As some of you will know I use Canon EOS 1Dn cameras which for Sports, Weddings & Portraits are ideal but because of the crop factor they are a bit limiting for landscapes, so I have acquired a Canon EOS 1 Film Camera.
Now you may think this is a backward step but it is a cost effective way to get full frame pictures and all my lenses fit the camera. I can get the films processed locally ( Negatives only ) for £ 4.00 then I will scan them through my Epson V500 Photo scaner.
So next time I am out on one of my Landscape Missions I will give it a go and shoot digital at the same time.
For those interested I have attached pictures of the EOS 1 next to a EOS 1D..................wish me luck.. :legit:
There are some clubs that will only alow member who use film . I think film is clearer but I'd rsther have didital
I think film is clearer if the exposure is spot on, the processing is spot on and the printing is spot on.
That happens about 1% of time, unless you pay a lot of money IMHO
Quote from: anglefire on August 11, 2011, 11:13:38 PM
I think film is clearer if the exposure is spot on, the processing is spot on and the printing is spot on.
That happens about 1% of time, unless you pay a lot of money IMHO
I think you're being generous. I'd be a whole lot more expensive too if the market forces cause by digital and home printing hadn't brought the price down precipitously. I remember my photography instructor telling us, if we'd got one good shot out a 36 exposure roll (remember those?) we were doing well. My wife didn't agree. That said, I've thought about getting back into B&W film for Street life shots.
Try as I might with all the technology and software I still can't get anything from a digital that looks like slightly pushed Tri-X printed grade 4 on Ilford multigrade.
But that's not clarity, that's feel ;)
I don't know for sure, but I'd have thought that to get the resolution of decent 120 or 645 film you'd need to spend Jonathan type money on a large format digital camera.
I had a friend years ago (lost touch now) who used to shoot gigs for a living. He reckoned that if he got one keeper from 500 he was doing well.
Lurking in the back of my wardrobe, in a beautiful metal case, is a Rollei SL66 along with a couple of lenses and a host of accessories, that I won in a competition back in the late 80's. The only thing that is missing is the battery charger. The battery is still there but I have no idea if it is in working order.
Every so often, a couple of times a year I get the case out and handle everything with loving care. I've tried to find a charger and a replacement battery to no avail. If I could I think I'd be using film once again on the odd occasion just as an exercise in nostalgia!
Quote from: ABERS on August 12, 2011, 07:55:59 AM
Lurking in the back of my wardrobe, in a beautiful metal case, is a Rollei SL66 along with a couple of lenses and a host of accessories, that I won in a competition back in the late 80's. The only thing that is missing is the battery charger. The battery is still there but I have no idea if it is in working order.
Every so often, a couple of times a year I get the case out and handle everything with loving care. I've tried to find a charger and a replacement battery to no avail. If I could I think I'd be using film once again on the odd occasion just as an exercise in nostalgia!
Try this place. :tup:
Mr. Brian Mickleboro,
6 Fairway
Bishop's Stortford
Herts, CM23 5LT
Phone 01279 755862
Formerly of The Studio Workshop, London. Mr. Mickleboro is factory trained and has 30-40 years of experience in servicing Rollei cameras.
Hopefully the plan is not to have to much wasted film as I intend to use the camera alongside digital for tripod mounted landscape shots which will give me a rough guide to the exposure via either the screen on the 1D or viewed through my laptop.
While the developing / processing is out of my control once I have the negatives the final results will be up to me. Anyway thats the plan I will keep you all informed and post a few shot here.
Landscape is probably the main area where film is still a viable option as it's all about getting the right position/angle at the right time/right exposure - with 36 goes it should be possible to get more than the odd one right ;D
Quote from: Oldboy on August 12, 2011, 08:26:25 AM
Quote from: ABERS on August 12, 2011, 07:55:59 AM
Lurking in the back of my wardrobe, in a beautiful metal case, is a Rollei SL66 along with a couple of lenses and a host of accessories, that I won in a competition back in the late 80's. The only thing that is missing is the battery charger. The battery is still there but I have no idea if it is in working order.
Every so often, a couple of times a year I get the case out and handle everything with loving care. I've tried to find a charger and a replacement battery to no avail. If I could I think I'd be using film once again on the odd occasion just as an exercise in nostalgia!
Try this place. :tup:
Mr. Brian Mickleboro,
6 Fairway
Bishop's Stortford
Herts, CM23 5LT
Phone 01279 755862
Formerly of The Studio Workshop, London. Mr. Mickleboro is factory trained and has 30-40 years of experience in servicing Rollei cameras.
Thanks for the info Oldboy :tup:
I read recently that youngsters are now getting into using film. As a novelty. So who knows, there might be a revival of the whole film thing.
In the film days, I mainly shot holiday and family shots that were, most of the time, very good. Compared to other people's holiday shots that is! I had a decent Minolta semi automatic, I did pay attention to composition and I had a steady hand. That made you a champion photographer in the circles I inhabited in those days!
Sorry whilst I agree that film (particularly B&W for "reportage/street etc") is supererior I just cannot be ar5£d with film, take the shot, use up the film, send it off and in my case end up with 24 or 36 pieces of paper that are either under or overexposed or suffering from camera shake...After many instances of that I gave up on photography in my late teens/early 20's, shot the odd roll on a Pentax that I got given (not an SLR more like a film version of a bridge camera still got it somewhere) but that was about it.....Digital came along and I love it, and now there is no way on earth I would ever use film...give me digital any day....maybe I spent to long in the dark room with my dad and the sulpher/rotten egg smell of the sepia toning has addled my brain somewhat :uglystupid2:
Nope digital only for me I'm afraid...
Gosh, EOS1 - that's going back a bit. I was still shooting weddings as a part timer when they came out!
Nothing wrong with film Dave, especially as you've got the ideal scanner for importing them into a digital format.
I've given the film bug a try and concluded that the 5D2 was doing at least as good a job.
I do sometimes feel like shooting another roll, because i think it is great for forcing you to discipline your shooting instead of just running off 5-10 shots of the same scene to make sure one of them works - and that is the sad fact of digital. The technology allows you to do such things at no cost. We all want THAT shot...
My Canon film camera was the EOS600 a state of the art enthusiast model - the chap I sold it to still has it I believe. When it came out, the fact it had the equivalent of 'scene modes' was really cutting edge. I still remember what the brands in those days seemed to signify to me - Canon were the innovators for those who wanted the latest thing [T50?!] - Nikon were the heavy duty pro cameras you could hammer in nails with - Olympus for the young with not too much money - Minolta did'nt really have much of an image for me - Pentax seemed to be for older camera club types with leather patches on their jacket elbows and never ready cases...........as I'm now using Pentax I guess I've found my true niche :D
Quote from: greypoint on August 13, 2011, 07:30:01 AM
My Canon film camera was the EOS600 :D
I have a EOS 650 for sale on e.bay at the moment. I heard somewhere that college / uni photographic students are still taught the basics with film.
Quote from: Hinfrance on August 12, 2011, 07:45:20 AM
Try as I might with all the technology and software I still can't get anything from a digital that looks like slightly pushed Tri-X printed grade 4 on Ilford multigrade.
But that's not clarity, that's feel ;)
I don't know for sure, but I'd have thought that to get the resolution of decent 120 or 645 film you'd need to spend Jonathan type money on a large format digital camera.
I had a friend years ago (lost touch now) who used to shoot gigs for a living. He reckoned that if he got one keeper from 500 he was doing well.
Medium format film does have a higher resolution (35mm film is said to need somewhere between 16 and 24Mp digital) than current 35mm digital cameras. However, the above still applies (Exposure, processing etc) - hence poloroid backs for previewing when in the studio.
I'm sure you could simulate the look of tri-X etc in Photoshop etc - but not something that I would know where to start - apart from google :)
Quote from: Dave on August 13, 2011, 09:34:38 AM
Quote from: greypoint on August 13, 2011, 07:30:01 AM
My Canon film camera was the EOS600 :D
I have a EOS 650 for sale on e.bay at the moment. I heard somewhere that college / uni photographic students are still taught the basics with film.
I hope they are. I always considered, 'old' film trained photographers ,'proper' photographers. I only have second hand knowledge of film, but the father of a childhood friend was a 'proper' photographer and the difference he could create by using different papers and solutions and whatevers, must be a very good training for a photographer. I don't know if digital can recreate all the subtle differences.
Quote from: Reinardina on August 16, 2011, 07:15:25 PM
Quote from: Dave on August 13, 2011, 09:34:38 AM
Quote from: greypoint on August 13, 2011, 07:30:01 AM
My Canon film camera was the EOS600 :D
I have a EOS 650 for sale on e.bay at the moment. I heard somewhere that college / uni photographic students are still taught the basics with film.
I hope they are. I always considered, 'old' film trained photographers ,'proper' photographers. I only have second hand knowledge of film, but the father of a childhood friend was a 'proper' photographer and the difference he could create by using different papers and solutions and whatevers, must be a very good training for a photographer. I don't know if digital can recreate all the subtle differences.
How many people would bother with cameras if they weren't digital. If people hadn't got PCs would they bother with digital cameras at all. The fact that you can go out take a picture, come home and put it on their PC's to view and view or delete, total cost is almost nothing. With film it would cost you a fortune to see the finished picture and realized it's rubbish, you would soon stop doing it and the camera would end up in the cupboard. :o
Quote from: Oldboy on August 16, 2011, 08:04:01 PM
How many people would bother with cameras if they weren't digital. If people hadn't got PCs would they bother with digital cameras at all. The fact that you can go out take a picture, come home and put it on their PC's to view and view or delete, total cost is almost nothing. With film it would cost you a fortune to see the finished picture and realized it's rubbish, you would soon stop doing it and the camera would end up in the cupboard. :o
Exactly what happened with me, it was put the camera away or get a divorce. I kept the camera for snaps but didn't get back to what I now love until a family member lent me their digital. Now I'm here annoying people, it's grand. :2funny:
The theory that it costs nothing is slightly flawed. For those that don't frequent on line photo sites and forums it might just be the cost of a camera or camera/kit lens...for others it's an ongoing saga of upgrades and....'which is sharpest - the Canon 400mm or 100-400mm?' 'I'm just not happy with my 18-50' 'I feel I've outgrown my current camera' :D And of course you must have the latest version of Photoshop [how do they all afford that?!] The losers must be the companies that relied heavily on film sales, but the camera manufacturers whose film cameras had little in the way of updates once af and programme modes were established can now convince us that a dslr without live view, movie mode and xx no of mp is 'old technology' - and we believe them! ::) I've seen plenty of posts where people have been told not to bother with a D300 as it's old technology!
And don't forget shutter clicks are a bit like miles on a car...if you want to sell, low mileage makes a lot of difference :dance: :dance:
I've come to this thread late, bit with interest having just bought some old film cameras from Ebay, I want to get back into film too.
I know I'm going to get burned at the stake for this, but our friend Amy just published a review of the sprocket rocket http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/compact-cameras/lomography-sprocket-rocket-1013744/review
Love the first picture on her sample images page.
I was in Brighton last week and stood in the Lomo shop for about an hour. Then I remembered I have an action finder that I've never used.
I love the Lomo type apps on my iphone and wanted to try it for real. I found a Lomo TLR plastic kit for £12 so am waiting for it to arrive. I think it's a bit of fun to indulge on a bit more of the frivolous side of photography now and again.
I remember digital cameras being called "frivolous", one time.
Another camera that's fun is the Holga 120. It can be bought with either a glass or a plastic lens, along with a flash model, and a flash model which has various coloured filters over the flash unit. It's also completely plastic, so dig out the masking tape if you don't want light leaks.
Its only drawback is that it takes 120 roll film, which generally needs to be processed at home... most of these 1-hour supasnaps places won't know what roll film is, let alone process it.
The bonus of the Holga is that it's not run by an extortion racket, unlike lomo.