PDA

View Full Version : Is there any point in shooting film?


pdk42
7th October 2015, 09:29 AM
I've still got an OM-1 and a few lenses (24, 50, 135) and decided recently to run a few rolls of HP5 through it. I picked up a Patterson tank and a neg scanner cheaply off eBay and did my first film developing in maybe 35 years (my latter days of film were colour and I always used a lab).

The scanned files have a certain "look" to them for sure, BUT:

- It's nothing I couldn't simulate with PP from OM-D files
- The resolution and noise are far worse than even ISO 6400 on my E-M1
- The developing and scanning process is long winded
- Films run out after 36 shots!

Now, I love the feel of the OM-1 and I like the camera's usability (that viewfinder view is to die for!), but as a photographic tool I just can't see how film is anything but a far inferior medium.

Discuss!!!

Graham_of_Rainham
7th October 2015, 10:02 AM
I still have two rolls of Fuji Slide film (Process Paid) to use with my OM4Ti.

I kept it for the "Nostalgic" competitions at the club, but now that has gone there seems little reason to keep it, other than the sheer joy it is to use.

It has Multi-Spot Metering that I've been banging on about for years, which can be used to bias the exposure to the range of the film being used as well as getting lighting ratios between light and dark "spot on". :cool:

The great thing about film is that it is accepted for what it is, and nobody ever questions; if the colour of the light from the projector bulb is "off", the edge/corners are softer than the centre, verticals are converging, etc., etc., etc...

I did shoot a colour test chart, with film, a few years ago as a comparison to digital, but they cannot be compared as the differing levels of brightness from the projectors makes it incomparable.

Most of my shoots were 3 rolls and surprisingly most of my shoots now are 100 ish images, so my way of working has hardly changed at all.

I could never go back to wet printing, as that was far to complex in comparison to what we do now. There was some deep satisfaction in seeing a picture develop in the tray and the expectant waiting for the postman to deliver the slides.

Think I'll write a "Plug-In" for Photoshop that slowly reveals the image from RAW files.

Jim Ford
7th October 2015, 11:16 AM
I used to be very happy with my Kodachrome 2 transparencies on a Konica SLR, but looking at them now they are not a patch on my old E500, let alone my E3 or E5.

Jim

angelpaaul
7th October 2015, 12:58 PM
Think I'll write a "Plug-In" for Photoshop that slowly reveals the image from RAW files.

To be viewed with a red light?

Naughty Nigel
7th October 2015, 02:16 PM
Is there any point in shooting film?


Hmm, that is an interesting question, to which I would say there are two answers.

But first I would ask; why do we shoot film?

For me there is a certain joy about using film cameras and the 'routine' of feeding them with film that no digital camera can ever match.

The viewfinder of an OM4Ti is so clear, bright and uncluttered that I can concentrate 100% on the subject rather than the myriad of statuses and settings that the camera's computer wants me to know about. Fast prime lenses snap in to and out of focus so effortlessly, and unlike the viewfinder on my OM-D there is absolutely no lag!

However, shortly after buying an E1 for my 'day job' in 2004 I decided to take advantage of falling prices to buy a medium format outfit that I had always dreamt of: a Mamiya 645 Pro TL with numerous lenses and accessories. Since then I have also bought an RZ 67 II, which I regard as almost the ultimate photographic tool (short of a 5 x 4 plate camera).

This for me is real photography. I love the quality and solidity of medium format; the sheer size of the negatives; and most of all, using the vast, uncluttered, waist level finders.

There is also the joy of home processing. For me the satisfaction of taking a roll of medium format Velvia out of the tank and holding it up to the light for the first time is almost beyond (photographic) compare!

But we need to be logical about this, as at the end of the day the most important factor is the quality of the final image. This is why I said that there were two answers.

I use my OM4Ti primarily for the pleasure of using the equipment, but I accept that, unless I am using Pan F or FP4 Black and White film the final image quality will probably be inferior to that of my OM-D.

However, medium format is a completely different matter, as the sheer size of the image on the film is such that it can yield fine detail that simply isn't possible with most digital cameras (unless we include MF Hasselblads). The image below, for example, was shot on my Mamiya 645 using Velvia 50, and was scanned to about 56 MP at 4,000 DPI. At full resolution I can literally count the bricks in the Baltic building!



http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/Millenium_Bridge_1024.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/11384)


We can also choose the colour signature of film by using (say) Velvia, Provia, Portra and so forth. And then there is Pan F, FP4 and Tri-X Black and White roll films, with their wonderful tonal gradation and detail.

However, I have an admission to make. For as much as I enjoy using the waist level finder I have never really trusted myself with an exposure meter (not with Velvia anyway), so I usually cheat by slipping the AE finder onto the camera to set the exposure. But I am working on it! *yes

Finally, for anyone who is seriously interested in analogue photography I would suggest having a look at John Davie's website (http://www.johndavies.uk.com/atec.htm), which provides a wealth of information on the subject.

alfbranch
7th October 2015, 03:10 PM
You should look at how you are scanning the negs as this could make a huge difference.

Film sales are now on the up too btw.

In answer to the original question it is a different way taking photos that is as relevant as it ever was but you choose how you wish to work.

I need to get out with a film camera again soon I think.

Naughty Nigel
7th October 2015, 03:29 PM
You should look at how you are scanning the negs as this could make a huge difference.

Film sales are now on the up too btw.

In answer to the original question it is a different way taking photos that is as relevant as it ever was but you choose how you wish to work.

I need to get out with a film camera again soon I think.

Well it is autumn, so what better time to get out with any camera? *yes

OM USer
7th October 2015, 04:00 PM
Much as I love my OM4Ti I find that I am now not able to get the focus as sharp as I would want for every shot and that is important when limited to a 36 roll film. I shoot digital because of the auto focus and manual zoom focus (E-M5 Mk1).

Kiwi Paul
7th October 2015, 04:11 PM
Think I'll write a "Plug-In" for Photoshop that slowly reveals the image from RAW files.

That made me chuckle :D*yes

Paul

Naughty Nigel
7th October 2015, 04:32 PM
I should add that using and understanding film is an essential part of most current photography degree courses. I went to an open day at Sunderland Uni before our son applied to go there, and they had a suite of enlargers and darkrooms to die for.

Who needs Lightroom? :D

If only Cibachrome was still available. :(

pandora
7th October 2015, 08:41 PM
is there any point in shooting film?
No ...........

Lee
7th October 2015, 09:29 PM
Wasn't there a similar argument about vinyl LPs and CDs?
Personal preferences.

tomphotofx
7th October 2015, 09:37 PM
It's much cheaper and more controllable to use either DXO Filmpack 5 or Alien Skin Exposure two very spectacular Photoshop Plugins.

Tom

Naughty Nigel
7th October 2015, 09:43 PM
No ...........

Likewise, why would anyone spend a week on a cruise liner when they could do the same journey with Ryanair?

Jim Ford
7th October 2015, 09:58 PM
If only Cibachrome was still available. :(

... and Dufaycolor!

Jim

pdk42
7th October 2015, 10:24 PM
I should add that using and understanding film is an essential part of most current photography degree courses. I went to an open day at Sunderland Uni before our son applied to go there, and they had a suite of enlargers and darkrooms to die for.

Who needs Lightroom? :D

If only Cibachrome was still available. :(

<contentious_mode>
Setting aside my suspicion that a "degree" in photography is pretty pointless (up there with tattooing and media studies), why would you want to make film an essential part of the course? I would think it's akin to teaching astronomy students how to use an astrolabe - interesting, but not "essential".
</contentious_mode>

PS - I'm not saying that photography lacks complex and hard-to-learn techniques - just that a university degree is completely inappropriate as a way to teach them. University should be about higher studies with a fair amount of academic content. Photography skills are practical skills with some well-understood and quite simple theory behind them. Surely it's best taught by practical on-the-job experience supplemented with part-time study? Of course, with professional photography nowadays being such a tough business to make money in, I doubt even that is viable anymore.

Sandra
8th October 2015, 06:38 AM
Error in posting

pandora
8th October 2015, 06:51 AM
If only Cibachrome was still available.

I agree, but the chemistry was such environmentally deadly stuff that it had to go.
But not before I had printed a favourite Fuji Provia image (from my 1990 archives),
framed within a tawny brown suede mount, that now hangs on my bedroom wall.
http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/cibach1.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/86817)

knikki
8th October 2015, 08:52 AM
Yes

Film is a fantastic medium.

Yes yes yes digital does have one or two things to make life easier for the photographer these days and I really don't care, I switch most of it off and I don't add any sharping when I process the digi file..

A couple of years ago I did lots of 1 year courses at the local college and for one I used the darkroom, yes it was technically more challenging than using the computer, but I loved the eventual images I got out of it.

Digital printing is all well and good (yes I use it a lot) but for me most of the time the image from digital is cold and clinically sharp, something film is not and something that I love about the medium.

One thing that does make me giggle is all these plug ins etc that do there best to mimic film.

If you want it to look like film, then shoot film :D

mstphoto
8th October 2015, 09:22 AM
I could never go back to shooting film - however...
When I go on day shoots I very rarely take more than 100 shots in total.
I think this mentality stems from the 25+ years shooting film when we had to make every frame count.
When I changed over to digital, it took me ages to accept the fact that I could now shoot at ISO 100 for a few frames then change to ISO 3200 and back again :D

I enjoyed seeing a mono print appear before my eyes as it developed but nowadays I get the same buzz comparing a before and after digital file in LR or Photoshop ;)

Mike

Naughty Nigel
8th October 2015, 11:39 AM
<contentious_mode>
Setting aside my suspicion that a "degree" in photography is pretty pointless (up there with tattooing and media studies), why would you want to make film an essential part of the course? I would think it's akin to teaching astronomy students how to use an astrolabe - interesting, but not "essential".
</contentious_mode>

I don't entirely disagree with you on this, but where do you draw the line? What would you say about a music performance degree at conservatoire, for example?

I don't wish to bring politics in to this, but the UK government set a target for 50% of all school leavers to go to university.* In truth, only a fraction of school leavers have the need or ability to study truly academic subjects, so the 'red brick' universities have responded by creating degree courses that less academic students can study and excel in. What is so wrong about that?

(* I strongly suspect this had a lot to do with massaging the jobless figures. Moreover, universities employ vast numbers of people and bring foreign students and their money into the country.)

From a student's point of view it is nigh on impossible to get a job anywhere without 'a degree in something', so what are their choices.

Back on topic, I would say that using and understanding film is entirely relevant to a photography degree course, as it is all part of a rounded and thorough understanding of the subject.

In a similar vein, modern GPS systems make traditional navigation methods unnecessary, but the Royal Navy still uses sextants to check the position of its ships every day, just in case the GPS satellites should be taken out by a systems failure or a hostile force.

David M
8th October 2015, 11:11 PM
Having shot film for decades I can't see me ever going back to it despite having half a dozen OM bodies gathering dust. But for my personal work I shoot digital as if it was film using manual focus primes almost exclusively. I actually shoot less frames using digital not needing to make in camera dupes for submission to editors.

Grumpy Hec
9th October 2015, 05:52 AM
Really interesting question which I suggest has no answer!

That sounds odd but my point is that photography is one of those activities/art forms/hobbies/mediums, call it what you will, that has a myriad of methods, styles and aims all of which are valid and which we are free to follow as we wish.

Therefore if you wish to use film use it. If you wish to use pin hole camera's use them. If you wish to be at the cutting edge of the latest digital kit then use it.

It doesn't matter.

The important thing is that we can express ourselves and get whatever satisfaction we are seeking by following our own paths.

There is no better or worse way of producing images just lots of different ones.

Hec

Petrochemist
9th October 2015, 03:03 PM
As Nigel points out the larger negative sizes available with film are one reason. MF is only the beginning here, there are plenty of people shooting 5x4 or even 10x8, where my house wouldn't buy a fraction of the digital equivalent!
Another possible advantage would be in shooting UV images - film is sensitive to UV, even with a modified camera digital is not particularly sebsitive to it.
For every day 35mm stuff the only real reason to shoot film is just for the fun of it. :)

mstphoto
9th October 2015, 04:34 PM
By mentioning UV images and modified cameras, do you mean IR?

Mike

mstphoto
9th October 2015, 04:35 PM
By mentioning UV images and modified cameras, do you mean IR?

Mike

Bikie John
9th October 2015, 06:21 PM
Possibly not, Mike. See insider's very interesting post in the thread about removing fungus from lenses: http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39635 - it's post no. 8. Not something I had ever thought about before.

John

Jim Ford
9th October 2015, 06:49 PM
For accurately capturing an image representing the observed scene, digital is the way to go. Except for specialist applications, film is as redundant as daguerreotype.

Jim

Lee
9th October 2015, 06:57 PM
This is beginning to resemble a conversation regarding the relative merits of full-frame against four/thirds...

mstphoto
9th October 2015, 07:49 PM
Possibly not, Mike. See insider's very interesting post in the thread about removing fungus from lenses: http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39635 - it's post no. 8. Not something I had ever thought about before.

John

My apologies.
I've never thought of this before either
Many thanks

Mike

pdk42
9th October 2015, 09:07 PM
Really interesting question which I suggest has no answer!

That sounds odd but my point is that photography is one of those activities/art forms/hobbies/mediums, call it what you will, that has a myriad of methods, styles and aims all of which are valid and which we are free to follow as we wish.

Therefore if you wish to use film use it. If you wish to use pin hole camera's use them. If you wish to be at the cutting edge of the latest digital kit then use it.

It doesn't matter.

The important thing is that we can express ourselves and get whatever satisfaction we are seeking by following our own paths.

There is no better or worse way of producing images just lots of different ones.

Hec

Actually, I think that Hec has the right response here. Unless we're doing it for money (which I'm reliably informed is as hard to succeed at these days as becoming a Premier League footballer), then it's all about what we enjoy. For me, I like the digital "workflow" and clean look. Each to his/her own!

benvendetta
9th October 2015, 09:34 PM
My club still has two slide competitions per year and of course print competition entries can be digital or wet prints. Film is therefore still very relevent.

Grumpy Hec
10th October 2015, 06:52 AM
It has that feel:(

I refer to my previous post in this thread and repeat that it does not matter how you choose to produce your images. If you make something which pleases you and you enjoy the process, whatever that may be, then surely that is what matters.

There are no right or wrong ways just lots of different ones.

Hopefully others will enjoy the images as well. Ultimately though the first person who has to be satisfied is you because, in my opinion, if you are not satisfied others are less likely to be in what you produce. That does not always work of course but for me if you like your work it does show in the images.

Hec

Naughty Nigel
10th October 2015, 11:59 AM
I get far more enjoyment taking photographs with a MF film camera than digital. It is a completely different experience.

So even if the photographs don't live up to my expectations I have at least enjoyed the experience! *yes

Graham_of_Rainham
10th October 2015, 12:05 PM
I have the best of both worlds with my OM Bellows for Macro work.

The digital body is used to set everything up and get the lighting right, then the slide film body is swapped on to get a transparency.

It's a bit like when we used a polaroid back on the MF/5x4 cameras in the studio then switched to film/plate.

mstphoto
10th October 2015, 01:38 PM
My club still has two slide competitions per year and of course print competition entries can be digital or wet prints. Film is therefore still very relevent.

We ditched our monthly Slide competition in favour of a "Digital Projected Image" a few years ago.
Only one member was entered slides in the end

Mike

Naughty Nigel
10th October 2015, 10:30 PM
Why do we always assume that the latest technology is the best? It may be cleaner, more reliable and efficient, but do we really enjoy it as much?

Just ponder the following and tell us which you would prefer?


A steam hauled train or an electric train?

A cruise liner or Ryanair?

On horseback /bicycle or in a car?

Warming yourself in front of an electric fire or a coal fire / wood burner?

A meal cooked on an Aga or in a microwave?

Real Ale or the other stuff?

DAB radio / iPod or an LP record?

Artificial insemination or' the traditional way'? :D

IanB
11th October 2015, 01:00 AM
i swore black and blue to stay out of this old stuff thread but :rolleyes:

Film will teach us more to think before clicking; discipline is the word I think. Today we are too reliant on blazing away files and hoping it get something worth while posting. I love doing the one photo of a subject, it works or it doesn't; and I don't spend time deciding which file I should use

Those in the know well also say film with it's more latitude is just a better medium. Can anyone remember blending two or four or more frames to get the correct exposure; balanced exposure would be a better word. Yes; we did use grad filters to get some balance however [print] film did a good job of get most of the lights to the darks on the film. And there was not many limits with b/w film.
There are those who still swear by strip film and view cameras (bag over the head) which is something I have never used. A bit too much discipline for me . I have enough drama focusing with auto focus without having to use a loupe on the focus screen :rolleyes:

The simplicity of basic film cameras is something the younger ones would never understand. A few knobs and dials and thats about it.

I cannot see myself going back to film or using film again even though I still have the now worthless motorized Jobo system in the container. That might make interesting plant pots.

benvendetta
11th October 2015, 06:50 AM
We ditched our monthly Slide competition in favour of a "Digital Projected Image" a few years ago.
Only one member was entered slides in the end

Mike

Eventually these will end but there are enough members still taking slides for the competitions to continue. Which is the way it should be.

Graham_of_Rainham
11th October 2015, 09:49 AM
To keep Slide Competitions going I suggested the Federations run them within their clubs on a round robin basis. Nothing came of it. :(

benvendetta
11th October 2015, 09:52 AM
We are the only club in South Wales as far as I know that still do slides. It is not so easy to get judges that can still view this medium........

pdk42
11th October 2015, 04:52 PM
We are the only club in South Wales as far as I know that still do slides. It is not so easy to get judges that can still view this medium........

Sort of "slide blindness"? ;)

Simon Bee
11th October 2015, 06:12 PM
Yes of course there is, if you like shooting with film, as I do, then shoot with it, if you prefer shooting digital then do that, there is no right or wrong way and it's the end result that counts not how you get there. However I confess to feeling more satisfied with the end result when I have shot it on film, but that's me and not everyone will agree.

A couple of images for Alf ( Alfbranch ) and Roger ( Cariadus ) and anyone else who can appreciate the quality of classic film cameras....

My 'tools of choice' .....

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/film_cameras_copy1.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/86916)

Back: Hasselblad 202FA with 150mm F2.8 for portraits
Rolleiflex 2.8GX

Middle: Olympus OM1n with 50mm F1.8 M.I.J.
Olympus 35SP rangefinder

Front: Leica M4 with 90mm F4 Macro Elmar
Leica M7 'A La Carte' with 50mm F1.4 Asph Limited
Leica SL ( waiting for a suitable lens! )
Canon F1 ( original ) with 50mm F1.4 plus 2 Nikon lenses adapted for it ..
.... the 300mm F4 and 200mm F4 Nikkors

The M7 'A La Carte' is the most recent, and one that I have hankered after for a long time. For those who may not know, the 'A La Carte' option is where 'you the customer' design the camera the way you want it. It doesn't come cheap though and to be honest I would struggle to justify such a price when new. I was extremely lucky to come across my 'own ideal' version second-hand so had to snap it up. The modifications are......

..... Traditional Script top plate / M3 style film advance / M3 style lens release, rewind button, frame selector and engraved base plate / Classic 3 frame viewfinder for uncluttered view, 35, 50, 90 individually displayed / Black 'lizard skin look' leather. If ordered new it would cost £4,200.00 and normal S/H price would be around £2,200 but this one was a true bargain for it has a small 'personal engraving' on the back which devalued it considerably and I'm not complaining ... I saved 3 Grand on new:eek: It is without doubt a beautiful camera;)

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/M7_copy1.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/86915)

Kind regards, Simon

alfbranch
11th October 2015, 10:24 PM
Lovely stuff Simon

Here are some of mine

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8463/8136465132_8de33a6e6e_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/doZvBA)Ensign selfix 820 (https://flic.kr/p/doZvBA) by Alf Branch (https://www.flickr.com/photos/32457074@N07/), on Flickr

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3722/9021076354_964e712ce3_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/eKanHd)Camera and light meter 3 (https://flic.kr/p/eKanHd) by Alf Branch (https://www.flickr.com/photos/32457074@N07/), on Flickr

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8369/8466626646_7860870e7b_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/dUaF8u)2 Oly 35 SP &amp; XZ-1 (https://flic.kr/p/dUaF8u) by Alf Branch (https://www.flickr.com/photos/32457074@N07/), on Flickr

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2847/11718128315_d3c582da7b_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/iRuti6)Konstruktor 1 (https://flic.kr/p/iRuti6) by Alf Branch (https://www.flickr.com/photos/32457074@N07/), on Flickr

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7429/12804239804_565c5e6c4c_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/kvt5pf)OM2 kit 1 (https://flic.kr/p/kvt5pf) by Alf Branch (https://www.flickr.com/photos/32457074@N07/), on Flickr

Graham_of_Rainham
12th October 2015, 12:06 PM
We are the only club in South Wales as far as I know that still do slides. It is not so easy to get judges that can still view this medium........

I still have my slide projector and screen. I'm in the PAGB Handbook :)

Otto
12th October 2015, 01:52 PM
I have mine too, and I have a 6x6 slide projector as well! Neither get used much these days.

Naughty Nigel
12th October 2015, 03:44 PM
There are some wonderful examples there gentlemen! How do you find time to use them all? :)

Irrespective of the image quality achieved, I cannot think of any digital camera that would match the pleasure of using one of those fine machines. And that is why I still use film.

Simon Bee
12th October 2015, 04:58 PM
Irrespective of the image quality achieved, I cannot think of any digital camera that would match the pleasure of using one of those fine machines. And that is why I still use film.

Same here Nigel *yes

Kind regards, Simon

Simon Bee
12th October 2015, 05:01 PM
Thanks Alf, I thought you would enjoy seeing them:)

You have a nice selection to choose from too.

Kind regards, Simon

pdk42
12th October 2015, 05:06 PM
There are some wonderful examples there gentlemen! How do you find time to use them all? :)

Irrespective of the image quality achieved, I cannot think of any digital camera that would match the pleasure of using one of those fine machines. And that is why I still use film.

I can see that the joy of ownership and operation of film cameras is difficult to surpass in digital. However, when it comes to getting great images with the minimum of fuss, I have a feeling most would plump for digital.

I might be wrong, but I'm guessing those wonderful images from Simon and Alf of their classic equipment (;)) was made using a digital camera ! N'est pas?

Simon Bee
12th October 2015, 05:14 PM
I might be wrong, but I'm guessing those wonderful images from Simon and Alf of their classic equipment (;)) was made using a digital camera ! N'est pas?

Spot on Paul, for I wanted to show all my film cameras in one image. As I say there is no right or wrong way as I am sure you agree, both capture methods have their place, I'm just not as enamoured to digital as I am film. Digital is convenient though, such as when photographing my film collection and uploading quickly :D

Kind regards, Simon

mm500
12th October 2015, 05:25 PM
I can't believe how my style of photography has changed and how much lazier I have become. I used to use a Mamiya RB67 in the studio and even take it out wherever I could (always with an Olympus 35mm camera as backup).

Every so often I think I'm going to take a film camera out but as soon as I set the ISO / ASA / film speed I feel "limited".

How did we cope by loading up with 100 ASA or 400 (fast) film?

Having said that I still keep one philosophy from the film days and that is "make every frame count" (if possible) so I don't take endless shots that are all disposable.

One thing I miss is lenses that have a distance scale like the old OM lenses where I used to use the scale to set the depth of field (e.g set a lens at F8 and you could tell that the front to back of a car for instance was in focus). Or use hyperfocal didtance just by setting it on the lens scale.

The answer to the original question though really is "if someone likes to shoot film", and some clearly do, then there is a purpose.

I am becoming jaded by obviously "digital" images as well, including obviously "HDR" images that look synthetic...

Mal

Naughty Nigel
12th October 2015, 06:27 PM
I can see that the joy of ownership and operation of film cameras is difficult to surpass in digital. However, when it comes to getting great images with the minimum of fuss, I have a feeling most would plump for digital.

Without a doubt. I use digital photography extensively in my day job, and although I used film exclusively until eleven years ago (when I bought my E1) I could never go back.

But when my photography is purely for pleasure, and when composition is more important to me than speed I always plump for film. The only downside of film (apart from the cost) is that one can never be sure that you have got the shot in the bag until the film is processed; but that anticipation is all part of the joy of film photography.

I was out at the weekend with my Mamiya 645 and a couple of rolls of FP4+. Somehow focusing the images in the waist level finder through 25A (red) and 0Y (yellow/green) filters brought a kind of magic that digital simply cannot match. Maybe it is the memory of my father doing the same with his Voigtländer fifty or more years ago; but even if the images are disappointing I will still have enjoyed it. :)

mm500
12th October 2015, 06:55 PM
Just looked at some old transparencies taken years ago on my RB67. They certainly have "something". I remember exploiting the exposure latitude of 120 film by prurposely overexposing to burn out excessive detail in beauty portraits.

I haven't seen the equivalent done using software without making faces look obviusly "Photoshopped" even though the public seems to accept that nowadays.

M.

Simon Bee
12th October 2015, 06:56 PM
'Clifton Cameras' have only sold digital bodies for some years now but look at this ........

http://www.cliftoncameras.co.uk/Leica_M-A_Typ_127_Rangefinder_Body_Only

...... They have started to sell a 'new' film body again. Not for everyone I know, it doesn't even have an internal light meter:eek: but there is demand for it and Clifton have obviously recognised this;)

Kind regards, Simon