-1's
turn up from time to time. And their EOS film range.

Just a start to a new direction for this thread (with a bit of luck
and a fair wind).

Regards, David
 
Because part of the process is actually printing the images which cannot be said about digital photography.

How many of your digital shots actually make it to a print?

I only shoot digital now and am frustrated by the fact that I don't get around to printing my best shots.

The other thing about film is that you would probably take more care in framing, focussing and getting the exposure exactly right with film.

Just one question. Does print film have a higher DR than slide?
Does B&W film have higher DR than print film?

Cheers
 
You often simply have a "contact sheet" printed.

I used to shoot quite a bit of film and couldn't afford to print out all the images - And even friends who COULD afford to print out all the images also had contact sheets...

There one argument that those who advovcate using film shouldn't make - And that's "convenience." As far as convenience goes digital beats film without raising a sweat... :)

Dave
Because part of the process is actually printing the images which
cannot be said about digital photography.

How many of your digital shots actually make it to a print?

I only shoot digital now and am frustrated by the fact that I don't
get around to printing my best shots.

The other thing about film is that you would probably take more care
in framing, focussing and getting the exposure exactly right with
film.

Just one question. Does print film have a higher DR than slide?
Does B&W film have higher DR than print film?

Cheers
 
Since I can't afford a full-frame DSLR (yet), I should probably get me a film SLR to get the taste of full-frame at affordable cost? I never had experience with film SLRs...just cheapo P&S. Do you know how much is the film model equivalent of a Canon 40D?;)
--
Medic
-----------------------------------------------------
  • The camera is mightier than the pen.
 
At a camera club meeting, someone was at a store where the camera reps came and showed equipment, etc. back in December. And the Fujifilm rep said that Fujifilm has stated they will continue to develop and refine new professional films for at least the next 10 years.
 
Since I can't afford a full-frame DSLR (yet), I should probably get
me a film SLR to get the taste of full-frame at affordable cost? I
never had experience with film SLRs...just cheapo P&S. Do you know
how much is the film model equivalent of a Canon 40D?;)
Be an EOS-3 with PB-E2, but that's really more than a 40D. But the Elan 7 really isn't a 40D either. The Elan has an optional grip, but I'm not sure what kind of fps it will provide. EOS-3 with PB-E2 will do 7fps. You can find EOS-3 with PB-E2 from time to time at keh.com for $550 or so.
 
Since I can't afford a full-frame DSLR (yet), I should probably get
me a film SLR to get the taste of full-frame at affordable cost? I
never had experience with film SLRs...just cheapo P&S. Do you know
how much is the film model equivalent of a Canon 40D?;)
--
Medic
-----------------------------------------------------
  • The camera is mightier than the pen.
There are several canon film bodies on ebay currently . I would say just make sure you can use some of your current lens line up on it
--
Tom
Photography is the hobby that you can legally shoot people and blown them up
see my ugly pics at :
http://www.pbase.com/tom1468
 
Good points about the expenses involved. I've just had one of my Contax 139Q bodies overhauled. It, too, had the squeaky mirror assembly you mentioned, but $159 got everything lubed and adjusted, and with new light seals, mirror dampening foam, etc. I consider the occasional maintenance required to be money well spent even on this low-end camera, allowing me to continue enjoying a small, lightweight body with a great viewfinder and some good quality Zeiss lenses. It takes better pictures than ever as I consider the current Fuji Astia to be the best film I've used (no matter how much I moaned at the discontinuation of Kodachrome 25).

Your point about batteries should not be overlooked. I've tried battery conversions for both an older Gossen light meter and a Minox 35GT camera, and neither proved to work well (unreliable exposures). One exception has been the Pentax Spotmatic series of camera bodies. These had a circuit built in that made the metering accuracy independent of battery voltage, so the silver oxide replacements worked just as well in my SP1000 as the original mercury battery. Of course, batteries aren't an issue with my Exakta or Ikoflex cameras.
 
Thought this was interesting in the digital age. I know it has to be
taken with a grain of salt, but here is what Fuji said in a press
release about their new film camera.
"Even as the company innovates in digital imaging technology,
Fujifilm remains true to its heritage and to the acknowledged
superior image quality delivered by professional photographic film
products."
Humm, I don't know if this holds any water ?

What does Fujifilm Know about photography anyway ?
I agree, esp in the larger formats. I have not shot a roll of film
in a year, I miss it and that will change this year.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top