[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 😉

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

😆

Now you're making me laugh, Zokes.

This can't continue. 😯

[img] [/img]

I know this should be in the classifieds, but I guess this is a more appropriate audience. I Have everything needed for a darkroom, Meopta colour enlarger (will do B&W fine) timers, trays, the job lot. The chemicals probably need replacing as its 10 years old. Anyone interested in having a whirl

Mail in profile

I like photography taking mediocre pictures of bottoms

were that the case I'd not be commenting on non-bottom oriented photography..

I did GCSE photography pre-digital cameras. I used to love the process of taking the picture (and making sure you had everything right because you'd only have 24 shots), putting the film onto the spool in a dark bag, getting the temperature of the chemicals correct, then using an enlarger to print your work.

Magic.

😀 I knew sfb couldn't resist this thread for long.

I do share his issue with this statement tho:

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

Surely photography is all about capturing images?

I understand that some enjoy the whole chemical darkroom experience. And I'm sure it is somewhat magical seeing an image emerge from a blank sheet. Good on yer - sounds like a pretty relaxing craft.
But I don't think digital should be considered a lesser form just because the digital darkroom involves shuffling bits instead of inhaling chemicals.

Aside from that: carry on.

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

That ok?

You're a bugger and no mistake - can't argue there either. Although it's pretty crap if you want to take photos of hills though 😉

Another interesting thread could be photography and Father Ted. Note how the foreshortening effect of a telephoto lens makes reconciling this old puzzler all the more difficult...

[url= http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3024/3731844854_eb6f54bae8.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3024/3731844854_eb6f54bae8.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/shufgy/3731844854/ ]This cow is very small; that cow is far away.[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/shufgy/ ]shufgy[/url], on Flickr

Zokes: would have been obvious with a shallow DOF 😀

Surely photography is all about capturing images?

and that was the substance of my comment!
BTW, if photographic excellence needs to be demonstrated before one is entitled to comment on the subject, how is this to be done ? Might one perhaps list one's awards in the field ?
[url= http://www.bogtrotters.org/rides/2008/3feb/_DSC0111.jp g" target="_blank">http://www.bogtrotters.org/rides/2008/3feb/_DSC0111.jp g"/> [/img][/url] a very mediocre award, obviously 🙂

Simon; in fairness, you award was for MTBing photography. You won because more people felt your photographs captured the activity, not because they were stunning images. I think your award was more to do with your tireless dedication to produce images of MTBing and your contribution to the activity, than whether or not you're a fantastically gifted tographer. I think it's fair to say that there were others, who are perhaps more talented than yourself, when it comes to photography as a whole.

So don't let it swell your head. I've won an award for my photography, out of a far, far greater number of candidates. Doesn't make me better than others, necessarily, or that my opinion is somehow more valid.

a very mediocre award, obviously

I think it is, yes. In the big scheme of things. I don't think it's an award that reflects a particular talent or ability, more a recognition of effort.

Sorry to slap you down like this, but I think some of your comments are ill-founded, and based on your own obtuse nature, rather than being particularly well-informed and knowledgeable about photography as an [i]art[/i].

The title of this thread is "[b]B&W photography on film, who else enjoys it?[/b] " Apparently several people.

So why come on belittling their enjoyment of something, just because you don't share their point of view?

It's a bit like me saying 'all your rides are crap, because I chose not to do them'.

Your award's made of plastic. Mine is made of Bronze. So there.

Apart from a double art lesson when we had to process some film of pics we'd taken ourself, I have no experience of developing film photographs.

I imagine the experience you mention of watching a photograph develop in front of your eyes must be quite appealing. Kinda like watching a cake you've made rise through the window of the oven....?

It is strange how old methods that perhaps don't compare with modern methods in terms technical advancement have more of a 'touchy-feely' appeal and create a bigger emotion. I used to love buying an album on 12" (or a 7" single for that matter), getting it home, sticking it on the record player and hearing those first few pops & scratches just before the first song played. Then it was a case of taking time to look at the cover & the inner sleeve while the record was playing.

While I don't think that film developing will ever be something I'll do as it's something I never did before and so I don't 'get it', I can see how it holds appeal.

It's a bit like me saying 'all your rides are crap, because I chose not to do them'.

well, I'm sure they are 🙂

But I'm not saying alchemy is crap, only that in some cases, the fetish comes to supplant the original purpose. Most people don't care how you get from the scene to the image.

not because they were stunning images

of course not, but many (particularly you) seem to think one is only entitled to an opinion if one can produce exceptional work, so my award, such as it is, it a convenient talisman to tease the culprits of discrimination:)

Jesus wept.

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

yes, I used to immensely, everything from 35mm through to 11 x 14 plates, selenium toning, home made chemicals, hand made platinum papers, hand made frames and mounts, everything to get images on a wall.

For 20 years it was everything to me

and now I use a digital SLR, and it pains me to say that I can recreate anything that I could in the darkroom in about 1% of the time it used to take me

still got about 200 rolls of TriX to develop 🙁

Nostalgia is a bigger generator of bullsh*t than almost anything else.

Jesus wept

Had he also stumbled upon an STW photography thread? 🙂

many (particularly you) seem to think one is only entitled to an opinion if one can produce exceptional work, so my award, such as it is, it a convenient talisman to tease the culprits of discrimination:)

Where did anyone say that? That's just your paranoia, Barnes. Next you'll be claiming Nurse has stolen your camera...

No, what I'm getting at, is your constant desire to rubbish the views and opinions (and sometimes accepted conventions) of photography, without proving your point in any effective manner. If, for example, you regularly produced stunning images which proved photographic conventions wrong, then fair enough. But you don't. You talk a big game, but you don't produce the carcass.

Too often, you just bang on with your 'I'm SimonFBarnes, award-winning photographer with a Nikon D300[b]B[/b] (Special [b]B[/b]ottom Edition) and everything I say is gospel'. Well, it's not. When challenged, you invariably resort to some elegantly-phrased yet cryptic statement, to try and make yourself look clever.

I enjoy the darkroom process; I feel it helps me to feel more a part of the whole process; more is under my control. I don't have that same feeling with digital photography. It ultimately possibly has little to do with the actual finished product, maybe, but it's enjoyable nonetheless.

Just because [b]you have no fricking soul[/b], doesn't mean others are wrong. The whole point of this thread is 'who enjoys B+W [b]film[/b] photography and it's associated processes?' If you don't 'get it', why not enquire what it is that people get out of the process, rather than just dismissing it as '[i]alchemical fetishism[/i]'? Eh?

Someone commented that:

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

To which you replied:

whereas this one just started ridiculous ?

Explain why this thread is 'ridiculous', please? Go on. Personally, I saw the title and thought 'ooh, a thread about B+W film photography, how interesting!'.

Instead, I'm now so upset I'm going to lock myself in a darkened room, and have a good cry. 😥

Happy now??

No you have, you've ruined it Barnes.

whereas this one just started ridiculous ?

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

HAHA! Spot on. Barnes - your pictures are appalling mate. Pipe down.

I'm going to lock myself in a darkened room

back on topic at last 😉

btw, nothing wrong with sfb photography, imho.

I for one enjoy his photography, its just a bit of shame that he takes this negative (no pun intended) attitude in his posts sometimes.

I'm going to lock myself in a darkened room

I think it is, yes. In the big scheme of things. I don't think it's an award that reflects a particular talent or ability, more a recognition of effort.

I've had a think (and a good cry), and feel it only right that I clarify that statement;

I think it's great there is an award given in recognition of a photographer's endeavours, and in no way intended to denigrate anyone who has won this award, and perhaps was a little harsh in suggesting it is in any way 'mediocre'. I think it would be very unfair of me if I did. Perhaps my comments could be interpreted as insulting. They weren't meant to be. If I've upset or offended anyone (including Barnes), then I apologise.

Mr Barnes, what on Earth are you trying to achieve? Ruin my post or get upset?
Have a drink, have a bit of self-love, go and take a few snaps. One day you might understand what we are talking about. Not a pretty piccy, not a stylish snap, but a B&W photo that makes you go WOW!
Don't give your hobby up though, you're almost as good as Elfie.
Nice day!

If I've upset or offended anyone (including Barnes), then I apologise.

What? Are you out of your mind!? This is an internet forum! NEVER APOLOGISE! 😉

Too often, you just bang on with your 'I'm SimonFBarnes, award-winning photographer with a Nikon D300B (Special Bottom Edition) and everything I say is gospel'.

in fact I say "ignore convention and rules and find out what works for yourself", which is rather unremarkable and not as funny as your version 🙂 And FYI this is only the 2nd time I've ever mentioned my award on this forum!

[mg[IMG] [/IMG]my fav b+w photo i have taken,mind you i,ve only taken 2

a B&W photo that makes you go WOW!

.
.

my fav b+w photo i have taken,mind you i,ve only taken 2

WOW!

Have a drink, have a bit of self-love, go and take a few snaps.

you want pics of SFB masturbating? can't you take that sort of thing to email instead of soiling peoples minds on here.

Elfred: well done for apologising. Good lad.

SFB: [i]"ignore convention and rules and find out what works for yourself"[/i] - that would hold more sway if I/we saw any indication from [url= http://www.bogtrotters.org/ ]your photos[/url] that you had deliberately ignored the rules and conventions to create more interesting images or that you had found a unique style that [i]works for you[/i] - which I think was Elf's point.

in fact I say "ignore convention and rules and find out what works for yourself"

Not quite right. You call everyone wrong, slag them off and wind them up no end, and THEN claim you're only encouraging people to challenge convention.

You know, we all like to explore things and challenge convention. In fact, it's what artist do in general. Why are you telling us? Do you think we're all slaves to convention?

- that would hold more sway if I/we saw any indication from your photos that you had deliberately ignored the rules and conventions to create more interesting images

I've already said I'm a very average photographer, but that doesn't alter the fact that following convention is the opposite of creativity 🙂

You call everyone wrong, slag them off and wind them up no end, and THEN claim you're only encouraging people to challenge convention.

that's only your interpretation, but perhaps you can't tell the difference between being slagged off and being teased 🙂 I only slag off people I know and TJ.

rather than being particularly well-informed and knowledgeable about photography as an art.

The title of this thread is "B&W photography on film, who else enjoys it? " Apparently several people.

So why come on belittling their enjoyment of something, just because you don't share their point of view?

I objected to the spurious suggestion that film and chemicals was "real" photography and the silly idea that a picture appearing in a dish of developer was somehow more magical that it appearing on a small screen, when really it's just different. This has nothing to do with "art"

that's only your interpretation, but perhaps you can't tell the difference between being slagged off and being teased

It't not just me. And perhaps you can't convey the difference between teasing and slagging off.

SFB, how about you monologue somewhere else? You're welcome to contribute but I prefer people chat instead of bore.