Topic: Camera and Film Question.

[GroovieGhoulie]

I have an old Nikon F that is an awesome camera. I want to use it to take some "nostalgia" style shots of things (mostly my Hondas). So what is the best film to use to give that "1970s" look? You know, where everything seems softer, a bit washed out and just seems to have a general "patina".

Are there modern films that can recreate the old look?  The camera is only half the equation.  Well arguably one third, since the development process plays a huge role I'm sure.  How much do modern development processes and machines affect how a picture turns out?

[tmht]

They affect it alot.

I have a camera from that same line... I believe a late '60s F2. My personal favorite as of late has been to use the new Kodak B+W film that can be processed in color chemicals (including the 1 hour photo machines) and pay the extra couple of bucks for the negative scan to CD.

[Klark Kent]

thats an awesome camera, FM2 was my first hand me down camera and i still use it today.  but that look you are talking about (i think) had more to do with the processing and the paper, not the film.  modern print paper is more color fast and all that, and the pictures would still take thirty years (or half hour in the dryer) to look 30 years old.  just kidding dont try the dryer thing.  if you can scan the photos, (they will still look better than digital pics) and have access to a good program like photoshop you can try playing with the filters.

if i have time later, maybe i will try and see which filters will get you the desired effect-
and there are other photoshop nerds, i mean graphic designers, here who may know off the top of their head.  

Good Luck,
-KK

[Bob Wessner]

They affect it alot.

I have a camera from that same line... I believe a late '60s F2. My personal favorite as of late has been to use the new Kodak B+W film that can be processed in color chemicals (including the 1 hour photo machines) and pay the extra couple of bucks for the negative scan to CD.

The color processing he referred to for the B/W film is C41. A common speed for the B/W is ISO 400.

[Klark Kent]

but i wouldnt consider the results very vintage looking, would you?
-KK

[Bob Wessner]

but i wouldnt consider the results very vintage looking, would you?
-KK

No, unless you left them in front of a sunny window for a few months. That's pretty much how vintage looking my color shots are from the 70's. 

If I were to try, I guess I would go with B/W and fool with the developer or maybe some dyes. You could also try some hand coloring of B/W prints.

[cmorgan47]

i'd go with warming filters.
it's going to be hard to control that with film, unless you're doing the developing too.

maybe try finding some expired film--usually can be had cheap at pro-shops.  it's always a crap shoot, but you can get some very interesting results.

[Jeff]

It's also good to know that the higher the film speed, the noisier the prints. B&W 400 speed film, at least the stuff I used in the late 90s/early 2000 was very grainy.

Photoshop is definitely one answer. There may not be a filter that says "Make this print look old" but the right combination of actions will do it.

Jeff

[cmorgan47]

It's also good to know that the higher the film speed, the noisier the prints. B&W 400 speed film, at least the stuff I used in the late 90s/early 2000 was very grainy.

good call on film speed.  it was grainy back then.  get some 1600 speed, and orange filters.  that speed will compensate for the light your loosing through the filter too.

[tmht]

Sorry... I threw that response up there in about 30 secs before I ran off to a meeting.

My complete thought process with that was to get the BW negatives for later printing on your own... if you want to go with a real old-timy look for your prints slap a #4 filter on the enlarger, use a coarse paper and a mild sepia.

The reason I like the C41 is that it is very cost effective. I can pull the scans into Photoshop or GIMP (Preferred) and do what I need with them and then spend $2 to have them printed on archival paper with archival ink. Now if you have access to a darkroom for printing and film developing there are all sorts of things you can do with the processing of the film itself... alot of trial and error though. For instance Kodak films were much more friendly to push processing than Agfa films (I think they went out of business). Depending on what film you use and what you shot, using push processing could result in some very nice negatives to work with or a full trash can.

[putnaja1]

I know I associate negatives developed into slides with pictures from the '70s..  A lot of family members when I was growing up in the '70s had camera body style SLR cameras, and they all got their film developed into color slides for some reason back then.  This sounds nutty, but perhaps getting the picture developed into a slide, projecting that slide on an off-white wall, then taking a digital pic of the image on the wall would produce the washed-out, 70s look?

Another thing you can try is this- with digital cameras/printers, alot of times there are settings, where you can select normal, b&w, or "antique" look, where the antique looks like the yellowed/over-warmed old-time pictures..

[cmorgan47]

or GIMP (Preferred)

rock on GIMP!

though i've seen grain ruined by pretty much every software package available....sometimes just comes out like static rather than that nice uniform highspeed grain.

[Jeff]

Another thing you can try is this- with digital cameras/printers, alot of times there are settings, where you can select normal, b&w, or "antique" look, where the antique looks like the yellowed/over-warmed old-time pictures..

Using the b/w setting on a digital camera, at least on the consumer type ones, will basically turn your photos to crap. They just desaturate the color. The best way to do it would be to shoot color than convert to b/w in Photoshop or the like using a channel mixer.

Jeff

[tmht]

or GIMP (Preferred)

rock on GIMP!

though i've seen grain ruined by pretty much every software package available....sometimes just comes out like static rather than that nice uniform highspeed grain.

I have a few different ways to get it... Lots of playing with transparency... Also the overall res of the source makes a big difference. That's why I like to work in RGB or CMYK even with my "Black and White" images. There are still only 256 shades of grey on a computer...

[GroovieGhoulie]

A friend recommended Kodachrome, which I thought was a Slide-Only film.  I want some actual prints though.  I might still shoot some Kodachrome because it's cool.

Any good way to scan in slides? LOL!

[cmorgan47]

Any good way to scan in slides? LOL!

yes, with a negative scanner.  works much better than scanning prints.

[Bob Wessner]

Any good way to scan in slides? LOL!

Many flatbed scanners today have masks for negatives (or unmounted slides), though I guess the best would be a dedicated 35mm scanner, just not cheap with such limited use.

[tmht]

A friend recommended Kodachrome, which I thought was a Slide-Only film.  I want some actual prints though.  I might still shoot some Kodachrome because it's cool.

Any good way to scan in slides? LOL!

Most labs will offer a scanning service at the time of processing. The cost is minimal compared to a decent slide scanner.

[ChrisR]

Don't know if this is what you are after but my recollection of photography in the 70s/80s was that most pictures were taken on not very good cameras like Kodak Instamatic 110s and Olympus Trip 35s which had a lot to do with the quality of the pictures. Not many people could afford a Nikon then and most pics were snaps taken on cameras with crap lenses which in retrospect have a certain charming quality of their own - distortion, varying focus, limited exposure control, etc.
Maybe pick up an old fixed focus snaps camera from a junk or charity/thrift shop and blast off a film to see what happens? I'm sure film, processing and paper play a role but I don't think all that much has changed in film in the last 20 years, especially since the arrival of digital media.
Can we see the results - might be interesting to compare your Nikon to a variety of other cameras taking pics of the bike?
cheers Chris

[martini]

WOW - I'm impressed we clearly know more then just motorcycles.

[GroovieGhoulie]

It seems I have a buddy who might hook me up with some real Kodachrome.  I'll try some out and report it back.  The rub is that I haven't used the camera in years, so I'm going to have to get it serviced and the batteries in the light meter replaced.

I'm going to try my hand at some shots using "regular" film, which should get my eye back into the swing and be cheap to practice with.  Then I'm going to set up some real nice shots of my bikes in different areas.

The thing about Kodachrome is that it can only be developed by Kodak since the process is so incredibly labor-intensive and specialized, so I'm probably going to have to find a slide scanner once the slides come back, which takes about 2-3 weeks or so.

[Bob Wessner]

I've been a Nikon owner for years. Have several older 35mm bodies and lens, one even went with me to Vietnam. I currently use a Nikon digital that I love, though I think a purist might poo-poo that. Just don't have the space for a darkroom any longer. Anyway, you mentioned getting yours serviced. Depending on the work that needs to be done, it could prove costly, been there.

[GroovieGhoulie]

I've been a Nikon owner for years. Have several older 35mm bodies and lens, one even went with me to Vietnam. I currently use a Nikon digital that I love, though I think a purist might poo-poo that. Just don't have the space for a darkroom any longer. Anyway, you mentioned getting yours serviced. Depending on the work that needs to be done, it could prove costly, been there.

Yeah, the body and lens were my dad's in Vietnam and it was in storage for years.  Pulled it out a few years ago and all it needed were new batteries in the light meter.  The shutter was a little sticky, but repeatedly working it without film eventually loosened it up.  It hasn't been used for a year or two and the last one that used it was my brother.  No offense to him, but he's (unintentionally) hard on machinery and God only knows what it'll need now.

Funny I'll bet that camera, (being built like a tank), could survive a war, but not my brother.  Let's hope it's no biggie.  Hell last time we needed new batteries it took SIX shops to find one that would even LOOK at it, let alone TOUCH it.

Reminds me of the reaction our bikes get at most motorcycle shops these days.  "GAAAAK!!!!!  TOO OLD!!!"  ::Store employee recoils in horror and makes the cross with his fingers like he's facing a vampire:: 

[cmorgan47]

WOW - I'm impressed we clearly know more then just motorcycles.

yeah, don't get me started on brewing

[Chris Schneiter]

Ok, I haven't shot film in about 5 years, but here's my 2 bits...first, try all of the above...you're experimenting...
Second, a "good" image depends upon proper exposure...so throw the meter out the window...with negative (Print) film, an over exposed image can be printed down to normal, but the side effect is a grainy image with hard to control colors and contrast...the grain effect is true with B&W or Color.
An underexposed negative  will give you a soft, pastel look when printed to normal...kind of milky looking...
The suggestion of out dated film is a good one, but most likely, that film is still fine, but really cheap!
Go nuts! Damage your film! Leave some rolls in your back window of the car on a hot day (But NEVER your camera!)....Heat creates fog on film, which leaves wierd colors, makes grain, and generally screws up film...Run it though an X-Ray machine! Scratch your film before printing! Dig the baffle out of the film canister! Open the back of your camera really quickly under good light..
If you have a filter, try it. Try different colors. Spit on your filter. get it dirty. Put a light coat of vaseline on it...we used to crumple up cigarette wrapers and put them over the lens...
Take off the lens and put foil over the opening of the camera body..poke a pin hole in the middle. Take pictures out in the sun at various shutterspeeds.
There is a plastic camera called a Diana..it has a plastic lens so it's fuzzy, and the body usually leaks light, and there is very little exposure control...it's HARD to get a good picture!
There's a russian camera called a HOLGA that is medium format, but is a piece of crap. Both can be found on ebay cheap.
For a little extra money, there's a thing called a "Lens Baby" that also takes intentionally fuzzy pictures. I have one, it's fun!
You have a great old camera, but the fact is, now that the world is digital, any film camera is practically worthless (moneywise), and for what you want to do, a broken camera may only enhance your effect, so I say put some bad film in it, go out and play, and see what you get!