# New to film...some of my prints



## carolineruth12 (Jul 5, 2007)

I'm sort of new to film. However, i've discovered a new passion and i prefer it immensely to digital photography! Here are some good prints i made. Let me know what you think.


----------



## blackdoglab (Jul 5, 2007)

These are some nice shots.  You might want to consider posting them in the gallery.  I do have a few questions, though...  What camera are ya shootin' with, what film, what developer?


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 5, 2007)

yes nice stuff...


----------



## carolineruth12 (Jul 6, 2007)

blackdoglab said:


> These are some nice shots.  You might want to consider posting them in the gallery.  I do have a few questions, though...  What camera are ya shootin' with, what film, what developer?


I'm shooting with a Minolta Maxxum 5, film...Kodak Tmax 400 or Ilford 400, developer... HC 110.
And how do you post in the gallery?


----------



## Ockie (Aug 20, 2007)

I seem to miss some contrast & sharpness... same as when I scanned some of my prints, so I guess its because of your scanner...

Nice photos


----------



## dinodan (Aug 21, 2007)

carolineruth12 said:


> And how do you post in the gallery?


 
Click on the little "mountain" button and paste the photobucket URL into the space provided in the pop-up window. That way, your actual photo will appear in the post, rather than just the URL.


----------



## terri (Aug 22, 2007)

Caroline, if you'd like I can move this thread over to the General Gallery. Or you can re-post these images in any gallery you'd like, as dinodan described. 

Nice stuff.


----------



## glaston (Aug 30, 2007)

What is it about the film process that you all like so much more than digital?

I always thought that what people liked was the higher dynamic range.
But when I see some film images, they appear to have less range than most digital images.
Not to mention that scanned images are always alot "softer" than those created directly by a CCD and require more sharpening which many people don't even do.
When that's the case, the quality of the image isn't near that of a well exposed and corrected digital image.

So I'm just wondering if it's maybe the more manual and hands on process of film?
Do you guys feel that you have less control over the image when it's digital because it depends on skill with the computer and an application like Photoshop?

I've never even used a non-digital SLR, and I learned Photoshop for graphic design purposes before I had an interest in photography.
Photoshop is what sparked my interest in photography because I like image manipulations as it's possible to create things that aren't possible otherwise.

So this is something that I really wonder about because it seems to me that with a good dSLR, and good skill with an app like PS, that you can achieve things that just aren't possible when you take the computer completely out of the process.


----------



## windrivermaiden (Aug 30, 2007)

Wonder and Awe- There is danger and suspense, suprise and disappointment. 

and delayed gratification. 

Skill and knowledge, not only with the camera, but with the chemical reactions in the lab, use of the enlarger. Using darkroom techniques that are mimicked by Photoshop.

and that wonderful feeling that comes with mastery of those skills.

I do shoot alot of digital. But for me it is the difference between a drive-thru hamburger and a BBQ with friends. I simply find film more satisfying.


----------



## mouricry (Aug 30, 2007)

Very unique I like it 
Here's my webpage 
mouricry.deviantart.com


----------



## glaston (Aug 30, 2007)

windrivermaiden said:


> Wonder and Awe- There is danger and suspense, suprise and disappointment.
> 
> and delayed gratification.
> 
> ...



That's about the equivalent of why I use digital.
Can't argue with that logic.

Especially this one-


> and that wonderful feeling that comes with mastery of those skills.


 I like that feeling too.
It's pretty much why I do everything I do, everything design related anyway.


----------



## windrivermaiden (Aug 30, 2007)

Well then, you are among friends...let's say no more about how we obtain our images... and just enjoy them.


----------



## glaston (Aug 31, 2007)

That kind of goes against the purpose of the board though.
Photography is all about acquiring/obtaining images.

If we don't talk about how we obtain our images, what will we talk about?

With this being the alternative techniques board, how we obtain images is what this particular section was created for.

Your heart is in the right place, if your intent was to avoid any possible ugliness.
There won't be any ugliness, and we can still be free to discuss how we obtain our images.
I'm not here to argue. I just noticed this section for the first time.
I like to do photo manipulations, matte paintings, and 3D composite images.

These are alternative techniques here.
Most people here do standard digital work, then there's the film crowd and a subset of film purists, also the HDR crowd, and the digital minimalist.
My preferred methods are outside of those still, hence the allure of 'alternative techniques board'.

As far as the discussion goes, I take issue with only 1 thing you said.


> Using darkroom techniques that are mimicked by Photoshop.


Photoshop doesn't mimick darkroom techniques any more than digital TV mimicks analog TV, it provides the digital implementation of those techniques.
It's not accurate to view traditional photography and digital photography as 2 opposing camps.
They are 2 methods of achieving the same result. Which is capturing light at a specific moment in time/space.
Some people prefer film, some people prefer digital. 
Both have their strong and weak points. 
Both are after the same thing though.


----------



## terri (Aug 31, 2007)

> *I've never even used a non-digital SLR*, and I learned Photoshop for graphic design purposes before I had an interest in photography.
> Photoshop is what sparked my interest in photography because I like image manipulations as it's possible to create things that aren't possible otherwise.


Well, that is very telling. How can you assume attitude on the part of film enthusiasts when you are completely ignorant of what it can bring you? 

Becoming interested in photography due to a piece of software seems a bit backwards to me....but to each his own. 

Alternative processes by and large are film-based; some are more hybrid in nature. Most of the folks who participate in the alt forum can employ film with some digital help - that doesn't make us "purists" or digital-phobes - quite the opposite.

I would suggest you familiarize yourself with film photography and even read up on alternative photographic processes, so you learn what all is possible - before you cast judgment on people who are using the precise medium(s) that can get them to their desired artistic goals. So often, it is ignorance that leads to misunderstandings of intent.


----------



## windrivermaiden (Aug 31, 2007)

Photoshop...and all other digital photographic manipulation programs out there are built on the foundation of :heartARKROOM:heart:.

I could go through each feature and filter and give the coresponding studio, lab or post-process to achieve the effect (and because I know both! fluently, I can....:queenbut it would be tedious and the :sun:sun is out today and I am going put my energy into making beautiful prints, each one a wonder in it self. A work of dedication, chemistry and beauty.:hail:


----------



## windrivermaiden (Aug 31, 2007)

p.s. analog TV and digiTV are siblings, one younger and one older yet, still one generation.... decendants of Radio. Photoshop is the decendant of Darkroom not the contemporary. IMHO


----------

