Tag Archives: film camera

What? Shooting photos with film again?   

Posted by enmanscamera on

 

Over the years I have been writing these articles I have mentioned more than once that I couldn’t see myself ever using a film camera again. When someone asks me why, I complain that film is such a hassle to deal with and takes to long get back from a lab. Digital is immediate and cost nothing unless one decides to make a print. I would always say that I am not the least interested in film.

The Dictionary defines “Eat (one’s) words.” as, “to retract, regret, or feel foolish about what one has previously said”

Last summer I purchased a 300mm lens for the Pentax 67. In 1965 Pentax introduced the Pentax 6×7, a SLR medium format camera for 120 and 220 film that produces 6cm x 7cm image. That’s about a 2 ¼ by 2 ¾ inches negative.

Photographers that were doing work for clients back then preferred medium format film cameras because the larger negatives produced higher quality enlargements.

I owned a Pentax 6×7 camera years ago. It was easy to carry around for close-ups in the garden and although the 67 is a large medium format camera weighing just over five pounds, it is shaped and used like the much smaller 35mm cameras of the day.

It has a variety of interchangeable lenses, prisms and assorted viewfinders that allow one to use the camera at waist level or eye level. And as with 35mm manual cameras, the lens can be reversed with an adapter that made the normal lens work like a macro lens. And a waist level finder made close-up plant photography very comfortable.

I had planned on selling the Pentax 300mm lens, but after showing it to my photo pal Jo I decided to get a body for it. Jo not only had never imagined such a camera existed, but had only come into contact with film when her parents took family photos.

I searched eBay and found some sellers that had Pentax 67 camera bodies, waited for a good price and a couple of weeks ago exposed a roll of 400 ISO Ilford film and a roll of 160 ISO Fuji film with my new 6X7 and 300mm lens.

Getting the film processed wasn’t the easiest task. The local store that sends film out for processing and printing does not handle 120 film. I checked and the lab I used (ABC Photocolor in Vancouver) back in the 1980s and 1990s that still does and will “process only” if I ask so I can scan the film myself.

I also found a lab (Canadian Film Lab) in the small town of Hope, BC that specializes in film. They will process 120 film, scan, correct density and colour balance then post the images for clients on their website. They also have other services to help film users optimise film to personal specifications.

Canadian film lab is more expensive than ABC Photocolor, but I wanted to see what they could do so I sent the two rolls to them.

I now have my image files loaded on my computer and they did such a good job that am looking forward to exposing another roll to send to them.

I would never have thought I’d be shooting with film again.   Jo will be exposing her first roll of colour film with that camera very soon. I have about 30 rolls of film in my freezer and expect Jo and I will be getting used to lugging that heavy beast around and having a great time working the film.

I had forgotten the latitude a roll of B&W film has. Yes my 36mp Nikon’s sensor gives me glorious files, but there is something positive to be said about the quality of a 120 film negative.

“All this digital isn’t real photography”        

Posted by enmanscamera on

I talked to a confused young photographer that wondered if he should do as a friend that was using a 1970’s film camera and discard his DSLR for a film camera. His friend told him, “all this digital isn’t real photography”,

I doubt his opinionated pal even thought about or was aware that it has only been a bit over a century ago that photographers needed large glass plates, hazardous chemicals, bulky cameras and wagons to carry everything. And I wonder if there were some photographers that, when roll film first became available, said about the same thing when they saw people hand-holding their little box cameras.

The medium of photography has become very accessible for everyone. The days when a photographer had to be an engineer and chemist are long gone. With modern technology, today’s supercharged cameras with their machine-gun-like shutters and seemingly speed of light focusing allow many photographers to get great pictures on their first try. Photographers once had to understand the combinations of shutter and aperture for a properly exposed image, and worried about camera shake and film choice. Gosh, it’s only around 20 years ago that photographers carried more than one camera if they wanted black & white as well as colour prints of some subject.

I am not sure that the photographers of the late 1800’s or early 1900’s were really interested in photography as a creative medium as much as they were striving to document reality. No doubt they struggled to convince their subjects to sit as still as possible for long time periods while they set up unwieldy photographic equipment. And I am convinced that many people that tried photography “pre-digital” would not be shooting if it had remained like that.

There are those that are intent on complaining that with the end of film came the end of photography. Personally, I don’t think film is going away any time soon. I expect most outlets may not carry film or offer processing much longer, but there are lots of distributers that still supply film. I’d like to see the return of film to larger camera shops, along with people capable of giving the correct advice to users.

I rarely shoot with film these days, but I still have a film camera and I did put a roll thru it this past year and had fun. Nevertheless, I will admit to being frustrated at all the work it took to get to the final images. Digital is easier.

I am afraid I couldn’t give that photographer any advice. Although I disagreed with his friend’s comment, I told him I’d look forward to seeing his photographs and be there to help what ever his choice.

Photography has always been about technology. I hope that photographer works at producing images (digital or film) that are good visual statements about what he feels or wants to say. Most people viewing his photography will only be interested in the resulting photos and won’t really care how his images were produced as long as the final photograph has something to say, shows control over the technology used, and is visually exciting.

 

 

 

 

 

Searching For that First DSLR 

Posted by enmanscamera on

Film then Digital

Digital technology has been around long enough that I occasionally overlook that there still are people who have never used anything but film cameras. I recently talked to a photographer who is finally ready to discard his old film camera and wondered which DSLR he should select.

He even sent me an email saying that regarding a camera; he would “need the whole meal deal.” I admit that I am not sure what he actually meant by that. I said to him that today’s modern technology cameras offer choices that are very different from his old film camera. As readers know, he is about to take a huge, creative step as he moves to digital.

He told me he has enjoyed photographing local rodeos. So what should be my advice to an aspiring rodeo photographer? Manufacturers like Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Sony, Fuji, and many more, all make cameras that will probably work fine for sports like rodeos.

I could start by suggesting he to go online and search out sport photographer sites for recommendations. Photographing sports is very technology driven and manufacturers are aggressively marketing to those photographers. He should begin by choosing a camera that is durable, and capable of taking some abuse, sturdy enough to be bumped around, because I think that’s a pretty rough and tumble (and dusty) world he’s participating in.

Both Canon and Nikon make professional cameras specifically designed for sports and the accompanying high ISO needed for low light, interior locations, that will focus almost any lens extremely fast, and are easily capable of high quality, excellent enlargements.

For fun I read up on professional rodeo photographer, Rick Madsen, who wrote, “Remember the camera is just a tool. When a hammer is used, it is the operator who makes it strike the nail. The same concept applies to a camera. It is just a tool and it’s what the photographer does with that tool that makes the difference between a good and a mediocre image. You must take the time to learn the camera’s operation and then utilize that acquired knowledge through practice to become proficient. You have to pay your dues.”

I personally would save my money on the camera and spend it on the lens, as my real concern would be to get a quality lens. A saying I have heard over and over in the many years I have been in this medium is that, “it’s all about the glass,” referring to the lens. And from my readings, most rodeo photographers recommend 70-200mm lenses, and I also think a 70-300mmm would fit the job also.

I hope he can find a good, well priced, used camera and a couple of quality lenses for it. He will be faced with so many choices and will receive many, many well meaning recommendations from other photographers that he’ll stay awake nights wondering what he’s got himself into. Nevertheless, I know he will be excited when he finally gets that first DSLR and embarks on the exciting journey as he learns how to use it.