[Closed] Wanting To Go Back To Film Cameras

Hell no.

I want to capture images. The easier I can make that the better, the more I can concentrate on trying to be an artist. I have no interest in being a technician 🙂

LOL Molgrips if you want to be an Artist then you need to be creative
and thats what film cameras is all about 😉

Why?

Why are film cameras more creative than digital ones?

I bought a film camera as I enjoyed "the process"... It was fun to go back to the "way things were" also It means I take more thought out shots rather than just taking loads

molgrips - Member
Why?

Why are film cameras more creative than digital ones?

Photography is all about light which makes the image
and all thats done for you in digital and you don't make the
mistakes that make you a better photographer with Digital
also another you will learn is exposure etc all this is taken away in Digital.

I've done the being stuck in a darkroom, piddling around with stinky chemicals, trying to get the best print from a 35mm negative, two or three hours to get maybe half a dozen reasonable images, quite apart from all the phaff of getting the film into a developing tank and then fixing it. I'm interested in taking photographs and seeing the finished image; if I want to do any image manipulation, spending further hours dodging and burning a print, only to find the finished print hasn't worked is just wasted, when I can do it non-destructively to a digital image.
And that's just B&W, colour was completely out of the question, unless I processed Ektachrome or Agfachrome trannies, which then need a viewer.
Unless you scan them, in which case, you might as well shoot digital.
Then there's all the cost implications of buying film and chemicals and paper.
Digital allows me the freedom to shoot hundreds of photos, and dump lots of duff ones to get a few good ones, without worrying about costs.

LOL Molgrips if you want to be an Artist then you need to be creative
and thats what film cameras is all about

What a load of twaddle. Film is just another way of making images.

Anyone else gone back to using film ?

no. Been there, done that. It's a faff that I have no real desire to revisit (done the whole 10x8, 5x4, hand dev and print, compensating developers, cold cathode, fibre base, split, selenenium as well as c41/e-6)

also another you will learn is exposure etc all this is taken away in Digital

That really is complete rubbish.

Yes, my digital camera has automatic exposure, but so has every film SLR from the last 30 years.

In reality, taking pictures is very very similar in both film and digital. The main difference starts once you get back home and start 'developing'. Oh and the fact you have virtually unlimited 'film'.

Most keen photographers have done film, it wasn't that long ago - so we are well familiar with both!

Photography is all about light which makes the image
and all thats done for you in digital and you don't make the
mistakes that make you a better photographer with Digital
also another you will learn is exposure etc all this is taken away in Digital.

Film is way too modern - you should be using glass plates, with the emulsion poured over yourself. If you haven't done your own emulsion, you're not a real photographer.

Alternatively, it's the image that matters - how you get there is irrelevant.

as everyone else said - been there, done that. Have spent days in the darkroom messing about with enlargers and trays of stinky chemicals - and loved every minute of it, however times have changed, and like everyone else, I'm only really interested in getting to the end result as quickly/cheaply/cleanly as possible.

I shed a tear when I sold my old medium format kit a couple of years back, but it was never going to get used again.
The Nikon FG kit will be next to go on ebay. ;o(

As for making mistakes - the mechanics of capturing light on film or a sensor are pretty simple really.

I'm more worried about making the mistake of taking a cliched shot that I've seen a million times before. I try to capture interesting and striking images (got about 3 so far 🙂 ). Film or digital makes absolutely no difference in what I do, but one is massively less convenient and a lot more expensive.

I bought a digital camera in 2001 and kept my film for best as it was better quality - the digital cam was 2.1 megapixels. I never used the film cam again until I broke the digital one. I took it on a road trip round the SW USA. Gobsmacking scenery, and when I got home I developed a load of gobsmacking images mostly slightly out of focus. Some kind of issue with my lens apparently. It's not like I could go back, so from an amazing trip I had about 2 photos that were good if you didn't look too closely.

Yeah, those were the days 🙄

I have 0 photos taken from film on my walls, mainly due to the faff of getting enlargements and whatnot. I have several from my 2.1mp cam and many from my 8mp cam.

Yup, you can make loads more mistakes quickly and cheaply with digital 😉

Alternatively, it's the image that matters - how you get there is irrelevant.

in digital[...] you don't make the
mistakes that make you a better photographer with Digital

I think the best way of becoming a photographer (light painter/capturer of images) is to take loads and loads and loads of photos.

The more you take the more you learn, the more time you've spent poring over 10, 20, 50 similar images of the same subject, the more you learn about how lighting, perspective, focus, depth of field etc. affect the shot and how you can manipulate these better to create the effect you're after.

Digital lets you do that much more easily and much more cheaply than with film. And more reliably, now there are fewer and fewer film labs with decent processing around.

bencooper said it quicker and better.

Like the others, I couldn't be chewed dealing with film full time. When I had a film camera I would never get round to getting stuff processed. But I still love the organic imperfection of film shots and I like the idea that it encourages you to think about the shot, given that each one is costing you money.

Film and digital can be creative in different ways and can equally be creative in exactly the same way. It all comes down to what you make of it yourself. Digital is just more convenient on so many levels. But that only makes it better if you value that convenience.

I like the idea that it encourages you to think about the shot

The whole reason I bought a DSLR was to think about the shot.

Don't compare happy careless digital snapping with actual photography. If you are a thoughtful photographer it won't matter what format you are using.

Digital does sometimes encourage "spray and pray" - the technique of holding down the shutter on rapid fire, and hoping you get something decent.

And often you do get something decent. But you rarely get something good.

Hey it's not about the light or any of that bollix, it's about the kit innit! Lovely C33, I've got a lovely C3.and a big collection of Rolleiflex.

I think the best way of becoming a photographer (light painter/capturer of images) is to take loads and loads and loads of photos.

That achieves nothing apart from loads of pics if you can't edit or understand what makes a successful* photograph.
I know plenty of photographers who shoot many thousands of mediocre images a year and no 'keepers' that learn nothing through that process.

*successful as in achieving the kind of image you wish to create

I have a halina 35x which I use to mess about with. I'm no photographer, but it entertains me, means I take more photos and the odd one turns out looking quite good, so it suits me.

I miss film, the slower pace of it, making mistakes during developing and finding that rescuing images sometimes gave the most striking shots, but they pulled down the lab at the local college and doing it at home is too much of a faff. Got the kit in the attic though for when the kids are older and I have more time.

One thing I'm starting to think is that modern kit is so good that it's the deliberately imperfect shots either in composition, timing, light, processing or clarity that often capture the attention and hold it longest. Of course that may always have been true.

Digital does sometimes encourage "spray and pray" - the technique of holding down the shutter on rapid fire, and hoping you get something decent

Ok but surely the person who sprays and prays is not likely to suddenly become a careful artist if you put a film camera in their hand, are they?

Likewise, someone who would think carefully about their photography with film isn't suddenly going to stop caring and become a chimp as soon as you put a digicam in their hand.

Different groups of people.

Have 8 film bodies sat upstairs gathering dust.
They don't produce any better images than my DSLR, they cost more to use and I can't preview the results.

Have a Pentax Spotmatic that is a beautiful thing to use, but I neve do. Nice ornament, that's about it.

I've got rid of my enlarger and all my dark room equiptment - it turned out to be worthless, so I gave it away.

I like vinyl records as I prefer the sound they make.
Can't see a similar payoff with film anymore.

Photography (and all visual art for that matter) is about the idea and getting that into visual form. How you get there REALLY doesn't matter.

If you really want to get the feeling you got from film then develop the self discipline to shoot as sparingly with digital as you would with film and limit your post-processing to what you could achieve in the darkroom. Saves all the hassle and mess, and I say that as someone who used to love getting the chemicals out (and teaching others how to do it to).

Personally, I only get halfway there. I avoid using any continuous shooting modes on my cameras and try to limit myself to only a few shots of a given subject (even just one if I'm feeling properly serious about it). I do like the processing freedom digital gives me though - I trained as a painter and love the fact I can now easily explore the same visual ideas I used to in painting using photographs and a laptop.

If you are thinking of a C33 double check the slow shutter speeds on the lens and check for fungi damage those lens are getting on a bit now, even the latter 330s are hard to find with clean usable optics.

The worst thing you can do with old mechanical shutters is leave them on a shelf and not use them 😉

(edit) I might have my old para finder adjuster still for those cameras in my attic somewhere, let me know if it might be of interest ?

Show off. 8)

Just use Instagram on iPhone.

Ok but surely the person who sprays and prays is not likely to suddenly become a careful artist if you put a film camera in their hand, are they?

No, but they'll quickly run out of money, and then go find a hobby more suited to their personality 😉

That achieves nothing apart from loads of pics if you can't edit or understand what makes a successful* photograph.

Fair enough. Perhaps I should have added, "and then spend a good deal of time analysing why one photo is better than the ten or twenty similar ones you took, and using that resulting knowledge to improve your eye and technique next time you're out with the camera"

Thought I'd done that with my following paragraphs. Perhaps I could have been clearer, perhaps you got a bit selective-quotey-internet-argumenty on my ass. I think we're on the same page though.

As various people have said, irrespective of what I'm taking a photo of, and taking it with, I'll take care about framing and composition, and exposure when I can, as I'm usually using my Lumix TZ30 or my iPhone. If I can't 'see' the picture in the screen, that I think will make a worthwhile photo, then I won't bother taking it. It's a bit different at gigs, where I'll shoot lots of photos, but without using 'burst' mode, because people and lighting are changing and moving all the time.
Not every photo is perfect, but close enough to keep me happy; I'm not making a living from my photos.
I do virtually zero post-processing, as well, as I'm fundamentally a lazy bastard, and if a pic looks pretty much how I wanted it to look, then that's fine.
I might square up a photo, or improve contrast, but that's about it.
This one is far from perfect, but I really like the moment that was captured, and the lighting in the Thekla is pretty iffy.

[IMG] [/IMG]

Could I have taken it on film? Quite probably, but I would also have gone through three or four 36-shot films, with no idea what I'd got until I'd handed over a significant amount of money; those pics I was able to see as soon as I got home and copied them onto my iPad from the camera card, then I could just delete the really crappy ones, with no worries about cost. I actually stopped taking photos for the best part of a decade, because of the prohibitive cost of processing and printing. Digital has totally rekindled my love of photography, and now I always have a camera of some sort with me.
And this is a good example of the best camera is the one you have with you. I'd gone out for a bit of a drive around, and spotted some paragliders in the distance when I was at Barbury Castle. Checking the map on my phone, I drove over to where the were flying from, which was fairly late in the afternoon.
The only camera I has was my iPhone 4, so I took what I could with that. I was pretty chuffed with the results, as I was guessing them, having contacts in, and no reading glasses!

[IMG] [/IMG]
[IMG] [/IMG]
[IMG] [/IMG]

Done. To. Death. But I still feel the need to comment :-). When I did my degree it was fully analogue. Since then, I've been fully digital for paid work but still shoot B+W film regularly. Would never go back to the larger formats though - 35mm is fine.

Since my STW sub ran out, my bathroom reading has been, 'The birth of photography' and it's given me the urge to try a spot of tinplate process.

Might also set up a darkroom in the studio this year - would love to shoot a full wedding on B+W film and produce an album full of fibre based prints. Must be a market for it...

Maybe not the best qualified to comment, as I've never had a proper film camera (1990's compact with processing at Boots obviously discounted).

However, I have some images that I cherish that I know wouldn't have been captured had I been using film. That's argument enough for me in favour of digital.

Wow mix bag of views

freeagent - Member
as everyone else said - been there, done that. Have spent days in the darkroom messing about with enlargers and trays of stinky chemicals - and loved every minute of it, however times have changed, and like everyone else, I'm only really interested in getting to the end result as quickly/cheaply/cleanly as possible.

But I don't care about anyone else thinks or feels.
Cost is irrelevant for one, and was asking if anyone else had or using film cameras
and yep had me own Darkroom etc.
And yes I do have a digital cameras

But interesting feed back

Whilst there were obviously some art photographers who took pictures on film by painstakingly setting everything up and taking a single perfect shot, I bet that ninety percent of the professionally shot pictures of the film era were done with a scatter gun approach, taking a few rolls of film to get the perfect image. I @ean look at old sports slrs with their motor winders and gubbins. Digital just means that everyone can use the approach that realistically was used for pretty much any action photography in the past (and probaply for most other professional shots too for that matter).

Of course if you want fast lenses /shallow depth of field / full frame you can get a lot more bang for your buck with a 35mm camera... A proper 35mm camera is lots more fun than a lomo.

I'm in the been in a dark room and produced recognisable pictures. But I can do so much more in digital, so much better

Thinking about the people who's stuff i enjoy looking at on Flickr I'd say using a tripod is a common feature. Its a common antidote to the sraying photos approach. Combined with a neutral density filter for a really long exposures and a plate field camera looks quick and easy.

Another tip that I was given was not aim for alot of output

1 a month is good going for a landscape photographer

This cobined with the advice that its better get one good shot than many poor has helped alot. Especially with patience in post processing

Inspitation. To me at least

http://www.flickr.com/photos/leechypics/page1/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ianbramham/

PS if film works for you, go for it

I see an analogue with singlespeeding.

Just enjoy what you do, whatever it is and however you do it. Lovely looking camera though - tools "like" to be used IMO.

Photography is great. Although I agree it is artful, personally I think photography is documentary (recording) rather than artistic (creation). Painting is art.

[runs and hides]

its better get one good shot than many poor

Obviously, but it is better to take loads of poor pictures and learn from them quickly than take only a few poor pictures and learn slowly 🙂

I see an analogue with singlespeeding.

I don't do that either 🙂

its better get one good shot than many poor

Obviously, but it is better to take loads of poor pictures and learn from them quickly than take only a few poor pictures and learn slowly

I feel a bit quoted out of context here. Or maybe I didn't explain myself. I don't think I'm saying so much don't press the shutter to often. I'm saying its better to get a few good shots out of the trip, rather than lots of mediocre ones

So may be take lots of variations on a theme with the intention of coming away one good one. Its quite a subtle thing. But when I see 15 shots of aunt mildred on flickr, all basically the same then thats not what i mean. For sure take 15. Post process the best coupple with a few variations on each. Then post or print the best one.

I'm saying its better to get a few good shots out of the trip, rather than lots of mediocre ones

Depends on your aim, doens't it? If it's documentary, then loads is better. If it's art, then yes quality is much more important than quantity.

But you can have both can't you? I take documentary shots of our trips and my kids growing up etc, and I also have my eye out for something artistic.

But when I see 15 shots of aunt mildred on flickr, all basically the same

That doesn't really need to be said to anyone with half a brain, does it? 🙂

I prefer film, dispite working for a digital company.

I like the wait to see what worked, I like the fact Ive only got 36 chances, I prefer the look of slides.

I prefer the fact its harder.

(Nikon F100)

I've been playing with an old Lubitel TLR recently. Making want to buy a Yashica 120

That doesn't really need to be said to anyone with half a brain, does it?

Well you wonder some times.

And yes of course its a mixture of both for me as well. Recording holidays and family and trying for a few wow shots

I don't think there is much disagrement here.

ampthill - Member
its better get one good shot than many poor
Obviously, but it is better to take loads of poor pictures and learn from them quickly than take only a few poor pictures and learn slowly
I feel a bit quoted out of context here. Or maybe I didn't explain myself. I don't think I'm saying so much don't press the shutter to often. I'm saying its better to get a few good shots out of the trip, rather than lots of mediocre ones

So may be take lots of variations on a theme with the intention of coming away one good one. Its quite a subtle thing. But when I see 15 shots of aunt mildred on flickr, all basically the same then thats not what i mean. For sure take 15. Post process the best coupple with a few variations on each. Then post or print the best one.

I understood you completely 😉

Great pics

I prefer the fact its harder

Taking genuinely artistic, creative, beautiful and striking pictures is plenty hard enough for me without having to fanny about in a darkroom afterwards 🙂

Everyone's taking photo's.

For real skill and creativity take up painting.

Trimix - Member

I prefer film, dispite working for a digital company.

I like the wait to see what worked, I like the fact Ive only got 36 chances, I prefer the look of slides.

I prefer the fact its harder.

(Nikon F100)

I can see your point and admire your dedication, but no one admires Turner or Monet for their ability to mix paint or prep a board.

35mm yeah the argument against digital has been done to death.

But medium & large format still have a very valid place in current (and TBH for the foreseeable future) photo world.

I have a few different 120 formats (645RF, 645SLR, 66TLR, 66SLR and a monster 69RF) and a few large formats (4x5 & a half plate SLR from the 50s), and yeah don't shoot that much, but I enjoy spending the time to do it right.

The MAIN benefit of not shooting 5000 18mb RAW files per day is when you get home you just have ONE roll of 8/10/12/15 very good shots (though you miss a few opportunities obviously) that are all a joy to print and the results are always amazeballs.

Cheapest way to do it? Buy/find/borrow a set of dev tanks, buy film in bulk or on offer from where ever you can find it (£2-3.50 a roll for soemthing good, though I freaking love Ilford Delta 100 @ £4 a roll).
I dev for about 10 pence a roll, then get my mate to scan 120 @ £2 a roll, giving approx 36mb tiff files for the 69's and about 15mb for 645
Or you could buy a scanner, Epson V500/600 at about £150 are very good.

For real skill and creativity take up painting.

Hah.. there are still loads of wannabe artists knocking out the same watercolours as everyone else. True artistry is self evident, regardless of the medium.

when you get home you just have ONE roll of 8/10/12/15 very good shots

Why can't you just take 8 shots with digital? You can apply the same thought process can't you? If you really don't have any self control then take a really small memory card.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Just found them via google images as I couldn't remember where they were. But anyway, they were taken on a 50s Ensign 820 Special, 105mm Ross lens, pretty wide apeture hence the vig, then a quick scan on a V500. Even 60 year old middle/upper quality 6x9 still produces good images, obviously a more modern rig with a high end lens is going to do better.

Also digital 'people' bore the crap out of me. Used to roll round with various high end canons & L glass, but MOST of the time your near other camera people all you end up talking about is the latest IS 400/2.8 lens, or how Nikons aren't quite as good, blah blah blah go away don't care, let me sniff my freshly unwrapped Kodak Portra 160NC

Why can't you just take 8 shots with digital? You can apply the same thought process can't you? If you really don't have any self control then take a really small memory card.

Same argument applies to SS. 5 years ago when someone mentioned 'SS' on any kind of forum (or in public) they would be hammered into the ground with the response 'why don't you just keep it in one gear then'.

It is the same, but it is also not the same 😉

I have a few different 120 formats (645RF, 645SLR, 66TLR, 66SLR and a monster 69RF) and a few large formats (4x5 & a half plate SLR from the 50s), and yeah don't shoot that much, but I enjoy spending the time to do it right.

I have a hassleblad, linhof 5x4 and Arca10x8 in storage, I enjoy spending the time I have saved using digital cameras to do things like cycling, drinking real ale or watching 'art movies'

As an amateur snapper I prefer the feel of 35mm equipment, the sound of titanium shutter blades snapping open beats the lifeless bleep of my didgy compact.

Ive got a Canon T90, I love the fact that such a complex machine was even possible back then.

Money is another factor, even at collectors prices you can pickup a decent Bronica or Mamiya 120 system for less than a mediocre crop sensor SLR with a plastic kit lens. AND be safe in the knowledge it will only ever appreciate in value 😛

MOST of the time your near other camera people all you end up talking about is the latest IS 400/2.8 lens, or how Nikons aren't quite as good, blah blah blah go away don't care

Just use an Olympus, or don't talk to them 🙂

Same argument applies to SS. 5 years ago when someone mentioned 'SS' on any kind of forum (or in public) they would be hammered into the ground with the response 'why don't you just keep it in one gear then'

Yep, I've said that plenty of times 🙂 And in my garage are full sus geared bikes, each one for a different style of riding.

Riding is about trails, photography is about images. Honestly who gives a **** about gear? Gear ONLY exists to help you DO stuff. It is a means to and end.

Otherwise you might as well be ****ing yourself stupid over watches or pens.

the sound of titanium shutter blades snapping open beats the lifeless bleep of my didgy compact.

Don't use a compact then, digital SLRs have mirrors and shutters just like film ones if you like the sound effects.

Brick man I like the first one

But the second is scratched and really not that amazing. Surely the same could be done in digital?

Some times i do see truely stunning stuff from film but I know that I could and never will do it with film. Just like I'll never get up a hill on a single speed.

Here is my quote on the which 400mm f2.8 brigade from earlier in the the thread

"Here we have a community many of whome spend alot of money on multiple bikes. But they get out and ride them

Dpreview is full of people spending a fortune on expensive multiple cameras. They then take a couple of pictures of their cat, post it online and tell you how great the out of focus areas are They then start planning the next purchase or give up and take up a new hobby. Its like a whole land of people riding round the car park and pumping the forks a bit. There are exceptions of course. It looks like there are more actual photographers here."

Instamatic etc has totally ruined moody black and white pics like the above - just scanning the thread I assumed they were off someone's iphone before I looked closer. It just looks like some cheesy effect now everyone is doing the 'bland picture + black and white = deep and meaningful' thing.

Surely the same could be done in digital?

Well, I'm not an expert in these things but it looks like the large frame size has allowed for super narrow depth of field at relatively wide angle - clearly visible in the second shot.

You'd never be able to get that on a crop or even full frame digital camera. And medium format digital cams are.. well.. they go right through expensive and into an uncharted world. Whereas film cameras in that format are buttons.

A lot of trouble to go to for a lot of blurry areas mind. I'd probably try taking several pictures with different bits out of focus and combining them in Photoshop. Try doing that with film 🙂

Shoot on film here. I've got a Ricoh GR1 which i think is the nicest 35mm compact ever made and a Hasselblad 500 which is fantastically mechanical to use, and I like the square format. It's expensive though, colour film prices have risen alot in the last 3 years and dev costs are gradually becoming more and more expensive-but at the same time, the £400 cost of a 2nd hand hasselblad and a load of film, even inc dev, is cheaper than a 5d and you get beautiful, quality pictures.

I also sometimes think about the archival nature of digital- a negative retains it physicality and there will always be enlargers, and scanners are only going to get better and better. I wonder what will happen to the digital files that go unprinted/sit on flickr etc in 20/30 years time?

The debate is circular, just do what takes your fancy

I have both digital and film cameras and a full b&w darkroom

I like that film is more "manual" and gets me away from a pc, digital is great where photo chances are limited as you can take more shots

Plenty of overlap, both great

You can but a 5D for for £500 quid!

I also sometimes think about the archival nature of digital

Well, negatives will deteriorate eventually, but digital images won't, if people make the effort to look after them. They could be here in thousands of years.

What might be fun is to have a "Film" mode in the digital camera :
1/ 36 shots in a folder
2/ no instant review allowed for these shots
3/ fixed ISO per folder (roll)
4/ pre-fixed timer - say minimum 2 hours before "exposure"
5/ You can have multiple rolls (folders) but it takes 3 minutes to change.
6/ option to suppress exif data or not depending on whether you want to
take notes or not...

it might be fun ...

( you can have a large format version, manual upside down focus , 2 shots in 5 mins, can only have 10 shots in a folder (5 dd`s) , and a random loss of exposure for when you pull the wrong slide out!

2/ no instant review allowed for these shots

My cam has a flip out and swivel screen, that can be turned to face inwards. This is kind of handy for protecting it when it's bumping around, but it'd be handy for this kind of thing.

5/ You can have multiple rolls (folders) but it takes 3 minutes to change.

Yes, and it has a built in 3G modem and software to automatically debit £6.99 from your Paypal account. And when you get home and plug the card into your computer it debits another £5, waits for a week then prints out all the images regardless of whether or not they are any good.

7) plus a option that chooses one batch of 36 exposures in every 20 or so, swaps them with random blured photographs of cat photographs, that replicates a crossed over order at the processing lab 😉

Lol at molgrips and ski! Very true, though.
In answer to a few people commenting here, the thread currently running to nearly 90 pages, called 'Photos you have taken in the last month...' is full of truly inspiring images, taken on a huge variety of different cameras and phones, which goes to prove that it's the camera you have with you that matters, and the ability to 'see' the picture and capture it. I'm pretty sure few of those photos would have been taken if it wasn't for the immediacy of digital. And I feel inspired by those with far better photography skills than I have who continue to post up beautiful photographs.
My paraglider photos still amaze me, the fact I was able to take pictures like those with a bloody mobile phone just blows me away every time I look at them. Nothing to do with any skilz I might have, I couldn't even see the screen properly when I took them, so they are luck over everything else. Sure, a DSLR would have produced technically better images, but I left it at home, along with my compact... 🙄

That thread is now way too big to read, I lost track with it about 18 months ago.

I'm thinking of writing a script to download all the images with credits and make an easy to navigate website of them.

STW mag should make a book of the best ones, btw.

Quite right about the camera you have with you being the best of course. Also the camera you are prepared to use - would you have randomly waved a film camera around on the off chance of getting a picture? Probably not, you wouldn't want to waste film, so you'd have missed the images you now love.

Check out

http://www.lomography.com/