Jump to content
Ensign_Cthulhu

The tragedies in a film photographer's life.

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

18,724
[ARGSY]
Members
25,717 posts
19,815 battles

1) Loading the film incorrectly (so that it never wound on and no pictures were actually taken).

2) The badly timed opening of the film back (all your pictures are gone).

3) The messed-up developing (all your pictures were taken, but they are either gone or pale shadows of their former selves).

4) The double exposure - Did I use this roll already? Naaah, couldn't be; the film leader might be sticking out, but it doesn't look AT ALL like it's already been through the camera. She's good to go, isn't she?

ISN'T SHE?

 

Got #4 tonight. Dammit! Second time I've done that!

Next time the leader gets wound all the way back in. Given that I'm using reusable cassettes and I can pry them open easily, there's no excuse.

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,034
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
28,473 posts
14,971 battles

A local photographer was up north of Duluth to get some pictures of the aurora but when he downloaded them to his computer they were all darker than they should have been. He forgot to take off the polarizing filter he had been using earlier in the day. :Smile_facepalm:

Edited by BrushWolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,431
[CO-OP]
Members
3,960 posts
32,014 battles

You can add:

  • Running out of exposures (thought I had a new roll, when I was really on exposure 20)
  • Programming for several exposures in a time sequences, but forgetting to hit the activate button.
    • --or having your batteries die halfway through the sequence.

These are some of the reasons that I've switched to a digital SLR.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,313
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
15,803 posts

I once had had several thousand dollars worth of 35mm photo equipment, including a dive camera. I even learned to develop and print my own film. However, when digital cameras got cheap enough to warrant buying one I sold/gave away all my 35mm gear. It's been over ten years now and I've still not bought a digital camera. I don't even own a smart phone. I used to take lots of photos, especially underwater ones, but I guess I've just lost the bug. A lot of this I think is attributable to the Internet, where I can easily find an better photo of anything that I'd want to take a picture of.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,437
[WPORT]
Members
11,726 posts
16,062 battles

Becoming fond of Agfa film for my 35mm cameras.  :cap_haloween:
Learning that Agfa stopped making film for my 35mm cameras.  :Smile_sad:

I've since switched to using Digital cameras.
But, taking a photography class, several years ago, helped me take better pictures with both film and digital media.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,196
[WORX]
Members
14,388 posts
20,956 battles

Film photographgers exist ??? They're alive ???

Oh wow, since Kodak is belly under, you would think they would be a part of history... Museum History...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,385
[SYN]
Members
3,775 posts
25,305 battles
6 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Film photographgers exist ??? They're alive ???

Very niche now and digital has so many advantages over film.  But unless you want to invest $10,000+ into digital equipment film quality is still better (if quality is your only measure).

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,034
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
28,473 posts
14,971 battles
9 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Film photographgers exist ??? They're alive ???

Oh wow, since Kodak is belly under, you would think they would be a part of history... Museum History...

Yes, there is a small but fanatic group of photographers that still work in film.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18,724
[ARGSY]
Members
25,717 posts
19,815 battles
1 hour ago, HamptonRoads said:

These are some of the reasons that I've switched to a digital SLR.  

Oh I went digital back in 2005 or thereabouts, but I clung to my film camera until it died in 2007 and then I went back again four or five years later because my late father in law had a Pentax camera and the lenses for that system are still compatible with all Pentax digital SLR bodies. After a gazillion rolls of colour film, I decided I wanted to give home developing a try (I scan the negatives with a macro lens) and so I've got a healthy few dozen film rolls under my belt.

Just as well, because colour film in any store is almost impossible to get now. All local colour stock in my town has long since been bought out and shot (probably by me, LOL), but there is still a strong demand for black and white, and I can order it in 100ft rolls from specialist suppliers and spool it into reusable cassettes myself.

4 minutes ago, Camo68 said:

But unless you want to invest $10,000+ into digital equipment film quality is still better

That's debatable. If what you want is 6x4 glossies for the family album or something to put up on Flickr, a relatively inexpensive APS-C digital camera will hold its own against 35mm film any day. Once you start getting into 120 roll film or single-loaded bellows cameras, then yeah, it starts to get very expensive if you want equivalent quality from digital. Then there is a shifting middle ground. It all depends on your application. 

Edited by Ensign_Cthulhu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,431
[CO-OP]
Members
3,960 posts
32,014 battles
16 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Film photographgers exist ??? They're alive ???

Oh wow, since Kodak is belly under, you would think they would be a part of history... Museum History...

Yes.  I still use an old Minolta/Sony for some specific shots (especially in multiple exposure/time lapse.)  I find the resolution to be superior to my DSLR, but for most instances (vacation keepsakes, family get togethers) a digital will serve 99.9% of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,196
[WORX]
Members
14,388 posts
20,956 battles
7 minutes ago, HamptonRoads said:

Yes.  I still use an old Minolta/Sony for some specific shots (especially in multiple exposure/time lapse.)  I find the resolution to be superior to my DSLR, but for most instances (vacation keepsakes, family get togethers) a digital will serve 99.9% of the time.

Are there film "support" for film users after the demise of Kodak ??? Is there a Film producer/company that is filling the void left from Kodak?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,437
[WPORT]
Members
11,726 posts
16,062 battles
Just now, Navalpride33 said:

Are there film "support" for film users after the demise of Kodak ??? Is there a Film producer/company that is filling the void left from Kodak?

I was doing some searching during the past several minutes.
1.  Yes, film is still available via a variety of local and online retailers.
2.  It is more expensive now.
3.  Selection may be limited, especially if one remembers the heydays of the 1970's/1980's/1990's.  
4.  I found more variety of black & white films than I did of color-negative 35mm films, in my searching tonight.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,431
[CO-OP]
Members
3,960 posts
32,014 battles
8 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Are there film "support" for film users after the demise of Kodak ??? Is there a Film producer/company that is filling the void left from Kodak?

There are a number of private film labs locally.  You can still get film from some specialty camera stores.  I have a small stockpile of ASA 400, 800 and a couple of rolls of 1000.

Edited by HamptonRoads
  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
435
[V_V_V]
Members
1,183 posts
18,597 battles
20 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Are there film "support" for film users after the demise of Kodak ??? Is there a Film producer/company that is filling the void left from Kodak?

Fujifilm says it expects to be able to allocate stock of Pro 400H in the 120 format to last through the end of 2021, but the 35mm format has ceased production and sales as of January 14, 2021.

Maybe that's why I haven't seen the Fuji blimp lately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,196
[WORX]
Members
14,388 posts
20,956 battles
9 minutes ago, Charon2018 said:

Maybe that's why I haven't seen the Fuji blimp lately.

This was a cost cutting measure... The price of Helium is to much, the stocks of helium is to scarce for maintaining air ships...

I know right...

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,313
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
15,803 posts
2 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Once you start getting into 120 roll film or single-loaded bellows cameras, then yeah, it starts to get very expensive if you want equivalent quality from digital. 

Ansel Adams oftentimes did direct prints from 8x10 view camera negatives. Unless you have a multimillion dollar scientific or spy camera, I don't think you are going to find a digital with anywhere near that kind of resolution. However, most people are just fine with viewing pictures on their tablets or computer screens.

Speaking of spy cameras, my photojournalism professor was once in military intel. He said that the photos they took were printed at a very low contrast level in order to show subtle differences in shadows that might indicate things that they were looking for like missile launchers and silo covers. Those prints weren't exactly "pretty" but they were useful.

Speaking of expensive cameras, the one's used for sports photography have always been right up there because that's where the money is. When I was into wildlife photography I would have loved to have had one of those outfits you see them using at football games. However, at an adjunct professor's salary it would have taken me twenty years to save enough to buy one. That's why most of my photography gravitated to smaller things and underwater life that I could take a good macro photo of.

Edited by Snargfargle
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
435
[V_V_V]
Members
1,183 posts
18,597 battles
45 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

That's why most of my photography gravitated to smaller things and underwater life that I could take a good macro photo of.

Some of the digital cameras (e.g., GoPro) are reasonably priced, and their underwater images and HD video quality have amazed me.  My best buddy and his sons have taken theirs on dives around the world.  Of course the sky's the limit when it comes to lights and housings.

Edited by Charon2018
add text
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18,724
[ARGSY]
Members
25,717 posts
19,815 battles
6 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

Ansel Adams oftentimes did direct prints from 8x10 view camera negatives. Unless you have a multimillion dollar scientific or spy camera, I don't think you are going to find a digital with anywhere near that kind of resolution.

Yeah, film wins hands-down there. No contest. It's why 19th-century photographs are often so incredibly good; the negatives were freaking huge, and just about everything that survives today was shot from a tripod by someone who really knew what they were doing.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,437
[WPORT]
Members
11,726 posts
16,062 battles
24 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Yeah, film wins hands-down there. No contest. It's why 19th-century photographs are often so incredibly good; the negatives were freaking huge, and just about everything that survives today was shot from a tripod by someone who really knew what they were doing.

The "resolution" of film, or in photographic plates you refer to in vintage photography, is at the atomic level.
Chemistry & physics.

Digital photography is limited by the capabilities of the sensor.
Granted, sensor capabilities have improved in the past couple of decades.  But they haven't reached atomic particle depths of discernment, yet.
And when we do, the amount of memory taken up by such detail is often unnecessary or impractical (until the memory problem is solved, and then the inventing process continues to the next problem, eh?).

Still the fundamental principles remain.
Properly expose a film or digital sensor to the proper amount of light for an appropriate duration of time in order to record an image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
140
[WTAF]
Members
310 posts
9,933 battles
58 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

The "resolution" of film, or in photographic plates you refer to in vintage photography, is at the atomic level.
Chemistry & physics.
 

Agree with you that film has higher resolution than digital but the resolution of film is not "at the atomic level". Silver and dye particles that form the images in film are on the order of a micron, 0.2 to 4 microns or so. Atoms are about a thousand times smaller than that, sub-nanometer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,437
[WPORT]
Members
11,726 posts
16,062 battles
15 minutes ago, Kenrod_Melrocity said:

Agree with you that film has higher resolution than digital but the resolution of film is not "at the atomic level". Silver and dye particles that form the images in film are on the order of a micron, 0.2 to 4 microns or so. Atoms are about a thousand times smaller than that, sub-nanometer.

Thanks for the clarification.  :Smile_honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×