Film Photography

[steve_gallimore1]

The purple T-Max question is one that comes up frequently, even from experienced photographers new to the film. I've only used it a couple of times myself, not keen on t-grain films in general.

 

As to questions on how to use a camera, they're perfectly valid too, especially if the camera in question is a complex autofocus SLR with many modes and buttons but little in the way of error displays.

 

True story, a member of my photo club 20 years ago handed me his Canon EOS 5 to shoot some group pictures. I was perfectly able to shoot and develop my own film with any of a selection of classic manual, mechanical film cameras. After puzzling over it for a bit I had to confess my total bafflement and defeat and ask him to set it up so that I just had to push the shutter.

 

To be honest, I think my reaction today would be pretty much the same if faced with a 90's film camera. Digital isn't so bad, as the menus tend to be more descriptive.

[William Michael]

. . . And why, oh why, are people being taught to use film in this day and age? . . .

 

Because it is offered as one very small option of interest, of many options from which the Student may choose.

 

Only a guess but an educated guess,"Film" is only a small part of the course, moreover, it probably was an elective selected by the OP.

 

See: "ARTV 2121 Photography: Film & Darkroom I" - (four credits in the Undergraduate Bachelors Degree requiring a total of128 credits)

 

REF: [LINK]

 

WW

[Ricochetrider]

Because it is offered as one very small option of interest, of many options from which the Student may choose.

 

Only a guess but an educated guess,"Film" is only a small part of the course, moreover, it probably was an elective selected by the OP.

 

See: "ARTV 2121 Photography: Film & Darkroom I" - (four credits in the Undergraduate Bachelors Degree requiring a total of128 credits)

 

REF: [LINK]

 

WW

 

At my local community college the photography class- built with the goal of photography as a career, carries a 60 credit course load for a degree. I believe it's a 4. year bachelor's degree, although I could be wrong on that. Simply getting a certificate, as I hope to do, (for "personal enrichment") which eliminates all the extraneous courses and "focuses" :p only on photography courses, requires 30 credits. Most aspects of photography (no large format, daguerrotype, tin type, etc) are included, yes, that means analog 35mm black and white film and darkroom work- as is digital photography and a course in post processing- Adobe's Lightroom/Photoshop if I'm not mistaken.

[rodeo_joe1]

You obviously have no idea of the breadth and width of invasive consequences from the production and disposal of modern day electronics devices.

And film cameras never came into that category? They suffered the consequence of built-in obsolescence and aggressive marketing just as much as digital gear.

 

Lenses gained AR coatings and became obsolete; cameras gained light meters; rangefinders; shifted emphasis from rollfilm to miniature film and from direct vision to SLR. Then along came TTL metering and AF; changes of mount, DX speed encoding, data backs, motordrives, 126 cartridges, APS and 110 formats, etc. etc. Not to mention changes in electronic flash that made older systems obsolete.

 

Oh no! You can't play the "digitisation and computerisation is responsible for all the world's ills" card. That doesn't wash at all. Because if everyone today was shooting their pictures on film (and scanning them to share) there would be a far, far greater environmental impact than the use of a miniscule amount of electricity required to shoot a digital picture.

 

Wake up and smell the lack of roses!

Edited December 6, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

[James G. Dainis]

Back in the good old days people would grab their film camera at Christmas time to use up the last of the 12 exposure film that they started with back in July. Now-a-days I see people taking digital pictures of the food they get in restaurants to show on Facebook. There are umpteen times more pictures taken with digital than were ever taken with film. Still, can't see that as having any impact on the environment.

 

BTW, I use the word "pictures" rather than "photos" advisedly.

[denny_rane]

And film cameras never came into that category? They suffered the consequence of built-in obsolescence and aggressive marketing just as much as digital gear.

 

Lenses gained AR coatings and became obsolete; cameras gained light meters; rangefinders; shifted emphasis from rollfilm to miniature film and from direct vision to SLR. Then along came TTL metering and AF; changes of mount, DX speed encoding, data backs, motordrives, 126 cartridges, APS and 110 formats, etc. etc. Not to mention changes in electronic flash that made older systems obsolete.

 

Oh no! You can't play the "digitisation and computerisation is responsible for all the world's ills" card. That doesn't wash at all. Because if everyone today was shooting their pictures on film (and scanning them to share) there would be a far, far greater environmental impact than the use of a miniscule amount of electricity required to shoot a digital picture.

 

Wake up and smell the lack of roses!

What on Earth are you talking about..???

I never said film cameras were or were not in any category.

 

Obsolete. How many 40 year old Digital SLR will be in use 20-30 years from now.?

I use cameras that are 40-100 years old.

 

I do not have any cameras with an AF lens.

 

I never said anything like..... "Oh no! You can't play the "digitisation and computerisation is responsible for all the world's ills" card"..... You did. :)

 

IF..????? :rolleyes:

" if everyone today was shooting their pictures on film (and scanning them to share) there would be a far, far greater environmental impact than the use of a miniscule amount of electricity required to shoot a digital picture"

IF..?????

 

Good Grief.. Where to begin.?

Digital cameras, printers, papers, accessories, and the mining, labor abuse, manufacture and transportation.and reclamation of said technology is WAY MORE invasive than the use of film cameras. For one thing, they already exist.!

 

Plus film cameras are just a TINY, niche market.

ALL consumers goods have some kind of negative impact on the world we live in.

But the fact that a 1968 Mustang was less safe and got worse gas mileage than a circa 2020 Mustang is not indicative of which Mustang has a bigger impact on the World Of Today.

 

 

Are you upset about something.?

You seem to want to turn this into a..... Film is better than Digital - Digital is better than Film argument..

 

Digital Photography is the way 99% (more?) of the photography of the modern world is accomplished.

Film will NEVER be anywhere near the dominate force it once was..

Digital is "Better and Easier" than film in many ways.

There, i said it.

 

Good Luck :)

[Dave Luttmann]

Why is it people come into a thread about film...to question why people use film instead of digital.

[ben_hutcherson]

Why is it people come into a thread about film...to question why people use film instead of digital.

 

Agreed.

 

This is the "beginner questions" forum-the OP in this thread came here to ask for help with an issue in class(admittedly something that should be addressed to the professor, but none the less the OP asked this forum). They did not come here for a discourse on why they shouldn't be using film.

[glen_h]

And where do you think all that digital junk gets stored? The data centers where it all lives require vast amounts of energy and electricity.

 

More often than not, or maybe about equally often, the obvious relative environmental

impact is wrong. No comment on the environmental cost of film, vs. the digital storage cost.

 

Recently there was a comparison of the food delivery companies that send out boxes

of ready to cook meals, with much packaging including ice bags. Seems that the reduced

food waste mostly makes up for the increased packaging waste. US wastes more food

per person per year than many countries eat.

 

But yes, keeping servers running does use a lot of energy.

[James G. Dainis]

"And where do you think all that digital junk gets stored? "

 

I save my photos on SD cards, an external drive or in the computer. I've never used the cloud or a data center to save anything. The pictures my wife takes with her iphone are saved on that device. She doesn't upload them to the cloud or data centers. When her device gets full she deletes old pictures. Maybe I am missing something here.

[Dave Luttmann]

"And where do you think all that digital junk gets stored? "

 

I save my photos on SD cards, an external drive or in the computer. I've never used the cloud or a data center to save anything. The pictures my wife takes with her iphone are saved on that device. She doesn't upload them to the cloud or data centers. When her device gets full she deletes old pictures. Maybe I am missing something here.

Yes...I’d say you are missing a backup strategy and could lose all your photos.

[Dave Luttmann]

The comparison was about digital photography and how much more images are being taken with digital. I assume you don't only include yourself and your methods of backup in the concept of digital photography compared to film photography when it comes to environmental impact.

 

The latest stats for Facebook alone are 350 million photos uploaded per day. These are all stored on massive data centers and infrastructures that consume lots of energy to keep them running.

 

True. None of this has anything to do with the OPs questions which got derailed with film vs digital again

[Tony Parsons]

Bull. It’s not about anything other than learning. No one is saying don’t do film.

 

Learn with a digicam and then buy yourself a pretentious bit of kit afterwards :)

 

Pretentious ? In my case, a £7.50 Nikkormat FTn, and a few distinctly second-hand Tamron Adaptall lenses, no more than £15 each.

[ed_farmer]

I've been hanging around here, through several user ids, for over 20 years. Why would a moderator here EVER call out a beginner for asking a question about film? The site still maintains a film and processing related forums and MANY of the users here are long time and new film users. Manual film cameras are still widely discussed and scanned film images are regularly posted.

 

Even as a moderator, if you have nothing to add to the conversation, just don't post anything.

[Tony Parsons]

Yes, pretentious. Look it up :)

 

(hint: it has nothing to do with value)

 

Pretentious - trying to appear or sound more important or clever than you are, especially in matters of art and literature.

 

Is this the definition you had in mind ? If so, I fail to see its relevance to the original topic, or to my response concerning my own very basic film kit.

[ben_hutcherson]

Learn with a digicam and then buy yourself a pretentious bit of kit afterwards

 

Given the way you respond to threads here, and your stated definition, I would argue that for you a digicam and iPhone ARE pretentious.

[Tony Parsons]

Given the way you respond to threads here, and your stated definition, I would argue that for you a digicam and iPhone ARE pretentious.

 

May I say I have no issue with Ludmilla's responses to threads - she may be a little acerbic at times, but we're all grown-ups here, we can take it !

[samstevens]

for you a digicam and iPhone ARE pretentious.

I don't know about "pretentious" but it does seem that, for some, photographic history commenced in 2007 with the first iPhone.

 

And lest anyone mistake where I'm coming from, I've only shot seriously with digital and enjoy using my iPhone for lots of shots. But that doesn't make me blind* to the benefits and satisfaction of studying or working with film and in a darkroom for those who want to.

 

*There are some very talented blind photographers** around, by the way, but most of us benefit from sight ... and foresight ... and hindsight ... unless our derrieres get in the way of the latter.

 

**PETE ECKERT

[Dave Luttmann]

Bull. It’s not about anything other than learning. No one is saying don’t do film.

 

Learn with a digicam and then buy yourself a pretentious bit of kit afterwards :)

 

Go back and read this thread again. It was indeed suggested to not bother with film. Keep the bull to yourself until you can learn to read. You sure have strong opinions about this...despite never using film. No idea why you are even in this thread

Edited December 10, 2019 by Dave Luttmann

[Tony Parsons]

<snip> No idea why you are even in this thread

 

Probably, for the same reasons that most of us are in any thread - to pass on knowledge when asked, and hopefully to learn facts or techniques we did not previously know. I had no idea, not having used it yet, that T-max might be purple when processed. You live and learn - and hopefully get the chance to pass on knowledge before it's too late.

[James G. Dainis]

This thread answered the questions posted by the OP for the first 8-1/2 posts. Then it shifted to a bit trollish as my friend in post 10 can attest to. I have no problem with a thread going off topic as long as there is useful information posted. I am not much into the 21st century. I did learn here that when my wife takes a picture with her iphone and sends it to friends on Facebook, that picture gets saved on line somewhere (in the cloud?). I never thought about that.

 

Some of these post seem to be getting a bit personal. Let us not get into name calling or insulting.

[rodeo_joe1]

My one little capsule coffee maker won't do any harm.

[tomspielman]

Well, we really don't know what other photography classes the OP might be taking or experience they have. She just wanted to know why her film turned out purple and how to avoid scratching it. She might be already very adept at things that can be learned using a digital camera or in the process of learning them.

 

As far as learning film goes, there's still value in it as far as I'm concerned. There are university level classes that teach all kinds of "archaic" skills.

 

There are keyboards that can convincingly simulate all kinds of musical instruments. Are we suggesting there's no value in learning to play the actual instruments?

 

 

How long will it be before devices can generate pleasing images and sounds (music) without any human inspiration at all? Should we just stop doing it? Of course not. As long as people get satisfaction out of creating images using film and/or there is an audience that appreciates images on film, there is value in learning film.

Edited December 11, 2019 by tomspielman

[eb_kidd]

T-max explains the purple tint - it doesn't affect the printing quality of the negatives in the slightest.

 

As for the scratches - stop using a rubber squeegee!

 

And why, oh why, are people being taught to use film in this day and age?

 

Personally, that's the way I would do it if I taught a college or university level photography class. Using a manual exposure camera, limiting the film shot in one session to a fixed number of rolls, TAKE NOTES (i.e. record e.v. f-stop and shutter speed) then requiring the student to develop the film and make his/her own contact prints will get the students to slow down, think a bit, compose more carefully, and stop the "point and spray" approach to photography. How is a student expected to understand what's going in inside the camera when he/she just fires off 200 shots in a day? Students will learn far more then they are forced to stop and THINK about what they are doing.

[eb_kidd]

The latest stats for Facebook alone are 350 million photos uploaded per day. These are all stored on massive data centers and infrastructures that consume lots of energy to keep them running.

 

I have been shooting digital in one form or another for nearly 20 years now, yet still shoot B&W film and the occasional roll of Fujichrome Velvia as well, as each of these have their particular utility in my approach to photography. It's certainly true that as the cost of some commodity goes down, the usage of it goes up. Back in my 20's when my income was more limited today, I was a lot more careful when I pressed the shutter button, because there was a very real cost associated with each frame of film I exposed (about $0.35/frame for 35mm transparencies). Now that the cost per frame is closer to a few pennies, I'm much more inclined to take a lot more pics, especially when traveling somewhere that involves some type of considerable expense to get there. The quantity of my pics has certainly increased, but the overall average quality of those same digital pics isn't any better at all. IMHO, the best images I have taken as of late have been on Ilford B&W film in my old Mamiya C3 TLR, simply because the shots require more effort and thinking on my part.