Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Now You Can Master Any DSLR Camera And Take Gorgeous, Attention-Grabbing Photos
Follow these step-by-step video tutorials.
Nightski Got a Film Camera!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: <<prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 27 next>>
Aug 4, 2015 14:49:48   #
Peterff
 
gessman wrote:
You've been "swamped" with both wonderful but also useless information ..... I've read all the responses rather quickly and have a comment or two which I will limit to on-point plain English.

.....One word about b&w I didn't see mentioned... b&w that is shot without filters have such low contrast they do not resemble what you see in nature. For a more normal (as the eye sees it) contrast you will want to use a yellow filter. For higher, high definition contrasty shots showing closer to true blacks and whites, such as a darker sky with white puffy clouds, you will want to use a red filter.

....Just a side note - for a person just starting out in photography without unlimited funds or a desire for indebtedness, you can buy a quality film camera and a variety of lens that will produce excellent images for $50 to $300 or you can get digital equipment that will equal the same quality and pay as much as $10,000+. ...
You've been "swamped" with both wonderfu... (show quote)


An interesting set of observations, but on-point plain English seems accurate! Of course, you haven't indicated which contributions you classify as wonderful and which as useless..... :)

The filters observation is an interesting one, and a good one. Many people suggest that filters other than CPL and ND are of limited use in a digital world, since these can be adjusted / applied in post-processing. At least with Canon digital (for JPEG) they can be applied in camera for monochrome, and/or applied in raw in post with Canon DPP. Do they have the same effect? That may be a good question, but filters probably become important again for film usage. Especially if 'wet' darkroom printing is to used as opposed to scanning and digital PP. A potentially interesting discussion here.

Cost? I think that becomes a little more tricky, especially when you bring lenses into the mix as you have done.

Sandra has chosen a very wise approach from the cost perspective. She already has well demonstrated skill and talent, and has a good stable of digital equipment with full frame EF lenses at this point. Adding a film body is inconsequential by comparison.

At least with Canon good lenses still command a decent price, even the FL or FD lenses (pre 1987) that are not compatible with EOS cameras without modification or adapters and that have limited / restricted use in many cases. So, some discussion about costs could also be interesting.

As people have pointed out, older film camera prices appear to be stabilizing, even increasing, and the better glass has never really been cheap unless you find someone that has no idea about what they have. That happens less often in this internet connected world. However, old mechanical or electro-mechanical things do degrade over time - shutters, light seals, fungus and so on, so some degree of caution is advised....

Lot's of fodder for discussion!

| Reply
Astonishingly Simple Secrets To Transform Your Smartphone Into A High-Quality DSLR
Capture jaw-dropping gorgeous photos that blow away your friends -- guaranteed!
Aug 4, 2015 15:11:35   #
Uuglypher (a regular here)
 
Hi, Sandra!
Looks like you've received plenty of answers to all your questions!
So I'll just say "Congrats" and have fun!

Check with the members in your camera club...there may be one or two who still maintain a wet B&W darkroom and just might be happy to introduce you to what you can do with making the print in the real darkroom!

Dave

| Reply
Aug 4, 2015 15:20:12   #
Michael Hartley
 
Reading all this information, makes me want to do it. I've got some of the stuff, OM-1, B & W film, filters, CanoScan powered negative scanner, 44 inch printer, pearl metallic media, also some questions, while we're on the subject...

All the videos show using Folgers coffee, does dollar store coffee work?

The vitamin C powder, is that the same as plain citric acid? Have citric acid.

Fixer powder, have a shelf life once opened, or just get liquid?

Can you use the red light while loading the developer?

Thanks

| Reply
Aug 4, 2015 15:34:21   #
selmslie (a regular here)
 
gessman wrote:
... b&w that is shot without filters have such low contrast they do not resemble what you see in nature. ...

You make a good point regarding filters. Nearly all panchromatic B&W film react similarly to light color and they have more sensitivity to blue and UV light than we ordinarily want. This tends to make shadows (illuminated by bluish skylight) lighter than we might want and blue skies will lack the expected contrast with clouds. There is plenty written on the subject and so long as you settle on a favorite film you will get this set in your mind.

There are variations, however, so it helps if you look at a film's spectral response in the data sheet. A few films have extended or deficient red sensitivity.

You may also see that your expensive CPL filter may not be necessary. Linear polarizing filters are less expensive. However, auto-exposure or autofocus may not function properly with the linear version.

There is another topic that I don't recall being raised - reciprocity failure. For exposures of a second or less this is not a concern. But for nearly all films, longer exposures do not behave in a linear fashion. For example, a 4 second indicated exposure for Tri-X needs 6 seconds of actual exposure. Fuji Across is an exception in that its reciprocity does not fail as soon.

| Reply
Aug 4, 2015 15:40:17   #
Peterff
 
Michael Hartley wrote:
Reading all this information, makes me want to do it. I've got some of the stuff, OM-1, B & W film, filters, CanoScan powered negative scanner, 44 inch printer, pearl metallic media, also some questions, while we're on the subject...

All the videos show using Folgers coffee, does dollar store coffee work?

The vitamin C powder, is that the same as plain citric acid? Have citric acid.

Fixer powder, have a shelf life once opened, or just get liquid?

Can you use the red light while loading the developer?

Thanks
Reading all this information, makes me want to do ... (show quote)


I'll be interested to hear the answers on those things...

Fixer? It degrades when exposed to air/oxygen, so keeping it sealed with minimal exposure prolongs its life so far as I recall. Liquid degrades faster I think...

Red light? While loading film into a canister or developing tank absolutely not. Complete darkness. Once the film is in a light proof container such as a developing tank then the film is in darkness, you do not need to be....

At least, that's what I remember....

| Reply
Aug 4, 2015 15:43:38   #
Karl Shuffler
 
Film. Regardless where film is processed, negatives will result as to be return to you regardless of prints or cd is given. If not, this would be put to the question of their where abouts. During the infancy of digital photography, I did my own digital transfer by means using a film scanner. Cameras started with sensor less than 6Mp,, so by scanning, it produced better than any digital camera could possibly produce quality wise as well as file size. By scanning, file size exceeded 107 Mp. The only problem would be film granulation. With the advancement with digital cameras this problem is resolved. Early days with digital was enlargement of pixels. A comfortably scanner ran about $2000.00. Minolta, Nikon, and Canon made good film scanners. Near the end of film cameras production, some retained your camera settings; however you had to keep up with what roll the information pertain to. With color film, exposure and sharpness is not so forgiving. Best sharpness is by: use of tripod, down on apreture, low ISO. I prefered ISO of 25. Reala and Provia are my favorites. From time to time I would have Walmart developed my film only and scan them myself. Experimental means will be your best teacher. One experiment for me was taking two shots, scan, with PS blend the two. For learning purposes I leave an example. This was taken with 300/4 zeiss (c/y), Contax RTS III. Mexico City.
Palacio Bellas de Artes
Palacio Bellas de Artes...
(Download)

| Reply
Astonishingly Simple Secrets To Transform Your Smartphone Into A High-Quality DSLR
Capture jaw-dropping gorgeous photos that blow away your friends -- guaranteed!
Aug 4, 2015 15:45:17   #
Peterff
 
selmslie wrote:
There is another topic that I don't recall being raised - reciprocity failure. For exposures of a second or less this is not a concern. But for nearly all films, longer exposures do not behave in a linear fashion. For example, a 4 second indicated exposure for Tri-X needs 6 seconds of actual exposure. Fuji Across is an exception in that its reciprocity does not fail as soon.


Now there is a term I haven't heard in a while...

rec·i·proc·i·ty &#716;res&#601;&#712;präs&#601;d&#275;/ noun: reciprocity

the practice of exchanging things with others for mutual benefit, especially privileges granted by one country or organization to another.


So reciprocity failure refers to diminishing returns...

Sounds like something our politicians should think about!

| Reply
Aug 4, 2015 15:48:15   #
rfmaude41
 
Darkroom317 wrote:
Yay!!! Settings don't really matter much. I have been writing down settings when working with 4x5 and sometimes with 10 exposure 120 when working in the landscape. For 35mm shots I don't bother, too much to bother with that happens too quickly


Actually, one of my film cameras (Nikon F6) can capture the data in a couple of ways (print it directly om the film, or, store it in a memory bank for later retrival)...

| Reply
Aug 4, 2015 15:58:35   #
selmslie (a regular here)
 
Peterff wrote:
... Fixer? It degrades when exposed to air/oxygen, so keeping it sealed with minimal exposure prolongs its life so far as I recall. ...

Developer is more likely to degrade.

Some developer concentrates like Rodinal and HC110 will keep for years regardless of how nasty and dark they get so long as the container is sealed.

Developers that are used full strength or diluted 1+1 (Xtol, D76 and ID11, etc.) are more likely to deteriorate with exposure to oxygen. Xtol is reputed to go off suddenly and without warning but I have kept it in a tank with a floating lid for up to a year without issues.

| Reply
Aug 4, 2015 16:02:14   #
Peterff
 
selmslie wrote:
Developer is more likely to degrade.

Some developer concentrates like Rodinal and HC110 will keep for years regardless of how nasty and dark they get so long as the container is sealed.

Developers that are used full strength or diluted 1+1 (Xtol, D76 and ID11, etc.) are more likely to deteriorate with exposure to oxygen. Xtol is reputed to go off suddenly and without warning but I have kept it in a tank with a floating lid for up to a year without issues.


You are correct, thank you....., a long time ago, in a country far, far away....

| Reply
Aug 4, 2015 16:15:05   #
SharpShooter
 
E
Peterff wrote:
An interesting set of observations, but on-point plain English seems accurate! Of course, you haven't indicated which contributions you classify as wonderful and which as useless..... :)

The filters observation is an interesting one, and a good one. Many people suggest that filters other than CPL and ND are of limited use in a digital world, since these can be adjusted / applied in post-processing. At least with Canon digital (for JPEG) they can be applied in camera for monochrome, and/or applied in raw in post with Canon DPP. Do they have the same effect? That may be a good question, but filters probably become important again for film usage. Especially if 'wet' darkroom printing is to used as opposed to scanning and digital PP. A potentially interesting discussion here.

Cost? I think that becomes a little more tricky, especially when you bring lenses into the mix as you have done.

Sandra has chosen a very wise approach from the cost perspective. She already has well demonstrated skill and talent, and has a good stable of digital equipment with full frame EF lenses at this point. Adding a film body is inconsequential by comparison.

At least with Canon good lenses still command a decent price, even the FL or FD lenses (pre 1987) that are not compatible with EOS cameras without modification or adapters and that have limited / restricted use in many cases. So, some discussion about costs could also be interesting.

As people have pointed out, older film camera prices appear to be stabilizing, even increasing, and the better glass has never really been cheap unless you find someone that has no idea about what they have. That happens less often in this internet connected world. However, old mechanical or electro-mechanical things do degrade over time - shutters, light seals, fungus and so on, so some degree of caution is advised....
An interesting set of observations, but on-point p... (show quote)


I think its time to make a serious response. Yes, Gessman makes some good observations. I think Gessman was trying to be nice but was holding back!! :lol:
The problem today, I feel, is that most that want to call themselves film shooter are not actually film shooters. They are recording on film but then go full digital after someone else processes and scans their film.
I guess that will give most the mostalgic fix without actually doing any work or paying any dues.
Normally in film printing(silver), one can use a lot of the filtering mentiond by Gessman in printing at the enlarger, especially the better ones with the color heads or it has to be done manually with a seperate set of yellow/magenta filters and lots of trial and error until one gets very proficient at it.
I personally don't see any difference between shooting film and shooting digi once you take the darkroom out of it. The recording of the scene is exactly the same. Turn off the screen on your dslr and pretent you recieved a CD in the mail when you download to the computer.
Film(B&W) is NOT about how you record the image, but about the knowledge of how to see a scene then shoot it, and print a good final contrasty print. B&W is about black and about white and producing the proper contrast between them to make the image pop!
Just like photography today, it depended on the skill/artistic ability of the photographer to produce a good composition with the correct set of attribute to come out correct in the final print.

Too many of these discussions wind up in exactly the same place as all the Digi discussions do, about the easy parts of photography, the technical aspects of film and gear and nothing to do with shooting film itself.
But I guess that in reality, once we convert film to a digi file we are in actuality at the same exact place and the only thing that counts are your PS skills and use of PS filters to try and replicate what film and a good film shooter did without actually having those skills. If we are using digi files, why are we trying to replicate since are really no longer dealing with film and the special set of skills and look that went with it?!

I'm not saying that Nightski shouldn't or won't have fun with her new film camera, as all learning experiences are good for us but we need to keep in perspective what our end goals are and what and how we are trying to achieve them.
The biggest potential of shooting film today is its potential to very inexpensively creat really large files to would otherwise be cost prohibive with digi.
I'm looking forward to Nightskis shots. I know they will be good because her skills as a photographer have gotten really good.
Nobody was a film monster then a flop at digi, it's really all exactly the same from that perspective. It's still all about the composition. You can either shoot or you can't, no matter what the medium!!! ;-)
SS

| Reply
Astonishingly Simple Secrets To Transform Your Smartphone Into A High-Quality DSLR
Capture jaw-dropping gorgeous photos that blow away your friends -- guaranteed!
Aug 4, 2015 16:33:43   #
Peterff
 
SharpShooter wrote:
I think its time to make a serious response. SS
Wow! How time flies!

SharpShooter wrote:
Normally in film printing(silver), one can use a lot of the filtering mentioned by Gessman in printing at the enlarger, especially the better ones with the color heads or it has to be done manually with a separate set of yellow/magenta filters and lots of trial and error until one gets very proficient at it. SS


So do the filters have the same effect on different films and on different papers, or can it make a difference at each stage depending on the characteristics of the specific medium?

SharpShooter wrote:
I personally don't see any difference between shooting film and shooting digi once you take the darkroom out of it. The recording of the scene is exactly the same. Turn off the screen on your dslr and pretend you received a CD in the mail when you download to the computer. SS


So do sensors register light identically to film, or does it actually vary? My inclination is that there would be some differences between sensors an film, and between different film types...

SharpShooter wrote:
Film(B&W) is NOT about how you record the image, but about the knowledge of how to see a scene then shoot it, and print a good final contrasty print. B&W is about black and about white and producing the proper contrast between them to make the image pop!
Just like photography today, it depended on the skill/artistic ability of the photographer to produce a good composition with the correct set of attributes to come out correct in the final print. SS


No argument there!

SharpShooter wrote:
Too many of these discussions wind up in exactly the same place as all the Digi discussions do, about the easy parts of photography, the technical aspects of film and gear and nothing to do with shooting film itself.

But I guess that in reality, once we convert film to a digi file we are in actuality at the same exact place and the only thing that counts are your PS skills and use of PS filters to try and replicate what film and a good film shooter did without actually having those skills. If we are using digi files, what are we trying to replicate since we are really no longer dealing with film and the special set of skills and look that went with it?! SS
Too many of these discussions wind up in exactly t... (show quote)


An excellent point....

SharpShooter wrote:
I'm not saying that Nightski shouldn't or won't have fun with her new film camera, as all learning experiences are good for us but we need to keep in perspective what our end goals are and what and how we are trying to achieve them.

The biggest potential of shooting film today is its potential to very inexpensively create really large files to would otherwise be cost prohibitive with digi. I'm looking forward to Nightskis shots. I know they will be good because her skills as a photographer have gotten really good.

Nobody was a film monster then did a flop at digi, it's really all exactly the same from that perspective. It's still all about the composition. You can either shoot or you can't, no matter what the medium!!! ;-)
SS
I'm not saying that Nightski shouldn't or won't h... (show quote)


Mostly I agree, but sometimes swapping media can be a hurdle for people. The innate photography skills, sure, but the technical darkroom vs. technical computer / pp skills are a world apart. Both can be mastered, but it does take an investment....

:-) :thumbup:

| Reply
Aug 4, 2015 16:58:15   #
selmslie (a regular here)
 
SharpShooter wrote:
... I personally don't see any difference between shooting film and shooting digi once you take the darkroom out of it. The recording of the scene is exactly the same. ...

You make a good point but there are some fundamental differences.

With film, the "raw" image resides in a physical object - the negative or transparency. You can always scan it with newer technology and, as long as you take care of it, it remains archival - more-so than a digital raw file that depends on the survival of a proprietary raw format. The Library of Congress will not accept a digital file for archival purposes. Theywill accept a 4x5 B&W negative - I know because I have provided them.

The physical size of a negative is limited only by your willingness to deal with a larger camera - 120, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 and even larger. Resolution and quality (but not ease of use) increase with format size.

There is a physical limit to the resolution and detail that you can record in a 24x36 format - the lens itself. Although you might be able to obtain a lens with better resolution for full format in the future, it will be expensive - more than you might be willing to spend and much more than you would spend if you simply moved up to medium and large format.

Finally, there is the pesky Bayer array between the sensor and the subject. It's the first obstacle to resolution and there is only one camera so far, the Leica Monochrom, that does without it.

PS: I forgot to mention the issue of the anti-aliasing filter. Film does not need it since the film grains are randomly distributed in the emulsion.

| Reply
Aug 4, 2015 17:19:15   #
Lynn L
 
Nightski wrote:
I decided if I'm going to hang out on a forum that has so many people that "shot film", I should get with it and do some work in that area so I have some experience to draw from when looking at the film shots people have posted. I have shot up a roll and have had it developed. Now I have a few questions.

When I had my film developed I got a CD with the pictures and the negatives. Do you get more detail if you scan the negatives yourself? Is scanning the negatives like getting a RAW file on a digital?

Has anyone compared the light metering on their digital to the light metering on a SLR camera of the same brand? Is the way that the light metering works pretty much the same?

Is 35mm the same as full frame? Do you get bigger prints from a full frame camera, or does that depend on how many megapixels it is?

Do you get more out of your film if you develop it yourself?

I actually found a Walgreens that does the "wet" processing so I can get negatives. I was informed that all Walgreens are going "dry" though, and there will come a day where I can only get my pictures on a CD. Does anyone have a favorite online place to get their pics developed?

I have viewed my pictures on the CD, but I don't know how to scan my negatives yet. It seems like they get a little pixelated if i zoom way in ... is this because the files on the CD are small?

One more question My settings aren't listed in lightroom on my film pics ... how the heck am I suppose to remember what my settings were? I mean, I know I used 400 film, so thats' my ISO, but how do I know what my shutter speed and aperture were set at?
I decided if I'm going to hang out on a forum that... (show quote)


Hi Sandra. I'm late to the party, but here goes. Question #1; Usually, photo finishers will scan negatives at low resolution. So yes, you'll get better quality if you scan your own negs at about 600dpi. I suppose you could call your negs your raw files, but really there is no raw file in film. In a digital world you have to scan your negs and that is really your raw file. You just have your negs. Question #2. Is light metering the same. Yes. The difference is that with film you MUST give enough exposure for the shadow details you want; whereas in digital it's the highlights that you must expose for. In film you have a lot of exposure latitude in the highlights. In digital, as you know, if you overexpose the highlights they blow out. Shooting digital photos is like shooting slide film. I'd advise you take you hand held meter and take an incident reading and set the recommended exposure on both your film camera and your digital camera. I think you'll find the final results quite similar. Question #3. Yes, for all practical purposes, 35mm is the same as full frame. Question 4. Do you get more with developing your own film. For folks who get a kick out of darkroom work, developing their own negative film is fine. In the real world, if you have your film developed by a good pro lab, they will do a consistently better job than you will on you own. The only place I would say you MUST develop your own film would be in B&W, if you were playing with the zone system. Question 5. Do I know a good processing lab? Not any more. My only advice is go with the Pro's. I wouldn't go to Walgreens or any big box type of photo finishing. If your lab doesn't properly replenish their solutions, don't maintain perfect temperature control, or don't properly dry your negatives, you've go a big problem. Question 6. CD pic don't look very good. See answer to number 1 question. Question 7. Where's my shooting data? It's in the notebook you carry to write all that stuff down while you're shooting. Welcome to the world of film! One last comment. I saw a flower image you posted with the petals sharp & the center out of focus. The camera just did it's range finding thing on the wrong area. If anything in an image is sharp and it's not what you wanted sharp, it's a focusing problem. If nothing in an image is sharp, it's a camera movement problem. One other thing; if there is anything I can really help you with in the film world, just PM me and I'll take 30 seconds and tell everything I still remember about film. After developing and printing thousands of rolls of film, I've had all the film fun by body can stand. I'm going to grab my OLY and my A7r ii, in a few days, and I'm going to shoot nothing but digital till death do I part!

| Reply
Aug 4, 2015 17:24:46   #
BigWahoo (a regular here)
 
Nightski wrote:
I decided if I'm going to hang out on a forum that has so many people that "shot film", I should get with it and do some work in that area so I have some experience to draw from when looking at the film shots people have posted. I have shot up a roll and have had it developed. Now I have a few questions.

When I had my film developed I got a CD with the pictures and the negatives. Do you get more detail if you scan the negatives yourself? Is scanning the negatives like getting a RAW file on a digital?

Has anyone compared the light metering on their digital to the light metering on a SLR camera of the same brand? Is the way that the light metering works pretty much the same?

Is 35mm the same as full frame? Do you get bigger prints from a full frame camera, or does that depend on how many megapixels it is?

Do you get more out of your film if you develop it yourself?

I actually found a Walgreens that does the "wet" processing so I can get negatives. I was informed that all Walgreens are going "dry" though, and there will come a day where I can only get my pictures on a CD. Does anyone have a favorite online place to get their pics developed?

I have viewed my pictures on the CD, but I don't know how to scan my negatives yet. It seems like they get a little pixelated if i zoom way in ... is this because the files on the CD are small?

One more question My settings aren't listed in lightroom on my film pics ... how the heck am I suppose to remember what my settings were? I mean, I know I used 400 film, so thats' my ISO, but how do I know what my shutter speed and aperture were set at?
I decided if I'm going to hang out on a forum that... (show quote)


I don't know if anyone posted this; I got tired of reading all the posts.

You can have a high quality lab develop your film, or send them your negatives/slides, and have it scanned in high resolution on a drum scanner.

You can also have it scanned in raw format.
Edit: I should of said a raw scan not raw format.

There are several good labs in the U.S.

Just google high res/drum scanner.

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 27 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Now You Can Master Any DSLR Camera And Take Gorgeous, Attention-Grabbing Photos
Follow these step-by-step video tutorials.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.