Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Taking Pictures the Hard Way

blog.brixit.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 92 posts

Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way

#31

Post by MartijnBraam »

TomMasz wrote: post #7

Alas, film's recent popularity comes with (literally) a price. Cameras that were practically being given away are, thanks to "influencers", now insanely priced. Film was expensive enough but pandemic-related supply issues and Fuji's slow withdrawal from the film market have just made things worse. I was lucky in that I picked up a bunch of film cameras when they were cheap. Processing hasn't risen in price all that m…

I get mostly annoyed with how expensive some old cameras are because branding. I mean the medium format box cameras are literally just a box with a hole for a lens and a bit of mechanics to move the film and shutter. There's no reason for them being a thousand dollars still. There's even some company 3d printing new medium format cameras and made them expensive :(

Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way

#32

Post by floren »

nukemaster wrote: post #23
TomMasz wrote: post #7

Alas, film's recent popularity comes with (literally) a price. Cameras that were practically being given away are, thanks to "influencers", now insanely priced. Film was expensive enough but pandemic-related supply issues and Fuji's slow withdrawal from the film market have just made things worse. I was lucky in that I picked up a bunch of film cameras when they were cheap. Processing hasn't risen in price all that m…

It seems odd that there isn't cheap black and white film. I think they sell cyanotype at the local craft store here. Maybe if dissolve that in acetone you could make cellulose acetate film with it?

Arista EDU has always been my cheap go-to, although it's increased in price a little recently: https://www.freestylephoto.biz/190244-Arista-EDU-Ultra-400-I....

(I believe Arista EDU is rebranded Fomapan?)

Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way

#33

Post by jetrink »

In a benign example of the YouTube algorithm's radicalizing influence, in a little over two years, I went from watching videos about developing film at home to following some large format photographers' channels and purchasing a large format film camera. There actually isn't that much difference to digital if you're primarily concerned with the end result, but the experience of taking the photos couldn't be more unalike. One example: Yesterday I went on a hike and I carried only four sheets of film with me, meaning I was limited to taking four photos total during the whole day. There's something very freeing about that. Perhaps it's not feeling pressure to come home with a memory card full of images that I then need to cull through. In the end, I only took one and I won't know how it turned out until I develop it next weekend.

Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way

#34

Post by MartijnBraam »

ivanech wrote: post #6

A nit: "The larger the sensor the blurrier the background can be, and this also changes the distance at what you can make a picture of something and still have a blurry background." Blur is totally determined by optics and has no direct relationship to sensor / film area.

You're both right and wrong, I could devote a lot of text explaining why it's technically incorrect, but would that make it better?

Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way

#35

Post by aaronbrethorst »

MartijnBraam wrote: post #29
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #4

I’d argue ‘the hard way’ is probably shooting large format slide film and developing it yourself ;), but seriously congrats on this foray into the exciting world of analog photography! Just don’t get too attached to any Fuji film stocks…

Heh, gotta start somewhere. I guess the next step is developing the film. Or getting the medium format analog camera.

For sure! Either's a good direction to go in, in my opinion and experience. Medium format is a ton of fun.

Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way

#36

Post by cfu28 »

nukemaster wrote: post #23
TomMasz wrote: post #7

Alas, film's recent popularity comes with (literally) a price. Cameras that were practically being given away are, thanks to "influencers", now insanely priced. Film was expensive enough but pandemic-related supply issues and Fuji's slow withdrawal from the film market have just made things worse. I was lucky in that I picked up a bunch of film cameras when they were cheap. Processing hasn't risen in price all that m…

It seems odd that there isn't cheap black and white film. I think they sell cyanotype at the local craft store here. Maybe if dissolve that in acetone you could make cellulose acetate film with it?

Ilford hp5+ still seems reasonably priced, even if it’s a little higher now than it was just a year or two ago

Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way

#37

Post by MartijnBraam »

Delitio wrote: post #18
discreditable wrote: post #14

One thing that always jumps out to me with photos from "real" cameras is the colors and dynamic range. The film examples (particularly the chickens) have great color and range compared to what I'd expect from a cell phone. Even the Pixel 2 versus dslr. As I've been learning to shoot on a dslr I've been very impressed with how much modern smart phones are doing for you. Focus, sharpness, and exposure are usually very…

How did you determine the pictures he took have a high dynamic range? I looked at those pictures and had the opposite feeling. I was surprised how bad they are from a pure quality aspect. I assume the jpeg and scanning is a very hard limiting factor. I can get a lot of range when shooting raw with my canon 80d.

The analog pictures are reasonably contrasty, but they do preserve highlights in a very nice way.

If you look at the top picture in the post then I'd have more dynamic range with my DSLR for most of that picture, but the parts in direct sunlight would be completely clipped instead.

Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way

#38

Post by taylodl »

mabunday wrote: post #21

I shoot a lot of photos at techno raves and I shoot exclusively on 800 ISO film rated at 3200 ISO. The environments are dark with lots of movement. Not being able to see the results until I get the roll developed keeps me in the moment and I love the delayed gratification I get when the photos turn out well. Some of my favorites from recent months: * https://www.instagram.com/p/CZsFxpmvp-J/ or https://www.reddit.com/…

Having first learned film photography and processing my own film and printing my own prints I wholly embrace digital photography because it allows me to keep in the moment. Everyone seems to be forgetting how ungodly expensive film photography is compared to digital photography. Decades ago the film cost $0.25-$0.35 per frame and you were quite cognizant of that fact while shooting. Add in exposure bracketing and you were paying $1.25 per shot, and again that was decades ago. A roll of film having 24 frames basically represented 5 shots. You had to have several rolls of film and you were constantly managing that resource instead of keeping in the moment.

With digital photography I can bracket all I want. A lot of cameras can do that automatically. I don't have to worry about running out of film, nor do I have to worry about all the money I'm spending in procuring, processing, and printing that film. I don't have to change rolls of film either. That keeps me in the moment.

Just like in the old days I go back after the shoot and look at what I got and discard the rubbish. I do prefer dodging and burning by hand in the darkroom, but I've made my peace with Gimp over the years and I've learned how to use it to maximal effect - and I can do way more than was ever possible in the darkrooms of yore. It really is progress.

Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way

#39

Post by MarkusWandel »

To me this is the definitive ode to a past era (and talk about taking pictures the hard way).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AOlPuTQt-M

Last chance to see. Long-outdated of a material we will never see again (barring a "Impossible Film Project" type revival.)

I'm not happy to be aging, but I'm lucky that earlier in life I still experienced all that. Black & white developing, roll film in a medium format twin-lens reflex camera, my brother's experiments in taking pictures on blueprint paper (another long-gone technology)...

https://www.sentex.ca/~mwandel/blueprint/blueprint.html

The stunning beauty of Agfachrome slides. The weird mishaps that somehow still resulted in viewable photos...

https://wandel.ca/homepage/wetcamera.html

But for me, the earliest digicams (0.75MP, then 2MP for me) were already a clear indication that film's days were numbered, and since first experiencing a DSLR (the Canon EOS300D "Digital Rebel") I've never looked back; in fact that's when I gave away all my darkroom equipment.

I can totally see nostalgia for this stuff if you've never experienced it, and I'd probably want to try it too. But I've already been there, done that.

Oh, one thing that you just don't get in digital is "honestly flawed" low-light photos. The brutal but honest noise of b&w film push-processed to 1600ISO is more aesthetically pleasing than all the computational photography crap used to hide it in a modern digicam. But probably the "honest noise" of a digital sensor pushed to its limits isn't very pretty.

Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way

#40

Post by MartijnBraam »

rATRIJS wrote: post #30

Analog photography is quite amazing but, at least, in 35mm world it's not because of the resulting images but more in the cameras. Old, mechanical film cameras are much more pleasant to use for me. And before someone says that camera doesn't matter - it sure does. A camera that you like to use will be used more so you will end up "doing more photography". I also love black and white films. I've not tried monochrome d…

Oh that's a pretty interesting blog, I do want to try some analog IR photography in the future. Seems like there's even some color IR film that produces quite amazing results but it's quite expensive.
Post reply on HN