Who is enjoying shooting 35mm film?

[randall_pukalo]

Les, agreed, you do get better quality files they way you go. I simply meant I use the digital PS for quick FLickr postings, images to view on my computer screen (1200x1900 is all thats needed for that, scanning or the 14.7MP digital is way overkill), and to satisfy my need for immediate gratification looking at the images in bed after a day of shooting.

 

I was actually shocked at how bad the digital PS quality is when you zoom in! You get 14.7MP of crap basically. Why cant they do a 3MP digital PS that has a large DSLR sized sensor. I know, sigma DP, but that has a fixed 28mm lens - not very good for portraits.

[doug grosjean]

I'm in agreement with Patrick Dempmsey, not just about film, but about the classic cameras.

 

On a classic camera, once a user learns the basics of F-stop and shutter speed and film speed; he / she can competently operate cameras spanning nearly a century.

 

Meanwhile, when I go digital, I have to double-check the manual the night before to remind myself which menu does what.

 

Unlike Patrick, I may or may not shoot 35mm film. Depends on mobility and expected output and what I'm willing to carry.

[jonathan_dalton]

I only use 35mm film right now, colour negative, slide and black and white. I develop black and white at home and send colour out. All my film is scanned at the camera shop where the C-41 is developed. I'll get prints of the colour stuff to see it right away, but the slides I mount and project to look at them. As soon as I get the materials I'll be printing my own colour as well. I'm not big on scanning, so the basic scans from the lab will do.

 

Sometime in the future I'll get a medium format camera but probably stick to 35mm for the most part. I'll use the medium format for epic shots that are well planned out. I have no interest in digital whatsoever.

[plasma181]

Almost all of my portfolio was shot with 35mm color film. Most of them were scanned with my Nikon Coolscan LS-2000. I've been thinking of upgrading to a Coolscan IV or a 4000. I may pick up a digital camera as well for when I don't want 24 or 36 pictures.

[lilserenity]

This is an enjoyable thread, less focussed on what's better, what's not, just based on what people enjoy :)

 

I have had almost for as long as I have been taking photos a passion for black and white and I have got some fairly alright shots with a digital camera in black and white but my first passion will always be choosing the right film for the job. E.g out shooting landscapes whilst hiking, I'd probably use HP5+ or Tri-X, for finer more considered landscapes on a more relaxed walk I'd go for FP4+ or PanF maybe, gritty urban shots? I like Delta 100's contrast and tonality for that and for long exposures I've had most success at night with XP2. Portraiture, well the world's your oyster... Gig photography? Neopan 1600 or Delta 3200.

 

I bought a MF camera a few months back, my first ever after years and years of 35mm which is great but the size of it does remind you abhout the versatility of the 35mm form.

 

I have been developing all of my own 35mm b+w at home now, and since last week I picked up virtually a whole darkroom bar the chemicals for £60 so I'm starting to do my own prints at home and it is just ridiculously good fun and very very creative. I can see why so many swear by processing+printing themselves, the control over the process can result in a very different print from those you might get with say Ilford's process+print service. (Which is very good.)

 

I do shoot colour print and slide as well but not quite as much, I just enjoy black and white too much. It's great to do something that involves no computer as well and it really makes me feel so in touch and involved with the process, knowing that every step of the way I have been able to really influence what has been captured and printed and aside from a mechnical failure I should never have a problem (except with the EOS 3 which is very electronic and the enlarger bulb!)

 

In terms of quality, I've printed shots up to 16x12, the best of those were from Delta 100, PanF and FP4+ -- I'm not going to say they're so sharp you cut yourself looking at them but the quality is most certainly excellent, but for most things I print anywhere between 6x4/5x7 to 8x10 which is perfectly practical to store, hang and seems a nice sweet spot for print sizes. The only ones I do larger tend to be landscapes, heads bigger than me hanging on the wall doesn't do it for me :)

 

With the MF camera which can churn out fantastic definition and quality, I will be shooting film by the looks of it for years to come, particularly 35mm. :)

[steve m smith]

I recently decided that I was going to use 35mm exclusively for colour and use medium and large format for black and white.

<BR><BR>

The colour would be lab processed and printed whilst I would do the black and white myself.

<BR><BR>

Part of the reasoning for this was that I had just acquired a mint Kodak Retina Reflex III which I really enjoy using. I have got a couple of extra lenses for it but unfortunately the shutter has given up. As most camera repair guys run away and hide under the table when you mention Retina Reflex, I am now looking for a replacement body (either a Kodak or a Bessamatic).

<BR><BR>

35mm will still be my primary (only?) colour format though.

[steve m smith]

Something I forgot to mention: I am looking forward to trying Ektar 100 soon. I have not seen it for sale in the UK yet though.

[clive1]

I shoot film exclusively. Recently I've been shooting mostly MF, but I shoot some 35mm as well (OM-1, like previous posters). I scan using an Epson flatbed scanner. HOWEVER, and I'm sure others have or will point this out, once you scan the thing it becomes a digital image. If that's fine with you, then go for it. The main reason I shoot film is that I develop and print black and white film using traditional darkroom techniques. I also agree with what Patrick Dempsey says about the tactile qualities of so-called classic cameras.

[philip_sutton]

This is a great thread and thanks for the really good comments and practical stuff. There is always somebody like

Scott looking for problems that aren't there - but hail the rest of you!

 

Well done on the darkroom stuff Vickie - I am hoping to give that a go if I can pick up a good used kit on fleabay!

 

Phil

[Dave Luttmann]

I’ve really enjoyed going back to 35mm. I’ve been using 4x5 for a few years to obtain the best results. I found I wasn’t using my RB67 so I sold it off. My most recent foray back to 35mm has been with a Bessa R2a rangefinder. As much as I love the small size, I’m not a rangefinder guy in the end…..so that will be going soon.

 

What thrills me most is my most recent Ebay acquisition. A little while back I picked up a pristine Minolta X700 with 28, 35, 50 and 135 lenses for just shy of $200. The original owner must have babied it. The X700 is actually smaller and a bit lighter than my rangefinder. I’ve enjoyed the Minolta so much that I’ve been using it solely for my street B&W work. As well, when I can get my hands on some Ektar 100 (hello Kodak…..remember Canada……same population as California……we’d like some film here too please!) I’ll probably use it for a replacement for the DSLRs I’ve got.

 

After many (too many) years of wedding photography, I stopped this fall. It’s nice not having to deal with big, heavy DSLRs. And the results I’ve seen from drum scanned Ektar 100 show that it is wonderful out to 16x24 with ease!

[philip_sutton]

Dave - enjoyed your response. Can you tell me a little bit about Ektar 100? I have been out of photography for over ten yrs and have only come back a few weeks ago. I know nothing about new films, new this or that or new anything.

 

Is this a new Kodak B/W film? Is it supposed to be really good with fine grain so one can enlarge it? I will ring up and see if it is available in Australia?

 

Are the drum scans you speak of the really expensive ones you have to get done at the lab (I think I read those machines cost 50,000 dollars plus)? How much does it cost you in Canada for one scan?? Can one still get a print taken off a slide - I think they used to call it Ektachrome?

 

 

Cheers - Phil

[vascoabranches]

HIi Philip! I still Love to shoot 35mm film. I like to shoot b/w landscapes and textures. I also Like digital. It depends

on what i want to do , i work with digital and film, but for b/w pictures outdoors, i still prefer film with filters.

friendly regards<div></div>

[Dave Luttmann]

Ektar 100 is an ultra fine grained color film designed to be scanned. It appears the substrate material has less optical issues with scanners and thus shows less speckles. As well, the grain is so fine that 11x14 prints from it show no visible grain. Even at 16x24, the grain is so small that it only appears as a slight texture as opposed to “golf ball” size.

 

Drum scans have a wide range in price. I get scans from West Coast Imaging and they run about $30 to $40. High quality Imacon scans can be had as well in the same range. Finally, you can wet mount your film, even in a Nikon 5000 scanner to improve Dmax and less grain somewhat. Scans I’ve seen from Ektar 100 scanned on Nikon 5000 (about a $1000 scanner) will hold up just fine at 16x24.

 

Film is perfect for low volume shooting where certain quality levels or a certain look is desired. I love the gritty look of Fuji Neopan 1600 B&W film. Yes, I can have less noise in a shot from a Nikon D3 DSLR at 6400 iso…..but it will look different.

 

That’s the old saying….. “That’s grain……it’s supposed to be there.”

[scott_turner]

"There is always somebody like Scott looking for problems that aren't there - but hail the rest of you!"

 

Did you actually read what I wrote? My apologies for trying to help.

 

Jeez.

 

Scott

[Andy Collins]

I thoroughly enjoy using both film and digital. When I got my first DSLR in '03 I shot almost exclusively

digital, but in the last couple of years I've gotten back to shooting as much film as digital. I've always loved

the look of film and the differing characteristics of different films, but like Patrick and Les, I love the

cameras I have that use film. I use a lot of classic rangefinders and have developed a deep appreciation for the

designs of some of these cameras, designs that make sense and are rewarding to use, and that were made to last

for decades. My

favorite camera though, is my Canon 1vHS, an incredible image making machine that feels like it was made

specifically for me, my eyes, and my hands. As long as I have it I will always have a use for film. I also hope

to purchase a film scanner over the course of the coming year to maximize the potential of the marriage of film

and digital in my photographic process, but even having said that I really enjoy finishing a roll, dropping it

off, and then picking it up and feeling the excitement over the pictures I'm about to look at.

 

This doesn't mean that I think less of my 30D at all. I really love this camera a lot and I'm impressed by it all

over again every time I pick it up. I realize it's 'old' by digital standards, but it does everything I ask of it

and is capable of much more than I am. I can take absolutely stunning pictures with it (when I do everything

right, that is) and I like the quality of the images I get back from it. In this camera I feel like Canon finally

created a full-featured and fully capable camera body for the serious photographer not wanting to spend a fortune

on pro bodies.

 

So, to answer the original question--yes, I still use and thoroughly enjoy film and plan to do so as long as film

is available, which I think will be quite a long time, thankfully.

[lilserenity]

No one can quibble that cameras like Nikon's excellent D3 and D700 have better high iso-low noise performance and for someone like me who has never liked using flash, I can see the definite benefit there.

 

But... the thing is I don't like low noise shots, I like a bit of grit in the subject as it suits what I'm shooting usually in low light, handheld which is gigs (jazz bands etc.) and urban street photography. If I'm doing night exposures I will have the tripod on me and a slower film so I can get the definition with a hint of grit. It works for me, but I appreciate not for everyone else. If I made my crust from professional potraiture I could see myself 'needing' a D700/D3 for work for the flattering low noise shots -- though my instinct would be to do the gritty shots but then you can't tell your customer what to like. So don't get me wrong -- I'm no luddite, I'm a web developer by profession :)

 

One thing about 35mm however is that by and large I don't find scanning does it the best justice, prints (be they digital or wet-prints - I prefer the latter) can still churn out some real crackers at larger than 11x14. Of course this tends to be with the slower speed (ISO 100 or slower) films on a tripod with a sharp lens. A lot of PanF I have shot at box speed (50) on a tripod has been still very sharp and low grain up to 16x12 e.g.:

 

 

That scan does no justice, seems to have washed out the finer tonal graduations and emphasised the grain. I haven't fiddled with the image at all in Photoshop, maybe I should... Even so I did a print of that last at 16x12 and instantly it's the centre piece of my front room for me. 35mm film is an amateur format and landscapes do by and large thrive on MF shots but sometimes the results from 35mm can be suprising for such a small bit of film!

[philip_sutton]

Thanks Dave for the explanation on Ektar - you can see I am a bit of a dud - LOL!! I thought it sounded like B/W. You can see I am just getting back into photography - hence all the questions.

 

I am glad you are keeping your hand in with film Vasco - sounds great.

 

I am going to get some prints done soon too Vicky, to compare films etc. Just one question - when you say prints does that mean they take a print directly from the neg/trannie - or do they scan it first and make the picture from the digital image?? Methinks the fomer - hence the higher quality that you speak of!!

 

I think you have the ideal going Andy - the happy balance between film and digital - the best of both worlds.

 

Finally Scott. I am sorry for my comment, I was harsh on you. You did offer some sound advice after the first part of your comment that I referred to, which sort of balances things out a bit. Please forgive me?

 

I guess I was a little titchy because some of my comments were misconstrued on that other ginormous thread that I started - the one that is now over 700 postings.

 

I am not asking these questions or doing any of this to stir up troulbe, try to make people take sides, make a war over digital versus film or try and get kudos to back up my stance on film.

 

I have just come back into photography after a hiatus of over ten yrs. Things have changed so much it is unbelievable - I almost feel like a child learning to walk - digital is a whole new world I know nothing about.

 

If my questions seem mixed with emotion or pathos or whatever it was you referred to - that is just me - that's my style that I bring to everything I do in life.

 

This is a wonderful thread and I have really enjoyed these great postings. Not so much for any technical advice I have gleaned - but just to know there are others out there who think similiar to myself - and we can chat on this forum - truly makes this wonderful world a Global Village.

 

Blessings - Phil

[david_manning1]

I use digital for assignment work (D2X), but I prefer film for personal work. I shoot a Nikon F6 with small, light primes.

My camera bag is very small...it's amazing how small it can be with a single camera and two extra primes plus film.

 

I shoot chromes for color and like Tri-X for B&W. It's definitely more of a pain in the ass than digital for everyday life,

but if I were traveling far away, I'd shoot film hands-down. My F6 is an electronic camera, but just uses a couple of

batteries...no cables, converter boxes, card readers, etc. I don't worry about changing lenses when it's yucky outside.

It's very weathersealed and tolerant to changes in atmospheric conditions. It's smaller and lighter than a pro-sized body

(it's sized like an F100, a NGS favorite). I don't worry about mating it to a computer after a day of shooting, don't worry

about lugging a computer, cords, and another bag. I have my evenings free to socialize and discover new places to

shoot for the next day (and drink fine Irish whiskey).

 

I have an Ektagraphic slide projector and project after I edit, which I can do in about the same time it takes to boot a

computer. I make electronic contact sheets (flat-bed scans) of the B&W, then wet-print the keepers...8x10 documentary

shots are beautiful, and sized for a hallway in a home (I don't live in a gallery). I rotate the show every six months or

so...visitors seem to enjoy it. I scan the slides with an Epson 4990, which will get 95% of the way to a professional

scan. I wouldn't use the resulting digital file for a client, but it's great for me and my 8x10s. It doesn't see into shadows

too well, though, so it likes well-exposed slides.

 

I drop my slide film at WalMart, each in it's own envelope, and write with a Sharpie "send out only--slide film" on the

outside. My last rolls took eight days, via their Fuji contract to Dwayne's. It cost $4.88 plus tax each.

 

I love film. When I shot 1700 images for a recent Mud Run contest, I used digital and the D2x. I sent the client 900

selects the next morning via FTP. I don't print them because they don't mean much to me...they're client shots. THAT

is where digital really shines.

 

Shoot what you like. Hope this helps.<div></div>

[scott_turner]

Philip,

 

No worries. Apology cheerfully accepted. Believe it or not, the first part of my comments weren't intended to be in any way mean-spirited either. In retrospect, I suppose that any sentence which begins with "At the risk of sounding petulant..." probably sounds exactly that way, regardless of intent. I could've worded things better. <ahem>

 

As you've probably already surmised, just invoking the name of you-know-who tends to be a lightning rod, as does anything which treads anywhere near the subject of film vs digital. If I ruled the world, or at least the photo.net part of it (a frightening thought either way!), I'd have a requirement that no film/digital discussion could contain the word "vs". Oh, OK, no I wouldn't but you get what I mean. I find rational discussion of the two technologies (and various combination's and marrying of those technologies) fascinating, but as soon as it becomes a battle, people get emotional and things spin off.

 

Best of luck in your journey into digital and film-digital hybrid processes, as well as continued efforts with pure film. It's a world I very much enjoy and I'm sure you will too.

 

Scott

[philip_sutton]

Yes Scott - I won't mention his name on here again. However (with tongue in cheek) I do like to read his stuff a bit. I love the way he just throws ideas out there (without really thinking) he is like a little kid. He is then off onto his next tangent, while everybody else is still hung up on what he said the week before - excellent stuff.

 

David Manning - I really enjoyed your thread. You sound a bit like me - I love to just plod along with my F5 (am hankering over a F6 - what are they like?), just enjoying the experience with the camera and not too hung up on the results. I was when I first posted this, but all the excellent answers have allowed me to see it all from a different perspective.

 

Cheers - Phil

[stephen_schoof1]

With Velvia 50 back in production I am loving 35mm slides for my 'serious' nature and travel shooting. My F100 is

great when I can carry it, but more amazing to me is the FM10 I use for biking and running - 14 oz, full-frame, works

w/o batteries, and image quality that equals 6 to 36 megapixels, depending on who you listen to. I've also just

purchased a bargain N70 body from KEH for $13.00 (+ $12.00 shipping!) for playing around with color negatives of my

little girl and around-the-house shooting. Up till now I'd restricted family activities to a little Stylus Epic, but for $13 I

figured I could spring for another SLR body, and it's in better shape than my old hiking N70 I bought new for almost

$500 in 1996 (which still works great). I also dug out an old FM10 I'd worn out, took it apart, and fixed the film

advance mechanism that had snapped at a weak point. The meter is still iffy, but it's fine for chromogenic B+W.

[john clark]

I am - after a long period away. APart from the fact that my film SLR (EOS 3) is much better than my dSLR (10D) and therefore much more pleasant to use from an AF perspective, I loved the fact that I didn't know how my photos would turn out until I got them back from the lab. So there was that sense of anticipation, and (this time) pleasant surprise...

[tim gray]

I pretty much only shoot 35mm film. I started on a Digital Rebel, but after about 2 years, I moved to 35mm film. I still

have it but never shoot it. Now I shoot a Canon SLR and a rangefinder.

 

It's the best.

[ross_wilson1]

I love shooting 35mm, I'm going onto the Leica R system soon, I could afford medium format if I wish but there's something about 35mm I love.

 

I have a scanner but I hate scanning. Usually it's okay because you only have a few to scan anyway, but when you have a lot, I really hate it..

 

That's only half the story..

 

To finish the cycle of taking a picture you obviously have to print, I got zero satisfaction from inkjet printing, and the results were always lack luster.. sending a neg or a file of to be printed too was really dull, good results though.. the best thing is to print B&W and Colour yourself.. amazing results and very satisfying. Not for the impatient though, and you have to be willing to learn and have a good eye for subtle colours..

 

Shooting 35mm and loving it!

[ruimoraisdesousa]

Hello everybody,

I still love my old Leicas-M, Rolleiflex 35mm, Nikon F and FM, Canon EOS-1n, Hasselblad 500 C/M, TLR Rolleiflex 3,5F, Corfield 67WA, Horseman 612, Sinar F2, Gandolfi Variant 4x5", Gandolfi 8x10", plus all the excellent lenses I use with them (no cheap plastic, no need to correct in Photoshop), all that beautiful sounding names that represent optical excellence like Planar, Sonnar, Distagon, Summicron, Tele-Elmarit, Apo-Ronar, Apo-Symmar, Super-Angulon, Sironar, G-Claron, etc., etc. Should I throw them all away just because they are no more "IN"? Do I discard them just because a profit - oriented industry is clever enough (or not) to put a new modell out every three months with silly features I don't need and I don't care about? NO WAY!!! There are too many beatiful films out there. Some of them even (relatively) cheap and beatifull, like Adox CHS, or the new generation of Fomapan (see Fotoimpex, Germany). I also love my self-made BW!

Please don't understand me badly. I also use a Canon digital (some of the L-lenses are also very good), I also use a Epson scanner, I also use an Ink-jet printer... They all can do beatiful things, for sure.

But guess what?: my heart surelly gets much more warmed by the old materials, and even more by the build-quality of my old equipment. It just was made to work for decades. It doesn' outdate. Capable of top results after all these years.

The image is what really counts. How you get there is surelly more than half of the fun.Enjoy and have passion and commitment! Greetings, Rui