Anyone going BACK to film? Just bought 1N...

O.K. I'll take a contrary position in the current lovefest for film, here. I have lots of film

cameras, including 4x5, medium format and 35. I've been shooting seriously since I was 10,

and that was in 1960. I've spent YEARS in a darkroom (I'm also a newspaper photographer).

While I still occassionally shoot with film, digital simply blows film away. It is sharper, cleaner

and has better resolution than scanned film could ever hope to have (And, I have a Nikon

5000ed film scanner). It's more versatile with far less hassle. Whether I'm shooting an XTi,

30D or 1DS Mk. 2 (I have each), film simply can't compare, IMHO.

<p>O.K. At least I've added some balance :)

I am, first of all, a filmmaker (i.e. movies.)

 

However, in the past year my interest in photography has been rekindled. I guess partly because movies have such long pre-production, require such a collaborative effort, and take a great deal of time and money to share with an audience. Photography offered the ability to capture striking images, work on them alone, and share them with an audience quite quickly. So, now I count photography as a (serious) hobby. I had shot lots of 35mm film growing up, mostly on old beater cameras with no innate understanding of lenses, exposure, etc. That I learned from motion picture photography.

 

I am not afraid of digital technology, because I grew up with it too. However, I didn't want to invest in an expensive DSLR right away. So I inherited a Canon TL-QL with 50/1.8, and bought a nice clean Yashica 12 (predecessor to the 124G). I loved the results I got in both 35mm and medium format. They were different from each other, but both were beautiful.

 

I wondered what I was missing, not having a modern camera -- modern metering, autofocus, modern zoom lenses, etc. So I bought a nice Nikon F80 kit, flash, grip, Tamron 28-300, etc. Immediately the quality of my photography fell. To be honest, the shots looked like bad photos from a point-and-shoot digital camera. I couldn't afford really good Nikon glass, and the slow speeds of most zooms (3.5-5.6) really impacted both the DOF and crispness of my shots (I like shallow DOF and high shutter speeds, to apply selective focus and capture sharp handheld shots.) I also found that relying on the Matrix metering and autofocus were a detriment. Unforuntately, I didn't find the F80 particularly convenient for manual focus with such slow (dark) lenses, and no ground glass.

 

I have since sold the F80 kit, and used the money to buy a Pentax *ist DL. My Dad gave me his stash of old pentax M42 and K-mount lenses, including a 55mm/1.8, 28mm/2.8 and a really lovely 135mm/2.8.

 

I am perfectly happy with the new *ist DL. I conveniently meter and focus manually. The camera will mount (and meter, and focus-indicate) with 40 year-old lenses -- unlike Nikon. The DL has proved to me that the most important part of any camera is the lens. I prefer the look of the older glass, and the look of faster lenses wide open. I have shot the 135mm on both the *ist DL and the Canon TL-QL (with adapter) and it is gorgeous on both. The only difference is that the DL doesn't have any grain at 200ASA.

 

So now, I happily shoot both digital and film. I recently returned from vacation where I shot with the DL for 80% of the time. When I could take my time and be very methodical, I brought out my Yashica and shot another couple rolls of Ilford Delta 100. I will also continue to enjoy shooting Kodak E100VS and Fuji Superia in the Canon TL-QL. The key is those old lenses.

I've wanted a black Canonet QL17 GIII 40mm f/1.7 for a looong time, but never found the right deal (and the battery issue is a problem too)... now I see that a used 1n can be had from KEH for $200-$400 -- probably cheaper in a private deal... But i've not shot more than a handful of frames of film since I got a 30D & S3 IS last summer... Film costs me ~CAD$0.85 per slide (about half that for print) and I'm not to keen on going back to shelling $$ for film.

 

--

Boy you are a brave guy asking that question on this forum Jason. I guess you miss the good old days of compressed air-cans, lousy lab-clerks that allways ruin your film, expensive film, Super expensive Pro-Labs, shoe-boxes to put all your 4X6 prints, paranoia at the airport, noisy film winders, and worst of all, running out film in the middle of a shoot.

 

I kept all my film cameras and still use them occassionally. If I tried to seel them I would probably get peanuts for them anyway. I have been using my MF film camera allot these days, not because of the amount of pixels I can squeeze out the film, but because I like the look of the pictures, especially in B&W.

 

When I'm about to retire, I'll be ready for my Large Format film Camera, if they are still around.

This post just reminded me...I have 5 rolls of film to send in for processing on a recent trip. My son took 4 times the number of photos I did with his xti, 'processed them' in Lightroom and created a program. Here I am wishing my photos were digital as well and it will cost me much more to have 5 rolls processed (print film) than I spent on buying my son an extra memory card. With what I have spent on processing in the past three years, I could have purchased an xti body. At least me me, I think it is time to switch!

I am just starting to re-use my film camera because I've noticed differences in my results. With film, I spend more time on composition, lighting, depth-of-field, etc. With digital, the extra time I spend on frequently changing white balance, ISO, image size & type, etc., takes away from my creative side. I have had a far higher percentage of keepers with film. For me, it is better for landscape, architecture, & portraits. OTOH, I shoot far more exposures with digital than I would with film. There are far less keepers, but I do happen on shots that I wouldn't otherwise have gotten. I prefer digital for sports and low-light photos. I also prefer digital when I need or intend to shoot less than 3/4 of a roll & when I only need a digital record. I prefer film when I need prints. I don't think there is one best answer, but it depends on the application. The result: I'm starting to use film again and also.

While I never sold the old film gear (Minolta and Oly rigs) I did stop using them for a while and went completely digital. Now I'm going back to film, but with medium format. Looking at prices in film gear, it's a buyer's market right now; my old 35mm film gear isn't worth selling while it's costing me pennies on the dollar for that old MF gear. I'm having a ball with it & getting back to basics. There's a place for film and a place for digital, both live happily side-by-side in my bag.

Nope. I will never go back to film. Since switching to a DSLR, I'm actually finding I'm doing a lot less post-processing on my computer. I actually have more free time to go out and shoot, now that I don't have to sit and stare at a monitor correcting various problems. Aside from the obvious instant feedback, zero-cost shooting:

 

First, the histogram. I'm nailing exposure in the field exactly how I want it. No guesswork, no relying on rules of thumb or a light meter that gives a single averaging reading. Shoot based on light meter->is it clipped?->if yes, delete the previous one and adjust exposure to taste. Boom, done. I'm sure some will say that their extensive experience with exposure means they don't have to worry, but I've only been shooting for 5 years while fitting it in around a day job. I don't have that experience.

 

Second, no scanning. No only does it save me a hell of a lot of time, but I don't have to worry about touching up dust. My idea of a fun photography afternoon is being out shooting, not feeding negatives into a scanner. Now I just stick the card into the reader and wait a few minutes.

 

Third, black-and-white. Shooting in raw means that I can decide what kind of film and filters I want to use after taking the picture, and I don't have to buy and carry dozens of filters and rolls of film with me in the first place. I can experiment when "developing" the raw files all I like spending only a few pennies on electricity. I don't have to spend anything on chemistry or paper, I don't spend hours agitating and drying and sleeving and scanning negatives and breathing in smelly chemicals.

 

Fourth, I challenge anyone to show me color 1600 film that looks as good as 1600 on my lowly 350D. I like shooting available light, as I imagine quite a few others do as well.

Yup sold my 20d (for slightly more than I paid) mainly because I never stopped using film and enjoy my film bodies more than I did the digital. When I do use digital its a simple P&S.

I got tired of Canon's crappy WA lenses on full frame sensors so sold everything and bought

an Arca Swiss F field camera (4x5) with some simply outstanding German glass. Perspective

control and huge chromes leave digital in the dust. No more time wasted compositing

images in PS to achieve maximum DOF-now I do it right in the field with tilt and swing. After

experiencing LF, I'll never go back to digital phooey.

Well, my two cents, zwei Pfennig, whatever...

 

"Going BACK to film..." as if almost permanently? I think that is nuts. Using film, still shooting 35mm film, no problem. Bu a properly exposed and shot 6MP image from a Canon DSLR is better than the 'equivalent shot from film.' Shoot at 10MP or higher and film now becomes a Holga equivalent in comparison.

 

Two different media and both fun except film requires many extra steps and more time. Film will be around for future wonderment and strange uses just five years from now. It's nearly totally dead for pro reasons now. (this is an SLR forum so I am only rappin' 'bout 135 format)

Go back to film? Serious question?

 

Like Jim (the other pro-digital person above), I've been a photography junkie my entire life -- since the 1960's also. I might not have quite his experience, since I spent much of my life trying to carve out a career in the sciences, but I'm still pretty seasoned. I've been a professional photographer both during the film era and recently with with digital. I've burned up countless miles of film and huge stacks of CDs and DVDs. I've learned and invented countless methods for film and for digital alike. So I think I have a few credentials too.

 

In my experience, film doesn't even come close to the capabilities of digital imaging, whether for reasons of resolution, noise/grain, purity of color, consistency of contrast, dynamic range (huge difference), or especially creative potential. It's like comparing a slide rule to a pocket calculator.

 

I hope none of this is taken the wrong way, and I know I will probably be offending some people here, but I find that the most vociferous opponents of digital photography (present company excluded) are the ones who know the least of how to use it. When those who are proficient in digital photography and photoediting perform what film photographers deem feats of sorcery and wizardry, we are labeled almost as heretics and denounced for the supposed inferiority of our medium. Sometimes I feel lucky not to be dunked, with camera, to see if either of us floats!

 

We are often criticized because our medium is considered "too easy." I can assure everyone that digital photography is much, much harder for the *serious* professional than film photography. There is so much more to know/learn and so much more to do. It's all very technical, and it's not for the faint of heart or the technically inept. I can of course zap a zit in a portrait much more easily than a film photographer can. However, there is so much else I can do. I do so many things that film photographers only wish they could do. In the end, I put in a lot more work, and I generate orders of magnitude more sophisticated results. In the end, it is not uncommon for me to work on a photo for a day or two, compared to the couple of hours I might have invested with a film image. The difference? With film, there's only so much I can do. With digital, the sky seems to be the limit. There is no comparison in the creative potential of the two media.

 

Finally, there are lots of cost and equipment-related arguments concerning digital vs. film. Most of these arguments are some variant of, "Gee, I can't use any of the great glass I've collected over the years on these new, digital cameras." Either that, or, "Golly, digital bodies are so much more expensive, and they quickly go obsolete," meaning that there is soon another model that leaves film even further in the dust. These aren't legitimate arguments, and for a professional, the end goal should be quality of imagery anyway. The serious professional should be willing to buy the full frame digital body AND buy the best available glass to go with it. There is very little difference between "digital-ready" glass and normal glass, except that the rear element is better coated on the "digital" lens.

 

The only advantage I can see to film over digital is that some people find a "zen" sort of calm when shooting it and doing darkroom work. Nobody understands this "zen" feeling more than I do, and I admit I miss the darkroom. However I also get a "zen" feeling when I become one with my monitor and let my creativity run wild. If it's any consolation, I do like to do it in a semidarkened room, with music going -- almost like I did it back in the darkroom days.

 

Having said all this, I do still shoot film, but I only do this with my antique cameras -- and only just for fun. (I'm an avid collector.)

 

Yours in heresy,

Sarah

When I first started Photography I worked with a Nikon FM2n with slide film (Velvia) for about two years. It had a good set of prime lenses and I got acceptable results, but the fact of the matter is I am NEVER touching a film camera again. It is obsolete technology, simple as that.

 

I sure as heck don't miss the cost of processing slides, having the lab ruin my film, or dealing with the nightmarish process of having a slide turned into a print. Even when I did shoot ISO 100 print film, the quality just pales next to my 300D (which is only "only" 6 mp) with the 17-55 IS. As for the darkroom black and white, I hate it. I never enjoyed hanging out in a small dark room with smelly chemicals.

 

Like Sarah said, I find the people that enjoy bashing digital the most and stick with film are the those that have limited technical competence with computers. Digital is unforgiving to those that are not willing to spend the time to make a good workflow. So what is my answer? Adios film.

Never, I sold all my film bodies at a low low price and that tells me how much film bodies people want. Some may argue film is better, yes, depends on how large of the prints. Like wall size print, film is better. On a 8x10 or even 12x24, digital image is as good as film. In some extreme situation, film has the advantage. For the rest 99% application, probably not. There are other advantage of digital like turn around time, preview, how much time and work you save for processing, scanning? Also, you can email customers or have them go online to look at the images. Another choice for film is to mail them or have them come in to your shop and look at it. What about those out of focus, bad pics, for digital images cost none. Film is costly. Digital has too much advantage over film for most application. Check ebay if you want to get film and MF lenses, you will be surprise how low the selling price is for those gears. Don't think about the resale value of those gears:-) Again, is your choice.

For several reasons I never said goodbye to film, such as :

Going to places for weeks where there's no electrical power, I'm very happy to have film and 2 batteries that give me power for a year.

Going to places where I expect to have rapidly / frequently substantial changes in light level, I'm happy with digital and ISO whatever I need.

 

Now I'm looking for a solution when going to places where ..... ;-)

"In my experience, film doesn't even come close to the capabilities of digital imaging, whether for reasons of resolution, noise/grain, purity of color, consistency of contrast, dynamic range (huge difference), or especially creative potential. It's like comparing a slide rule to a pocket calculator"

 

Seems to me that National Geographic Magazine photos have not changed that much in 20 years, not as much as you claim anyway. I don't want to start any wars but who cares about all that stuff you mentioned. A good picture is a good picture whether it was taken on film or digital.

Hi Harry,

 

I'm not embarrassed to use whatever I have at hand. I remember once when I saw the perfect photo, just begging to be taken (two little girls, all dressed in pink, sporting their pink parasols while sitting very daintily overlooking the shoreline), and all I had at hand was a disposable camera a friend of mine was carrying. I got the shot.

 

The grain was awful. The chromatic aberration was even worse. There was even a strange smear of color in the corner of the frame from some mysterious source I was never able to identify (light leakage through the case?). But I got the shot. I spent a large amount of time trying to save the shot through editing and eventually decided the only thing I could do with it was to "brush stroke" it (which worked, since it really had an impressionist feel to it anyway). That was the only time I ever used a pre-canned gimmick on any of my images. But it worked, and I got the shot, despite unfavorable conditions:

 

http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phpinkparasolsthumb.jpg

 

My point is that we have to deal with limitations in our equipment and media all the time, not to mention adverse conditions in our shooting environments, uncooperative subjects, etc., etc. The more limitations we can free ourselves of, the better our chances of getting a good shot. I can think of at least a few images I've taken that would not have been possible with film. For instance:

 

http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phsedonamountains1thumb.jpg

 

I can think of many more that could not have been accomplished without digital photoediting. For instance:

 

http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phqueenanneslacethumb.jpg

http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phquailatsunsetthumb.jpg

http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phgodsoftheharvestthumb.jpg

 

My only point is that digital photography gives me many more photographic opportunities than are available with film. Yes, there are shots that could be achieved with either. However, there are countless shots that can only be achieved with digital, and none I've ever experienced that could only be achieved with film and conventional darkroom techniques. Moreover, digital methods give me the advantage of instant verification of my shots ON SITE, when I still have the opportunity to re-shoot. The importance of that, obviously, is fewer botched opportunities. (Yes, I know I'm supposed to be skilled enough to take perfect shots every time, but let's be honest with ourselves.)

 

So it's a question of having freedom and reliability, vs. wearing shackles. I choose the freedom and reliability. I get more usable shots that way.

 

Peace,

Sarah

"My only point is that digital photography gives me many more photographic opportunities than are available with film."

 

No problem Sarah, I took a look at your web site after I posted my rude reply and I have to agree with you, Digital has surpased film in every category, but just recently. Great photo's by the way. These days I'm comfortable enough to say, I rather use my digital camera for this project, but this was not allways the case.

 

For example, I don't consider myself a pro by any means, but for the past seven years, I have been shooting Youth Sports, (Little League) on weekends http://www.memorymakers.com/ .

 

On the average I shoot about 300 individual portraits which is about 30 teams each weekend. The equipment we use: Pentax K1000, Kodak 100 Gold, Norman lights. So far, not a single parent has complained about switching over to digital. The company that I work for has been doing this for 30 years and sees no reason to change, although we do use Digital for action Sports.

 

I think what the original poster meant was that there is nothing wrong with using film, depending on the situation. I use both, but for critical assignments such as weddings where you only got one shot, then I prefer to use Digital.

 

I work behind a computer during the day 40 hours a week. To come home and be shackled to a computer is not my idea of a good time. Sometimes I like to relax in my darkroom if you dont mind my saying so.

 

It's funny at my day job, vendors come in and out trying to get us hooked on some new fancy technological upgrade to the existing software, but the old software is working already, so why fix it ? Only if it provides our clients with superior service.

I can certainly think of ways in which Sarah's images could have been produced in the days before Photoshop and digital photography, involving a mix of darkroom technique (including for some colour altered images) and hand colouring/painting. The methods and skills are now largely lost in the modern world, but were actually quite common decades ago, and were used in everything from portraiture to advertising. In addition to requiring considerable skills and special materials (e.g. the making of lith masks) they were much more time consuming than using a computer.

I use my 20D for most shooting, except that I've begun shooting an awful lot with older film cameras lately and enjoy it immensely. Digital does provide a lot of conveniences that film doesn't, the obvious ones being instant feedback and the ability to change the ISO for each situation, and it gives me control over my shots--I'm not at all experienced in the darkroom. That being said, I will never give up film or my AF film bodies. I thoroughly love using my 1vHS and seeing the pictures that I can create using it. And even though this is probably purely psychological, I love the feeling of permanency that I get from film images, and as weird as it may seem, I love the anticipation of getting my film shots back from the lab to 'see how I did'.

Enjoy your 1N--I absolutely love my 1v and sometimes (frequently!) shoot it just to experience the joy of using such a nice camera. I've never left film, and despite the assertion on my part a couple of years ago that I don't need to use film anymore, I find myself using it more now than ever, and enjoying it more than ever. I will probably always use both. Digital is "better" in many ways, but sometimes film just makes me feel better in ways I'm not sure I can explain, or even feel the need to.

"Digital is "better" in many ways, but sometimes film just makes me feel better in ways I'm not sure I can explain, or even feel the need to."

 

... like my trusty 1970's era Gossen Luna Pro CDS, which I prefer over my fancy, new, digital Sekonic. I understand completely. And as I said before, this *IS* a very valid reason to use whatever you use -- that it makes you feel good about what you're doing. I've had very good shooting days and very bad shooting days, and the difference usually lies not in the conditions around me, the equipment I'm using, or the luck of how everything "aligns." The difference is usually the enthusiasm I have at the time. There are some days I can tell you I'm not going to get a good shot, almost no matter what, because I happen to be in a funk about something at the time.

 

My wish for all you film enthusiasts is that you can learn to love digital the way I do, because it's opened up a whole new world of creative potential to me. And yes, there is AMPLE room for light meters and zone metering and pushing and pulling and dodging and burning and creative filter use and and and... in digital photography. In fact I contend that Ansel Adams himself would have shot digital if it were available -- using one of those medium format film backs that mere mortals cannot afford! All the things you know and love about film can be done with digital. They're just done differently. But I do understand why you love film. I love film too. I just love digital more.

 

But if the two camps never merge, I would really just like to see peace between us. There is a place for both, and I really get upset when film photographers scare away my clients and customers by misinforming them (preaching at them) how inferior my medium is. I am almost forced to return fire to keep what clients and customers I have. In the end, what difference does it make whether a wedding is photographed with digital or film? Wedding photography is generally not all that "experimental" and is done under pretty well controlled conditions, so it can be accomplished very well with either. And what difference should it make how a work of art was shot/obtained/created? Isn't it the artwork itself that is important? We should not be having this argument (especially in public), as our customers get confused and discouraged, and we both lose. In the end, the differences between us are much smaller than what we share in common.

 

Peace,

Sarah

This thread is a similar comparison between CD/DVD vs black vinyl. less than 1% people still argue black vinyl sounds better. For the rest 99%, don't really care or the price difference is too much to justify to buy/keep the equipments. If you can convience your customers that film is better, go for it. To me, the cost, work load is too much for film shootings. my2cents.

"What do you think you can do with film that you cant do with digital?"

 

Contact printing.

 

8 hour start trail exposures.

 

Use the film canisters for salt and pepper shakers and small storage containers.

 

Use outdated film. (are there outdated CF cards?)

 

Cross process film.

 

Do it ALL without any electricity in the process.(with the old Deardorff 8x10, pt/pd prints and a bit of patience)

 

Pixelography is good for a lot of things but there are some things it doesn't do well yet. The biggest drawback I can see is that so many use it for the same old crap. They don't explore its capabilities and push any boundaries. It is just one more way to kill time doing the same old stuff with new technology. Those who are pushing things can turn out excellent work and finding a lot that their pixelrecorders can do that film cannot.

 

If it works, use it.

Mark U,

 

I didn't see your comments when I posted my last reponse to this thread. (Sorry.) I perhaps should have explained *why* those photos could not have been done with film, but I'll do so here:

 

The picture with the mountains and flowers outside of Sedona, AZ: This was taken at sunset. The foreground was very dark and shaded (by a mountain over my left shoulder). The mountains in the background were very bright. I needed every bit (speaking "digital" bits here) of gray scale depth I had in order to capture the image. The foreground was represented in the least significant bits and the background in the most significant. The dynamic range required to capture the image far exceeded the available dynamic range of any film ever made. In the end, I combined two differently contrasted layers to create the final image. This whole approach was Ansel Adams' zone system, gone nuclear. The film alternative might have been one of the following:

 

(1) Capture the image with two different exposures and somehow go through some elaborate blending process in the darkroom. Of course frame alignment might have been difficult, as I didn't have a tripod with me (airplane travel -- too bulky). Also, I would have had to use ASA 3200 film (or pushed 1600, I guess), owing to the dark foreground. But because high ASA film has golfball grain and poor color definition, I probably would have said, "Wish I had my tripod, but no thanks on this one."

 

(2) Use a graded neutral density filter, high speed film (again, with huge grain) and not worry that the exposure gradation didn't really fit the frame. I'd have passed.

 

(3) Set up some extroardinarily elaborate lighting in the several acres of foreground to balance the exposure. This would have been the best approach. It would have taken numerous trunks full of lighting equipment and days to set up. But of course I don't own that much lighting, and the TSA probably wouldn't let me bring it on a plane anyway! But I admit, in theory, using lighting of epic and heroic proportions, the picture COULD have been taken with film -- just not by me, and not by any of you. We're talking about the sort of photography that comes out of Hollywood.

 

As for the others...

 

The quail picture: Similar problem: Quail in one direction, sunset in the other. Two frames had to be combined. Getting the critter to line up with the sun when/where I needed it would have been impossible. Possible in the darkroom? Maybe, but the results wouldn't be very good.

 

The queen anne's lace photo: I exploited the lens' bokeh and a 100% contrast enhancement (with R, G, and B either at 255 or 0) to create a brush stroke effect in the background. Not possible with film, except perhaps with separate color filters (R, G, and B) recording separate color channels on Kodalith Ortho film -- and then the recombination of those colors in the darkroom. But I don't think it would work very well. Yes, I could paint it too, but wouldn't I rather just break out the oils?

 

Gods of the Harvest (the 12' high hay bails): This is a parody of the stone gods on Easter Island, inspired by some huge hay bails (with faces!) that I saw in Amish country in northeastern Ohio. I had to colorize the hay, add saturation to the grass, edit out a row of trees (not present on Easter Island, 'cuz they cut them all down for farmland), and substitute a pretty coastal Virginia sky overhead -- extra saturated, of course. Any of you film photographers want to take that on with traditional methods? I won't say it can't be done, but I think anyone who can do it should probably be worshipped as a deity!

 

I've mastered many rather sophistic film and darkroom techniques, and I even did some hand painting and retouching work back in the day. But these photos would have been over my head or impossible for me... or I suspect for anyone else.

 

The most important thing that digital imaging gives me (from the camera's perspective) is dynamic range. I get shadow detail in my frames that you film folks will never know was there. There is so much dynamic range that it cannot all be represented on paper or on a monitor, so I have the luxury of picking and choosing what information I want to preserve and what I can discard. In the film world, you have to take what you get, and you can't apply fancy contrast curves to compress anything in the middle.

 

The most important thing that digital photoediting gives me is flexibility and precision. Yes, one can retouch a negative and paint on a print, but copying, overlaying, blending, cloning, and so many other critical methods are difficult, if not impossible, to pull off convincingly using traditional methods.

 

I hope that clarifies!

 

Peace,

Sarah

 

Never left. I like the look of film, developing my own BW, 35 to 4x5. I just took a lunch time walk, and took 4-5 pics with my Eos3 (b&W). I can't imagine not being able to spend time printing in the darkroom. I use digital also, esp color printing. I also like being connected to the past a bit, can't explain it, but I like hand tools and single shot guns, etc. The only downside is the amount of film equipment I've purchased in the last few years, I will never use it all! I would like to say "thank you" to all the people who panicked 2005-present and put their mint equipment on ebay. A special thanks to the people who put mint film equipment on ebay in the wrong category, and posted really crappy digital product pics. Tom in Seattle.