Back to stoneage technology!

[chrisp7091 10]

Following on from Jennie 2102's post, I thought I'd post a couple of recent shots I took - using a film camera.

 

I recently resurrected my old Canon EOS and am really happy with the images I got using Ilford FP4. There seems to be something very atmospheric about analogue photos.

 

These are a couple of my early efforts, where I was just tinkering about, so nothing special subject wise:

 

 

[sherakapod 10]

There's nothing wrong with a film camera, they're lovely. Love the pictures.

[steve68 66]

nice pics chrisp

 

I've still got most of my old developing kit around maybe in another 20yrs time I'll retire to a shed and start again.

[chrisp7091 10]

Thanks very much. Must say, I'm now a bit of a film devotee. I'm about to upgrade my DSLR to a Nikon D5100 for the technical excellence of its images - particularly the low image noise characteristics. Ironically, what I love about the film shots I've been taking is how, in todays terms, so much is 'wrong' with the images. Lots of grain, unexpected colour balances and even specs of dirt in my camera:

 

[prescottspie 10]

The resolving quality of a half decent medium format camera loaded with low-medium speed film beats most digital kit out of the water though

 

I don't want to start the old film is better than digital thing - I love my digi kit too!

 

Film for me is just more fun - the joy of trying a new kind of film in different conditions, the unpredictabilities of it all, plus I seem to take better photos with my film cameras for whatever reason that might be, and I also love being able to be part of the process a bit more. Darkroom work brings me closer to, and makes me appreciate more, the process of producing a final image on paper; no afternoons sat in front of the PC photoshopping images will match that.

 

oh yeah and the first bw image is amazing, and the colour one, bokeh ftw.

[shirleyF 10]

I like film because every shot costs money, so before I press the shutter I have to consider if the shot is worthy of my money being spent on it. The effect of this is to slow me down and make me think about every detail and wait for the right moment.

[chrisp7091 10]

I agree with what's been said about film being really good fun and having to consider every frame I shoot, due to cost. It makes film seem more precious.

 

I've taken lots of shots of my kids, just because I love the idea of images of them existing on physical media, rather than just being bits of information on a hard drive. The kids also like to help me take the film cannister in and out of the camera!

 

I'm not sure about the resolution issue. I'm only using 35mm film. The max scan size with my Nikon scanner is about 8-9mp in digital terms. I'm not sure there's that much information in the negatives though, due to the effect of the grain.

 

None of that really matters to me. Film seems to come with an instant atmosphere or mood that rarely crops up in my digital photos. I can never be quite sure what surprises there might be when my negatives come back from processing. I'm currently using Ilford Delta 100 to compare to my previous attempts with FP4. Fuji Velvia next!. Really enjoying the whole process.

[prescottspie 10]

Resolution depends on:

 

-film size

-film speed

-film quality

-developer used

-and of course your scanner's capabilities.

 

For example, this: was scanned from a 6cm x 6cm medium format negative on the cheapest film I could find (£1 a roll Shanghai GP3 ISO 100) so not the finest grain in the world. I developed it in instant coffee, vitamin C and soda crystals, so not even a fine grain developer. Compared to a 13 megapixel digital shot it is huuuuuge! Sure, you can see the grain when zoomed all the way in and pixel peeping, but you'd spot a lot of defects on a digital image zoomed to the same size.

[chrisp7091 10]

Resolution depends on:

 

-film size

-film speed

-film quality

-developer used

-and of course your scanner's capabilities.

 

For example, this: was scanned from a 6cm x 6cm medium format negative on the cheapest film I could find (£1 a roll Shanghai GP3 ISO 100) so not the finest grain in the world. I developed it in instant coffee, vitamin C and soda crystals, so not even a fine grain developer. Compared to a 13 megapixel digital shot it is huuuuuge! Sure, you can see the grain when zoomed all the way in and pixel peeping, but you'd spot a lot of defects on a digital image zoomed to the same size.

 

I agree with everything you say about the variables that will affect film resolution. Only thing I noticed is that the information sheet on the sign post in my first picture is pretty much illegible, due to the FP4 grain. That would definitely be clear and readable in a similar shot taken on my 6mp Nikon D70. I think, if the scan res was even higher, it would just have enlarged the grain. I think the Nikon scaner I use scans at around 2700 dpi.

 

The thing is - why does it matter? I had a look at your flickr photostream and you've taken some great shots there, full of atmosphere and mystery. I love the grain and the way your film photos look. I love the grain in my FP4 shot aswell! I think its easy to get too concerned about absolute resolution - terrific pictures like yours would still look great whatever image size they were:-).

[prescottspie 10]

The thing is - why does it matter?

 

It really doesn't, you're right (I don't want to spark the old argument of which is better) - it's down to enjoyment of the production of the image and the enjoyment of the image itself, however it's created.

 

With that said, a few points on image quality from film if you *do* want to reduce the grain and whatnot:

 

FP4 is not a low grain film, despite its medium speed, but you can almost certainly improve the performance by using the right developer. What did you use on this one out of interest? I know from experience that FP4 developed in economic dev like LC29 at 1+29 looks pretty rubbish compared to Rodinal at 1+25. I've just picked up some Rollei D74 which I'm excited to try, as it's meant to be a superfine grain dev. Ilford, from memory, recommend ID11 for FP4+ Also try out some other bw films, such as Fuji Acros 100, Ilford Delta 100, I could go on, but you get the picture

 

For colour, give Kodak Ektar a go - very very fine grain and high saturation for a C41 film - or go for a slide film while they still exist. Places like Peak Imaging will do you process, scan and prints from an E6 slide film for a not unreasonable price.

 

Scanning - resolution is not all when it comes to scanning, the scanning software does a *hell* of a lot of processing to your image, just like your DSLR does, so that has an impact on the image quality. Turn off dust removal and stuff like that for a truer image. I tend to scan at 3200 dpi, even though my scanner (Epson v500) will go much higher, because the image files become huge and there isn't a discernible difference in quality in my opinion. It's also vital to remember that scanning often introduces artifacts. Compare a wet process enlargement of a negative to a similar size scan, and you'll likely find the print a lot higher quality.

 

Finally, if you've never given medium format a go, I highly recommend it. You can pick up a really good camera for as little as £150 - £250. My Mamiya C220 cost £150, and the image quality compared to my (much more expensive) DSLR kit is unbelievable, just no comparison! Plus, if you develop your own, there is nothing quite like the satisfaction of pulling 6x6 negs out of the tank instead of a teeny tiny 35mm!

 

Sorry for the long winded, nerdy reply Have fun!

 

PS I'd be surprised if a 6MP digital camera produces a higher resolving detail than a low speed film - perhaps if a higher quality lens was used etc. I've taken a number of shots with 13MP cameras that haven't resolved as well as the same image on a film camera.

Edited June 19, 2012 by prescottspie

[chrisp7091 10]

Sorry for the long winded, nerdy reply Have fun!

 

Nah that's fine - thanks for taking the time to pass on the tips :-).

 

You asked about the processing of my FP4. I went to Jessops for that, so who knows what chemicals they used. I had no complaints havings said that, apart from the time it took. I don't mind the wait for processing - but 2 weeks? I got a bit frustrated waiting to see the results.

 

Anyhow, I'll look forward to trying some of your suggested films. Just tonight finished a roll of Delta 100. I'm thinking of sending that direct to Ilford for processing. I'm giving Fuji Velvia a go next, but Kodak Ektar sounds like another one for the list. I'd also like to try some Agfacolour film, just because my dad used to like it.

 

As for the resolution of my D70, I can only go by what I see. The results are usually very sharp from this camera with my various lenses. I understand that's because it has a weak anti alias filter?

 

I'm like you - love my DSLR, but you can't beat film :-).

[uncle eddy 10]

it cost money is old....take 3000 pics where you could take one....dam we're good