For the purpose of this article, I’m defining “advanced” as
photographers who are comfortable operating a wide range of film
cameras. If you hand them a camera and they haven’t used it before,
they’ll figure it out in a few minutes and produce good results. You
don’t necessarily need to be a seasoned pro to be and advanced shooter —
you just need a decent amount of experience and a good knowledge of how
cameras work.
So here are a few types of cameras aimed at the advanced photographers.
Twin Lens Reflex
I
considered placing the TLR in the intermediate group, but they have a
few characteristics that make them worthy of advanced status. The main
one being the age of most TLR cameras out there. The other being the
amount of manual control due to the age factor and the typical design of
these cameras. Even so, they’re not terribly difficult to operate, they
just take a bit of getting used to. Most TLRs use 120 film to produce
6x6cm images, but some produce 6×9 with 120 film, 4×4 with 127 film, and
a few take 35mm film. Most are fixed focal length and fixed lens
cameras, though I know of at least one with interchangeable lenses.
A
lot of these cameras originated between 1930 and 1970, so don’t expect
too many modern features on them. Typically manual focus, manual
exposure, and generally without a built-in exposure meter. This “fully
manual” experience is mainly what makes a TLR more difficult to use than
other cameras. If you’re comfortable with shooting fully manual using
the sunny 16 rule, you’ll have no problem. They also have a quirky
viewfinder that will catch you off guard if you’ve never used a
waist-level finder before. The image in the viewfinder is flipped about
the vertical axis — so left is right and right is left. The first few
times using a TLR, you’ll catch yourself moving the camera in the
opposite direction from where you intend. As you pan left, the image on
the viewfinder appears to be panning right.
Aside from these
little learning curves, the TLR cameras are a real blast to use. They’re
very odd looking compared to a modern SLR and you’ll probably get a few
old-timers commenting on your camera as you walk the streets. The image
quality is generally very good if the lens has been taken care of —
some of my sharpest images have come from my ’56 Autocord. Another great
thing about a TLR is that the common 120 film is widely available
today, so they’re not terribly expensive to shoot.
Here are a few examples of Twin Lens Reflex cameras:
Photo Credits: bea-t, Geoffrey Gilson, curlybob0161, Coleccionando Cámaras, pluzz
Large Format
Most
of us know what a large format cameras looks like, but not many of use
have actually used one. These cameras are big, expensive, and time
consuming on many levels. The term “large format camera” is a
generalization for cameras that expose a negative 4×5″ or larger. Most
of these cameras are either monorail cameras, field cameras, or press
cameras.
The physical size of a large format camera means that you
won’t be taking one out for some candid street photography. They’re
big, and you typically have to set them on a heavy duty tripod (though
press cameras are more handhold-able). This also means extra setup time
before you can pull the trigger. The camera systems can also be quite
expensive, but there are some older sets out there for a decent price.
The film is pretty spendy too — plus you have to take developing and
printing into account. These cameras also bring a whole new meaning to
the phrase “manual control”… introducing tilts, shifts, and swings that
aren’t available on most other camera types.
But that level of
control is what likely draws in most large format photographers. They
aren’t limited to parallel lens and film planes, and they can control
much more of the image outcome. Image quality is another perk of large
format photography. The recording medium is so large, that even a small
4×5 is equivalent to about 200MP on the digital side. Large format
cameras are certainly among the biggest and best out there.
Here are a few examples of Large Format cameras:
Photo Credits: Eusebius@Commons, Eusebius@Commons, amanky, Rafal Stegierski, gtrwndr87
DIY Cameras
I’m
loosely associating DIY (Do-It-Yourself) cameras with the “advanced”
group because they have such a huge range of complexity. You can have
everything from a matchbox pinhole to a full blown large format. But the
fact that you have to make the camera yourself is why I’ve placed them
here.
Whether they’re made from everyday materials or manufactured
raw materials, you still have to make them. Some amount of “how cameras
work” knowledge needs to be there before you embark on your adventure.
Sure, there are tutorials and how-to’s out there on the Internet, but
that’s more of a kit camera than a DIY. A DIY is something that you
design and build yourself, even if you take bits of ideas from other
cameras or designs. Once your camera is built and operational, it’s
likely going to be extremely manual (and somewhat limited) in the
controls department.
The great thing about a DIY is the sense of
satisfaction you get. It’s a proud moment when you expose some film,
develop it, and find that it actually worked! The other cool thing is
that a DIY can be built on a shoestring budget, so you’ll have plenty of
extra dough for film.
Here are some examples of DIY Cameras:
Photo Credits: Miles Cave, makelessnoise, marcelaxavier, Random Acts of Photography, Goodimages
by: Brian Auer
The inventor of the first negative
from which multiple postive prints were made was Henry Fox Talbot, an
English botanist and mathematician and a contemporary of Daguerre.Talbot
sensitized paper to light with a silver salt solution. He then exposed
the paper to light. The background became black, and the subject was
rendered in gradations of grey. This was a negative image, and from the
paper negative, Talbot made contact prints, reversing the light and
shadows to create a detailed picture. In 1841, he perfected this
paper-negative process and called it a calotype, Greek for beautiful picture.
Tintypes
Tintypes,
patented in 1856 by Hamilton Smith, were another medium that heralded
the birth of photography. A thin sheet of iron was used to provide a
base for light-sensitive material, yielding a positive image.
Wet Plate Negatives
In 1851, Frederick Scoff Archer, an English sculptor, invented the wet plate negative.
Using a viscous solution of collodion, he coated glass with
light-sensitive silver salts. Because it was glass and not paper, this
wet plate created a more stable and detailed negative.Photography
advanced considerably when sensitized materials could be coated on plate
glass. However, wet plates had to be developed quickly before the
emulsion dried. In the field this meant carrying along a portable
darkroom.
Dry Plate Negatives & Hand-held Cameras
In 1879, the dry plate
was invented, a glass negative plate with a dried gelatin emulsion. Dry
plates could be stored for a period of time. Photographers no longer
needed portable darkrooms and could now hire technicians to develop
their photographs. Dry processes absorbed light quickly so rapidly that
the hand-held camera was now possible.
Flexible Roll Film
In 1889, George Eastman invented film with a base that was flexible, unbreakable, and could be rolled. Emulsions coated on a cellulose nitrate film base, such as Eastman's, made the mass-produced box camera a reality.
Color Photographs
In
the early 1940s, commercially viable color films (except Kodachrome,
introduced in 1935) were brought to the market. These films used the
modern technology of dye-coupled colors in which a chemical process
connects the three dye layers together to create an apparent color
image.
Over
the past 15 months, I’ve burned a whole mess of film, with formats
ranging from 110 all the way up to 8x10! I’ve discovered firsthand the
kinks and quirks of each emulsion, and have found myself coming back to
certain favorites. Above all else, the film that I’m always shooting
some of is the new Kodak Portra. It’s been quite an interesting year
shooting it, so let’s just start from the beginning.
Last fall during PDN’s Photo Plus Expo in New York City, after doing a brief interview with these two crazy guys from New Jersey
talking about film, I raced back to the show room of the expo, hunting
for anything film-related. Much to my disappointment, many of the big
names in cameras and photo stores had nothing to show the film world.
Only a small handful actually talked film or had any new products to
promote. But just as I was giving up hope, a heavenly beam of light lit
up the midway as I approached the Kodak booth. Coming closer to the
unforgettable yellow glow of the booth, I was greeted by a friendly Keith Canham and his monster 7x17” ultra large format camera! Things could only get better from here.
Duane Polcou, Kodak's Scott DiSabato, and Keith Canham @ PDN's Photo Plus Expo
Talking
to Keith while still entranced with the deep-black carbon fiber beauty
he had brought along, I got to asking him why he was there with Kodak.
He was helping them promote not only ultra large format film orders, but
a new film as well! “New film?!?”, I thought, “I’ve got to get in on
this!” I said to Keith. With a smile, Keith guided me a couple of meters
towards the back of the booth where Kodak was handing out samples of
their newest emulsion, Kodak Portra 400.
With all this free film at Kodak's booth, who could say no?
Following
up my trip out east, I was on a mission to test this film to its
limits. I’d already seen what some of the very high-end wedding film
shooters had been doing with it, pushing/pulling and such, and thought
I’d give it my own try during the family holidays. At Thanksgiving, I
shot two rolls of Portra 400, one underexposed at ISO 800 and the other
at ISO 1600. Before sending off to Millers, my 120/220 pro lab, I consciously decided not to push the film
(process it longer to compensate for underexposure). “Surely there’s
going to be no usable images from these”, I thought. Much to my
surprise, however, there were a whole bunch of interesting, decently
exposed images, with grain finer than I’d seen shooting Kodak’s older Portra 400VC!
Considering I still had no clue how to properly filter the tungsten and
fluorescent light in this poorly lit conditions, Portra 400 still
managed to handle scanning and color correct in post processing very
well.
New Kodak Portra 400 shot @ ISO 800, no push processing.
Next
came Christmas shooting. I already knew what Portra 400 could do with 1
& 2 stops underexposed, why not try a full 3 stops? Two more rolls
were sacrificed to the cause, as I shot in fluorescent only light at ISO
3200. “Now there’s definitely not going to be anything there!” Again, I
was stunned at the CD’s and prints that came back from the lab. Plenty
of usable shots, all with 3 stops underexposed, and only 1 stop of push
(25% extra C-41 processing time). What did this mean for me
photographically? It meant I could now stick to one film and shoot at a
range of 400-3200 with the confidence that a fine grained, usable image
would be there!
This is where the real abuse
begins. Once 2011 hit, I was in full swing shooting Portra 400 whenever
I got the chance. I found myself regularly shooting it at 1600 with no
push, just to gain faster shutter speeds and sharper portraits. Heading
out east a few more times for FPP recordings and the NYC meetup
mid-March, I shot half a dozen rolls of the stuff, in 35mm, 6x4.5, and
6x6, with crazy ranges all mixed together! On one roll of 35mm Portra
400 in the trusty Olympus Trip 35, I took snaps of the FPP Meetup
adjusting the ISO on the camera from 200-1600 to match the changing
light, and ALL the shots came out great! When visiting Times Square with
Lauren late one Friday evening, I captured this splendid portrait you
see below.
"Lauren in Times Square" Kodak new Portra 400 shot @ 3200, 1 stop push!
By
April, I had: shot it ISO 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, processed it
in 15 year old C-41 chemistry, left it in the sun for a week, and yes,
even shot a roll at ISO 6400. Was there anything this new Portra 400
could not handle? With near “digital” ISO latitude, pleasing rendition
of skin tones, and the ability to maintain stunning highlight detail, it
was safe to say Portra 400 was my new go-to film. But just then, new Kodak Portra 160 hit the market! Just like its higher speed counterpart, Portra 160 quickly found its place in my camera bag.
FPP Gang at Macs Diner - New Portra 400 shot @ 6400, 2-stop push!
Going
much easier on this “slower” emulsion, I didn’t do too many crazy
things to the new Portra 160. On occasion, I did take some shots ⅓ to ⅔
overexposed (ISO 80-100), but overall, this film handled much the same
way as Portra 400, with an even wider tonal range, and very soft, even
skin tones. I think this goes without saying, but the grain/lack there
of at 160 is pretty awesome too! Most of this summer, in fact, I’ve been
shooting Portra 160 for casual portraits, backyard barbecues, and good
‘ole summer fun. On a nice, sunny day, one can always expect perfectly
rendered blue skies, well separated highlights, and vibrant but not
overly saturated tones. Again, I try not to leave home without some form
of new Portra in my camera(s).
"Uncle Bob" on the Beach - Kodak new Portra 160 @ 100
So
there you have it, all the nuts-n-bolts of my experiences with the new
Kodak Portra 160 & 400 emulsions. If you haven’t tried it yet or are
still on the fence about shooting it, I implore you to go out and try
some for yourself. Whether you’re new to film or a long time shooter,
there’s something for everybody in these beautiful color negative films.
Even for those coming over from digital, Kodak Portra offers an easy
learning curve, a wide latitude, and results that speak for themselves.
If
you have any questions about these new wonder films, or would just like
to see some more examples of this film in action, please hit me up via Flickr, Twitter, Facebook, Google+, or email.
Happy shooting and long live film! Mat Marrash co-hosts The Film Photography Podcast (Internet Radio Show)
Monday, August 12, 2013
Take Free Courses. Earn Real College Credit.
Most free courses don't lead to college credit. Education-Portal.com's free courses do!
Regardless
of where photography training is found, students won't be able to earn
college credit from any sources. Additionally, most of these sources
expect that students already have a digital camera.
Free Online Photography Lesson, Course and Tutorial List
This
tutorial program is broken down into 8 categories that cover topics in
editing, equipment, exposure, lighting, composition, subjects and color.
Additional topics include red-eye removal, shutter speed, depth of
field, focus stacking, studio lighting and rule of thirds. Most lessons
offer training through written descriptions, pictures and diagrams. This
website also provides video tutorials for students looking to delve
into photo editing.
This
program offers training though audio lectures and lecture notes. Most
required readings are also provided through free online resources.
Students can test their skills by working on homework assignments and a
final project. Since this is a free online course, students won't be
able to participate in any in-class activities, related presentations,
guest lecturers or exams. This course covers topics in wavelengths and
colors, optics, lenses, coded and infrared imaging, lightfields and
hyperspectral imaging techniques.
Students
following this course can develop their skills by using interactive
diagrams and educational text. They can also test their knowledge by
studying midterm and final exam slides, completing weekly photograph
assignments and answering final exam practice questions. Topics covered
during this course include spatial convolution, thin lenses, gamut
mapping, color matching, telephoto zoom lenses, phase detection and
depth of field.
This
tutorial covers topics in understanding camera settings, proper
focusing techniques, exposure compensation, RAW file formats and
techniques for beginners. This website also provides students with lens
reviews, camera comparisons, lens suggestions and photograph editing
software suggestions. Most lessons are presented with photographs and
training articles.
This
course is separated into 5 lessons covering basic composition rules,
exposure, photograph composition, camera lenses and histograms. Each
lesson consists of diagrams, explanatory articles and a table of
contents. Most sections also offer students assignments that can be used
to develop and demonstrate skills.
This
website offers training through 12 lessons that cover topics in
exposure, shutter effects, balance, negative space, subject selection,
intent, depth of field, rule of thirds and diagonal lines. Each lesson
consists of brief subject explanations. At the end of each lesson, this
website provides exercises for hands-on training. If a student is new to
photography, they can also find a section that covers camera basics.
Most
of the readings required by this course aren't provided to students.
Students can find most of their education offered through 8 guest
lectures. This course also offers students general assignment guidelines
and student project examples. If the student obtains this course's
required and recommended readings, they may learn about storytelling,
lighting, landscape narratives, significant detail, site selection and
landscape poetics.
This
course was developed to show students how to document their experiences
through photography. Since most of the reading assignments are offered
through books, students may need to rely on concepts covered in this
course's lecture notes. Students won't be able to participate in
in-class lab sessions or meetings. This course also offers assignment
files for students who wish to apply learned concepts. Topics covered
during this course include image viewing, light and web design.
In the digital age, everything has been made easier.
We can contact our friends in an instant with a cell phone, find all
the nearby food chains in any place by searching the internet, and take
photos with just the touch of a button. But sometimes this easiness can rob us of basic knowledge.
For instance, even though you can Google all the food chains close to
you, you might miss out on the mom and pop places that have the best
food. Or you may go to the closest Burger King even though the one
further away has a much shorter drive-thru line.
There
are just some things that need to be done the old way for you to learn
the basics, and photography is one of those things. If someone asked me
the best way to learn photography, I would not quote them books or
online forums or even specific ways of shooting. I would give them two
pieces of advice: Get a film camera, and experiment by shooting a lot.
This
is not to say that you can't learn photography with a digital camera.
You certainly can. But I believe you can learn more and learn faster
with an analog camera. Even after shooting with digital for years, I
felt like my photography improved after using a film camera and here are
some reasons why:
Manual settings:
With
many film cameras, you are forced to manually set the aperture and
shutter speed by using a light meter. Having to do this every time you
take a shot really gives you a good understanding of aperture, shutter speed, and exposure. And if you shoot enough in a variety of situations, you will be able to properly meter a scene just by looking at it.
Of
course you can shoot in manual mode with digital camera too. But the
fact that you don't have to makes a lot of people choose the automatic
settings. There's nothing wrong with this, except that you won't learn
the basic of the exposure triangle.
Shooting Black and White:
When
most people start out in film, they shoot in B&W. Perhaps it's
because it's cheap, or easy to get processed, or they just love the look
it. Regardless, it's perfect for beginners because it teaches you how to see light.
Color photography can often be distracting, but when you take all the
color out, all your left with is light. Being able to see in black and
white is very tricky, but what you're really looking for is highlights
and shadows. Learning to see light an essential part of photography
because, well, that's basically what you're doing is capturing light.
Again,
you can do this with most digital cameras, but most people won't. If
you convert to B&W in post-processing, then you're missing the whole
learning process because you don't have to actively think about what
the shot will look like before you take it if you're just converting it
later as an afterthought.
Slowing things down:
Ironically, the biggest advantage of analog cameras is that that made them replaced with digital in the first place: Speed and convenience.
Nowadays, you can just snap, snap, snap, take a dozen photos in a
matter of seconds. No need to worry about how much space you have on your card. No need to worry if you mess up a shot because you can just take another one.
The most common way inexperienced photographers shoot with digital today is: shoot, correct exposure settings, shoot, correct composition,
shoot, change angle, shoot, zoom in or out, shoot, change angle again,
shoot. So by the sixth shot, you may have a decent photo. You may argue
that this is a great way to learn photography. That, because you can
instantly see what you've shot, you can correct it and shoot again to
get a better photo. This is true, but most don't learn very quickly, if
at all, with this method.
With
digital, you can always shoot, look, adjust, and re-shoot your subject.
ALWAYS. So why is there any need to learn why a photo looks bad if you
can just keep shooting until you fix it. Most likely you will never
remember why your first five photos looked bad, and you won't care
because the last one looks good.
With analog, you have 36 frames at the maximum. So you're going to make every shot count because you don't want to waste
any of those precious photos. It may sound like it wouldn't make a
difference, but it does. As soon as you put that camera up to your eye,
you will actively think about your exposure, about your composition, and
about if the photo will even be worth capturing. You will think about everything before you push that shutter button because you won't get to look at it and correct it. In fact, you may never be at that certain spot or situation again.
I
promise you that this is one of the best things you can do to improve
your photography, even if you've been shooting for years. I have
thousands and thousands of of digital photos on my computer. But I often
consider my film photos some of my best work and my favorite shots.
This free website's biggest source of support is when you use those or any of these links when you get anything, regardless of the country in which you live — but I receive nothing
for my efforts if you buy elsewhere. I'm not NPR; I get no government
hand-outs and run no pledge drives to support my research, so please
always use any of these links for the best prices and service whenever you get anything. Thanks for helping me help you! Ken.
Note: This article talks about shooting color print film and converting it to digital in an hour at Costco.
For serious photography, I use Fuji Velvia 50 slide film, and have it processed and scanned to digital at NCPS,
who also does mail order. NCPS also develops 120, 4x5" and larger slide
(E-6) and traditional black-and-white film, while Costco only develops
35mm color print (C-41) film. NCPS costs a little more than Costco, but
can give even better results. Remember, most of this article is about
free, but if you're willing to shell out a few extra dollars, go for
NCPS if you prefer.
Shooting Fuji Velvia 50 and having the scans made at NCPS gives the same results as shooting an $8,000 Nikon D3X with 24MP.
Now that people are unloading their old, unused gear on me,
and that I'm buying it because it's so darn inexpensive, I've
discovered that digital minilab technology has made shooting film much,
much easier than it was when normal people stopped shooting it in 2003.
Today I can drop a roll of color print film at my local Price Club (called Costco
outside of San Diego), and go to lunch. By the time I return, I have a
gold archival CD loaded with high-resolution digital images and a set of
great 5x7" prints for less than what they charge just to make those same prints from other digital files.
Here's
the breakout: a 24 exposure roll of excellent Fuji 400 film sells, with
a coupon, for a dollar a roll in six-packs. No coupon? Then it's a
whopping $1.33.
The processing is $1.59, the prints are 15¢ each
and the CD with the scans is $2.99, or a total of $8.18. Costco has a
coupon for $1.50 running through most of September, so that means the
complete cost for processing, printing and scanning is just $6.68. Add
the cost of film and you're into it for only $7.68, or 32¢ a print,
including film, processing, printing and scanning. I usually get 25
frames, which at only an extra 15¢ a print lowers the average cost to
31¢ a print. If I was a big spender and shot rolls of 36, it would be
even less.
You walk away with your images archived three and a
half ways: digital files, negatives, archival Fuji Crystal Archive
prints, and an index print. The prints alone from digital files cost 39¢
for a 5x7," and usually run a dollar if you still use dedicated photo
labs.
They do this for us while we shop or have lunch. Do you have
any idea how long it would take me to do all that scanning and
archiving myself?
The CDs are very nice. They are now imprinted with thumbnails of all the images.
CD with JPG files and imprinted thumbnails.
How Good Is It?
The
CD is great. There are various bogus files on it, which for all I know
include editing software. I ignore them. All I do is copy the JPGs from
the QSS_CD > DCIM > 100NORIT folder to my computer. It's not like
the old Kodak Photo CD which used bizarre file formats; these are
universal high-quality JPGs.
The files are 4.5MB JPGs at 3,089 x 2,048 pixels. File size will vary with the detail of the image.
How good are the scans? I was amazed when I compared the scans from a $5 Olympus Trip-35
I got at a thrift store to files from my Canon 5D and L series lens.
The $5 camera was sharper in the corners, and the images only cost me
58¢ a piece, including the camera! See my report on the Olympus Trip-35 to see the examples.
Ryan Rockwell, photographed with the Konica Hexar on Fuji 400.
It
looks great to me. This is as shot and as scanned, no exposure or color
tweaks. I shot the Hexar at around f/2.8, so the background is
completely out of focus. Digital compacts can't do this. Here is the original 4.5MB JPG from Costco.
Film
is grainier than files from a digital SLR, but about the same as files
from a compact digital. These film scans are actually much cleaner than
compact digital camera files, since they don't have the excessive noise
reduction that smudges over textures in compact cameras. I like my Grain Surgery
plug-in for cleaning up grainy film like this. I ran the plugin at 33%
on the full size scan, and then cropped, resized and resharpened it
above. The original 4.5MB JPG is untouched.
So
far my results have been contrastier than I prefer, with somewhat
redder skin tones. I'm unsure if this is the way my Costco is
calibrated, or more likely, simply my choice of film. I do need to try
some Reala. I love the saturation.
Beach Towels at Costco, as shot and as scanned by Costco. (Hexar, Fuji 400)
The colors in this towel shot are almost scary. This is exactly as it came off the CD. I love it!
Last
light looks great. I see none of the awful hue-shifted highlights so
easy to get on digital cameras. Want to see detail from the old Hexar
and the cheap film and scans? Have a look at Costco's original 6.6MB scan. The image above is also exactly as it came from Costco, except for resizing.
These negative scans appear to have better highlight blow-out handling than digital cameras.
Inside-outside shot with harsh subject contrast.
I'm
not making this up. Here's a shot I made with and without fill flash.
This is as it came off the CD, no twiddling with levels or color. This
shot, without fill, looks perfectly natural. The fill-flash shot, not
shown here, looked forced. Heck, I doubt I could have gotten this on a
digital camera, although I didn't think to try. Next time I will.
These
scans employ excellent auto white balance and exposure correction.
Shooting negatives and dropping them off is like shooting raw and having
the lab do all the color, WB and exposure corrections for you for free.
Today's minilabs do some very clever things to alter contrast and
color, so depending on where you go, you may be able to get a look you
can't get any other way.
So far I haven't been geeky
enough to run any serious tests. I've just been having a ball annoying
my wife shooting with the Konica Hexar, which she hates because it looks
old to her.
Film Types
I have not tried this with better, slower film.
I've only used the ISO 400 Fuji film I got at Costco.
If I got serious about this, I'd try my favorite color negative film, Fuji ISO 100 Reala.
Filing Digital Files
I
copy the files from the CD into my computer and archive them in the
same folders as my traditional digital camera shots. It makes no
difference to me. I ingest them and they are treated the same way. If
anything, it's easier to pop in a CD than to plug in a camera.
If I had no computer, I'd use the index prints included to sort, and then print from the CD at Costco's Kiosks.
I
have a ball every time I order prints at Costco. Their kiosks make it
easy to get exact crops to fit the prints to the paper sizes. I don't
have to use a computer to get perfect crops and rotations.
Your Local Costco
I
get different results depending on the Costco I try. Some gave lower
resolution CDs depending on the original print sizes I ordered. At some
Costcos you may need to ask specifically for High-Rez scans.
If
you're not happy with what you get, ask, and if they're not making you
happy, try another Costco or another lab. Just like everything in analog
and film, everything matters. I'd try Wal-Mart, too, if I was near one.
I
found that the Costco down the street from Nikon USA's headquarters in
Melville, Long Island, NY also offers print sizes I can't get at my
store in California. They offer 12 x 24" and 12 x 36" panoramic prints
for $3.99 and $4.99. All the stores offer 12 x 18" prints for $2.99, my
favorite print size.
Slides
Sadly, Costco doesn't run E-6, so my Velvia goes to a real lab.
Costco will scan my slides for 29¢ a slide, with no charge for the CD.
Unfortunately,
the colors were great, but the resolution was sloppy. The images were
3,000 x 2,000 pixels, but appeared to be nearest-neighbor (blocky)
upsampled to that size. This is a great way to scan for the web, but not
for the serious stuff for which we shoot slides.
So where's the free part?
This
system of having Costco process my film and scan it costs less per
print than the cost of the prints alone. That's less than free!
Want a top-level professional camera? I'd suggest a used Nikon F4,
which you can get for less than I paid for my last CF card, just a
couple of hundred dollars. If all you've ever used are mid-level digital
cameras like the D200, the no-holds-barred professional F4 makes my D200 feel like a toy.
Want a lightweight take-along? Get a used Nikon N75, or any of the great film classics. I got my mom a used N55.
Today
the used prices of all film cameras are so cheap that it doesn't cost
much more to own a professional flagship Nikon like the F, F2, F3, F4 or
even F5 than it does to buy one of the dinky N-series film cameras.
Only the F6 still costs real money as of 2008.
I've been shooting this film in an old classic Konica Hexar which is here at The Ranch, full report coming.
This
makes you money. You could follow everyone else with all this digital
madness of blowing four figures on even the cheapest mid-line amateur
digital camera every year and a half, or spend a few hundred dollars on a
timeless film classic and be set for a decade. Guess what: when you
tire of the camera, your film classic will probably be worth what you
paid for it, while your digital will probably be worth less than the
film classic.
Even Cheaper than Free Solutions
This is cheap enough for me, and I like to see what I shot at 5x7."
If I was even cheaper, I could have them printed at just 4x6," or probably ask for no prints at all.
I
ask for 5x7" because I prefer them. Depending on your Costco, I've seen
scanned files come out smaller when I ordered 4x6" prints instead of
5x7."
I'm
going to be testing them against each other, but a $5,000 Nikon D3 or
$2,500 Canon 5D should give a much cleaner, grain-free image than these
film scans from Costco. Film isn't as clean as digital; digital sensors
of the same size are more efficient with photons.
Recommendations
Try it. If you like it, I just saved you $5,000 for a Nikon D3, and a lot more from day-to-day as you print.
You
do have to buy into being a Costco member for an annual tab. My wife is
a member, so I married her so I could get in for free.
Not
that this is the best solution for a serious pro, but it is a great
solution for normal people who want to capture digital files easily and
quickly. It's also a great idea for people who need handy digital files
and want a film camera's flexibility and speed, but don't feel like
throwing away a grand or more every year or so just to stay current.
There
are other advantages, like never missing a new shot while looking at an
old one on the back of the camera. No vacation nights wasted piddling
on a laptop to download and organize everything. No wasting time with
amateur DSLRs like the D300 and being able to step up to a battle-hardened F4 or F5 with their scaldingly fast autofocus and shutter release.
Want
to hit the jungle for a year? If I was out where there was no
electricity to recharge my digital camera batteries, the Konica Hexar
(review coming) claims to shoot 200 24-exposure rolls on a single tiny,
lightweight $2 CR2 throw-away lithium battery. I could jam my pockets
full of film and a couple of batteries and hit the road for a long time
without having to come up for air. The landmark Nikon F3 (or its little brother the FE or FE2)
runs for a year or more on two tiny A76 watch batteries, which I buy
over the Internet for 80¢ the pair. If I was in the woods, I'd drop a
spare set in my wallet.
These examples are from just a
few trial rolls of film I blew through a Konica Hexar I'm testing.
Picking the good ones to show here, even I'm impressed.
I prefer Fuji Velvia for my landscape work, but for snapshots or budget digital, give this system a try.
I
use Costco. Every other lab today offers similar services, although
they may not be as good or as inexpensive. I've always been embarrassed
when I paid extra for pro labs to process my negatives, and my pals got
better results at Costco. It's inexpensive, and good.
Services for Pros
For slides, and definitely not inexpensive, I've heard from a friend who uses them that The Icon lab in Los Angeles will take your film and do everything.
If
you're in LA, they'll send a courier to get your film, process it, scan
it and put the images for you to see via the internet. You then tell
them what to do with what: trash them, archive them, print them, drum
scan them, or whatever. They even will take care of my least favorite
aspect, storing it. They'll store it and index your film in their vaults
for you.
Icon is a premium service not for everyone,
but the great news is that even if you're out of LA and mail them your
film, you can get the quality of film with the convenience of digital,
so long as you're willing to pay for it.
The funny
thing was that my friend who uses them explained it all this simply, but
when I phoned them to confirm that I was putting up the correct link,
they didn't quite see it that clearly. You'll haveto set up accounts and
ask a bunch of questions to get it set up this smoothly.
Sunny México
You're even better off in México. A reader from Monterrey writes that the Costco there does this for 29.90MXN (~2.70USD) including development and cost of CD burning, also all done on Noritsu.
Down
there one can buy a 4 pack of Fuji ProPlus 100 for 64MXN, and develop
and get a CD with scans for 29.90MXN. The total cost per frame is then
1.28MXN which is 11¢ US. If you want 4x6 prints, you could add those for
1MXN per frame.
I wonder if I can do it online from the USA?
Help me help you top
I support my growing family through this website, as crazy as it might seem.
The biggest help is when you use any of these links when you get anything,
regardless of the country in which you live. It costs you nothing, and
is this site's, and thus my family's, biggest source of support. These
places have the best prices and service, which is why I've used them
since before this website existed. I recommend them all personally.
If
you find this page as helpful as a book you might have had to buy or a
workshop you may have had to take, feel free to help me continue helping everyone.
If you've gotten your gear through one of my links or helped otherwise, you're family. It's great people like you who allow me to keep adding to this site full-time. Thanks!
If you haven't helped yet, please do, and consider helping me with a gift of $5.00.
As
this page is copyrighted and formally registered, it is unlawful to
make copies, especially in the form of printouts for personal use. If
you wish to make a printout for personal use, you are granted one-time
permission only if you PayPal me $5.00 per printout or part thereof. Thank you!
The pictures below were all taken with my newly acquired Nikon N-60 film camera and a Sigma 70mm - 210mm auto focus zoom lens. Both were obtained from Ebay. The film used was Fuji brand (available at Walmart for only $10 for a box of 4 rolls) 35mm, 200 speed film. Feel free to download them as computer wallpaper or a floral screen saver/slide show.
This is what the Nikon camera body looks like...
and this is the lens.
This particular lens can also be used with some newer versions of Nikon digital cameras.
Detailed item info
Product Identifiers
Brand
Nikon
Model
N60 Body Only
MPN
N60
UPC
018208017126, 018208098224
Key Features
Camera Type
SLR (Single Lens Reflex)
Film Type
35mm
Lens Mount
Nikon F
Focus
Focus Type
Autofocus, Manual Focus
Shutter
Shutter Speed
30 to 1/2000 sec
Dimensions
Depth
2.7 in.
Height
3.8 in.
Width
5.8 in.
Weight
20.32 Oz
Miscellaneous
Additional Features
Focus Lock
This camera and lens combination are fun to work with. Until next time, happy shutter bugging.
Film as a photographic medium needs no introduction, but instead, a
re-introduction in this time and age of modern photographic gadgetry.
Forget about pixels, automatic exposure, and the so-called digital
darkroom, and go back to the days of film rolls, trips to the
laboratory, and actual photographic prints.
Before there were
high-tech image sensors, Photoshop, and EXIF data, there were
photosensitive plates, and eventually, photographic film. Back then,
snapping photos meant taking consideration a lot of things: which camera
to use, lenses to equip, film format, black and white film or color
film, and so on. Not to forget the technical aspects as well, like
setting and checking the ISO, aperture, and shutter speed before taking
the first shot.
Some of these considerations have certainly been retained and made easier
to calibrate in digital photography, leading to the shift from analogue
to digital and the belief that film is dead. But, is it, really?
Photo by Joy Celine Asto. Nikon FE2 + Expired Fuji Superia 400.
A quick
Google search of "film photography" will bring you several websites
offering information, tips, and tricks for those still interested in the
now specialized form of photography. Look for photographs taken using
all sorts of film in various formats and you'll be amazed to find so
many eye-catching ones. Online shops such as eBay are also stocked with
vintage cameras and films (both fresh and expired), suggesting that
there are still photographers buying, selling, trading, and using film
cameras. Oh, and don't forget the numerous camera phone applications and
image editing effects that mimic the hues and feel of film.
Then, there’s the long-running film photography movement called Lomography,
where the quirks of film—overexposure, oversaturation, overlapping
images, color shifts, grain, blur, and such--that many find unpleasant
are often embraced to make photos more striking. Instead of high-tech
cameras that produce near-perfect pictures, lomographers often use simple
plastic cameras and vintage cameras; and instead of digitally editing
the photos to sport a retro look or a vibrant hue, they use various
films to achieve their desired effects.
What makes film appealing
in an era where editing an image to perfection is almost paramount?
Part of its charm is the element of nostalgia—there's something
rewarding about going back to the days of loading and shooting a roll of
film, taking it to the lab, and waiting for it to be processed and
printed. Speaking of prints, many film photographers also opt to have
their snapshots printed, because for them, one can only truly appreciate
a photograph when comes in a tangible form.
Many also still
value the timeless quality unique to film photographs; anyone who's been
shooting with film will tell you that the photos have more depth and
"personality" compared to the digitally snapped (and altered) ones.
So,
where do all these lead us? It's safe to conclude that if you go to the
right places, stumble upon the right websites, and meet the right
people, you'll definitely see that film, while certainly facing a
challenging time, is not yet dead.
Article By Joy Celine Asto. Visit www.lomography.comfor more information.
Since
the dawn of widely available commercial cameras in 1999, long heated
discussion has arisen over whether or not digital image quality is equal
to what is produced by film. So, is film truly superior to film? The
answer is yes… and no.
Ways in Which Film is Superior to Digital
• Film is ultimately higher in resolution than digital. So, for
making very large prints, film currently can’t be beat. This is
especially true for photos which have a lot of texture that needs to be
preserved, such as landscapes.
• Film produces a “first-generation” image in that it is a direct
representation of the light that entered the camera, unlike digital.
• These days, even very high-end film cameras are usually less
expensive or the same cost as a new mid-range DSLR, and will not become
obsolete in only a few years time.
• The dynamic range of film, which is its ability to retain details
in highlights and shadows, is greater. Also, it is much more forgiving
of overexposure and will not blow out the highlights nearly as much as
digital will.
• Film is more forgiving of subtle focusing issues.
• You can double-expose film, which is something that the majority of digital cameras simply can’t do.
• Film cameras don’t require nearly as much power to operate, so battery life is much longer than a digital camera.
• Shutter lag is very slightly less than in digital cameras. This used to be a bigger issue than it is now.
• While this is purely subjective, some photographers believe that
film is a more “authentic” form of photography. However, the same line
of thinking was prominent in the very early days of photography when
painters complained that photography was lacking in creativity. Ways in Which Film is Inferior to Digital
• Film simply takes much more work to create an image.
• Prints from negatives are completely the result of the skills and
tastes of the person making the print. Unless you have the facilities to
make the prints yourself, you will almost always end up with a result
that you didn’t intend. This can basically ruin your image and render it
useless to you. The exception to this is slide (transparency) film
which is what most professional photographers once used.
• Storing negatives and prints, which all need to be laboriously
hand-labeled, can end up taking up lots of space for the avid
photographer.
• While it is possible to scan film into your computer and edit your
images in software like Photoshop, there will always be some loss of
image quality. This is true even if the most expensive professional
scanner is used.
• While the initial cost of a film camera is indeed lower, the
ongoing cost of buying and processing film will quickly add up to a very
large expense.
• No instant gratification. You must wait until the film is developed to see your photos.
Now that we have gone over the various assets and deficiencies inherent
in film photography, let’s do the same thing with digital.
Ways in Which Digital is Superior to Film
• Digital photography, for most applications, is much more
convenient. You can shoot hundreds, or even thousands, of images and
make prints that are a few feet on a side. Also, In this day and age
with so much of our work being shared electronically via email and
online galleries, digital cameras are ideal.
• The instant gratification of seeing your photos immediately after
taking them is very fun for most photographers. Combining this aspect of
digital photography with the ability to take as many shots as desired,
since each shot costs nothing, can greatly speed up the learning curve
for budding photographers.
• Digital cameras are usually lighter and a single memory card can store more photos than many rolls of film.
• It is easy to import your photographs into image editing software
such as Photoshop, and there will be no loss of image quality from using
a scanner. This also makes it easy to only print the photos you want
from a batch, rather than having to print and entire roll of film horrid
shots and all.
• EXIF data is recorded for each and every shot by the camera eliminating the need to record it by hand.
• Digital cameras are capable of higher speeds than film, so they
perform better in low-light situations. Also, it is very easy to change
speed on a digital camera whereas a film camera requires a completely
new roll of film.
Ways in Which Digital is Inferior to Film
• Digital cameras do a horrid job of handling highlights sometimes
and can cause an abrupt, rather than gradual, switch to white.
• While easy for film, long exposures are a real problem for digital.
Digital image sensors have tiny bits of leakage which can add random
white dots to your long-exposure photos. Also, long digital exposures
can cause a noisier image than film. This can be countered to some
extent by operating the camera at low temperatures, but this is not a
shooting condition that can be controlled.
• You can lose years of photographic work from a computer crash if
you haven’t backed up your files. While film photographers have lost
their entire body of work in the rare house fire, this is much rarer
than a hard-drive crash. Most people eventually experience a computer
crash.
• Digital cameras are generally more expensive than film cameras.
• Most DSLRs save images in a RAW format. Since each camera
manufacturer and model has its own RAW formats, storing your photos in
this form is probably not a good idea since they will possibly not be
readable someday. The JPEG file format is universal however and will
likely be readable for years to come.
In conclusion, neither film nor digital is ultimately “better.” Each
photographer must choose which photographic format that works for their
application, budget and personal preferences. It is indeed ultimately
the photographer and not the medium which defines what is quality. While
the use of film has significantly declined due to the explosion of
digital photography, it is certainly still has its uses and isn’t going
away anytime soon.
If you've been visiting this blog regularly lately, you're aware that I've been absent for the past 5 days. My computer gave up the ghost, so I've had to replace it. And, my oldest daughter gave birth to my grand daughter, "Emmelou Rose Fox", this past friday. So, for a few days blogging took a back seat to the rest of life. With that explanation, here's today post.
The following tutorial on how shooting film can help you improve your digital photography was submitted by James Kerr of Sweet As Photography. An avid digital shooter he has recently been experimenting with film photography to help improve his results.
Olympus XA2 - The 35mm Zone Focus Camera I Use
Taking
time out of your digital photography to shoot a couple of rolls of film
can be a liberating and educational experience. Below are a few ways
that digging out that old film camera from the attic can help you to
improve the quality of the digital photographs you take as well as some
of the benefits shooting film can bring to your photography.
Think Twice Shoot Once
Every
few months digital memory cards get both bigger in capacity and cheaper
in price. When shooting digitally we rarely have to worry about running
out of memory. As a result it is easy to slip into the habit of taking
(and keeping) many poor or below standard shots. In effect we can become
lazy and fall into the mind set that if you take enough shots you’ll
eventually get a good one.
When shooting with a film camera
however you are restricted by the amount of frames in your film
(typically 24 or 36 exposures). In addition you’ll want to avoid taking
more than one shot of a particular composition due to the processing
costs associated with film photography. As a result you will immediately
start thinking much more before pressing the shutter release button.
Results From A Recent Roll of Film
Get Back To Basics To Tune Your Photography Mind
Of
course you may decide to shoot a few rolls with an old SLR camera
however it is best to use an auto exposure 35mm compact camera. Such
cameras usually only require the user to select maybe one of three focus
zones (according to how far your subject is from the camera) and maybe
the ISO.
Using a simple automatic film camera removes the need for
you to make decisions before every shot about things such as white
balance, aperture, shutter speed, exposure compensation etc. By being
freed from such technical decisions you can focus all of your attention
on two things: selecting a truly interesting subject and ensuring the
composition is the most compelling.
Learn From Your Mistakes
By
taking just one frame of each scene you photograph, when you get the
prints back you will of course end up with some poor shots among the
good ones. When sorting through vast quantities of digital images it is
easy to forget to think about what went wrong with each of the rejected
images as you continue to hunt for a better one of the same subject.
Only having one frame for each composition forces you to think longer
and harder about why the shot didn’t work or what you could have done
better to improve the photograph.
Save Yourself Some Space
Shooting
digitally you can quickly start amassing thousands of poor quality or
reject photographs, that will never be hung up on your wall and will
probably never escape from the depths of your computers hard drive. As a
result of shooting film you’ll be taking fewer shots (hopefully of a
much higher standard) meaning you should have less need for huge amounts
of hard disk space.
Save Time With Post Production
As
discussed above shooting with film should help you increase your ‘keep
rate’, ensuring more of your images are perfect straight out of the
camera. Perhaps the key benefit of this is that you will have to spend
less time improving your digital photographs during post production.
Enjoy The Printed Images
When
shooting film it is easy to forget all of the photographs you took on a
film. Unlike digital cameras you can not immediately review your shots
on the back of the camera. There is nothing quite like the excitement of
picking up your film from the developing lab and having that first look
through the prints. It is also nice to have physical prints of your
photographs, something we as digital photographers rarely do.
bea-t, 
In the digital age, everything has 
uRBR7FGJDoiw~~60_57.JPG)
