So I decided I need to learn how to shoot film, I primarily shoot Nikon digitals but my photography teacher said to use one of these old canons to really get the full film experience. I'm kinda excited, gettin down and drity developing film. lol
I prefer the older FT body between the two. The TLb has a far more advanced meter but only can shoot at a max of 1/500th shuter where the the FT has some other features like shutter lockup, timer, and 1/1000th shutter.
Edited by thebeephaha on Oct 27, 2005 at 07:20 PM GMT
OK, I'll bite. Why? This to me is sort of like someone saying in the 40's or 50's: "Boy, this 35mm film is cool, but I really need to go try collodion plates." ?
But, have fun. I messed with film for years and will never go back. Same reason I use a computer and not an abacus.
Yea I see your point, I obviously prefer my digital in every respect, its just a toy fun kinda thing. Like I mean this is how people had to shoot for years, kinda interesting to see how much different it was "back in the day".
The main reason I'm doing this is to really train myself to be able use the manual focus, then secondly to learn to film.
Go for your life, I say. I started on film - not for very long, and only as a rank amateur - but still, I think it's a valuable learning tool. The fact that you only get 36 on a roll forces you to think MUCH more about every shot ... and, let's face it, who can beat holding a roll of Velvia up to the light and seeing a beautifully exposed shot?
Go buy Velvia and a cheap used slide projector. Computers? Keep 'em.
I love film. I think you get a better image a lot more easily than with digital because of the greater lattitude. Having said that, I prefer the speed, convenience and cost of digital.
Uhh... Did I mention cost?
Well, my Nikon Coolpix 3100 cost me GBP 250 and then I bought a gig of memory. That cost me GBP 200 so we have an expendature of GBP 450.... During my tour abroad (which is in the process of being written up into a travel book), I took 1500 photographs. I wouldn't have taken more than 3/4 rolls of film using film.
Now let's look at the real costs...
Film - if I'd been following the traditional model...
My favourite film camera for travel is my Olympus XA3 which cost me GBP 30 (secondhand)
4 rolls of film cost GBP 3 each and processing GBP 6 each.
That's a total of GBP 66.
Ok so let's work hard at justifying digital...
1500 / 36 = 42 rolls of film...
so using the same cost/processing fees we have GBP 378 for film alone.
Now let's add a nice camera. How about an Olympus MJU Zoom at GBP 69? No - that doesn't equal the cost of digital. Shucks... Let's go for a Minox instead. How about the CD 155 at GBP 190? That sounds better... OK so we now have an overall cost of GBP 568.
Ok.So the two are as different as chalk and cheese. Digital has terrible starting costs but low running costs. The problem is you need to buy a new camera every couple of years just to stand still. I guess the cost of digital versus film is pretty even in that case.
BTW I'm not convinced by wedding photographers who take 300 photos a a wedding or who brag they take more. A traditional wedding used maybe 3 rolls of film. Weddings in continental europe normally had just one photo - of the bride and groom together and usually taken some time after the wedding.
Enjoy the film thing. I always went under the premise that if you got one good shot / 36x roll...you were doing good. When I shot B&W, I took a lot more exposures because I could process the film myself and I only printed what I wanted.
In college I literally began to see everything in B&W. It was kind of neat. I could know how things would look and what would work in B&W. Then I had to shoot several assignments in color and it was really hard. Eventually you could see what you were photographing and imagine how the negative or slide would look...BEFORE PROCESSING.
Now, I shoot 250 images at a soccer game and hope for 3 or 4 good ones. My up front cost is way larger than film days, but I can shoot to my hearts content and don't worry about processing the film and associated costs. Would I go back, I don't think so.
Digital has so many advantages. Exposing for foreground and background and then combining them...try that with film. I love shooting sports in digital. I like having instant gratification of knowing how I am shooting. Am I a better photographer today? Probably not. I knew how to get the perfect exposure before...yes maybe it took a 3 exposure bracket, but in 3 exposures I'd get it. Now I shoot, correct, shoot, correct..try this, try that..correct. I guess it's the same thing, but before it was a science...now I'm not so sure about that. Everything can get fixed in PS...or most things.
I'm selling my last bit of film equipment on ebay as we speak. I tried to list it in the B&S forum here, but didn't get any bites. I have a great F1 for sale with some basic lenses. I haven't shot film for 1.5 years and I don't think I'll ever regret it...but film has some great qualities and is a super learning experience I'll never forget.
These are all very good insights into the value of me learning film, my teacher thinks I was spoiled by starting off with my DSLR and I'm beginning to agree. I went out just a few hours ago to try and shoot some random things around where I live, I really had to think about how to compose the images, I already can tell this roll will be terrible but its a learning experience. The thing for me is getting used to manual focusing and controlling aperature via the ring and not a dial on the grip!!
That Canon TLb was my first real camera. I managed to scrounge the funds to buy a brand new TLb and a Canon 50mm lens back in 1974/75. I think (hope) I may still have it, although I've not seen it for years. It was a terrific camera that was a critical tool for me throughout my undergraduate and graduate architectural schooling. I get misty just looking at your photo. ;-)
Contrary to what some would assert -including most photo schools today- film is an inferior medium for instruction when compared to today's pro and prosumer dslrs. Unlike dslr images which feature extensive exif metadata documentation (focal length, iris, ISO, et.al.) film images offer no testament to the photographer's technical decisions.
Nevertheless, for those who truly love the craft of photography film still offers great value and satisfaction. I resumed shooting film with a Leica M7 almost a year ago and have been dumbstruck by the character and emotive qualities that today's emulsions offer as compared to the often sterile appearance of digital images.
Well I got my first roll all processed n stuff and for my first one I got a few shots I might actually want to print altho most of the shots were either very over/under exposed. Little tricky tryin to manage, the aperature ring, the manual focus, and the shutter speed dial all simaltaniously when shooting, but I suppose I'll get used to it!
Tell your teacher he should learn how to shoot standing on one foot. He's spoiled having two. And why the luxury of looking throough the viewfinder? The lazy slefish yuppie should close his eyes and then manual focus, like a real man!
I have learned more about photography in 10 months of digital shooting than I did in 30 years of Ftb film photography. The instant feedback is the greatest teacher. If one is so impatient as to mindlessly shoot hundreds of thoughtless digital shots, I don't think a handicap like film is going to teach patience. I frequently go shooting with my digital camera and click 5 or 6 shots in a day. If I'm working on something dificult, on a tripod, I might shoot one shot after 3 hours of set up. I'm festidious, and it did not come from film, digital, or any medium in particular. It's just the way I am.
Any way, enjoy your camera, it's intersting stuff. My brother in law made a high res camera from a scanner and the lens from a xerox copier. That was interesting too. Take lots of thoughtull pictures and try things, and learn to see, and the feed back from digital will teach you what effects the controls have faster than anything, and shooting film will teach you what it's lke to shoot film (and why we are so lucky to have digital now :-)
I am one of those "generation x" kids that was always teaching his parents how to use their computers and other electronics growing up.
canon FT was my first camera. It was a marvel of its day because it had a built-in light meter (or so my dad told me). The light meter was the only piece of electronics in the whole thing. Somehow, this tech-crazy, gen-x child found a special appreciation for this art known as photography. I remember my first high school photo class very well; it was a great experience. I prided myself that, with training, I could produce better images than many of my friends and their high tech digitals. I remember shooting velvia slides and skimboarding with it. It was a blast. Changing the aperture, shutter speed, and focus all at once... and YES you had to wind it to get the next photo.
In fact, the only thing that prompted me to move into the auto-focus and digital realm was the fact that when I went away for college, his camera did not.
Now I am a college student, I work for a wedding photographer as a part time job, I shoot for an online skimboarding magazine as well as my university newspaper. And I look forward to being able to take photography classes once again.
thebeephaha wrote:
Little tricky tryin to manage, the aperature ring, the manual focus, and the shutter speed dial all simaltaniously when shooting, but I suppose I'll get used to it!
Ahh, therein lies the trick, Joshua. Your intermediate goal is to develop enough intuition about the camera such that you're not having to keep pace with all three adjustments continuously. On most of these cameras it's easiest to set and forget your shutter speed for a given situation. That means you're down to running aperture and focus. If you learn to zone focus you can just concentrate on the aperture ring. Conversely, you can wing it with aperture and concentrate on focus. (The saying amongst "old-time" photojournalist was that the two most important skills for a news photographer were, "to learn how to set f/8 and to be there".)
I remarked earlier that digital imaging was a superior medium for training photography due to its extensive self-documentation facilities. Conversely, however, I must also remark that shooting with a mainly manual camera, such as your TLb, is an excellent way to learn photographic craftsmanship. Of course you can easily simulate such a camera with a dslr by simply using manual exposure and manual focus. So, again, digital offers the best of both worlds!
Film has an important role as another possible artistic tool.
The real benefit of film comes when you play with medium (and larger) formats though. You have resolution and cropping potential (for very little money) that beats a $10,000 dSLR any day.
I started out with my dad's old FTb QL. I love that camera, still shoot with it some. I actually have 2 now. I don't have a dslr yet, but I have used them. I still shoot with a Canon A2.
I think there are values to both film and digital. I think digital is great to teach with in the classroom, but film is good for students to learn with on their own. Film forces most people to think more about the technical aspect of taking a photo. If there were a "manual only" dslr, maybe I would be wrong. However, I also think film teaches more about the process of taking a picture, one develops a better understanding of photography and learns to appreciate the photographic process in general.
There's nothing like the smell of dektol in the evening and late nights with an enlarger. _peace_
WkDave: However, I also think film teaches more about the process of taking a picture, one develops a better understanding of photography and learns to appreciate the photographic process in general.
I've given quite a bit of thought and personal exploration towards this subject. A year or two ago I would have been inclined to heartily agree. But a year ago I returned to shooting some film after a long hiatus. I chose a Leica M7 rangefinder for my "return". While it's "automated" by Leica's standards (i.e. it features "new" DX decoding for setting ISO and an aperture-priority exposure mode, both of which are optional functions) it's basically just about as manual as it gets. (Like all M cameras you basically have to dismantle the camera to change film every 36 frames; if that doesn't slow you down nothing will!) I really wanted to have one camera, anachronistic though it may be, that would force me to periodically reboot and resharpen my basic photo craftsmanship skills. My M7 has enabled me to meet that goal, not to mention enabled me to capture some wonderful images.
But what I've discovered is that the film medium has no real relationship to image craftsmanship. The real issue is that digital photography's immense assisting technology and image storage capacities enables us to be careless. Newcomers who usually get good images from these cameras are deceived into believing that their skills are better than they really are. The camera is providing much of the technical "skill". So when they eventually get disappointing results they often blame the lens, blame the camera, blame auto-focus, etc. and attempt to remedy the problem with a credit card.
There are plenty of film lovers who summarily dismiss digital photography often on the grounds that its users are somehow technically lacking. But the real issue is that of discipline. Photographers of previous decades were forced to learn technical fundamentals that today's newcomers often ignore or, worse, never learn at all.
So as I remarked earlier, nearly all of today's digital slrs offer the opportunity to "shoot like it's 1965". Turn off auto-focus, switch the camera's exposure mode to "M" and plug a 64Mb -128Mb card into that camera. Come home with one virtual role of images study them closely. Odds are you will well remember why you shot each image and the exif data will tell you how you shot them.
Why not learn to use film cameras, including the 'old' manual cameras? It's all a part of the photography experience, however major or minor. Film definitely has its qualities that digital doesn't quite emulate, and it's good to see what a good film-type can do. I also think that while I can turn off all of the auto-everything on my 20D, it's still not the same as shooting with my F-1N. Not that doing so teaches me more about photography, but it gives me a different part of, or a different take on the photography experience. I still like the way film looks, enough so that I continue to use film to a degree. But I won't deny that digital has many more advantages for me and as a result, that's what I shoot primarily. I do think though, that by using a manual film camera one is forced to think about one's photography in a different way, and I think that the more ways we learn to approach the art of photography, the more tools we have to work with in the end, whatever format we use. Besides, some of the older cameras are beautiful pieces of engineering for their time, pieces of art in their own right. Enjoy using your cameras, film and digital.
Ken, I totally agree with you regarding that it's not the medium that will teach you how to take great photographs, but the discipline you must have to truly understand composition, exposure etc... However, I feel that a lot of people who learned photography on digital cameras have a tendency to bypass this discipline as it's so easy to take a bunch of shots and come up with a few good ones. But can this process be repeated to get that good shot again. Probably not.
I do not know what it is but I enjoy taking pictures with a film camera much more than with digital. I was without digital for a month last year and now again (probably for a couple of months) and I am definitely taking better pictures. On top of that I was never able to recreate "Velvia look" with any of the plug-ins. I am now shooting with Velvia 100 Pro, Astia 100F and Pro160S. I am not a pro or a sport shooter so a slower pace does not bother me. I do not have to deliver quick results and the cost does not matter to me either.
I keep this loaded with film and ready to go - but it increasingly doesn't go. I bought this camera in 1967, and it has been my trusty slide shooter ever since. Part of the reason it is rarely used is that digital projection has gotten better - still not as good as slide film, but better. But the big reason is that the histogram has become so essential to the way I work (and think). Last august I made myself shoot a roll, and it felt like driving blindfolded. I wasn't surprised that there were only a few frames that were worth printing. But I will always keep this by the door...
?