Shot some film for the first time in about a decade
Shot some film for the first time in about a decade
This is the first batch from a new old camera I got on ebay. Shot on cheap film and processed at Walgreens so I hope quality will be better next time.
Re: Shot some film for the first time in about a decade
Nice
Sleep is a waste of time,you can sleep when you are dead
Re: Shot some film for the first time in about a decade
Is film better than digital?
Or more appropriately to this case: Is film scanned to digital/processed to digital better than taken on a digital camera?
Or more appropriately to this case: Is film scanned to digital/processed to digital better than taken on a digital camera?
More online investigation than onsite exploration these days.
“My dear fellow, who will let you?”
“That’s not the point. The point is, who will stop me?”
-Ayn Rand
“My dear fellow, who will let you?”
“That’s not the point. The point is, who will stop me?”
-Ayn Rand
Re: Shot some film for the first time in about a decade
Not really sure if "better" is an adequate metric. Sub, what DPI did you scan those in with?
Preservation over plunder.
Re: Shot some film for the first time in about a decade
Sometimes, but generally these days the short answer is no.Nicotti wrote:Is film better than digital?
Or more appropriately to this case: Is film scanned to digital/processed to digital better than taken on a digital camera?
In this case, definitely not.
I just did this to try something "new". Granted, I've shot film before but it's been a long time and I didn't really care for the camera I had at the time. I did some research and found an old camera that had the capabilities I was looking for, in hopes of seeing how well I could replicate what I do digitally, but with film. I've gone as far as I can go digitally so I wanted to expand and find new challenges. And for this I wanted the whole film experience, too, so I bought a 40 year old camera. You can buy fancy film cameras that even take the same lenses as modern DSLR's but I wanted to shoot film through an old camera with old glass. And I have to say, I like the look of film. I will keep this in my arsenal. But 24 exposures goes really fast.
As far as quality of these shots-If I had my own darkroom and scanned the files myself, the quality would be much better. In this case, I shot on cheap film and had walgreens process it to digital. This was my first batch and was merely a trial run. But I will not have a darkroom any time soon so I will still have to resort to someone else processing them for me.
Re: Shot some film for the first time in about a decade
Walgreens scanned them and the person behind the counter didn't even what know the digital resolution would be. So needless to say I will find a reputable camera shop like Creve Coeur Camera or some place to develop and process them in the future.mindwaave wrote:Not really sure if "better" is an adequate metric. Sub, what DPI did you scan those in with?
Re: Shot some film for the first time in about a decade
To expand on this topic, film can capture an extremely high amount of detail so quality itself is definitely there. But there are other factors to consider.SubLunar wrote:I just did this to try something "new"....in hopes of seeing how well I could replicate what I do digitally, but with film. .Nicotti wrote:Is film better than digital?
If you use a newer film camera like the Canon EOS-1v, then you could go toe to toe with most digital cameras because the settings and whatnot will be nearly identical.
But if you take a 40 year old camera like what I got, you probably will not end up with the same quality as compared to digital. For starters, my camera is all manual. From focus to setting the exposure and aperture. My focus ring is wobbly and it's hard to tell when it's actually focused. I had some shots exposed properly, but the focus was off.. Also, the light meter in my camera is not exact and sometimes it tells me if I want to to expose at X setting then I need to have my aperture between 16 and 22.. but I don't have a setting between 16 and 22..
For me shooting film it's more just about the experience, broadening my skill set and finding new aesthetics to work with. And mainly I wanted to see how well what I do now holds up on an old camera, now that I know what the hell I'm doing and I won't be wasting film from having the camera set incorrectly.
Re: Shot some film for the first time in about a decade
You could wall of a portion of your man cave to use as a darkroom. In high school we basically had a closet that we used as a darkroom. There was a 1ft cube box covered in heavy black cloth that you would stick your hands into to transfer the film from the canister to the spool and then into the tank. Course that was B/W development. Here's a how-to that is basically what I did back then.
More online investigation than onsite exploration these days.
“My dear fellow, who will let you?”
“That’s not the point. The point is, who will stop me?”
-Ayn Rand
“My dear fellow, who will let you?”
“That’s not the point. The point is, who will stop me?”
-Ayn Rand
Re: Shot some film for the first time in about a decade
I've got a couple of old Pentaxes. I really enjoyed them when I used to use them.
“An all-out attack on evolutionist thinking is possibly the only real hope our nations have of rescuing themselves from an inevitable social and moral catastrophe.”
― Ken Ham
― Ken Ham
Re: Shot some film for the first time in about a decade
I took a film photography class some time around 2006 or so, that was the last time I shot film. It was black and white and I didn't like my camera very much, the settings of the AE-1 are dumbed down and stupid to work with. I actually explored a bit with it, too having shot Clemens and Cottonbelt as well as the old ammunition testing range. Still have all my negs from then.. maybe I should get those scanned.Nicotti wrote:You could wall of a portion of your man cave to use as a darkroom. In high school we basically had a closet that we used as a darkroom. There was a 1ft cube box covered in heavy black cloth that you would stick your hands into to transfer the film from the canister to the spool and then into the tank. Course that was B/W development. Here's a how-to that is basically what I did back then.
- crazydrummerdude
- Minute Man
- Posts: 5738
- Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 6:31 pm
- Location: St. Louis
Re: Shot some film for the first time in about a decade
Yeah right, this is all just an instagram filter.
-
- 0-99 Poster
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 5:13 am
- Location: St. Chuck County
Re: Shot some film for the first time in about a decade
Film will still do better than digital. Digital is catching up but it's not quite there unless you spend megabucks.
A 35mm neg is around 40 megapixels or so.
Shoot medium or large format film and you can do some huge prints without losing resolution. It's done digitally these days by extrapolating the pixel information and detail is lost.
people have been told digital is better because it's new technology. All the while the resolution was much much lower than film. In our business we fought it for years. Customers wanted digital because "it's better". We tried to show them why it wasn't but they "knew" better.
The main advantages of digital is it can be transmitted to printers anywhere you like and there is no chemistry involved. No pollution problems either.
been plying in the field of photography now for 32 years. I can still look at a photograph and pretty much tell which is film.
BTW, I find Fuji film has better color resolution than Kodak.
A 35mm neg is around 40 megapixels or so.
Shoot medium or large format film and you can do some huge prints without losing resolution. It's done digitally these days by extrapolating the pixel information and detail is lost.
people have been told digital is better because it's new technology. All the while the resolution was much much lower than film. In our business we fought it for years. Customers wanted digital because "it's better". We tried to show them why it wasn't but they "knew" better.
The main advantages of digital is it can be transmitted to printers anywhere you like and there is no chemistry involved. No pollution problems either.
been plying in the field of photography now for 32 years. I can still look at a photograph and pretty much tell which is film.
BTW, I find Fuji film has better color resolution than Kodak.
Beware the Black Widows...feared throughout the land!
Re: Shot some film for the first time in about a decade
Technically, yes film has been superior in terms of detail and whatnot. But the gap is closing; The new Canon EOS 5Ds is 50.6 megapixels for example.Meester Beeg wrote: A 35mm neg is around 40 megapixels or so.
With film there are so many variables, between films and processing techniques and camera usability (Not to mention reciprocity failure inherent to film). For a skilled photographer at the top of his game, film has been superior from a technical standpoint for all these years but we're finally reaching the point where we've got high megapixel cameras coming out. This is combined with the fact that digital cameras have all the other fancy features.
Film is really just a novelty now these days. I wasn't shooting film for quality comparisons otherwise I wouldn't have been using the cheapest film processed by the cheapest methods.. In this case I chose to go to film just as a novelty.
-
- 0-99 Poster
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 5:13 am
- Location: St. Chuck County
Re: Shot some film for the first time in about a decade
You must remember with film you have that resolution in Red, Green and Blue. Not so with digital, so true resolution is not as advertised. Digital resolution is only in one plane. Film is three.
Now if ya want to talk fancy digital, a friend used to be a SR-71 wrench. Those machines had some pretty good sensors.
Now if ya want to talk fancy digital, a friend used to be a SR-71 wrench. Those machines had some pretty good sensors.
Beware the Black Widows...feared throughout the land!