No offense but all those examples of film camera pictures look extremely grainy.
Taking Pictures the Hard Way
41–50 of 92 posts
Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way
#42> It's possible to get a great APS-C sensor size digital camera for ~300 euro. But as soon as you go up in sensor size you're up into 1000+ euro. The fair comparison is with used digital cameras. Great used full-frame cameras are readily available for https://www.mpb.com/en-us/used-equipment/used-photo-and-vide... https://www.keh.com/shop/canon-eos-5d-12-8-megapixel-digital... https://www.mpb.com/en-us/used-equipment…
True, but i'd have to settle for way older generation dslr tech for that. I'd rather have the fun of analog photography in that case. Vintage analog pictures look great, vintage digital ones don't :)
Hey now, there's some amazing macroblocking techniques lost to time from saving images on 3.5" floppy disk
Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way
#43I have also been playing around with film photography. I am old enough to have actually developed film in college so it's not a new novelty for me.
For whatever reason I got the idea into my head that I should get a medium format camera (perhaps it was the youtube influence). I've always wanted to play around with one of these cameras, so I dropped $350 on a Yashica Mat 124-G TLR camera.
I wish I had done this years ago because film photography is now a rich man's hobby. The prices of everything is shooting through the roof right now.
Cameras that nobody wanted now cost over a thousand, film that you could have gotten for $6 is now $15 per roll. Fuji and Kodak either discontinue their film options or raise the prices of existing ones.
Let's do the math (based on my local camera store):
- 1 roll of 120 Portra 400: $14
- Develop and scanned at high resolution: $41
- Sales tax: $3.64
- Total: $58.64
When you shoot medium format you only get 12 shots, which means that each shot costs around $4.88 dollars!
Did you know that it actually costs more money to have a lab develop black and white pictures than color? Which means that if you want to save money you need to develop your own photos and scan them yourself.
Which means buying more stuff and having to deal with chemicals.
Oh and by the way, apparently all home film scanning options are considered to be junk compared to scanners used at the lab. So you either need to spend a lot for a fancy scanner, or rig up some elaborate contraption where you take pictures of your negatives with a DSLR.
Thinking about this gives me buyers remorse.
Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way
#44I have also been playing around with film photography. I am old enough to have actually developed film in college so it's not a new novelty for me. For whatever reason I got the idea into my head that I should get a medium format camera (perhaps it was the youtube influence). I've always wanted to play around with one of these cameras, so I dropped $350 on a Yashica Mat 124-G TLR camera. I wish I had done this years…
I guess developing BW film is more expensive because there's just less volume? Most people shooting BW film probably develop it themselves while it's way harder to develop color film without getting a full lab.
The price for 35mm per shot is a bunch less for me. And it seems like people still have stocks o their old 35mm film rolls I can get for free-ish. Developing and scanning was something like 17 euros for me.
Seeing I spent 4.5 months to fill up my current 35mm roll I think I can accept the higher price per frame.
Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way
#45Well, back in the day, when California still had "extras" in public schools like photography with real 135 and 120 cameras complete with darkrooms, I learned photography "the hard way" like this and that included processing B&W film and printing it. There's a lot to be said for such a learning experience.
Reading this article I decided to see how much a C41 color film (Kodacolor/Fujicolor) processing system sells for - well, turns out they are not cheap but also not bizarrely expensive either. With some extra cash and time, you could set up a service for C41 processing using one of these machines. Sadly I don't have enough lifetimes for it but...
I'd still love to do Kodachrome though - I grew up with magazines shot in Kodachrome and I still like the look.
Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way
#46The author talks about getting into medium-format photography. When shooting film, I usually shoot medium format and I’ve been shooting mostly medium-format for 15+ years. I have observations about what the author says about MF.
> It seems like the vast majority of medium format cameras have fixed focus lenses though.
This is the toy camera movement. Holga, Diana, Lomo, etc. The cameras might cost you $20 or less and exhibit severe vignetting, fixed focus, lens flare, and even light leaks (people put tape on the cameras). These seem really common, but I think that it’s just that toy cameras are still manufactured and sold in stores so you see them a lot. I think you can get these cameras at places like Urban Outfitters.
> The alternative is getting one of the medium format SLRs with an actual focusable lens but those are again ridiculously overpriced for a box with a hole for a lens in it.
The Hasselblads are the other extreme end. They are collector’s items. They are also good cameras, but because they are also collector’s items, they are expensive. You might spend $1,500 for a used Hasselblad system.
There are alternatives between a Holga and Hasselblad, though! You can get Yashica TLRs for relatively inexpensive, as well as Seagull, Mamiya C, and some other TLR brands. I would expect to pay $100 or $200.
Around $500 you open up a number of more modern “workhorse” MF cameras including SLRs, like Mamiya RB67 & RZ67, various Bronica, Pentax 645, etc.
And upwards of $700-$1,500, you can get Fuji rangefinders, Pentax 67s, and maybe a Hasselblad.
If you are doing this as a hobby and just want to see if you like MF, I recommend going for a used TLR—they are inexpensive, light, and fun to use. If you want to suffer a bit more and have more control over your pictures, read lens reviews for MF SLRs.
> The film scans I've seen online taken through such cameras make it look like there's way less detail than my 35mm film pictures though.
Complicating the issue is the fact that you can get good scans of 35mm film with relatively inexpensive equipment. The only ways I’ve been able to get really good scans of MF film is with the Nikon CoolScan 9000 or drum scanners. Epson flatbeds do the job but getting good MF scans from flatbed scanners is tricky and requires some passion. Getting drum scans has, in the past, set me back around $30 PER PICTURE so it has to be something you care deeply about.
Unless you have a wet lab or are willing to invest in high-quality equipment, you are not going to get near the level of quality from MF that you’d expect, given the size and lens quality.
Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way
#47No offense but all those examples of film camera pictures look extremely grainy.
Yes
Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way
#48I have also been playing around with film photography. I am old enough to have actually developed film in college so it's not a new novelty for me. For whatever reason I got the idea into my head that I should get a medium format camera (perhaps it was the youtube influence). I've always wanted to play around with one of these cameras, so I dropped $350 on a Yashica Mat 124-G TLR camera. I wish I had done this years…
Except you have to consider inflation has been galloping since the 1980s. So even these may be cheaper than back in the day...
Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way
#49I have also been playing around with film photography. I am old enough to have actually developed film in college so it's not a new novelty for me. For whatever reason I got the idea into my head that I should get a medium format camera (perhaps it was the youtube influence). I've always wanted to play around with one of these cameras, so I dropped $350 on a Yashica Mat 124-G TLR camera. I wish I had done this years…
I guess developing BW film is more expensive because there's just less volume? Most people shooting BW film probably develop it themselves while it's way harder to develop color film without getting a full lab. The price for 35mm per shot is a bunch less for me. And it seems like people still have stocks o their old 35mm film rolls I can get for free-ish. Developing and scanning was something like 17 euros for me. Se…
The reason I've heard why it is more expensive is that color development has been completely standardized. You put the rolls in the machine and the negatives come out the other end with little interaction from a person.
They never standardized black and white photography development so it all has to be done by hand, which is more time consuming.
As for 35mm, yes it's true that it is cheaper, but I got into this for the larger negative, so this is a self imposed financial hit.
Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree about the magic of an image appearing on the paper, but in other respects I was never keen on the darkroom itself - the smell of the fixer and the stop-bath, the darkness and the fact that the images I produced were never as good as I wanted them to be kind of put me off. Still, it was fun, all in all. I've never found digital at all satisfying.
The smell of fixer is pretty pungent. You forgot about processing the film. That has to be done in complete darkness (well, loading the processing tank anyway) and you get the added anxiety of drying the film in a dust-free place because any speck of dust getting on the film when it's wet is going to be near impossible to remove later. Nothing beats the exhilaration of having the perfect shot ruined by a speck of dus…
Yeah, dust is a bugger. But it is amazing how W. Eugene Smith developed such great photos in some really primitive conditions.