RoamingScott wrote:
Pretty sure I spend more than $1600 on coffee yearly, Huss, and I have nothing to show for it except a caffeine addiction...keep on shooting
One of the main reasons I'm getting out of 120 is purely the costs...because I no longer live in easy driving distance to my lab, I have to pay shipping both ways now too, so a 10 shot roll is $45 all in for processing/scan/print/shipping. I don't have enough personal time to dedicate to developing and scanning, so it's pay up or stop playing.
I don't know if I've ever taken a 120 shot that I felt was worth $4.50 ...Show more →
Back in the day before I started dev and scan film myself, I'd wait until I had a whole bunch shot before I mailed it in.
Because it was a flat rate to ship one roll, or 10. Same for it shipped back to me. So shipping individual rolls was a really bad idea.
And, at least for me, it sucked having to wait that long before I had enough to ship.
Related to this I was watching Koudelka working with a wide film camera for a project. He also took some digital cameras. He would spend a long time setting up shots and trying things on digital. Once he found a scene and a shot that was perfect he would pull out the film camera, frame exactly the same and take 1 or 2 shots.
Nomads wrote:
Related to this I was watching Koudelka working with a wide film camera for a project. He also took some digital cameras. He would spend a long time setting up shots and trying things on digital. Once he found a scene and a shot that was perfect he would pull out the film camera, frame exactly the same and take 1 or 2 shots.
Basically he used the digital camera like a Polaroid back!
When Steve McCurry shot the final roll of Kodachrome 64, he did the same thing. First shot the image on his digi Nikon to make sure everything looked great, then shot it on his F6.
There is a bit of irony here, as the F6 should have been trusted to shoot Kodachrome correctly! It's meter is balanced for chromes - that's how mine works. It always saves the highlights.
Oldwino wrote:
Yeah, having to save up a bunch of rolls to get a better price on the mailing in is just another way "film slows you down"...
It drove me bonkers though! As I don't mind being slowed down, but not THAT much! Plus when you get a lot of film back at once, it takes a while to go through it. I much prefer to work on a more consistent, spread out basis.
Desmolicious wrote:
There is a bit of irony here, as the F6 should have been trusted to shoot Kodachrome correctly! It's meter is balanced for chromes - that's how mine works. It always saves the highlights.
Is that a preset to its matrix metering? Do you know if the R9 has the same default?
j.liam wrote:
Is that a preset to its matrix metering? Do you know if the R9 has the same default?
I have not noticed it with my R9. But I know with my F6 is there is any sky or highlights in the scene, in matrix mode (with a Nikon chipped lens D or G, or any chipped lens) it will expose for the sky. It seems they biased it to meter for chromes.
So in matrix mode if shooting negative film, I default to +.5 EV on the exp comp setting.
Desmolicious wrote:
I have not noticed it with my R9. But I know with my F6 is there is any sky or highlights in the scene, in matrix mode (with a Nikon chipped lens D or G, or any chipped lens) it will expose for the sky. It seems they biased it to meter for chromes.
So in matrix mode if shooting negative film, I default to +.5 EV on the exp comp setting.
j.liam wrote:
DO you then shoot chrome on the R9 with EV -0.5?
No. I let the R9 do it's thing. It's metering is fantastic.
I'm actually v disappointed with the claim that Nikon made w the F6's metering. They had this whole 3D colour matrix spiel, where they said with chipped lenses the camera would know what is in focus and so would assume that is the subject that is meant to be exposed 'correctly' etc. But it doesn't do that. It acts in my experience as an avg meter.
Simple to test - focus on a backlit subject, watch the exposure meter readings change as you switch from matrix to center to spot.
Because of that I only use matrix on evenly lit scenes.
While I grew up on film, the manufacturing and development of film isn't sustainable, environmentally speaking. We hope pro labs dispose of developers and fixers responsibly, but I suspect most people developing at home just pour it down the drain, which is no bueno. Sure, there are way worse culprits of environmental pollution in our society, but if everyone starts switching back...
I still shoot a role of film here and there, film costs $14/roll, $18 to develop and scan, so a minimum $32/roll.
Funny how focus is always on financial costs. And nothing on the physical...I for one do not miss the smell or after taste, or odor clinging to ones clothes after a darkroom session.
patotts wrote:
While I grew up on film, the manufacturing and development of film isn't sustainable, environmentally speaking. We hope pro labs dispose of developers and fixers responsibly, but I suspect most people developing at home just pour it down the drain, which is no bueno. Sure, there are way worse culprits of environmental pollution in our society, but if everyone starts switching back...
I still shoot a role of film here and there, film costs $14/roll, $18 to develop and scan, so a minimum $32/roll.
I bring my expired chems to my local lab for disposal.
Your costs are that because those are the choices you make. And that’s fine if you are happy with it.
PAFL-rev wrote:
Funny how focus is always on financial costs. And nothing on the physical...I for one do not miss the smell or after taste, or odor clinging to ones clothes after a darkroom session.
I love all those things, as do others who are in this forum.
It seems you are lost? Perhaps you need to be directed back to dpreview? Or is your point to say you don’t like something so nor should anyone else, eh Carlos?
