As per title
I know there are loads of you seasoned film users… but I really want to just hear from those who have only recently started shooting film again after a decade or so of digital.
What was the biggest surprise…..or shock?
How did you cope stuck with fixed iso?
Did you struggle with just 36exp after years of 1000+ per card?
What’s your keeper rate per film? Please be honest.
Do the labs override your deliberate exposures?
I’m on the cusp of having a go. But I can’t shake the voice in my head telling me that I’m wasting my time… like dusting off a type writer to post a letter as opposed to sending a message via phone!! It’s almost silly… but there must be something I’m missing.
I’m a rank amateur who gave up film for digital 20ish years ago. I purchased an F3 with 50mm lens from the BS board on a whim. After about 20 rolls I’m pleased with my keeper rate of about half. Finding a good lab was the hardest part. I tried 3 labs before I found one with good results. And there are none within 200 miles of my home. So the wait can be exciting and the results can be surprising. Shooting 36 frames on the same roll of film can be paralyzing. But if there is a BW roll in the camera and I want color then I shoot digital again. Film is for slowing down and thinking about the shot, so not previewing 500-1000 shots is refreshing. Scanning is tedious. Overall it’s a great time. I’m not shooting more photos but I’m shooting more frequently and intentionally. Give it a go and post. The film board is the most supportive and entertaining. Eric.
I started shooting film again three years ago, mainly out of curiosity about how my lenses (most of which are from the 1950s or 60s) would look on the cameras and medium they were designed for.
I almost gave up after my first roll as the results were so disappointing compared with digital. My images (shot on Portra 400) had none of the depth and subtlety I was used to seeing from those lenses on digital; all of their magic seemed gone. I had maybe three photos out of 36 that I liked, and I didn't like them very much. But shooting film is like being able to switch out the sensor on your camera for a different one: every film has a different look and character. So I kept on, trying 20 or 30 different films and taking note of which ones I liked.
Three years later I'm shooting 99% film and 1% digital. I've grown to love everything about film. My keeper rate still isn't great but that's mainly due to my standards: a photo might be perfectly composed and exposed, but if it's boring or just uninteresting I don't consider it a keeper. I don't shoot very differently on film vs. digital; I was never a spray and pray photographer on digital and it would often take me a few days before I got 36 shots on my digital camera. If I'm shooting events, concerts, dances, I take a lot more on digital but not as much as most digital photographers. For a 2-hour concert I might take 600 photos; I know some photographers who'd take 6,000 during that period.
One little trick if you're worried about fixed ISO: you could shoot Ilford XP2 400, a chromogenic black-and-white film, which Ilford advertises can be shot from ISO 50 to 800 all on the same roll and developed normally, no pushing or pulling required. I've done it many times and it works. It's not magic, you're just under or overexposing from box speed, but the film has so much latitude it can handle it even if developed normally (it's developed in C-41 like colour films). That might be a way of sticking your toe in the water if you're not ready to commit to one ISO for the whole roll.
But really the one ISO for a whole roll is not a big deal; people managed to do it for more than a century. A good strategy is to use a higher-speed film like ISO 400 or even 800 and use filters on your lens (neutral density for colour film; yellow or red filter for B&W) to bring it down a stop or two in brighter conditions, then remove the filter when the light is more dim.
Pixelpuffin wrote:
As per title
I know there are loads of you seasoned film users… but I really want to just hear from those who have only recently started shooting film again after a decade or so of digital.
I started back with film about 10 years ago after having fully switched to digital since the early 2000s. I probably would have never convinced myself at the time to go back to film, but a seasoned professional photographer friend challenged me to compare my posted digital B&W photos with similar ones taken with B&W film. For my first try after many years, I reactivated my old Canon EOS film camera and had the B&W film developed via external photo lab processing. The difference between digital and film media was very obvious which kept me going.
What was the biggest surprise…..or shock?
In my case the experience, how bad development and scanning of films in external labs can be! I quickly decided to do all film development and processing by myself to have full control over the process.
How did you cope stuck with fixed iso?
Honest answer: by buying more than just one reliable film camera. To this day, I keep one low ISO film in one and a higher ISO film in another, mostly B&W films. The above answer from @bjhurley@ is correct that Ilford XP-2 400 film is very variable in the ISO and is unaffected by the required C-41 development for this film. But con is that the XP-2 film is not the best for darkroom printing from its negatives in case this is an area you ever want to expand to. But it is perfectly fine for scanning/digitizing, no problems here.
Did you struggle with just 36exp after years of 1000+ per card?
More of the opposite - sometimes 36 frames were too much on one roll when taking photos selectively during a one-day trip. I always roll my B&W films myself from a 100' roll which allows me to be flexible with the amount of frames per roll up to 42.
What’s your keeper rate per film? Please be honest.
It hasn't changed much over the years - it is about 60-70%. I have less of technical issues why the others are no keepers - I simply don't like the composition with them.
Do the labs override your deliberate exposures?
As mentioned earlier, I long gave up on using external lab since I do all my development including for color negative (C-41) and color slide (E-6) films myself. But yes, in the past external labs caused wrongly exposed photo prints. I found out later that the negatives were fine but when printing, they screwed up.
I’m on the cusp of having a go. But I can’t shake the voice in my head telling me that I’m wasting my time… like dusting off a type writer to post a letter as opposed to sending a message via phone!! It’s almost silly… but there must be something I’m missing.
Film takes a lot more time than digital for sure. For professionals, I don't think film can ever fully replace digital at this point for this reason. But for hobbyists film is getting you acquainted with a different medium and experience. My recommendation is to give it a try first before diving and vesting too deep into it. Even risky, but in the first try have a reliable lab doing the development and scanning of the negatives just to get a feel for it to compare with digital. You only need any kind of film camera and a 35 mm film (assuming you will be using a 35 mm camera).
What else can I tell you? When I started off with film again back 10 years ago, I had years after where I shot predominantly film only similar to what @bjhurley@ mentioned because I found the film process more interesting than just using a digital photo for post processing on my computer. But I also admit that it has leveled off for me since a few years after film prices became much more expensive. I am taking now a lot more digital than film photos - probably 80:20 ratio. When I travel now and use airports, it is all digital for me at this point. This moving back to digital has nothing to do with me enjoying the film process less - but price consideration for film made me fully desert color negative film (here the difference to color digital is minimal at best IMO), and I have now also less time I can spend for all what good film development and digitization requires.
madNbad wrote:
Here's one from a film user that never switched to digital;
Use your digital camera with the restrictions of a film camera for a month.
Set the ISO at 400
Pick either B&W or color
No reviewing the exposure.
No more than 36 exposures per session.
It's a low cost way to learn the the workflow by using equipment you already have.
I already set about doing exactly this a year or so back. I bought a 256mb & 512mb sd card
Did what you mentioned, turned off everything except AF ( only ever use centre spot) The card gave exactly 37 exp 🤣👍🏻. Switched off auto ISO and made a point of deliberately setting the WB and not just using AWB.
I lasted 2days… the restrictions made it boring. But I’ll try it again.
Here's a view from the other side:
In 2016 I bought a lightly used Df. I installed a KatzEye focusing screen, spent money on a handful of chipped Ai-S glass and even bought the then new Tamron 16-30 zoom. Added a grip and the seatbelt sized Peak Design strap. I used is for about eight months and sold the whole kit. Every time I went out, it felt like carrying a cinderblock. I missed the tactile feel of the film advance and the staff at the local shop would laugh because I had the ISO set at 800. Maybe I would have leaned to like it but didn't want to invest the time.
A few years later, I bought a new Sony A7II for a blow out price to move my dilm scanning to full frame.After about a year, I decided to give it a try as an actual camera. Added a few Loxia lenses and a battery grip. Same story, nice camera but it wasn't a film camera. Sold the lenses, the Sony went back on the copy stand.
Sometimes you head down the rabbit hole and find a snake at the bottom.
While I'm nostalgic for film and its look, it just seems like there's more hurdles to overcome: increasing recurrent costs (film, chemicals if you develop yourself, paper if you print); finding a good lab (I once had a lab develop my Fuji Velvia 100 slide film as negative film, thus ruining it); storing old prints and negatives with a good system for retrieval; all the issues with developing film yourself; and the added expense and time of digitizing them. I still have film in my freezer but haven't used them this year.
Pixelpuffin wrote:
Do the labs override your deliberate exposures?
Labs use the rated ISO of the film unless you have spooled it yourself and there is none or if you are pushing/pulling it.
Make sure you specify ISO if not shot at rated speed. Some labs don't push or pull. Ask them ahead of time.
Also make sure that you specify the film process. I had a disaster with film where they processed my 120 C41 in E6 instead.
EB-1 wrote:
Labs use the rated ISO of the film unless you have spooled it yourself and there is none or if you are pushing/pulling it.
Make sure you specify ISO if not shot at rated speed. Some labs don't push or pull. Ask them ahead of time.
Also make sure that you specify the film process. I had a disaster with film where they processed my 120 C41 in E6 instead.
EBH
I often deliberately under expose to boost contrast and pop the colours. I have a feeling they will override and print what they think is “normal”
madNbad wrote:
Here's one from a film user that never switched to digital;
Use your digital camera with the restrictions of a film camera for a month.
Set the ISO at 400
Pick either B&W or color
No reviewing the exposure.
No more than 36 exposures per session.
It's a low cost way to learn the the workflow by using equipment you already have.
IMO this approach is good in theory but not often practiced. I was not successful in the past using this kind of approach when getting back into film. Reason is that I don't want to limit myself purposely when shooting digital. That's just me, but also I would never opt for a Leica M-D camera which is purposely limited and comes without back display. It's either fully digital for me or analog. Nothing in the middle.
Whatever you do, don’t go into film thinking it’s going to “improve” your photography - it won’t. Same photographer, different medium.
It may change your enthusiasm for photography.
Pixelpuffin wrote:
As per title
I know there are loads of you seasoned film users… but I really want to just hear from those who have only recently started shooting film again after a decade or so of digital.
What was the biggest surprise…..or shock?
How did you cope stuck with fixed iso?
Did you struggle with just 36exp after years of 1000+ per card?
What’s your keeper rate per film? Please be honest.
Do the labs override your deliberate exposures?
I’m on the cusp of having a go. But I can’t shake the voice in my head telling me that I’m wasting my time… like dusting off a type writer to post a letter as opposed to sending a message via phone!! It’s almost silly… but there must be something I’m missing.
Just fyi, film today isn't what it used to be. In my personal experience, labs today are not providing the same excellent results I used to get 30, 40 years ago. I actually have proof. Same cameras, same type of film, much grainier results today than what I used to get. I'm even seeing grain (equivalent to what digital users call noise) in small 4"×5" prints. My same sized prints from 30, 40 yesrs ago showed almost no noise.
I don't know if the developing chemicals or techniques used by the labs today are to blame, or if film emulsion itself has gotten worse. All I can say is that film results today are inferior to what they were 3, to 4 decades ago.
I'm sharing this just as a heads up not to expect magical results from film regardless of whatever 35mm camera you use. You might see better results somewhat comparable to decent digital images if you use a medium format film camera.
As for the cameras I've been using recently, they are:
- Nikon S2 rangefinder
- Nikon F2A
- Canon FT QL
- Canon FTb
- Nikon F5
- Pentax Super Program
- Pentax SP 500
All of these were used with 50mm f1.8 and f1.4 lenses in near mint condition with no fogging, fungus, filters, etc. The lenses were all brilliantly clear in pristine conditions. Film was mostly Kodak Gold, Kodak Max in ASA 200 and 400, all exposed properly (correct exposure verified with my Sekonic L-308X-U handheld light meter and my Nikon N80).
The dirty little secret is if you load your camera with colour film, in post you can convert your colour images to B&W with the click of a button if you cannot decide on whether to load colour or B&W fim.
But don't overthink this. Just shoot a roll of film, and if you find it enjoyable - great. Rinse and repeat.
If you find it stressful and/or don't enjoy it, just shoot digital. You'll still be welcome here!
snegron7 wrote:
Just fyi, film today isn't what it used to be. In my personal experience, labs today are not providing the same excellent results I used to get 30, 40 years ago. I actually have proof. Same cameras, same type of film, much grainier results today than what I used to get. I'm even seeing grain (equivalent to what digital users call noise) in small 4"×5" prints. My same sized prints from 30, 40 yesrs ago showed almost no noise.
I don't know if the developing chemicals or techniques used by the labs today are to blame, or if film emulsion itself has gotten worse. All I can say is that film results today are inferior to what they were 3, to 4 decades ago.
I'm sharing this just as a heads up not to expect magical results from film regardless of whatever 35mm camera you use. You might see better results somewhat comparable to decent digital images if you use a medium format film camera.
As for the cameras I've been using recently, they are:
- Nikon S2 rangefinder
- Nikon F2A
- Canon FT QL
- Canon FTb
- Nikon F5
- Pentax Super Program
- Pentax SP 500
All of these were used with 50mm f1.8 and f1.4 lenses in near mint condition with no fogging, fungus, filters, etc. The lenses were all brilliantly clear in pristine conditions. Film was mostly Kodak Gold, Kodak Max in ASA 200 and 400, all exposed properly (correct exposure verified with my Sekonic L-308X-U handheld light meter and my Nikon N80). ...Show more →
Have you tried different labs?
I have had zero problems with the current labs I use or have used including Mikes Camera, Samys, Paul's Photo, Thefindlab, Northcoastphoto.
I have had problems with TheDarkroom and Costco back in the day.
Here are some recent extreme examples. First off, 30 year old Kodak Supra 100 film, recently shot at iso 50 using a BrightinStar 28mm lens - not exaclty the sharpest lens in the book!
And a 200% crop from the image. 200%!
An example shooting 110 film - perhaps the hardest to get a 'good quality' image from given its tiny size.
This using 20 year old Fuji Superia 200.
If you have problems, you need to change your lab.
My results from using fresh, current film are always better, as there has been no degradation of the film stock due to aging/heat etc.
Oldwino wrote:
Whatever you do, don’t go into film thinking it’s going to “improve” your photography - it won’t. Same photographer, different medium.
It may change your enthusiasm for photography.
I admit in my case it did - I became much more deliberate taking photos after using film. This extended to my digital workflow, too. I rarely take two photos of the same composition now with digital - I take more time to compose, wait for the right moment and trust that I got it in one shot which is most often the case. Before using film photography, I fired sometimes several shots of the similar scene to make sure I got a good one. Lots more to review in PP back then - now digital PP has become much easier.
Cheers for the replies
For me… it’s the 6x4 en-prints I miss the most. Took it for granted back then. But now I kinda miss the anticipation (or should I say desperation) of having to wait to see if you got the shot 🤣
Great memories
To preface, I did give film a go back in 2014 or so. I only went through a few rolls with an old Minolta I borrowed from a relative. I didn't really know what I was doing, but it was during my phase of trying as many different photography styles as I could and decide what I liked. When I had to return the camera I went back to digital (DSLR) for nearly a decade.
After shooting mirrorless for a few years now I've noticed two things;
1) I would easily shoot 1,000+ photos per session. This would lead to feeling overwhelmed when curling photos and dreading the processing.
2) I felt starved of tactile feedback. Mirrorless is much quieter than DSLR. Some people want that, but it didn't get that feeling of "yep I just captured that moment". Usually it's a near-silent leaf shutter and/or "beep". It's personal, but it felt like car owners feeling disconnected now that OEMs are ditching tactile buttons with a tap on a tablet.
So, I decided to take the plunge and pick up a Leica M6 classic after my wife suggested I get a BIFL camera that I'd enjoy using. And boy, has it given me that spark again. The feeling of loading your film, advancing the frame, and releasing the shutter gets me excited to go out and shoot more. Plus I've gone from shooting 1,000+ in a session to only using 1-2 rolls at most. I'd say my hit rate has improved from ~70% to 90%, but I have a lot more learning to do with exposure.It's been tricky to nail a balanced exposure sometimes with the summer sun. The light meter with end up blowing out the highlights even with an ISO 100 roll.
My first lab (mail in) was not that spectacular. For the price I was getting photos that were off on WB and color. After that I took a gamble on a local shop that started to develop in house. The results were much better and the pricing was more competitive. Recently Ive been starting to scan the developed negatives at home, and I'm starting to notice issues with the local lab'a development process. Their noritsu is able to automatically resolve streaks and dots left from their developer, but fixing it with my own scanning is a hassle. I'm now looking to develop at home. So the film rabbit hole never ends. Haha
I recently filled the various rolls I had in my older film cameras that I bought as much as collectibles and as usable cameras. I found I did like the tactile feeling of using these cameras, but the film processing not so much. I will definitely use the other rolls still in my fridge, but kind of regret buying mostly iso 400 film, which after years of digital looks almost too grainy for me (it was my go to film before digital). Also haven’t shot color yet, mostly because the costs will be much higher. May
My keeper rate was pretty low, but nowadays I’m generally not happy with my output in digital either. That general lack of doubt about my shooting also made it pretty hard to fill a roll, even 120 film.
