Film shooters

Create a Post
UzZx32QU

UzZx32QU

Founder of the G
Forum Donor
Founding Member Since 1997
Joined
Jul 30, 1997
Posts
5,014
Anyone still shooting film. If so what format negative are you using.

I seem to take a couple roll of TRI-x out of my freezer each year take a few shots and never develop them. I guess because of the work and cost to mix the chemicals for a couple of rolls, unless I feel I really got a keeper image, it just not worth the effort.

framer
 
This weekend I was thinking about dusting off my old Minolta film camera.
I have about 8-10 rolls of mixed 35mm film rolls in storage.
I used to work in photo labs back in the days before digital.
Never had to mix my own chemicals etc., always had access to all that at work.

UzZx32QU said:
unless I feel I really got a keeper image, it just not worth the effort.
Click to expand...

One way to keep costs down if using a lab is to just ask them to process the negatives with no prints (or ask for just a contact sheet).
Then examine your negs with a loupe, or viewer device, or if you have the ability to scan them and view on PC for evaluation.
Pick only the ones that seem to be worth having the lab print them, especially enlargements.

In the past, I've had prints from slides/negatives processed by both the traditional optical enlarging methods and by modern Hi-Res scans and digital prints.
The old methods still make better quality prints in my opinion, sharper and "cleaner" looking edge definition, etc.
The downside is obvious, it's less efficient, more costly, take alot of time, and you don't have nearly the amount of adjustment control as compared to digital processing.
The other problem is it hard to find places that still do optical enlargements. It's another art form that has mostly been lost to technological advancements.

On a side note: After my landlady's husband passed away I helped her catalog and sell off a bunch of his film processing equipment, enlarger, timers, etc. Now I wish I had bought them myself. :shrug:
 
That the other part. I have a whole DR with a 6x7 omega enlarger with a couple of Schneider lenses but it been boxed up for 15 years. I also have a Epson 1680 scanner with a transparency unit. It does a great job with medium format B&W negatives --> digital images.
 
Tri-X.
Haven't heard that name in thirty years. Is that ISO 400?
 
UzZx32QU said:
That the other part. I have a whole DR with a 6x7 omega enlarger with a couple of Schneider lenses but it been boxed up for 15 years. I also have a Epson 1680 scanner with a transparency unit. It does a great job with medium format B&W negatives --> digital images.
Click to expand...

Here's what I've done...
  • Have the messy processing done by a lab with a contact sheet.
  • It's hard to judge image quality of negs in reversal, so use your scanner to make viewable "proofs" with the contact sheet as a reference. It'll help eliminate the "stinkers" from the decent shots.
  • Then get 4x6 or 5x7 small proofs of only the best few.
  • Use those real "proofs" for colour quality. The lab can make colour adjustments to your request. I found that Fuji colour film is cooler in colour tone than Kodak. So once I got a "proof" made, I could look at the image and think "That needs a little more yellow to offset the cool blue hue, that will make the greens of the trees look more natural", etc.
  • A good lab will work with you to get the best colours possible. A "cheap and fast" lab won't do any colour correction, that' why they are cheap. I've worked at both.
  • Depending on the kind printing or enlargement you may want to get, your film images are most likely going to be converted to digital anyways.
Again it all depends on the lab's set-up. I haven't worked in that industry for quite a while.
Back then, the films were chemically processed in the usual manner. Either by hand in tumblers or with a neg processing machine.

The imaging phase was then a hybrid of light transmission through the negatives onto an extremely high res imaging chip.
Then the image is transferred using lasers to "expose" the image onto the unprocessed photo paper.
Then the photo paper is processed through the typical silver chemical treatment and output as a finished print.
As I said, it's been about 20 years, so my memory of the process is probably a little flawed.

Yes, all this takes much more time than nearly instant digital photography. But it's kind of part of the charm of film shooting.
It's a process, learning it and getting good at it is just like any other art form. I think that my years of learning film photography served to install good shooting habits, and really understanding photography.
These days there are a lot of people claiming to be "professional" photographers who couldn't explain ISO, shutter speed, or figure out how to determine appropriate f-stops if their lives depended on it.

On the other hand, that's why technologies change and improve. So we don't HAVE to do all that difficult technical stuff, and can concentrate on the "artistic" side of photography.
Personally, I like the technical stuff too.
 
35m, 120, large format from 4x5 to 8x10. all black and white. tend to go with black wood frames and white windows (which white depends on how print is toned). for some reason, I think I read that this is West Coast style ? and all wet
printed gelatin silver
 
Any guidance on where to find a lab to process film?
 
wvframer said:
Any guidance on where to find a lab to process film?
Click to expand...

Google would be my first choice for finding a lab. If you shoot colour slides (E-6), Prauss up in Rochester comes highly recommended. Depends on where you live and whether you feel comfortable shipping film. b/w is easy peasy to develop, colour (C-41) has a few more chemicals and higher temps, but same mechanics.
 
Used them for decades. Former employee is a now production manager.
See Pro Lab services for B & W and Slides.
www.thecamerashop.com

The Camera Shop

The Camera Shop - Full Service photo lab located in Central MN, we offer high quality printing and film services to customers across the United States.
www.thecamerashop.com www.thecamerashop.com
 
Thanks!
 
Hi Spirit Vision welcome to the Grumble!

There are certainly pros and cons for both, I agree.
I was an amateur film photographer and I used to work in the photo lab printing business for quite a few years.
Now running a framing shop and continuing with digital printing.
I agree, there is a certain quality to film photography and printing that still appeals to me.

However, I do use my digital more than my film camera these days.
That's mostly because there are almost no film processors in my area anymore.

I think there is a certain degree of skill/technique that people who learned photography on film cameras developed that I find many budding digital photographers don't see a need to learn.
The whole concept of "I'll just fix the photo in Photoshop later", seems to be the default attitude.
And while, yes, this is a convenience of the newer technology, I think it is a detriment to rely wholely on correcting flawed photos, rather than learning techniques to get the best photo possible "in camera".

I have taken many photos with techniques such as: long exposure, motion blur, multi-exposure, etc, I did with my digital camera using film camera learned techniques.
When I show these to newer photographers, they immediately say "Nice Photoshopping!"
They don't believe me when I tell them I did it entirely "in camera". No editing. :shrug:

There are certainly many features of digital photography that surpass film.
But like you, I won't give up my film camera entirely.

Out of curiosity what cameras are you shooting with? Both film and digital.
 
Spirit Vision Photography said:
I just very recently procured my first digital camera. But I have no intention of abandoning film.
Click to expand...

LOL, I said the same thing. I think it's digital from now on. My Nikon D810 just killed even my old MF stuff and a D810 is old. The newer pro bodies are even better. I'd love to upgrade to the D850 w/focus stacking but now retired just can't justify it.

framer
 
120 square, 5x7 and 8x10. 99% B&W film. Yes, I process and print my own.

Smaller format and Color work is Pixelography. I do shoot and convert to B&W for digital printing.


Take a look at the work of one who still shoots film. https://michaelkenna.com/

He prints his own work and you can get any size print you want - as long as it is 7 1/2 inches. He does not print larger.
His yearly Calendar is always very good. Many I know buy them and frame the images - the printing is excellent.

Check out a good Hybrid workflow. Home - Tillman Crane Photography https://www.tillmancrane.com/
Tillman is shooting Fuji digital and making digital negatives for hand coated Pt/Pd prints. Very nice work.

Film gives me a different feel as I am working. The hands on darkroom work is something I don't get sitting in front of a computer screen.
In addition, each print is one of a kind. It is almost impossible to get a batch of perfectly matched prints when doing the darkroom work by hand.
Slight variations and the personal work help with the interpretation of the final prints. For some this adds to the value of an image. No "push the button for 1,000 identical prints".
 
Last edited:
Create a Post
Back
Top