I've thinking of making an unusual change
Feb 14, 2017 16:13:02 #
Bill_de wrote:
They did have some developing gadgets that allowed you to bypass the darkroom for 35 mms film. You had to leave the tail out when rewinding the film in the camera. You hooked it up, closed a door and cranked the film into a special tank. Somebody gave me one, and it did work, but in the long run a dark room and a good stainless steel reel worked best. Of course you could use a changing bag with the lights on, but you still couldn't see what you were doing.
---
---
We had the ratchet tank, but it was still a job of fumbles.
Feb 14, 2017 16:25:11 #
charles tabb wrote:
We had the ratchet tank, but it was still a job of fumbles.
That's OK. I fumble with SD cards.
--
Feb 14, 2017 16:59:44 #
Something to consider instead of switching to B&W film is to use a digital camera feature that no film camera has. My LUMIX GX8 has a monochrome option for both the LCD and EVF. The images are still reorded in color.
I have to admit that I'll have to shoot this way for at least a few months to see if it improves my results. After all, I shot film for 40 years looking through a color optical viewfinder, and I had no trouble imagining what the B&W print would look like.
I have to admit that I'll have to shoot this way for at least a few months to see if it improves my results. After all, I shot film for 40 years looking through a color optical viewfinder, and I had no trouble imagining what the B&W print would look like.
Feb 14, 2017 17:20:59 #
I'm coming in on this one a little late. Good luck on your new adventure "back to the future". Hope you find it everything you dreamt and remember. We will miss you :)
Feb 14, 2017 17:37:32 #
I used to give my students a strip of junk film to practice loading onto a stainless steel reel where they could see what they were doing. It didn't take them long to get to the point that they could easily do it by feel in the dark. Even though it is comparatively less rigid, I find the film from my 645s even easier to load on a reel. And you always get to see that spark of light (which does not seem to do any damage) when you pull the film from its backing paper.
Feb 14, 2017 17:45:43 #
ral wrote:
I would simply point out that while digital has certainly made photography easier, we are now awash in a narcissistic pornography of imagery; slick, banal or worse. Film is more laborious, takes more skill and understanding, and so forces a more serious regard for the work. Both have their place, but I think it naive to think we've lost nothing in the move to digital. You will have an adventure my friend, regardless the camera you choose.
Sounds like the words of a paint artist as photography became popular.
---
Feb 14, 2017 18:31:48 #
I'm with you man! I might keep the digital stuff for later but ditch the phone. I learned on an Argus C2 with Kodachrome ASA 10 so I'm comfortable with exposure. I have a M3, 35mm with wings, 50mm, 90mm, and 135mm. The Leica is almost a spiritual experience to use. The uncluttered rangefinder is bright and with very quick accurate focusing. The shutter has a very soft click. Nothing distracting between the photo and the brain. (OK, wings for the 35 deliver a confused image.) Anyway, I still use it occasionally and love it. I no longer have a darkroom but i couldn't give away my Czech 1960s enlarger. But I do have a changing bag, a film tank, and a bathroom. I'm not allowed in the kitchen with the stinky fixer! I then scan the negatives and catalog and process them with Lightroom. I haven't quite matched the Kodabromide look but we are getting there. The blacks are the problem. Too light on the screen. Still a lot of fun.
Feb 14, 2017 18:36:13 #
bill de, you are right, but that doesn't make the entire statement wrong. There have been many who have questioned if photography is fit to be called an art, those have been proven wrong. But on the other hand, photography stands at an intersection of art and craft, and many have trouble separating the two. In the right hands, photography is a fine art as much as oil paintings (remember when a painting was more valued in oil than acrylic? Same tune, different key.) Those hands may be highly trained or self taught. There's a lot of really bad photos for sale, but there are a lot of crappy paintings for sale, too. If there wasn't something special about van Gogh, his paintings would be lost.
Feb 14, 2017 18:49:21 #
Bill P wrote:
bill de, you are right, but that doesn't make the ... (show quote)
I wasn't arguing with the statement, just pointing out that history has a way of repeating itself.
--
Feb 14, 2017 18:50:27 #
Jack 13088 wrote:
I might keep the digital stuff for later but ditch the phone.
Don't ditch the phone! Install an exposure meter app on it to use with your film photography. Works great, and you can make phone calls, too.
Feb 14, 2017 19:00:36 #
RWR
Loc: La Mesa, CA
rook2c4 wrote:
Don't ditch the phone! Install an exposure meter app on it to use with your film photography. Works great, and you can make phone calls, too.
Make phone calls too? Now, that’s really going backwards!!
Feb 14, 2017 19:27:37 #
Bill_de wrote:
Good point, which I totally missed. So sorry, I think we are of the same mind.I wasn't arguing with the statement, just pointing out that history has a way of repeating itself.
--
--
Feb 14, 2017 20:01:00 #
BHC wrote:
After years of reading and listening to the hundre... (show quote)
William Faulkner, the famed southern writer is quoted as saying "The past is not dead...in fact, it's not even past.
Feb 14, 2017 20:39:33 #
jackm1943 wrote:
I couldn't find any images you have posted, so I have no idea what type of photography you do. Unless you do mostly street photography, why waste your time and money on a 35mm system. You could get a nice 4x5 system probably for much less money and really enjoy the process more plus get better images.
Just so everybody knows, I have never posted any images, now am I likely to, for the following reasons:
1. I am a lousy photographer. I have a wealth of technical knowledge and absolutely no talent.
2. Images posted on this forum have been stolen and used for obscene (yes!) purposes.
3. There aren't any non-digital ways I know of to post a film print.
Feb 14, 2017 20:49:22 #
jackpi wrote:
1. Film is much more expensive. 2. You won't know ... (show quote)
Thank you. I agree on every point except #6, and the only reason that I don't cling to that philosophy is 40+ years of experience taking b&w shots with everything from a Minox to a home built (not by me) 8 X 10. My primary instruction will come from reading spec sheets on new films that have replaced my old favorites, including processing suggestions.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.