Join the conversationon Joe Cornish – Reader’s Questions
These interviews and Q&A podcasts are not only very enjoyable in their own right (like listening to a radio discussion), but also excellent to listen to while scanning or post-processing images. Thanks Joe for introducing the two wildlife photographers you mentioned: they produce different but equally inspiring and unusual work. Adam [...]
- Adam Pierzchala, 22:12 11th Febon Put Your Questions to Hans Strand
Yes, medium format will have a tough future. Though there are still people (including myself) who think it is worth the extra cost to get an extra edge. The difference is more obvious when you make large prints. A one meter wide print from medium format will convince you about [...]
- Hans Strand, 20:37 1st Febon Samantha Gibbons
Hi Samantha, it was great to see your images and to read how you feel about photography! I like what you say, "how beautiful the landscape around us really is.. It’s almost religious", as I feel almost the same! Your vistas have this subtle but intriguing light but I also like [...]
- Beata Moore, 10:09 30th Jan
The Olympus OM-10
Click on image to open Zoomify
It’s been a few months since we sent the prize to David Langan, although with the task of having his first pictures put on show and the dubious honour of being forced to write about it, it may not have been quite the ‘prize’ he was thinking of. Here’s David’s report from his first roll of film.
It was with a certain amount of trepidation that I received the Olympus OM-10 from Tim through the post. Save for putting a roll of film through an old EOS Elan I have been exclusively a digital shooter so far. I knew I would be able to make pictures with the camera but never having used a film camera seriously coupled with having my efforts broadcast to the landscape photography community had me feeling decidedly nervous!
What if I couldn’t expose properly? What if they were all out of focus? What if I mucked it up completely? With all these questions running through my head I took the tiny little camera along with me on one of my regular visits to Grandhome Moss for my ongoing project. The camera was dwarfed by my EOS 5D2 and looked positively silly sat atop a tripod but I quickly got to know the camera (or so I thought!!) and began making pictures.
I had taken the camera with me on numerous outings to Grandhome Moss and on a trip to autumnal Perthshire. It had been a good few months since I had taken delivery of the camera and thought I must be getting close to using up the 36 exposures. A quick check of the counter dial had me sweating ever so slightly. It was on “E”. Hhhhmmm, that doesn’t seem right at all.
When I got back home I went into a cupboard and opened up the back of the camera in the dark. I wound the film on making sure it was feeding right. All seemed fine. Relief! Although I had no idea how many photographs were exposed? It then occurred to me that I should have been taking notes on each photo as I at least would have an idea. D’oh!
I am a reluctant photographer. Reluctant in that I do not commit many photographs to pixels/emulsion. In fact on a trip out with LF photographer Dav Thomas last year he joked that our roles were reversed as he was the one who was making many photos with his view camera whilst my 5D2 stayed mostly in the bag. How long was it going to be until I came to the end of this roll of film? Now into February it had been 5 or so months since I received the camera and began to feel the pressure to get the article written.
I got right into the swing of things getting the OM-10 out on nearly every outing. But I had no idea if any of the result were useable, no idea if the camera under or over exposed as there was not that safety net of instant playback and histograms etc.
Now the end of February I still had not got to the end of the roll and decided just to get the film out and get it developed to see what was happening. When I got the negatives back I was relieved to see that I had made useable photographs.
However, the last half the roll was not exposed. GGGRRRRR. It looks like I did not start the film off properly and only corrected what ever error had occurred when I opened the back up in the cupboard. A lot of pretty decent photos gone forever! At least mishap gave me something to write about rather than exposing the 36 frames correctly first time! (Keep telling yourself that!).
The camera itself is fun to use and the operation simple and intuitive. I will definitely keep the camera loaded with film and take it out with me and use it in the same way I use the Hipstamatic app on the Iphone; provide a bit of light relief from serious picture making. But taking so long to expose 36 photos sits uneasy with me. I like instant results. Or at least not having to wait months to see the results!
As I still very much want to make photographs on film perhaps it all lends itself to the inevitability of going large format one day (have been thinking about it ever since I saw some David Ward transparencies in Glencoe in January 2009 and then interest further piqued seeing Richard Childs develop his own stuff in Harris a few years back). At least then I will see the results a bit faster!
Response to the scans
I have now had a chance to peruse the scans (courtesy of Tim) and I am pleased with the results. Considering the cost of the camera and a lens is cheaper than the cheapest of DSLR lenses it is all the more impressive. And the 12 MB jpeg file from the scan is more than large enough for any printing I would ever consider doing.
I used a roll of Portra 400 for this article so you would expect the results to be grainy, and they are but still very useable images.
Now I can see what is capable from such a cheap set up it puts into context this tech race which inevitably means buying more equipment that you probably don’t need at steep prices. And for what? Are these cameras, laden with options like Active D-Lighting, in camera HDR, Auto Lighting Optimizer etc), actually helping make better pictures? Probably not. Are users of these cameras using the equipment to its maximum potential? Probably not. Are users of these cameras utilizing all those pixels printing huge pieces of work? Probably not.
So before you go and spend perhaps thousands of pounds upgrading your camera you might consider keeping what you have and invest in a cheap film system. You can get a quality camera with quality glass and have more than enough money to buy all the film you would ever need and still have £££s left over. You will be surprised with how good the results are and your images will have something that, currently, your DSLR can’t offer, that lovely filmic quality.
Print 
PDF
Very interesting point about whether to go film rather than upgrade your digital. I am coming round to the idea that a cheap film camera might be the answer.Spend the money on a decent lens.
Great article i am just wondering how many of us are now trying film again after a few years away from it?
I am speaking as some one who has just bought a 6×6 system from ebay because i was missing the look of film.
Much cheaper than a new DSLR for sure.
Your article is not only very readable – but also totally believable. I have been in the loft ‘recovering’ a long abandoned film camera for which I have purchased some Velvia film in readiness for some trips down memory lane.
In reality I shall only be taking half a step back because I am not ready to recreate my darkroom so I shall be scanning the films and printing them digitally – but, then, at least it’s a start!!
The first SLR I ever used, David! I borrowed my parents’ one when I was at uni to take photos of student play productions and the like. Super camera from what I remember and great to see it being put to such good use here!
I am a year into being reunited with film after a few years of separation. I never really knew what I was doing with film in the old days, so good images were more by chance than skill. Now I have a Holga, a wooden pinhole camera and my beloved Hassleblad 500CM. I am loving the whole process of learning to use film to make images that look the way I want them to look. I am gradually coming to terms with not having instant feedback and I have narrowed my film choice down to one, which I now intend to use exclusively to really get to grips with it – ISO400 Kodak T-Max. (I use Ilford PanF 50 in the Pinhole). All three cameras use 120 film, so a roll gets used much quicker than 36 frames on a 35mm camera. I am impressed with the results you have achieved so far David and the Portra 400 gives a lovely feel to them. I urge any digital photographers to add at least one film camera to their collection and practise with it. You learn far more about photogrpahy using a film camera – and you learn quickly because of the cost. I believe it makes us better digital photographers if we develop skills with film.
Good heavens, you’ve reminded me of my first ‘proper’ film camera, the Olympus OM-20. I too got fed up waiting for 36 exposures, so ended up buying 24-exposure rolls to get quicker output.
I like your compositions, especially the one used as the title piece, which has some lovely tones in it. Well done for trying film!
Have just inherited a Yashica electro 35 and can’t wait to get some Fuji Nepoan Acros 100 in it..
As much as I loved my 9xi (which I still have), I never thought of going back to film. Mainly because I’d have to invest in a good (i.e. expensive) slide scanner to go with it. An adequate scanner would be more expensive than my current DSLR.
Oh, and nice pictures! Especially the one you zoomyfied.
Hi Carlo – I obviously don’t know what DSLR you’ve got but you can get a great 35mm scanner for under £400 (or buy one with a warranty from somewhere like ffordes.com for about £500). The Minolta Scan Elite 5400 does 5400dpi scans which is more resolution than my drum scanner can get.
Hi Tim, I currently have a Sony A700 which is really all I need. I have an old Minolta Scan Dual which is not really good and has no dust detection, but I had a Nikon (LS 4000 or something like that) from a friend for some time to scan a number of my old slides and that was really good, but it had cost him around 900€. So, unless I don’t scan any images, it’s gonna cost quite a lot to go through the film channel. And I’m not even talking medium format
Am currently experimenting with a number of film cameras; there is something wonderful about the feel of an analogue camera and the winding on of the film. Using a Rolleiflex at waist height changes the feel again; almost everything looks great in square format. Not having the instancy of digital really concentrates the mind, but I do find it frustrating waiting for film to be developed, and also worry that it will get lost in the post.
I really enjoy the middle one of the images above
http://carolinescamera.blogspot.co.uk/
Whoa there, all this enthusiasm for film is a trifle one-sided. Digital has its uses and we will all surely agree that particularly moving subjects (sports, photojournalism and wildlife for example) are cheaper when shooting with a motor-drive on digital. And these days if I were to do wedding or fashion photography I would probably chose digital just for the assurance that the exposures are OK.
However for contemplative landscape photography with relatively few frames being exposed, digital probably offers no cost advantage, considering that a good DSLR may take 3-5 years to pay for itself in savings on film and processing. Add to that the incessant technological improvements and thus the desire to upgrade the camera and the cost becomes a serious factor. At least with film, it was only the “sensor” that really changed over the years and in any case the price did not shift so much. The basic camera did not really need improvement with only metering and auto-focus making big advances (though a new body is always nice to have). As to digital being “better” than film, well maybe resolution is now beginning to overtake film and the new D800 is probably giving even MF film a real challenge. But I calculate it will take me perhaps 6-8 years to recoup the cost of the body, by which time the technology will be old hat. Yes I know it will still be as good as it was when first bought, but the market will be full of tempting goodies to upgrade! And it cannot match the viewfinder on my ageing Mamiya or the even older Rolleicord.
I better admit right now that I am predominantly a film user, exposing less and less as I make fewer but hopefully better photos. Why haven’t I switched fully to digital? Well, because I like working with the Mamiya and to get a similar viewfinder and feel in digital MF is prohibitively expensive. Financially, even a DSLR is not so attractive, though I can see myself moving to a DSLR in the medium term as I am taking more snaps of my fast-moving granddaughter and I do enjoy insect photography – both of which eat up 35mm film in my SLR. I mainly use my Lumix to try out ideas or for the great depth of field with its 24mm lens. Perhaps embarrassingly I have produced some of my most satisfying images with that little camera!