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

How to Get into Film Photography (and Why You Should)

404media.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 82 posts

Re: How to Get into Film Photography (and Why You Should)

#51

Post by Finnucane »

anta40 wrote: post #20
Finnucane wrote: post #11

If you really want slow and inconvenient and expensive, that will eventually lead you to a large-format camera. A good day out with the Wista might not end up with enough shots to fill the Jobo tank (6 shots).

At least gear wise, a large format is even more affordable than Hasselblad/Mamiya 7 kit, especially if you are willing to 3D print one.

Indeed, I paid less for my Wista VX than my Hasselblad 503. Even the lenses were cheaper (all second-hand, of course). 4x5 film is not cheap these days, fortunately I have a good supply in the freezer. DIY processing is a must with 4x5, it's way too expensive to send out.

Re: How to Get into Film Photography (and Why You Should)

#52

Post by ghaff »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #50
jtriangle wrote: post #36

If you're a serious photographer who's only shot digital, shooting film for some 'burner' shoots will improve your photography significantly. Film is a much more intentional process, you have to pay attention to light and composition at a very deep level before you capture an image. That practice improves technique that leaks over into the digital realm as well. Typically, when you go back, you take fewer photos but…

This is a bunch of retro-grouch reverse-snobbism hogwash. Buy a digital interchangable lens camera and make a conscious effort to both shoot a lot (and be willing to purge stuff, don't become a packrat) but also spend time experimenting and focusing on getting a particular shot or style of shot as best you can, technically first, and then artistically. People who lack the discipline to be "intentional" without being…

High ISO is one of the most under-appreciated benefits of digital. B&W film topped out at 400 (Tri-X and HP5) which could be pushed to about 1600 though it started to show both significant grain and loss of shadow detail at that point. Color slide films were really suboptimal once you got above 100.

Even my somewhat older digital cameras can easily handle around 3200 or so without much noise.

Re: How to Get into Film Photography (and Why You Should)

#53

Post by ghaff »

jtriangle wrote: post #45
stinos wrote: post #4

I kind of think to myself, “Is this picture worth a dollar?” I don't shoot film anymore since about 15 years, it's totally not worth the hassle. However, I did stick to this mindset of first trying to figure out whether it's worth it overall and only then taking a picture (except when shooting plants/insects for later determination etc, then different metrics come into play). It has a lot of advantages for me, mainly…

I break out my TLR when someone has an interesting project that's well suited for it and I can bill them for it. My standing rate is 100/hr, one location, for film it's 200/hr. It's sort of a once a year thing nowadays, but, enjoyable. Takes me back to being a starving college kid doing this professionally, running around outside like a wild man capturing images for rent money. It's a good balance now really, because…

I think one of the keys if you're going to do burst shooting of sports, concerts, even speakers is that you really have to do a quick rough cull that deletes most of the photos. For these kinds of things I do find bursting really helps get the best shots. (Yeah, you need to be setup as best you can but with dynamic motion you can't help but have a lot of duds.)

Re: How to Get into Film Photography (and Why You Should)

#54

Post by mlsu »

It used to be worth it, maybe in the early to mid 10s when the pros switched to digital and film stock was dirt cheap. But now a single roll of Portra is like $25 and even a mediocre rangefinder is $400. Nowadays, when I see someone shooting film -- I think hipster with more money than sense.

The benefit now is that nice digital DSLRs and their lenses are cheap. You can pick up a nice used a6000 with kit lens for less than the total out of pocket cost of 100 film photographs.

Re: How to Get into Film Photography (and Why You Should)

#55

Post by gabereiser »

giantg2 wrote: post #42
zimpenfish wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not everyone has a dark room laying around. You don't necessarily need one for just developing the film - dark bag to load the film onto the spool which is lightfast and bob is your photographed uncle (source: me, having done this in very un-dark kitchen twice.) I suppose if you want to make your own prints, that probably needs a darkroom but you can get a film scanner cheap and print them on a colour laser, inkjet…

This is what I have done. 35mm bw and color developed in a dark bag. Then scan the negatives. So much cheaper than actually having it developed professionally. You also get to mess with the development conditions for various effects.

I hear you. My process is cheapest, doesn’t require chemicals, can be done in sunlight, and with some glsl knowledge, essentially the same. Only digitally and for $0.000000001 an image.

Re: How to Get into Film Photography (and Why You Should)

#56

Post by mod50ack »

hef19898 wrote: post #44
canbus wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

developing it yourself reduces that delay! and no photo shop staff to look at your photos.

Huge time sink for B&W, but sure nice to do, a major pain for color and close to impossible for slide film. The latter was what I basically learned on, back the day, being allowed to sport my dad's back-up F4. Had to tie a knot in the sling for it to not bounce on the ground when I had it around my neck, me being too small. Digital is so much easier, until you want to print. Upside of learbing on film, you are much m…

> Digital is so much easier, until you want to print

I mean, it's not really hard. You just need the hardware to print the photo well.

Re: How to Get into Film Photography (and Why You Should)

#57

Post by hef19898 »

mod50ack wrote: post #56
hef19898 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huge time sink for B&W, but sure nice to do, a major pain for color and close to impossible for slide film. The latter was what I basically learned on, back the day, being allowed to sport my dad's back-up F4. Had to tie a knot in the sling for it to not bounce on the ground when I had it around my neck, me being too small. Digital is so much easier, until you want to print. Upside of learbing on film, you are much m…

> Digital is so much easier, until you want to print I mean, it's not really hard. You just need the hardware to print the photo well.

Yeah, that's were becomes expensive again. Good foto printer either cost a fortune, a fortune for ink or both. Well, still cheaper than printing externally.

Printing well so seems to be a bit of an art so. Selecting the right paper for the printer and foto, doing some trails... A bit like developong and printing in a darkroom, from the looks of it. Not that I have a lot of experience, I need to save the money for the printer first...

Re: How to Get into Film Photography (and Why You Should)

#58

Post by giantg2 »

gabereiser wrote: post #55
giantg2 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what I have done. 35mm bw and color developed in a dark bag. Then scan the negatives. So much cheaper than actually having it developed professionally. You also get to mess with the development conditions for various effects.

I hear you. My process is cheapest, doesn’t require chemicals, can be done in sunlight, and with some glsl knowledge, essentially the same. Only digitally and for $0.000000001 an image.

All with none of the experience or knowledge...

Re: How to Get into Film Photography (and Why You Should)

#59

Post by load81 »

I grew up with analog photography. I still have my darkroom equipment (but haven’t used it in a while). I used to develop BW films and prints and even color slides. Here are some random thoughts:

- yes, film shots, specially color film shots can be amazing “out of the box” it’s like a great lightroom filter that’s just there; some of my favorite shots were shot on ektar

- developing film and prints is really a great hobby, i used to shot over summer and then develop in long winter nights… definitely keeps you off of social media

- there’s lots of experiments you can do… different developers, processes, lots to explore

- developing prints is a lot of work, at least it was for me. getting exposure and contrast right is hard. it could take me the whole evening to produce one print

- when a print is good, it is amazing. the level of detail you get, specially with slow films (iso 25) is really something else. of course, if you go MF or LF, even more so (some say that top 35mm lenses are probably better than LF lenses, but still nothing beats the shades you get on LF)

- I feel like my prints, even if they are not very good, are my creation. I’ve never felt the same of much better digital prints that come out of my inkjet

- chemicals are messy and you should dispose of them at your dangerous waste disposal (could cost you)

- advanced darkroom techniques require larger formats (like unsharp mask) - i’ve never done it. once you go digital, it’s hard to be happy with lesser results.

- some techniques require dangerous chemicals, but is trivial in digital

- photos of masters from the past would not be considered anything special today, expectations have shifted

- ansel adams was better engineer than photographer. his approach was very technical. of course, what he did was amazing at the time - you can’t imagine what it takes to hike Yosemite with a LF camera! he was successful because nobody else did it (and his technical excellence of course).

- focusing is a problem with film cameras. even the best cameras will have front/back focus. it was normal back then, but today, expectations are different

- everything that could have been done has been done on film

- future is in exploring new things, like ansel mounted his camera on the top of his car to get a novel perspective - today this novelty are drones, tomorrow it will be something else

- stereoscopic photography is unutilised (it’s an old film invention)

- i haven’t shot film for a few years now; i have a great full frame EVF, but I don’t use it much, either

Re: How to Get into Film Photography (and Why You Should)

#60

Post by didntcheck »

gabereiser wrote: post #13

Getting your film developed is why everyone moved to DSLR's and mirrorless. It's not so much that the newer digital cameras are better (they are), it's the fact that you don't have to wait 2 weeks for your photos. I have Nikon SLR's that have been sitting in the bag for 20 years. I have Cannon DSLR's that see light a couple times a year. I have a GoPro that sees the abuse that an ex-skater, ex-snowboarder, ex-surfer,…

Yeah I think photography is a good demonstration of how "practical" concerns are often stronger than the "performance" differences that enthusiasts instead focus on. Early digital cameras were, in a word, shit, yet they still had strong interest from consumers due to the "productivity" benefits. Once prices came down they quickly ate film market share, yet 35mm film arguably still had better image quality even in the mid-00s as the crossover point was reached. Though of course digital has now well overtaken film in IQ, it took longer than people remember, especially in the average consumer electronics sector
Post reply on HN