Several months ago, a friend gave me her old Minolta SRT-202 camera. It has been quite awhile since I shot any film, but I forgot what a thrill it is to get the negatives back and see what worked and what didn’t. Since it was a classic camera, I decided to go with a classic emulsion (Tri-X) at a classic location (Denver Union Station). It was great fun to find a bunch of classic varnish when I got there! It fit the theme very well.
These were my 5 favorite shots from the 24 shot roll (a way better hit rate than with my digital gear…I think I’m a lot more careful about what I shoot with film):
Chris, thanks for the pictures. She must have kept the camera in a good place for it, so that the film is still usable. I do not know when I have seen black and white film available; it is difficult to find color film now.
The quotation from Ansel Adams is appropriate.
The pictures of the old cars bring back good memories.
I have been through Denver three times since Amtrak moved back into Union Station; only on the first trip (in April of this year) did I go inside the station building, and the work was not yet finished. Perhaps on my next trip I will feel I have time to really explore.
I used to have 3 otherwise identical images hanging on the wall of my sales room. One shot with B&W, one shot in color and printed in B&W, and one shot digitally and printed in B&W. I challenged by potential clients who wanted B&W photos to identify which was which.
Everyone eventually selected the digital image for their job.
Great shots Chris! Yeah, I love shooting film. We’ve got a digital camera but just haven’t gotten around to learning how to use it.
Personally, I think using film makes you a bit more disciplined, kind of like using a muzzle-loader instead of a semi-automatic. You’ve only got ONE shot brother, so you better make it count!
Film’s still out there, you just have to get out and look.
When I took a photography course at our local community college, our instructor shared a series of photos he’d taken at a college social function.
This was well before digital imagery had reached the masses, so was done with a standard SLR with a motor winder.
He pointed the camera at a woman attending the event who was not looking at the camera, then pressed the shutter, letting the camera shoot successive images (obviously on film). He probably took 10-12 shots, which used at least a third of the roll of film.
The series was most amusing, as the woman realized her picture was being taken and turned to face the camera with a surprised look on her face.
If I did the same thing today, I’ve got 60+ exposures available if I’m shooting JPG+RAW, and over 250 if I’m shooting just JPG. In fact, the only restriction I have is that my camera pauses after a dozen exposures to catch up on saving same…
I know that using film causes one to be more careful, but occasionally I’ll look at an image and wish I’d had (relatively) unlimited exposures available, 'cause I’d have taken so many more at that particular time.</
45 years after I started shooting with an Argus C-3, I’m still shooting film with a Canon A-1 and have not been tempted to go digital. I’ve managed to find an establishment near home that still develops film and they do good work so it’s not too hard to stay with what I know.
The previous contributors are right. Shooting with film demands a certain amount of discipline that forces you to think before you shoot. While I still get bad pictures from time to time, I would like to think that I’ve gotten better over the years.
Still using my old Leica M-3 and Fuji color film. It isn’t Kodachrom, but it works for me, and do scan at high resolution with a HP 1440 and use Photo Editor and Paint to make the corrections I believe appropriae. On occason I just obtain a CD directly without negatives from the photofinisher.
I’d be more convinced if the original poster had taken digital photos at the same time and displayed those with the scans of the prints.
I stopped using film in 2004 when I ran out of Kodachrome. I purchased a Canon EOS 10D in July 2003 after using EOS film cameras since 1996. Kodachrome stopped being sold in Australia in August 2003.
I have scanned a number of my slides and prints for publications in recent years and very few of these had the quality of even the 6 Mp EOS 10D, not even those taken on Kodachrome using the EOS 50 cameras using Canon lenses. Older photos generally taken on Asahi Pentaxes were often not as good as the film EOS shots.
A friend continued to use film (and Asahi Pentax Spotmatic cameras) until I gave him a Canon EOS 300D and a Canon 28-80 neither of which I was still using. I used a number of his photographs in a book and was able to compare the shots just before and just after his change to digital. The digital shots were better.
Of course, to get really good digital photos you need to use quality equipment and spend time composing the shots.
I would like to see a set of photos taken at the same time with film and a good SLR and with a current mid range DSLR (APS-C, not entry level) with an image stabilised lens.
Thanks, as always, for all the comments and discussion. I guess I should have clarified a bit when I said that I still felt that B&W film was better than digital, this was in overall “look.” Specifically, there are three areas where I feel that’s most true.
First of all, we need to remember that film has curves. E.g. when we record shadow and highlights in a given scene, it’s not a linear response. I feel this is most important in the rendition of highlights. With digital, there’s a top value for “light” for the three color channels. Once that limit is reached, there’s simply no more data available. Everything is just pure white at that point.
On the other hand, film’s shoulder allow some data to show through even in the strongest highlights. This is really important in high contrast scenes like these. There’s still detail to be found in the highlights in these photos. Certain films are really good at this, too. TMAX 400 and the old Super XX, for example, could build density to the moon (in the words of a large format friend of mine).
A lot of this is related to the second reason why I like the look of B&W film more than digital B&W. While it’s improving, the dynamic range of digital is simply not as good as B&W film. My current camera – a Nikon D600 – certainly offers a lot of DR. About 14 stops if certain websites are to be believed (I feel that 12 is probably closer to non-laboratory conditions). This exceeds most if not all slide film. However, the best negative films offer more. Having the extra data available offers a lot more options to the photographer when it comes time to use that data.
Finally, I like the look of film grain. Especially on certain styles of photos. Night shots seem to be one of those for me. Yes, you can simulate grain in post processing of digital images and digital luminance “noise” can sometimes look grain-like. It’s just not the same to me. Tri-X has a grain structure t
M636C wrote “I have scanned a number of my slides and prints for publications in recent years and very few of these had the quality of even the 6 Mp EOS 10D, not even those taken on Kodachrome using the EOS 50 cameras using Canon lenses. Older photos generally taken on Asahi Pentaxes were often not as good as the film EOS shots.”
Scanning, unless you are using very high end scanners, is not capturing the resolution available on many films so it is not surprising that your scans don’t equal the quality of the pure digital photograph. But if you make a 20x30 print directly from a Kodachrome slide and another from one of your 6Mp EOS 10D files I suspect you will see a significant difference in favour of film.
There are so many things that are made possible by digital that I cannot enumerate them. When shooting large groups of people you can easily fix the one person who blinked or looked in the wrong direction. You can easily add the person who was missing when the group was photographed. You can easily do spot color. When photographing a wedding processional where the background had an open door to a clear blue sky day. Shooting raw format you can make a file exposing for the outdoor light and then readjust the same file exposing for the indoor light. Making each file a layer they can be quickly and easily combined so the entire image is perfectly exposed. Color is easily corrected without messing with filters. Vignettes and selective blurring are easily added after the fact, and serious retouching such as rosatia or scars can be done in seconds.
It’s not too late Chris, “bricks” are still out there! Check out the antique shows, flea markets, et al, and I bet it won’t be too long before you find one.
The accessories, like the flash attachment, that’s a bit more difficult. The flash bulbs certainly aren’t made anymore, but they can pop up at the aforementioned venues, also at camera shows. I grab 'em when I can.
AMTK 92 at Denver Union Station by Christopher J. May, on Flickr
Boston and Maine at Denver Union Station by Christopher J. May, on Flickr
Union Station Couple by Christopher J. May, on Flickr
The New and the Old at Denver Union Station by Christopher J. May, on Flickr
Classic Varnish at Denver Union Station by Christopher J. May, on Flickr