Getting into pre-digital photography?

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

Is there any sense into buying a good camera with analog film that you need to develop or is it hipster nonsense shit?

My goal would be to "capture unique moments in nature", like the sun setting on trees for example. As such, I do not need definition at all but it's more about capturing light and atmosphere.

I feel like modern pics tend to be "too nice" and I feel like this comes from the embedded filters in digital equipment.

But maybe I sound ridiculous and or possibly even gh3y so please educate me...

Also: paging my analog consultant @aerius who educated me alot about sound system 3 years ago. I have all your recommendations committed to memory, just waiting for my current digital sound system to die...

 

[moreorless87]

Film certainly has a different look to it and monochrome film in some ways can be easier to shoot as its less prone to having the highlights blow out than digital is but you need to know what your doing at least somewhat, I spose some kind of latter day 90's compact camera might have a lot of automation but that kind of defeats the point to me plus the lens might not be that good either.

This for example was easier to shoot on film that digital, needed much less editing afterwards, the falloff into the really bright leaves I think looks more pleasing that digital would.

Personally I use a Nikon F2, all mechanical(well the light meter runs on watch batteries which last years) no nonsense camera thats built like a tank but still doesnt cost the earth, could get a decent copy for $200ish if you shop around still.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

Film certainly has a different look to it and monochrome film in some ways can be easier to shoot as its less prone to having the highlights blow out than digital is but you need to know what your doing at least somewhat, I spose some kind of latter day 90's compact camera might have a lot of automation but that kind of defeats the point to me plus the lens might not be that good either.

This for example was easier to shoot on film that digital, needed much less editing afterwards, the falloff into the really bright leaves I think looks more pleasing that digital would.

Personally I use a Nikon F2, all mechanical(well the light meter runs on watch batteries which last years) no nonsense camera thats built like a tank but still doesnt cost the earth, could get a decent copy for $200ish if you shop around still.

Thank you very much for this info. Yes that pic looks very nice. Although for me it's all about the colours, so black and white is not an option.

How do you develop your film? Yourself?

 

[moreorless87]

Thank you very much for this info. Yes that pic looks very nice. Although for me it's all about the colours, so black and white is not an option.

How do you develop your film? Yourself?

Get a local specialist place to do it, although I spose if you don't have one could do it via mail.

The look of colour pictures is going to depend a lot on the kind of film you shoot.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

Get a local specialist place to do it, although I spose if you don't have one could do it via mail.

Ok. That camera you posted is very interesting. Feels like the tried and tested reference model. Seems available all over the place in good conditions, too.

 

[moreorless87]

Ok. That camera you posted is very interesting. Feels like the tried and tested reference model. Seems available all over the place in good conditions, too.

Nikon F-mount lenses from that era are very common as well and not too expensive.

 

[Belaya Smert]

That’s literally just called Photography, Bro.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

That’s literally just called Photography, Bro.

THis thread is about the merits of analog photography.

Bro.

 

[Belaya Smert]

THis thread is about the merits of analog photography.

Bro.

analog pre digital photography for clarity, right

 

[chardog]

Get a Fuji with film emulation and shoot jpeg, similar effect. Analog cameras are heavy and awkward, and processing film to scan to digital… what’s the point really?

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

Get a Fuji with film emulation and shoot jpeg, similar effect. Analog cameras are heavy and awkward, and processing film to scan to digital… what’s the point really?

THat's what I am trying to figure out, if there is a point. Would you not agree that digital pictures tend to have this "too perfect / fake" feel to them?

 

[chardog]

THat's what I am trying to figure out, if there is a point. Would you not agree that digital pictures tend to have this "too perfect / fake" feel to them?

yes, however, it doesnt have to be that way. If you're looking for a soft palette style of look, turn down the sharpness or do photos with a "cine" style. BTW, turning down the sharpness != lack of details. Digital looks like trash because most cameras crank up the contrast and sharpness for a hyper realistic look, and it's similar to people filming in and outputting in 60p. There are ways to get the film look, whether it be through an editor or it could even be mist filters of varying strength. Understanding color may take years to figure out, however I have a simple formula to achieve the look I'm going for and then I tweak to my hearts desire. I like stuff produced by Arri Alexa cameras, and I have figured out how to emulate the look somewhat, and it's as simple as learning to tweak primary monitor colors, RGB, take a photo with a large red foreground (could be a shirt, maga hat, whatever), with a lot of GREEN trees and the sky in the background, then tweak the three colors to your liking, and presto, a preset that can be applied. This took me decades to figure out how to mix color, and then it dawned on me lol (color charts always felt artificial).

if I were to go analog, I would look at rangefinders, simply because the experience is so unique. There's a reason why so many old timers went with Leica, and it's not because it was a posh product......

 

[syct23]

Lols Pre Digital Camera,

All of the old people “Oh! You mean a Camera “…

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

yes, however, it doesnt have to be that way. If you're looking for a soft palette style of look, turn down the sharpness or do photos with a "cine" style. BTW, turning down the sharpness != lack of details. Digital looks like trash because most cameras crank up the contrast and sharpness for a hyper realistic look, and it's similar to people filming in and outputting in 60p. There are ways to get the film look, whether it be through an editor or it could even be mist filters of varying strength. Understanding color may take years to figure out, however I have a simple formula to achieve the look I'm going for and then I tweak to my hearts desire. I like stuff produced by Arri Alexa cameras, and I have figured out how to emulate the look somewhat, and it's as simple as learning to tweak primary monitor colors, RGB, take a photo with a large red foreground (could be a shirt, maga hat, whatever), with a lot of GREEN trees and the sky in the background, then tweak the three colors to your liking, and presto, a preset that can be applied. This took me decades to figure out how to mix color, and then it dawned on me lol (color charts always felt artificial).

if I were to go analog, I would look at rangefinders, simply because the experience is so unique. There's a reason why so many old timers went with Leica, and it's not because it was a posh product......

Sounds like you know your shit.

 

[aerius]

I'd say it depends on how many photos you plan to take in an average year since film & developing costs can get out of hand pretty fast if you shoot a lot of pictures. I still use film for any photos that are worth keeping and use digital for stuff that's only going to get shared on the web. There's not really a "film look" since there's dozens of different kinds of film and many of them will have their own unique colours, contrast, and sharpness - Kodak Ektar for instance is going to look quite different from Kodak Portra or Fuji Superia. Then there's the fun stuff like slide films and B&W films.

As for cameras, I prefer the Olympus OM-2N or OM-2SP since they're about as small as you can make a 35mm SLR. Lenses are manual focus, but it has an automatic mode for the aperture & shutter speed if you feel lazy. Olympus made tons of them so bodies & lenses are still widely available on the used market.

Kodak Ektar 100

Fuji Superia

Kentmere 100

Fuji Velvia 50

 

[moreorless87]

yes, however, it doesnt have to be that way. If you're looking for a soft palette style of look, turn down the sharpness or do photos with a "cine" style. BTW, turning down the sharpness != lack of details. Digital looks like trash because most cameras crank up the contrast and sharpness for a hyper realistic look, and it's similar to people filming in and outputting in 60p. There are ways to get the film look, whether it be through an editor or it could even be mist filters of varying strength. Understanding color may take years to figure out, however I have a simple formula to achieve the look I'm going for and then I tweak to my hearts desire. I like stuff produced by Arri Alexa cameras, and I have figured out how to emulate the look somewhat, and it's as simple as learning to tweak primary monitor colors, RGB, take a photo with a large red foreground (could be a shirt, maga hat, whatever), with a lot of GREEN trees and the sky in the background, then tweak the three colors to your liking, and presto, a preset that can be applied. This took me decades to figure out how to mix color, and then it dawned on me lol (color charts always felt artificial).

if I were to go analog, I would look at rangefinders, simply because the experience is so unique. There's a reason why so many old timers went with Leica, and it's not because it was a posh product......

Its true a lot of digital does have the sharpness(not the same as detail/resolution), contrast, etc jacked up either by the camera/phone itself or by the person editing it, often unthinkingly so in a fashion which I'd say is not actually realistic. Spending so many thousands of hours editing landscape stuff in the last decade really a lot of what I'd learned is to edit for realism not for "pop", or at least something which could be realistic even if its pushed a bit beyond the scene as it was. Things like contrast and sharpness dropping off with distance in hazy weather for example is not something you want to remove if you want your images to have depth to them.

Modern digital I do think you could argue demands editing more than film, what your shooting often ends up being whats best for the edit not what looks best out for camera, exposing the scene to stop the highlights blowing out and using the ability to lift up exposure on the rest of the scene digital gives. I can see why some people who do not want to spend a lot of time of the edit might prefer to shoot film still. Film does have the advantage as well that when you push past its limits in resolution or dynamic range it can still look nice were as with digital things can look quite ugly with nastier artefacts rather than film grain.

A big issue though is how much you shoot, if your only shooting say a roll of 35mm film every 2-3 weeks then really its not that expensive. Personally I shoot so much though that film(and it would need to be medium format for my print sizes) would become prohibitively expensive so I'd always stuck to digital as my main workhorse.

Scanner wise I have a Reflecta Crystalscan 7200 which did that picture earlier in the thread(Illford 100 film, Nikon F2, Zeiss 50mm F/2 Makro Lens), not fast to use, you can't load it up with a ton of slides at once so not good for digitising massive old picture stores but it does have pretty strong quality, not top level pro grade but certainly good enough to make the film still look like film.

Same setup but with Fuji Provia 100F film and a larger file size so you can get an idea of what kind of resolution 35mm slide film has with a strong lens

 

[Jackonfire]

Sounds like you know your shit.

Not if he's telling you to shoot in jpeg. Always shoot RAW. You can convert later.

 

[djacobox372]

One major objective benefit of film photography is that it's archival--you could take a photo, store it away in a dry space, and someone may find it 200 years later and it will still look the same.

Photos stored digitally will eventually be lost (if not managed carefully). Prints made from digital photos are typically non-archival--they'll fade and discolor in time. True archival digital prints are expensive $15-20 a print for 4x6... film is a lot cheaper than that.

As for image quality, these days digital is so high-res and has so much dynamic range that it's easy to achieve any of the qualities of film. Much of the "film look" that is still popular today is due to the less than perfect optics of old film lenses.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

I'd say it depends on how many photos you plan to take in an average year since film & developing costs can get out of hand pretty fast if you shoot a lot of pictures. I still use film for any photos that are worth keeping and use digital for stuff that's only going to get shared on the web. There's not really a "film look" since there's dozens of different kinds of film and many of them will have their own unique colours, contrast, and sharpness - Kodak Ektar for instance is going to look quite different from Kodak Portra or Fuji Superia. Then there's the fun stuff like slide films and B&W films.

As for cameras, I prefer the Olympus OM-2N or OM-2SP since they're about as small as you can make a 35mm SLR. Lenses are manual focus, but it has an automatic mode for the aperture & shutter speed if you feel lazy. Olympus made tons of them so bodies & lenses are still widely available on the used market.

Kodak Ektar 100

Fuji Superia

Kentmere 100

Fuji Velvia 50

First and last pics are amazing. First for depth and last for colour.
OK so for occasional use say once per month you would recommend analog...

 

[PurpleStorm]

Is there any sense into buying a good camera with analog film that you need to develop or is it hipster nonsense shit?

My goal would be to "capture unique moments in nature", like the sun setting on trees for example. As such, I do not need definition at all but it's more about capturing light and atmosphere.

I feel like modern pics tend to be "too nice" and I feel like this comes from the embedded filters in digital equipment.

But maybe I sound ridiculous and or possibly even gh3y so please educate me...

Also: paging my analog consultant @aerius who educated me alot about sound system 3 years ago. I have all your recommendations committed to memory, just waiting for my current digital sound system to die...

As a lover of analog photography I'd say go for it. If you have the opportunity also learn about the darkroom and printing techniques. All of this will be great fun either by yourself or with an old or new friend. There should be classes on it at a nearby community college. My treasured art is analog through and through.