Some questions about getting a Canon Film SLR

[John Mc]

I went back to film when i started at college this year (Aug) reluctantly at first,but then i started to warm to film,so much im enjoying it alot,still using my Digital alot,but the Film Slr has taken over abit,so much,ive got my own darkroom now,and im producing prints near enough every night

So i would suggest joining a darkroom,most have memberships and courses available to you,so you can develop your own prints and film.It certainly made me apreciate my own photographs more,knowing how much time and effort went into the shot

Just my experience so far,hope ive helped

 

[supraman215]

I went back to film when i started at college this year (Aug) reluctantly at first,but then i started to warm to film,so much im enjoying it alot,still using my Digital alot,but the Film Slr has taken over abit,so much,ive got my own darkroom now,and im producing prints near enough every night

So i would suggest joining a darkroom,most have memberships and courses available to you,so you can develop your own prints and film.It certainly made me apreciate my own photographs more,knowing how much time and effort went into the shot

Just my experience so far,hope ive helped

I think there's a lot of enjoyment to be had in the above mentioned process. Getting your hands dirty and learnning that process is a lot of fun. Short of the darkroom I can't see any reason to go back to film. In other words, if you're not gonna do the dark room, don't bother.

 

[mairead]

You won't learn anything about photography. The learning curve is so slow. you could learn in an afternoon with a digital what it might take you months in film. Just because you have the option of shooting 100 pics in a few seconds, changing settings, checking your results, etc, this is a POWERFUL learning tool, trial and error that is. If you really want to learn about photography digital is the only way to go. If you want to be some film elitist that says "I do film" for the sake of being able to say it then it's a good idea.

I can't quite agree with you there. I think the more accurate statement would be that learning digital is one way of learning photography. You can learn plenty from a film SLR -- what you're going to lack is the instant feedback, and you will need to have film processed or do it yourself. Neither of these things create insurmountable obstacles, even though they seem to get built up that way. Using film is another photographic experience and for some people one that's completely worthwhile. People have been learning photography and taking phenomenal pictures long before digital, after all.

 

[supraman215]

Of course people were taking great pictures before digital. :meh: Not sure what the point of that was.

People were also doing math before calculators. So? If I can use a calculator to get me the product of 345*251 faster than I can do it on paper then I'll use a calculator. Because the answer will be instantaneous. Why would I want to wait when I know the result will be the same?

Film is film, it was the ONLY way for a long time, and it had it's drawbacks because of it's format, those drawbacks haven't changed but because there is a better solution out there people have largely switched.

There are still authors who use typewriters. But if I wanted to write a book I'd use a computer. I'm not going to use a trypewriter then scan the pages in to a computer and OCR it. That is pointless. I'm just going to start with the computer. If I want a nice typewritten letter than sure I'll use a typewriter, but how often do I want that?

 

[John Mc]

I think there's a lot of enjoyment to be had in the above mentioned process. Getting your hands dirty and learnning that process is a lot of fun. Short of the darkroom I can't see any reason to go back to film. In other words, if you're not gonna do the dark room, don't bother.

I'd totally agree with you there,its not worth the money if your not doing it yourself.

 

[mairead]

Of course people were taking great pictures before digital. :meh: Not sure what the point of that was.

You were the one that said "digital is the only way to learn photography." *shrugs*.

People were also doing math before calculators. So? If I can use a calculator to get me the product of 345*251 faster than I can do it on paper then I'll use a calculator. Because the answer will be instantaneous. Why would I want to wait when I know the result will be the same?

Film is film, it was the ONLY way for a long time, and it had it's drawbacks because of it's format, those drawbacks haven't changed but because there is a better solution out there people have largely switched.

There are still authors who use typewriters. But if I wanted to write a book I'd use a computer. I'm not going to use a trypewriter then scan the pages in to a computer and OCR it. That is pointless. I'm just going to start with the computer. If I want a nice typewritten letter than sure I'll use a typewriter, but how often do I want that?

I don't think comparing cameras to typewriters and calculators works, as their functions are different. Photography has an artistic component that math and word processing do not have. It's possible to feel that one will get something out of using film, where as if you're typing a document or working out equations, speed and accuracy are all that matter.

I can see where digital makes complete and total sense in commercial settings where time is of the essence, and I understand that in general some really prefer digital -- I have no problem with that. However, when it comes to photography as a hobby and art form, film is still a valid choice. It just depends on which process you prefer, or if you feel strongly enough about digital to want to invest in new equipment.

 

[compur]

People were also doing math before calculators. So? If I can use a calculator to get me the product of 345*251 faster than I can do it on paper then I'll use a calculator. Because the answer will be instantaneous. Why would I want to wait when I know the result will be the same?

The result won't be the same if you don't know how to do it on paper and
you won't know how to do it on paper for long unless you continue to do it
on paper at least some of the time.

Film is film, it was the ONLY way for a long time, and it had it's drawbacks because of it's format, those drawbacks haven't changed but because there is a better solution out there people have largely switched.

Let's be honest. The reason the vast majority switched is because they
perceived digital to be easier, faster and cheaper.

And, since you enjoy using analogies -- eating at McDonalds is popular because
it is easier, faster and cheaper then preparing one's own meals. But, does
that make McDonalds better? Not to me it doesn't.

Watching TV is also easier, faster and cheaper than going outside and
doing things in real life. Does that make watching TV better than outdoor
activities?

Buying one of those keyboards that plays music at the touch of a button
is also easier, faster and cheaper than really learning to play. So, is buying
an automated instrument better than actually learning to play a real one?
Since it is easier, faster and cheaper should we dispense with all manual
musical instruments and just have those automated things around? Does
the invention of automated keyboards make a person a fool if he wants
to learn to actually play a real instrument? Or, is the fool the one with the
automated instrument who thinks it makes him a musician?

There are still authors who use typewriters. But if I wanted to write a book I'd use a computer. I'm not going to use a trypewriter then scan the pages in to a computer and OCR it. That is pointless. I'm just going to start with the computer. If I want a nice typewritten letter than sure I'll use a typewriter, but how often do I want that?

Look -- we film photographers know that digital is easier, faster and
cheaper than film photography. It's not necessary to keep telling us
that.

The point you seem to be missing is that there are other reasons for doing
things. Not everyone makes decisions based on which way is easier, faster
and cheaper. I know that may be hard to believe but it is true.

I don't shoot film because I think it's easier, faster or cheaper than digital.
(I shoot both BTW). I know that film is more difficult, slower and possibly
more expensive than digital. I do know this. I just don't make decisions in
this case based on those 3 adjectives as you appear to do.

 

[supraman215]

I just don't make decisions in this case based on those 3 adjectives as you appear to do.

Is it lonely on your pedestal?

I'd rather focus on getting good photographs than the crap that one has to deal with when using film. As mentioned by Derrel. Good photos, not how I got there, is my goal. If I have more of a chance to get better photos with digital than I think that's the way to go for me.

If I wanted to play around with film I think there are a lot of neat old antique cameras out there that would be fun, then developing the film from them might be cool. But I wouldn't just pickup a $25 Minolta SLR from 1992 and some rolls of color and take them to the lab just for the fun of it. To me that wouldn't really give one much of an experience of film.

 

[xjken99]

Well said compur. I shoot both and in the last year I have purchased a new 35mm slr and an advanced point and shoot digicam. Digital is easier, faster and cheaper not to mention the instant results. Plus the delete button is awesome. There are times I just feel like going out and shooting a lot of different scenes just to see what it looks like. Digital is perfect for that. Film requires a lot more discipline which in my case is a good thing. If the original poster wants to try film thats great. However do not spend a boatload of money, there are plenty of good to e xcellent quality used 35mm gear out there. If you decide film has nothing to offer then you are not out a boatload of money. On the other hand if you decide film is to your liking you can always upgrade to a better film camera.

 

[white]

I write often, and I'd use a typewriter if I enjoyed using the machine to write. Because it's about enjoying the process of creation. It's not just about the end product, even though some of you guys with hardons for digital photography insist otherwise.

You can learn a hell of a lot about photography using film, but the learning process takes place before you shoot a roll. And if you're a good little boy or girl, you take notes, and you learn even more.

Digital photography is like 1/100 of photography. There are so many interesting ways to make an image. So I just have to laugh at people who discredit film for being too inconvenient or whatever and ignore the principle reason people still use the medium in 2010. Like polaroids and a host of other alternative processes, people still find them interesting, people still see the potential in those mediums, and quite honestly, at least in my opinion, digital photography is really pretty damn boring compared to all these other processes. People really either shoot Canon or Nikon, and it's all starting to look the same.

 

[compur]

Is it lonely on your pedestal?

No, it isn't lonely at all.

This is a film photo forum. You've come here to declare that what we love
to do is inferior to your digicam because it is easier, faster and cheaper
than what we do. Such behavior is considered trolling on most forums I am
familiar with. What sort of response did you expect?

I'd rather focus on getting good photographs than the crap that one has to deal with when using film.

We know. You've told us that. This is a film photo forum. Since you are not
a film photographer why would we be interested in what you prefer to do
with your time?

As mentioned by Derrel. Good photos, not how I got there, is my goal.

Well, good luck on reaching your goal of making good photos. The digital
photo forums are elsewhere on this site. I'm sure you can find many
like-minded digital photographers there.

If I have more of a chance to get better photos with digital than I think that's the way to go for me.

Well, this forum isn't about you or what you prefer to do with your time
unless it happens to be film photography which you've made clear it isn't.
So, why are you wasting all that time you've saved using your digital
camera by posting here?

Like I said, we know digital is easier, faster and cheaper than film and
we know you prefer it and we know why you prefer it because you've
told us. Thank you for expressing your views. We got it.

If I wanted to play around with film I think there are a lot of neat old antique cameras out there that would be fun, then developing the film from them might be cool. But I wouldn't just pickup a $25 Minolta SLR from 1992 and some rolls of color and take them to the lab just for the fun of it. To me that wouldn't really give one much of an experience of film.

No, I think you should stick with your digital camera.

 

[John Mc]

This has turned into a Film vs Digi War!Which i Dont think the Op was out to start.
But i can say,that with my time using Film,ive applied my techniques and teachings ive learned from others to my digital photography.Instead of taking the shot i want 10-15 times,im taking it twice,and forgeting about checking my feedback screen,cause i know whats there,is what i framed,and what i saw,and what i want,it might need a few tweeks in photoshop,but its still what i wanted.im not regreting starting out on digital format,neither for not starting out on Film.

No answer or argument here is going to be the right one.i think were set to go into a Digi phase,but im glad ive learned this skill whilst its still around,i doubt my children(when i have them) would want to pick up a Film Slr and use that,but i dont think i'd blame myself for trying to get them to do it first

 

[Derrel]

Digitial is easier, faster, and cheaper. And better quality, with less work, and no damaged film or damaged negatives. No ruined originals, but as many perfect duplicates as needed. As well as improved prints over darkroom methods. To me, using digital 35mm systems is not about it being easier, faster,and cheaper, as much as easier,faster,cheaper, and BETTER. The newer d-slr's have easily,easily surpassed the B&W and color emulsions Kodak and Fuji have been able to come up with.

There's no film that can even remotely come close to a full-frame d-slr in terms of color richness and ISO speed...looking through some images on the Popular Photography web site the other night that were shot with a Nikon D3s and the 200-400mm f/4 Nikkor, I was struck by the absolutely AMAZING technical quality of the images under artificial stadium lighting. There is simply NO FILM on the planet that can produce those kinds of images. None.

There's a reason top-line EOS and Nikon film slrs now bring 1/10 of their original retail prices, and why paying more than $200 for a 35mm SLR is foolish.

 

[Infidel]

I think this debate is somewhat sidestepping the fundamental issue. In terms of objective technical merits, it matters not which format is superior. It really comes down to needs and desires of the individual photographer. For a professional photojournalist or wedding photographer, things like speed, cost and ease translate readily into net income. On the other hand, let's assume the hobbyist pursues photography for the pleasure derived from it...whatever form that may take, by whatever means. Shooting film doesn't make anyone an elitist...perhaps a purist, but not an elitist. I don't agree with the McDonald's vs. gourmet analogies either. To me, it's more like solid state vs. tube audio amplifiers, vinyl vs. CD, carburetors vs. fuel injection. By many objective measures, the newer technologies are better, but they also tend to lack a certain visceral appeal that pleases the purists.

If you like the smell of film and the sound of film advancing in the camera, shoot film. If you think the process of waiting to see your results will make your decision to click the shutter release that much more deliberate, film will necessarily constrain you in this regard. Alternatively, you can turn off your LCD, write down your exposure settings for each frame, resist changing ISO for 24 frames, put $$ in a jar for every 24 frames you shoot and pretend that you're shooting film. As mentioned above, if you enjoy the darkroom, shoot film.

 

[mairead]

Digitial is easier, faster, and cheaper. And better quality, with less work, and no damaged film or damaged negatives. No ruined originals, but as many perfect duplicates as needed. As well as improved prints over darkroom methods. To me, using digital 35mm systems is not about it being easier, faster,and cheaper, as much as easier,faster,cheaper, and BETTER.

Better for who and in what circumstances, though. It's going to depend on what you want you want to achieve, what you enjoy doing, what you're trying to get out of photography. Depending on the situation, digital might be the hands down best choice for a particular individual, but not all individuals are the same. Trying to say that one process is across the board better than another ignores the fact that people are interested in photography for different reasons.

I personally like using film. Working in the darkroom is great fun, and something that I've unfortunately not had access to in quite a while. Hopefully I'll be able to take another film photography class pretty soon, and if I had the space I'd be sorely tempted to try and set up my own darkroom. Sure not everyone enjoys developing film and making prints the old fashioned way, but for others it's a great experience and part of the art form.

Even without a dark room, I still like using my film SLR. I like the way my camera feels in my hands, I like the hands on quality that film brings to my camera time -- picking out which film to use, loading it in the camera, hearing it advance, the excitement of picking up the photos because I don't know exactly how things have come out. It definitely takes time to learn, and no you don't get instant feedback (and my photography skills are quite rusty), but it's rewarding all the same.

Digital can come in handy when I want to be able to immediately upload something to the net, but I don't feel as much a part of the process of picture taking -- the technology, as handy as it can admittedly be, gets in the way for me.

Now of course this is all personal -- other people don't necessarily feel this way. But seeing as how I get something out of continuing to use film, why should I discard it? Why should I limit what tools are at my disposal? Why should it be assumed that no one else can have positive worthwhile experiences with film just because digital works better for some others?

I'm not sure why this is even a debatable topic as it all seems to come down to personal preference. It shouldn't matter if someone wants to try film, and yet there seems to be a number of people who react in horror at the idea that not everybody has immediately dropped everything and gone purely digital.