#8694071 - 06/14/16 01:39 PM
Film Shooters?
|
trench301
Post Master
Registered: 02/16/03
Posts: 2788
|
Over the weekend I inherited a 1981 Fujica STX-1 film SLR with 55 f/2.2 and 135 f/2.8 lenses. They're going for $25 on ebay so it's not like I got a fleet of Leica's or anything, but I figured it could be fun to play with. I replaced the batteries and got a 4-pack of Kodak from Walgreens to get it up and running. Halfway through the first roll currently. If I enjoy the difference, I may look into upgrading to something with an EOS EF mount so I can use my digital lenses.
So here are my questions:
1. There are tons of brands of film and each brand has its own models, each with its own look and character. Is there a resource online that will show the differences among films?
2. Are there any brands of film that are pure garbage that should just be avoided? (I know this is subjective)
3. Do you develop your own film and make your own proofs/prints? I watched a series of youtube clips and this looked like quite the process and requires specialty equipment. Are drug store labs decent or do you use a pro-lab? Is there a difference in quality?
4. Once the negatives have been developed, you can use a scanner to digitize the images correct?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#8694954 - 06/15/16 12:39 AM
Re: Film Shooters?
[Re: trench301]
|
skierd
Post Master Sr
Registered: 08/21/01
Posts: 9104
Loc: Fairbanks, AK
|
Yup, still shooting film. Just sent out a box to get developed today actually.
1) I've never found one specific place beyond this OLD article on photo.net:
http://photo.net/equipment/film
A quick google found these as well:
http://www.paulcoatesphoto.com/2013/12/a-guide-to-different-35mm-films.html
http://ukfilmlab.com/2014/04/24/film-stock-and-exposure-comparisons-kodak-portra-and-fuji/
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2010/12/a-colour-film-comparison/
B&W, basically figure out of you like Kodak or Ilford, and how much grain you want. I've always preferred TMax when I did darkroom printing, but Tri-X is the classic gritty photojournalist stuff. Ilford Delta 100 is nice when you want the finest grain imo.
C-41 - Kodak or Fuji this time. Kodak Ektar 100 is super saturated for negative film, was basically designed to replace Kodachrome and compete with slide film in terms of color but give you the latitude of negative film.
Flickr is really messing with some of these shots, sorry.
 Red Rocks Panaromic by David Dawson, on Flickr
Portra 160, 400, 800 - more neutral colors and great skin tones (hence the name). Shoot it at box speed for a good real representation of whatever you're shooting, overexpose a stop or two to get the a higher key formal portrait look (think much of modern wedding photography).
 TRMcGrath-24 by David Dawson, on Flickr
 Portland, Downtown by David Dawson, on Flickr
Fuji 400H - Fuji's portra, see the 2nd link above to see how it compares to Portra. I think they make a 100 speed film as well, but I've never shot it.
Slides - Fuji, unless you don't mind expired film. Much less forgiving to bad settings, like has a window of 1/2-1 stop for proper exposure.
Velvia 50 - BIG BOLD COLOR, especially greens and blues. I fucking love Velvia.
 Tahitian waterfall by David Dawson, on Flickr
 bora bora beach by David Dawson, on Flickr
Provia 100F - more balanced, but still electric color.
 Sportster garage by David Dawson, on Flickr
 Whip's Indian by David Dawson, on Flickr
Kodak Ektachrome 100 - beautiful stuff, extremely well balanced and probably the most flattering for people. Good luck finding it, try eBay.
 backyardfireweed by David Dawson, on Flickr
 goodfenceOr by David Dawson, on Flickr
2. Are there any brands of film that are pure garbage that should just be avoided? (I know this is subjective)
I generally dislike cheap film. Kodak Gold 200 and 400 is ok, but I don't really like what I get from the Fuji Superia while others love it. Give them a shot and see what you think.
Most Lomo film should be avoided. LomoChrome Purple can be fun though...
 purple31 by David Dawson, on Flickr
Basically stick to the big three (Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford) and find what you like.
3. Do you develop your own film and make your own proofs/prints? I watched a series of youtube clips and this looked like quite the process and requires specialty equipment. Are drug store labs decent or do you use a pro-lab? Is there a difference in quality?
I develop my own black and white at home, or rather I can but choose not to mainly for time reasons now that I have a kid. Color isn't that much harder except for temperature controls have to be pretty spot-on, and the chemistry is nastier. Technically it shouldn't go down the drain either.
I used to make traditional wet prints, in college when I had someone else's darkroom to use. It is a process, but a wonderful one. It never gets old watching an image appear on a sheet of paper in the developer bath under soft red light. I recommend taking an intro to film class at a local college if you want to try a traditional darkroom out.
My last local 35mm mini-lab closed two weeks ago, and they were decent too.  Most local 1hr labs are on their last legs, try them out with cheap film you don't care about to see if they're any good. You're in MD or NoVa correct? TechLab in Baltimore used to develop all film types, not sure if they do anymore.
I use either Dwayne's Photo in KS or the FIND Lab in Utah for my send-out work. I've used The Darkroom in CA as well. They're just as good, but a bit more expensive. If using a Pro Lab, it pays to have at least a handful of rolls to send in to break up the shipping costs a little.
4. Once the negatives have been developed, you can use a scanner to digitize the images correct?
Correct. Slides and B&W are easier to scan yourself since there isn't an orange mask to deal with. Most labs will develop and scan with or without prints. The scans will be good enough for the web and making more 4x6 or 5x7's.
_________________________
Never run out of real estate, traction & ideas at the same time.
2012 Outback - 2008 Yamaha WR250R v2.0
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#8698610 - 06/17/16 03:14 PM
Re: Film Shooters?
[Re: trench301]
|
chef
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 04/27/00
Posts: 23758
Loc: The OC
|
agreed on sticking with Fuji Kodak Ilford. The other stuff is fun for creative bullshit but I don't like creative bullshit. It's bullshit. /ronswanson.
When I shoot color I prefer it to be slide film, and I can still develop that at home but I haven't bought the chem kit yet. I'll stick to black and white for now. It's hard enough for me to get my shit together and brew a batch of that. I'd like to build a setup in my spare bathroom to print enlargements, but haven't bothered or really put much thought into it yet. I did have someone break down for me how to make a nice little workbench that can reside in the tub area of the shower, and my space is actually pretty ideal for it all, I just haven't made the time for it. It gets really fawkin hot during the summer so I leave the window open in there because there's not a lot of airflow from that corner, so then the bathroom gets suuuuper dusty because we don't use it otherwise. I'll pop in after 6 months to grab bulk soap or something and it's disgustingly dusty. Sucks.
This is why old timers are like wtf when people complain about kit lenses now. This was shot with a Nikkor lens, 35mm f2. Not amazing but not a pos, but lookit it! I need to get something nicer for that body. Anyways, then look at whatever 18-55 comes with the Rebel and it's pretty damned sharp through the entire range...fawkin pixel peepers these days, i tell you what....
Now look at something from the medium format Bronica with a decent lens, made by Seiko actually, and was worth quite a bit of change back in the day. $10-20k for a decent setup with this camera....that I bought for $200, lol. The dynamic range of film can be fairly decent when you are familiar with it and know how to expose for given situations, it's been fun learning to shoot different types, I just need to do it more often!! Certain events and situations really play well with film.
Don't recall what I shot this on. Probably Portra, possibly Fuji Velvia. These are shot wide open too which is usually not as sharp as the heart of the range. Lenses are so good today!
Velvia has some deep saturation, was well regarded for landscapes. Deep reds. I keep going back and forth with Provia. Sometimes I love it, other times I can't stand the tone of it. Portra is almost the same, I like it more often than not though. It's got a great timeless look to it.
For black and white, I've been shooting HP5 a lot, a little Delta. Was never really excited about the contrast of Kodak film when I shot before so I haven't played with that much since I picked up film again. Always wanted greater contrast.... Pan has been used in one of the groups I'm in a lot lately and I've enjoyed seeing the results of that.
I'd recommend getting a couple rolls of film and starting a spreadsheet with your exposures. Shoot the same interior scene a handful of ways, bracketing the exposures, then the same with something outside. This lets you see how accurate your meter is and become familiar with pushing or pulling the exposure a stop or two and how that effects things. Just make sure it's the same scene and that you take great notes, the digital camera metered 1/160 at 5.6 using matrix mode, the film camera metered for 1/250 at 5.6, exposure 1 is 1/160 at 5.6, exposure 2 is 1/250 at 5.6, exposure 3 is 1/100 at 5.6. Shoot into the light, shoot with the light behind you...just test it all out and then review your notes and start making mental notes about various situations.
Edited by chef (06/17/16 03:15 PM)
_________________________
Why choose mac? "Well, huh, might as, might as well ask why is a tree good? Why is the sunset good? Why are boobs good?" RRLSi "put that money into a new imac damn it. it's the bomb" jsmonet "This all fuckin' day. Feel the 900MB/sec of glory. It's like a digital money shot all over your face." RRLSi Order my photo prints (New files uploaded)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: jsmonet, x, 2000SiRacer, Professor Paki
|
|
