Oh bloody hell 2 (camera related)

[fossyant]

Erm...metering - let the camera do it - I can't get the hang of it all... I've read a few books had a fiddle - still can't go full manual..... eek !

Can fix a bike though - not got a clue about photography....

 

[John the Monkey]

IIRC, D80/D200/300 MF+meter, D40/D60 MF,no meter (use Sunny16).

One other thing to look at is which have in body AF motors - I know the D40 doesn't, and that rules out AF on some really nice third party glass (the superb Tamron 90mm Macro, and Tokina 12-24 f/4 to name two)

I may try some Provia 100F in the FE2 for old times sake: £7.99 from Jessops plus processing, and I think you can get the slides scanned as well.

Have you looked at 7dayshop.com or similar? £8 for a roll is way more than you need to pay (imo). Processing slides is expensive, but Peak and 7dayshop's own dLab7 do a good job.

You do get the feeling that film is very much part of history now, the great thing about digital is the flexibilty to experiment to heart's content, at no extra cost, well apart from the camera upgrades every 1/2/3/4* yrs (delete as applicable)

I shoot both - I like film more because (provided I pick the right film) I have a shot I can use straight off the scanner 90% of the time - I hate the processing and computer time involved in digital - it's finickyness (compared to B&W at the other end of the scale) annoys me at times too.

On Pentax..there is definitely a place in my heart for them - my first SLR was a ME Super...

OMs for me - it was all downhill from there

 

[Rhythm Thief]

I'm considering going back to film. You can get a proper pro setup nowadays for half the price of the digital equivalent and I think the image quality is probably better. Plus you're not trapped in the relentless march of "progress" and you have to think harder about composing and framing the shot. Which is good, I think.

 

[John the Monkey]

I'm considering going back to film. You can get a proper pro setup nowadays for half the price of the digital equivalent and I think the image quality is probably better. Plus you're not trapped in the relentless march of "progress" and you have to think harder about composing and framing the shot. Which is good, I think.

I sat down and figured it all out once (back when I was shooting a lot more than I do now) and I reckoned I could shoot film for two to three years before exceeding the cost of a digital setup.

I'm not sure about image quality (I've seen some superb digital shots) but slides and "true" B&W have a quality that's very hard to produce spontaneously in digital (imo)

 

[Crackle]

I'm considering going back to film. You can get a proper pro setup nowadays for half the price of the digital equivalent and I think the image quality is probably better. Plus you're not trapped in the relentless march of "progress" and you have to think harder about composing and framing the shot. Which is good, I think.

Go medium format then. I'm not sure 35mm has any advantages over digital at all but medium format is still better on larger prints. What I like about film at that resolution is the representation of areas without detail, film is still better at that, well that's my view anyway. Saying that, I'm staying digital, I much prefer it due to the ease of doing stuff which used to take days in the darkroom. Dodging masks, contrast masks, chemical alchemy etc...

I like film more because (provided I pick the right film) I have a shot I can use straight off the scanner 90% of the time - I hate the processing and computer time involved in digital - it's finickyness (compared to B&W at the other end of the scale) annoys me at times too.
OMs for me - it was all downhill from there

I had OM's too. Loved the metering on them.

How do you scan your films? Most of my slides are pretty old now and when I scan them I have to do a lot of post scanning work, especially dust removal and sadly scratches from years of (mis)handling.

 

[John the Monkey]

How do you scan your films? Most of my slides are pretty old now and when I scan them I have to do a lot of post scanning work, especially dust removal and sadly scratches from years of (mis)handling.

I use an Espon 3490 - quick blast with the rocket blower both sides of the negative strip (or slide) then scan. If I'm not careful about how I dry the black and white, they sometimes need a bit of cleaning up, but other than that, I don't do much out of the ordinary. The lab you use for C41 and E6 can help a fair bit too - I know one or two in Manchester that I wouldn't use again (dusty negs, thumbprints on slides) but the LCE on Piccadilly Gardens do a great job at a good price (sadly they don't do E6 anymore though).

 

[Crackle]

I'm quite surprised, that's a flat bed scanner isn't it and it gives you good results, well it must, your pictures are proof of that.

I use an Minolta Dimage Scan Dual, now circa 10 years old. I also use a product called Vuescan to control it. I hardly ever get a scan I can just go with from slide, though it definetly is better with film. I don't think I've put any B&W through it, I might try. Some of my slides are showing distinct colour shifts now. My early Kodachromes are going red. All in all, it's a laborious process scanning slides and one that never quite does the original justice.

It's a while since I've used E6. Whenever I did I devved my own, with varying results. I must admit I don't miss doing it. My puffin shot is an E6, taken with an OM2 and devved in Chrome 6 at too high a temperature

Anyway I've taken RT well off topic now: Personally RT, I'd stick with the D200 and buy a lens off e-bay

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Go medium format then. I'm not sure 35mm has any advantages over digital at all but medium format is still better on larger prints.

Well, I was considering a move to medium format ... I've never tried it before; my dad's just bought a Bronica with a couple of lenses for £125, so I might have a go with that and see how I get on.

What I like about film at that resolution is the representation of areas without detail, film is still better at that, well that's my view anyway.

Yes, this is the main issue I have with my D200. It's not very good at overcast skies.

Saying that, I'm staying digital, I much prefer it due to the ease of doing stuff which used to take days in the darkroom. Dodging masks, contrast masks, chemical alchemy etc...

I never developed my own films anyway, but you're right, digital does have the advantage here.

 

[John the Monkey]

....my dad's just bought a Bronica with a couple of lenses for £125, so I might have a go with that and see how I get on.

That's absolutely bonkers - I've always done medium format on the cheap (Agfa folding cameras, like the Isolette, for instance, could be had for about £5), and I do have a Rolleicord, but the SLR systems have always appealed - especially Bronica's SQ - last time I had a serious look they were still around the £250 mark, I must look again . If you like slides, you'll love medium format slides, they're wonderful.

I'm quite surprised, that's a flat bed scanner isn't it and it gives you good results, well it must, your pictures are proof of that.

I remember a discussion of this a while back on one of the film flickr groups, and the consensus, broadly speaking, was that flatbeds have come on in leaps and bounds, to the point where you have to spend serious money on a dedicated film scanner to get noticeably better results.

On the whole thing of development etc - if I want to take it easy, I shoot C41, and someone else does it I've never done E6 or C41 myself, but I love doing B&W - just for the different looks of the films in different developers, and for pushing and pulling. I like how HP5+ can be grainy and almost painfully sharp in LC29, and smoother in DD-X. The vintage look that comes from shooting film like the Adox CHS25 and 50, then developing in R09 (a copy of the rodinal original formula) is something I'd have struggled to replicate digitally.

The worst thing about home dev for me is the cost in time - because that time's all "up front", it can sometimes be hard to fit in, compared to working with digital where a few pictures can be done at a time, and the process can be left for a while without any ill effect.

 

[John the Monkey]

Not sure how interested anyone is in my thoughts on the cost of shooting film, but a couple of things I wrote elsewhere;

It's cheaper to shoot digital if you don't factor in the cost of the gear.

As a f'rexample, you could pick up a decent film kit (two bodies, 28mm, 50mm and 135mm) for about £100 or less. (I'd have to go back through my ebay purchases to figure out exactly how much my stuff had cost me, but I've never paid more than £20 for a lens, or £40 for a body).

Cost of film depends on what you shoot, but Fuji's superia costs £5 for 5 rolls in speeds from 100 to 400 from 7dayshop, and each roll costs me £3.50 to get developed to negative and scanned to cd. If I bought my own film scanner, that drops to £1.50 for development to negative and my time in scanning the negs in.

All of which is, of course, a complete red herring. What actually matters is what you like doing, and I find that some days, grabbing my OM-20 and going out shooting Fujichrome is what I want to do. It's less immediate than digital, (but then all my shots are perfect until I get them back from the lab

) and it does demand a different outlook than digital. In the same way, shooting with a medium format folding camera, or a 35mm rangefinder demands a different approach again.

I also like the colour and tonal range I get from film, but I daresay that sort of thing can be done with photoshop, if one is dedicated enough. I have a "Shot on film" set on my flickr, if you're interested;

http://www.flickr.com/photos/john_th...7594194814726/

I'm not sure that there is any point to it, tbh, beyond that I like it, which should be enough.

But surely it costs a lot to get them developed?

Depends - my E6 (transparency film) cost an arm and a leg - it is beautiful though...

For negative print film (i.e. standard colour film), I pay £3.50 to have my films developed to negative and scanned to cd (3000 x 2000 px files) - If I get a scanner, I can drop that price to £1.50 for dev only. If I do my own B&W (to negative then scan), the price drops further still. What's more, I can upgrade any of my cameras to the latest image sensing technology for the cost of a new roll of film

(I do think this is a huge advantage - you can shoot anything from Velvia 50 with it's fine grain and rich, saturated colour through to Delta 3200 with grain the size of golfballs - along that continuum you have a vast array of different looks and feels to choose from).

I think cost is a bit of a red herring though, if I'm honest. I shoot film primarily because I like the way it looks, and the way the gear handles - I can get the look sometimes, for some subjects from digital, I can't replicate the feel of my Ricoh rangefinder, Minolta Hi-Matic, or the gorgeousness of the OM1 with Tamron 28mm f/2.8 attached. Going back to the point originally being addressed though, I reckon the best way to get the look of film is to use film, and as wishy says, you don't have to break the bank to do so.

...I was just saying it as more of an all round fact that its WAY cheaper to be shooting digital.

My F3 cost me £100, it's a pro quality body. I shoot 1-2 rolls (2 rolls a week in PaD Photo a Day for July - a challenge held annually on the forum this post is from) at a cost per roll of £1-£2, depending on whether I bulk load or buy. Development costs me in the region of 50p per roll.

If I shoot colour print, my cost goes up to £2.50 for development per roll (most of my print film costs between £1 and £1.50 to buy).

Slide film is pricier to develop, if not to buy, working out at between £5 and £6, dependant on whether I want process only or process and mount.

Assuming two rolls of B&W per week, that's £130, a roll of colour every other week would add £100, and splurging for slide film (one roll per month) adds a further £84. I'm not even near the cost of an equivalent digital body to the F3 after a year of shooting fairly profligately.

As I said earlier, cost isn't a factor for me, but film stacks up pretty well against digital even in that respect, imo.

 

[Crackle]

JTM, that's really interesting. It shows a dedication which long since left me. I had a look through your film folder and it's quite interesting to see the different looks of the films. It's got me thinking as has the flatbed scanner which could be a way for me to get my older neg strips in faster.

You also mention tonal range of film, which is an excellent point. It is still geater than modern sensors. Last time I looked, the best sensors had a tonal range equivelant to slide but like anything in digital you can get around that by using two different exposures and blending them in photoshop. If you want to see full tonal range capture though, look at the work of Ansel Adams. I also used to subscribe to Photo Art International, now only available 2nd hand on e-bay. If you want to see dedication to the cause, get one.

RT, that cost for a Bronica is quite surprising. Be a bit careful though, they do develop shutter and other problems and can be expensive to repair. Also consider Mamiya's and if you really want simple, get a C330, though I think they're collectible now. I used to have it's forerunner the C3, sold a long time ago for £60.

I must admit to being tempted by medium format but for me I'd have to go digital for procesing which means a medium format film scanner. Not common and not cheap And to do it justice, a good printer and that means proper colour profiling of paper and printer, even more expense.

No, I'm resigned to the digital route. I long ago decided that because darkroom work is so tedious. So I watched and waited as the first VGA digitals came out. I decided to pitch in when digital SLRs of 5Mp became common. I think I waited five years and then another 2 before they became affordable: Must actually use it more, I'm hardly a prolific photographer

 

[John the Monkey]

JTM, that's really interesting. It shows a dedication which long since left me. I had a look through your film folder and it's quite interesting to see the different looks of the films.

Thanks Crackle - I'm not sure it's dedication as such, so much as not wanting to spend my processing time in front of the computer converting RAWs

It's got me thinking as has the flatbed scanner which could be a way for me to get my older neg strips in faster.

If I was buying again, I'd go for the 4490, I think - cost is between £120 and £150 (or was, last year) and it will do more frames in one go (and can handle medium format too).

You also mention tonal range of film, which is an excellent point. It is still geater than modern sensors.

Exposure latitude too - the black and white shots taken in the railway sheds here are all HP5+, shot at constant 1/125s, with the meter indicating anything between 1/2s and 1/250s for the exposure - all my shots were usable from this roll. I'm not sure how I'd have done this with digital (I don't have any stabilised lenses, couldn't have taken a tripod into the shed, and most of the shots were one offs, i.e. I couldn't have futzed with the exposure over several pics to get it right).

Last time I looked, the best sensors had a tonal range equivelant to slide but like anything in digital you can get around that by using two different exposures and blending them in photoshop.

I've seen this done - sometimes it's good, sometimes it looks a bit too "CGI" for me. this was processed from multiple conversions of the same RAW file - I don't think I've ever done it for colour though.

If you want to see full tonal range capture though, look at the work of Ansel Adams.

Something I've heard an awful lot - I hope to get the chance to see some prints one day.

I also used to subscribe to Photo Art International, now only available 2nd hand on e-bay. If you want to see dedication to the cause, get one.

Thanks for the tip - Black and White Photography Magazine is usually a good read too.

I decided to pitch in when digital SLRs of 5Mp became common. I think I waited five years and then another 2 before they became affordable: Must actually use it more, I'm hardly a prolific photographer

5-6mp seems to me to be a good size for the APS-C sensor - good size prints are possible, and the image is fairly sharp straight from the camera (provided a good lens is in use and it's properly focussed etc) and the RAW files aren't huge. I think digital is going to start to be interesting again (for me) once/if full frame sensors enter the "enthusiast" price bracket. I've seen the results from the Nikon and Canon full frame offerings (a pal of mine is a wedding photographer) and been very impressed.

 

[Crackle]

I've seen this done - sometimes it's good, sometimes it looks a bit too "CGI" for me. this was processed from multiple conversions of the same RAW file - I don't think I've ever done it for colour though.

A lot of digital stuff can be CGI but if done well looks good. I like Melvils stuff for instance (I hope he doesn't take that the wrong way I don't mean it's CGI Mel, merely that it's recognizably digital)

I'm more for the www.luminous-landscape.com approach.

5-6mp seems to me to be a good size for the APS-C sensor - good size prints are possible, and the image is fairly sharp straight from the camera (provided a good lens is in use and it's properly focussed etc) and the RAW files aren't huge. I think digital is going to start to be interesting again (for me) once/if full frame sensors enter the "enthusiast" price bracket. I've seen the results from the Nikon and Canon full frame offerings (a pal of mine is a wedding photographer) and been very impressed.

Yes, full sized sensors might make me change my camera but I'm not convinced they will be adopted on affordable consumer cameras. Manufacturers know the pro's will pay for them because of the wealth of kit they have invested in and the workflow they use but for me as an amateur, the benefits for the cost will be low.

Those HP5 shots are so recognizably HP5, excellent. Exposure latitude saved my bacon once when I rolled up to do a weding. My OM2 metering packed in, I knew it as soon as I lined up the first shot. I set it to manual on 1/125 at F5.6 outdoors and 1/125 at f2.8 indoors. Neg density varied greatly but I got usable shots out of every one. Once again you can achieve similiar with digital if you underexpose and use a technique called contrast masking. Overexpose and you've blown it, there'll be nothing there with digital.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Bought an F100 today. For £100, complete with manual and a 28 - 70 lens, I thought it was worth a go. So the D300 is on hold, and, based on having had a play with a friend's D300, I don't think it's worth getting rid of my D200 for.
It's nice to be using film again!

 

[CopperBrompton]

The F100 is a superb camera, absolutely lovely to use, and as a D200 user you'll find it very easy to switch back-and-forth between the two.

I'm another D200 user tempted by the D300, but also with half an eye on a D3. Huge price difference, but for wedding photography the ability to write to two CF cards simultaneously is a big draw ...

Ben