Bronco

Enough of this digital nonsense! Thought I'd post a real photo...film.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

I love that you're shooting film, but next time try throwing a CPL and GND on the front (at the same time) and a red filter on a day with blue skies and scattered cloud. That, plus highway, plus this car would be a surely incredible shot!

I have never used film cameras before, but judging from the looks of this photo I would say digital is better lol.

RL. wrote in post #11222223
I have never used film cameras before, but judging from the looks of this photo I would say digital is better lol.

I don't believe you can grow as a beginner photographer acceptably without using B&W film. It honestly sky-rockets you in terms of making you learn the hard way. You learn exposure, tone, composition, DOF, all sorts of issues regarding limitations of a format and far more than I can express here. And you learn it all the hard way, because you're paying for every stuffed up roll. You don't have photoshop to help you out in a hard situation. Nobody's holding your hand. It honestly makes you, in my opinion, a much better photographer. I don't think you can be a properly experienced or knowledgable photographer until you have shot film - just like you can't be a properly experienced or knowledgable driver without knowing how to drive a manual. It's all too easy to let a machine baby and pamper you through the learning steps of a new skill, and it's also all to easy to gain bad habits as a result of this. For example, how many shots do you take which are keepers vs those which are throwaways? How many shoots do you rely on photoshop to fix your mistakes? I would bet a lot more than those on this forum who grew up having to fiddle around in the dark and pay $50c a shot.

I'm not saying that you can't be a good photographer without film, i'm just saying that it breeds bad habits. What if one day you find yourself on an important shoot and you realise "Oh bugger, I only brought a 1gb card! Whatever shall I do, I can only get off 24 shots on this!". It may sound unlikely, but i've done it. And all 24 shots were shot, good enough for the client, and handed in. My professional reputation was upheld, and i'm a better photographer for the experience.

Personally, I shoot all my 'happy snaps', ie personal stuff, on film. I also shot film for 3 years in my early teens while saving up for a digital camera. I even shot my first paid gigs when I was 15 on an old Bronica SQ-Ai with some nice 120 rolls of Tri-X and Neopan. Whilst my professional work is done with digital, I still hold film (especially LF) very close to my heart. If you haven't ever shot film, I would go out and get an old Monorail and shoot off some 5x4" - it'll really open your eyes to real potential of our medium. Oh, and you'll also really enjoy it .

/rant.

I agree completely. Shooting film for years taught me things about light and exposure I would have never learned otherwise.

Agnu wrote in post #11222478
I don't believe you can grow as a beginner photographer acceptably without using B&W film. It honestly sky-rockets you in terms of making you learn the hard way. You learn exposure, tone, composition, DOF, all sorts of issues regarding limitations of a format and far more than I can express here. And you learn it all the hard way, because you're paying for every stuffed up roll. You don't have photoshop to help you out in a hard situation. Nobody's holding your hand. It honestly makes you, in my opinion, a much better photographer. I don't think you can be a properly experienced or knowledgable photographer until you have shot film - just like you can't be a properly experienced or knowledgable driver without knowing how to drive a manual. It's all too easy to let a machine baby and pamper you through the learning steps of a new skill, and it's also all to easy to gain bad habits as a result of this. For example, how many shots do you take which are keepers vs those which are throwaways? How many shoots do you rely on photoshop to fix your mistakes? I would bet a lot more than those on this forum who grew up having to fiddle around in the dark and pay $50c a shot.

/rant.

It looks OK. Do you think the houses help the shot?

Why?
Love the brick. How many times have you forgotten & driven over it?

Love that Bronco. for sale? (im sure you get that all the time). Nonetheless great photo.

I used to have a 77' myself with a 351Windsor.. i miss it. Dad has a 75' with fiberglass body in the garage that hes restoring

Agnu wrote in post #11222067
I love that you're shooting film, but next time try throwing a CPL and GND on the front (at the same time) and a red filter on a day with blue skies and scattered cloud. That, plus highway, plus this car would be a surely incredible shot!

Thanks. I don't have much invested in film...just the 645E + 2 lenses. No filters yet, as 90% of my shooting & money is poured into digital.

But now that you mention it, I definitely should look into picking up a least a couple of filters for my B&W shots. The sky was hazy that day...but I do know that colored filters are the way to create more contrast, right? I'll definitely do so more research on filters & B&W photography, so thanks for the advice.

RL. wrote in post #11222223
I have never used film cameras before, but judging from the looks of this photo I would say digital is better lol.

As a film newbie myself...I would not judge my shots as the "standard" comparison of film vs digital.

But, film definitely looks different from digital, and probably isn't for everyone.

Here's some more MF film shots from a flickr group: http://www.flickr.com/​groups/mediumformat/po​ol/

PhotosGuy wrote in post #11223138
It looks OK. Do you think the houses help the shot? Why?

No, not really. I agree the homes are not ideal. But it's actually not my Bronco (a neighbors), so I could not move it. Plus, considering the light & body style, i wanted to shoot it straight on...& the homes do not bother me personally too much. However, if they were less modern (i.e. from the 70s), that would've been cool.

As for the ISO 800...one of the drawbacks of the 645E is the built in film back...so i was shooting some low-light stuff earlier @ 800, and you can't adjust ISO like digital...but yes, ISO 800 was not necessary.

Agnu wrote in post #11222478
I don't believe you can grow as a beginner photographer acceptably without using B&W film. It honestly sky-rockets you in terms of making you learn the hard way. You learn exposure, tone, composition, DOF, all sorts of issues regarding limitations of a format and far more than I can express here. And you learn it all the hard way, because you're paying for every stuffed up roll. You don't have photoshop to help you out in a hard situation. Nobody's holding your hand. It honestly makes you, in my opinion, a much better photographer. I don't think you can be a properly experienced or knowledgable photographer until you have shot film - just like you can't be a properly experienced or knowledgable driver without knowing how to drive a manual. It's all too easy to let a machine baby and pamper you through the learning steps of a new skill, and it's also all to easy to gain bad habits as a result of this. For example, how many shots do you take which are keepers vs those which are throwaways? How many shoots do you rely on photoshop to fix your mistakes? I would bet a lot more than those on this forum who grew up having to fiddle around in the dark and pay $50c a shot.

I'm not saying that you can't be a good photographer without film, i'm just saying that it breeds bad habits. What if one day you find yourself on an important shoot and you realise "Oh bugger, I only brought a 1gb card! Whatever shall I do, I can only get off 24 shots on this!". It may sound unlikely, but i've done it. And all 24 shots were shot, good enough for the client, and handed in. My professional reputation was upheld, and i'm a better photographer for the experience.

Personally, I shoot all my 'happy snaps', ie personal stuff, on film. I also shot film for 3 years in my early teens while saving up for a digital camera. I even shot my first paid gigs when I was 15 on an old Bronica SQ-Ai with some nice 120 rolls of Tri-X and Neopan. Whilst my professional work is done with digital, I still hold film (especially LF) very close to my heart. If you haven't ever shot film, I would go out and get an old Monorail and shoot off some 5x4" - it'll really open your eyes to real potential of our medium. Oh, and you'll also really enjoy it .

/rant.

1) you have a valid opinion, although mine differs:
a)one can learn exposure, comp, dof, etc.. multiple ways including like I have:spending multiple hours a day reading about the technical aspect of photography then going out and practicing
b) I personally think I would rather learn the easy way, when I do not have to pay for film..I think that's a HUGE advantage of digital over film, that and one can instantly view an exposure
c) Every beginner photog, whether film or digital user, takes too many images when they first start off. No beginner photog can properly nail exposure and etc their first time shooting unless it's on auto. lol I've been shooting and I nail exposure pretty damn easily, and I am only an average skilled photog.
d) I don't necessarily use PS to fix mistakes as I do to enhance the image in creative ways...but sometimes we all mess up a shoot an any experience level and it's nice having software that can ave our asses
e) 1 gig would be plenty of memory to do a short shoot...
f) Film might be fun, I wouldn't know because I haven't used it. But from a logical point of view it doesn't compute for me. Digital photography doesn't require film, so one can shoot lots if images for free. One can also view exposure immediately. The cons of film outweigh the pros, which is probably why the photo lab I operate stopped taking in film 1 yr ago and only do digital.

Ah, same roll of film. Got it!

RL. wrote in post #11226841
1) you have a valid opinion, although mine differs:
a)one can learn exposure, comp, dof, etc.. multiple ways including like I have:spending multiple hours a day reading about the technical aspect of photography then going out and practicing
b) I personally think I would rather learn the easy way, when I do not have to pay for film..I think that's a HUGE advantage of digital over film, that and one can instantly view an exposure
c) Every beginner photog, whether film or digital user, takes too many images when they first start off. No beginner photog can properly nail exposure and etc their first time shooting unless it's on auto. lol I've been shooting and I nail exposure pretty damn easily, and I am only an average skilled photog.
d) I don't necessarily use PS to fix mistakes as I do to enhance the image in creative ways...but sometimes we all mess up a shoot an any experience level and it's nice having software that can ave our asses
e) 1 gig would be plenty of memory to do a short shoot...
f) Film might be fun, I wouldn't know because I haven't used it. But from a logical point of view it doesn't compute for me. Digital photography doesn't require film, so one can shoot lots if images for free. One can also view exposure immediately. The cons of film outweigh the pros, which is probably why the photo lab I operate stopped taking in film 1 yr ago and only do digital.

I agree 100%

Why someone would honesty believe:

is beyond me , just doesn't make sense. That is like saying until you develop your own film you would never grow acceptably.

RL. wrote in post #11226841
1) you have a valid opinion, although mine differs:
a)one can learn exposure, comp, dof, etc.. multiple ways including like I have:spending multiple hours a day reading about the technical aspect of photography then going out and practicing
b) I personally think I would rather learn the easy way, when I do not have to pay for film..I think that's a HUGE advantage of digital over film, that and one can instantly view an exposure
c) Every beginner photog, whether film or digital user, takes too many images when they first start off. No beginner photog can properly nail exposure and etc their first time shooting unless it's on auto. lol I've been shooting and I nail exposure pretty damn easily, and I am only an average skilled photog.
d) I don't necessarily use PS to fix mistakes as I do to enhance the image in creative ways...but sometimes we all mess up a shoot an any experience level and it's nice having software that can ave our asses
e) 1 gig would be plenty of memory to do a short shoot...
f) Film might be fun, I wouldn't know because I haven't used it. But from a logical point of view it doesn't compute for me. Digital photography doesn't require film, so one can shoot lots if images for free. One can also view exposure immediately. The cons of film outweigh the pros, which is probably why the photo lab I operate stopped taking in film 1 yr ago and only do digital.

I do understand where you're coming from, but using the car reference again, it's these sort of arguments that people with no experience with a manual put forward to say that auto is better. It's not until they step into a manual, do the hard yards learning a new skill, that they finally realise how much they've been missing! I'm not saying that film is better than digital, or that digital is better than film. I'm saying that they're very different mediums and, are effectively, tools to be used for different purposes. One purpose that film is a lot better for than digital, is learning the basics of photography.

I'm not going to go on and write an essay as to why (I already wrote half of one above haha), but I just urge you to go out and try it! You'll hate it for the first couple of rolls, but it'll be so rewarding when you get your first really good shots off. Just go out and try it, I can assure you that within a couple of months, you will most certainly have learnt something!

EDIT: If you're interested, i'm 90% sure that most of this guys work is shot on MF B&W, go check out what can be done by somebody that really knows their medium. Even if you're not into film (or even if this guy doesn't shoot film! Like I said, i'm not 100%...), this guys work is beyond words. He's an amazing artist.

EDIT EDIT: LJ. - forgot link .

How Funny,

I used to be on a few bike forums where LJ was asking questions regarding digital camera choices - from memory he started off with a 5d or 5d2. It wasn't long before he was showing of some outstanding works. Like i said this was some time ago, and i would never assume he was using the same gear now, especially if he was changing gear as often as he did bikes

A very open and giving guy if i remember correctly, I think he released a book to raise funds for some of the homeless he was shooting.. I have to agree tho, amazing artist..

Ash

That's heaps cool Ash.m. I have always respected his work - I remember once reading that he shoots MF film, but also the fact that you can see the MF borders on a few of his recent shots sortah gives it away. I don't know if those were added in post, though. I don't know why you would ad a film border to a digital photo, but...

I started in photography in 1975, and film is all there was. I built my darkroom shortly after. I have spent many hundered hours standing in front of a Bessler 23c. Yeah I learned photography the hard way. I shot with all manual cameras at first. My first autoexposure camera was a Pentax LX. I then used a Yashica MatG and a Mamiya M645, and once in a while a Speed Graphic 4x5. So Yeah I learned the joys of dof, overexposure/underexpo​sure various developers and developing times.

Now haveing said all that, A new photographer can learn dof,and the exposure stuff just as easy, only with out the mess in the darkroom! Most DSLR's as we know, have various exposure modes. Computer skills will be more important than darkroom skills for producing images. Teaching young photographers compostition, 'seeing' light, and controlling it. is the hard part. Also learning 'people skills' and good business practices are just as important as shooting. My sister has had a photography studio for more than 25 years. She mostly shoots weddings and portraits, her 'people skills' are amazing.
A camera is mearly a tool, be it film or digital. What makes a person a photographer is how the tool is applied.
Sorry to be so long winded.