Hey, pete, those wind-up things may keep me warm (winding them up) on cold December nights.

Hearty: yeah, I lived abroad last year in Finland, and my darkroom there was all deep red safelights. It was great, but I've just finished redoing my darkroom here at home the past two days (it's been in use since the summer, but i finally got around to putting up new shelves and wire hangers for wet tanks and stuff. Cleaned out my drying cabinet too...

warprints said:
One thing I especially liked about some of the SLRs, when the battery went dead, you could still take pictures - everything manual tho - but you still could keep shooting. Very nice when you're two days into a wilderness area. No batteries to carry, no battery charger (no place to plug it in anyway).

And that's if the batteries died! I've had the same batteries in my Nikkormat since last december, and the meter is still fine.
My F4 eats them a little faster, I usually have to replace them every 3 months or so, but I have a lot of leeway time once they start getting low because the camera will still operate, just won't advance at full speed. F3 is once every six months or so.

Yes but could you picture someone with 4 of these in their Digital camera winding like crazy to get their camera going again

Pete

"Design Concept" is likely why you don't know where to get them or the cost. ;)

Hi Warprints here is thing to keep your Digital camera going if you are using AA. I have no idea where you get them or the cost

Pete

One thing I especially liked about some of the SLRs, when the battery went dead, you could still take pictures - everything manual tho - but you still could keep shooting. Very nice when you're two days into a wilderness area. No batteries to carry, no battery charger (no place to plug it in anyway).

:-) in my school days I did have fun in the dark room.. we didnt have the amber lights then.. only the deep dark red lights. Yes, it was fun showing the girls how I get their nice portraits printed. Silly teenage years... ....

Selling prints was so much easier then, as thats the only way they are getting a copy! Now they just want the digital file. Still, I just love the immediate feedback of digital.

jonnyapple said:
Still trying to figure out the best explaination to give for why the skin on their faces isn't smooth.

The truth, perhaps? Just tell them you messed up I guess. It's being honest, and that's the right thing to do.

Good reasons, but I'm still not persuaded. Maybe it's because I enjoy backing up?

Digital suffers from it's own version of downside c): I had a large (~20 people) family portrait last weekend, shot some at ISO 800 to get the background framed the way I wanted then set up studio lights and forgot to go back to ISO 200 for the entire shoot. Still trying to figure out the best explaination to give for why the skin on their faces isn't smooth.

LOL, Chris, what a list! :^D

I think my views would be very different if I was a color shooter. I can't see myself bothering with labs all the time for color film, if I could just shoot a digital raw and do it myself. I must say a good optical color print still looks phenomenal next to ink jet prints, but inkjet is getting so good these days that it really doesn't make a difference. I'll admit it, even I'm jonesing after a D700, or whatever it is that follows it, but it would by no means replace my film bodies.

Now that I've done all this technical mumbo jumbo reasoning behind film, I'm going to share my 4 deep dark reasons for the TRUE explanation behind my film use. this is of course satire and all my above posts are certainly my true point of view...

a) I -hate- backing up digital files. I much prefer filing my negs once, knowing that silver doesn't just up and disappear, and being done with it.

b) People give you less grief when you take a picture of them on film. They think you're some big-shot artist. Or a poor student. Either way, they don't bother you about the photos.

c) Girls dig film, girls dig darkrooms, girls dig guys in darkrooms, girls especially dig guys in darkrooms with all the lights off, or just the red/amber safelights. I'll keep it PG-13, but my ex -loved- visiting me at my darkroom last year.

d) high end gear is cheap. weather sealed pro bodies for under 400 dollars? count me in.

downsides to film cameras:

a) people bother you about using film

b) people ask you if it's a hasselblad. apparently any boxy medium format camera is now a hasselblad.

c) you forget to reset your meter and expose a roll of plus-x as if it were delta 3200. So much for that paycheck...

jonnyapple said:
but it's good there are still film shooters around.

Maybe I'll end up being one of them :^)

Chris has really caused me to rethink film. I mean it—I'm beginning to get thoughts of trashing digital.

Chris, I have to say that what you've said in your posts in this thread makes up probably the only defense of film that has actually made sense to me. I'm heavily invested in digital, though, and use it for some of the same reasons you just mentioned you use film. Gone are the color casts in shots taken with most artificial lighting. My brain would have taken care of it the way the white balance settings do, and I can actually leave as much or as little of the color cast if I want to leave some to set the mood of a picture. And this is all without filters.

As for printing, I can just upload the digital files to a local lab and have them that afternoon. And they do it right by me, anyway.

Thanks for the insights. I'm with Pete and don't think I'll ever shoot more than a roll or two every once in a while with my old OM-2, but it's good there are still film shooters around.

Pete, that's right! It should be fun. I went back to film for the reason that I almost always shoot in black and white anyway, and was frustrated with the digital black and white output I was getting. I enjoy seeing my photos printed, and I hate the look of inkjet black and white, so for me, film is really the only answer I have. Like I've written before, I don't care abut maximum fidelity, or anything like that. I'm not even interested photography as an artistic medium, just its speed capabilities. I don't express myself in pictures, consciously at least, or try and convey anything more than what I see through the finder. This is exactly why I don't want the electronic side of digital to interfere with that. I don't want auto white balance, or anything, I just want a faithful reproduction of what I saw, and of course a well lubricated focusing helical. If I wanted to be an artist, I would maintain my drawing as my primary activity.

I guess it just came down to "if you want something done right, you gotta do it yourself". Times 5.

Thanks for all the help Chris—I think I'm in for a lot of fun :^)

ChrisLange said:

This isn't my photograph, but it is a 3200 speed 6x7 negative scan:
photo credit to Billy Plum, unfortunately scans really don't do any justice to negatives or prints since noise is added by the sensor in the scanner, and not all detail is captured. A well printed enlargement of this would be great...

This exactly why I don't really spend a lot of time with real film any more, you are back to the quality of scans etc, yes real film gives you a certain look, and more DR etc, but DSLR's are getting better and so is available photographic software.

I have a few film cameras and I want to take my son out and try out a couple Film SLR's for the fun of it, but besides that I don't really care with what a picture is taken, but how it turned out. Even a cheaply made plastic Lomography camera can take a interesting picture, so I like to use DSLR, they have made the it fun again for me to take pictures,

I do hope that some people will continue to keep the film world alive, it might just not be me

Pete

No problem alpha, always willing to help another in the old ways :)

I'm gonna tell my main man F4 to represent. Your 50mm will work better on it than a F100 anyway.

For enlargers, ask family members, someone may have one lying around. If not, you can pick one up on craigslist or ebay probably for between 50-100 dollars. They aren't terribly hard to find. Darkrooms are more difficult to search out...and you can't exactly ebay one of those. I use my father's old Omega DII myself, it formerly belonged to the man who would process and print Irving Penn's film. I also have a Durst 606 which I don't use as often, since I don't have medium format negative carriers for it, but is also a great piece of gear.

This is a decent example of how inexpensive they are:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Nice-Photo-Enlarger-With-Stand-and-Perfex-Lens-1-3-5_W0QQitemZ140369694323QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item20aeaf8e73#ht_500wt_1182

Inversion is exactly what it sounds like, you take your development tank and turn it upside down and back to normal, 5 times in a row :). Some people swear by metal tanks, other by plastic. I personally use a Paterson Super System 4 plastic tank for most of my small quantity processing (my tank can take 2 rolls of 35mm film, or 1 roll of 120), but my dad is a metal tank zealot, so whenever I have to do more than 2 rolls of one film type, I break out the metal tank that can handle 5 rolls of 120 at once, or like 8 35 rolls. I also have single 120 roll metal tanks and all that. Plastic is cheaper and easier to load, in my opinion. It's a matter of taste.

Printing is the easiest part, since you can have safelights on while you do it. Print developer is the only chemical not shared with the film developing process, and is easily available as well. Kodak Dektol is something like 3 dollars a packet, and is a classic mixture.

I strongly suggest you register an account over at APUG.org, I'm a member over there too, and the forums there are incredibly helpful. Someone there will always be able to answer pretty much any question about analog processes you could think of.

Thanks Chris, I've learned a lot from you and still am, plus not just about photography :^)

a) Seems straight forward enough, I think I'll go with Tri-X then like you suggested.

b) You're going to have to expand a little here for me. Remember, I have no idea how you process film! I understand putting the film in the chemical bath for a certain time period, but I had no idea temperature was a factor, and what the heck is an inversion? I'm not planning on doing anything amazing with the film anyway. If I can actually get a nice looking negative out of this, I'll be very happy :^D

c) I've got my grandfather's F2 Photomic plus a 50mm ƒ/1.2, and I've shot with it for a few months before I got my DSLR. I still use it today when I feel rebellious against modern technology, but it's still going to be an adjustment for me. Ah well, all I can do is look forward to using it :^)

d) Sounds good to me, I'll see how things go ;^)

e) I'd have to print it anyway if I wanted to scan it, I don't have a film scanner. But I didn't know enlargers are cheap—what would you consider a good deal on one? Oh, and you're going to have to explain the printing process too, it's very similar to developing film, right?

Thanks for all the help Chris—this means a lot to me :^)

It's expensive if you send your film out for processing, as they'll charge you for the non-standard process. If you do it yourself, it's the same as developing any other film.

I would suggest a few things for starting your film life :)

a) Choose only -one- film to work with at first. 400 speed is the most versatile, but if you mainly shoot outside during the day, you can choose a 100. My recommendations for 400s are Kodak Tri-X, Fuji Neopan 400, or Ilford Delta 400. A lot of people like Ilford HP5+ too, but I never got into it. 100s would be Kodak Plus-X, Ilford FP4+, Ilford Delta 100, or Fuji Neopan Acros.

I'd start with just Tri-X if I were you. It's a stretchy film, and works well in D76 at 200, 400, 800, 1600, and 3200. I wouldn't move on to pushing and pulling till I was comfortable and consistent with the box speed of 400 though.

b) Be consistent. Find a good process, such as 7 minutes for Tri-X at 400 in straight D76, 5 inversions of the tank every minute, on the minute, at 68 degrees fahrenheit. If you do this every time, it's going to be very hard to get a bad roll of film. Once you're good with that, you can start to push, pull, agitate more or less, or change temperature. But only change one variable at a time so you can see the effect.

c) K.I.S.S: Keep it simple, stupid! That old Nikon F2 you've got? It's a fantastic camera! stick a manual focus 50mm on there, and you're set for life. Cartier-Bresson never had more than that either.

d) Keep it in your backpack, or on your shoulder at all times. Cool old film cameras make girls want you. Digital SLRs scare them off. No one wants to hear about how cool your new white balance settings are. Also if it's with you all the time, you won't miss pictures.

e) Print your film yourself, don't just scan it. Enlargers are cheap, especially 35mm ones. This is essential to seeing what your film has captured. Scanning destroys the characteristics unique to an emulsion, reduces contrast, and adds noise. Unless of course you're Joe Cool and you have one of those spiffy $2000 Nikon Coolscan 9000s kicking around.

ChrisLange said:
This is all dependant on film format, film type, developer choice, and what ASA you expose your film at.

cheap budget 400 color neg is grainy as hell, while a good film such as Kodak Portra 400NC is far less so. Even Portra 800 has pretty subtle grain. Once you hit medium format, grain is much less of a factor, and if you happen to use 4x5, 8x10, or larger, it's not even part of the equation. 400 speed 8x10 has more detail than cutting edge digital medium format backs -wish- they had. I'm not even going to bring up the whackos who use 11x14, 7x17, or 20x24".

But in the words of our good friend Henri Cartier-Bresson, sharpness is a bourgeois concept anyway. So is grain. People who ridicule a great photo because it's visibly grainy are probably not worth half their weight in salt as photographers anyhow.

Very true, I was generalizing about 35mm film. I don't develop my film, so I only have a very vague idea of what I was talking about.

You're right, a good photo shouldn't be worrying about grain. You shouldn't pixel peep and forget about the whole photo at all.

Hmmm. So this summer I'm planning on learning how to develop my own film. So the best developer for me to work with would be D76 I guess, and I would probably want to use a relatively simple B&W film I suppose. What did you learn developing on, and what would recommend I use?

So a 6-stop underexposed film still retains enough detail, eh? That's pretty impressive, I have to say. In the book Exposure by Brian Peterson I read that pushing and pulling film is expensive—is that true? If so, how come—does it take more developer or something?

Alpha, yes pushing film causes more silver to develop and block up, resulting in more visible grain. Pushing isn't really "increasing" film speed, it's taking underexposed film and increasing the contrast so it doesn't look underexposed. This is why big pushes, such as 400 @ 3200, result in a loss of shadow detail. I've only ever gone as high as 6400, but some people that are crazier than me expose medium format Tri-X at 25600. That's a six stop push...

Try underexposing a digital file six stops and recovering it!

Rodinal is a unique developer in that it requires very high dilutions compared to standard chemistry. All developers behave differently depending on the chemicals they contain. Some solutions create more grain as they are diluted, others are cleaner when highly diluted. D76 is pretty much the gold standard in film developer, as it is cheap, easy to get ahold of, or even make yourself from raw compounds, and is a pretty fine grained developer, while still giving full film speed. You can get a packet with enough powder to make a liter of stock solution at any decent photo store for about 3 or 4 dollars.

There are too many printing processes for me to talk about here, but the classic b/w print is called a silver gelatin print, and comes in two flavors of paper, either Resin Coated (emulsion embedded in a synthetic coating on a paper base), or Fiber Based (emulsion is embedded in paper made up of fibers). RC is faster to wash and dry, but isn't as archival as a fiber print. Fiber papers also tend to have a certain look about them which you can't get in an RC stock. Fiber also costs about two to three times as much per pack, and requires much more thorough fixing, washing and drying.
An alternative to the silver print is the platinum print, which has a greater range of tones and usually wider dynamic range. The downside is that it is incredibly hard to master platinum printing, and materials are significantly more expensive.

NSXType-R said:
Yeah, grain as in noise. Digital really does handle noise a lot better than film now, film used to have really noticeable noise starting from 800 up I believe. But I never really use more than 400 film, since I'm just starting out anyway. I use the cheapo Fuji Film stuff. I might want to grab a roll of black and white though.

This is all dependant on film format, film type, developer choice, and what ASA you expose your film at.

cheap budget 400 color neg is grainy as hell, while a good film such as Kodak Portra 400NC is far less so. Even Portra 800 has pretty subtle grain. Once you hit medium format, grain is much less of a factor, and if you happen to use 4x5, 8x10, or larger, it's not even part of the equation. 400 speed 8x10 has more detail than cutting edge digital medium format backs -wish- they had. I'm not even going to bring up the whackos who use 11x14, 7x17, or 20x24".

But in the words of our good friend Henri Cartier-Bresson, sharpness is a bourgeois concept anyway. So is grain. People who ridicule a great photo because it's visibly grainy are probably not worth half their weight in salt as photographers anyhow.

So when you push film the grains get larger? How does that work out? And a more diluted solution will cause a negative to have smaller grains, while a less diluted one will create bigger grains, right?

It seems like when you're shooting film you make a lot of decision, first by choosing a film, then by choosing how to develop it, and then (I'm guessing) there are many ways to print it?

That's correct, when a film is termed "fine grain" it is usually a slower speed film, since the grains are smaller, resulting in increased detail. There are numerous other factors in obtaining a certain look with black and white, and there's all sorts of things to tweak. Your film of course has its own characteristics, and this is why some people swear by Kodak's TMax films, and why others hate them. I personally can't stand the straight line contrast curve of TMax, since it looks so much like digital black and white. I much prefer the look of Tri-X 400 as far as kodak is concerned. Same with TMax 100, I'll take Plus-X 125 over it any day of the week, no question about it. Your choice of developer is also a factor. Developers like Ilford Perceptol or Kodak's Microdol-X are designed to minimize grain and maximize resolution, especially with films like PanF+ or Delta 100, whereas a developer like Acufine is designed for push processing, giving Tri-X a native speed boost up to 1000 from 400, and is capable of taking the film well into the 6400 range, while minimizing the grain associated with large pushes (to a degree).

Of course sometimes big grain is desirable, and is a stylistic choice. I usually obtain this by shooting a relatively grainy film such as Tri-X, souping it in Rodinal at a strong 1 part of rodinal to 25 parts water ratio, or even in paper developer versus film developer, with lots of agitation. This will give a very grainy negative, in contrast to what Tri-X would look like if developed in straight D76 or a more diluted Rodinal solution such as 1 part rodinal to 100 parts water.