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

can we start a new thread where those who like to take B&W pictures can discuss the hobby and another one for the digital picture takers

agree not to populate either thread with OT discussion on which format is better

and not to put OT posts in either thread?

or do we need to wait for SFB to go on holiday?

an we start a new thread where those who like to take B&W pictures can discuss the hobby

isn't that colour prejudice ? There are no rules saying one has to stick rigidly to the original topic and many highly entertaining threads become severely sidetracked...

one for the digital picture takers agree not to populate either thread with OT discussion on which format is better

good luck on getting this lot to agree on anything 🙂

I'll be plumping for a DSLR as soon as I think my ablities justify it.

Abilities not to fall of the bike and smash up something seriously expensive (One big advantage of film cameras 😉 ) I think my heart's set on a 550D if I can get a long term loan of some lenses.

Beauty exists in the world without any concept of composition

But composition attempts to understand what makes something beautiful, or interesting, or frightening etc.

Beauty would exist if we didn't have a term for "beautiful", but having that term doesn't make it any less beautiful, it just lets us talk about it.

And no it's not just my biased eye: honestly pick your favourite shots from your collection. The ones you are really proud of. Then have a think about what makes them better than the others. Subject is important obviously, but composition defines the subject and context.

Abilities not to fall of the bike and smash up something seriously expensive

it turns out my camera is considerably tougher than I am 🙂

Abilities not to fall of the bike and smash up something seriously expensive

You don't need abilities for that - just good insurance.

isn't that colour prejudice

no, we can have three threads if you want

There are no rules saying one has to stick rigidly to the original topic and many highly entertaining threads become severely sidetracked...

the original thread topic was interesting, the umpteen pages of dross on digital v film aren't

good luck on getting this lot to agree on anything

when do you go on holiday? it will improve my chances

Film will let you do some specific things on a budget (wide angles, shallow dof)

How does film help this? (serious question) I thought angle of view and DoF were about the lens?

Yes the intangible magic doesn't happen
possibly due to it being imaginary ?

Umm, it's art - it's all imaginary. That's kind of the point. That's what makes it good 🙂

But composition attempts to understand what makes something beautiful, or interesting, or frightening etc.

yes, fair enough, but the whole of my perception rebels against that idea. I don't [b]want[/b] to "understand" by rote, I want to intuit.

How does film help this? (serious question) I thought angle of view and DoF were about the lens?

depending on the system you use prime lens' are quite cheap (usually manual focus, Canon FD for example)

the umpteen pages of dross on digital v film aren't

to you perhaps :o)

when do you go on holiday?

never - I don't like holidays...

Umm, it's art - it's all imaginary. That's kind of the point. That's what makes it good

but I don't think you can plausibly argue that chemicals are artistic and electrons not, there are two tool technologies available, with differing characteristics, and either can be applied artistically.

I don't want to "understand" by rote, I want to intuit.

Most artists do mate. The 'guidelines' are just things other people have discovered. They are just something to bear in mind if you feel like it, not RULES.

Everyone seems to understand this apart from you 🙂

They are just something to bear in mind if you feel like it, not RULES.

to me they feel more like the dead hand of convention 🙁

Well fine, you can ignore them. Just stop going on about it. There's no secret police out to enforce the rules.

Well fine, you can ignore them. Just stop going on about it.

it was Graham insisting I was conforming to them 🙂

How does film help this? (serious question) I thought angle of view and DoF were about the lens?

And sensor/film size.

Most DSLRs use a sensor that is smaller than 35mm film, so they have a smaller field of view at the same focal length. Meaning 28mm is quite wide angle on 35mm film, but not nearly so wide on an APS-C sensor.

Of course that argument rather falls down if you consider full-frame 35mm digital sensors.

I see... obviously the same factors that make high levels of zoom easily achievable make very wide angles hard.

Never really found a need for wide angles.. something I need to investigate...

9-18mm equivalent to 18-36mm

[img] [/img]

obviously the same factors that make high levels of zoom easily achievable make very wide angles hard

not so, a "high level of zoom" is the ratio between shortest and longest focal lengths and not related to the format...

Is that what you thought I meant?

Or are you being a deliberate smartarse?

I meant a high level of image magnification.

I meant a high level of image magnification.

which would have been obvious had you used 'magnification' instead of 'zoom'

I thought it was obvious anyway especially given the context.

I see... obviously the same factors that make high levels of zoom easily achievable make very wide angles hard.

Yep, but the other point was [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field ]Depth of Field[/url], which is also influenced by field of view (which is influenced by the sensor/film size).

As I understand it, DOF is a product of the subject magnification and the aperture.
If you keep the aperture the same then moving closer to a subject or zooming in with a longer focal length means you get less DOF. Zooming out or moving further away gives greater DOF.

So... if you want to take a photo that is framed the same way on an APS-C sensor and on a 35mm film/sensor then you have two choices:

You can stay at the same distance to the subject and use a shorter focal length lens on the APS-C camera OR you can just move further away when you take the APS-C shot. Either way this means the APS-C shot will end up looking basically the same, but will have a greater DOF than the 35mm one.

That is also why compacts, which have even smaller sensors struggle to get a nice shallow Depth of Field, but conversely can do pretty well at macro-style close ups.

Ok.. sooo.. ideally larger apertures for digital cameras?

However they seem to be terribly expensive.

Well ideally everyone wants large aperture lenses because they allow faster shutter speeds, shooting in less light, and shallower depth of field.

Sadly they are also huge, heavy, and very expensive 🙂

Which I think was what oliverd1981 was getting at when he said:

Film will let you do some specific things on a budget (wide angles, shallow dof) that you need serious digital kit to achieve.

Obviously "full-frame" DSLRs do exist which don't have these drawbacks, but sadly they are still really expensive (Nikon D700 = £1700 body only!)

What I do think is interesting is that as new cameras have higher and higher usable ISOs, so there is less need for super fast lenses now as high ISO means you can still shoot high speed on smaller apertures.

We're already way ahead of film in that respect (e.g. ISO 102400!!) and we will start to see photos that were just not feasible on film (e.g. freeze frame action shots in the dark with no flash).

For my fully manual film SLR 50mm primes were cheap as chips with f1.4 or f1.8.

Why are the digital ones so much smaller apertures? I'm guessing AF and electronic gubbins take up all the room?

Using that lens, ISO 3200 film and a steady hand I could take pictures in bright moonlight. It was brill.

Why are the digital ones so much smaller apertures? I'm guessing AF and electronic gubbins take up all the room?

They're not. I'm using a 50mm f/1.8 prime on my DSLR and it cost about £60.

(In Nikon-land) you can use the exact same primes that film folk have been using for years, because the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F-mount ]basic lens mount[/url] hasn't changed since 19-umpteen.

[img] [/img]
1959

[img] [/img]
2010

So I'll just blame Olympus then 🙁

In all fairness, with their pancake lens at f2.8 I could probably get back those few stops and more by setting the camera to ISO 6400 and deploying the image stabiliser.

They're not. I'm using a 50mm f/1.8 prime on my DSLR and it cost about £60.

unless you are using a full frame digital it will be closer to 75mm IIRC

(In Nikon-land) you can use the exact same primes that film folk have been using for years, because the basic lens mount hasn't changed since 19-umpteen.

it's nice to know my manual focus prime lens' formy FT3 should work on digital then, shame I went the Sony/ minolta route 😳

unless you are using a full frame digital it will be closer to 75mm IIRC

Yep. The Field Of View is equivalent to a 75mm lens on a 35mm format camera.
I find it makes a pretty nice portrait lens (in my amateurish hands anyway).

If you were particularly fond of the 50mm field of view then there's also a 35mm f/1.8 prime that is pretty reasonably price (~£160).

Graham - for my camera or the Nikon?

I am somewhat annoyed that there aren't more cheap lenses for my camera, but really it's not that bad. The ones I want are all reasonably priced but mostly available new. The fact that I 'need' a dedicated macro lens is a bit annoying but again that's the same for all DSLRs.

There are advantages to four thirds though - this is fairly compact and yet gives zoom equivalent to 600mm. £300 is fairly reasonable for that 🙂

[img] [/img]

I thought it was obvious anyway especially given the context.

i understood perfectly. HTH.

I still don't know what he meant, or if whatever it was is true...

Graham - for my camera or the Nikon?

For Nikon. No idea what is out there for the four/thirds format.

Well ideally everyone wants large aperture lenses because they allow faster shutter speeds, shooting in less light, and shallower depth of field.

Sadly they are also huge, heavy, and very expensive

Which I think was what oliverd1981 was getting at when he said:

Film will let you do some specific things on a budget (wide angles, shallow dof) that you need serious digital kit to achieve.

Precisely, the classic riding shots are low shot, wide angle, with a shallow depth of field to blur the background. there are plenty of 24mm primes around to do this on film/full frame, and some quite versatile zooms too, but the 18mm lens you need to do this on a crop sensor will be way bigger/more expensive.

But then I have the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 and a D80.

Hardly "serious kit" but plenty wide and fast enough to get that type of shot.

[img] [/img]

Note: illustration of style rather than talent! 😳

Is that the latest niche? Huge bikes?

Yep, and invisible ones:
[img] [/img]

Did this thread go off topic or what?

Did this thread go off topic or what?

Hang on...

[img] [/img]

That any better? 😉

Precisely, the classic riding shots are low shot, wide angle, with a shallow depth of field to blur the background. there are plenty of 24mm primes around to do this on film/full frame, and some quite versatile zooms too, but the 18mm lens you need to do this on a crop sensor will be way bigger/more expensive.

you mean there's [b]one shot[/b] ?? So once that's been done we can all give up and take up knitting ?

bugbump

you mean there's one shot ?? So once that's been done we can all give up and take up knitting ?

[img] [/img] [img] [/img] [img] [/img] [img] [/img]

What is the cost for a B&W Darkroom set up with a medium format lens

Barnes. FFS!

He said 'the classic shot' meaning that it is a commonly taken shot. Look at magazines, he's right.

No normal person would take that sentence to mean that there is only one way to shoot bikes.

No normal person would take that sentence to mean that there is only one way to shoot bikes.

I was making fun of it 🙂

But it was perfectly reasonable.

But it was perfectly reasonable.

all the more reason 🙂

Can somebody ban Barnes please?

Can somebody ban Barnes please?

and what of freedom of speech ? To me the idea of a "classic" shot demanding a certain camera setup and positioning is an anathema, the opposite of invention and spontaneity

i.e. Simon doesn't have a wide angle lens - ergo wide angle shots are boring and just sticking to the rules. Only shots that can be taken on auto, in burst mode, without composition, on an 18-200 lens truly break the rules and have any artistic merit 🙄

Graham, nice shot!

To me the idea of a "classic" shot demanding a certain camera setup and positioning is an anathema, the opposite of invention and spontaneity

You are totally missing the point.

The existence of a 'classic' shot does NOT in any way constitute a demand for anything. Classic just means common and well known but still good. It does not mean something to aim for or something that should be valued above other things.

Graham, nice shot!

Not sure if you mean the photo, or the (cheap) shot at Simon. But I'll take either as a compliment - cheers! 🙂

I'm scared of this thread now.

you mean there's one shot ?? So once that's been done we can all give up and take up knitting ?

Well , once you have a shot that features you subject prominently, any undesirable backgrounds are blurred out and you don't have any gurning or suspect looking riding going on, you have your shot. And you can get on with riding.

You know what, I agree with Simon. Obviously he's enjoying making a snappy discussion out of it, but his basic point is true.

Just about all the talk of 'creativity' on this thread is about what gear and settings you need to recreate other people's 'creativity'.

An old camera might be fun, but IMO digital gives you much more chance to experiment since you can try all the angles and options without running out of film and you can review the effect immediately.

Just about all the talk of 'creativity' on this thread is about what gear and settings you need to recreate other people's 'creativity'.

Understanding some rules about composition is [u]not[/u] about copying other people, it is about trying to understand why a picture 'works'.

[img] [/img]
Strong diagonal, negative space, tension and converging sight lines. What unoriginal derivative nonsense eh? 🙄

Simon doesn't have a wide angle lens - ergo wide angle shots are boring and just sticking to the rules. Only shots that can be taken on auto, in burst mode, without composition, on an 18-200 lens truly break the rules and have any artistic merit

a weak rejoinder Graham, as I never said any of those things and have specifically disclaimed any artistic ability - it's the idea of following a prescription for a shot I object to!

Understanding some rules about composition is not about copying other people, it is about trying to understand why a picture 'works'.

that's fine if you want guidelines to follow, but I can't work that way

Strong diagonal, negative space, tension and converging sight lines. What unoriginal derivative nonsense eh?

first of all, you have no idea if Michaelangelo used any of those ideas as he painted, and his comformance, whether intentional or merely speculation may be incidental to the power of the work. I don't know what negative space or tension even mean.

As a new member of the forum, I've only just come across this thread (and many of it's laughable replies.)

I'm surprised nobody has started the argument about AF lenses making things too easy for shooting! 🙄

Seriously though, I picked up a Canon A1 a year or so back to have a play with film but have never gotten round to sorting out my own lab and can only find not-so-cheap labs to send away for developing - does anyone else use post labs?

The closest thing I have is Silver Efex plugin in Aperture, which isn't all that bad...

but IMO digital gives you much more chance to experiment since you can try all the angles and options without running out of film and you can review the effect immediately

Agreed.

you have your shot. And you can get on with riding.

some of us have more insatiable appetites :o)

that's fine if you want guidelines to follow, but I can't work that way

But you [i]"have specifically disclaimed any artistic ability"[/i] so perhaps at least considering why a composition works might go some way to improving your own.

As I said, I'm not very artistic. I've an engineer's mind and I just don't have a good compositional eye.

But instead of just shrugging and defensively claiming that anyone who takes good, interesting, compositionally strong pictures is somehow cheating, I am trying to improve my own pictures by doing some reading and trying to apply some ideas.

I'm currently reading:
[img] [/img]
[url= http://www.whsmith.co.uk/CatalogAndSearch/ProductDetails-The+Photographers+Eye+-9781905814046.html ]The Photographer's Eye by Michael Freeman[/url]

first of all, you have no idea if Michaelangelo used any of those ideas as he painted, and his comformance, whether intentional or merely speculation may be incidental to the power of the work.

Well I don't know much about Art history but as I understand it, a lot of the Renaissance art was about discovering these compositional techniques (golden ratios, linear perspective, light and shadow).

So I'm fairly sure Michaelangelo would be aware of them, whether it was through conscious discussion or just unconscious influence of the prevailing artistic styles.

I don't know what negative space or tension even mean.

Maybe you should find out before dismissing them?

Right - I'm going to wrest control of this thread away from SFB's smug, self-satisfied bullshit by spamming the thread with B&W photographs.

Any objections before I start?

No? OK here goes..

Apologies for the fact that all of these are digital images processed through Photoshop & Silver Efex Pro, but feel free to comment or make suggestions for improvement to composition, technique. I don't claim to be a great photographer but I am eager to improve.

[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4050/4521230199_626888f73b.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4050/4521230199_626888f73b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/4521230199/ ]Destitution Road[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr

[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4048/4528732491_eab9cb58dc.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4048/4528732491_eab9cb58dc.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/4528732491/ ]caig1[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr

Any objections before I start?

Please do!

Can you also tell us what camera/lens you took 'em on, aperture etc if you happen to know it?

[url= http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2727/4430203384_d8b8ee2de0.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2727/4430203384_d8b8ee2de0.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/4430203384/ ]72/365[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr

[url= http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3495/4561607740_56681072d0.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3495/4561607740_56681072d0.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/4561607740/ ]forgetmenots2[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr

Sexy! Quite dark, but I suspect that is as much due to this crappy work monitor as anything else.

Have you had any printed?

Graham,

All the EXIF data can be found by clicking on the photos. This will show the camera used in the top right and if you click on that, you'll see the stats.

Cameras are either a Ricoh GX100 or a Sony a300, with one or two being on a Panasonic bridge camera (can't remember model). Sony lenses are either a SAM 18-55 or a Sigma 50mm EX-DG macro for the closeups.

[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4071/4357302128_d820cf149f.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4071/4357302128_d820cf149f.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/4357302128/ ]The Buachaille[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr

I don't print many Graham which is down to laziness more than anything.

A lot of them have a dark, low-key feel which is something I've noticed when I see them together. I like black skies and white clouds (red filter effect).

[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4045/4356101177_256ef1dfa9.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4045/4356101177_256ef1dfa9.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/4356101177/ ]45/365[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr

[url= http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3266/2548789923_d69a9b6d47.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3266/2548789923_d69a9b6d47.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/2548789923/ ]Laggan 28[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr

Yay! Thread back on track.
[img] [/img]

Pentax ME Super, Ilford FP4 film

[url= http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2581/4255270354_df7ace3792.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2581/4255270354_df7ace3792.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/4255270354/ ]night_sky[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr

[url= http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3251/2454692369_78a55e2554.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3251/2454692369_78a55e2554.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/2454692369/ ]Big Sky Country 2[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr

[url= http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2150/2170205554_0f7c87ac12.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2150/2170205554_0f7c87ac12.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/2170205554/ ]Ireland 10[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr