(How) should I start with film photography?

Question

I've been toying with the thought of starting analog (film) photography for a while. Buying a film SLR and the equipment to develop and print the photos doesn't seem to be too expensive.

Now my question: Does it make sense to do this? Did anyone of you do this, too?

I don't really have a clue about the film equipment, as well as the development and printing processes. So if you have any concrete tips or know any tutorials that could help me, please post them!

Answer

It depends on what you are after from the experience. Are you playing with it just to see what wacko images you can get that are 'different' or 'alternate' to digital? In other words, are you exploring film like you would a Holga, a pinhole, or a lensbaby? then don't bother reading on. If, on the other hand, you are exploring film because you want to understand the history of photographic processes, or you want a deeper understanding of how photons end up making images, then this answer might interest you.

To me, it only makes sense to even start doing film photography today (outside of simple curiosity) if you plan on going all the way: hand developing and printing. Else, it doesn't seem anywhere close to the bother. I'd actually advocate for the truly strong of stomach to go rent a 4x5 view camera and shoot a box of film and tray-develop it (maybe don't do this until you have done some 35mm or 120 film first).

35mm film is just about the worst of all worlds these days as far as actually doing real photographs, just about the only reason to do 35mm film is for the learning experience of how film behaves and what the photochemical process do. For this didactic reason, there's a lot you can learn from film. But I'd argue that you won't get it by just shooting the roll and sending it out--you gotta hand develop. Again, with 35mm, it doesn't seem at all worth it just to shoot a roll and send it out. The processing that 99.5% of all labs are going to do to that film is like D-76 or some other crappy film dev. That's just going to give you crappy film results so what would you learn from that? Then they will print it on some crappy paper and you won't get any understanding of the printing process either (else they send back scanned neg files). Doesn't make any sense to me--nowhere worth the hassle.

Now, if you take the time to learn what the old masters did (i.e. developing in ABC pyro film developer and printing on something like Elite Fine Art or better yet to hand-coated platinum), THEN you are making it worth your while. You get to experience the mercurial and arcane world of film at it's finest. This is NOT easy, but you actually get something for your troubles.

So, in short, I'm suggesting that if you are interested in film photography, that you go all the way.If you are on a monastic quest to 'get' film photography so you can become an overall better photographer or simply have a fuller appreciation for the medium, I'd suggest the following progression. Call it a auto-didactic degree curriculum in old skool photochemical techniques. Note, I'd suggest NOT stopping at 101 if you bother starting. The really good stuff comes at 400. You can do the 400 level before the 300. If you complete the Ph.D. I'll send a picture to you of myself genuflecting to your greatness.

Film 101 level course:

1. get a cheap 35mm (borrow or buy) camera.

2. shoot a few rolls of film & develop in a GOOD developer. See Adams "The Negative" or other zone system texts for descriptions of good film devs. D-76 is basically crap. don't even bother.

3. Print on some high quality paper. I don't even know what's available these days. Back in the dark ages, I used Kodak Elite Fine Art. Prob doesn't exist any more. If you can, buy a film/print darkroom setup on ebay. super cheap. else use college facility if available. Note: don't even bother with the cheap stuff. Doesn't make sense. You are doing this course for the learning, not because it's practical. Get full value out of your investment: buy the best softgoods, rent the best film equipment.

Film 300:

1. Rent/borrow a Hasselblad or comparable 120 roll film camera. There are some truly sweet 120 film cameras out there. repeat step 2 and 3. 120 film cameras are a world unto themselves, deserving contemplation.

Film 400:

1. Rent/borrow a 4x5 view camera kit. Get a good one if you can. using a 4x5 is a truly landmark experience for photographers. You will learn SO much about photography by using a view camera.

2. shoot a 25 sheet box of 4x5 film. repeat 2 and 3.

Masters Level:

1. learn an alternate/historic photographic printing process. Gum or Platinum/Palladium is a great place to start. Palladium is probably the best in terms of ease of learning and expense. contact print one of your 4x5 negs.

Ph.D/fellowship:

1. Do a wet plate collodian negative and print it with photogravure. If you do this, YOU ARE A GOD.

Upon graduation, I fully expect you to have gained photographic insights comparable with forms of mysticism (trips to Mecca, fasts, prayer vigils, month long meditations). You will also then have to resist the urge to make love to your digital camera, given your newly found respect for how freaking easy it is to use. Moreover, when you look at the stunning images of the old film masters, you will have a much better appreciation of how skilled and patient they were. Note that many incredible images were done with what I'm calling a Ph.D. level of knowledge.

Oh, and if you get around to shooting a 4x5, then look at Mary Ellen Mark's photography... you might notice the tell-tale signs of 4x5 negatives shot in the the most intimate of locales (bathrooms, bedrooms, etc). Getting images AT ALL with a 4x5 takes skill... using a 4x5 as a documentary camera to capture the decisive moment requires.... um. . . whatever the word is that denotes 'something more than skill obtainable by a human'. You may not be the uber-photographer of your dreams by completing this course, but you WILL have a much better appreciation of those who are.

Check more discussion of this question.

What film rangefinder camera can I buy for a reasonable price?

Question

I'm interested in trying out film photography and I would also love to try out a rangefinder camera as those seem to be perfect for manual focusing in street photography.

Now, of course, the question is: Which camera and lenses should I buy? What are the differences? I'm all new to these cameras, so don't hesitate to include some very basic stuff in your answers :)

Regarding the price: As it is an experiment, I don't want to spend any more than 1000 USD in total for the beginning. If the whole thing turns out to be not for me, I should be able to sell the equipment for a good price, right?

Answer

If you're willing to reduce your budget by a factor of 10, you could get a Canonet QL17 GIII, which has a permanently mounted 40mm f/1.7 lens and shutter-priority auto exposure. I really enjoyed mine and considered it an excellent value. The 40mm focal length suited me well, and the lens "drew" nicely, with sharp focus and pleasant bokeh.

Check more discussion of this question.

Colors while scanning a cross-processed film: why [not] so vivid?

Question

In this question I am trying to understand the nature of colors in scanning cross-processed films. I've thought that I'm okay with photoshop, with subtractive and additive colors etc etc etc, but somehow this is (at least :) one thing that I can't get. So,

First image is the result of the lab scanner (some kinda expensive Kodak film scanner). The colors are simply great: vivid and orthogonal. The contrast is so-so, that's why I've tried to re-scan the image with my home Epson V700 scanner and standard Epson Scan software. You can see the result on image N2. The details are finer, but the colors are way pale. I bet this is not the saturation only, since there is much less blue then on the lab scan. I've tried to recreate the lab results in photoshop (image N3), but with a very limited success: the blue is still not there.

I know that I use the simplest program, maybe some more sophisticated software would help me to get the results, but my question is more theoretical: what happens in the software of expensive scanners, what is that function that allows to get those way different colors? Why the lab scanner is capable to reproduce the colors so vividly? What can I do (in Epson Scan or in Photoshop) to get closer to the results from the lab?

Appreciate!

Update: No, simply adding the blue/cyan filter and darkening the exposure doesn't provide satisfying results. First, the brightest sky remain pale/white, second yellows will be dramatically affected.

Update N2: Tried to scan with different exposure setting. Still the colors are not even similar to the lab scan (image N4), even after photosho (image N5).

Answer

A great deal of what's going on here is really just color management/matching/profiling.

Different films have rather specific "looks", and to get the best out of each, you just about have to profile the scanner with each film. That was common/typical with the high-end professional scanners. If memory serves, some even scanned the bar code that's on the edge of most film so they could automatically identify the film and use the correct profile for it.

Most film scanners sold for consumer use were rather a different story -- quite a few didn't provide any profiles at all, leaving it up to the user to match colors as well as they could by eye. The few I saw that did include profiles were almost worse: they included one profile for the scanner in general, with no attempt at taking into account the film being scanned. Most of these did a halfway decent job on a few of the most popular mainstream films, but otherwise they were generally pretty bad (and the exceptions I saw to that seemed to be pretty bad at everything).

At least in theory, I suppose you could do a profile yourself, in much the same way you'd profile a digital camera: take a picture of something like a Macbeth color checker with the film in question, scan it through the scanner, and figure out the adjustments necessary to get the original colors.

I'm not at all sure how much good that'll do for cross-processing though -- here you're going for a particular effect that definitely does not include the colors being entirely accurate. From the look of your pictures, I'm guessing that you're running E6 film through C41 processing. If that's the case, a really good E6 profile may be sufficient to the job -- but I've done very little with scanning cross-processed film, so that's only a guess.

Check more discussion of this question.