Need some advice from film photographers

[FlipsidE]

Call it just a change in pace, maybe, but I want to give a little film photography a shot. I'm looking into buying something fairly inexpensive (Canon FTB off eBay maybe), but seeing that I waited until Digital before I really got into photography, I don't know much about film. A lot of the books I picked up back in late 2004/early 2005 on Photography still spoke a lot about film, so I think I can get a handle on film photography by asking a few questions and reading up on it.

My main question, though, is what kinds of film are actually worth buying? Film doesn't seem to be cheap these days (probably because the world is going mainly digital). But, like, what B&W film would you recommend? What color film would you recommend? What ISO? I know ISO 400 is a good kind of "all around" flim, but there's always noise to be concerned with starting around ISO 400. What about transparency vs. slide film? Which would be better?

Thanks in advance

[Mike]

I got an EOS 500 from ebay for about £5 a fer weeks ago and it works great. It was missing it's eyecup, didn't have a strap or body cap but I had a spare strap and body cap and an eyecup off ebay was only a couple of quid.

Ilford is quite a good B+W film manufacturer. Don't worry about going above iso 400 on B+W film as the grain (it's not called noise) can be quite appealing.

Fuji make some good colour film, and by popular demand re-released Velvia a while back which is popular with landscape photographers.

[sandpiper]

My main question, though, is what kinds of film are actually worth buying? Film doesn't seem to be cheap these days (probably because the world is going mainly digital). But, like, what B&W film would you recommend? What color film would you recommend? What ISO? I know ISO 400 is a good kind of "all around" flim, but there's always noise to be concerned with starting around ISO 400. What about transparency vs. slide film? Which would be better?

Thanks in advance

First off, transparency film IS slide film, so neither is better. ;)

Choice of film is very subjective and depends a lot on what you are shooting and the result you are trying to achieve. For example, you don't have a white balance control on the camera so (particularly with colour trannies) the WB is controlled by the film chosen. Films are generally 'daylight' or 'tungsten' but there are finer points as well.

I used to shoot b&w negative and colour positive (transparency / slide) films primarily, and haven't used film for a few years now so specific films may have been superceded. With colour trannies, 'daylight' film isn't always balanced to the same colour temperature. Fuji films tend to be warmer than Kodak for example, so on a bright sunny day Kodak would be quite accurate colour and Fuji would tend to be a touch over warm. On a dull overcast day, though, the Fuji would be accurate and the Kodak would have a distinct blue / cyan cast. With transparency film, what you shoot is what you get as the end result (unless you are going to scan it into a computer and digitise it) as you process the film, cut it and mount it.

Slight colour casts with negative film are less critical as it gets adjusted in the printing process. You can, of course, adjust WB a bit by adding warmup and cooling filters on the lens, but you need to know the film characteristics well in order to decide which filter to use.

There is a real need for exposure accuracy with transparency film. Half a stop out and the image will suffer, and no you can't really correct it later, trannie film has very little latitude and even scanning it and sticking it through PS won't save it properly. Many (myslef included) shoot trannies at 1/3 stop underexposed, as that boosts colour saturation and gives a punchier image, but any more than that and it will start to look too dark.

Negative films have more exposure latitude, and will correct to a degree when printing, by giving the print more / less exposure to compensate.

Much of the art in b&w is in the developing / printing. This is the equivalent to using PS on your digital files. Simply sending them off for commercial dev & print is like using the digital RAW images, straight from the camera. Different developer solutions can effect the result, but the main impact is with paper choice. Different grades of paper offer more or less contrast, some are warmer toned, or cooler toned and there is a huge range of specialist papers. Dodging and burning different areas of the print also hugely improves the final result.

Essentially, you will find little to learn with regard to actually shooting on film rather than digital, essentially the camera use is just the same but without some of the things that you only need for digital. You do need to be more accurate with regard to getting it right 'in camera' however.

One difference is the use of coloured filters with B&W, to alter the different parts of an image. A yellow is recommended as a start, as cameras reduce the amount of blue, so blue skies will generally be a little washed out. Yellow puts back some contrast between blue sky and clouds and should approximate the natural view as you saw it. You can then darken the blues more by going to orange or even red, which will give very dark skies with bright white clouds.

If you want to see how much filters can affect your result, desaturate a digital image and play with it in the chanel mixer.

The main learning curve will be which films do what, which suit your preference and in which conditions. Also, learning the darkroom side of things with B&W, which becomes an art form in it's own right and is much akin to learning how to use PS.

It is difficult to give specific advice as I say, as the choices are artistic ones. It isn't like recommending what make of memory card to use. Film photography does involve a lot of experimentation with different film / dev / paper combinations to get the look you are after.

Good luck with it, it can be very frustrating, but also very rewarding when (after spending several hours producing one print) you emerge, blinking, into the light and fresh air with your latest masterpiece.

[FlipsidE]

Thanks for the info!

[Zansho]

Keep in mind though, that film is somewhat more forgiving than digital (unless you have some chrome slide film.. ) in their exposure latitudes, and you can get a way with more.

Back when I shot film, I exposed for the shadows, and really didn't give too much of a damn about highlights. It's a pain to bring shadows back out in the darkroom, so I exposed for that in the first place - highlights are far easier to bring back in the darkroom (for black and white, for me anyway).

Digital, you expose for the highlights, and shadows be damned. It's easier to bring back shadow detail than it is on highlights in post (photoshop and what have you), but once you blow out highlights, they're gone.

[LW Dail]

Black and white or color film, your shots had better be good in the camera.

'Back then' you picked your film for your conditions, outdoors - Kodak Gold 200. A special trip to Yellowstone would be 20 rolls of Ektachrome 36. Yes, slides! And be prepared to take out a loan if you ran out of film at Old Faithful - gift shop film was EXPENSIVE!

With the old manual you'll need to worry about shutter speed, and aperture. And focus. No autofocus. I was up to the Canon AE-1 before life interfered and I stopped shooting.

The fun for me was in control of the whole process, from shooting to the darkroom. You might look around for a darkroom class near you. The processing and then the printing was a hoot for me.

If I was in your position, I'd pick up some Kodak Plus X (ISO125, $5/roll of 24) and go shoot. Oh yeah, and a manual camera (personal preference, the AE-1).

You'll love the challenge of acting like us old-timers with five rolls of film. Try to get the shot in that one roll, it's not like you could pop in a new card and shoot another 1,000 images, you only had 24 shots (or 48, or 72...)

Let us know how it turns out, and thanks for letting me date myself!