Film Photography

[OnMyWay]

Anybody here into film photography, either as an old hobby or new one?  My friend is really into it for about 5 years now, and film makes some really nice photos.  It catches the light differently than digital.  Of course, it helps if you know what you are doing!  I might have to consider getting an SLR film camera as a new hobby.  I never had one.  Only the older film point and shoots before I went to digital.

Here are some shots he took in Baguio last weekend.

My daughter Katy and his son Silas

  

  

My daughter Leila (background) and her cousin Larainne.

  

Cousin Larraine

[stevewool]

Someone mentioned photography.

I love photography but the last time I used film it was so long ago I can’t remember, i can remember loading the 24x film into the back and then clicking away hoping you got a nice picture, then it was a wait until they came back and if you was lucky you got a few good pictures but no great ones.

Now digital is fantastic , just click away and delete what you don’t want plus with so many futures on the camera you can make a good picture great plus with the help of a laptop and a program the world is your oyster in making your pictures sometimes better, but it can be overdone too.

By the way great pictures .

[stevewool]

I’ve just started trying to do macro onto black background, but having no light box I had to improvise, so it was turn over a table mat and snap  away, here are a few I took.

Edited November 20, 2019 by stevewool
Spelling

[Tommy T.]

OMW.... I was really into film photography from high school (where I did black and white and my own developing and printing) until about eight years ago when I bought my first digital SLR. I always used SLRs - either my Dad's ancient German Zeis-Ikon and then my own Olympus OM-1. I still about a thousand colour slides stored away.

I really love digital... Why? Mainly because as Steve mentioned, you take a shot and hope it turns out. So, what I did was bracket on exposures, depth of field focusing and aperture speed. It took a long time to get it right but I was never all that good at it. If there was something interesting that I thought would turn out, I would take 5-10 or more shots, each with different settings. If I was lucky, maybe one in 10 would be satisfactory to me. I went through a lot of film.

As Steve posted, digital allows you to do the same thing - bracket your shots, change your settings and shoot - but you see instant results and then can make on-the-spot changes and keep shooting until you get the right ones. You are only limited by memory card size and battery power - both of which are easily and cheaply addressed these days.

I still have my digital SLR, but it is also in storage because I stopped using it. So now I do like most and use the cell phone camera. It's not the most expensive or best, but it produces incredible photos considering all that. Artsy fartsy work? Then almost the sky's the limit for the digital gear that is now available and it improves and gets more complex on an exponential curve, I believe.

But old-fashioned film can still be fun, just realize the limitations and go into it with your eyes open. And it's not just the equipment, it's that open eye of the photographer, his/her skills in framing, lighting, focus, choosing and arranging subject matter - those are the most important parts of this hobby/profession.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Tommy T.

[OnMyWay]

I agree with everything Steve and Tommy said about digital.  It is so convenient and cheap.  You can probably get a film look with post processing, but not quite the same.

I'm just always amazed by my friends photos of the kids.  The film seems to capture the light in a way digital does not.  A different look.  I doubt that I would invest in a film SLR.

[OnMyWay]

4 hours ago, stevewool said:

with the help of a laptop and a program the world is your oyster

The way my friend is doing it is to have the film processed and then digitized into jpegs.  I don't think he has the processor print them often.  So he can post process them after he gets the jpegs.  I'm not sure if he did any post processing on the ones I shared.

[Jack D]

3 hours ago, Tommy T. said:

So now I do like most and use the cell phone camera. It's not the most expensive or best, but it produces incredible photos considering all that.

I do the same for many reasons. One reason is that I don't like to look like a tourist with an expensive camera hanging from my neck, as well as carrying a shoulder bag for accessories, especially when I really am a tourist in a foreign land.

[Tommy T.]

47 minutes ago, OnMyWay said:

I agree with everything Steve and Tommy said about digital.  It is so convenient and cheap.  You can probably get a film look with post processing, but not quite the same.

I'm just always amazed by my friends photos of the kids.  The film seems to capture the light in a way digital does not.  A different look.  I doubt that I would invest in a film SLR.

I agree with you that film rendition seems a bit cleaner or softer? Not sure exactly why, but I always liked film photos. However, I am astounded when I look at the images on the big TVs at the stores - absolutely amazing clarity and sharp detail with HD.

It seems sort of like music - digital today sounds really good but, if you want a more complete and rounded out sound, nothing beats the old tube-type amplifiers, recorders and playback systems. Still available - like film cameras - but pricey and not very common. I miss my Allied Radio stereo and big speakers... 

[OnMyWay]

37 minutes ago, Jack D said:

I don't like to look like a tourist with an expensive camera hanging from my neck,

Those are a dying breed!  Now it is:

[OnMyWay]

36 minutes ago, Tommy T. said:

However, I am astounded when I look at the images on the big TVs at the stores - absolutely amazing clarity and sharp detail with HD.

Yes, those are amazing for outdoor landscapes, but sometimes faces don't look natural.  I think portrait photography is where film excels.