Excited

Bell

Bell

Suspended / Banned
Messages
321
Name
Matt
Edit My Images
Yes
Been feeling a bit like I was forcing myself to take pictures the last few months So I thought it was time to mix it up a bit and ran a few rolls of cheap film through my dads old OM1n.
It must be 15 years since I used his camera (I was 15 at the time) and it was that which got me interested in the hobby.
Well I can now officially say I've got the excitement back.

I've sold off a load of stuff and raised enough cash to treat myself to a leica m6 and 35 colour skopar 2.5, 5 rolls of Ilford HP5 and a home processing kit and chemicals.

I honestly think this is the most excited I've ever felt about my hobby.
 
I lived through the Age of Film for something like 35 years, although never for much more than snapshot photography. I bought into digital early, and it was with digital that I really started to explore photography - stuff like the exposure triangle, etc. It was with digital that I finally bought my first ever own reflex camera (a Pentax K110D). I still have a Sony DSLR. I hardly use it - only when I need an instant image. Why? Because a couple of years ago, I bought a Pentax ME Super 35mm SLR in a charity shop. Film started to dominate. It's the learning curve - it's catching up with a hundred years of film photographic technology. Suddenly the DSLR just felt boring. Great for instant images, but where is the satisfaction in firing off twenty or thirty perfectly exposed and focused instant images on burst? Compared with this?

We have so much to learn.
 
XA2inmypocket said:
I lived through the Age of Film for something like 35 years, although never for much more than snapshot photography. I bought into digital early, and it was with digital that I really started to explore photography - stuff like the exposure triangle, etc. It was with digital that I finally bought my first ever own reflex camera (a Pentax K110D). I still have a Sony DSLR. I hardly use it - only when I need an instant image. Why? Because a couple of years ago, I bought a Pentax ME Super 35mm SLR in a charity shop. Film started to dominate. It's the learning curve - it's catching up with a hundred years of film photographic technology. Suddenly the DSLR just felt boring. Great for instant images, but where is the satisfaction in firing off twenty or thirty perfectly exposed and focused instant images on burst? Compared with this?

We have so much to learn.
Click to expand...
I'm keeping hold of my xpro1 too so not fully commited.
Im inteding to use the M6 to document everyday family life and produce a nice album/book at the end of every year. I've also ordered some Portra 400 for the family days out and holidays.

My big focus is to try and not be too perfectionist with the images, they are what they are and its the content that matters to me. I want to try and pick out all the everyday things that that the kids do rather than just have albums full of studio type shots.
 
I love this story. Enjoy...
 
trevorbray said:
I love this story. Enjoy...
Click to expand...
Thanks. I'm certain its the start of something good.
Like Paul said above, there is so much to learn, it almost feels like a new technology.
Took delivery of the chemicals late yesterday (last piece in the jigsaw) so will be developing my first roll this week.
To make it even better, the first roll should now containn some of my little girls first steps.
Feel like a kid at Christmas!
 
A similar thing happened to me when I discovered my Dad's old Fed4 and ran a couple of B&W films through it last year. I've just flogged the last of my digital gear (with the exception of my iPhone...does that still count?) and used the money to buy an M3 and Canon LTM lens.

Digital photography certainly has it's place, but I've realised it's not something that appeals to me at all anymore. When I look back at my digital photos, I still like a lot of them, but they are so clinical, they look like HD video. Some of them are so bitingly harsh that I can barely look at them anymore. Others are so over processed that they are borderline HDR. On the other hand, I've stared for hours at (admittedly fairly rubbish) photos that I've taken on film. There's something visual that you can't put your finger on, but it's there, and it's appealing to the eye. When I look at my film shots, I remember taking them, handling the film, mixing the chemicals. I remember the craft that went into them. It connects me to the photographs and adds value that nobody else could ever see. It's simply a wonderful end-to-end experience and very satisfying, like all things in life that are hard to master.

All the best with your analogue adventures. I predict a great deal of fun ahead :-)
 
How very elegantly put. I totally agree, something ephemeral, something difficult to pinpoint but the process and craft that goes into it means more than the result to me.
I still shoot digital and still enjoy the results but I don't really enjoy the process.

Andy
 
I could write pages and pages about why I think shooting and the product of film is so utterly utterly different to digital, but I'm just gonna pull one observation out of the million that makes it so.
Its about the product and may largely be based on age but, digital images do look clinical, they do look synthetic, unreal, they look what they are, made by computers, they don't look like photos, at least they don't look like what I've grown up knowing photos look like.
Being older than 20 dictates that the vast majority of photos that have been part of my life were the product of film, whilst the advent of digi tech photography has been an incredible advance in image making, for me it lost its novelty value, there's a disconnection there that is hard to explain.

Peeps can say, who wants grainy oof low res spotty streaked light leaky fadey film pics that can't be easily slung on Faceache 2 seconds after they were shot, well I do because they are infinitely more engaging than processed peas, I dunno why, they just are, maybe somebody not influenced by age who feels the same way can explain it.
Maybe its an emotion thing, engaging is a good word, it can cover everything from seeing the photo before it's shot it right through to the end, the effect it has on the viewer.
 
Very well said 'joxby, it's a bit like listening to a vinyl album compared to a cd or a digital download, same principle......! Superb

p.s.
I was street shooting on Saturday in my local town with my gripped RZ67/AE Prism Finder/110mm f2.8, awesome'ness....
 
Last edited:
Bell said:
I'm keeping hold of my xpro1 too so not fully commited.
Im inteding to use the M6 to document everyday family life and produce a nice album/book at the end of every year. I've also ordered some Portra 400 for the family days out and holidays.

My big focus is to try and not be too perfectionist with the images, they are what they are and its the content that matters to me. I want to try and pick out all the everyday things that that the kids do rather than just have albums full of studio type shots.
Click to expand...

This is something I struggle with as well. Being 27 years old every "serious" camera that I'd ever used was digital, and when I was learning the basics it was all on digital gear. I used to get very hung up on pixel peeping and getting an image technically perfect, which was almost something that's drummed into you from the start with all these "ten ways to get sharper images" magazines and online sites that exist. Getting out of that mind frame took some doing, but now I try to focus more on the artistic side of photography rather than the technical.
 
joxby said:
I could write pages and pages about why I think shooting and the product of film is so utterly utterly different to digital, but I'm just gonna pull one observation out of the million that makes it so.
Its about the product and may largely be based on age but, digital images do look clinical, they do look synthetic, unreal, they look what they are, made by computers, they don't look like photos, at least they don't look like what I've grown up knowing photos look like.
Being older than 20 dictates that the vast majority of photos that have been part of my life were the product of film, whilst the advent of digi tech photography has been an incredible advance in image making, for me it lost its novelty value, there's a disconnection there that is hard to explain.

Peeps can say, who wants grainy oof low res spotty streaked light leaky fadey film pics that can't be easily slung on Faceache 2 seconds after they were shot, well I do because they are infinitely more engaging than processed peas, I dunno why, they just are, maybe somebody not influenced by age who feels the same way can explain it.
Maybe its an emotion thing, engaging is a good word, it can cover everything from seeing the photo before it's shot it right through to the end, the effect it has on the viewer.
Click to expand...

I've only been shooting film for a little over a year, so most of my adult life exists in digital photos which are stored on a computer and only looked at when I stumble across them looking for something else. I think I'm in quite an unusual place in that I'm younger and have grown up with digital, but still prefer film, but based on films recent rise in popularity, I think it's safe to say that I'm not alone.

I think it depends on what you want from photography. I have friends who are photographers, who think I'm bonkers for using a medium which costs about a pound a photo, takes several days or even weeks to get the result, and requires a lot of effort to take a photo. In my opinion these people are far more concerned with the end result than they are with the process or method, In contrast, the photo taking and developing stages are as important as the end result to me, because I enjoy doing them. I wan't to be involved in everything from start to finish because I have a genuine interest in photography as a whole, rather than just getting good images out of it.

Before I shot film I was more than happy with digital, but now I'm a film user the whole digital process is... I don't know, soulless?
 
joxby said:
I could write pages and pages about why I think shooting and the product of film is so utterly utterly different to digital, but I'm just gonna pull one observation out of the million that makes it so.
Its about the product and may largely be based on age but, digital images do look clinical, they do look synthetic, unreal, they look what they are, made by computers, they don't look like photos, at least they don't look like what I've grown up knowing photos look like.
Being older than 20 dictates that the vast majority of photos that have been part of my life were the product of film, whilst the advent of digi tech photography has been an incredible advance in image making, for me it lost its novelty value, there's a disconnection there that is hard to explain.

Peeps can say, who wants grainy oof low res spotty streaked light leaky fadey film pics that can't be easily slung on Faceache 2 seconds after they were shot, well I do because they are infinitely more engaging than processed peas, I dunno why, they just are, maybe somebody not influenced by age who feels the same way can explain it.
Maybe its an emotion thing, engaging is a good word, it can cover everything from seeing the photo before it's shot it right through to the end, the effect it has on the viewer.
Click to expand...


Well said John and would add it depends on what type of photographer you want to be, as an old timer using film I haven't found a "must have" reason to go digital....maybe if I was into flying insects (or anything fast when you can machine gun) or experimentation or night club shots for magazines or whatever..... I might find a use for digital.
Anyway today I'm going to take a nine shot film pano of a view on my £20 gear, ok a 24 pano shot on digital might be easier but even then with Vista at £1 a roll I might even try that one day, so if I get VG results why spend £1000 (I like excellent gear) on a VG digital.
So if it ain't broke.......................................................
 
excalibur2 said:
...it depends on what type of photographer you want to be...
Click to expand...

That's the real point, and why most of the film vs digital arguments are silly. Digital is a perfect fit for certain people and types of photography. If you're a pro hiring a £5,000 a day location with a £10,000 a day model, and have a pestering client hanging over your shoulder, you must either be insane or have balls of steel to use a film camera. For the average person who doesn't have a clue what aperture means, doesn't care, and just wants decent photos of their kids and snaps of their Pina Colada on holiday, digital cameras are beyond brilliant.

On the other hand, film starts to make real sense if you're producing fine art photos or you just want to 'go deep' in some way: use old cameras, delve into the history of photography, learn a life-long craft, that sort of thing.

I wish I could still use both and choose the appropriate tool, but whenever I did that and found myself out and about with my digital camera, I'd always wish I had my film camera with me instead. One day I actually caught myself thinking, "I hope I don't see a great shot that I could have captured on film"! That was the moment I knew the digital gear had to go. I absolutely LOVED my X100S, but I simply didn't use it any more and I can't justify having something like that sit in a drawer. I almost cried when the eBay auction ended and I dropped it off at the post office.

And yes, that's really buggered up my profile name o_O
 
Bell said:
Thanks. I'm certain its the start of something good.
Like Paul said above, there is so much to learn, it almost feels like a new technology.
Took delivery of the chemicals late yesterday (last piece in the jigsaw) so will be developing my first roll this week.
To make it even better, the first roll should now containn some of my little girls first steps.
Feel like a kid at Christmas!
Click to expand...

Matt, if that roll is the only record of such a precious step (!) in the daughter's development, I would be tempted to get that roll developed and printed professionally rather than risk losing the shots as part of a learning curve. There are SO many ways to mess up the processing that it's probably better to be safe than sorry for important shots for a little while.

Enjoy the experience of doing it all yourself - it's a magical moment seeing a print appear in the dev tray for the first time and thinking "I made that!"
 
Nod said:
Matt, if that roll is the only record of such a precious step (!) in the daughter's development, I would be tempted to get that roll developed and printed professionally rather than risk losing the shots as part of a learning curve. There are SO many ways to mess up the processing that it's probably better to be safe than sorry for important shots for a little while.

Enjoy the experience of doing it all yourself - it's a magical moment seeing a print appear in the dev tray for the first time and thinking "I made that!"
Click to expand...
I appreciate your thoughts, my wife got some pictures on her phone and I got shots of her on the xpro as well.
To start with I'm just developing the negatives myself until I can afford the time and space to get set up for print developing.
 
Not a problem then! I know (from bitter experience!) that it's always the important shots that get screwed up while test ones etc. come through processes unscathed!
 
After the short discussion above and based around Nod's advice, I decided to shoot a test roll and develop that as my first test roll. Came out quite well, lots of test shots on it few keepers. first proper roll now hanging up with images on! I feel i could easily get hooked on the process!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top