lifeandmylens wrote:
Just an update on my foray into film, especially for those who new to it like me, or considering it.
That is so similar to my own experience this year that I could have written much of it myself!
I made a lot of expensive mistakes at the beginning, and continue to make them but at a lower rate.
The big surprise to me was how low-res most 35mm negative film appears compared with digital; so much of the detail and subtlety that I see on digital just isn't there in most of the films I've tried with the same lenses (Ektar comes close but I only like the colors of Ektar on overcast days or in the shade). Slide film is better but is much less forgiving in terms of exposure latitude; you really have to nail exposure correctly. And it's getting harder to find labs that process slide film anyway; mine stopped doing it and they no longer do ECN-2 either, just C-41 and B&W. If I had to start over again I think I'd go with medium format, but for now I'm embracing the 35mm look.
I'm still waffling about whether I like sharp, modern lenses more on film than my vintage lenses; the main advantages to the modern ones are more detail and contrast (especially in B&W) and of course the coatings are better so you don't have to worry so much about flare. But I still gravitate to my older lenses, especially for B&W.
I have a real film retriever but sometimes it doesn't work so I just resort to the slobber method.
I have a bunch of cameras that auto rewind all the way in.
lifeandmylens wrote:
Just an update on my foray into film, especially for those who new to it like me, or considering it.
1. I opened the bottom on my first roll before rewinding it, ruining several shots.
2. I had my second roll of film get “lost” in mail, but luckily after a week of no updates on tracking it finally showed up.
3. On my third roll I loaded portra 160 then decided I wanted 800 in that camera instead and rewound it all the way into the canister and wasted that roll. I tossed it before I found out leader retrieval was a thing.
4. I’ve played around with my scans vs the lab scans and I prefer the lab scans. So I’m going to continue having them scan while I learn to get better at it.
5. I ordered Kodak Gold 200, and when it arrived I realized I ordered 120, not 35mm.
6. Taking pictures and having to wait a week or two to get them back is painful. But it’s like Christmas morning when the scans/negatives come in.
7. It’s pretty cool being surprised at what the pictures will look like or when you find pictures that you forgot you took.
8. I chased (expensive) character lenses to soften the digital image, but really I should’ve just started shooting film. Would have been a lot cheaper.
9. I’ve found I like vintage/character lenses on digital and the slightly more modern lenses on film.
10. I’ve made tons of mistakes, but I’ve learned a lot about metering and taking an average of a scene and making sure on film I don’t lose the shadows (still working on that).
And so far I love it and am addicted! Still haven’t touched my M10-D since getting into film. ...Show more →
11. When you do pick up your digital M and snap an image, don't be surprised when you try to wind the film to the next frame! I've done that several times.
bjhurley wrote:
That is so similar to my own experience this year that I could have written much of it myself!
I made a lot of expensive mistakes at the beginning, and continue to make them but at a lower rate.
The big surprise to me was how low-res most 35mm negative film appears compared with digital; so much of the detail and subtlety that I see on digital just isn't there in most of the films I've tried with the same lenses (Ektar comes close but I only like the colors of Ektar on overcast days or in the shade). Slide film is better but is much less forgiving in terms of exposure latitude; you really have to nail exposure correctly. And it's getting harder to find labs that process slide film anyway; mine stopped doing it and they no longer do ECN-2 either, just C-41 and B&W. If I had to start over again I think I'd go with medium format, but for now I'm embracing the 35mm look.
I'm still waffling about whether I like sharp, modern lenses more on film than my vintage lenses; the main advantages to the modern ones are more detail and contrast (especially in B&W) and of course the coatings are better so you don't have to worry so much about flare. But I still gravitate to my older lenses, especially for B&W. ...Show more →
I think I've been liking modern lenses on film. The Voigtlander APO lenses are awesome.
bjhurley wrote:
That is so similar to my own experience this year that I could have written much of it myself!
I made a lot of expensive mistakes at the beginning, and continue to make them but at a lower rate.
The big surprise to me was how low-res most 35mm negative film appears compared with digital; so much of the detail and subtlety that I see on digital just isn't there in most of the films I've tried with the same lenses (Ektar comes close but I only like the colors of Ektar on overcast days or in the shade). Slide film is better but is much less forgiving in terms of exposure latitude; you really have to nail exposure correctly. And it's getting harder to find labs that process slide film anyway; mine stopped doing it and they no longer do ECN-2 either, just C-41 and B&W. If I had to start over again I think I'd go with medium format, but for now I'm embracing the 35mm look.
I'm still waffling about whether I like sharp, modern lenses more on film than my vintage lenses; the main advantages to the modern ones are more detail and contrast (especially in B&W) and of course the coatings are better so you don't have to worry so much about flare. But I still gravitate to my older lenses, especially for B&W. ...Show more →
rji2goleez wrote:
11. When you do pick up your digital M and snap an image, don't be surprised when you try to wind the film to the next frame! I've done that several times.
rji2goleez wrote:
11. When you do pick up your digital M and snap an image, don't be surprised when you try to wind the film to the next frame! I've done that several times.
Hah, even worse is the M10-D has a faux rewind lever. I'm sure I'll be thinking the roll is done when it doesn't actually move all the way
rji2goleez wrote:
I think I've been liking modern lenses on film. The Voigtlander APO lenses are awesome.
I saw some pictures you posted with the 28 Ultron. I think that lens is rather harsh on digital, but it looked like it was tamed down a lot on film, it looked great.
bjhurley wrote:
Tried it, didn't like it. I like my B&W films grainy and contrasty, but I don't like grain in color films. It's all down to personal preference.
yeah but no but yeah but if you want resolution 'like' digital, Acros is the only game in town.
But I get it - I like B&W to look like old school B&W! With bite and grain. And for that I highly recommend Kentmere 400.
This pic I took of Daisy is a recent re-post, but it was the last time I shot Acros II. It demonstrates da silk.
bjhurley wrote:
That is so similar to my own experience this year that I could have written much of it myself!
I made a lot of expensive mistakes at the beginning, and continue to make them but at a lower rate.
The big surprise to me was how low-res most 35mm negative film appears compared with digital; so much of the detail and subtlety that I see on digital just isn't there in most of the films I've tried with the same lenses (Ektar comes close but I only like the colors of Ektar on overcast days or in the shade). Slide film is better but is much less forgiving in terms of exposure latitude; you really have to nail exposure correctly. And it's getting harder to find labs that process slide film anyway; mine stopped doing it and they no longer do ECN-2 either, just C-41 and B&W. If I had to start over again I think I'd go with medium format, but for now I'm embracing the 35mm look.
I'm still waffling about whether I like sharp, modern lenses more on film than my vintage lenses; the main advantages to the modern ones are more detail and contrast (especially in B&W) and of course the coatings are better so you don't have to worry so much about flare. But I still gravitate to my older lenses, especially for B&W. ...Show more →
I have to try out my vintage lenses more on film. I may shoot half a roll each with a vintage 35 and modern 35 of the same scene and see the differences.
lifeandmylens wrote:
I have to try out my vintage lenses more on film. I may shoot half a roll each with a vintage 35 and modern 35 of the same scene and see the differences.
I think it depends on the film. On sharper, finer films I tend to like older lenses for the same reason I like them on digital; on grainy low-res films I find it doesn't matter so much and even my "characterless" modern lenses can look artistic and even mysterious.
My Voigtländer 35/2.5 Color Skopar 2.5 LTM is one of the most neutral and boring lenses I own; it is sharp and reliable and does the job, but nothing about it sings to me on digital or on finer-grain films. But I love it on high-grain films like Fomapan 400 and it also looks great on XP2 400, especially when I shoot it at EI 800.
bjhurley wrote:
Tried it, didn't like it. I like my B&W films grainy and contrasty, but I don't like grain in color films. It's all down to personal preference.
Want gainy and contrasty? Tri-X in Rodinal 1:25, 20C, agitate every thirty seconds for seven minutes:
Learned how to tone it down by going 1:50, ten minutes, thirty seconds continuous agitation to start, two inversions every minute
That and if you don’t shoot Nikon it’s a bit of a faff to get it to work. Although once it was set up I liked that I didn’t have to worry about camera shake, being perfectly perpendicular, etc.
I did find the film carrier faster once set up, so if doing multiple rolls there is an advantage in my opinion... Especially if also shooting other formats as previously stated.
Desmolicious wrote:
Yup it only works for 35mm. Which I shoot a lot of. For 110, 35mm pano, 120 I use a copy stand and digitaliza film carriers.
Changed my mind, decided to give Lightroom Classic and Negative Lab Pro a try. After some initial hiccups and having to install LrC 12.5, everything else was pretty smooth. I have a folder set for the Sony captures and they're automatically imported to LR. Since I'm only doing B&W the conversions are easy. Now my only problem is trying to figure out how to keep the Sony Imaging Edge software from sending a capture to Apple Photos.
A few more. M4-2, Voigtlander 35 1.4 Nokton Classic SC V2, 022 filter, Tri-X @ ISO 200, FPP-76 1+1
Some things I noticed right away, my shutter speeds had been hovering around 1/8 to 1/15 now using aperture priority at F8, the speeds are 1/50. Converting numerous captures is a breeze.
Now I just need to learn how and where to file everything. I'm really gald I made the move.
bjhurley wrote:
I'd avoid those Cinestill films; I lost 80 percent of two rolls of Cinestill 400D due to light leaks (only a few light leaks with other films on the same camera) and lots of other people report the same thing with other Cinestill films. See Bastian's experience and samples with the 800T here: https://phillipreeve.net/blog/analogue-adventures-part-7-cinestill-800t/
I will probably stop shooting Cinestill just because they have been copyright trolling their competition over using shorthand like 800T.
