Film Photography

[Blacksheepboy]

Anyone into it?

I just got a Nikon 4004s with a 50mm lens and plan to go to town (with my one roll of film ). Have never used a film camera; got any tips for me?

[VijchtiDoodah]

Tips? Keep your receipt, return the film camera, get a digital one.

Unless you enjoy developing your own film, it isn't worth it. Digital now has cheaper, higher fidelity, and easier to use alternatives. Why choose film?

But if you want to stick with it, get a good photography book. There are so many large and small tricks to photography that it wouldn't make sense for anyone to try to write them down on a forum post.

[Blacksheepboy]

Do the variables change if I said I got the camera and lens for free?

I've got a digital camera FYI, but film still has some magic digital doesn't (unless you're a hardcore photographer with a super camera).

[VijchtiDoodah]

Nice score.

If you already had a DSLR, you won't need to learn anything new. If you only had a point-and-shoot, though, it gets remarkably complicated. The best advice is simply to keep everything immaculate: dust gets everywhere when you open anything so only expose the camera's interior to the outside for the shortest time periods possible (changing film or lenses quickly is a bit of a skill). This means that you should also regularly clean everything, but with one large warning: if your lenses have any kind of a coating (to block UV light, for example), certain chemicals will destroy that layer and ruin the lens -- even some glasses lens cleaners can destroy camera lenses.

So, make sure you know what you're working with. And get a book. Or several.

[Blacksheepboy]

I have a silly point and shoot. While it may not be a bad point-n-shoot...

Good; clean, I like. I'd hate to have a batch of pictures blemished with some knarly dust. So changing stuff quick, I'll remember this.

[The Geologist]

I don't do any film photography, but I thought I'd toss out a fun fact for you film lovers.

One of the million dollar instruments I work with (a TEM, google it) still uses film and the illustrious darkroom process (chemicals and all) to finish off the pictures it takes.  Part of this is due to the nature of the instrument, of course, but it kinda threw me for a loop when I first saw it.

Seriously, like those stark yellow Kodak packs.

Edit: All the info I can toss out would probably shy you away from going the film route.  It's not that hard to develop film if you have the right setup, but it does require having those pesky chemicals around.  And they corrode stuff over time.  Nasty stuff, there.

Additionally, a lot goes into getting a good picture that way (as you probably know).  Mistakes with exposure/multiple exposures, such as during development, can ruin your fun.  Live and learn though.

[a-4-year-old]

Do some long exposure and impress the girls who only take pictures of themselves.

[numgun]

A couple weeks ago I visited this university of art, specifically their photograph section and it was pretty interesting. They had these large studios with massive flashes and other crazy equipment just for the sole purpose of getting the light done right for the photo.

Also saw their darkrooms and chemical processing labs and was told how they work and what do all those large and scary machines do, interesting profession I must say, although hazardous due to the chemicals and light you'll be working with.

[Dusty]

Oh, I just finished the first roll of film using my dad's old SLR. I'm yet to have it processed though, can't wait!

[SadistAtHeart]

Comparing digital and analog is like comparing different painting styles. Film has a personality all it's own, creating oddly saturated hues and light leaks with child-like unpredictability. Combining different types of film with different bodies and lenses can produce months of "I wonder what will happen" fun. Natural vignetting is beautiful.

You can have just as much fun with digital, as well, just in a different manner. Most digital SLRs come with a myriad of settings you can use to shape your pictures the way you want them, complemented by programs like photoshop.

Gaining knowledge about analog and digital makes you more well-rounded as a photographer, and best of all, opens up your mind. Pretty soon you'll be making a camera out of an oatmeal container and a package of slide film.

[Mistercharles]

Another film enthusiast, hallelujah.

I'm on my sixth camera right now, a Hasselblad. It's a seven-and-a-half pound, nine inch long monster (no penis jokes please), equipped with a nice wide lens— and it exposes onto film. It's my pride and joy, it took almost a year of restaurant work (alongside a friend) in order to save up for it. I have to tell you, nothing beats the feel of film— nothing. From loading up the magazine before shooting to unloading it into a light-tight container for chemical processing (not to mention the whole darkroom aspect), film is an essential experience that every photographer should try. Oh, and the dangers?

interesting profession I must say, although hazardous due to the chemicals and light you'll be working with.

Myths, really. Sure, the chemicals are technically toxic, but as long as the darkroom is ventilated, you should be fine. I do admit though, I've had the butt of a pair of pants disintegrate over time due to sitting on a dirty darkroom floor waiting for prints to develop. And yes, print fixer stains your clothes yellow in blotches. It fades over time, but it's the mark of a photographer, so I don't really go out of my way to wash it out. Kind of similar to paint on the trousers of a fine artist.

Take note that I said I'm on my sixth camera. This is only my second film camera, before that I worked strictly with digital. It wasn't very long ago that I realized that with digital, one never really gets a tangible product. Sure, it can be printed out, but the clarity of 300dpi doesn't come close to that of the molecular arrangement of silver halide crystals on photo paper.

Another thing— digital photographers are often not as good as film photographers. When I was looking at prints from my first roll of film, I was asking myself, "Why aren't these as good as my digital photographs?" That was when I realized that I only thought my digital pictures were good because they had been photoshopped to hell— cropped, over-contrasted, added bloom effect, et cetera. After such a long career in digital, I applied the same rules when shooting to film— naturally the results were very ugly. It took me a while before I started to give a lot of consideration to things like composition, lighting, and exposure. Once I did that, though, my photographs improved dramatically, and quickly surpassed my digital ones. It was a nice reality check.

[Blacksheepboy]

Ah, I am very stoked to hear this.

Today I was doubting the prospect of film, and went back to dinking around with my digital camera. I still learned a few things today, as I was studying the Nikon guide that came with the 4004s; a few things on exposure, and the lens aperture. I still have lots to learn, but I'll begin the fun with some experience.

I hear ya on the digital. I'm taking a class that lets the students use Canon Rebels and I mean, they're really nice; the nicest DSLR camera I've ever used (admittedly the first). But I done a lot of digital in my life. I've worked with 5 different digital cameras overall - owned 2 - but now thirst for something I can get my hands on.

You see I get my inspiration from my father who's been a film photographer for years and years (he's now fairly poor, but that has more to do with his main career path..). So I'm biased towards film.

Heh, this was my first camera: Argus DC2200
0.3 Megapixels
640x480 pictures
Cost $30
I took roughly 200 pictures with this thing before my family updated.

[jrgp]

Yeah, I've had an 8 megapixel Canon Rebel XTI since like 2006 (was around  $800 when I got it) and I've got a few lenses for it.

It takes very nice quality pictures: http://www.jrgp.org/img/joe/ny_2008/small_img_4631.jpg