How learn film photography by yourself from basics to evolved

How to learn film photography on your own?

I'm struggling with this question a lot. I would like to learn how proper expose my film in the camera and then develop film and photo.

All I need for this I have. A camera, darkroom, and film photography books. I find books about analog photography more

interesting then what I can find on the internet.

But i have more than 100 books on the subject of film photography. What would yu suggest is a good way to start

Have already a little experience but i want to go to the bottom.

 

Thx

Lieven

You've just described how most of us learned film photography long ago, before the internet. I never had that many books, though I have quite a few now, and the most valuable "books" were the various Kodak publications. That was back when they'd often send them for free if you wrote in with a question. That defines the bottom for me, but some of their stuff was quite advanced. Then the advanced amateur might read Neblette, Hollis & Todd and the Ansel Adams three book series. Today I'd also suggest Post Exposure by Ctein, which is currently a free download. Less well known in the US was the BJP, British Journal of Photography. Great stuff in there. Really, you just have to shoot some film, process it, and modify your procedure to address whatever shortcomings you find. Do a ring-a-round. Understand the Zone System, even if you don't use it.

A occasional nudge from a good mentor can be very helpful.

There are basic steps in learning photography.

Among these are

1) mastering the 'practice' of using the camera. Knowing that ISO, shutter speed, focus, holding the camera steady, etc. need to be learned even if you are usually shooting on automatic. A worker needs to know how to use their tools.

2) learning how to "compose" a picture- the art of photography. At the beginning you could do worse than to learn the "rules" such as the "rule of thirds", the basics of symmetry and randomness, etc.

 

And you have to do a lot of shooting and doing self-critiques to understand what is wrong and right with your images in both technical and aesthetic terms. A mentor or an honest critic is helpful and can speed up the learning considerably. This is one reason formal classroom instruction can be useful.

I'm an exclusively digital photographer so I know nothing about film photography, exposure or development. But I have some experience in 'learning'. I suggest you break your challenge down into its constituent parts:

- gradually learn how to get correct exposures (I have no idea how) by getting them developed by a lab; I imagine things like noting the lighting conditions (lightmeter?) and your exposure settings when taking a photo and comparing these with the resulting photos from from the lab-developed film; noting what worked, what didn't work and how you could improve your exposure settings under different lighting conditions

- when you feel reasonably confident that you can get 'correct exposures' under different lighting conditions, try experimenting with development: have the exposures developed in a lab, develop them yourself too and compare the results; learn how to improve your own development process to match (or improve on) the lab's

- when you're confident that you can get correct exposures and good development, move on to a fully manual process.

I'm an exclusively digital photographer so I know nothing about film photography, exposure or development. But I have some experience in 'learning'. I suggest you break your challenge down into its constituent parts:

- gradually learn how to get correct exposures (I have no idea how) by getting them developed by a lab; I imagine things like noting the lighting conditions (lightmeter?) and your exposure settings when taking a photo and comparing these with the resulting photos from from the lab-developed film; noting what worked, what didn't work and how you could improve your exposure settings under different lighting conditions

- when you feel reasonably confident that you can get 'correct exposures' under different lighting conditions, try experimenting with development: have the exposures developed in a lab, develop them yourself too and compare the results; learn how to improve your own development process to match (or improve on) the lab's

- when you're confident that you can get correct exposures and good development, move on to a fully manual process.

Mike, the issue with using a lab to develop film is twofold.

 

Firstly, assuming that they actually do a competent job, lab developed prints can mask an awful lot of errors, between the inherent exposure latitude of negative film and the level of digital correction possible, you can be a couple of stops over or under and never know, not when the only reference you have are minilab prints. Likewise, scans hide a lot of errors in that you can pull information from an unprintable neg and still get something that looks like a photo.

 

Secondly, finding a lab that does a decent job is getting harder.

 

So I'm in the 'do it yourself' camp.

 

To get started, pick a developer, something simple like D76. Pick a film, 100 or 400 ISO, Ilford FP4/HP5 is a good choice. Shoot it at box speed and develop for the recommended time.

 

Then change one thing at a time until you get the results you want.

 

Stick with a well proven film and developer until you get an idea of what you're doing, it may not be exciting, but there's less chance of things going wrong in a way you don't understand.

 

Paper and printing is the same, stick with well known, proven combinations until you've got the hang of it.

 

 

Exposure and actually shooting are the same regardless of film or digital, or near enough so that it makes no difference as a beginner.

But i have more than 100 books on the subject of film photography.

 

As a beginner I think it is possible to be overwhelmed with too much information, whether it be from books or online. I also grew up before the internet age, but even then I first learned the basics of photography as a boy from my stepfather, and also from a patient high school journalism class teacher, who introduced me to the darkroom.

 

Later on, I read some of the books by John Hedgecoe, Michael Freeman, and others, which helped me to expand my knowledge, refine my techniques, and correct some mistakes I had been making. As I had already gained some previous hands-on experience, it made more sense then. I still keep those books for reference.

Edited December 19, 2020 by m42dave

Find a good lab. Bring money.

 

In nearly 2021, I think digital, especially when shot with care and attention to what produces images you like, is the preferable gateway to film photography. Why? For starters, film, competent processing/printing, and chemistry are harder to access and pricier than ever before. I shot nothing but film--35mm and 120--until late in the game simply because I had quality, affordable processing nearby. Once that fizzled, I shifted to mostly digital but kept shooting 120 b&w since I could easily DSLR scan it. Presently I shoot NO 35mm or 120 C-41 after a recent move separated me from my old labs. I love film still but unless/until I can access my old labs I won't be shooting much--if any.

 

Right now, I think getting good at LR/PS is what will bring satisfaction--whether the files originated from film or a sensor. Unless your workflow allows you to process/print what you shoot, film can be overly-complicated and frustrating. You should try it but just be aware that the film ecosystem is now often a shadow of its former self relative to the world Freeman and Hedgecoe wrote in.

I stand corrected, [uSER=8475649]@steve_gallimore|1[/uSER] ! "Changing one thing at a time until you get the results you want" was the main point I intended to make. My naïve assumption that a "lab" would deliver consistent 'standard exposure' results was obviously wrong. I take your point that digital corrections and scans can mask out information that would be useful to have. In digital terms, I prefer to learn from the "raw data" too before making any corrections/adjustments.

 

Mike.

 

Mike, the issue with using a lab to develop film is twofold.

 

Firstly, assuming that they actually do a competent job, lab developed prints can mask an awful lot of errors, between the inherent exposure latitude of negative film and the level of digital correction possible, you can be a couple of stops over or under and never know, not when the only reference you have are minilab prints. Likewise, scans hide a lot of errors in that you can pull information from an unprintable neg and still get something that looks like a photo.

 

Secondly, finding a lab that does a decent job is getting harder.

 

So I'm in the 'do it yourself' camp.

 

To get started, pick a developer, something simple like D76. Pick a film, 100 or 400 ISO, Ilford FP4/HP5 is a good choice. Shoot it at box speed and develop for the recommended time.

 

Then change one thing at a time until you get the results you want.

 

Stick with a well proven film and developer until you get an idea of what you're doing, it may not be exciting, but there's less chance of things going wrong in a way you don't understand.

 

Paper and printing is the same, stick with well known, proven combinations until you've got the hang of it.

 

 

Exposure and actually shooting are the same regardless of film or digital, or near enough so that it makes no difference as a beginner.

Really, “just do it”. Focus on educating yourself in areas where you see your results are lacking from what you think is a satisfying result.

You'll speed up the process of learning the basics of exposure, focus, etc. by using a digital camera that offers a full manual mode.

 

No processing or film costs or waiting to see results, and any mistakes will be entirely your own, rather than due to some careless 'lab' worker.

 

And before the usual bleating about 'instant gratification' gets trotted out. It's instant feedback.

 

Try learning to juggle blindfold and while somebody else randomly interferes with the juggling balls!

 

All the basics of ISO, shutter speed, aperture and composition are identical, regardless of using film or digital.

 

And beware those YouTube videos showing how to develop a film. Most of them appear to be made by people without a clue. And certainly no more than 5 minutes experience!

Edited December 20, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

i want to go to the bottom

Assuming you want a books recommendation: Ansel Adams' trilogy (Camera) Positive Negative. - Somewhere between great & overkill for B&W.

I don't recommend film for DIY color.

Assuming you want a books recommendation: Ansel Adams' trilogy (Camera) Positive Negative. - Somewhere between great & overkill for B&W.

I don't recommend film for DIY color.

Hi Jochen,

 

I know the 3 books of Ansel Adams. Have read the negative. Is pretty good. I will summarise this book, cause i forgot lots of it.

You'll speed up the process of learning the basics of exposure, focus, etc. by using a digital camera that offers a full manual mode.

 

No processing or film costs or waiting to see results, and any mistakes will be entirely your own, rather than due to some careless 'lab' worker.

 

And before the usual bleating about 'instant gratification' gets trotted out. It's instant feedback.

 

Try learning to juggle blindfold and while somebody else randomly interferes with the juggling balls!

 

All the basics of ISO, shutter speed, aperture and composition are identical, regardless of using film or digital.

 

And beware those YouTube videos showing how to develop a film. Most of them appear to be made by people without a clue. And certainly no more than 5 minutes experience!

 

Hi Joel,

 

thx for your reaction. I have a digital basis what i sure can use. I want to focus basically on exposing the film right in the camera, developing the negatives and the the print.

Thats my learning objective...

You've just described how most of us learned film photography long ago, before the internet. I never had that many books, though I have quite a few now, and the most valuable "books" were the various Kodak publications. That was back when they'd often send them for free if you wrote in with a question. That defines the bottom for me, but some of their stuff was quite advanced. Then the advanced amateur might read Neblette, Hollis & Todd and the Ansel Adams three book series. Today I'd also suggest Post Exposure by Ctein, which is currently a free download. Less well known in the US was the BJP, British Journal of Photography. Great stuff in there. Really, you just have to shoot some film, process it, and modify your procedure to address whatever shortcomings you find. Do a ring-a-round. Understand the Zone System, even if you don't use it.

 

Thx for your input Conrad...I will read Post Exposure by Ctein. What was important to you ..

Important? Hmmm... When I started with photography I wanted to learn everything. For some reason I was a photographic sponge and read everything I could get my hands on. Back then it wasn't nearly as easy as today. We did have the common photo magazines, Modern Photography and Popular Photography, I think, with all the ads in the back. My first fundamentals came mostly from Kodak info. I seem to remember that the little piece of paper that came with the film really had most of what you needed to know. Heck, you just bought a Tri-chem pack, or some D-76 and fixer, and had at it. Remember, kids did this with little supervision. It's just not that tough. I'm assuming you already have at least a good overview of the basics, so it's really a matter of doing it and learning from your mistakes. If you want to learn fast, make mistakes fast, because mistakes are feedback. Thus Joe's suggestion to learn film using a digital camera.

 

Once you have basic exposure and processing down, hit the more advanced books like Post Exposure and the early texts I listed, so you have a better understanding of how the process works. IMO, about this time you should realize it's all pointless if you don't think about the images and why you're doing photography. What do you want to say or accomplish? There's nothing wrong with wanting to make pretty pictures, but also nothing wrong with wanting to document the world's troubles.

 

When I was a teenager, one of my favorite books was something my mother found at a tag sale. It was The Fun of Photography by Mario and Mabel Scacheri, published in 1938. It's quaint and maybe aimed at an unsophisticated audience, not always PC, but the pictorial advice is sound, even 82 years later. The processing advice shows how little things have changed and they give the sound recommendation not to obsess over it. It's still inexpensive and easy to find.

I want to focus basically on exposing the film right in the camera, developing the negatives and the the print.

A handheld incident meter used correctly sorts out the first, and following the maker's instructions the 2nd and 3rd.

 

However, no book is going to give you the skill to load a spiral, nor to be able to print the resulting negative to your own vision and satisfaction. That only comes with time and practise. (And at a fairly high monetary cost!)

 

I'd suggest only using 35mm film until you get the processing right - just for economy - then move to medium format to get away from the pitiful little 35mm negative and its poor quality.

When developing film, I found only one way to always avoid air bells: do one rinse between developer and fixer. You'd be surprised how often the film books fail to suggest that.

 

Second: whether shooting mono or color, remember Capa's advice to "get closer.". Looking back at my early shots, I can see that almost every one could have been improved had I heard Capa's advice.

 

Third: shoot with one focal length for your first year. I did that myself because I couldn't afford a second lens! That turned out to be fortunate, and in accord with the advice of photography teachers I have since read. But don't fall into a trap that I did. I have failed to experiment enough with anything but 50mm! When I decide to reform, I will shoot a lot with 85mm, a focal length I find congenial. I will have to struggle against mighty inertia.

 

Fourth: study Eugene Smith.

Edited January 1, 2021 by royall_berndt

When developing film, I found only one way to always avoid air bells: do one rinse between developer and fixer. You'd be surprised how often the film books fail to suggest that.

<snip>

 

My memories of Tri-X developing are that I used a stop bath between dev and fix, not a rinse.

Oops. I meant between the developer and stop bath. Thanks for the catch.

I meant between the developer and stop bath. Thanks for the catch.

How will that prevent air bells?

If you get air bells in the developer, the damage will already have been done by the time you get to the rinse/stop bath.

 

The way to prevent air bells is to bang the tank down fairly hard a couple of times onto a folded towel or similar, just after first filling. This is processing 101.

 

Rinse or stop bath? Makes no difference really, only to the lifespan of the fixer.

 

If you're talking about getting gas blisters from mixing developer and stop bath, then you're using far too strong a solution of stop bath!

And in over 50 years of developing film, I've never seen gas blistering on any film.

 

P.S. the extra overhang, ridge or lip on a plastic spiral is more likely to trap air than the cleaner lines of a stainless spiral. So if you are finding air bells an issue, ditch the plastic tank and get a stainless one. And knock it down on the bench a couple of times after each agitation.

Edited January 2, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1

The greatest thing about film photography is that it made the move to Digital so easy. I still get what I want in one, two, maybe three exposures on my dslrs when others make a thousand exposures to get a keeper. The first thing I did when I bought my two dslrs was to put gaffer's tape over their rear screens in 2007.

There is the science of photography, and there is the art.

 

Composition and framing, along with subject selection are important parts of the art.

 

For me, the science was always more fun, though, and with film you are closer to the science.

With digital, there is nothing like watching the print appear after you put the paper in

the developer. (Watching paper come out of an inkjet printer is not at all the same.)

 

Even if you are not up to wet printing, you should think about developing your

own black and white film. There are enough C41 labs around, it is fine to use

them, and even with XP-2 if you are in the mood for that.)

 

It is hard to find good labs for black and white film developing, and it is pretty easy

and affordable to do at home. You don't even need a dark room, as a changing

bag is just fine. As above, it is important to understand film exposure looking at

actual film. Even if they scan it for you, you should still look at the negatives.

There should be some areas that are close to clear, others that are pretty dark.

If all is almost clear, or all is almost dark, exposure is off, though you might

still get scans out of them.

 

XP-2 negatives are somewhat harder to understand looking at them. As well as I know

(I don't use it so much), properly exposed negative look underexposed if you are used

to other films.

 

If you are only interested in the art of photography, not much reason to go for film.

But if you like the science, then yes. It is not all that expensive as hobbies go.

My advice is to keep it simple. Use one camera and one lens, 45-55mm. One film. Skip the Adams books. His advice not suitable for roll film. For basics, the Kodak book How to Make Better Pictures. The last version of the Leica Manual covers almost all aspects of photography, with excellent darkroom section by David Vestal. Owning a Leica is not required. There is a book that I would strongly recommend, but not near my books and having a Biden moment and can’t remember author or title. Has famous pic of photographer with lens and viewfinder as eyes.