Buying a Bronica ... HELP ...!!!

Quicksnapper

Quicksnapper

Suspended / Banned
Messages
704
Name
Sara
Edit My Images
Yes
So, having been a staunchly digital person (Canon) thus far in my short but adventurous photography journey, a chance meeting with a bloke with a medium format film camera has resulted in me having a rush of blood to the head ... I'm buying a Bronica film camera.

Therefore, any advice, hints, tips, words of wisdom and general hand holding you can offer would be most welcome.

I want to shoot black and white (film choices???!), have never processed a film in my life and can't recall the last time I actually bought a film. However, I'm sure this new adventure will help my photographic education no end. I'm hoping it will make me slow down, really think through my image before I press the shutter button and generally improve my understanding of the photography process.

Am I crazy, or totally sane? Answers on a postcard to .......
 
welcome to the dark slide

you can check out any time you want ,,but you can never leave
 
If I had to sell all my cameras bar one, i'd be keeping the Bron. That's pretty much all I have to say on the matter.
 
simon ess said:
Probably the sanest thing you've ever done.

Crazy is the point. :D

What Bronica is it?
Click to expand...

Thanks everyone for those words of comfort. It's an ETRS ... To be honest, I recently also acquired a Canon 6D (that's a full frame DSLR, do those of you who have been locked up in here for a little too long .... :)) ... And I'm somewhat more excited by the imminent arrival of the Bronica. Feels like a whole new adventure.

Need to buy film now .... Last time I bought a film, it was in a little plastic cartridge and fitted into the back of my Kodak Instamatic ....

Eek!!! What have I started .....? :)
 
Loads of film to choose from.

Personally, if I'm hand holding rather than using a tripod, I like to use 400 film. My favourite is Kodak T-Max.

Then there's Tri-X, Ilford HP5 and more.
 
donut said:
welcome to the dark slide
Click to expand...

Isn't that the secret greeting to those starting with large format? :D

Medium format is great fun. If you really want to slow down, always use a tripod - they are the best way of making you think about a photo. My personal choice from current films is PanF - but this is apparently a marmite film, and many hate it. Otherwise, FP4. I last used a fast film (400 ASA (sic)) in the 1960s so I can't help there.
 
Well Sara, you are now hooked on film. There is no escape. I too purchased an ETRSi last year and love it. Now just purchased an Olympus OM2n as a back up 35mm film camera. I suggest you just take a few rolls to get used to it. You will find the camera more forgiving than a digital when it comes to exposure Happy times
 
ETRS 645, WLF, 2 film backs and 50 mm Lens......Top set up!

I have other lenses and accessoires inc prism finder but if i had to narrow down the kit then that is what i would keep!
 
Always loved the Bron, but it eventually had to go when I moved up to the D3.

Issues included for me;

1. to get the best out of it, I usually found that the tripod/monopod was an essential accessory.
2. the meter battery was not long lasting and I always had a couple of spares in the kit bag. (This may have been an earth fault on my example?)

The smoothness of the lenses however were a treat to behold and I absolutely loved producing beautifully rendered medium format transparencies with a fairly wide colour gamut and dynamic range from it.

Not sure what film remains available as I left that behind when I reluctantly sold it.
 
shreds said:
Always loved the Bron, but it eventually had to go when I moved up to the D3.

Issues included for me;

1. to get the best out of it, I usually found that the tripod/monopod was an essential accessory.
2. the meter battery was not long lasting and I always had a couple of spares in the kit bag. (This may have been an earth fault on my example?)

The smoothness of the lenses however were a treat to behold and I absolutely loved producing beautifully rendered medium format transparencies with a fairly wide colour gamut and dynamic range from it.

Not sure what film remains available as I left that behind when I reluctantly sold it.
Click to expand...


If you use the AE11 prism it's best to switch off as if left on it flattens the battery (well it does mine and it was new).
 
My No.1 camera is a Bronica SQ-A. Square is hip. My number two camera is the ickle Olympus XA2 35mm compact that I bought for 50p at a car booty. In both cases, I mainly shoot on home developed b/w. I have digital cameras, but I only really need them if I want a fast image. If I want a photo, then I use film.

Advice? Extra film backs are a great asset if you were lucky enough (as I was) to find a cheap cache of them. Light metering - I mainly shoot outdoors, on the street, personally, I'm not a good photographer, so I get by without using a real light meter. I shoot using the Sunny F16 rule, sometimes backed up with a free light meter phone app. If I was a better photographer, I'd use a light meter all of the time.

Although I spent most of my life during the great Age of Fillum, I embraced digital early, and shot excusively in digital for several years or more. I'm one of those Born Again b/w film hybrid photographers. I actually made a concerted effort to try to embrace digital again last year - it didn't work. It just doesn't scratch my itch at the moment.

Mentioning hybrid brings me to scanners. I personally like to share images on-line, and I cant justify the effort and expense of darkroom printing. I'm one of those "halfway" film photographers, that home develop film, then digitally scan it. A half decent film scanner is perhaps essential, unless you darkroom print and share photographs only at a club. I've had a few scanners, but I settled on an Epson Perfection V500. It scans 35mm and 120, at a good enough quality for my meagre purposes. The V500/V550 scanners are, as you will soon realise, a popular choice.

B/W film developing may seem a wee bit scary at first, but it really is easy, once you've got a system going. C-41 colour negative processing is more difficult, but even I have succeeded with it when I could be bothered. True B/W (NOT C-41 B/W) processes at a very easy to manage temperature - and with a decent tolerance. You don't need to worry too much about it. I like the Paterson tanks that cater for a 120 film or 2 x 35mm films. I don't bother with an agitation stick - but use inversion. I have a couple of those collapsible chemical bottles, in which I store a litre of reusable fixer and stop solutions in each. I use a (clean) plastic mop bucket of water to stabilise my chem temps in to circa 20C, which then also acts as a supply of rinse water. Film drying clips are another useful buy. I use Poundland jugs, and a Poundland stop watch. I use an infra red no contact thermometer. Be wary of using a smart phone stopwatch or processing app - smart phones do not like water or wet fingers.

Film - I like Ilford, both Delta Pro 400 and HP5+ for street / action / poor light. Buying ten at a time saves money as does shopping around online. For budget, the Shanghai GP3 100 available on Ebay is incrediblle value.

Finally, a link to my Bronica Gallery on Flickr, not perhaps the best photography possible in medium format or with a Bronnie, but it's been a lot of fun :)
 
Last edited:
happygolucky said:
You'll have to change your name to slowsnapper :p
Click to expand...

:LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL: (y)

That's exactly what I'm trying to achieve!!! I'm way too impatient, so hoping the film gear will make me slow down and think a bit more. Happy days. Hope to get it on Wednesday. I'll try to post some results as soon as I have them.
 
XA2inmypocket said:
My No.1 camera is a Bronica SQ-A. Square is hip. My number two camera is the ickle Olympus XA2 35mm compact that I bought for 50p at a car booty. In both cases, I mainly shoot on home developed b/w. I have digital cameras, but I only really need them if I want a fast image. If I want a photo, then I use film.

Advice? Extra film backs are a great asset if you were lucky enough (as I was) to find a cheap cache of them. Light metering - I mainly shoot outdoors, on the street, personally, I'm not a good photographer, so I get by without using a real light meter. I shoot using the Sunny F16 rule, sometimes backed up with a free light meter phone app. If I was a better photographer, I'd use a light meter all of the time.

Although I spent most of my life during the great Age of Fillum, I embraced digital early, and shot excusively in digital for several years or more. I'm one of those Born Again b/w film hybrid photographers. I actually made a concerted effort to try to embrace digital again last year - it didn't work. It just doesn't scratch my itch at the moment.

Mentioning hybrid brings me to scanners. I personally like to share images on-line, and I cant justify the effort and expense of darkroom printing. I'm one of those "halfway" film photographers, that home develop film, then digitally scan it. A half decent film scanner is perhaps essential, unless you darkroom print and share photographs only at a club. I've had a few scanners, but I settled on an Epson Perfection V500. It scans 35mm and 120, at a good enough quality for my meagre purposes. The V500/V550 scanners are, as you will soon realise, a popular choice.

B/W film developing may seem a wee bit scary at first, but it really is easy, once you've got a system going. C-41 colour negative processing is more difficult, but even I have succeeded with it when I could be bothered. True B/W (NOT C-41 B/W) processes at a very easy to manage temperature - and with a decent tolerance. You don't need to worry too much about it. I like the Paterson tanks that cater for a 120 film or 2 x 35mm films. I don't bother with an agitation stick - but use inversion. I have a couple of those collapsible chemical bottles, in which I store a litre of reusable fixer and stop solutions in each. I use a (clean) plastic mop bucket of water to stabilise my chem temps in to circa 20C, which then also acts as a supply of rinse water. Film drying clips are another useful buy. I use Poundland jugs, and a Poundland stop watch. I use an infra red no contact thermometer. Be wary of using a smart phone stopwatch or processing app - smart phones do not like water or wet fingers.

Film - I like Ilford, both Delta Pro 400 and HP5+ for street / action / poor light. Buying ten at a time saves money as does shopping around online. For budget, the Shanghai GP3 100 available on Ebay is incrediblle value.

Finally, a link to my Bronica Gallery on Flickr, not perhaps the best photography possible in medium format or with a Bronnie, but it's been a lot of fun :)
Click to expand...

Wow, thanks for this Paul. Never thought about a scanner!!! :confused: What do I need one of those for? I just sort of thought I'd take pictures and get them developed ...??? o_Oo_O

Got a lot to learn, obviously!!

I am a member of a club and often put images into club competitions and critique sessions, so am planning to develop and print. Whether I get to the point of doing that myself is another matter. First things first ... get the camera, take a few shots, see how it goes from there.
 
When you get your film developed you can have a CD with the scanned negs to zip on your PC, it saves a few quid to DIY on your own scanner and you have control over res size etc.
 
Quicksnapper said:
Wow, thanks for this Paul. Never thought about a scanner!!! :confused: What do I need one of those for? I just sort of thought I'd take pictures and get them developed ...??? o_Oo_O
Click to expand...

Many film shooters buy scanners to digitise their negatives or transparencies. I personally think scanners are generally a poor investment and don't necessarily recommend buying one, but to each his own.
 
Last edited:
They're only a poor investment if you can afford to pay some one else to print or digitse the negative other wise they pay for them self pretty quickly and if you do your own developing you'd then need a dark room or send your negatives away. Seems a little pointless to me.
 
steveo_mcg said:
They're only a poor investment if you can afford to pay some one else to print or digitse the negative other wise they pay for them self pretty quickly and if you do your own developing you'd then need a dark room or send your negatives away. Seems a little pointless to me.
Click to expand...

Do they save you money in the short term? Yes, absolutely. Unfortunately, however, that savings comes at a cost (e.g., time and image quality).

If you look at most of the film photos strewn around the internet, it's quite clear that most people don't know what they're doing with their scanners or their post-processing, myself included. So, I could choose to spend ages trying to get the colour balance just right and capture all of the details in the shadows and highlights or I can choose to spend an extra 30p per image, have someone else deal with those problems, and get back far better scans than I could ever hope to produce.

It seems pointless to me to compromise good colour and highlight detail for the sake of 30p per image, especially given how long it takes to scan and edit each individual image.

If you're only shooting black and white, then I think that there is a much stronger argument for scanning at home, but I'll leave the colour negative to the pros.
 
Well, the OP was interested in black and white...

I've never been overly convinced by an argument that starts from people not knowing what they're doing to argue that therefore they shouldn't bother. Ever since I stopped using the chemist to develop and print my films I've been almost brainwashed by the title of the small Kodak booklet that helped me on my way - "All Your Own Work". I prefer to have complete control, and I'm happy to spend the time developing the skills I need.

If time and cost were my main considerations, I'd use a digital compact and not have to worry about raw files or developing; and I'd not worry about colour management and just send off my files to be printed by experts (and hope that the results matched my monitor).

Pros after all are only people who get paid for the work; there's no reason why a careful amateur can't do an equally good job as a profession in a supermarket who has only been taught which buttons to press... SOme might even do better.
 
For black and white film, you won't go too far wrong with anything by Kodak, Ilford, or Fuji.

If you are shooting subjects that don't move and you're using a tripod, then you might as well use a relatively slow film, which gives a choice from:

Ilford Pan F+, FP4, or Delta 100
Kodak TMax 100
Fuji Acros

If you are handholding, then go for a faster film such as:

Ilford HP5, or Delta 400
Kodak TMax 400 or Tri-X

Don't feel that you need to try out lots of different films - it won't make that much difference to the results. Practicing with one or two types is more important.

7dayshop often have the best prices for Kodak films but others are cheaper for Ilford and Fuji.

Good luck !
 
StephenM said:
I've never been overly convinced by an argument that starts from people not knowing what they're doing to argue that therefore they shouldn't bother. Ever since I stopped using the chemist to develop and print my films I've been almost brainwashed by the title of the small Kodak booklet that helped me on my way - "All Your Own Work". I prefer to have complete control, and I'm happy to spend the time developing the skills I need.
Click to expand...

Could I learn to scan better? Yes, definitely, and so could everyone. I just feel that my own time and effort are better spent elsewhere, such as taking more photographs or finishing my PhD, especially when it's only 30p more per image to get a great scan without the hassle.

I also didn't say that people shouldn't buy scanners, but that they shouldn't necessarily buy one.

As long as people are made aware that scanning is a craft in itself that will take time to master and are also made aware of other options (e.g., pro lab scanning, wet printing, etc.), then there isn't any problem, as folks can make an informed decision to suit their situation. I am concerned, however, when the first piece of advice that is given to a new film shooter is to buy a scanner and describing it as 'essential'.

StephenM said:
If time and cost were my main considerations, I'd use a digital compact and not have to worry about raw files or developing; and I'd not worry about colour management and just send off my files to be printed by experts (and hope that the results matched my monitor).
Click to expand...

With regard to scanning, time and cost are not my main consideration, good colour is. We all have different aims, however, and this is reflected by the many options available throughout the film shooting process.

StephenM said:
Pros after all are only people who get paid for the work; there's no reason why a careful amateur can't do an equally good job as a profession in a supermarket who has only been taught which buttons to press... SOme might even do better.
Click to expand...

I was never talking about ASDA or any high street labs, but rather labs like UKFL, although the high street labs should still be presented as an option for beginners for the sake of completeness (even if you or I don't personally care to use them).

I've also never said that amateurs can't match the level of professional output; they certainly could, I agree. They should be better informed, however, whether they want to invest the time and effort necessary to reach that level or pursue other options.



Anyhow, sorry to have derailed the thread.
 
Last edited:
skysh4rk said:
Could I learn to scan better? Yes, definitely, and so could everyone. I just feel that my own time and effort are better spent elsewhere, such as taking more photographs or finishing my PhD, especially when it's only 30p more per image to get a great scan without the hassle.
Click to expand...

So who does your developing then? Of the two pro labs I use, I am looking at between £3 and £5 per roll for the scanning, depending on quality of scan, so buying a scanner and learning to use it properly makes perfect financial sense and is part of this years plans. If you mean UKFL, I just checked and the quoted prices include scanning so difficult to compare, but even with the bigger scans they mention, that is still a considerable amount of money per roll when dev with Peak or AG is a lot cheaper. Just asking really, as I do/will have time to learn to scan properly, so will probably go down that route.

As to medium format, that is my next film step too Sara, I feel the need to be square[-ish] :D Looking forward to seeing your results and how you get on.
 
skysh4rk said:
Could I learn to scan better? Yes, definitely, and so could everyone. I just feel that my own time and effort are better spent elsewhere, such as taking more photographs or finishing my PhD, especially when it's only 30p more per image to get a great scan without the hassle.

I also didn't say that people shouldn't buy scanners, but that they shouldn't necessarily buy one.

As long as people are made aware that scanning is a craft in itself that will take time to master and are also made aware of other options (e.g., pro lab scanning, wet printing, etc.), then there isn't any problem, as folks can make an informed decision to suit their situation. I am concerned, however, when the first piece of advice that is given to a new film shooter is to buy a scanner and describing it as 'essential'.



With regard to scanning, time and cost are not my main consideration, good colour is. We all have different aims, however, and this is reflected by the many options available throughout the film shooting process.



I was never talking about ASDA or any high street labs, but rather labs like UKFL, although the high street labs should still be presented as an option for beginners for the sake of completeness (even if you or I don't personally care to use them).

I've also never said that amateurs can't match the level of professional output; they certainly could, I agree. They should be better informed, however, whether they want to invest the time and effort necessary to reach that level or pursue other options.



Anyhow, sorry to have derailed the thread.
Click to expand...

There's also the time in front of the computer, if I wanted to spend hours using one I'd shoot digital. However a used scanner can usually be sold at the price it was acquired for so its cost is negligible regardless of the time period which just leaves time and it's fair enough to point out that getting good scans can be time consuming for a while especially if you are doing colour. Though shooting Porta can make that quicker since its such an easy film to scan.

Also it's only 30p an image if you have a fantastic keeper rate for a newbie it could be 3x that when one considers the multitude of things that can go wrong when using an unfamiliar and completely manual camera.
 
Last edited:
Yv said:
So who does your developing then? Of the two pro labs I use, I am looking at between £3 and £5 per roll for the scanning, depending on quality of scan, so buying a scanner and learning to use it properly makes perfect financial sense and is part of this years plans. If you mean UKFL, I just checked and the quoted prices include scanning so difficult to compare, but even with the bigger scans they mention, that is still a considerable amount of money per roll when dev with Peak or AG is a lot cheaper. Just asking really, as I do/will have time to learn to scan properly, so will probably go down that route.

As to medium format, that is my next film step too Sara, I feel the need to be square[-ish] :D Looking forward to seeing your results and how you get on.
Click to expand...

I've just started using UKFL after RJs recommendation. For me it's costing IRO £5 more per roll to scan, so that's .42p per frame. I do have a scanner and will continue to develop and scan B&W myself at least until I've used this batch of chemicals. I have 7 rolls away at the moment so will be more informed when they return, however at this stage when my photography itself still isn't very good (especially on this new fangled film), I'm not sure it's worth the outlay just yet for UKFL prices, although the service really is first rate.

I've just ordered a load of film for Iceland next month and realised that if I shoot it all, it's going to cost me around £700 to develop and scan! Eek!
 
gazmorton2000 said:
I've just started using UKFL after RJs recommendation. For me it's costing IRO £5 more per roll to scan, so that's .42p per frame. I do have a scanner and will continue to develop and scan B&W myself at least until I've used this batch of chemicals. I have 7 rolls away at the moment so will be more informed when they return, however at this stage when my photography itself still isn't very good (especially on this new fangled film), I'm not sure it's worth the outlay just yet for UKFL prices, although the service really is first rate.

I've just ordered a load of film for Iceland next month and realised that if I shoot it all, it's going to cost me around £700 to develop and scan! Eek!
Click to expand...

So in effect, if you use all that film, scanning yourself would save you enough to buy a very good scanner, that would then continue to earn its keep long after Iceland is but a happy memory?

In many ways, because film IS my 'hobby' stuff, the digital work pays for it, I am loathe to keep forking out for the scanning. I know the purists will think I am mad, but I am quite happy forking out for experts to do the developing, because that way, even if I b****r up the scanning, I can scrap it and start again, knowing I have a good base neg to start from. I have done my own developing in the past and whilst it was reasonably successful, it is a process that certainly for now, has absolutely no interest for me. Maybe that will change over the coming year as I get more time back, but right now, quite happy to leave it to the professionals.
 
I've been using a Bronica ETRS for a couple of years now. Wanted to get back to my roots! But I've got it out of my system now and will probably sell up and return to full-time digital, just using the occasional film in my Olympus OMs.

But it's been great fun, and it makes you slow down and consider each shot. A good down-to-earth experience.
 
Hi Sara... I've recently acquired a Bronica(SQ Ai) as I fancied trying square format, I am mainly a digital user(have a D750), although I do shoot 35mm as well.
As others have said B&W developing is pretty straightforward,(as is colour really, and I shoot and develop both). There are a lot of filmy members who are willing to give advice so don't worry if you're unsure of anything...
I use a Sekonic L-208 lightmeter ( here) they can be had for cheaper.
My favourite B&W film is Pan F or FP4.
I also have a V500 scanner.
I think you'll really enjoy it (y)
 
Manual for ETRS here

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Ilford XP2 film - Black and white film with great exposure latitude that is processed in C41 colour chemistry you could find it useful to start with as this means the likes of snappysnaps and other one hour processors can develop it for you, actually black and white services have become more specialized and expensive although very cheap and easy to do at home yourself.


I imagine everyone is bored by now but Screen DT-S1045AI 8000dpi A3 drumscanner £250 buy it now the size of the scans I typically do 1.2Gb probable commercial cost £50+ read the manual you'll get a useable scan on the recommended auto settings takes an hour an a half to do the scan but say 15minuites to mount two 10x8's easily done a hundred scans the last year commercial cost would be £5000.......
 
Stephen L said:
I've been using a Bronica ETRS for a couple of years now. Wanted to get back to my roots! But I've got it out of my system now and will probably sell up and return to full-time digital, just using the occasional film in my Olympus OMs.
Click to expand...

Hi Stephen, welcome :welcome: to to F&C :wave: , the best corner of the best photography forum in Britain... it's too late for you, I think, witness your comment about the OMs. You can check out but you can never leave! ;):):):):)
 
abbandon said:
m surprised no one has mentioned Ilford XP2 film - Black and white film with great exposure latitude that is processed in C41 colour chemistry you could find it useful to start with as this means the likes of snappysnaps and other one hour processors can develop it for you, actually black and white services have become more specialized and expensive although very cheap and easy to do at home yourself.
Click to expand...

Most of the High St labs don't do 120 format processing, do they?
 
ChrisR said:
Most of the High St labs don't do 120 format processing, do they?
Click to expand...
Most SnappySnaps (London based) that I've used will process C41 120, some on site and some send to another branch
 
Yes / no /maybe most of the machines will possibly not all the stores will though.

Looking at snappysnaps I could not actually see 120 mentioned under colour print but it was along with 220 under slide processing.
 
Yv said:
So who does your developing then? Of the two pro labs I use, I am looking at between £3 and £5 per roll for the scanning, depending on quality of scan, so buying a scanner and learning to use it properly makes perfect financial sense and is part of this years plans. If you mean UKFL, I just checked and the quoted prices include scanning so difficult to compare, but even with the bigger scans they mention, that is still a considerable amount of money per roll when dev with Peak or AG is a lot cheaper. Just asking really, as I do/will have time to learn to scan properly, so will probably go down that route.
Click to expand...

Compared to using Snappy Snaps, who would be doing my colour development if I were scanning myself, it costs me about 30p per roll more to use UKFL for 6x6cm medium format for both dev and scan. The additional cost per image will be different for everyone though depending upon who regularly does your development, the format that you shoot, and the number of frames per roll.

steveo_mcg said:
Also it's only 30p an image if you have a fantastic keeper rate for a newbie it could be 3x that when one considers the multitude of things that can go wrong when using an unfamiliar and completely manual camera.
Click to expand...

I think that's an interesting point. That said, I'd say it's even more valuable to use a good lab early on, because otherwise there are just too many variables in play between new equipment, exposure, development, scanning, etc. If the images don't come out the way that you'd hoped, how do you identify what went wrong?

Yv said:
So in effect, if you use all that film, scanning yourself would save you enough to buy a very good scanner, that would then continue to earn its keep long after Iceland is but a happy memory?
Click to expand...

You might save money, but at the cost of your sanity and, in my case anyway, the quality of the final image. ;)

ChrisR said:
Most of the High St labs don't do 120 format processing, do they?
Click to expand...

I use Snappy Snaps in Glasgow for 120 and 220.
 
Last edited:
abbandon said:
Yes / no /maybe most of the machines will possibly not all the stores will though.

Looking at snappysnaps I could not actually see 120 mentioned under colour print but it was along with 220 under slide processing.
Click to expand...
They very rarely bother listing 120 as an option but if you ask in the branch they'll be able to tell you. TBH although they're fairly convenient for me, I wouldn't bother using them unless it was for testing or needed it dev'd in a hurry. I'd rather send my stuff to Peak or one of the other reputable processors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top