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 - MemberI 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.