Does anyone here still shoot film?

Playin around with my Nikon Fe

5510532269_b86f097f8c_b.jpg
 
Ha I love when I dont have to excessively explain everything. If I took the karma system even remotely serious I would give you +k. Oh and my comment had nothing to do with Michelles shots, I just happened to post after her. Though I've always considered turning a shot upside down to be very gimmicky and a last ditch effort to make things more interesting, planned or not. But even that claim seems even less relevant solely based on the fact that I had slight respect for it being shot on color film. Looks like I need to take my own film blinders off as well.
 
BUMP!

Really want to get into film. Is going straight to medium format a bad idea instead of getting something like an AE-1 first?

I found this on my local craigslist. Anyone wanna chime in on if its a good deal or not?

Mamiya m645 medium format camera with meter prism finder and 3 lenses:55mm F2.8/80mm F2.8/150mm F4. Camera was recently cleaned and calibrated by a licensed repairman. Also includes 2 film holders (1 for 120/1 for 220), L-Grip and Flash bracket, as well as 2 focusing screens (1 diagonal prism and 1 grid). I will also throw in a bag and a few rolls of film. Also feel free to make an offer!

potatos.jpg


Thanks for looking!
 
5714359787_364a5e8767_b.jpg


5818806941_44ac18f5fa_b.jpg


5818808565_493edc8de4_b.jpg


5818810761_a749628812_b.jpg


And my personal favorite...

5819372086_46d8ef0403_b.jpg


These were shot using a pentax k1000

All but the skiing one were ektar 100iso color film

Every one except the flower were shot on a pentax 50mm f/1.2

The flower was shot using a Vivitar 70-150 f/3.0 close focusing lens (not quite macro)
 
Anyone here have a negative scannner? I'm looking into purchasing one for fast quick views and photos I don't feel like actually enlarging, figured I'd ask for opinions. I've used te Plustek OpticFilm 7600i Ai Scanner, and loved it.
 
If you want to go real cheap get an Epson 4490. Does 35mm decently and medium format a little better. Or upgrade to a Epson V700. This scanner kills it with everything for the price. I can't really talk on dedicated 35mm scanners though since I've only used the Nikon Coolscan V, and those run upwards of $1500 but they are the shit.
 
Yeah I looked at those, but I'm not a fan of flatbed scanners. I prefer dedicated scanners that concentrate on one shot at a time.
 
i took these last year on a canon eos film slr:

1307988068-944020-600x401-1307987958CNV000082.JPG


1307988092-944022-597x400-1307987896CNV000052456.JPG


1307988137-944023-600x401-1307987817CNV000301.JPG


1307988169-944024-600x401-1307987699CNV000071.JPG


1307987764-944018-600x401-1307987588CNV000081.JPG


i don't really consider myself as a very good photographer but i like these images, and i love using film. i also have a pentax slr and a holga medium format camera, but none of my stuff i've done with them is on my computer.
 
wat...

I don't know about that camera specifically, but that's a pretty damn awesome kit, if you decided to pick it up. I would love to shoot with that kit.
 
I own a Mamiya 645 Pro TL with a few prisms etc... and love it. Medium format is so much better than 35mm. Only drawback for a beginner is that 12 exp. rolls, not the best for making a bunch of errors. But that kit you found on craigslist is a great way to get into medium format stuff.
 
I'm just about to start shooting 35mm....

....motion picture film. AWWWWW YEAHHHHHHHHHHH
 
Quite a bold statement right there. Both have their purpose but I wouldn't say medium format is better than 35mm.
 
I didn't mean that 35mm is better than medium format, both have different places in photography but neither is superior to one or the other. Sure the negative might be bigger but there are quite a bit of "downsides" to shooting medium format as well. The same applies to 35mm and even large format, it's all personal preference and each has their own uses.
 
35mm is better than medium format for 98% of the people on this site. Try shooting skiing with film from a waist-level viewfinder if you don't believe it.

And as far as image quality goes...I hate to say it, but higher-end 35mm digital is getting pretty close to the quality of medium format film. Medium format digital looks amazing, but it's a huge pain in the ass to use.
 
only thing i can really think of is when your in a smaller town you have to send the film out to get it developed because there aren't as many places that do medium format.
 
35mm is "preferred" 98% of the time by people on this site, due to the more care needed in medium format. I have shot skiing with my medium format "film" camera on a multitude of occasions. Even many other sports as well. Have not had any issues whatsoever. Medium format is not limited to a waist-level finder... I have a waist viewfinder, along with two other ae viewfinders that you put to your eye. As long as you compose a shot with a waist-level on a tripod for skiing, you're golden.
There is no such thing as a 35mm digital camera, unless you're referring to a cinema video camera.
My 1ds mk3 doesn't even come close to my medium format film, and it's 21MP. You are correct that medium format digital is amazing, although it's no different to use than any other digital slr.

 
I believe the main topic of argument between 35mm and medium format was not the ease of developing, but the quality between them. For anyone truly interested in film, they develop themselves. Removing the issue of finding someplace to develop it.
Ritz develops medium format, and they are everywhere...
 
Sure with medium format you're going to have a bigger negative and better resolution but 35mm is much more convenient in every aspect. The ease of picking up film at any store to developing and even scanning. Medium format is great, don't get me wrong, but I'd much rather prefer a 35mm negative then to a 6X6 negative or any other medium format negative size for the most part. Plus I can fit a 35mm rangefinder in my front pocket while I'd have to clear out my camera bag for a full Hassleblad setup. I love both but no way other than a bigger negative, is medium format "better" than 35mm. I know my local Ritz doesn't process 120film but then again even if they did I would never take it there. Like I stated before, both have their place in photography but both have pros and cons.
 
I think Bryant is just saying that if you're looking for resolution, a good medium format film is going to give you more information than a good 35.
 
yeah ahha thats true, but i was just saying thats the only downside at all for me, and the closest ritz to me is about 60-70 miles away
 
Walmart does it too. I don't know about you guys, but everywhere I've ever been that develops 35mm, develops medium format. You ask for them to ship it out, and they can either have it ready for pick up there, or delivered to your house, in under two weeks.
 
borrowed a friend's Canon 310XL camera and bought 6 rolls of Ektachrome 100d film to shoot Sasquatch Music Festival.
pretty stoked on how it turned out, i love how much it flickers. i have to keep it private obviously, so the password is: sassy11
/static/images/flash_video_placeholder.png
 
I tend to process very similar to 35mm film, does that count? Otherwise, no. I'd love to get me some Holga and 35mm soon though.
 
closest walmart to me is a 50 mile drive from me, dont mean to sound like im making excuses or anything but I also dont support walmarts because its what destroys america. And im saying theres no where i can actively walk into , drop my film off and a couple hours later have developed film, mailing out film ends up costing about 12 bucks before you even add in the cost to have it developed or sscanned. If i shot medium format a lot which i would love to do it would cost me stupid amounts to go through that process.
 
I lol'd. You can not be serious

There is no way you can argue against the shear quality of medium format. The dynamic range is much much greater, and the resolutions is still much better than any digital resolution (after scanning of course).

If you think medium format is inconvenient then you can go get yourself a 30 year old minolta off of craigslist and move to Brooklyn
 
Not sure what you're trying to do, but I clearly stated in my post that medium format does have better resolution so it's pretty obvious it's going to have a greater dynamic range. I even like that 6x6 negative but 35mm is still my personal preference.

There is no possible way you can argue that medium format is more convenient than 35mm (for most things). I would take a Leica over a Hassleblad anyday.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by convenience. I carry my Mamiya in my hand for hours. When I see a photo opportunity, I take the picture. Just like any other camera.
 
have you ever used a leica? Just curious.

I did not enjoy. And I'm not impressed with the lenses for the most part.
 
Which Leica did you handle? I should of stated, I'd take a M4 over say like a 501cm. Though I do love both, the Leica would fit my needs better. Surprised to hear you weren't impressed with the lenses though.
 
After getting the speil from the Leica rep about their 10 month glass cooling and platinum crucibles, I was expecting more than what I got. Really unimpressed with the results. I can produce better images with my nikon glass.

I played with the M9 for a day with a 35, 90 and 135.

Also played with the S (medium format DSLR) with a 35 if I remember. It had terrible CA and distortion... not impressed AT ALL.

Besides not liking the lenses, the sensor kinda sucks. I would never pay to shoot leica digital anything.
 
For reference - here's a full res shot from a friend who I work with who is a wonderful photographer.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/urbanpirate/5727136104/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Take note of -

-How poorly the sensor renders the relatively poor lighting and clouds, as well as the details in the trees and pavement as they fall out of focus

-ugly bokeh

-strange blue coma in the highlights (socks and rims) not sure if this is lens or sensor.

- this photo is after taking it and fixing CA (which was present and noticeable). you can see traces in the corners.

 
Yes this. Leica's are highly priced due to their German design, which is one of the good things about them. On the otherhand, they make in small quantities and are primarily bought by a subculture that only shoots Leica because it's "Leica". Thus allowing them to charge absurd amounts. Hasselblad on the other hand is priced highly, because of everything about it is amazing. Build, quality, res..,, the list goes on.
 
Actually not too long ago my mom gave me her old Pentax k1000 and a 50mm f2 and like a 70-210 f4 and a few rolls of film that expired back in 2005. Haha I'm anxious to see how they're going to turn out like but I honestly have no idea where to get the film developed. Anyone know any places online I could send it too? Even better anyone know any places in massachusetts I could take it too? thanks guys.
 
is it color? you can get c41 processed pretty much anywhere still. walmart, drugstores, etc. e6 and traditional black and white are a different story.
 
Anywhere that develops film can develop e6 and b&w. They send it out to get developed and get it back to you within two weeks, rather than a few days.
 
Ya it is color! I didn't know walmart still did film developing. Haha I was literally there 10 minutes ago and didn't think to look! Haha I'm an airhead. I'll check it out next time I go.
 
As long as its not slide film then you can get it developed almost anywhere. And id be willing to bet if your mom shot slide film she would have just shot the last few rolls and not let them expire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top