How things have changed

droj

droj

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,069
Name
droj
Edit My Images
No
I find it curious to think that there must be many here who have never used film, and what's more have never used manual focus or exposure, or even a lens that wasn't a zoom. It's alright, I'm not a Luddite, but it's worthy of reflection.

Another thing that's very different is being able to see other people's work in profusion. Before the internet most people worked in relative seclusion. Of course this increased access is good, and you can seek out the significant and the best amongst it all.
 
Very true and I think it is one of the the reasons that some are, as seen now and then on here, disappointed by their shots. This isn't a Luddite - film and manual were better - view but with manual focus and exposure you had to be more involved and understand more of the process.

My first camera (Halina 35x) was fully manual and for a few years I had no rangefinder or exposure meter. Along with becoming reasonably good at estimating distance I pretty quickly learned about DoF (though having the DoF scale on the lens was pretty much universal then, so you tended to get involved with it). The data sheet that came with films was the guide for exposure and the relationship of aperture and shutter speed was something that was absorbed.

The cost of film was also a factor. Not knowing enough to get even a half way decent photo was expensive.

However, I do not want to return to those days, but they did make you think more when taking a shot.

Dave
 
I have never used film
I do use manual exposure (a lot) when the conditions require it
I do use manual focus (rare) when the conditions require it
I do use a zoom when the conditions require it
I do use a prime when...

What advantage do you see me having if I had ever used film ?
 
I very much like manual lenses on the digital body. I guess it's like going back to the skill of manual exposures & manual focusing but with the convenience of viewing images instantly & being able to edit them yourself rather than sending a film off [for me anyway] - It's also easier for sharing online/mails etc isn't it. I am a prime lens lover though in anycase & I do still have & use my old Yashica FX-3!! Which currently has a roll of Ektar in it ;)
 
droj said:
I find it curious to think that there must be many here who have never used film, and what's more have never used manual focus or exposure, or even a lens that wasn't a zoom. It's alright, I'm not a Luddite, but it's worthy of reflection.

Another thing that's very different is being able to see other people's work in profusion. Before the internet most people worked in relative seclusion. Of course this increased access is good, and you can seek out the significant and the best amongst it all.
Click to expand...

I'm guilty of never using film, I'm very much a digital age lover. I can't say I have a drive to go shoot film but am tempted to pick up a poladroid camera simply for the instantness for certain occasions.

We live in a digital age so don't see the harm in going down that route :)
 
Up until about 10 months ago I didn't have any real experience of shooting film. Then I bought a completely manual medium format TLR and jumped feet first into the world that is film after 6-7 years of digital. I can honestly say I've learnt a huge amount about photography in the last ten months, because I'm forced to think about every aspect of every photo that I take.

Now I'm developing my own black and white film and am about to start down the road to darkroom printing with an enlarger. It's been really great and I wish I'd done it a long time ago. I think I've now moved from "a digital shooter that's playing with film" to "a film user that occasionally shoots digital". Some may say that's a backwards step, but I very much think the opposite. I won't ever say that I get better photos using film, but I get ten times more enjoyment and satisfaction

I think part of it is because I'm a mechanical engineer and really love the workings and simplicity of the more basic film cameras more than the high tech DSLRs of today. Also old film cameras are cheap as chips and have virtually no depreciation, which means you can get a really good medium format set up which was once a high end professional camera, for about the same price as a mid level digital lens nowadays. Then if you don't like it you just sell it on for the same money.

I like old things as well. Perhaps that's why I get on with everyone in the film section :P
 
I used film as in with old instamatic type cameras in my youth, the only reason I got into photography recently was because of the convenience of digital, I would never use film, lifes too short. I do use prime lenses as well as zooms and Manual focus at times, horses for courses.
 
There's no guilt to be had in never having used film, but the requirements of working with such a limiting medium shaped our approach to photography. I don't 'spray & pray' but because I hand hold a lot and I'm not very steady I'll often take 10 frames of the same subject to be sure that 1 is sharp - unthinkable when shooting film, where you would try to make every shot count.
 
droj said:
Another thing that's very different is being able to see other people's work in profusion. Before the internet most people worked in relative seclusion.
Click to expand...

I was talking to someone who makes money from photography, I suppose a semi pro... anyway, one comment surprised me when they said "I never look at other peoples photos."

I shot film for about 30 years. I went digital in 2004.
 
Last edited:
KIPAX said:
I have never used film
I do use manual exposure (a lot) when the conditions require it
I do use manual focus (rare) when the conditions require it
I do use a zoom when the conditions require it
I do use a prime when...

What advantage do you see me having if I had ever used film ?
Click to expand...

As you understand the process you are using lack of film experience is a non issue.
However were you to start using and processing film you would have a new learning curve to go through.

When digital was new film experience was relevant and shortened the learning curve. Both for shooting and understanding photoshop.

Today there is no advantage, except for the fun of the experience.
 
Personally I have no desires to return to the film era. I enjoyed it at the time watching my prints emerge in the developer. But I also remember the the agonising wait before pressing the shutter and checking the negatives for consistent and well exposed frames. I'm glad we have moved on.
 
I never used digital until I had a need to produce quantities of photos for a local group. I then borrowed Sue's E3. When she got a Sony a7r this year, I started using that. With both I had endless problems with focusing (auto focus never really worked for me) and got lots of out of focus photos until I started using my fixed focal length OM lenses on both cameras.

If I want to produce "serious" photos, I still use film exclusively for a number of reasons.
 
Back in the mid 60's, I used to 'help' my Dad produce prints for the family album in the loft/darkroom. It was fascinating sitting there in the red glow watching the images emerge from the blank sheets of paper, learning how to burn or hold back etc.. Some of my fondest memories of my early childhood. I got my first camera (an Agfa Silette) just in time for the airshow at Abingdon in celebration of 50th anniversary (not centenary as originally posted..) of the RAF and used that until the mid 70's when I bought a Zenit E, then a Pentax ME Super. These were stolen from our hotel in New York in 1981. I replace the Pentax with another and I was given a Pentax P30n so used those until 2002 when I decided I should have a go at digital with a Fuji Finepix 2800. That was replaced (though I still have it) with a Canon EOS 20D (was very nearly a Nikon D70s), a Canon EOS 50D and more recently an EOS-M. When my Dad went to the big darkroom in 2010 I inherited his film cameras, a mystery TLR, a Canon A1, AE1 and some modest lenses.

Digital is pleasingly immediate and with Lightroom 5 and PSE 11, I can mess around with the images like I did when I was a kid, but without all the faffing about with chemical, tanks, trays, driers, safelights etc. Digital 'film' is free too! I have no particular wish or need to return to film, though I may run some FP4 through the A1 some day just for fun.
 
Last edited:
I started photography about 3 years ago, and started with digital... last year I wanted to try film and my first film camera was a Mamiya RB67, it was a steep learning curve, I still use digital, but have kept the RB67, and recently bought a Nikon F5, I really enjoy the developing side of things.
 
I used to use film all the time growing up, but had no real interest in photography. I would fire through a roll of film, take it to the shop, go back a few days later to pick up my snaps, spend the afternoon pealing off all the "advice" stickers, then put the photos in a box. Now digital photography takes out a lot of the hassle I am much more into it, and I have been able to learn more without the (apparent) costs. I shoot mainly in manual, but sometimes let the camera take over if I am going for snapshots. I bet if I went back to shooting with film now I would get much more enjoyment out of it, knowing how it all works along with an appreciation of the equipment and taking the time to enjoy the process.
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
I never used digital until I had a need to produce quantities of photos for a local group. I then borrowed Sue's E3. When she got a Sony a7r this year, I started using that. With both I had endless problems with focusing (auto focus never really worked for me) and got lots of out of focus photos until I started using my fixed focal length OM lenses on both cameras.

If I want to produce "serious" photos, I still use film exclusively for a number of reasons.
Click to expand...

Define serious photos ? - I would suggest film is still not a guarantee its just another medium.
 
Glad I've had the experience of using film but now much prefer using digital, mainly for the immediacy of results I can achieve.
 
celebration of the the centenary of the RAF
Click to expand...

A man ahead of his time, that doesn't happen till 1st April 2018.

Anyway, I started with film, and spent years taking, processing and printing colour shots. My bank manager wasn't happy, but I was.

It did teach you not to spray and hope, which seems to be the current fad at airshows, and I'm sure other events too.

My first camera didn't have autofocus, it did have a meter though, with a needle that moved about and sometimes meant I got something close to the right exposure. Focus I always had issues with, and when I got my first autofocus camera, a Pentax SFX, I was over joyed with the results.

Nothing beats developing and printing, although with colour you didn't get to see the image appear, you had to wait till the Bleach/fix was done and then look at the result.
 
If digital had been out when I was in my teens, well like it is now, I'd have got into photography then. I did buy a cheap used canon slr but couldnt afford to pay for film and development. Now they do photography at school, lucky blighters.
 
Like Dave my first 35mm camera was the Halina 35X bought when I was 14, and which I still have. I moved from My Olympus OM1n to digital in 2006 with a Canon 350D. I can remember being taught B&W processing in a blacked out kitchen, later my brother and I converted the spare bedroom to our own darkroom. All good experience and the principles of exposure DOF etc still apply. I do find the digital darkroom less of a faff and of course considerably cheaper. I couldn't afford to shoot the numbers of birds on film.
 
Nod said:
Glad I've had the experience of using film but now much prefer using digital, mainly for the immediacy of results I can achieve.
Click to expand...

Yup. Plus changing the ISO from shot to shot.

Reading the comments about developing film, I can see the appeal and I assume that doing so gets better results. I just sent my films off to be developed. I resisted going digital for a while but the quality of prints I got back just nosedived, I assumed at the time that they were cutting costs due to digital taking off. The last batch of films I sent off came back crap and after return them to be redone again and again I gave up and bought a digital camera. If the quality of prints had remained good I'd probably have stayed with film longer.

Oh well.
 
I've moved on from digital, it was a fad, nice while it lasted but the novelty wore off.

I need a challenge to keep me interested, not to say I knew everything there is to know of course, just that....its all a bit too synthetic and virtual, I like hands on and when I stopped shooting it for money, I just ran out of care for it.

Peeps will gravitate towards the easiest way for them to get what they want, and they'll use technology to do that, that's what its for, which is a good thing because without it there'd be a lot less people moving up to film :D

I dunno about manual focus lenses and metering, I suppose its either a tech thing, a choice or a budget constraint.
 
I moved from quality colour negative film to digital in 2003 and don't regret it, though there are things I miss. The real downside for me was the time it took to get the prints I wanted using a proper 35mm scanner and manipulation software. Then the files were moved to my editing program. Life was passing me by glued to a screen twice over. But I got excellent results.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Define serious photos ?
Click to expand...

Certainly. Photographs that are more than a simple record shot, that are expressive, that are carefully and exactly crafted, that are completely under my control (meaning I can predict exactly what I'll get as the end result) and that I would be happy to have on my walls. Explaining why digital can't give me this is way off topic, and would just lead to another film v digital debate, so that's all the explaining I'm doing - what I mean by "serious photography".
 
Interesting.

I'd now never dream of shooting film for anything serious. Not 35mm anyway and that's all I ever shot and I certainly wouldn't trust the people who used to develop my film, not again. I accept that larger formats are probably a different proposition but for me there is no 35mm film v digital argument anymore, maybe there was years ago and I'm not sure at what point it became a non argument for me (and possibly for many others too) but a non argument and no contest it is now, for me.

On the subject of seriousness.

I like my MFT cameras and I think that the image quality is very good at low to medium ISO settings but I bought a Sony A7 to use my manual lenses on and also for seriousness and when I want seriousness it's what I reach for and it's the best camera I've ever owned, as in it gives me the best image quality of any camera I've ever owned.

These guys (link below) mention the Canon 20D as being better than colour film "in almost all respects" and I had one of those for 7 years and I liked it but I'd say that the 300D and even the 10D I had were both also for me better than 35mm film.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/50d.shtml

Thinking back to my computer day (I used to fix stuff...) one thing that occurs to me is the move from typewriters to word processors / pc's. In the days of type writers IMVHO it took some skill and care to produce a professional looking result but with the introduction of new technology it's got easier to the point that now almost anyone can do what it took skill and care to do before and I think that's also true to a degree in photography too. Yes, using the old manual metal stuff is an experience and the kit is a joy but the new stuff has charms too, different charms maybe but still charms and it makes it possible to (arguably) get better results, easier. IMVHO.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
for me there is no 35mm film v digital argument anymore, maybe there was years ago and I'm not sure at what point it became a non argument for me
Click to expand...

Personally, I think that in terms of resolution, film and digital are now about equal when comparing sensors and film formats of the same size. In that respect, the ease of use and convenience of digital will put it ahead of film for the vast majority of users.

However, go up to medium format or even large format and there is no comparison!


Steve.
 
I'd agree with that. I still have an MPP 5 x 4 and Sinar 10 x 8 monorail in a box in the attic. I just don't have the space for a large darkroom to produce prints that would do it justice. Talk about camera deprecation you can pick one up for peanuts now ! Mind you, the resolution from the Nikon D810 in particular at 64 ISO is a series challenge to Medium Format.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
I'd agree with that. I still have an MPP 5 x 4 and Sinar 10 x 8 monorail in a box in the attic. I just don't have the space for a large darkroom to produce prints that would do it justice. Talk about camera deprecation you can pick one up for peanuts now.
Click to expand...

I have some peanuts - do you want to swap?!!!


Steve.
 
I like the phrase appropriate technology if you are shooting action sports thats most likely a DSLR you want to do the best you can with a landscape thats a 10x8.

That said the 10x8 will not be many peoples choice because of the logistics of dragging it about and the pecieved cost amungst other things.

What people choose to use should hopefully be what suits them best or what they can afford.

Most people it seems do not look beyond 35mm and the digitail equivalent, personally for me I do not see the point of 35mm the convienance of a DSLR that will give me good results up to an A3+ sized print as compared to what you have to do to get a good 10x8 35mm print just makes 35mm not worth the effort.

I do not have experience of medium format digitail setups I can not afford the expense as an amuteur however for me what you can do easilly with medium format film does not mean I use it often.

By the time you get to large format if you are using it for appropriate subjects it is easy relatively speaking to get good results.

The difficult for most people in obtaining good results with film is the scanning typically most people are trying to scan with prosumer flat bed scanners that have a max real resolution of about 2000dpi which is ok for larger formats but lacking for 35mm.

I mention scanning specifically as for reversal film there is no real alternative now and I believe for colour negative materail the majority of printing is based on lightjet technology.

Tim Parkin did an interesting camera comparrison in 2011

Note no 35mm tested

For me film makes sense shooting landscapes a 10x8 Drum Scanned at 1600dpi gives me a 40" pin sharp print I can aford the film gear but no chance could I afford medium format digitail.

For the record Sinar 10x8 secondhand 495 + VAT
Screen DTS 1045AI 8000dpi drum scanner 250 buy it now
hp Z3100 44" Ps 1000 auction

All less than a seconhand D600 cost me though addmitadely not together

Crash your browser on a 10x8
 
Steve Smith said:
I have some peanuts - do you want to swap?!!!


Steve.
Click to expand...

I can't remember exactly what I paid for my Sinar back in the 80s but it was a small fortune even by today's standards. You could pick them up on eBay for less than £200 a couple of years ok but due to the increasing interest in large format cameras the prices are starting to rise again. I could never part with it. It's a thing of beauty.
 
abbandon said:
The difficult for most people in obtaining good results with film is the scanning
Click to expand...

Scanning is always going to be the weakest link. There is no point* comparing the best full frame digital with a scanned 35mm frame. The comparison should be the best of both mediums and for the film side, that should be an optically enlarged print.

* Actually there is no point at all. It's not a competition and we are lucky in that we can use whatever we like!


Steve
 
abbandon said:
I mention scanning specifically as for reversal film there is no real alternative now and I believe for colour negative materail the majority of printing is based on lightjet technology.
Click to expand...


Steve Smith said:
and for the film side, that should be an optically enlarged print.

Steve
Click to expand...

However as I mentioned thats not a real possibility for colour materails.

I also made the point that people should use what is appropriate to their application and budget you can add personal preference to that too.


With regard to B&W I made no specific comment as that is still possible to print optically however to get truly outstanding results where people can get their magnifing glasses out you will be needing a critically aligned enlarger and for truely large prints the obstacles / costs to me are more of a pain than having a seven foot long printer and a scanner the size of an upright piano ie while either method is just about possible as an amuteur I would say the scan and print route is slightly more practical.

The optical element was some what addressed in that comparison by Tim Parkin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top