Ditched Digtial

So this is not meant to rile anyone up. I just recently decided to ditch my digital setup. I had a Olympus E500

with the standard kit lenses and some OM lenses with adapters. I have no real beef with digital I simply found

that I didn't care for the process. I work in technology and perhaps it has more to do with me wanting something

I do for pleasure to be as far away form my job as possible (I teach and support desktop media tools at a

University). For whatever reason I decided to go old school. Anyway, I sold off all my stuff and dug out some

old MF gear I have and have been having waaaaay more fun.

 

I have an old Canon AE1P (with a 50mm 1.4) an Olympus 35RC, XA, Ricoh GR1S and a Canonet GIII that has seen

better days. I'd love to find an Olympus RD, I had one many years ago but I lost it. I live in Washington State

so I'd like a bit faster lens than the RC and the XA have and as I said before the Canonet GIII is not doing so

well (I loaned it to a friend for traveling and they...well, lets just say its not i the same shape I gave it to

them in). Anyway after diving back in I found that I REALLY like the little RF cameras a lot. So here I am.

 

I am feeling pretty rusty in the film department. Any suggestions for a good BW film to use in the RF's? I have

been using TRI-X and like it I am getting ready to pick up some more so I thought I'd solicit some suggestions.

Luckily we have local film processing lab that does a pretty good job with BW. I am a bit leary of C41 processed

BW film as the last time I used it they came back kind of sepia toned (although that WAS at a different lab).

 

Thanks

Enjoy!

I haven't shot much C41 B&W lately, but, when I did, I got good results at the local Wal-Mart. I would always just order development and a CD.

I am enjoying the entire process quite a bit. It shard to pin down what exactly I like better about it, I just prefer it. As far as C41 BW...I know that many people swear by it. I would think that BW film processed by a lab that knows what they are doing should produce superior BW that what you can get with C41 film but I can't say with any certainty.

C-41 has about half of the tonal range as "real" B&W film, so you either get really flat looking images or super contrasty images if you try to use a yellow filter. My favorite B&W film by far is Ilford FP4+, it's a 125 speed film, so it's sorta slow, but the grain and contrast are just lovely balanced. I've shot it in everything from medium format to a Pen EES-2 and it looks great in all formats! Kodak's Plus-X is similar with the same speed, but I tend to like the look of FP4+ better for some reason. Kodak recently reformulated T-Max 400 and it's apparently quite impressive, although I haven't tried it yet.

I only recently, about 2 month ago, bought my first DSLR, a the E-410. I will keep it, as it sometimes is practical, but I don't get any fun out of it. I am, like you Kevin, not willing to spend much time in front of my computer. Just last week I perchased a OM-2n, with 3.6/35-70, aditional to my OM-1n. I love these cameras!

Regarding your question about films: Tri-X ist still a very good film, especially the tonality. If you want it sharper and with finer grain, try the new TMax 400.

ahhhh and OM1. I am looking to find a decent OM1. I really like that camera.

 

There is a certain freedom you get while shooting with a film camera. maybe its the fact that your not tethered to a wall socket for power (battery life for DSLRs has always been a sore point for me). I like to travel and I'd prefer not to have to lug my laptop, battery charger and all the assorted cables with me just to be able to shoot pictures. Well, everyone is different.

Kevin,

 

Welcome back to the fold. Some of us never left.

 

If you want to catch up on B/W film take a look here:

 

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/home.asp

 

Their Delta 400 Professional was introduced relatively recently.

 

I keep to E6 myself.

I deffinitely suggest an OM-1...I love mine.

 

For a film, I don't really like the Kodak 400CN to much. I LOVE the Ilford XP2 super for C41 process. You might need to try around at a lab or two before you can get them to process it correctly. The Kodak stuff has an orange cast to the negatives, but the Ilford negatives are a true B&W, so a lot of the Kodak machines end up with a sepia cast to the Ilford film if the operator doesn't correct for it. I've had some film where I actually liked the sepia cast and others where I hated it (mostly dislike it). If I find I have a really bad cast to the film I sometimes ask them to reprint the pictures and the couple times I have asked them to they did and they came out properly.

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20061301945161573.pdf

 

The XP2 super is an ISO400 film, but Ilford states that you can expose it as anything from an ISO100-800 film with less grain at 100 and 200 and more at 800. I have had excellent results exposing it as everything from ISO100 to a bit over ISO800. The resoultion is very high on this film.

Thanks for the suggestions. I took a look at the ilford link. I think the best option it to get a few rolls of different film, shoot them and get the developed at the local lab and see what I like. Thanks again.

Ilford XP2 can processed in C-41 colour lab machines but produces b&w negs with a clear base that print well in darkroom or machine. They are also excellent for scanning as the dye-based image is smoother than the grittiness of traditional b&w, if that's your preference. I find it goes flat and grainy if underexposed even a little, so EI 400 is max for me, 250 is better.

 

Kodak's C-41 b&w film has the same orange base as the colour neg films, so is handy for wedding photogs running colour and mono side-by-side, but is otherwise a poor choice.

 

There's not much wrong with Tri-X and HP5 Plus. Both are legendary films and can handle just about anything.

Matthew, I had no idea about that, that makes me want to try it again! Although convincing any of the labs I use to process something as different than it says on the label will probably require pulling teeth!

Kevin, the OM-1 or slightly newer OM-1n are both desirable cameras but keep in mind even the newest 1n will be at least 20 years old and the cost of a CLA should be added to the price. Even so they are definitely worth it. Sounds like you get by well with slightly wide fixed lenses on your rangefinders so I don't know what focal lengths you would want for the OM but Olympus Zuikos and some desirable third party lenses are still in plentiful supply on the used market. Where in Washington do you live, I'm located in Olympia and have been an OM user for 35 years.

John,

 

I have generally had good luck in using older cameras. One of the reasons I left digital is that I found of all

the images I took the ones I liked the best consistently were from one of my film cameras. I have had most of my

older cameras CLA'd and its true it makes them pricier, but IMHO they are more durable than their digital

relatives. Now, in all fairness I still have a few digital cameras (A fuji F20 and a Panasonic FZ18 that get used

for birthday parties and holidays and between the 2 the Fuji gets most of that work because of its low light

abilities) but I ditched the DSLR and lenses and for any of my recreational shooting I am moving back to film.

 

I like the OM1 because of its size. I like to travel around and take my camera with me and the OM1 is a nice

compact package. I also happen to think that the OM lenses are under appreciated by many photographers. Also,

when you consider the cost of any older camera (including repair and cleaning) you can get a LOT more capability

for the money than with digital.

 

FWIW...my rangefinder obsession is...yeah, I think they are pretty great. I suspect I would go nuts over a Leica

with a 50mm Summicron or a Konica Hexar or even a BessaR2 but I've also got a 5 year old to make sure is fed and

has a roof over his head so I'll hold back for now. I think I'm getting maximum fun out of the old compact

rangefinders. In some ways the limitation sof those old cameras force me to be more creative.

Headline in paper visualized: < Dixey Ditches Digital. Covets Classic Canonets.> How does that grqb you? Kevin. Good luck. And seriously if you can ever locate a modern Konica autofocus Hexar--- it is the Canonet rangefinder and lens for all seasons, with autofocus and the equivalent of a 35mm Summicron fast optic. You would love it. to death. A real rugged beast and quiet and fast. Not for everyone but it is a cult classic. Check Rich Caruana old review here in Photonet if you can locate it. Happy Holiday Kevin. gs

http://www.photo.net/equipment/point-and-shoot/konica-hexar

NIce headline

 

I have always like the Hexar. Almost bought one about 10 or 12 years ago. I thought it was pretty great then. They're a little pricey these days (although I guess not so much compared to Leica ). I just picked up an old Konica S3 so I'm looking forward to playing with that. There are so many great cameras out there...first I have to get the photographer in me out and practicing again.

After I posted that last part I realize how silly that sounds. Here I am with about 6 cameras whining about how pricey a used Hexar 35mm is (FWIW about $500 at KEH). I guess [art of it is that while I ma a gearhead (in many areas) I try and always make my obsession pay for itself. I sell one camera to get another one and typically I don't go on buying sprees (although I HAVE in the pst).

 

Anyway, I think the Hexar looks like an incredible camera. Now, the Hexar RF IS pricey.

What I love about film? The commitment: you cannot release the shutter ten times in the blithe hope of getting a

result. You have to do all the thinking before you activate your digit. ("Digit" not as in "digital".) Even if

you are (still) able to do your own lab-work, you cannot afford to waste the film or the photo opportunities.

 

I became disabled and consequently very depressed about 18 years ago, and decreed that I was no longer fit enough

to do photography, wail, wail, moan and moan. So I literally got rid of my 1977 model OM2 and all its extensive

lenses and accessories to the first person who offered me anything at all for it. But I hadn't killed the

photography bug, and went through a point and shoot APS and two compact digital cameras. Miserable. So I

decided to go back to Olympus with a reasonable amount of kit: an E-420 with the two packaged lenses, the macro

35mm f/3.5, the dedicated flash, a tripod and bits and bobs.

 

I was a happy bunny for some weeks, until I was approached, while out shooting, by someone who said he had

noticed the Olympus straps. He showed me an OM2n with the 35-70mm f/4 zoom, which he was holding so nonchalantly

in one hand I hadn't already noticed it. He was polite about the E-420+, but I knew he wasn't really interested

and we spent most of our time discussing OMs from 1 to 4Ti. I was really jealous of him by the time he left, and

the next day I was off on an OM hunt, with the initial guidance of my neighbouhood photographic shop.

 

I now have more equipment than it would be polite to list completely, based on an as new OM-2S program with its

own set of as new lenses, and 2 other OM-2Sp and an OM-2s that are there to earn their keep, with functionally

100% lenses, the lot being not exactly pretty to look at, but great to use. Happy, me? No, blissful!

 

In fact I'm almost resigned to taking the mother of all hits to just be rid of my really nice digital kit. It

doesn't challenge me. I can just shoot all day long, stopping from time to time to jettison the dross, and only

start to commit to the shots I've taken when I move them over to a portable HDD, after a final thinning out process.

 

I don't even enjoy the work I can do on a shot with my PC: it feels more like a way to lower my up-front

standards than a facility for improving my photography. I'm no Luddite; that E-420 is a little gem, but I

haven't "bonded" with it, nor with what I can do with it. A little gem? Yes. My little gem? Nope! It just

doesn't ever give me any satisfaction at getting a good shot in the bag in one shot, maybe two if it seems worth

it. Nor does it infuriate me when I find that a "good" shot was actually a load of rubbish, and I need that to

make me try ever harder. I'm too old to relive my previous life with an OM2, and anyway I'm not the maudlin

kind, but I am as passionate about photography now as I was over 50 years ago. with my Brownie Box.

 

But I might not ditch the digital. Macro of insects and plants can really chew through a roll of film, for one.

But it's just great for photography of our grandchildren while keeping their grandmother happy. Take That! yes

dear... Look, Now! yes dear... What Did You Get? look dear... Mmm, Not Bad! thank you dear...

 

Now if someone can point me in the direction of a sustained source of colour negative film from a major brand,

not out-of-date and less than 200 ASA, I will be happier still. The best I found was a stock of 5 reels of Fuji

Pro 160 ASA, of which I was rationed to just 2. Help! (Please, sustained sources only; I don't want to have to

repeat this every 2 rolls.) I know I should not be so narrow-minded about the date, but...

[[What I love about film? The commitment: you cannot release the shutter ten times in the blithe hope of getting a result. You have to do all the thinking before you activate your digit. ]]

 

There is no reason you cannot do this with digital. You are blaming the tools for your own inability to not press the shutter button. This is hardly the fault of the camera or of digital photography.

 

Try putting a card in your camera that only let's you take 24 photos before it's full. I did and it was very very interesting.

Geoffrey wrote " I don't even enjoy the work I can do on a shot with my PC: it feels more like a way to lower my

up-front standards than a facility for improving my photography. " Yes. I think that is my only tingling

misgiving about the wonders of digital post processing.

I see images in the critique offerings where just a little attention to background or lighting would give an in

camera result perfecton.... Allowing photoshop to do what it does best. Enhancement and not repair. Does that

make sense? Get it as good as you can in the camera. Maybe that is horse and buggy. Red eye removal? We knew how

to eliminate that years ago during shooting. Reflections in glasses?. Harder but still doable. Or maybe the

reflections BELONG there after all? gs

To Geoffrey R Jackson: I'd recommend Kodak Portra 160 films - NC for low saturation, VC for more punch in the colours. I don't use anything else for prints, they have superb skin tones and plenty of latitude.

I'll jump in...

 

I have shot my share of digital when I was working doing product photos. I think digital has some real advantages whe it comes to workflow and repurposing the images. I think that digital is probably a real boon to journalists that need to get stuff out in a short period of time. I think there are some really nice digital cameras out there (both DSLR and some really nice point and shoots). That being said I find that I do not particularly enjoy shooting digital.

 

I like to wander around and shoot photos in the back country and I find that film is a lot more convenient. I like the feel of old film cameras and have yet to find a digital that was a nice that didn't cost more than my first car. In some ways film is more of a hassle because we live in a wired world and if you want to share your photos they need to get translated to digital at some point. Starting out digital is way more convenient but I simply don't enjoy it as much. Maybe its me. I still like vinyl as well.

Further to my post above, it has only now come to my attention that Kodak have released (re-released?) <a

http="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/ektar/qAndA.jhtml">Ektar 100</a> in 35mm.