Written by matt on 01 September 2010
Long Beach Convention Center, shot with Voigtlander Bessa-R on Ilford Delta 400, then digitally toned with Lightroom.
I like shooting with film for the look it gives, but I also like shooting film for the process itself. And while I shoot primarily using a digital SLR when working for a client, there are reasons I turn to film when either shooting personal projects, or when a client session allows me to slip in a little film. The work-flow of film has some advantages, beyond the look of the images themselves. Here are some of those reasons I like working with film cameras:
• I like that film shooting is a slower process than with digital. Ultimately after a day’s shooting, I end up with roughly the same number of usable images. No matter how many shots I take! Think about it for a moment: you only have so much space on your wall for prints. Your project only requires a certain number of images. You only want to share a select few images with your friends on flickr etc. So whether you shoot three images or 300, you’re only going to use a certain number of those images in the end.
I find that the bigger the negative, the fewer images I shoot, but the better each image is. I can shoot a roll of 35mm and get a couple of images I like. But when I shoot large format 4×5, and make four images, I still get a couple that I like. That’s because I might spend half an hour composing each image and making it perfect, while with 35mm I feel no such need.
Of course large format photography isn’t suitable for certain types of subjects, such as those that move quickly, or situations or lighting that evolve and need to be captured at a particular moment. And 35mm is not suitable for big prints, or images that require tilts and shifts of the lens. Each format has its uses. But the more care you take with your images, the fewer you take. And yet the yield of quality images tends to be about the same.
• I like that film costs me money for each image I make! This is somewhat tied to the “slow down” philosophy discussed above. If my shots cost money, I think about them a little more. If I think about them, I’m less likely to shoot crap. Dividing up my shoots into sets of 24 or 36 (or 12 for that matter) has a strange and somewhat useful effect on my shooting. If I only have 36 chances of a good image, I’m pickier because I might run out of film too early (or be forced to change rolls and miss something while doing so). Conversely, if I’ve got some shots I know are good, and I’ve still got 10 shots left on the roll, sometimes I’ll be motivated to go use up that roll in a way that doesn’t waste it. And sometimes I get happy surprises by doing that (or at least more shots of my kids).
The worst, most shameful thing in the world is wasting the last ten frames of a roll because you can’t be bothered to shoot something. And yes I’ve done it.
• I love not being able to see the image right after I’ve made it! Oh sure, that’s useful in many cases. But it’s also useful to NOT see my images. How so? If I’m viewing every image as it is recorded in the back of the camera, I am constantly switching from reactive to analytical thought. This probably causes brain cancer. And it certainly makes for a distracted photographer. If I can’t instantly see my image, then I just shoot and hope I’ve got my technical details nailed down properly. I move with the situation, explore the composition and the lighting, and wait for those ‘decisive moments’.
I also find that seeing my work at a later date, as a whole in thumbnail or contact sheet format, can actually make me feel better about my work. Let’s say I’m shooting digitally for example, and I’m having a bad day. I shoot, then “chimp” (i.e. look at the screen on the back of the camera), say “oh that’s just crap”, and repeat. By the tenth crappy shot, I’m feeling pretty crappy myself. But when I view an entire film shoot for the first time in Lightroom after scanning all the images, I immediately gravitate to the best images. The rest don’t matter, because I’ve spotted a couple that I really like. For me, those other images I would have called “crap” when viewed singly just don’t matter when viewed all together. It’s a weird psychological game but it’s real, at least for me.
Those are a few reasons I like to shoot film, that have little to do with the actual image quality. I could discuss the ‘look’ of film, or the look of certain cameras or lenses, but that’s a post for a different day. From a work-flow perspective, film offers a different—not better or worse, just different—process. This can enhance your ways of shooting, not just the way your images look.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tags: 120, 35mm, camera, digital, expired film, film, photography, rangefinder
Posted in the creative side | 2 Comments »
Written by matt on 30 August 2010
Manufacturer: Olympus
Model: Olympus-35 ECR
Film: 35mm
Type: rangefinder
Lens: 42mm f/2.8 E. Zuiko lens, aperture range f/3.5 to f/13 (yes, f/13 says the manual. Perhaps they were all out of f/16 that day?). Minimum focus distance is .9 m/3 ft. 43mm filer thread.
Shutter: Seiko ESF shutter, shutter speeds 4 s – 1/800 s. Exposure and aperture settings are fully automatic, no manual control.
ASA settings: 25-800
Batteries: 2 x PX640 (mercury batteries, no longer available).
Front-of-lens metering
Features:
Hot shoe
PC sync socket
For flash photography, guide number of flash is set on a ring, and then aperture is adjusted based on the focal distance setting.
Shutter lock on front of the camera, to prevent accidental exposure.
Slow shutter speed LED on top and in viewfinder.
Film advance is with a thumb wheel.
This camera is smaller than the Minolta Hi-Matic F, and one of the smallest rangefinders ever made. It’s a really cute camera! I’ve got it next to a Yashica Electr-35 below, so you can get a sense of the size. Unfortunately, the full-auto aspect of the camera drives me nuts. Therefore I’ve only run one roll through it so far, and it’ll be awhile before I do so again. Not being able to select my aperture is just insanity! The camera did seem to perform well with getting the exposure right, although I did also have one or two blank or severely dark frames. I don’t know if this was exposure error, a defect in this particular camera, or user error…but hey, I wasn’t allowed to set anything myself, so it can’t be my fault.
I put in two 625 Alkaline batteries, with some aluminum foil stuffed in to make up the difference in battery height. Seems to work just fine.
This is a ‘fast focusing’ rangefinder. By that I mean the focusing ring has a relatively short travel range. Focusing is possibly less precise, but faster to get where you need to go. The overlaid-image portion of the viewfinder is an ill-defined blob of a circle, but the image itself is reasonably bright and easy to focus. The size is pushing the limits of what my big hands can properly control, but it’s still usable.
I want to like this camera. But for quick shooting, in street photography for example, it’s hard to rely on range/zone focusing with this camera. You don’t know what your aperture is, so you don’t know what your depth of field is. Therefore you can’t just set the camera to its hyperfocal distance and shoot away. Nor can you reliably approximate the distance and pray your depth of focus is sufficient to compensate for bad guessing. You have to be precise with your focusing, in other words. Also the thumbwheel film advance is a little slow and cheesy-feeling. The ECR *is* small enough that no one will take you seriously, which is probably a good thing.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tags: 35mm, camera, film, Olympus, photography, rangefinder
Posted in camera profiles | No Comments »
Written by matt on 12 August 2010
Photo by Vivian Maier
If you have any interest in street photography, you must check out this blog site. John Maloof bought deceased street photographer Vivian Maier’s negatives and prints at an auction, and discovered a goldmine of street images from Chicago in th 1950s and 60s. It’s really good stuff. And what’s more, it mostly appears to have been done on a twin-lens reflex camera, rather than the stereotypical rangefinder. Makes me feel like I might be on to something, as I’ve been experimenting with street photography using a my Yashica-mat.
See the blog here.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted in Uncategorized | 12 Comments »
Written by matt on 05 August 2010
I stumbled across Jonathan Canlas work recently. He’s a wedding photographer out of Utah, and he shoots exclusively on film! Brave soul in this day and age, although I wonder if clients even stop to wonder about this anymore. Digital was cool until it became the default, now…film, what’s that? Well if you’re reading my blog, you know what’s what.
Jonathan’s blog, which contains weddings and personal work, is here (link). And his official site is here (link). Check it out!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted in on the web | 5 Comments »
Written by matt on 29 July 2010
Manufacturer: Yashica
Model: 635
Film: 120 or 35mm
Type: twin-lens reflex (TLR)
Lens: 80mm f/3.5 Yashikor lens, aperture range f/3.5 to f/22. Minimum focus distance is 1 m / 3.3 ft. Bay-1 filter mount.
Shutter speed: 1 s – 1/500 s, and “Bulb”. Copal MXV leaf shutter. Shutter is cocked with a lever on the front. Shutter release is on the bottom left of the front of the camera.
Features:
Included conversion kit for 35mm film, shot in portrait orientation.
For medium format, there is a film counter that is automatically reset when loading film
For 35mm format, there is a manually-set film counter
“Cold shoe” accessory attachment
PC flash sync
Self-timer
Double exposures possible, as shutter may be fired without film being wound first.
My father-in-law was given this camera and he plans to sell it on ebay. Knowing my obsession, he asked if I wanted to borrow it first. So I took it for a test drive. I already have a Yashicamat which I like a lot; it has a nicer lens than the 635, but doesn’t also shoot 35mm. I decided to try the 35mm option, since that was new to me.
It probably made more sense back when the camera was made, but shooting 35mm in this camera has some distinct disadvantages. First off, you’re forced to shoot portrait orientation as the film runs vertically through the camera. And unlike a regular 35mm camera, turning this camera on its side to shoot landscape orientation is extremely difficult. Also, composing and focusing with the 35mm crop lines in the viewfinder takes some getting used to. I found myself with my eye up to the pop-up magnifying glass constantly, to make sure I was getting acceptable focus. Swapping out the 35mm kit takes a few minutes, and of course you can’t swap it out mid-roll if you decide you want to switch formats. I’d rather just carry two cameras, but back in the 60s if you only owned one camera, this made a lot more sense.
80mm is a slightly wide lens for medium format. When you use it for 35mm however, it is a mild telephoto lens. Which theoretically is ideal for portraits at that focal length actually. I didn’t get a chance to try the camera with medium format film, but the experience was very similar to my Yashicamat. Would I go out of my way to find a 635? No. I don’t think the 35mm option is worth the trouble. Better to get a dedicated 120 format camera with a better lens in my opinion. But if you’re set on this for the novelty of the camera, it seems to handle pretty well.
Below, what the insides look like without the 35mm kit installed.
And below, the camera with the 35mm kit installed.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tags: 120, 35mm, medium format, TLR, twin lens reflex, Yashica
Posted in camera profiles | 14 Comments »
