Topic: Camera and Film Question.

[ofreen]

It seems I have a buddy who might hook me up with some real Kodachrome.  I'll try some out and report it back. 

I don't think Kodachrome will get you what you are after.  I used Kodachrome 25 and 64 almost exclusively for years unless I needed more speed.  Kodachrome's attributes were fine grain and color fidelity.  It also has one of the slowest rate of color fade over the years of any film. 

[flatblack]

Sorry folks, but film is dead. Any decent $250 digital and a little bit of work with Photoshop will give you everything you want and more.

fb

[Raul CB750K1]

Sorry folks, but film is dead. Any decent $250 digital and a little bit of work with Photoshop will give you everything you want and more.

fb

Amen. I was very reluctant to switch to digital, but once you do it, there is no turning back. No worrying anymore about having enough film, no more wasted prints. Easy to share, I don't even use the red eye reduction in the camera anymore, just use paintshop to remove them.

I take my digital camera to the shop everytime I do anything on the bike, so I can keep pictures of the process just in case. That would be unthinkable -or very expensive- with film cameras. Get some high-res pictures and then play with photoshop or paintshop. If you don't like the result you can always start over and try another thing.


Raul

[ChrisR]

I agree with you, flatback - as a method of producing images digital is so flexible and cheap - but chris schneiter sounds like he has more fun
It should be possible to do basic servicing on your Nikon yourself if you are careful GG - here are some links to repair and diy sites
http://www.keinaths-fotohomepage.gmxhome.de/35/35-links.htm
sounds like it just needs use though.
I think there are still suppliers who will send you the old batteries - I can still get them for my old Pentax and Olympus cameras.
Good luck with the Kodachrome.

[crazypj]

You can use just about any camera to get this type of shot. You need a set of filters to fit in front of lens. A quick cheap thing to try ( if weather isnt too warm) is to breath on lens for a slightly softer focus and clean a spot in the centre ( works if camera is cold when its warm outside
Always wanted an F2 but couldn afford it.

PJ
1980 Pirrelli/Pentax photo comp winner.

[cmorgan47]

Sorry folks, but film is dead. Any decent $250 digital and a little bit of work with Photoshop will give you everything you want and more.

fb

alright, so this isn't the only forum i've frequented, as motorcycling isn't the only thing i do.  this argument has been beat to death, and is about as valid as "sorry folks, but SOHC4s are dead.  any decent street bike will give you everything you want and more."

weather or not you're able to shoot digital easily and make a print that fools someone into thinking it was film is not the point, any more than spending a bit of cash and getting a carbon-fiber shrouded missle that does the ton easily is the point.

film is a process, it's soothing, it's nice.  you don't get infinate chances to get it right. you look through the lense(the key here) apply what you know about light and chemistry, and think before you squeeze--not pull--the shutter release.  you spend hours in the dark smelling weird chemicals and tweeking. 

while it may be easy to get some snaps of the kids at disney, and incredibly productive for comercial workers with insane deadlines and customers clammoring for JPEGs of an ever changing subject, film is certainly not dead.

and, digital neither has the lattitude or saturation of velvia.

[edit]
sorry, bit more on the rant, then i'll change soapboxes....

rock on diana!  rock on holga!  that's some fun stuff right there.

raul, you're right, a cheap digicam belongs in every toolbox.  once you use it, it's indespensable. 
to modern up confucius a bit "the weakest pixels last longer than the strongest mind."  that is, however, an entirely different purpose.

and vinyl not dead either!
 

[ofreen]

Sorry folks, but film is dead. Any decent $250 digital and a little bit of work with Photoshop will give you everything you want and more.

fb

Except sharpness.  Which is what I want in a photo, but most people don't even consider it.  Welcome to the digital age.  Digital has done the same thing to music playback.  Digital is good enough for the mass market and good enough for the casual user.  And that is where the money is.

[flatblack]

Sorry folks, but film is dead. Any decent $250 digital and a little bit of work with Photoshop will give you everything you want and more.

fb

alright, so this isn't the only forum i've frequented, as motorcycling isn't the only thing i do.  this argument has been beat to death, and is about as valid as "sorry folks, but SOHC4s are dead.  any decent street bike will give you everything you want and more."

Hey, knock yourself out. I do vintage bikes because I like the look and the idea of doing something few others can do. If that's the same reason you want to use film, more power to you.

I hang with enough pro shooters -- and do some shooting as part of my effort to make a living -- to know I can do anything I want with digital cheaply and easily.

If shooting film is the end, go for it. If it's the means, there are easier ways.

fb

PS: Wanna buy a '60s-era Pentax?

[cmorgan47]

I hang with enough pro shooters -- and do some shooting as part of my effort to make a living -- to know I can do anything I want with digital cheaply and easily.

yep, so do i.  thus, this part:

, and incredibly productive for comercial workers with insane deadlines and customers clammoring for JPEGs of an ever changing subject
 

PS: Wanna buy a '60s-era Pentax?

SLR? yeah, kinda, but i know i shouldn't.
really, i think the only camera i could justify buying right now would be a rangefinder.

[Spear]

Can I suggest that you forget all about film (I'm trying to remember what that stuff is) and go digital. Adobe Photoshop will do ANYTHING you want with your shots. I can make a brand new bike from the glossy mags look like Bert Munro built it. And - you want latitude and saturation? Shoot RAW!

[cmorgan47]

all that ranting aside, yeah i just borrowed a friends digicam to snap a few pics of my bike.

[flatblack]

all that ranting aside, yeah i just borrowed a friends digicam to snap a few pics of my bike.

C'mon in - the water's fine!

 

fb

[flatblack]

PS: Wanna buy a '60s-era Pentax?

SLR? yeah, kinda, but i know i shouldn't.
really, i think the only camera i could justify buying right now would be a rangefinder.

Yeah, it's an SLR...

Just joking, actually. My late father had two and, while I'm not using them, they're not for sale.

fb

[martini]

I've been doing photography for as long as I can remember as a hobby. I used to have a darkroom in a one bedroom apartment! I love my old Nikons, F2 and F90, but recently I have made to move over to the dark side and bought a digital D70s and I'm in the middle of an advanced Photoshop class. I love film, I love the darkroom, but to be honest I really don't know if I'll shoot another roll again. Digital is just too damn convenient and results wise, for what I'm shooting (11" x 14" max.), digital is equally as good (equally sharp). I would challenge anyone who was not a photographer to spot any difference.

Having said all that, the one thing that really annoys me about digital is battery dependency. I NEVER worried about batteries with my F2.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. In my Photoshop class last night we messed around with making newer images appear aged. Its very easy to do and you have an incredible amount of control over. If you do go with film do NOT shoot slide film it well give you the opposite effect from what you are after. Slide film provides you with crisp, clear bright images. For what your after, if you want colour, aside from the excellent tips that have already been suggested, get some high speed colour film. You might have to go to a specialty shop but you should be able to get at least 800 or maybe 1600. This will give you some good grain for a start. You can also mess around with the processing of the film but that is a job for a very good photo lab that knows what they are doing. Good luck!

[flatblack]

I love my old Nikons, F2 and F90, but recently I have made to move over to the dark side and bought a digital D70s and I'm in the middle of an advanced Photoshop class.

You'll love the D70s. I have a "straight" D70 with some decent glass and it does everything I need short of pre-marital sex...

fb

[Raul CB750K1]

I waited a little before going digital just to make sure it was here to stay and it wouldn't have the same luck than Laser Disc, MiniDisc or Beta.

When it was almost clear it was here to stay, I also had the same reasoning about colors and everything. Do you know when I decided it was pointless? When I discovered that developing lab machines actually scan your negative in order to make the prints. If you pay the extra to have then on CD then they will burn it for you, if not, they will just print what you order.

Somebody spoiled my pictures on my, until now, only trip to NY because the chemicals were not balanced and my pictures turned out heavily magenta-coloured. I couldn't have happened with digital. Now the film is spoiled, no way to recover them.

I still keep some vinyls, mainly because they are autographed. The rest has been sold-gave away-discarded.

A couple of month ago I was in a transatlantic flight from Brazil. While I was blasting my mp3 with 2 GB of memory and space for more than 30 CD's, the one sitting besides me was blasting his CD-player and had to carry a wallet with the CD's. It seemed old, and I was doing the same just four years ago!!!! Better not talk about when everywhere I may go I would carry my walkman and my cassette tapes.


Wanna know what's the best way to discern which thing is better? Think, in case both things would have appeared together, wich one would you choose. Film photography has existed because that was what technology could offer, but technology evolve.


BUT, I still think that modern electronics can't improve the sound of a valve guitar amplifier. The response of vacuum tubes cannot be reproduced with transistors, it's just a matter of physics. But you don't need a spring reverb or a continuous tape to have echos, digital is here to help you.


So, are SOHCS better than new bikes? Of course not, but SOHCS have a special attractive for many of us, like being simple and -until know- relatively cheap. But the important thing is that we can use them in the same way than we would use a modern bike. For example, I would not like to have a 30's bike because I'm not willing to travel at 50 mph, deal with unobtainable parts, adapt to weird control layout and remember about advancing the spark or lubing the valves. As I use to say, the best thing is to be a couple of steps ahead of the last trend, be it video, photography, telephony or computing. You save a lot of money and still have something of the best stuff available....



Raul

[Bob Wessner]

Still have every camera I ever owned. Started with a, OK no jokes, Brownie box camera. First 35mm was a totally manual Pentax. You had to learn exposure using a handheld meter. Great learning tool. Acquired two Nikons years ago, an FM and an FE. Used them forever then dabbled in some of the earlier digitals. Eventually bought a Nikon D100 when they first showed-up (now quite passe) but I still love it. As far as the battery, I have an extra, but have found the D100 battery is outstanding, even holds a good charge on the shelf for extended periods. I carry a Canon A80 around for misc. stuff and out in the garage.

[cmorgan47]

all that ranting aside, yeah i just borrowed a friends digicam to snap a few pics of my bike.

C'mon in - the water's fine!

 

fb

for full disclaimer, i've been using digital since the late 90s.  it's good, no real complaints, other than the idea that now that digital's here we should throw away ALL film....there are some pretty rabid digital fans out there and most of the ones i encounter have been using it for about 1/3 the time i have.

i would expect you guys to understand the value of old tech, after all.

edit
martini, right on about the batteries.  that's why my digi is on a shelf right now...dead Li packs.  even when good, they're way more limiting (i never bother to turn my film SLR off cause it draws so little power).  also, the boot up time and shutter responce lag.....obviously, both of these issues are getting better, but still nowhere near where a cheap film SLR gets you.

[Raul CB750K1]

Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, they are all struggling to reinvent themselves and found a new identity. Sometimes, when I thought about a given moment in the world, just think about how many thousand of photos were shot at a given minute in time: Disneyland, Mount Rushmore, Niagara Falls, Vegas, Eiffel Tower, weddings, bachelor parties.... it must have been a great business a few years ago!!!!


I, who learned to type in a mechanical typewriter 20 years ago and who keep three or four of them, have as much interest in the survival of film as I have in the survival of typewriters. A few years ago I thought it would be cool to use again the typewriters. I gave up at the second page. Speed, word-justifying, image embedding, correction, different size and fonts, a computer wins a typewriter hands down. In order to satisfy my nostalgic me I just downloaded a couple of typewriter fonts, so I can print my documents as if they had been typed...


Raul

[tmht]

I LOVE my digital camera and the Gimp. I don't use Photoshop anymore because it is too expensive and, as a software developer, I don't pirate software. Kind of a honor among thieves thing. However, when I want to shoot black and white it is all about the film. That is something that digital just doesn't do as well. I have taken a print from negative and a recreation from a high res negative scan printed on top of the line equipment and put them side by side and everytime the photographic print is preferred.  If they would just make computers see more than 256 shades of grey, I would go all digital... until then... Plus I like the smell of fixer. Does that make me wierd?

[Rushoid]

I just think digital cameras and Photoshop, etc. take the magic  and art out of photography. It's too easy to create the shot you want versus capturing it on film. I've been trying for years to get a good lightning shot. It's kind of my "Holy Grail." I can make one in photoshop, but it just isn't the same.

I haven't been in a darkroom in a long time, but i always loved it. Someday I'll build one in my basement.

[Raul CB750K1]

"honor among thieves", i like that. I used to take guitar lessons with a teacher that have a band, very well known in Spain and with many records on the market, that used to ask for some of my CD's in order to copy them... ;-)

Have you tried Paintshop? Good enough for the average and semi-professional, and at a fraction of the cost.


Raul

[ofreen]

I have a digital camera.  It is a nice little Canon SD500 ELPH.  Very handy, and picture quality isn't bad.  7+ megapixel.  I have a 1 gig card i it.  It does video better than than our camcorder.  I suppose I'll get a 2 gig card for it now that they are getting cheap.  Otherwise if I think I am going to fill the card up and won't have the laptop with me, I don't take it.  If I am out hiking, I don't take it.  If I am going to be where the temperatures are going to be extreme, I don't take it.  If I don't think I'll be able charge the battery while I am out, I don't take it.  If I think there might be an EMP burst from a nuclear attack, I don't take it.  I'll take my 27 year old Canon, or it it going to really be rough, my even older Konica TC with its mechanical shutter.

So for me, film ain't dead yet.  My SLRs are pushing 30 years old and work like new.  They will probably be working 30 years from now (if I can get film.)  I am dinosaur enough to be able to appreciate that.  Will the ELPH be working 30 years from now?  The LCD screen will crap out well before that.

[cmorgan47]

Does that make me wierd?

nope.

and incidentally, that's why i use linux ond opensource as well.  shouldn't steal from our brethren.  and between openoffice and GIMP, you can get a lot done.

raul, good point on "what would you chose if both were available." 
i would chose both.  there are advantages to digital that cannot be denied, and for me at least, there are still advantages to film.  if only nostalgia, it's still valuable. 

as is vinyl over downloading MP3s.

[edit]
as to megapixels, they're the new processor speed.  easy to put a big number up, doesn't mean much--at least they follow the law of diminishing returns.  most cheap digicams now have impressive numbers, but still cheap tiny glass, or worse, plastic lenses.  if i could afford a decent canon dSLR, i'd get one and use my existing glass on it, but not in the cards right now.

[Jeff]

I LOVE my digital camera and the Gimp. I don't use Photoshop anymore because it is too expensive and, as a software developer, I don't pirate software. Kind of a honor among thieves thing. However, when I want to shoot black and white it is all about the film. That is something that digital just doesn't do as well. I have taken a print from negative and a recreation from a high res negative scan printed on top of the line equipment and put them side by side and everytime the photographic print is preferred.  If they would just make computers see more than 256 shades of grey, I would go all digital... until then... Plus I like the smell of fixer. Does that make me wierd?

A few ramblings...

It's been a few years, but I LOVED being in the dark room. I only took one photography class, and it was black and white. Loved it, but it was bloody expensive. And yes, fixer smells good in a weird sort of way.

I use Photoshop, but it's a legit copy. Just converting your photos to grayscale in the mode menu is the crap way to do it.

Digital is awesome because you don't have to buy film, so it's way cheaper. Since my daughter has been born (3 months old tomorrow!) I've shot literally thousands of photos. I couldn't afford to do that with a film camera. And I was struggling to get this one shot to turn out. I shot 30 photos or more. Only one turned out perfectly. That's all I needed or wanted, but if it was with film, I would've been mad that I blew threw nearly an entire roll of film and only had one good shot.

The EXIF information is great on digital too. That way you can have the camera settings recorded, and if you study it you can become better with the camera.

But if I had the space, time and money, I'd love to have a darkroom.

And lastly, here's a photo of Doug Chandler I shot at Road America years ago. Developed the film and made the prints myself. Even have one of them autographed. 


Jeff