Film Cameras

[Erica]

I have not really taken any good photos in many years and my last camera was a pentax slr and I was pretty good with it at the time. I have tried digital and just don't have a feel for it. I was given a minolta XG-M 35 mm camera with four lenses, several filters, light meter, and some other nifty add ons. There is an eye cup, and an attachment which appears to print the date and time on the film like the digitals do today. It is a clean and beautiful camera.

Is anyone still using film? Any suggestions? We are headed out to the 10,000 Islands in a couple of weeks and I thought I might bring it along and play with it some.

Thanks,
Erica

 

[southcove]

I would take some shots first, pick your film speed from whatever is left, get familiar with the camera body and the lenses and somewhere to keep it dry and protected from damage (before you go on your trip). One thing with shooting film now, even for fun, is that you need to slow your mind and your shutter finger WAY WAY DOWN and think, compose, focus (and FOCUS!) before you take the shot... It's easy to get sloppy with digital, just keep taking shots until you get the one you think is best. But when you have 24 or 36 shots on a roll and then you have to pay to get them printed...aah. Take a breath and compose...

For every shot of film I took on an Alaskan trip several years back I took probably 25 with the digital. Got good one's with both systems. I prefer the instant gratitude of sharing pics over the internet now, but walking away from film took much of my expertise with it.

 

[stripperguy]

I was a Pentax guy (MX) for a long time before I switched to Nikon (FM2). I used to shoot only transparency film (EPP 100) and roll, develop and mount it myself. Yeah, I was that protective with my images. I fought the digital age until 2003, when I got a Nikon D80, recently replaced with my new Nikon D7200. As much as we may wax nostalgic for the old methods, digital can't be beat! Instant feedback, verification of exposure and composition while you still can do something about it really makes a difference. I can't tell you how many spectacular film images I captured, or so I thought, that I found weren't quite right a week after I got home!

I still maintain the same conservative approach to exposures as when I was shooting film...every shot counts, and absolutely NO manipulating of the images once captured! I also still take multiple exposures of the same scene, just as I did with film, but it's way more cost effective now.
I do have a few friends that still shoot film, but in medium formats. They then scan the images with a drum scanner (big $$$) and process from there.
I don't know anyone that still shoots film and prints directly to photographic paper.

It might be fun to play around with a film SLR, but the cost of film and processing will quickly exceed the cost of a quality, used DSLR. Not to pee on your campfire, but I believe you would be better served by nearly any semi modern DSLR, leave the film camera home for art classes.
Some of the better DSLR's will accept any compatible lens from the past, maybe it would be best to hang on to those lenses and get a matching DSLR.

 

[Mihun09]

I still have my original film camera and lenses but don't use it much anymore simply due to the fact film is getting difficult to find and quality places for development are getting rarer as well.

I have gone digital, starter Nikon, which is still expensive depending on your income. Despite the simplicity of digital, it is far more complex than a film SLR. The image quality to me isn't on par with slide film from days gone by. The colours in digital, even shooting in RAW, tend to no blend well like it would on print or slide film.

To each their own really. The more you use the digital the easier it may get for you if you choose that route but if you prefer film, just find reputable companies for development and enjoy whatever you do.

Karin

 

[Erica]

I have tried to adjust to digital, but unless you are doing just point and shoot, it is quite complicated. I purchased a new pentax digital slr which was waterproof and pretty sturdy to take on canoe trips. I got a pentax body so I could use my pentax lenses. It turned out my lenses were too old to work according to the simple directions and the intricacies of getting the camera to take good pictures with the adjustments for the old lenses were beyond me. My husband took over the camera, couldn't use it easily with the older lenses and bought new lenses and still did not like it. He finally bought another digital slr but I can't figure out how to use that one either reliably either. I just stopped taking a camera.

With a film camera, one does have to think about exposure and composition and angle, and I rather like that. I would not have gone back into it had I not been given this nice package of equipment.

I have ordered some film and will play around with it before our trip. That was a good suggestion. Thank you.

Erica

 

[frozentripper]

Erica, there still are active film users out there and online groups (eg. Leica) for photographers that are in the analog anti-digital camp. IIRC some 35mm films are being brought back into the market due to the renewed demand... OTOH Kodachrome may be over forever. Like audiophiles going back to vinyl, making claims that the analog listening experience is better.

The reason for analog may be that digital cameras are more like computers than optical systems now... how long can you use a computer before it's obsolete and need to be replaced? Digital camera get outdated incredibly fast and in order to keep up with committed gearheads, the old needs to be thrown and and replaced with the new, otherwise it's considered dinosaur gear (that does't mean gearhedas are right of course).

Old school analog fans might want photos that look grainy, or raw in character in some way, less polished than the technically perfect digital photos seen everywhere now. It's a different way to see the world through the lens of a camera, if you want to spend your time with it and might actually produce more valuable photos, at least in the analog camp. It isn't mainstream photography at all and if going off the beaten path appeals to you, you'll find others out there with the same preferences.

Personally, the old cameras, film and gear, for me, are clunky and heavy and need too much attention when there are other options ... the lightness and freedom made available by the amazingly compact waterproof point-and shoots, or even smartphones for example means time and energy doesn't have to be spent with heavy, bulky things any longer. That's a plus, but the loss may be that instant digital photography with technical results made possible with computer-like cameras is so commonplace now that much of the long-term value has gone out of it.

Somehow, showing analog photos in a digital medium doesn't seem right, but never mind, the resistance to everything digital is out there. Totally irrelevant to the bigger picture and maybe so is this blather but it exists and maybe more interesting for the differences when seen against the scene of silicon chips defining everything.

OK, this carbon-based life form is going outside of cyberspace for a while, cheers and happy photography in an older, differently-valued sort of way..

 

[yellowcanoe]

Digital isn't really complicated.There is a bit of a learning curve but if you set it on M its just like the old film cameras. I have a Minolta SRT 101 with a full set of lenses from circa 1970. Needless to say its fully manual.. Those skills transfer to digital pretty well but I agree that there are too many things on the digital SLRs that one rarely has to use.


The one factor that we never thought about much on film cameras was ISO.. We set it according to the film speed. You got what you got. You could not go from ISO 100 to 6400 on the same roll of film I do miss Kodachrome ASA 25 ( or was that Kodacolor.. one was 25 the other a speedy 64) Now we are mostly stuck with a minimum ISO of 100.

We can get into the heated arguments ( there are some always going on) re post processing. Ansel Adams was a big fan of it.

I often take some 200 pictures on canoe trips..Some are of moving objects ( birds) and having a burst mode and continuous shooting helps me get at least one good shot. I never could do that with film . I did mostly landscapes then. Now I favor birds doing something. So I would go broke pretty fast using my Minolta ( which still works)

I do kind of resent the finiteness of a digital camera. After some hundred thousand photos they dont work anymore. The old cameras seemed more repairable

 

[Erica]

Thank you for the comments. I'm not trying to get into a discussion of the benefits of digital vs film. And I have done my "due diligence" at learning some expensive digital cameras and I don't get it and at this point am not interested in burning up any more neurons on the project. The point and shoots provide a good photo, but not a great one, at least for me. I was just wondering if anyone is actually using film and if so how. I have pretty much given up taking pictures for a decade or so. Also, I actually prefer looking at actual photos rather than on a screen. I spend enough time on a computer that I don't want to spend even more time on a computer to look at pictures. I mostly take pictures of landscapes and flowers and mushrooms. I take my time when I have time to take a picture. I really like looking at the amazing bird and action photos that people are capable of now, but that doesn't absorb my interest in trying to replicate. I agree that lugging around a heavy camera and lenses is a lot of trouble. Could be I will try it and give it up again. We'll see. Thanks.
Erica

 

[frozentripper]

Kim, most recent bird photo... serves mostly to remind to switch to burst shooting mode quickly which I didn't have time to do. Pocket camera, zoom in and bang off three shots... and then there they wuz... gone.

 

[Alan Gage]

I stuck with film for a long time after everyone else went digital. I loved using old film cameras, especially medium format and some large format too. Everything I shot was full manual or aperture priority and I usually used a hand held incident meter.

When I finally went digital I started with Pentax so I could use my old manual lenses. I shot it in manual mode and still used the incident meter most of the time. To use the camera's built in meter I had to push a little button to stop down the lens momentarily. As I got more serious and considered making money with photography I stepped up to a Canon 5D and still shot it in manual mode or aperture priority nearly all the time, often with that old incident meter. I don't know if I ever shot that camera in auto mode.

There were a lot of digital cameras that I found frustrating but many of them allow you to shoot just like an old film camera and they have multiple control dials that make it fast and easy to change settings rather than punching buttons and going through menus. The digital cameras just keep getting better and smaller and now they seem to be going retro with more knobs instead of buttons for better control.

I'm out of photography as a hobby so I just carry a small P&S (that still allows me some manual control) but I'm still tempted at times to get back into it when I look at what's available today. The nice thing about digital is the ability change ISO on the fly and to shoot in full manual mode or switch to full auto all with the same camera. The metering on digital cameras seems to be much better nowadays too. I'm astounded by the pictures I see coming out of i-phones. Even on cameras without manual controls it's easy enough to adjust exposure by using exposure compensation or simply pointing the center of the frame at something that gives you the correct exposure and then doing a half press of the shutter to lock it in and reframe. Film cameras had been doing that for decades. The live preview and live histogram make adjusting exposure before taking the shot a snap.

But if film is what you prefer then have at it. No reason not to do what you enjoy. Most people think canoe travel is outdated.

EDIT to add I was composing this at the same time you were making your latest post saying you didn't want to debate the merits of film vs. digital. I will comment on this though:

The point and shoots provide a good photo, but not a great one,

A few years ago I was asked to pick a dozen prints for a local photo display. I spent hours going through all my old shots and picked out the ones I was happiest with. I was very surprised to find that over half of them came from my little P&S cameras. The simple reason being that I always had one on me and the built in zoom lenses meant I could take the shot before it was gone, which would have happened by the time I swapped lenses on the SLR.

I was always humbled when I saw photos from P&S cameras that were better than anything I ever got from my expensive professional gear. Makes you realize the equipment doens't matter much. It's the ability of the photographer to recognize and capture a good scene and good light, no matter if it's film or digital. It also made me realize I don't have very many photos I'm really proud of.

Alan

 

[yellowcanoe]

The bottom line is its all about the glass either way you go. That said most people arent making 24x36 posters of their pix where every blur counts .. Good enough is often good enough

 

[Erica]

Thanks, Alan. All good comments. I have certainly seen some good photos from iphones, but not from my iphone. I'm sure it's just my own quirkiness in learning ability. It is good to know that some digitals don't have all the hidden menus and submenus. Those really got me down.

 

[cflcanoe]

Just wanted to give encuragment to Erica to use film. I believe that that camera she will be using has a internal light meter. That helps a lot when using a filter or zoom.Take notice of the differance between the hand held light meter and internal when using a filter and at different points on the zoom. Polarizing filters can be useful on the water. Would think about taking the longest zoom and the widest lens. Shot a couple of rolls of film with the two lens and make notes before you leave. Know what your tools can do before the trip. These cameras can be had inexpensively on the internet. So if it breaks or gets wet they are easy to replace. Take it were digitalis fear to tread.

But as you will likely wish to take pictures through the whole trip will pass on what I have learned. Use dry bags not a dry box. Easier and less noisy to get camera out. We use a large dry bag with a very fluffy towel at the bottom for a little cushion. Then the camera has a nylon dry bag that is just big enough to get out of easily. If a spare lens is carried it habits own nylon dry bag with a tube of foam inside. Yes inner and outer dry bag. Yellow canoe taught me about the dry bag on this forum. Second dry bag came from grabbing the camera out of my dog hiking pack right into the dry bag one early mourning. Found to work good that day so kept on doing it.


Also if you are going to be carrying the camera by the neck strap get a very comfortable one such as Op/Tech USA.

 

[Erica]

Thanks for the link cflcanoe. Nifty straps and carriers. Good point also about how cheap this camera can be replaced now. I think the motivation for trying film again is that I was given the whole set up and it is well-cared for. I used to keep my cameras in a ziplock into a dry bag. It look me forever to get it out and back. So I was thinking about a dry box. Brad uses a dry box clamped to a thwart and he has no trouble getting it out quickly, but I haven't really paid attention to whether or not it was noisy. Good suggestion about the nylon dry bags. Thanks. I am looking forward to messing around with this camera and film. Erica

 

[redoleary]

I was a film holdout for what seemed like a long time, but once I went digital my photography improved exponentially. I can take literally hundreds of photos on a card the size of a postage stamp and again the instant feedback from digital encourages experimentation. Film feels so finite, as you can only bring so much with you, I'm not a high volume shooter in the first place and that probably comes from my days as a film guy who was too cheap/lazy to bring enough film to allow for some experimentation. Now I'll spend 10 minutes setting up a shot and take 5 or so images of the same scene with minor tweaks to make sure I got it. In other words, there is a certain freedom that comes with digital that I never felt with film, the camera and the principals of exposure are all the same (basically) so that part is easy, but for me, the benefits of zeros and ones vastly outweigh any nostalgia I may feel I get from film.

 

[yellowcanoe]

I have a Pelican Box and it is noisy to unclamp. But just as bad is the movement to get the camera out whether its in a bag or a box.. Birds are VERY sensitive to movement. Gators not so much.
I use a bridge camera that cost under 400 bucks for in canoe photography. If it gets dunked the loss is not outrageous. And I don't have to fiddle with changing lenses as it goes from 21-1300 mm.
Changing lenses for me means a lost opportunity often.. I now look at my old film pix and see that they were mostly landscapes and now my subjects are more apt to just..leave while I get ready. So getting ready for the shot is important to me

 

[Erica]

Thank you for your comments redolary and yellowcanoe. I appreciate that many more photos can be taken easily and less expensively with digital. As I said earlier, I will leave the bird and wildlife photos to people more proficient than I am. There are some really amazing photos being taken now of birds, etc. I couldn't compete with that no matter what camera I had. My photos attempt to capture the spirit of the woods and water. I realize alligators are exotic for many people, but to me they are like robins or crows to those living further north....just another gator....

 

[yellowcanoe]

It all depends on what you want to do with the camera
and aims do change
my remarks wet not intended for you but for on water photographers in general
i do not do gators anymore unless they are doing something remarkable or carrying birds turtles or babies on their backs