new UHH section - Film Photography (Page 4): If it needs to be explained that a comment was made in jest, then the commenter has failed at communicating.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

TriX wrote:

If

Have you actually looked at any of Paul’s series posted on UHH shot on film? BTW, at the risking of speaking for Paul, do you realize that most of Paul’s posted series were shot on either a Canon EOS-1v (film) or a 5D3 (DSLR)? You, like another poster, are missing the fact that the posts you are referring to are meant in jest. And they are not just “pretty pictures”, they are excellent images taken by an accomplished photographer. Waiting for you to post some of your images...

If it needs to be explained that a comment was made in jest, then the commenter has failed at communicating.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Mac wrote:

If it needs to be explained that a comment was made in jest, then the commenter has failed at communicating.

Or the reader has failed in understanding the subtlety (or unwilling to just admit they were mistaken)...

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

RWR wrote:

I am painfully aware that it’s generally accepted here that posting pretty pictures somehow magically validates idiotic comments.

TriX wrote:

Have you actually looked at any of Paul’s series posted on UHH shot on film? BTW, at the risking of speaking for Paul, do you realize that most of Paul’s posted series were shot on either a Canon EOS-1v (film) or a 5D3 (DSLR)? You, like another poster, are missing the fact that the posts you are referring to are meant in jest. And they are not just “pretty pictures”, they are excellent images taken by an accomplished photographer. Waiting for you to post some of your images...

About five years ago I entertained a little fantasy: if I had the money, I would try to buy UHH so that I could boot out all the trolls. That fantasy was soon replaced by G.A.S. - a hazard of membership here, as many will attest.

Paul - best wishes with your new section. I've subscribed, even though I haven't used film since 2008. Never say never, however 😀

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Linda From Maine wrote:

About five years ago I entertained a little fantasy: if I had the money, I would try to buy UHH so that I could boot out all the trolls. That fantasy was soon replaced by G.A.S. - a hazard of membership here, as many will attest.

Paul - best wishes with your new section. I've subscribed, even though I haven't used film since 2008. Never say never, however 😀

Thank you Linda! For those who want serious discussion of serious film-related topics, we'll strive for deliver that expected result in this subsection.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

pj81156 wrote:

At last. Thank you. The analog sites are quite lame. I expect much more from this one. By the way, I recently decided I didn’t want to try to do it all, so, it’s my Maxxum 9 and b&w film only.

Welcome pj81156! The success (or failure) of this section will depend on the active engagement of the community. I'll do my part to the best of my abilities. Hopefully, everyone else will too.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

TriX wrote:

Or the reader has failed in understanding the subtlety (or unwilling to just admit they were mistaken)...

If there were only a few who failed to get the “humor”, what you say might apply. But there are more than just a few who are disenchanted with his inane babble. Read through this thread https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-688301-1.html and you will see for yourself.

anotherview Loc: California

The Film Photography sub-section should stand on its own. Let's see how it goes.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

TriX wrote:

If

Have you actually looked at any of Paul’s series posted on UHH shot on film? BTW, at the risking of speaking for Paul, do you realize that most of Paul’s posted series were shot on either a Canon EOS-1v (film) or a 5D3 (DSLR)? You, like another poster, are missing the fact that the posts you are referring to are meant in jest. And they are not just “pretty pictures”, they are excellent images taken by an accomplished photographer. Waiting for you to post some of your images...

I give everyone the benefit of the doubt - if they have a camera, they can take a picture. The brand and type of camera is immaterial. Anyone who puts a brand name in their user name is an obvious fanboy - not to be taken seriously. Images posted online are meaningless - who knows how much they may have been fussed up in post?
That said, I will follow the film section, and if it doesn’t get too silly I may contribute and hope everyone believes me when I say that any image I may post will be straight out of the camera, except for some cropping, which is nearly always necessary. If I cannot expose, develop and scan it properly, it gets trashed.

BebuLamar

cbtsam wrote:

Is there an auto focus Canon 35mm film camera without a mirror?

Sure and the Canon Sure Shot series were 35mm film camera with AutoFocus and no mirror.
You thought mirrorless is something new? Canon made mirrorless cameras before they made cameras with mirror.

Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal

Mac wrote:

Don’t film cameras have mirrors?

Most of mine don't. You look thru the viewfinder thingie on the top.
Sometimes on the side. ;>{
Just sold my last Moskva.
Still have a Fed 2. Shutter is gerfunkt, thanks to a nieces finger.
I have 2x Kiev 60s.
I have a Zenobia. GREAT pocket size point and shoot!
Tho my Kodak Autographic, converted to 120, has seen little use. Probably "none" this century.
I have 2x Iskras that I really like to use.
And a couple of older Zeiss Ikons That I'd still like to use.

northstar Loc: Rochester, Minnesota

Thank you for this, sir!
I will definitely be following (and hopefully learning).
John

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Mac wrote:

If there were only a few who failed to get the “humor”, what you say might apply. But there are more than just a few who are disenchanted with his inane babble. Read through this thread https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-688301-1.html and you will see for yourself.

You seem to be part of a small minority who don't get the intended humor. Maybe it's because you take things, like yourself, too seriously.

Amator21 Loc: California

CHG_CANON wrote:

Please consider subscribing at: Film Photography

Or, list all UHH sections (see link at bottom of this page) and scroll to the new section at the bottom of the list.

INVITATION

As the section Moderator I'd like to welcome your creativity and input to create and maintain an active UHH subsection. Analog photography, also known as film photography, is a catch-all term for photography that uses chemical processes to capture an image, typically on paper, film or a hard plate. These analog processes were the only methods available to photographers for more than a century prior to the invention of digital photography, which uses electronic sensors to record images to digital media.

Interest in all types of film photography has been experiencing a very real revival. My own interests involve the film types, and the exposure technique, and the creation of a unique look based on color and B&W film that both overlaps and is distinct from a digital-only result. Others enjoy the developing and printing process and the vast range of film sizes, from ancient tintype and glass plate through general purpose 35mm negatives and slides and into the high resolution 'large format' using 4x5-inch sheet film.

Young (and old) photographers say film has more 'soul' than digital. This section isn't intended to rehash a debate over film vs digital; but rather, for an appreciation and discussion of the 'how' and 'where' and 'what' for those who never left film and for those interested in furthering this film comeback.

Personally, I only shoot film to be scanned and edited, and only 35mm negative film using auto-focus capable Canon equipment. I look forward to sharing my experiences, while recognizing mine is such a narrow view and level of experience within the long and historic spectrum of the processes and equipment that fall into the category of film photography.

I've scanned and edited hundreds of 35mm negatives. Let's include ideas on scanning too.

Please come and subscribe and share your knowledge and experiences and interest. I personally hope to inspire a new interest and confidence in shooting film, one that causes someone (hopefully you) to achieve a result they never thought possible in film, a result that is something you wanted and is more than just a lucky accident.

All of the general rules of the site apply to the Film Photography section.

- Paul Sager aka chg_canon

Please consider subscribing at: b color=blue ur... (show quote)

Hi Paul!
I think it's great what you are doing. While I have the occasion I want to compliment you on the many and thoughtful answers I have seen you give. I did want to address the idea that film pictures have more soul than digital ones. I won't argue either way. I just noted the parallel with Audio fans who think vinyl (the old way) is more soulful than digital (CD's) Are we beginning a new nostalgia club?

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

selmslie wrote:

You seem to be part of a small minority who don't get the intended humor. Maybe it's because you take things, like yourself, too seriously.

kiteman

Schoee wrote:

Hi Paul, you said elsewhere that “ The only people shooting film in 2021 are fossils, the idle rich and hipsters from Brooklyn”. I see you don’t live in Brooklyn so I am assuming you must be one of the idle rich.

Cheers,
Peter

I am not rich and do not live in Brooklyn. I am retired so may be considered idle. I have a number of film cameras that I have used going back many years. I have a Cannon that I purchased in 1970. I just like film.