[Closed] Film Cameras! (deeply uncool old school camera content!)

I hope you can respect that.

I'm struggling so to do. Although I take no issue with your remarks, you saw fit to comment about my shots, yet will not reciprocate ? If you're not going to put up perhaps it would be better to keep such remarks to yourself too ?

I've never understood the 'manual mode' shtick. Can't we accept that the eyes are hopelessly logarithmic and useless at determining absolute levels and let the light meter do the job ?

I think the point is that the light meter won't do the job if you're shooting into the sun, for example - unless you want a silhouette.

Minimising post-processing is a reasonable aim, get it right the first time and that's more time you can spend playing with the decent photos.

Mind you, I'm a complete digital convert - and apart from the pain aspect mentioned earlier I really can't see any advantage in teaching film processing, other than as a historical curiosity. It seems to me to be no more useful than teaching double-declutching to a new driver...

SFB, whist I'd agree that you have a point, there, you are happy to make your work public on here. That is your choice. I acknowledge that it does seem unfair.

This forum is part of the public 'me'. It's about bikes and stuff. My photography is part of the private 'me'.

I am aware of the 'put your money where your mouth is' aspect of this, but frankly, am not bothered.

None of my comments regarding your work are intended as a criticism of you as a person. I think you are a very technically competent person, yet I haven't seen all of your work, only stuff you've posted on here, or posted links to. You might actually be a genius, for all I know.

And maybe I should keep my remarks to myself, you're right. I apologise to you, for any offence caused.

Simon, in the interests of fairness, I think it only right that you have the opportunity to look at some of my work, in order that you can cast your own judgement upon it. So, can I email you at the 'potty@...' addy in your profile?

So, can I email you at the 'potty@...' addy in your profile?

by all means 🙂 But as I said, I wasn't offended, you're entitled to your opinions, and I would never claim what I do is anything more than competent.

GrahamS , SFB

Yeah I guess you may be right in a sense that its the increased cost of failure makes the students pay more detailed attention to whats actually going on.

But there is also the whole problem of a digital camera with a million settings that gives them a sense that they need only find the right auto-setting for each shot to get a great result. Whilst film cameras can have the huge number of settings problem thats less common and a basic film SLR with aperture and shutter speed as the two variables makes the whole process a lot more focused. I admit I could get them to try this with a D-slr on manual mode but, somehow it never really sinks in that the aperture and shutter speed (and therefore exposure and depth of field) must be understood and mastered first - they seem to cling to the idea that they need to fiddle with one of the other settings to get it right!

Film itself has no specific magic quality - but film SLR cameras can strip the issue of the fog of "other things the camera will do" down to the basics of light and physics.

I guess the dark room also adds a hands on understanding of the process of creating an image - I can show them powerpoint slide after powerpoint slide about how the sensor/film works etc. but the kineasthetic nature of a darkroom really embeds the lesson in a way that no lecture ever will.

I guess I'm saying that its not about the film v digital but rather that it's easier to teach through film where its more hands on and more costly of time and resources to the student.

Hey I exclusively use digital now and like anyone I'm still learning so there is nothing wrong with learning via digital.

I admit I could get them to try this with a D-slr on manual mode but, somehow it never really sinks in that the aperture and shutter speed (and therefore exposure and depth of field) must be understood and mastered first

Interesting Badger, thanks. I think we've reached a sort-of agreement. (Blimey!)

5thElefant: Agreed that instant feedback is useful, but think how much faster you would learn if someone gave you a swift kick to the nads every time you got it wrong. You'd certainly pay more attention.

So in conclusion: using film is like someone repeatedly kicking you in the dangly bits... but in a good way. 😀

5thElefant: Agreed that instant feedback is useful, but think how much faster you would learn if someone gave you a swift kick to the nads every time you got it wrong. You'd certainly pay more attention.

I find it hard to accept on argument based on being able to practice less is a good thing.

I can see the appeal of film, but not as a learning aid.

don't hide your light under a bushel Rudeboy, share your oeuvre.
pictures are meant to be seen.

No.

I won't keep you long this time.
Digital good
Film good

If you have only tried digital try film as well, especially if there's anyway you can get access to a darkroom, not because it might make you a better photographer but because you might enjoy it and find it rewarding.

If you've only used film then get a digital camera because they are fantastic for getting instant results that you can share with millions of people in seconds.

5thElephant, your statement is absolutely right, but of course it's also much easier not to learn.The oppurtunity is greater but the incentive is less. If you really don't want to learn then that's fine but I think what the film fans are getting at is if you are intrested in photography then you may well enhance your enjoyment by exploring the wider field.

Simon, yes the viewer is only intrested in the end result, that's exactly what I was saying, but are you only a viewer of your own work, do you take no pleasure in the taking of the pictures. That was what my analogy about my commute was all about, the only other intrested parties were only concerned with the result but I was busy enjoying getting to that result.

Badger puts it well, it was easier for me to learn when I did because I had access to simple kit and was not confronted by complex menus and thousands of choices. That's why I would like to see a fuly manual digital SLR, I think that would be the best tool for learning on. And no Simon no one is advocating getting rid of light meters in the cameras although a simple centered weighted system with the option of spot metering would be nice.

What this market needs is a hybrid.

Sorry I've gone on and on again, I blame it on the fact that rather than a rant or argument this has somehow turned into an intresting and informed discussion, without insults.In fact I'm finding it harder and harder to identify whose in which camp.

What this market needs is a hybrid.

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Actually, there's a Hasselblad cam, that can use film and dijical backs. I'd love something like that, but in 35mm size. Like an FM2, for simplicirty, with an interchangeable back system, and maybe an F5 type thing for all the bells and whistles.

Never gonna happen, though. 🙁

nothing to add to the topic,
but here's photo of one my best images and the camera is below,
zero megapixels, with no lense
pinhole is how everyone should learn 😀
(oh yeah thats the gherkin in the middle)
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

5thElephant, your statement is absolutely right, but of course it's also much easier not to learn.The oppurtunity is greater but the incentive is less. If you really don't want to learn then that's fine but I think what the film fans are getting at is if you are intrested in photography then you may well enhance your enjoyment by exploring the wider field.

I have no argument for an interest in film. I'm all for it. I came from film but never learnt much until digital. I'm now tempted to have a play with film as I now know what I'm doing (compared to what I did).

Ah hang on, I think you got rhetorical half way through your response.

Yes, I agree, you can just stick it on a scene mode. I suspect my photos would be indistinguishable (or better) to the ones I take if I just selected a scene mode rather than work manually.

I'm not convinced by the "find the right setting" argument - are you guys teaching your students or not??? If you're running a class you should be telling them what to do, setting them exercises that help them learn how to manage the camera. There's nothing wrong with telling them to use the camera on its manual setting - some may try and cheat, of course, but if the exercises are good enough they won't get far...

just picked up a couple more!!

this one, its an earlier model than my EM and the lens is 100% manual 🙂

[IMG] [/IMG]

and this pretty little thing:

[IMG] [/IMG]

I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to lay my hands on film for the Art Deco Kodak (although it would be great if I could) but the Zenit-E is going to be put to work for sure!! 🙂

MrNutt throws more fuel on the fire!
5thElefant I'm sorry I don't think I worded that last contribution very well. I agree with you that digital as a technology allows you to learn much faster, I remember all to well doing a photography degree while trying to scrape enough money together to buy film and paper as well as food. My point was that the cameras that most beginners can afford can leave you feeling there is no need to learn. I suppose I should have said necessity rather than oppurtunity.
I too now only use digital, and won't be going back to film unless at some distant future I have the space for a darkroom and the time to use it.

Using real film is cool, all the way to the right on the cool wall, I hate them nasty digital **** things, auto flash tears my nipples off, red eye is almost bleeding constant - even with red eye reduction set on and tweety sounds for every function.... fits in the pocket nice tho'

neverfastenuff: sorry, but you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. 😀
"auto flash" and red eye reduction - yep film cameras have on-camera flash as well and it sucks just as much.
"tweety sounds" - the only sound my digital camera makes is the shutter action which is pretty much exactly the same mirror-up-shutter-mirror-down as a film camera.
"fits in the pocket" - err nope, not unless you have clown trousers. We're talking about SLRs here, not point-and-shoot compacts.

MrNutt
you can slim down a 120 roll film spool to fit your "six twenty" or re-spool it on to a 620 spool. I have the same camera and it produces great photos.

The Six-20 looks fun.

Although to be honest if I was looking at a film camera I'd go for a panoramic adapted SLR (vertical slit mask on the shutter, film rolls in time with the sweep of the arc of the tripod head - so you get one long 6cmx17cm shot - only about 8 shots per roll of film!), load it with fuji slide film (better colour saturation on images) and use it to take monsterously long colourful panoramics.

One of my favourite photographers is Michael Scott Lee (australian) who works in a similar way - stunning colours without any filters etc are his speciality. Got two pieces of his work on my wall at home as a wedding present from australian friends and they're beautiful shots.

[url= http://www.michaelscottlees.com.au ]www.michaelscottlees.com.au[/url] to check out his work.

120 to 620 link here how to do it:

[url= http://www.inficad.com/~gstewart/respool.htm ]120 to 620[/url]

Worth trying a few dry runs though first with a duff film though 😉

I might have some spare 620 spools in what was my darkroom, somewhere if you need some too.

the spare spools could come in handy! cheers ski, I'm looking forward to having a crack at this little beauty! 🙂

Well, that's all very interesting but will an FD lens fit my EOS 5? 🙂

Oh, and vinyl played through analogue equipment *does* sound better than digital formats.

EDIT: Ohx2: Michael Scott Lee's photographs are bllody stunning. Thanks for the link

Oh, and vinyl played through analogue equipment *does* sound better than digital formats.

because our ears prefer some distortion :o)

[i]because our ears prefer some distortion[/i]

For space rock and contemporary psychedelia our ears *demand* it 😀

for 620 film you only need the correct drive slot for the take up spool and dont forget to ask your film processsor to return your spool with your prints.
[IMG] [/IMG]
some of my film camera collection ,I have a few more dotted around the house(all used in the last 6 months).

Now if you'd have hung them all off a sign post that would have made my day!!

nice collection there Knottie 🙂

...what's that lovely looking silver one in the middle?

Agfa Isola 120 6x6 format.....my favorite is the OM10 on the right , I bought it back when I was 17 ! I have another ten or so lenses .

Why are all the photos of cameras in this post so bad?

Why are all the photos of cameras in this post so bad?

because they are taken in digital ! (mine by phone)

Why are all the photos of cameras in this post so bad?

Taken with dijical, innit??!!

(does little dance)

[img] [/img]

The victory of convenience over quality.

Taken with dijical, innit??!!

No, it just goes to show that the luddites can't use modern cameras.

I was using a 'modern' dijical cam last night, to teach with. I had to borrow one, as I'd forgotten mine. Bloody thing was a nightmare; all sorts of auto features, a million buttons, and things popping up on the screen, distracting me from actually taking the picture. I don't want 'face recognition', I know what a ****ing face looks like, ffs. Loads of completely useless features, designed to help someone with no skill at photography, take a 'better' picture.

At least, with film, I knew I'd 'taken' the picture, not the camera...

Oh and the manual for this particular cam: £15 extra.

Spend spend spend...

Rudeboy.......that's kinda the point with digital cameras though - particularly the compacts.

Who do the companies want to sell to? - the mass market. What do the mass market want? Cameras that take the thinking out of photography, cameras that offer more bang for their buck and if one manufactuer provides face recognition, they all do. If Sony stick a 48Mp sensor in their camera, then they all do even if it means sacrificing quality for noise. As I have said before in this thread, my lowly 4Mp Dimage Z3 takes much better pictures than many newer digital cameras (particularly Panasonic Lumix), as it controls noise fairly well and has image stabilisation. Try explaining that to someone who wants the cheapest camera with as many bells and whistles on.

You can't blame digital photography for that - blame the marketing boys at all the manufacturers.
If film had been able to provide all the bells, whistles, beeps and user-aids, it would have.

designed to help someone with no skill at photography, take a 'better' picture.

Well yes - that's rather the point of all these auto-modes and focussing aids.
Snappers want something they can just point-and-shoot to get a nice picture of Auntie Ethel.

As a Real Photographer™ you wouldn't use these modes. Fair enough.

Back in the day I had plenty of film compacts that had "Scene Modes" on them and the like, so I don't think you can pretend this is just a digital thing.

As I said earlier, if they were still making film compacts then you can bet your life they'd have face-recognition, smile detection and all that rubbish on them too.

[url= http://flickr.com/photos/ginja_andy/sets/72157612232150729/detail/ ]A few film pictures[/url]

I used the scene mode on this too. Great fun.

that Holga puts out some nice tones, I watched a programme last night with a fella trying to (and failing imho) to recreate some of the "greats" work, David Bailey was even on the show, it did seem that the images they were taking (both film and digi, side by side in a few cases) that the film pictures tended to capture the "life" of the scene where as the digi shots whilst very rich in detail seemed a little clinical and stark.

does that stand up do you think?

where as the digi shots whilst very rich in detail seemed a little clinical and stark

fatuous flannel :o)

Could I just point out that most of the "rubbish" on cameras has nothing to do with them being digital or film. You can build autofocus, exposure, scene modes, face recognition etc. into a film camera or a digital camera. Film versus digital isn't really an issue at all. Apart from burst shooting and changing ISO at any time most of the other developments would have happened on film cameras anyway and we'd still be bemoaning the loss of skills. We are now constantly bombarded by images so it should come as no surprise that so very few stand out. 99.99% look, after all like something else we've seen before.As for digital looking stark well go and look at an original Ansel Adams print and then look at a modern print from film. The difference is a hundred fold the difference between modern film and digital. The depth and quality from a plate camera when both film and paper contained vastly more silver than current film / paper is breathtaking.