Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 50% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Learn more Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > photography discussion forum

Film Corner - JUST film, not digital.

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 17 Jan 2011 12:26:26 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Jan 2011 13:39:55 GMT
Graham H says:
Okay, it seems that as every previous effort on this subject seems to have got sidetracked or hijacked and wandered widely off-topic, now may be a good time to start a new and dedicated thread.


This thread will hopefully become a place where anyone with a love of film cameras can come to share their enthusiasm, their knowledge, their experiences and to ask for advice on anything related to film photography.
All we ask is that we treat each other with civility and courtesy, and that we keep it free of "spam" such as notifications of used kit for sale.
Amazon forum rules specifically prohibit this last point, and as we're not paying the hosting fees we either keep to their rules or we risk forum bans or even thread deletion.
If we all "play nicely" and stick to the guidelines then with luck we can all continue to have a worthwhile resource and a pool of knowldege to dip into whether for reference, answers to a specific query, or just a chat!


Digital photographers are more than welcome to contribute, but please try and stay on topic.
Personally, I came to film via the digital route and I've found that what I've learned from film has improved my digital photography no end. Many times I use my Nikon D90 in manual mode now, which is something I would never have even contemplated a couple of years ago.

None of us here would dispute that Digital is the future commercially, and we're not in any way trying to assert any claim of moral or technical superiority of film over digital.
We all know of the existence of digital cameras. We probably all own some. Many of us film users also own and use modern DSLR systems, some professionally, to earn a living.
Don't think of us as Luddites, resisting the inevitable progress of digital, but just think of us instead as enthusiasts who still enjoy using the technology of a previous era for the sheer satisfaction and fun of it.
In much the same way as a modern car driver can still keep a classic in his garage for the sunny weekends, so we choose to retain our film kit alongside our modern "working tools". This thread is a way to help ensure that the knowledge gained from the old days does not die out, that's all.


If we are to keep this thread usable, please refrain from rising to the bait of the occasional clown who will try to post some deliberately offensive or controversial topic. It seems that this forum is largely unmoderated, so we cannot delete such posts unfortunately.
The only way in which we can prevent several pages of pointless bickering is by simply not responding to it in the first place. Thanking you all in advance for your help.

So, whether you're a 35mm fan, a Medium Format landscape God, a Lomographer or even someone who plays with pinhole cameras, you'll be assured of a warm welcome here.

Pull up a virtual chair, grab yourself a coffee and make yourself at home!

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jan 2011 12:35:46 GMT
Good for you Graham! Let's hope the digital evangelists take the hint and log in to photoshop not this thread.

Posted on 17 Jan 2011 12:49:35 GMT
Graham H says:
Fingers crossed, eh Doc?

I may well have my negs and scans from the new OM-1 back today. Can't wait to see how they came out!

Posted on 17 Jan 2011 13:17:14 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Jan 2011 13:23:35 GMT
Cookie says:
Film at last, well done!
The best results I've had are from FUJI Pro160S. 120

Posted on 17 Jan 2011 13:20:49 GMT
Graham H says:
That's reassuring Cookie! Fuji PRO160S (Although in 35mm) is what I've used on the OM-1 test reel.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jan 2011 13:26:04 GMT
Funny, I very nearly started a similar thread myself, but had a feeling you or Doc might do the same! Anyway, I replied to a quite early post of yours, Graham, regarding your comment about a Mamiya 7 and that I tried one and a Bronica RF645. I preferred the Bronica and bought one. It's a great piece of kit and the other great thing is the price. You can pay up to 2 grand for a s/h M7 but you can find the RF645 on fleecebay for 600 quid with a lens. It's one of the quietist cameras I've ever used. The only thing that takes a bit of getting used to is that in normal holding position, the negative is in portrait position so for landscape, you have to turn it 90 degrees. Other than than, a pippin! George.

Posted on 17 Jan 2011 13:29:19 GMT
Are your negs and scan the ones you took at the boat show, Graham?

Posted on 17 Jan 2011 13:36:35 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Jan 2011 13:38:49 GMT
Graham H says:
Hi George!
I'd been thinking of starting another thread for a few days now. Let's hope this one stays useable.
I saw your post re: the Bronica. Thanks for that. Must admit that I've never seriously considered one as they're still a bit too pricey for me, but interesting things to learn about nonetheless.
Yes, the boat show pics were the ones with the OM-1 and the Fuji PRO160S. Nothing very exciting as far as subject matter goes, but they should provide an insight into what the OM-1 is capable of. I took everything from bright indoor light with zooms to outside darkness with a wide-angle and on a self-timer and tried all four of my lenses. Nothing in the post as yet, but then Steve only emailed to say they were done on Saturday, so they'll probably be here in the morning.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jan 2011 13:56:04 GMT
Fingers crossed, then. If you can post them on here, I'd be interested to have a look. A Flickr account is free to use. You only need to pay if you upload over 200 images and want them all searchable. If not, then only the most recent 200 images remain visible with a free account. A pro account on there is very little money. I think it cost me a fiver for 2 years. Sort of thing that would be useful to see stuff that we're talking about on here at times. But if you can post on here, then that's easier still. I think you were going to look into it, weren't you? I can't remember now!

Posted on 17 Jan 2011 14:01:46 GMT
Graham H says:
There's no easy way to post images on here unless it relates to a currently available product sadly. I do submit pictures of scanned film to the Facebook page for Fuji Digital Imaging though, so if you're on FB then add yourself to that group and you can see mine as well as others.
I tried to upload some scans to the product page on here for the film I was using (Fuji Superia Xtra 400) but they were never accepted. I think it was because they were of some shop dummies in Camden, and Amazon's sytem evidently though they were of real people and wouldn't accept them. Oh well!

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jan 2011 14:10:52 GMT
The only problem with Facebook is that they can use your images for whatever they want to. I think they state that in their rules. If you set your security settings so that no-one can use them, they just wait until you delete your account and then pinch them (so I've been told by another disgruntled user) I think the only safe way to post on F/B is to watermark your images all over so they can't be used. *****shop, anyone? (sorry!) I'll have a look on Facebook later. Rain's now stopped so I'm back out on a church tower to take an image survey of the roof and tower walls for the PC. Would have been fine ten years ago but I'm not good with heights anymore. Where's that brown paper bag? Catch you later. (I hope.....)

Posted on 17 Jan 2011 14:16:35 GMT
Graham H says:
Yes, that can be a problem I guess. None of my images have any commercial value anyway, I just post stuff that I'm happy to let anyone have for free. Good luck with the church tower! Hope it's better weather where you are. It's grim here.

Posted on 17 Jan 2011 18:46:52 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Jan 2011 19:06:45 GMT
Cookie says:
A few little notes on film, B&W Ilford Delta 100 exposed @+ 1/3 Ev. Developed in Ilford Perceptol 19mins @ 20c. Exposed for the shadow detail, under dev., for the highlights. very fine grain structure. 20X16 pints are of contact print quality. all my exhibition work is by this method. inc A Rollieflex T which helps.
For Colour Fuji Pro 160s a lower contrast film developed for scanning. Procesed and scanned at Farnells Lab in Lancaster, They process all the pro work, this film is first choice for weddings , unlike Digital it preserves the detail in the white dress. Almost 100% have gone back to a Hassleblad with Pr0 160s, purely on the quality issue of blown highlights with digital. The prints from this method film/scan are some of the best work Iv'e seen over the past 60 years. My advice to any one new to film. Find a film, learn how to use it, then stay with it. The end result is then predictable.

Posted on 17 Jan 2011 20:00:00 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Jan 2011 20:01:23 GMT
Graham H says:
I'm reassured to hear that it's not just me that has problems with blown highlights on digital!
Ever since I first got a roll of film from my SLR processed I was amazed at how one frame could have both detail in the highlights and in the shadows.
I've heard worrying things about PRO160 being discontinued though. Almost 100% sure it's 35mm only for the chop so far. Maybe I'll go for Reala 100 again if this proves to be the case.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jan 2011 23:58:15 GMT
I like the 16 on 120 format - I can't get used to square photos. I saw a Pentax 645 go for £250 on Fleabuy but really I like the rangefinder 120 cameras - they still cost a fair bit though.

Posted on 18 Jan 2011 00:47:26 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Jan 2011 00:47:45 GMT
Graham H says:
It'll be payday again soon.... So, how much do I have to pay for a decent negative scanner and which one should I buy?
I'd love to scan the best of the 20-plus years worth of 35mm negatives that I have. Maybe reprint the best ones once I've done a little tidying up.
Although I have a feeling it might be quite a depressing exercise: "Wow! Look how much hair I had in 1986! And it was BROWN!" etc.

Oh dear. :-(

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jan 2011 10:57:55 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Jan 2011 20:59:23 GMT
Hi Graham. I know I am slightly biased but I would recommend Canon. I've got 3(well, 2 now). An HP and 2 Canons. The HP was scrap within 14 months but the 2 Canons are still both going well after 3 or 4 years. They are 8400f flatbeds and work superbly for film, pictures, documents, copying and faxing. I know there are newer models out now. I think they are up to the 9500f. They come with film carriers for 35mm and 120 roll film. I did toy with getting the dedicated Canon film scanner but they are big money and obviously limited to just film. Plus the fact that the later flatbeds have just as good a resolution as the film only ones now. I'm not too sure about these dedicated film scanners you can find on Amazon and fleecebay for the 70/80 quid mark as I've not read much feedback on them.

Don't get depressed about hair-loss. Just think about how much easier it is now to wash and dry! Bonus too is that if you're late up, it doesn't matter if you forget to put a comb through it.......

Anyone any experiences with Mamiya C330's? I'm quite tempted by one I've found and never played with TLR's much. G.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jan 2011 13:00:38 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Jan 2011 13:03:51 GMT
Cookie says:
A little note on the TLR. any camera of that type is a joy to use, the screen shows exactly what will be on film. Every thing has shape, the creative input from the user is much higher. The C330 was the workhorse of wedding photographers so it may have a shutter problem, it's a little bit hefty, a good tripod is a must have.
The majority of my shots for commercial advertising were with a Rollei TLR either on site or studio. The DOF. Focus point and shadow detail are there to see
on the big screen. the TLR is a wonderfull tool.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jan 2011 17:34:08 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Jan 2011 17:34:45 GMT
I have a Yashica Mat but find that the screen is rather dim - not a patch on my SLRs. It's not at all ergonomic with it's right hand winder, left hand focusing knob and front mounted shutter. The lens has knurled wheels either side so even setting the exposure means a change of hands. It certainly slows the process down - but it's different. I'm glad I went for 35mm back in the day!

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jan 2011 20:57:08 GMT
Thanks for the info. I was looking at either a Rollei or a Mamiya though I've read that the Rollei has the best optics. I have a couple of ETRS's which I use quite a bit and an RF645 which I love but I just fancied a try with a TLR as I haven't used one yet (not that I can remember, anyway!)
I read quite a lot about the Yashica's but wasn't convinced of the optics compared with the Rollei so I'm not completely decided but I think I'm leaning towards Rollie or Mamiya. Mamiya because it has interchangeable lenses. We shall see what turns up price-wise! G.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jan 2011 22:36:23 GMT
Last edited by the author on 21 Jan 2011 18:04:39 GMT
Cookie says:
The 4 element Tessar at f5.6 is as good as it gets. Chromatic aberation is not a problem with the Tessar. Leica copied the design but changed the position of the aperture in their Elmar lens. extra elements do not improve the definition they are correction components. German manufacture is to an ideal not commercial like our Japanese friends who build for a limited product life. My Leicaflex is 35 years old the Rollei a little older but they still look new and perform like new. I've not had a problem with a German built camera.
The cars are not bad either.

Posted on 18 Jan 2011 22:36:50 GMT
Graham H says:
Thanks for the scanner info George.

I think Canon may well be the way to go too. I've read very patchy reviews of the dedicated slide/neg scanners. Must admit I'm quite surprised that a flatbed scanner can cope with something as tiny as a 35mm negative. Still, I guess it must come with instructions and/or the hardware to make it work.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jan 2011 22:52:23 GMT
The 8400f's I bought came with negative holders for a strip of 120 negatives (about 4 at a time with a darkslide to mask with) and 2 rows of 6 35mm negs. The newer ones may well hold more. 120 and 135 should do all you need. Software includes an on-screen toolbox with all the actions needed and a host of custom inputs. It also came with ArcSoft which is a very user friendly editing program. The in-house software has an automatic scratch removal system built in should you wish to use it, I think they call it FARE or something like that. I can always send you a copy of the disc if you want to have a look at it first. I know you're not keen on P*O*Oshop(!) but ArcSoft is a useful tool without going down the path of major roadworks to your images. Anyway, see what you think. Amazon do have some user reviews on Canon scanners so you can get some idea of what's available. G.

Posted on 18 Jan 2011 23:00:48 GMT
Graham H says:
What's the quality like George? Can you print from them up to about say 8x10 from 35mm negs?

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jan 2011 23:24:25 GMT
I've printed A4 from scanned negs with no problem at all and without altering sharpness. I have also printed A3 from 120 scans and that was cropping down as well. You do have several options of the size of the scan in DPI, colour, platen, film etc. I've also scanned 80 year old B+W pictures around 3"x4" and printed to A4 with a good quality result. One of the pictures I scanned was an 8x10 B+W of the old ringing team at West Down when they'd won the Devon Association trophy, the Barnstaple Deanery cup and several others in the same year, so there were 6 men surrounded by shields, cups etc and I didn't have much faith in the result. After I'd scanned it (I had a 90Mb file!) I could zoom in to the captains mouth to see he had the tips of both front teeth broken off (And he wasn't much of a smiler!) with no pixelation at all. I think you would be pleased with one, Graham. G.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 113 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the photography discussion forum (778 discussions)

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums

This discussion

Participants:  84
Total posts:  2820
Initial post:  17 Jan 2011
Latest post:  2 days ago

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 18 customers

Search Customer Discussions