My first foray into film photography
Discussion
Can't sleep so I thought I would take the time to share my experiences of what was my first, very recent, foray into 'proper' film and rangefinder photography. By proper, I mean to exclude holiday snaps taken with a disposable camera.
I normally shoot digital with Pentax SLRs; I have done so for several years with the occasional wedding or portrait shoot here and there. I've often wondered what it would be like to shoot film; I often read nostalgic posts on various forums about the qualities of film which digital allegedly lacks. Being a curious sort I decided I wanted to find out what was what for myself.
So I asked to borrow my Dad's film camera, which I remembered looking quite impressive when I was a child! This turned out to be a Yashica Electro 35 GX Rangefinder. Excellent, I thought, I could try film photography AND rangefinder photography together.
Problem 1: The batteries were dead. This old rangefinder was fitted with some very obsolete mercury filled cells, so a straight replacement was not possible. The solution: some smaller alkaline cells of the same voltage + lots of foil padding.
Problem 2: No film. And I know nothing about film. In the end I ordered some fujifilm acros b&w 100 online. I picked b&w as thats what I wanted to shoot and 100asa (iso) as I intended to shoot outside in daylight mainly.
Problem 3: Focus ring would rotate about 3/4 of the way round and stop. So my max focus point was about 5m away, with extension possible only by closing the aperture. Not fabulous, but I'd have to get by.
Problem 4: Hazy viewfinder. Not helpful, but not impossible to work with either.
After fitting the fresh batteries and loading the film, I set about taking all sorts of photos of different subjects to try and get a feel for the camera in various situations.
What did I discover relative to digital photography:
1. Manually focussing a rangefinder was much easier than manually focussing an SLR, especially in dim light. However, other than in very dim light in which autofocus can struggle, autofocus beats manual focus for me. More rapid and more accurate more of the time. I also noticed that trying to focus the rangefinder on anything heavily patterned was very difficult, as wass focussing on a fast, erratically moving infant!
2. Ergonomically I prefer the shape of an SLR to a rangefinder (irrespective of film / digital), specifically the extended grip on the side of a SLR compared to the flat rangefinder which provides no purchase for fingers. Exaserbating the situation was the fact that the shutter release was stiffer than a digital SLR (being mechanical, its no surprise!).
3. The ability to change ISO in a couple of button presses is one of digital's greatest assets. Half way through a film, I had some great opportunities to shoot my son playing indoors. I couldn't though because it was too dark for a 100asa film. What I needed was 800asa. Wouldn't have been a problem at all with a digital camera, but film prevented me even trying to get the shot.
4. The inability to instantly view the photos is both a hindarance but also quite fun; the anticipation and excitement of seeing my images when they got back from developing was something I wouldn't have experienced with digital.
5. The inability to fire of a bazillion shots to see what sticks is also a double edge sword. Unless you're very rich, film must be used sparingly which leads to a slower more considered approach to photography which I think is generally conducive to taking better photographs.
6. Cost. An easy win for digital again. Excluding the cost of the camera, the purchase of the film, development and scanning all came to about £30. £30 for one 36 exposure film. Just 14 films and the associated developing and scanning (£420) would have covered the cost of my first digital SLR camera. Thats a very high recurring cost.
7. I like the pics that I took! How are they better than digital? I like the tonality and I like the way the highlights roll off gently rather than abruptly clipping like they do on digital. It helps the lens on the rangefinder is pretty fast at f/1.7 and even the vignetting adds character (I normally have to add this in for digital!). The lens does suffer some distortion though which is a bit irritating, especially for a prime.
So would I continue shooting film? I think the answer is yes, occasionally. Its a slightly different discipline using a film rangefinder rather than a digital SLR and I rather enjoyed the challenge. Will I learn to develop my own films? Probably not, I don't have the space in my flat to build a darkroom so I'll leave that to someone else.
For those still reading, thanks for staying the course! I didn't realise I had so much to say when I started writing this!
Full size pics can be found in this set on flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/andreas-sakka/sets/72...
Other than some minor cropping and rotating where necessary (and conversion to black and white to remove the colour cast from scanning what was a black and white film),the images have been otherwise left free of post processing.
I normally shoot digital with Pentax SLRs; I have done so for several years with the occasional wedding or portrait shoot here and there. I've often wondered what it would be like to shoot film; I often read nostalgic posts on various forums about the qualities of film which digital allegedly lacks. Being a curious sort I decided I wanted to find out what was what for myself.
So I asked to borrow my Dad's film camera, which I remembered looking quite impressive when I was a child! This turned out to be a Yashica Electro 35 GX Rangefinder. Excellent, I thought, I could try film photography AND rangefinder photography together.
Problem 1: The batteries were dead. This old rangefinder was fitted with some very obsolete mercury filled cells, so a straight replacement was not possible. The solution: some smaller alkaline cells of the same voltage + lots of foil padding.
Problem 2: No film. And I know nothing about film. In the end I ordered some fujifilm acros b&w 100 online. I picked b&w as thats what I wanted to shoot and 100asa (iso) as I intended to shoot outside in daylight mainly.
Problem 3: Focus ring would rotate about 3/4 of the way round and stop. So my max focus point was about 5m away, with extension possible only by closing the aperture. Not fabulous, but I'd have to get by.
Problem 4: Hazy viewfinder. Not helpful, but not impossible to work with either.
After fitting the fresh batteries and loading the film, I set about taking all sorts of photos of different subjects to try and get a feel for the camera in various situations.
What did I discover relative to digital photography:
1. Manually focussing a rangefinder was much easier than manually focussing an SLR, especially in dim light. However, other than in very dim light in which autofocus can struggle, autofocus beats manual focus for me. More rapid and more accurate more of the time. I also noticed that trying to focus the rangefinder on anything heavily patterned was very difficult, as wass focussing on a fast, erratically moving infant!
2. Ergonomically I prefer the shape of an SLR to a rangefinder (irrespective of film / digital), specifically the extended grip on the side of a SLR compared to the flat rangefinder which provides no purchase for fingers. Exaserbating the situation was the fact that the shutter release was stiffer than a digital SLR (being mechanical, its no surprise!).
3. The ability to change ISO in a couple of button presses is one of digital's greatest assets. Half way through a film, I had some great opportunities to shoot my son playing indoors. I couldn't though because it was too dark for a 100asa film. What I needed was 800asa. Wouldn't have been a problem at all with a digital camera, but film prevented me even trying to get the shot.
4. The inability to instantly view the photos is both a hindarance but also quite fun; the anticipation and excitement of seeing my images when they got back from developing was something I wouldn't have experienced with digital.
5. The inability to fire of a bazillion shots to see what sticks is also a double edge sword. Unless you're very rich, film must be used sparingly which leads to a slower more considered approach to photography which I think is generally conducive to taking better photographs.
6. Cost. An easy win for digital again. Excluding the cost of the camera, the purchase of the film, development and scanning all came to about £30. £30 for one 36 exposure film. Just 14 films and the associated developing and scanning (£420) would have covered the cost of my first digital SLR camera. Thats a very high recurring cost.
7. I like the pics that I took! How are they better than digital? I like the tonality and I like the way the highlights roll off gently rather than abruptly clipping like they do on digital. It helps the lens on the rangefinder is pretty fast at f/1.7 and even the vignetting adds character (I normally have to add this in for digital!). The lens does suffer some distortion though which is a bit irritating, especially for a prime.
So would I continue shooting film? I think the answer is yes, occasionally. Its a slightly different discipline using a film rangefinder rather than a digital SLR and I rather enjoyed the challenge. Will I learn to develop my own films? Probably not, I don't have the space in my flat to build a darkroom so I'll leave that to someone else.
For those still reading, thanks for staying the course! I didn't realise I had so much to say when I started writing this!
Full size pics can be found in this set on flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/andreas-sakka/sets/72...
Other than some minor cropping and rotating where necessary (and conversion to black and white to remove the colour cast from scanning what was a black and white film),the images have been otherwise left free of post processing.
Suggestion: try getting a second-hand Olympus Trip. I've seen them for as low as a fiver (but there might be issues with it if it's that cheap). I got mine for £30, which is a bit on the high side, but it's a cracking camera if you want to continue with film.
Beware though - if the bug bites, then you'll start eyeing up medium format and large format cameras. Then your wallet will really start to hate you.
Beware though - if the bug bites, then you'll start eyeing up medium format and large format cameras. Then your wallet will really start to hate you.
@ Major: I've been wondering whether to repair the few things that need doing to the Yashica (focus ring not fully rotating and foggy viewfinder window); I reckon that a decent condition Pen might end up cheaper than the Yashica. I'll check it out, thanks for the suggestion.
@ Andy_xr: Thanks! I'm lucky to have such photogenic friends! She's not half bad with a camera herself. I think that's my fave image of the set, although cropping out the white wood on the left of the frame would probably make a stronger composition.
@ Andy_xr: Thanks! I'm lucky to have such photogenic friends! She's not half bad with a camera herself. I think that's my fave image of the set, although cropping out the white wood on the left of the frame would probably make a stronger composition.
DJ_AS said:
@ Major: I've been wondering whether to repair the few things that need doing to the Yashica (focus ring not fully rotating and foggy viewfinder window); I reckon that a decent condition Pen might end up cheaper than the Yashica. I'll check it out, thanks for the suggestion.
@ Andy_xr: Thanks! I'm lucky to have such photogenic friends! She's not half bad with a camera herself. I think that's my fave image of the set, although cropping out the white wood on the left of the frame would probably make a stronger composition.
Personal preference would be to darken down the sill inside the frame where the lights hitting it and making it stand out - I like the wood on the LHS @ Andy_xr: Thanks! I'm lucky to have such photogenic friends! She's not half bad with a camera herself. I think that's my fave image of the set, although cropping out the white wood on the left of the frame would probably make a stronger composition.
)That camera brings back memories... first film camera I had was a Yashica rangie (TL Electro X if memory serves correctly). And some nice shots there.
Don't rule out developing your own negs. All you need is a changing bag, a tank, thermometer, stopwatch, and a few measuring cylinders/bottles for chemistry. Gives you a whole new dimension to play in - especially if you start playing about with push processing or strange brews.
And if you thought the shooting was fun, IMO that's nothing compared to the magic of seeing images materialise on paper - sadly a pleasure denied to me for the past couple of years due to a lack of space, but one I fully intend to reclaim.
Welcome back to the Stone Age - good isn't it?
Don't rule out developing your own negs. All you need is a changing bag, a tank, thermometer, stopwatch, and a few measuring cylinders/bottles for chemistry. Gives you a whole new dimension to play in - especially if you start playing about with push processing or strange brews.
And if you thought the shooting was fun, IMO that's nothing compared to the magic of seeing images materialise on paper - sadly a pleasure denied to me for the past couple of years due to a lack of space, but one I fully intend to reclaim.
Welcome back to the Stone Age - good isn't it?
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff