11-15-2013, 12:02 AM
#1
  • ben74
  • Administrator
  • Perth, Australia
User Info
[Image: qrNQPZT.png]

Does anyone still use film?

[Image: NUD2cOb.png]

Or even a manual camera?

[Image: tzqzTqW.png]

Digital just seems easier, less expensive and less time consuming.

[Image: ZQwp7h1.png]

But are we missing anything?

Is the art of photography being eroded?

Is talent and technical prowess no longer of any great importance?


[Image: t2ZTm6n.png]

91 17,803
Reply
 11-15-2013, 12:51 AM
#2
  • Johnny
  • Super Moderator
  • Wausau, Wisconsin, USA
User Info
Yes to the first two questions. I use Ilford ISO 50 B&W film and I mainly use my Leica M6 manual camera. Is it more expensive than digital, heck yes it is, but I wouldn't have it any other way. The M6 and a few available light pictures.

[Image: 9cTV4Ld.jpg] [Image: 8LRGfBM.jpg]

[Image: BR9eIfe.jpg] [Image: sGijjJT.jpg]

[Image: J335vGy.jpg]

173 23,494
Reply
 11-15-2013, 01:26 AM
#3
  • ben74
  • Administrator
  • Perth, Australia
User Info
Great photographs Johnny, thank-you for sharing!

91 17,803
Reply
 11-15-2013, 06:36 AM
#4
  • slantman
  • Expert Shaver
  • Leesburg, Florida
User Info
Stopped using film some years ago. Its very difficult to get film these days. My first camera my Grandfather gave me was a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye.

100 12,438
Reply
 11-15-2013, 09:28 AM
#5
  • CRAusmus
  • Senior Member
  • Going from Texas to Georgia
User Info
The M6 is a piece of art Johnny. Don't ever quit using it.

We have a Hasselblad here at work that literally just sits in a cabinet and never gets used. It's criminal I tell ya...

Love the use of film and hope it makes a revival. I still look for lab equipment when I shop at camera stores that are shutting down, or antique stores. I have everything but a condenser (that I gave away) and paper and chemicals of course and I have a black and white lab. Worked in and out of labs of all kinds for many years in my 20s. My favorite job was working for a photographer who used a 3x5 field camera for everything (much like the one in the last photo that Ben posted. Being in the darkroom is very relaxing and enjoyable.

14 1,177
Reply
 11-15-2013, 11:48 AM
#6
User Info
I would love to as the quality of the pics are just better for me. They have a depth and life to them that most digital cameras really can't encapsulate. However, getting film is very difficult, processing it is time-consuming and environmentally troublesome.

* Beautiful camera, Johnny! Biggrin

75 20,883
Reply
 11-15-2013, 11:53 AM
#7
User Info
The beautiful classic Leica M6 is indeed a work of art. Compliments Johnny on your superb tastes and ownership of such a wonderful camera.

0 3,341
Reply
 11-15-2013, 12:06 PM
#8
User Info
Yes, I still use film. I have an old Cannon T50 and several different lenses. I also use digital. The digital is great for travel and easy to use, but I still love my 35mm. There is a small shop in town that still carries film and does do developing. Another casualty of modern technology. In days to come, I'm sure the shop in town will close it's door and be gone. I will be sad Sad

1 345
Reply
 11-15-2013, 12:14 PM
#9
  • Deco
  • シングルエッジ
  • Rocky Mountains
User Info
Always wanted a real darkroom. I cobbled something together in the basement when I was a kid. The area under the stairs was my enlarging room. Had a red Xmas light surrounded by wax paper and I used an old slide projector as an enlarger, since I couldn't afford one.

1 239
Reply
 11-15-2013, 07:01 PM
#10
  • freddy
  • Senior Member
  • San Diego, California, U.S.A.
User Info
Ironically, I live above a camera shop that deals in non-digital photography and and next door to me is a gentleman who has a dark room and uses very old equipment to produce lovely images.

2 11,211
Reply
 11-15-2013, 07:17 PM
#11
User Info
Biggrin That would be YES !
35mm
Pentax H3v, SF1,Spotmatic , MX, ME Super,
Kodak Retina iia , Retina ii ,
Minolta 7000i

Medium format
Voigtlanders
Zeiss Nettars and Ikontas
Arca Swiss Technical.
Pentax 6x7

It's not cheap anymore but then it was never exactly cheap. But Digital viewfinders just make me want to throw them across the room Tongue

6 1,224
Reply
 11-15-2013, 09:11 PM
#12
User Info
(11-15-2013, 07:17 PM)Nickadermis Wrote: Biggrin That would be YES !
35mm
Pentax H3v, SF1,Spotmatic , MX, ME Super,
Kodak Retina iia , Retina ii ,
Minolta 7000i

Medium format
Voigtlanders
Zeiss Nettars and Ikontas
Arca Swiss Technical.
Pentax 6x7

It's not cheap anymore but then it was never exactly cheap. But Digital viewfinders just make me want to throw them across the room Tongue

* Eric, may I be your humble apprentice?! Blush

75 20,883
Reply
 11-16-2013, 03:47 PM
#13
  • Lradke
  • Senior Member
  • Edmonton, Alberta
User Info
I will in the future. I have a Nikon F65 and I plan on buying a 35mm SLR for my oldest. I fully plan on teaching her how to take photos correctly, instead of solely relying on the camera to do it all.

If one understands how to properly use a camera, the photos are just so much better when they use a digital (DSLR is what I'm talking about).

1 608
Reply
 11-16-2013, 10:57 PM
#14
User Info
I recently sold my old prized possession my Nikon F100. Ilford B&W/50 mostly as well. Wonderful camera (nothing compared to Johnny's M6), but I just found myself not using it any more since my move to digital some years back. My current digital lineup allowed for the release of the F100, but it was still quite painful to put it all back in the original box and ship it off to some unknown buyer. The F100 used the same basic controls as Nikon's professional level DSLR bodies so the switch was easier for me (although good lord I still get baffled by insane menu systems).

My current bodies are:
Nikon D700 (full frame)
Nikon D300s (DX format)
Exclusively prime lenses with them, zooms ...... well they are jack of all trades, masters of none.

For Point and Shoot I have a Sony RX-100 Mark II ..... but I still do not enjoy using this camera. While a nice step up from my old Lumix LX7 the menus are completely foreign to me, and the flash metering leaves tons to be desired. Flash is almost always blown out, and I end up using the one or two pics I take using no flash. On the bright side the camera does a very nice job in low light w/o flash.

129 6,685
Reply
 12-01-2013, 10:51 PM
#15
  • CMur12
  • Semogueiro de Coração
  • Moses Lake, Washington State, USA
User Info
Oh, where to start ...

I haven't done a lot of photography lately, but I have a closet full of old film cameras and a goodly cache of professional slide film in the freezer. I haven't made the transition to digital, largely because of SLR ergonomics since the advent of 35mm autofocus. (I'm left-eyed and wear glasses, and the grouping of thumb-controls on the upper right of the camera body is a problem for me.)

I always had a camera as a kid, I bought my first SLR in 1972 when I was at the university, and I invested heavily in equipment in the '80s and '90s. All of my cameras are manual focus and my lenses are all primes (no zooms).

I have 3 Minolta SR-T bodies (manual, match-needle type) and an X-570 + autowinder. I have all Minolta primes lenses from 28mm through 200mm. I have a couple of Canonet G111 17 QL rangefinder cameras, which are blessed with a very sharp lens.

I also shoot medium format with old TLRs. My favorites are my Minolta Autocords, which I think are at least as good as any Rolleiflex Tessar TLR. I also have a Rolleiflex T with Tessar lens and a couple of Yashicas. With these, I have a lot of accessories.

I like how these old cameras handle. Using a TLR with a waist-level finder on a tripod and composing on the groundglass is like laying out the composition onto a canvas. I can view it with both eyes at once and I experience it differently than I do with an eye-level finder. (Even so, my 35mm cameras with eye-level finders have their own strengths.)

I think if I could get digital backs with basic functions for my old cameras, I would make the transition to digital much more easily. I like the idea of white balance control, but all the electronic bells and whistles are distracting from basic photographic processes and I have yet to warm up to the idea of processing photos on the computer.

Some day I may well make the leap into digital, but I'm not there yet.

- Murray

4 1,150
Reply
 12-02-2013, 07:27 AM
#16
  • tsimmns
  • Senior Member
  • Mississippi
User Info
My mother still uses a Polaroid camera where the photos are printed out right after takenBiggrin No, she doesn't use it for her everyday photos, but in her Drug Testing office she has to keep the old thing around to take photos of people coming in for DNA test to send their photo to the land alongside the baby.

15 970
Reply
 12-02-2013, 10:07 AM
#17
User Info
Like Murray I have a mess of bulk film in the freezer and my old manual Olympus OM1 camera bodies and lenses. But I have no idea where I'd get the film processed.

I applauded what I deemed decent digital cameras when they came out and couldn't wait to take part because it allowed me to do my own processing in my digital darkroom (PhotoShop).

Anyone who thinks a digital camera "does it all" doesn't know the difference between a snapshop and a photograph. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. A photograph still requires burning and dodging and such to make the photograph as the photographer saw it. Then too there is the use of filters on the end of the lense, so digital cameras don't do it all. There is still a photographer required to produce a photograph. Point and shoot is not photography, it's taking a snapshot.

I once had a coworker who would show me his perfectly exposed snapshots that his camera perfectly exposed for neutral grey. His premise was that they were photographs and everyone was a photographer now. I told him how nice his snapshots were. I don't know that he ever knew what I was actually telling him.

I mourn the passing of film, at least for me, because I liked shooting TP 2415, transparencies, and such, but applaud the control I now have since I simply don't have room for a darkroom. But I do have all kinds of room in my computer for a digital darkroom.

32 6,308
Reply
 12-02-2013, 10:52 AM
#18
  • CRAusmus
  • Senior Member
  • Going from Texas to Georgia
User Info
I have a ton of film in my freezer.

Check out antique shops for film cameras. Most of the cameras that were made in the just 20-30 years ago you can grab for a great price around here.

14 1,177
Reply
 12-02-2013, 12:05 PM
#19
  • CMur12
  • Semogueiro de Coração
  • Moses Lake, Washington State, USA
User Info
I used to choose different slide films for their different palettes. Back in the 1970s, Agfachrome CT-18 (ASA=50/DIN=18) had the most beautiful palette for winter scenes with sky in them. GAF 64 (GAF had previously been Anscochrome) offered a special interpretation of fall colors. Kodachrome and Ektachrome were wonderful for spring and summer. In the 1980s, I loved Agfachrome 1000 for windowlight portraits.

Now, I believe that Kodak has discontinued Ektachrome, concentrating instead on negative films that are optimized for digital scanning. Fuji may be the last firm to offer slide film and they still offer several kinds thereof. I believe some Fuji digital cameras can be made to imitate the palette of different Fuji films.

- Murray

Brian, the Olympus OM1 was an exceptional camera. That is a nice system!

I live in a small town, but fortunately a small shop here can send slide film out to a lab in the nearest city for E6 processing. I think color negatives can also be processed and printed locally.

A problem with slides was always to get good prints made from them, and all analog methods had their shortcomings. A digital scan of a slide is a much more effective way to produce a good print.

I suppose if I could no longer get slide film and have it developed, I could shoot color negative film and have it scanned. Some day I might even consider spending the money on a new digital system of camera and lenses.

- Murray

4 1,150
Reply
 12-02-2013, 06:41 PM
#20
User Info
(12-02-2013, 12:05 PM)CMur12 Wrote: I used to choose different slide films for their different palettes. Back in the 1970s, Agfachrome CT-18 (ASA=50/DIN=18) had the most beautiful palette for winter scenes with sky in them. GAF 64 (GAF had previously been Anscochrome) offered a special interpretation of fall colors. Kodachrome and Ektachrome were wonderful for spring and summer. In the 1980s, I loved Agfachrome 1000 for windowlight portraits.

Now, I believe that Kodak has discontinued Ektachrome, concentrating instead on negative films that are optimized for digital scanning. Fuji may be the last firm to offer slide film and they still offer several kinds thereof. I believe some Fuji digital cameras can be made to imitate the palette of different Fuji films.

- Murray

Brian, the Olympus OM1 was an exceptional camera. That is a nice system!

I live in a small town, but fortunately a small shop here can send slide film out to a lab in the nearest city for E6 processing. I think color negatives can also be processed and printed locally.

A problem with slides was always to get good prints made from them, and all analog methods had their shortcomings. A digital scan of a slide is a much more effective way to produce a good print.

I suppose if I could no longer get slide film and have it developed, I could shoot color negative film and have it scanned. Some day I might even consider spending the money on a new digital system of camera and lenses.

- Murray

Murray, what I'd really like to have is a digital "film back" to put on my OM1 bodies. I've never even heard of such a thing, but at the size of 35mm film it would probably be over 200mp today.

One thing I have to hand to the old cameras... they never wore out. My Sony has a rotating switch that didn't take long to begin to malfunction. I suppose the digital cameras are use them then toss them. Not at all where my mind is at especially after buying a mini system.

32 6,308
Reply
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)