Cross.post from w/nw color photos
I found this tiny memorial in the midst of the huge beach rather poignant ...
I found this tiny memorial in the midst of the huge beach rather poignant ...
-
Cameraderie, a friendly photography forum, join now for free!
Film Fun with film cameras (Image thread)
- Thread starter Amin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- film film photography
Lawrence A.
Hall of Famer
- Location
- New Mexico
- Name
- Larry
Very touching.
stillshunter
Super Moderator Emeritus
- Location
- Down Under
- Name
- Mark
No Mark, this is lab-developed.
Later today I will be doing some home colour dev from raw chemicals, funnily enough. The results will look ok - but nothing like this. But then it won't be ektar either.
In all truth, using colour film when I'm never likely to make a wet print from it is really a "because I can" exercise. A well-executed and properly processed digital shot would probably be indistinguishable to my eye, on screen at least.
Colour's not hard to do, you just need very precise time and temperature control. There are a few more steps than b&w but it's not difficult to learn.
I do hear that colour kits are difficut and expensive to obtain in oz, though?
Later today I will be doing some home colour dev from raw chemicals, funnily enough. The results will look ok - but nothing like this. But then it won't be ektar either.
In all truth, using colour film when I'm never likely to make a wet print from it is really a "because I can" exercise. A well-executed and properly processed digital shot would probably be indistinguishable to my eye, on screen at least.
Colour's not hard to do, you just need very precise time and temperature control. There are a few more steps than b&w but it's not difficult to learn.
I do hear that colour kits are difficut and expensive to obtain in oz, though?
stillshunter
Super Moderator Emeritus
- Location
- Down Under
- Name
- Mark
Yeah most folks I speak to say that C41 home development is not necessarily difficult - esp. if you get the starting temperatures right - but most also confess that the results will not be as good as what you'll get from a lab. Usually down to colour shifts I believe?…
Can you still get C41 enlargements done out your way? We can but at a premium...
Why? Do you consider a waste of good emulsion?
Can you still get C41 enlargements done out your way? We can but at a premium...
Not sure if it's pricey. A reliable bricks and mortar store sells the Tetenal Colortec C41 1lt kit for around $45. That's Australian dollars though….so probably equates to just a few pounds sterling all up
stillshunter said:
In order:
I've seen excellent home colour, as good as a lab. But there aren't any short cuts, c41 was never intended as a kitchen sink process, it was supposed to be run on machines with very tight process control. So any sloppy technique, temp or time variation, oxidized or exhausted chems and so on can lead to problems.
For my homebrew (not kit) process, yes. The film I'll be processing was £1/roll. If I did enough colour I might buy a kit and then I'd be happy to try ektar at home.
Yeah there's plenty of labs still that will do enlarging over here. Not cheap of course. There's even more that'll do a scan/print process
Not sure if it's pricey. A reliable bricks and mortar store sells the Tetenal Colortec C41 1lt kit for around $45. That's Australian dollars though….so probably equates to just a few pounds sterling all up
Oh that seems ok. = about £25, which is about what Tetenal 1l kit inclusive of delivery would be here.
Woody112704
Veteran
- Location
- Iowa
- Name
- Jared
Just went through this whole thread. I've been thinking about picking up a film camera to play with. I'd kind of like to get a medium format one but do you guys suggest to play with a 35mm first?
KillRamsey
Hall of Famer
- Location
- Hood River, OR
- Name
- Kyle
What's your previous experience with film? If "none," then I would say go 35mm for a few reasons:
- COST... 35mm film is cheaper, developing is cheaper, and there are so many good cameras and lenses for peanuts.
- OPTIONS... Minolta / Canon / Nikon / Pentax all made roughly three gazillion SLR cameras in the 70's and 80's that are still delightful to use, and can be found cheap on keh.com among other places. And more importantly, each system has a huge catalog of lenses that were made for it over the years, so for $40 or so, you can explore a new lens width. Med format, only cheap options seem to be big old TLR's from the 50's and 60's. Fixed lenses most of the time, and still cost several hundred bucks.
- SPEED... drug stores still often do 35mm film developing in an hour. Not so with med format.
If you're looking to explore different film looks, different lens lengths, and the more contemplative "process" of taking film shots, 35mm would probably be the easiest and cheapest way to get started. $100 for a good Minolta setup with Ap priority and a decent, fast prime lens on keh allllll day long. All you'd need is batteries and film.
- COST... 35mm film is cheaper, developing is cheaper, and there are so many good cameras and lenses for peanuts.
- OPTIONS... Minolta / Canon / Nikon / Pentax all made roughly three gazillion SLR cameras in the 70's and 80's that are still delightful to use, and can be found cheap on keh.com among other places. And more importantly, each system has a huge catalog of lenses that were made for it over the years, so for $40 or so, you can explore a new lens width. Med format, only cheap options seem to be big old TLR's from the 50's and 60's. Fixed lenses most of the time, and still cost several hundred bucks.
- SPEED... drug stores still often do 35mm film developing in an hour. Not so with med format.
If you're looking to explore different film looks, different lens lengths, and the more contemplative "process" of taking film shots, 35mm would probably be the easiest and cheapest way to get started. $100 for a good Minolta setup with Ap priority and a decent, fast prime lens on keh allllll day long. All you'd need is batteries and film.
Woody112704
Veteran
- Location
- Iowa
- Name
- Jared
None with film. I was thinking the same thing and wanted some feedback. Thanks for your advice I'm definitely going to check out keh.com. Now what are some of your (this can be from anyone) favorite film to use both B&W and color.
KillRamsey
Hall of Famer
- Location
- Hood River, OR
- Name
- Kyle
B&W: t-max 400. Super creamy and rich tones.
Color: Ektar. Incredibly flexible and has an iconic "look" to it.
Color: Ektar. Incredibly flexible and has an iconic "look" to it.
KillRamsey
Hall of Famer
- Location
- Hood River, OR
- Name
- Kyle
Taking a peek at keh today, I can only really offer help on minolta stuff - don't know much about other brands, except to say that the Nikon stuff is a LOT more expensive. If I were looking for an inexpensive setup today and wanted the most bang-for-buck, with auto-metering and aperture priority at a minimum, then I'd be looking for something late 70's to early 80's. That's the sweet spot, when things were made of metal and lasted really well, but also offered some friendly help like a meter and LED's in the displays instead of match sticks.
The body I'd spring for is the XG-M in Excellent condition for $39. I have one of those, and it's great.
Lenses... on the wide end is the same 28mm f2.8 MD lens that I have and love for $45 in EX condition. On the mid-length side, and the best lens overall I see here for the money, is the 50mm f1.4 MD lens in EX condition for $69. That thing has excellent reviews, and has no business whatsoever being less than seventy bucks. Longer end, there's a 135mm f2.8 in EX for $43. The f2.0 version of that lens is better, but they don't have one.
Anywho. Just over a hundred bucks for a body and a 50mm f1.4 lens with killer optics.
The body I'd spring for is the XG-M in Excellent condition for $39. I have one of those, and it's great.
Lenses... on the wide end is the same 28mm f2.8 MD lens that I have and love for $45 in EX condition. On the mid-length side, and the best lens overall I see here for the money, is the 50mm f1.4 MD lens in EX condition for $69. That thing has excellent reviews, and has no business whatsoever being less than seventy bucks. Longer end, there's a 135mm f2.8 in EX for $43. The f2.0 version of that lens is better, but they don't have one.
Anywho. Just over a hundred bucks for a body and a 50mm f1.4 lens with killer optics.
you could also look at konica, the tc or tcx and the 40/1.8 is a great, compact, and inexpensive way to start. konica lenses offer pretty much the best bang for your buck in quality vs cost. plus theyre pretty much all 55mm filter size. there are many such kits on ebay with a total cost that should be far short of $100.
KillRamsey
Hall of Famer
- Location
- Hood River, OR
- Name
- Kyle
Yeah my buddy here in town shoots Konica. Seems like good kit.
stillshunter
Super Moderator Emeritus
- Location
- Down Under
- Name
- Mark
I think 35mm is a great place to start…though I've gotten stuck there
Costs are less - especially if you bulk-load your own film like many of us, processing costs are less (even more so if you do your own - B+W is simple enough…and highly addictive) and the quality is comparative to most digital sensors today - but with greater tonality and 'range'. Also peripherals like scanners can be had cheaper….anyway short answer start with 35mm and then, like our own PDH here, you can graduate to large format view cameras.Personally I would also consider a rangefinder. I mean you have heard of Leica and there's a reason they are so popular. You can try the experience with any of the 70's RFs - have a read of this article maybe and you can pick up one of these babies anywhere. If you like then you have a Leica MP to work towards
Otherwise I think an Olympus XA is a nice starter, as is the Canonet Q17 GIII…but you'll get soooooooo many opinions. I'm prejudiced against SLRs.I can only speak on B+W, and am firmly with Kyle - TMax 400 has a great tonality and gives you very pleasing files especially if you've come from digital. The T-grains give a clean fidelity. If you want old school with more pronounced grain then you can opt for Tri-X or HP5. But this is predicated on your developing your own film. Having B+W developed by someone else can be very expensive. So if your going to the 'lab' then I'd suggest a C41 monochrome like BW400CN or XP2.
Welcome…and keep us up to date. Hope you've found your new passion
mark, I think you're on very shaky ground with a statement like that.
With the very best lenses and extremely fine grain document films with specialist developers, under lab conditions, there might be a case to make that - strictly on lines-per-mm basis - 35mm film can match the best current "full-frame" sensors.
However, in normal usage - ordinary film developed in ordinary developers in your kitchen - you simply can't go poking around in the corner of a 35mm negative scan and expect it to look as sharp and detailed as even a 4/3 sensor will. (Even many of the die-hards at APUG will agree this)
Film was designed to be printed of course, not scanned, and so I would agree that a good darkroom print made from a good negative will easily match (outdo in fact) in aesthetic quality a moderately well-printed inkjet digital photo.
BUT you are simply not comparing like-for-like, which makes the comparison of dubious value.
Certainly, medium and large format film, even outside lab conditions, will still pee all over most "full frame" sensors, whether scanned or printed, but those "full frame" sensors are catching up.
If all that mattered was "sharpness" and "detail", digital wins every time. But it isn't, and it doesn't
I'd stay away from BW400CN if it is even remotely possible that the negatives will be used in the darkroom in the future. BW400CN was designed to be printed using the RA4 process - that is, on colour paper and mostly in minilabs. That means it has the classic C41 orange mask on it, and this makes it tricky to print in the darkroom using normal B&W process. XP2 Super on the other hand has a clear base like any normal black-and-white film, and prints normally.
Oh and point of clarification, though I do have a large-format pinhole camera with a rigid frame, I don't own a view camera,
Yet.
