Struggling with middle age crisis and inspiration crisis, I thought of shooting wildlife on film.
Joking aside, I want to start shooting wildlife, for a while, on 35mm film.
I've shot on film before on various cameras (Yashica a few times and mostly on Canon SLRs ).
I'm not a die-hard-hipster-fan of film, like some, but I do believe there's something about the colors and the overall look which is unique (especially depending on the film choice).
I don't own a film camera anymore. I had an EOS 1N and sold it (unfortunately), but I do have a borrowed Elan 7E which I can use.
I wanted to ask what type of film do you suggest ? which one is more suited for wildlife photography?
It would be nice to have 2 camers, one to have higher ISO film loaded (for morning & evening) and another one with ISO 400 film... but I'll have to manage with one camera for now.
In terms of lenses, I can shoot with a Canon 500mm F4L IS II and a Canon 200mm F2L IS
Any ideas/suggestions in terms of type of film,sensitivity and any other practical advice related to FILM in wildlife photography will be deeply appreciated.
I went through a midlife crisis myself and used photography to help change my mood. I hope you are able to feel better soon.
Most people that used to shoot film and have moved to digital love the freedom provided by not being limited to a few clicks because of film's cost and small shutter count per load. You might find it frustrating and I wonder if you are in the state of mind that would allow you to deal with this.
Another option is to shoot digital and use software film simulations. There are a few choices available including the native to Fuji bodies and this is the approach I take. What is realy nice is that you can chose the film for the conditions as you process allowing you to add vibrant color in on one image and natural looking color on another. If you own those wonderful Canon lenses then you might want to get a Canon body or use a Fuji X-T3 with Finger brand adapter wich will provide full functionality.
As you seem to have access to the film body, there is no harm in trying a role or two and see how you like it.
My first safari in 2000 was on film. I couldn't have been happier that the second one was digital. To get the speed necessary to capture wildlife, the ability to change ISO for every frame if needed was a godsend. The IQ of my film shots can't compare with my most recent digital shots.
I remember shooting with film - way tougher than digital. Rationing of pictures. No immediately feedback on exposure, less resolution, way higher costs It should be interesting. You will go from 300 pictures per event to 10. And from 15 minute processing to several week delay. Less worries about blowing the whites.
I suggest shooting in b&w. You can process your own film, load your own film, dodge and burn. Be an Ansel Adams. And the iq will be lower anyway so why not try for something really different. And colours won't be as difficult. I have shot iso 400 and then pushed development to equivlaent to iso800 (develop 2x as long). Colour is more challenging to develop.
Let us know how it goes. I often shoot consolation shots before doing the right thing with digitial (sun at my back, proper look from animal, don't bother when animal not mostly out, making sure my set up is right ... ) And modern camera can take pictures in near dark in the eveings so you will be challenged. I think I could live with film for being more careful to get the right composition, exposure but it would be difficult to put up with iso1600 grain and the lack of ability to shoot in low light.
I went through a midlife crisis myself and used photography to help change my mood. I hope you are able to feel better soon.
Most people that used to shoot film and have moved to digital love the freedom provided by not being limited to a few clicks because of film's cost and small shutter count per load. You might find it frustrating and I wonder if you are in the state of mind that would allow you to deal with this.
Another option is to shoot digital and use software film simulations. There are a few choices available including the native to Fuji bodies and this is the approach I take. What is realy nice is that you can chose the film for the conditions as you process allowing you to add vibrant color in on one image and natural looking color on another. If you own those wonderful Canon lenses then you might want to get a Canon body or use a Fuji X-T3 with Finger brand adapter wich will provide full functionality.
As you seem to have access to the film body, there is no harm in trying a role or two and see how you like it.
Hi Morris, I was only kidding in regards to middle age crisis
I do agree that film is more costly (and there's a chance of somebody messing up your negative or scan...).
Film simulations or plugins is 100% excluded. I've done that and I can do that , but that's not what i'm about now. I want the whole film experience, not just a rendered plugin/VSCO stuff...
Scott Stoness wrote:
I remember shooting with film - way tougher than digital. Rationing of pictures. No immediately feedback on exposure, less resolution, way higher costs It should be interesting. You will go from 300 pictures per event to 10. And from 15 minute processing to several week delay. Less worries about blowing the whites.
I suggest shooting in b&w. You can process your own film, load your own film, dodge and burn. Be an Ansel Adams. And the iq will be lower anyway so why not try for something really different. And colours won't be as difficult. I have shot iso 400 and then pushed development to equivlaent to iso800 (develop 2x as long). Colour is more challenging to develop.
Let us know how it goes. I often shoot consolation shots before doing the right thing with digitial (sun at my back, proper look from animal, don't bother when animal not mostly out, making sure my set up is right ... ) And modern camera can take pictures in near dark in the eveings so you will be challenged. I think I could live with film for being more careful to get the right composition, exposure but it would be difficult to put up with iso1600 grain and the lack of ability to shoot in low light....Show more →
My main concearn is in regards to getting the 'right' exposure. And by 'right' I actually mean the 'desired' exposure.
I've started shooting wildlife with Canon 5D (mark 1) and a fully manual lens (TAIR 3S , 300mm f4.5).
I shoot on manual (M) mode and I have some sort of a 'feeling' about exposure, I can't get the shots I want on Av (Aperture Priority).
That being said, yet i'm very afraid on film (in terms of wildlife).
Another thing that worries me is that I might be presented with one of those rare shots and I'll regret not having the digital with me (to fiddle with ISO, preview, more shots etc).
But in the end, it's the WHOLE challenge that appeals to me, isn't it? Because if it were super easey, it wouldn't be as interesting as it is with its specific quirks.
I shot film for the first two decades of my photography life, and this is what most wildlife photographers shot until about 2003. Both Canon and Nikon had AF film bodies that could keep up with all but the fastest wildlife species. Prior to the introduction of the F5 and F100, I was a manual focus film-shooting nature photographer.
John Shaw wrote a book back in the 1980's called the "Nature Photographer's Complete Guide to Professional Field Techniques." While other well known photographers like Art Wolfe, Moose Peterson, and Fritz Polking wrote "how to" books, Shaw's book was the bible for those who wanted to become serious about their craft. I am thankful for the hours (>100) I spent pouring through the book, and learned to expose images with confidence because of Shaw's lessons.
If you want to photograph wildlife with film and experience a bit of success, I suggest you buy the book and learn how to use the built in spot meter of a pro / semi-pro film SLR. In the world of Canon, look for the EOS-3 or EOS-1V bodies as these both had decent AF, comfortable handling, and good in camera spot meters. In the world of Nikon, the same could be said for the F100, F5, and F6.
As for film, well this is the real challenge because ISO 200 and up can be a grainy. I generally shot with Velvia 50 or Fujifilm 100. When going on a major trip to the tropics, Denali, or the Olympic Peninsula where low light photography was inevitable, I'd bring some ISO 400 film. Sadly, the grain of 400 slide film is quite unpleasant... I would compare ASA 400 slide film to what I get from ISO 6400 on my D500. Unlike life in the film day, we have amazing noise reduction tools today that can make a noisy digital image look better than ASA 100 slide film.
