71–80 of 92 posts
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…
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…
Sony SLT a65, just set the "Creative Style" to B/W and the viewfinder shows B/W ;-)
or post-process
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…
"Since then, Cartier-Bresson has taken some 15,000 rolls of black-and-white film."
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/magic-moments-93...
"He shot thousands upon thousands of rolls of film at 36 exposures a roll, meticulously numbering each roll before sending it off to be developed a process he had no interest in by magazines or photo agencies."
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/arts/design/09cartier.htm...
With digital we can all make thousands of images without some third-party paying for film and processing, or being independently wealthy.
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 Long-outdated of a material we will never see again (barring a "Impossible Film Project" type revival.)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 r…
Luminance noise can be surprisingly pleasant on a full-frame sensor, although I still go out of my way to avoid it where possible - not hard lately as my full-frame body has been dedicated to macro, and macro wildlife photography already requires the kind of exuberant flash setup that makes noise very easy to avoid. (For those interested: Nikon D850, Micro 105mm f/2.8 VR II, three SB-R200 heads on a forward ring with…
Welcome to the wonderful world of film. I’ve shot almost entirely analog after a short foray trying digital in the late 2000s. With my life so digitally connected I found having the analog process kept the joy in photography for me and I simply love the slow process from making images down to the final print in the darkroom. At the end of the day I don’t want to dodge and burn in Lightroom, spending even more time in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really makes you appreciate the old-timers. Back when I started we already had computerized exposure control (my first camera was a Canon AE-1 Program). While it was primitive compared to what we have today, it was light years ahead of the old equipment. But damn! Keeping everything dust-free was a real PITA, especially when every time you loaded a new roll of film, changed a lens, or even took the cap off a lens…
> my first camera was a Canon AE-1 Hey! I had an AT-1, which was the manual version - I managed to lose it on a train in London about 1981, while moving flats. I was very upset.
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…
> I've not tried monochrome digital cameras Sony SLT a65, just set the "Creative Style" to B/W and the viewfinder shows B/W ;-) or post-process https://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Black-and-White https://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Film_Simulation
I do actually have two Sigma Foveon cameras ( DP2 and DP3 Merrill ) where the sensor is layered and each RGB pixel is layered on top of another. The detail you get out of those sensors is amazing the first time you see it. Black and white converts better too. That said I would still like a true monochrome camera to play with at some point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> my first camera was a Canon AE-1 Hey! I had an AT-1, which was the manual version - I managed to lose it on a train in London about 1981, while moving flats. I was very upset.
Wow! I'd never even heard of an AT-1! It seemed like everybody around where I lived at the time was either selling the AE-1, the AE-1 Program, or the A-1. Now I see on Wikipedia there was not only the AT-1 that you had, but also an AV-1 and an AL-1. They all had the same bodies and lens mounts but slightly different features. I never knew!
A bit later I got a Nikon F3 for work purposes (paid for by work), with lots of goodies (ring flash, macro lenses, etc.), but never really liked as much as the Canon.
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.
I can assure you that if I put a 50mm prime on my 5D (full frame) and then on my GH5 (mFT), the 5D focus will roll off noticeably more than the GH5. This is a thing to consider when using cropped sensors.
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.
> Blur is totally determined by optics and has no direct relationship to sensor / film area. You’re both correct—optics are constrained by sensor size, so while the amount of background defocus is determined directly by optics, it is determined indirectly by sensor size. The amount of blur at infinity is proportional to the ratio of the aperture size (e.g. measured in mm) to the subject size (e.g. measured in mm). Fo…
You typed out what I should have - I accidentally wasted people's in this thread by being vague