UKH

I somehow ended up acquiring myself a Nikon FM the other day on a rest day (dangerous thing, rest days...) after years of wanting to give film photography a go.

Does anyone here still shoot on film, occasionally or regularly?

In reply to tehmarks:

Done lots of film photography over the years, but it's good to learn a new skill. You need either a darkroom or film dedicated scanner,  preferably the latter. Quality can't compare to resolution of latest digital cameras and its getting much more difficult to access film, especially colour. Kodakchrome 25 was the go to for quality, but now discontinued. If you manage to get any old film on the net, it keeps for years if stored correctly ie. In a fridge. Darkroom work is interesting, but you really need semi/professional enlarger/lens for top quality. Large format is even more expensive, excessively so for professional gear etc, but again very rewarding. 2nd hand film cameras can be got really cheap eg Nikon F6 or similar, but lens are again very expensive or not now manufactured. I'm not trying to put you off but be aware about what is involved. Hope this helps.

In reply to Sean Kelly:

I discovered the wonderful website that is analoguewonderland.co.uk the other day - film is certainly not cheap, but as a medium I'll probably reserve for specific projects/ideas (and mostly street photography), I think it won't be so bad. Likewise lenses - I think I only really want a wide and normal prime, and maybe a slightly longer macro prime. And with a lens adaptor, they might find use on my digital body too. Because I don't plan on shooting huge amounts on film, at this juncture I'm happy to get it lab-developed and scanned unless the bug really bites (or experiment with developing at home and get the truly worthwhile frames scanned).

I feel I need to get back to my creative roots and stop being idle, and an experiment with film excites me. I've taken about 1000 photos in the space of 26 days on my journey across the Pyrenees so far - many of them exposure tests, experiments that were never going to work, or are just unusable through technical incompetence that was fixed in the next frame 10 seconds later - and many others are just not very good photos that I've taken because I could. The deliberate approach of film really appeals to me, as does not truly knowing if you've captured what you wanted until some time later when it's finally developed.

In reply to tehmarks:

You can definitely shoot film casually without having to invest a huge amount. 
 

35mm film has gone up in price recently which is a shame but you can still get decent films for a bit cheaper. Id recommend some Lomo 400 film as it’s a bit cheaper than portra 400 which is the gold standard of 35mm film (not for landscapes).

Get some research done on aperture and shutter speed (if you haven’t already) and really familiarise yourself with the camera. 

There are some proper great informative YouTube channels for film photography such as grainy days or willem verbeeck.

Film photography is great fun and you get some truly lovely photographs out of it. Developing is also quite expensive so it is cheaper if you do it yourself but you don’t need a whole darkroom, again there are some great videos on YouTube about home developing setups that produce really good quality photos.

In reply to tehmarks:

I would also add that film is an amazing way to force yourself to take good photos. The price of each frame forces you to be very intentional and thoughtful about every shot you take.

In reply to tehmarks:

The other factor that aids landscape photography and portraiture is a sturdy tripod, as it allows you to better compose the image and use slow shutter speeds. With street photography, nighttime can be especially interesting, the lighting, the vibes, the interaction with possible subjects. I always talk to those that I might photograph, so it doesn't feel like intrusion. Do you choose to use flash or not is another option. good luck with whatever you decide.

In reply to tehmarks:

I hated analogue photography at Art College back in the 80's. All that time wasted in the darkroom developing film, making test strips and then printing a so/so image.

I'm a fully paid up advocate of digital photography and editing suites that can emulate film print on screen and paper.

Sorry.

In reply to tehmarks:

I shoot a fair amount of b&w 35mm, used to do a lot in the 00s, slowly went digital but on a limited budget and with limited computing power and still clung onto film as a bit of a retro crutch. Now I see them as two separate things (cf bouldering and trad climbing for example) and have joined a local "lo fi" photography club where my main activity is darkroom printing from 35mm b&w negatives. I enjoy the process. Another analogy might be the inconvenience and expense of listening to music on vinyl, vs. streaming. These technologies needn't compete, they serve different needs (my analogue photography and printing are like my knitting - something practical to do with hands and to get away from staring at a monitor). 

I have two concerts to attend this weekend and I enjoy concert photography. I am taking a Nikon EM with a 50mm f/1.8, loaded with b&w 400-speed film which I'll push process to 1600 and process and print manually and I look forward to it. I will also take a Sony NEX 6 with either a 24mm or 50mm Canon prime attached via a Metabones adaptor. I took a similar set up to a Dana Gavanski concert last September and have printed a few shots from film yet have barely even looked at the digital shots (which are probably better but that's not the point, right?)

In reply to The Lemming:

It's called photography, or film photography if you want to be pedantic. Each to their own, if your images were so-so then maybe you should have engaged more with the class.

Why would you want to emulate film if it's so-so?

I still have a couple of him cameras (Nikon FM2 & my Dad's Rolleiflex TLR) but I doubt I'll ever run film through them again. I like digital, particularly the processing part.

What for?

OP: I did lots of developing of big B/W prints in the bathroom cum darkroom when I was a child. It's quite involved but there's no satisfaction in things which aren't involved. Shooting film really forces you to think about your photography. Look up Tim Parkin who occasionally posts on here for inspiration.

In reply to 65:

You are being a bit harsh on The Lemming here. 

In reply to tehmarks:

There's a strong community of film users around. You've already got your camera but film is the main cost. Get it developed and scanned by someone at first, costly but not as expensive as a ruined film. 

Good sources for film, development and home development stuff as well as advice are -

https://ntphotoworks.com/

Analoguewonderland - do a great membership scheme, which reduces the cost

West Yorkshire Camera are a good source of advice as well as cameras and lenses 

https://www.kirkleesphotographic.com/ for reasonably (!?) priced development 

And https://takeiteasylab.com/

Some max spielman branches still develop film although it's a bit hit and miss and staff don't often know anything about the process and need a bit of hand holding. Not amazing quality but good for quick results. 

If you fancy trying b&w give ilford xp2 a go  it's cheaper because you can just use a normal colour c41 process. (You'll have to firmly insist it's a colour film in Spielmans!). 

You can make it cheaper by developing your own film at home using a developing tank and a changing bag, no darkroom needed unless you want to make your own prints. You can make excellent quality scans using a dslr, macro lens, a stand and a lightbox. 

No need to be purist about it, do whatever works, mix up analogue and digital. Buy old cameras in charity shops for a fiver, buy new weird films, experiment and have fun. 

In reply to tehmarks:

Haven't done it for a while, but it's good fun. Definitely makes you slow down and think about what you're photographing.

If you want to shoot colour, then you should be able to find a photo lab that will process your film for you.

If you're going down the black and white route, DIY film processing is not that hard and the overheads aren't huge.  Making prints is a whole different ball game.

As a halfway house, take a look at Ilford XP2 film.  The results are black and white, but the film is processed using the same chemistry as for colour, so you can take it to a photo lab to get it processed and scanned/printed.

Enjoy!

In reply to Armadillo and ayuplass:

Do you have recent experience of getting XP2 developed (and optionally printed) any more cheaply than dedicated b&w? This used to be the case 20 - 25 years ago but I am not sure if it's still the case. It's £14.50 at Max Spielmann and most labs still need to send it away because despite it being C41 ("colour") it tends to use a different chemical mix to standard colour film. 

To the OP, more generally, I recommend AG PhotoLab for developing (and optionally printing and scanning) film if you are not going to do it yourself. 

In reply to tehmarks:

Not a lot more to add to the advice so far. One big difference to shooting digital is that it is better to err on the side of over- rather than under-exposure, since most film (with the exception of slide film) can handle a lot of highlights but can look like crap if you have to raise the shadows.

Defo shoot some black and white, you'll love it. If you're not developing it yourself XP2 is easiest to get developed and usually works out cheapest by a hair, but if you can spare a couple of extra quid and stand to wait a bit longer Pan F is beautiful stuff for landscapes or anything with lots of detail. If there is a darkroom near you that do intro courses, definitely look into making prints once you have some negatives you are happy with - a silver gelatin print of an image you like is something really really special that cannot be replicated on a computer screen (in my opinion anway). You'll be running out of space on your walls in no time!

In reply to tehmarks:

Was lucky enough to acquire my grandads cameras Olympus om1 and om2 a year or so ago and im really enjoying taking photos with them.

Finding cheap film is a lovley fun process, lots of new film stores popping up as 'film photography' seems to be gettting more popular....

Big up @jandastudio in Sheffield for really affordable developing, processing, printing and scanning. They sell films and have some cameras in too from time to time!

Analouge wonderland are good albeit a lil pricey. as they use paypal i can get a big basket of film together and do a cheeky pay in 3.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Like I say, you have to argue with Spielmam staff because they don't understand that it's not b&w process. 

And c41 is a standard process, even for c41.  I regularly send off xp2 for c41 processing with no problem. Most websites point out that it's c41 on their price lists. 

Takeiteasy lab have a £3 difference between b&w and c41. 

I also use kirklees photography as their prices for 35mm and 120 are more favourable for colour with large tiffs as standard. 

I try to support different bits of the film community so I send batches to different places. They all have different pricing structures so I do it strategically based on format vs cost

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I love 35mm results of gig photographs - especially colour neg. Here's a couple of examples o drum scans of frames of 35mm. First is Portra 400, rated at 800 on a Canon A1 and 50 f/1.4

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/garynuman-infrontofcross-sm.jpg

and a full size version of my drum scanner
http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/garynuman-infrontofcross.jpg

A test scan from a client showing the resolution of an Olympius OM2 on old Superia 1600

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/35mm-OM2-Fuji-Superia-1600-6000dpi...
 

In reply to tehmarks:

Maybe start initially with 35mm black and white/colour neg, develop the films yourself, and digitise them on a flatbed scanner with an illuminated lid. I get decent results from my old negs and slides with my Epson V600 scanner. Later, you could add to the whole experience if you get to like it, by getting proper darkroom equipment:

If printing only B/W negatives (wet process), it's best to get an enlarger with a condenser head because the film's grain structure will be more defined on the print. Prints just have a better 'feel' from a condenser head. Also get the best enlarger lens you can afford (Schneider, Rodenstock or Nikon are excellent).  

Kodak Tri-X film was a real B/W classic, which if pushed from its native ISO400 to 1600 and above, the grain became beautifully defined. Tri-X is still available but expensive. There are ISO400 Ilford, Fujifilm etc equivalents.

Some B/W films have to be developed in C41 chemicals (which is actually a colour neg process) rather than the traditional processing chemicals like D76 or Rodinal. Personally I don't like them because it lacks the meaty grain of proper B/W film. You can't beat traditional films, traditional process and printing on fibre-based papers (which you have to glaze separately if needed).

Printing in colour needs an expensive diffuser head on the enlarger with dial-in filters to achieve good colour balance on the final print. Also colour paper processes are more complicated and time consuming.

I hope I haven't put you off!

In reply to tehmarks:

Over the years I shot, developed and printed hundreds of rolls of Tri-X, first as a photo student then aspiring professional - wonderful film.

The one trick that surprised and delighted me was so called "N+1" development: I made some beautiful landscapes in a park by moonlight only using Tri-X and monkeying about with the development.

It might be worth your while getting a book like Upton & Upton's Photography - any early edition would be fine, and cheap. All you need to know to get started developing your own film is in there. The process is straightforward, logical, simple. One just has to be fastidious. It doesn't even take up much space - over the kitchen sink is fine.

Have fun with it !

In reply to tehmarks:

All very helpful replies, thank you! The practicalities of film struck me the other night when taking a photo of the Pico de Postes just after sunset. Beautiful colours with Fuji's in-camera Velvia simulation...with the camera at 1600 ISO and as slow a shutter speed as I could get away with handheld. The need for a tripod with film suddenly became very apparent!

I'm quite excited to have a play when I get back from France. It's always fun learning new skills and being creative in new formats. I found this last year when I took up drawing again for the first time since school, and I think film photography will prove to be similarly rewarding (if more expensive than a few pencils and a sketchbook).

I noticed the Analogue Wonderland subscription the other day; that seems like a fun way to get to experiment with a load of different film stocks.

In reply to tehmarks:

After shooting digital for some time my son gave me a Canon EOS 500n film camera. I can use my normal Canon EF lenses with it. I mainly use it for street photos. It’s a totally different process to shooting digital. Generally I find myself slowing down thinking about the shot much longer and I walk away from a lot more shots than with digital. I got shown how to develop the film but for me it seems too much faff so drop the film of at Harrison Cameras in Sheffield and get them to develop the film and give me the digital files or I just get them developed and do the digital bit using my sons kit. I recently shot a street set in Cleethorpes walking the route first with my Canon mirrorless and then walking the same route with the film camera. The light was pretty similar for both sets  I was pleased with how the film set compared to the digital set. I tried some portraits out a couple of weeks ago and quite liked them. I probably would not do landscapes using film. Although digital will be mainly what I take I have enjoyed taking shots with film again and I’ll certainly carry on using it especially for street photos.