[Closed] B&W photography on film, who else enjoys it?

now that you can get a paper from permajet that looks exactly like oriental seagul fb pearl with a bit of selenium tone there is no point in using film. i thought it was a real fiber based print when shown a b&w inkjet printed on it. (permajet fibre base gloss 295gsm)

Even better than taking Black and White pictures is printing them.

I haven't printed Black and White for years, but have been planning on looking out all my old gear some time and showing the kids.

I might look out my old camera and get some Black and white film. It would be a good thing to do with them. I might even process the films with them as well.

Good call.

I've no gear nor knowledge of the processing or printing at the moment. I'll need to get it done somewhere (or just develop the roll and scan the negative so I can print it off a PC which defeats the purpose I suppose).

It must be quite cheap to pick up second hand stuff now, as not many people will use it now.

It is really cool seeing an image appear in the tray under the red safe light.

It is really cool seeing an image appear in the tray under the red safe light.

It must be quite cheap to pick up second hand stuff now, as not many people will use it now.

7dayshop for film, normally got some reasonable. May well dig my om4 out!

bu55er black and white try redscale film. [url] http://soup.create52.com/technique/redscale/ [/url]

I like it. Got a Canon AV-1 I think. Aperture priority which is a bit annoying but it takes really nice photos with the Canon 50mm lens.

Just dug this baby out yesterday. Still in working order - time to get some B&W film...

[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4089/5106053912_72c313b098.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4089/5106053912_72c313b098.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/5106053912/ ]295/365[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr

I've always prefered mechanical things that go clunk and click over digital that go 'beep' even if results can be copied using new papers the process is lost. I've kept my Canon Eos 300v for when the mood takes me. Charity shops sometimes have a few nice film cameras going cheap, digital might clearly be the way forward but it's not as cool.

I took my OM2 with a muddafukka of a lens (3lbs for 70-300) out yesterday. Nobody complained about having to wait when I was trying to work it.
Digital - Smigital, very McDonald's-like.

I love b&w photos - get some up on here!

I have a Zenit E which I still use...

I've always prefered mechanical things that go clunk and click over digital that go 'beep'

Erm.. digital SLRs go "clunk and click". It is still a mechanical action to flip the mirror, set aperture and open the shutter.

My film gear hasn't moved out of the boxes since I bought my first digital camera years ago. There's one of those enlargers that packs away into a briefcase under my desk too. I'd have to agree the magic is in the printing. I'll probably do it one day for the kids as a demo now I have a nice cellar to play in, but it was always a faff setting up for an evening's printing when I used to do it. If there is a local evening class at an art college with a darkroom that might be a good way to bypass the faffage and still have a go.

If you enjoy B&W then do yourself a favour and try get some infra-red film and try that out - absolutely stunning. You'll need a bag to load the film into the camera and you'll need specialist developers and printers now but they will be so worth it. Even the simplest landscape becomes a thing of beauty especially if there's lots of cloud detail to be had. I ran a camera club many years ago and we had a guy do a talk who took nothing but these and developed and printed his own stuff and his prints were incredible. Just an old guy, basic camera and lots of skill.

P.S. Will my Ilford papers still be good to go after ten years?

I've taken it up from scratch a couple of years ago, it's an enjoyable but time consuming habit (which I'm still rubbish at)

film, self process use rollei retro 100 or 400s, get a film change bag, a film opener, a paterson tank and a few chemicals and and a thermometer and you are off

scan the negatives, I find the scanner harsh but good for neg selection

I'd get a cheap (they can't give away the cheaper durst's) enlarger, a few trays and the chemicals (and the other bits)

there's nothing like an evening with a good malt nice tunes locked away in the dark room

once the habit bites you can then get the good stuff (lietz focomat enlarger, nova deep tanks, RH metering) 😉

ignore the digital crowd, and enjoy the world of film

cameras:
slr: get prime lens'

get a small compact: olympus XA is great (don't get the 1 or 2) 3 is ok 4 is rocking horse poo

get a retro rangefinder: Yashica Electro 35 GTN recomended (make sure it has the battery conversion)

midlifecrashes, they should be fine.

Graham no no no the film being loaded goes clunk click, there's a whole romance, enjoyment and level of expertise in picking film, loading it and developing it yourself. I'm not saying DSLR is in any way lesser, it's just a different process. Slipping your memory card into a PC and switching a printer on will never replace the DIY darkroom
for enthusiasts. Horses for courses.

Taken in Courchevel this summer.
[IMG] [/IMG]

Some really tired bikers in same place.
[IMG] [/IMG]

This was taken by a friend nr Goatland I think, easy to see difference.
[IMG] [/IMG]

Nikon FM and 24mm f2.8 Nikkor. Small, fully manual and a lovely feel when winding the FP4... I used to run several films per wedding for friends as a present and was never dissappointed. Processing is normally by Ilford on pearl paper. A manual camera will teach you all you need to know about photography and put you in good stead for digital.

Recently did a days workshop with this guy:

http://www.tillmancrane.com/index.php

Brings B&W film to a whole new level, worth the effort you put into the experience - large format though, different league altogether.

Nothing more pleasing than whatching the image appear in front of your eyes.
Its what Photography is all about

I have an enlarger and various bits of film processing and print developing kit which I don't use any more. Every thing you need for B&W and most of what you need for colour.
If anyone is interested email me - Yorkshire based 'cos posting it would be a git.

For me it isn't the final effect, the sharpness of the print. It's the process of aiming, thinking, checking, winding the camera up, clunk! and then waiting for the roll to come back from the developers.
Oh, and all those discussions in the local photo shop about the benefits of Ilford over Konica, grain or not etc.

I love B&W. Wish I hadn't sold my enlrger and kit, I just can't get results I'm happy with in digital. EFKE 50 or 25 developed in ID11 was my favourite combo or Tri-X when a faster speed is required. Magic.

I do it:
[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4074/4923722962_a57c25a885.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4074/4923722962_a57c25a885.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/patrick_tully/4923722962/ ]Stockwell Skatepark[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/patrick_tully/ ]tr!ckster[/url], on Flickr

Taken with an olympus XA-1 compact rangefinder. I used to develop myself in a local community darkroom, but haven't really got the time at the moment so I normally send them off. Used to send to Spectrum Imaging in Newcastle, but they've stopped doing it now so looking for somewhere new.

I do it as well as lots of DSLR'in. From this years Tour.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Do all my own developing in my newly built darkroom!!! Moohaha!

Anyone want a Lines and Jones 5x4 enlarger (cold cathode), think I still have all the plates from 35mm up to 5x4.

A classic enlarger, needs punchy negs, but produces wonderful rich results with fibre based papers & no bigger than your normal 6x6 enlarger.

Used to work as a B&W hand printer many years ago when my eyes were good! Managed to sort out a great home darkroom, but sadly, now don't have the time or eyesight anymore 😉

Some great photographs up there btw ^^^

This was taken by a friend nr Goatland I think, easy to see difference.

That is a fantasic picture. I love it. Please pass my thanks on to your mate! 🙂

As I lent my 5D to our friend doing the wedding togging, and of course couldn't resist having a camera in my hands at some point in the proceedings, I picked up some Ilford 3200 ISO, my old EOS300, and the nifty fifty, I put three rolls through it during the reception.

As I'd told the real tog to put his camera down and have a drink by then, I reckon these grainy shots portray the boozing into the morning quite well.

[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/5014005793_af633ae59a.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/5014005793_af633ae59a.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_farrell/5014005793/ ]CNV00012[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/mark_farrell/ ]Mark-Farrell[/url], on Flickr

[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4151/5014916051_5e4434bea3.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4151/5014916051_5e4434bea3.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_farrell/5014916051/ ]CNV00008-3[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/mark_farrell/ ]Mark-Farrell[/url], on Flickr

By contrast, shots earlier in the evening (and therefore infinitely better technically)on the 5D and converted just look too clean and a little lifeless by comparison:

[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4132/5015178254_c0560e6f2f.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4132/5015178254_c0560e6f2f.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_farrell/5015178254/ ]FARREL2010_274[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/mark_farrell/ ]Mark-Farrell[/url], on Flickr

[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4085/5013997043_2422d65738.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4085/5013997043_2422d65738.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_farrell/5013997043/ ]041[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/mark_farrell/ ]Mark-Farrell[/url], on Flickr

As I'm now in Australia where there's considerably more light than a marquee at 3am, I've got some XP50 in it for some smooth silky landscapes (hopefully)

Nothing more pleasing than whatching the image appear in front of your eyes.
Its what Photography is all about

yes, and it takes 200mS on my DSLR 🙂 There's a diference between photography and alchemical fetishism 🙂

big_n_daft

get a small compact: olympus XA is great (don't get the 1 or 2) 3 is ok 4 is rocking horse poo

Not sure I agree with that. The original XA is the only true rangefinder, XA1 is a fixed focus, XA2 is scale focus, XA3 is an XA2 with DX capabilities so it sets your film speed automatically and XA4 is the same with a wider angle lens.

just realised, i got the designation wrong in my photo above, that was taken with an original XA.

yes, and it takes 200mS on my DSLR There's a diference between photography and alchemical fetishism

Oh bugger off Barnes and go and troll on a thread about bottoms and zoom lenses.

Really, no need at all. We all know you think the camera is a flawed instrument, and your eyes have a depth of field not even a pinhole camera could. (Ironic that, given your love for modern gear that the thing closest to achieving your wish for unlimited DoF would be the oldest camera of all).

That photography thread the other day was going fine until you stepped in, then it just got ridiculous. Thankfully, by just filtering out your posts it still made sense. Now run along and start a thread about f/22 bottoms...

I found my old film camera and loaded up a couple of B&W films for fun, that was until I paid for processing, but now you've got me thinking about buying a darkroom. THANKS!

That photography thread the other day was going fine until you stepped in, then it just got ridiculous.

whereas this one just started ridiculous ?
I too love the nostalia of monochrome wet processing, but that's as far as it gets with me, fond memories of obsolete technology.

whereas this one just started ridiculous ?

So why get involved? Ah yes, that's why, [s]to post your second, much more useful comment instead[/s] to go "look at me, look at me, I've got a D300 with an amazing lens for mediocre pictures of arses".

now that you can get a paper from permajet that looks exactly like oriental seagul fb pearl with a bit of selenium tone there is no point in using film.

Now that you can get bicycles with engines, there's no point in using a pedal cycle...

Oh how I used to love messing about in the darkroom at college (now and then I'd get some photographic processing done too!).

Digital is different, but no more exciting. Just a different process. I think it's fun to see [b]photography[/b] working, though, in a darkroom. I do enjoy using Photoshop to create effects not possible in a darkroom though. It's all fun.

I reckon these [b]grainy[/b] shots portray the boozing into the morning quite well.

Grain. Mmmm..... HP5 pushed to 1600.... (Sighs wistfully)

By contrast, shots earlier in the evening (and therefore infinitely better technically)on the 5D and converted just look too clean and a little lifeless by comparison

Digital technology has improved to the degree that 'noise' is now a rapidly disappearing thing of the past. But [b]grain[/b] is the actual crystals in the film, which show up in the print. A reassuringly [i]physical[/i] thing. I miss that. 🙁

There's a diference between photography and alchemical fetishism

For you, maybe. Not for me. And not for others either, it seems. Back in yer box, Barnes...

Christ, the world will end - Me and Fred agree!

Now quickly post something Laandan-centric then we can go back to our old ways 😉

So why get involved?

I like photography, do I need more reasons ? I just thought it was funny that someone should mention the way and image appears in a dish as somehow more magical than it appearing on a screen 🙂 If you care more about how the image was created than its content then I call it fetishism.

I like [s]photography[/s] taking mediocre pictures of bottoms

Fixed it for you 😉

Real photographers tend to use limited DoF to take much better pictures of bottoms, just they're not that suitable to post here...

Christ, the world will end - Me and Fred agree!

😆

Now quickly post something Laandan-centric then we can go back to our old ways

Erm, hold on...

Oh yeah: London is the best place if you want to learn about photography. More galleries, exhibitions, courses, etc.

That ok? 😉

pjt201, the A11 flashes also let the XA series down, because of common faults with that flash. Nice quality lens though on the XA.

Zokes - that 3rd photograph is fantastic, love the llttle one sucking her thumb 😉