# Benefits of film photography?



## tabernaclia

What advantages does film have over, say, digital?


----------



## Battou

They have benifits each of their own, no one is superior to the other. 

But we will start off with initial cost with differed payments. Equipment is inexpencive, film processing spreads overall price out over time.


----------



## epp_b

Long exposures on low ISO film don't result in noisy pictures (eg.: hour-long exposures for star trails)

Digital is initially more expensive, but _hugely_ more convenient than film.


----------



## ksmattfish

Film does not require electricity to expose.  Useful in areas where batteries are scarce.  Also nice for all night exposures.  

Print film has a lot of exposure latitude.  Get the exposure within 2 stops and the lab will fix it.


----------



## monkeykoder

ksmattfish said:


> Film does not require electricity to expose.  Useful in areas where batteries are scarce.  Also nice for all night exposures.
> 
> Print film has a lot of exposure latitude.  Get the exposure within 2 stops and the lab will fix it.



I think you misspoke it is "Get the exposure within 2 stops and fix it in post" (where post = darkroom)


----------



## ann

they each have a different look .

some folks like to sit at the computer to pp, others love the darkroom.


----------



## Smilemon

ann said:


> they each have a different look .
> 
> some folks like to sit at the computer to pp, others love the darkroom.



+1

Darkroom work can be very satisfying.


----------



## ksmattfish

monkeykoder said:


> I think you misspoke it is "Get the exposure within 2 stops and fix it in post" (where post = darkroom)



I'm sorry, how is this different from what I posted?

Neg film has huge exposure latitude compared to slides or digital.  I think it's the main reason people have a hard time making the transition from neg film to digital.  The lab easily and quietly cleaned up sloppy exposure (a good lab should be able to handle a 2 stop over or under exposure) with print film.  Then when the photog goes digital they find an exposure latitude much more like slide film, and their sloppy technique becomes troublesome.  The lab wants to charge an extra fee to do the fixing, and even then it's not really fixed.  

Try fixing a neg that's 2 stops over or under exposed, and then try the same thing with digital.  The print from the neg is going to look a lot better, almost like there's no problem at all.  The digital shot will have extremely noisy shadows or solid white highlights.  With digital exposure accuracy is a must; with neg film it just needs to be in the ball park.


----------



## bhop

ksmattfish said:


> I'm sorry, how is this different from what I posted?
> 
> Neg film has huge exposure latitude compared to slides or digital.  I think it's the main reason people have a hard time making the transition from neg film to digital.  The lab easily and quietly cleaned up sloppy exposure (a good lab should be able to handle a 2 stop over or under exposure) with print film.  Then when the photog goes digital they find an exposure latitude much more like slide film, and their sloppy technique becomes troublesome.  The lab wants to charge an extra fee to do the fixing, and even then it's not really fixed.
> 
> Try fixing a neg that's 2 stops over or under exposed, and then try the same thing with digital.  The print from the neg is going to look a lot better, almost like there's no problem at all.  The digital shot will have extremely noisy shadows or solid white highlights.  With digital exposure accuracy is a must; with neg film it just needs to be in the ball park.




I gotta agree with all this.  It's one reason I like shooting negative film, it's just more forgiving.  Although, I think it makes me a little lazy.  I picked up my d70 this weekend and it took me a while to get the exposure right without blown out highlights.  Thank the maker for chimping..  

Another reason is it's just more fun. (for me anyways)  also, I don't like how 'clean' digital looks, but that's a personal preference.  I realize that can be "fixed" with software, but why bother when I can get the look I want by just shooting it oldskool.  

One more thing is the equipment.  I can't afford professional level digital bodies, but I can afford professional level film bodies that have the similar large viewfinders, in-hand feel, and build quality as well as functions like metering systems and fast autofocus.  Or if I want to shoot with older manual cameras, or my rangefinder, I have to use film (since again, I can't afford a Leica M8)


----------



## compur

^ I agree.

Also, with film 
- your camera doesn't become obsolete every 6 months
- no dusty sensor issues
- tons of terrific equipment available for peanuts
- beautiful cameras made of metal, chrome, wood and leather
- no concern over which "program/metering mode" to use
- bystanders who admire your eccentricity


----------



## Alpha

screw forgiving. if you can get more lattitude why use it just for errors? Carpe diem!


----------



## DeadEye

As Bhop said it  Those highlights. Film has better dynamic range.  If you say shoot a bride and groom  read ( brite white dress and dark black tux) in difficult light its tuff to get digital to not blow out the white and still get detail in the tux.  Film will get both no problem.


----------



## epatsellis

Pro level film equipment is extremely affordable, for one. Nikon F4 or F3/MD4 for less than $250, you have to be insane to not buy one (or two, or three...)
 I've had the same 3 F3/MD4 combos for going on 20 years, other than looks, they work just as well as the day I bought them new. 

erie


----------



## pasteofanchovie

Film and digital are equally beneficial, but I started developing my own film and making prints recently and it's a whole different world. There is a different feeling watching your picture just appear on the paper compared to loading up Photoshop. Also, film grain looks hundreds of times better than digital noise!


----------



## djacobox372

I love both filma and digital, for different reasons.  Here's my own subjective breakdown...

Film Advantages vs. Digital Advantages:

Film:

1) MUCH better exposure latitude, rarely do I get an over/under exposed shot that can't be resurrected during scanning.

2) Handles intense light blooms far better then digital--no ugly digital clamping.

3) Film SLR's are CHEAP, and last forever.  Heck you can buy the best film camera ever made (nikon f5) with all the features of a D3, for about $400. 

4) Photos taken with film have a timeless quality because they share the same chemical process with photos taken throughout history.... digital images are created via entirely different means and hence don't share the same "look" as photos taken 50 years ago.  

5) Film is much better at very long exposures

6) No sensor dust issues, which makes using film in dusty/filthy conditions less of a hassle. 

7) Film grain looks better then digital noise, kinda like the hiss and pop of a old record is more pleasant then the squealing and skipping caused by digital degradation. 


Digital:

1) Lower noise at higher iso's

2) Cheaper in the long run--at least for me

3) Experimenting is much easier and cheaper

4) Better resolution/detail then 35mm film, UNLESS you're buying $8 film, shooting really low isos, and spending a fortune to get it drum scanned.

5) Don't have to hassle with developing, and scanning

6) No dust or scratches on negatives!!! sensor dust is much easier to live with IMO.


Of course some of us actually enjoy the "hassle" so whether #5 is a negative or positive is up to the individual.


----------



## Paul Ron

It's the chemicals, man!
The chemicals!


----------



## reg

djacobox372 said:


> 5) Film is much better at very long exposures



Well, there is reciprocity failure...


----------



## deanimator

Shooting film can help control your output...36 exposures - one film on a job or at the beach with the family (compared to 400 with the digital camera maybe). And you will most likely store these negs carefully (or should!)

Digital can mean hours sorting, labelling and editing...converting, archiving etc, and worrying about losing a ton of data if your discs degrade or HDs fail (which they will do!)...you simply tend to shoot too many pix! 

An example: The famous shot of Bill Clinton kissing Monica Lewinsky was shot on film...the photographer later said had it been a digital file it would have probably been erased since at the time the "event" was not thought to have any particular meaning...the scandal broke about 2 years later...4 days of searching physical archives turned up with the Picture of the Year 
Read about it http://digitaljournalist.org/issue9807/editorial.htm


----------



## saltface

ksmattfish said:


> Film does not require electricity to expose.  Useful in areas where batteries are scarce.  Also nice for all night exposures.



Assuming you're using a full manual camera. I've used up new batteries in a matter of hours with film doing star trails.


----------



## Stogie

I kinda like the idea of my negatives still being around 50 or 100 years from now.  I know my digital files won't be around that far into the future.  If they are, will the present format still be usable 50 years in the future?  I was going thru some boxes not long ago and I found some negatives that I shot about 45 years ago, when I was a kid.  That was a great moment.


----------



## saltface

Stogie said:


> I kinda like the idea of my negatives still being around 50 or 100 years from now.  I know my digital files won't be around that far into the future.  If they are, will the present format still be usable 50 years in the future?  I was going thru some boxes not long ago and I found some negatives that I shot about 45 years ago, when I was a kid.  That was a great moment.




Oh! Look! Great-grandpa's pictures are on this... this... eight track?


----------



## Alex_B

film latitude is unbeaten, even slide film is better than today's digitals in that respect. Very useful in landscape photography where you cannot control the light like you do in a studio.

Also you get higher resolutions if you go to formats beyond 35mm, in particular large format.


----------



## Alex_B

Stogie said:


> I kinda like the idea of my negatives still being around 50 or 100 years from now.  I know my digital files won't be around that far into the future.  If they are, will the present format still be usable 50 years in the future?  I was going thru some boxes not long ago and I found some negatives that I shot about 45 years ago, when I was a kid.  That was a great moment.



negatives do degrade, some faster, some slower.

And all this digital formats will be unreadable in the future talk is quite a hype if you ask me. Unless there is a serious destruction hitting our civilisation, JPG and TIFF will be readable in 50 and also in 100 years.

You just have to be careful with the media, don't store it on a harddrive, CD or whatever and leave it in a box for 50 years, then you might have a problem. Store it with all your other data that accumulates and either outsource the storage, or keep your data vault alive by migrating to new media  from time to time. I still have my electronic data from 20 years ago, and there is no problem.


----------



## Early

The biggest advantage of film is that digital is way too easy.


----------



## Alex_B

Early said:


> The biggest advantage of film is that digital is way too easy.



I still think exposing Fuji Velvia correctly is easier than exposing my digital sensor correctly. Also I spend more time with processing since I went digital.


----------



## epatsellis

Alex_B said:


> negatives do degrade, some faster, some slower.
> 
> And all this digital formats will be unreadable in the future talk is quite a hype if you ask me. Unless there is a serious destruction hitting our civilisation, JPG and TIFF will be readable in 50 and also in 100 years.
> 
> You just have to be careful with the media, don't store it on a harddrive, CD or whatever and leave it in a box for 50 years, then you might have a problem. Store it with all your other data that accumulates and either outsource the storage, or keep your data vault alive by migrating to new media  from time to time. I still have my electronic data from 20 years ago, and there is no problem.




I find that for most of my fine art/landscape work, a hybrid approach works, with color negative film scanned, there's an insane amount of dynamic range to work with, more than raw digital files, from my experience.

erie


----------



## Paul Ron

"Oh! Look! Great-grandpa's pictures are on this... this... eight track?"

Gee, I wish we had a something or other to read these pictures. I can't see anything on these silver donuts. Oh but wait, there's a shoe box full of 100 year old negatives... see the images? ummm makes you think hey? 

So what your CDs will last 10, 000 years... there will be no computers around that could read em. What happens when Blue Ray takes over?... convert 1000 CDs over to the new format? YEAH! I still havea a closet full of 8mm reels waiting to be put on Beta.


----------



## 8power

i was going to talk about 'shoebox' too..

i have 800mb of raw files after a day out today.
i shoot raw because i want something that equates to a negative (in my mind). however i find it very tedious to have to use an app like REVEAL
to inspect them on my mac, then open SILKYPIX to take a proper look/export, then open GIMP to size them up. i miss the shoebox full of prints that can be shared around over coffee. it's hard to think of a decent s/n thats available of flickr etc these days - and all the admin decisions of privacy/share access of images on those interfaces. i think i'm bored of digital technology and electronic culture. i think i'll get myself a contax 139q with a zeiss 50 and pull the plug on internet photosharing.


----------



## doobs

Why should one have to ask the advantages of film over digital? Aren't the results enough obvious proof?


----------



## Early

Digital is rapidly creeping up on the resolution of film.  And, who knows?  They just may be holding back some to allow more sales of the old technology.


----------



## bhop

Early said:


> Digital is rapidly creeping up on the resolution of film.  And, who knows?  They just may be holding back some to allow more sales of the old technology.



Personally, I don't care about resolution.  It's the "look" of film that I like, and the 'too smooth' look that digital has that I don't like.  To me, that slight imperfection of film is an advantage.


----------



## usayit

bhop said:


> Personally, I don't care about resolution.  It's the "look" of film that I like, and the 'too smooth' look that digital has that I don't like.  To me, that slight imperfection of film is an advantage.




A...ha.  Now there's a fellow that I can get along with.. :thumbup:
To me, screw everything else .. the most important thing in my book is how it prints.

Some digital cameras produce more pleasing prints than others.... regardless of specs, pixels, resolution, etc...  IMO, film is still king (albeit no where close to as convenient)


----------



## monkeykoder

I always think of film as more convenient "Sorry you can't come in quite yet I'm printing"  *continues with whatever he was doing previously*  However you must develop SOME film to make this story believable...


----------



## Early

usayit said:


> A...ha.  Now there's a fellow that I can get along with.. :thumbup:
> To me, screw everything else .. the most important thing in my book is how it prints.
> 
> Some digital cameras produce more pleasing prints than others.... regardless of specs, pixels, resolution, etc...  IMO, film is still king (albeit no where close to as convenient)


Well, I'm still a film guy, but there is one more thing I have to concede.  Photos from many digitals taken at ISO 1600 today are more acceptable noise wise than the grain from ISO 1600 film.


----------



## Early

On the plus side for film, I much prefer it over digital when it comes to skin tones, especially when using any of the Kodak 160 pro films that were on the market.


----------



## Hawaii Five-O

The nice thing about film too is that it is more likely to be put in photo albums or in frames.  Digital usually just end up on the hard  and are not physically displayed somewhere

Also film cameras help a person understand the workings of photography better.


----------



## djacobox372

Hawaii Five-O said:


> Also film cameras help a person understand the workings of photography better.



I'd disagree with that assertion... a student can borrow a digital slr and shoot all day long, experimenting and seeing instant results.  It's much more expensive and slower to learn on film.

Of course it depends on the personality, some people have to be FORCED to slow down, and film does help with that.


----------



## usayit

Early said:


> Well, I'm still a film guy, but there is one more thing I have to concede.  Photos from many digitals taken at ISO 1600 today are more acceptable noise wise than the grain from ISO 1600 film.



noise != grain.  

Personally, I'd rather have the grain than chromatic noise.


----------



## tyerlyons

compur said:


> ^ I agree.
> 
> Also, with film
> - your camera doesn't become obsolete every 6 months
> - no dusty sensor issues
> - tons of terrific equipment available for peanuts
> - beautiful cameras made of metal, chrome, wood and leather
> - no concern over which "program/metering mode" to use
> - bystanders who admire your eccentricity



I have had my digital camera for two years now and it is still very good


----------



## tyerlyons

djacobox372 said:


> Hawaii Five-O said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also film cameras help a person understand the workings of photography better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd disagree with that assertion... a student can borrow a digital slr and shoot all day long, experimenting and seeing instant results.  It's much more expensive and slower to learn on film.
> 
> Of course it depends on the personality, some people have to be FORCED to slow down, and film does help with that.
Click to expand...


I agree.  film photography is so expensive.  the benefits of using film does not make the cost worth while


----------



## Canon AE-1

For me, it's film. I enjoy setting up the shot, checking cam settings, making adjustments, etc. Anticipating if i got the shot or not. Getting the prints back and eventually developing my own, what fun. I'm a Avionics, Electronics and computer tech, and troubleshooting down to component level is more fun and challenging than just swapping boards out. IMHO, film is like component level and Digital is like swapping boards out. No challenge for me. But everyone's different, just enjoy the hobby.


----------



## Light Artisan

The only difference to me is time and cost, digital wins at both. I can still set up the shot, check the camera settings, make adjustments, etc... the only difference is that I don't have to wait to see the results, I'm OK with that.


----------



## Canon AE-1

I dont mind waiting, gives me something to look forward to. I dont worry bout cost, might have to drink a few less beers, but thats ok. I do use my digitals for quick shots to send to someone via email or for quick posting on sites. 
You say tomato i say tomaaaato, they both taste good.


----------



## Light Artisan

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the process... I relate it to shaving, I have a vast collection of old razors and sometimes break out the double edge, badger hair brush, shave soap and bowl and have a proper shave. End result is basically the same, but there's some added pleasure in doing things 'the old way'.


----------



## Canon AE-1

LOL! yes, i love the old ways. I do love my 4 blade razor. Would you freak out if i said i love the 70's? I miss the good ol days.


----------



## BKMOOD

I love digital and I love film.  However, film gives me more of a sense of satisfaction than digital.  For some reason I just don't value a digital file as much as I do a negative.  I get more of a sense of accomplishment from film than I do from digital.  I get no sense of challenge from digital like I do with film.


----------



## Ron G

I have shot film for 50 years.I am not kidding myself or anyone else,I can now afford the cameras that I lusted after all these years plus I enjoy working on them as well.If I happen to trash one in the process it won't break the bank.I can also take advantage of the new technology and scan my negatives and print the pics as well.Not like the old days but it keeps me involved.I just went to my stepsons wedding and of course was part of the wedding party so all I carried was a little Nikon SQ.I have many other cameras that I could have chosen but wanted to take something that I could conceal easily in my tux.
The photographer was using a nice Canon SLR with bounce flash etc.
Had I not been in the party I would have taken a Bessamatic or an Konica Autoreflex T3 maybe with my Nissin 4800GT hammerhead flash.I promise you my pics would have looked as good as that Canon is going to make.Ron G


----------



## djacobox372

I own a D700 and I cannot achieve gradients as smooth and natural as these with it. 

4x5 tmax 100:


----------



## Ron G

I looked through my pics yesterday and happened to catch one of his camera,it is an Canon EOS 7D.That is an 18mp camera.It will be interesting to see what we get from it.The SQ is only 3.34 mp and I was way out gunned I know.I should have used my partners camera,it is an Sony DSC W-55 which is 7 mp but didn't want to be seen with a pink camera.LOL.
Her daughter also has an Canon which is 7mp and my pics look almost as good as hers do.Time will tell.Ron G


----------



## Paul Ron

I like having control over my images, not let some computers do my job. 

Once you get your exposure (computer picked the settings) then get the digiprint set up in PS (needed a compter to do the work for ya again), the printer pops em out like posters.. (printer is a computer?)... ummm maybe they are only computer posters? 


Now with film you need to decide just how to expose the image so you keep shadow details n how you will develope so the highlights don't block up... (brain at work). Once we get the film loaded into the tank we have to decide on the developer n how much time we need to soup... (brain at work). The negatives are drying and all I cna think about is how that frame will look on a warm tone paper, or maybe I should do it on a cooler tone paper n use selenium later to bring it up a bit... (brain is working OT now) Got the frame loaded in my enlarger and I can smell the fixer, my pulse is racing now as I set the timer for 18 sec.... into the soup and magic, my image is coming up. First the shadows, the the high details.... time! into the stop she goes n fixer and lights... WOW! That is amazing... I did that with my 2 hands and the mush betwen my ears... MY BRAIN! 

So all you digiheads with ADD that just feel the need for imideate gratification... think about this, if you stop using your brain, it will rot in your head and come out your nose as snot. 

All kidding aside, advantages? None. Pick your poison n have fun.


----------



## Mike_E

Hmm, I like digi and film, does that make me a Metrographer?


----------



## molested_cow

saltface said:


> ksmattfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Film does not require electricity to expose.  Useful in areas where batteries are scarce.  Also nice for all night exposures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming you're using a full manual camera. I've used up new batteries in a matter of hours with film doing star trails.
Click to expand...



Hmmm.... I have done some star trail shots ( 10~35min exposures) and I can't remember when was the last time I put new batteries into my camera.


----------



## trekkin

Film vs Digital is like....

Homemade hand-kneaded bread  _vs_ bread machine

A handwritten calligraphy letter on parchment  _vs_ email

A homemade gourmet meal _vs_ McDonalds

A long walk in the park  _vs_ a fast drive in the city

Bottom-up freedom of choice  _vs_ top-down Government-like control of everything you do

Either can take good photos.  
It all comes down to:  What sort of person are you?


----------



## Light Artisan

You have just as much control with RAW digital as you do with film, I don't get that argument some people are making. With a computer you still make all of the decisions just as you do with darkroom developing.

One you develop in a darkroom, the other you develop with a computer. that's the difference, other than cost.

A nice long walk in the park can still be a nice long walk in the park.


----------



## trekkin

But don't you think that the computer programmer decides what you can and can't do with your auto P&S camera, as well as with Photoshop?  
99% of the snappers I see are going full auto and accepting the camera's concept of exposure, depth of field, focus, etc.  There are a few exceptions I suppose, who go manual and make a real effort beyond P&S but I rarely see them out and about.  So let's not pretend that exceptions are very common.

Overall, I am suggesting that the type of person is more important than the equipment.  And more people eat at McDonalds than home cook these days, for many of the same reasons (although the expert marketing of all the new instant gratification digiproducts has a strong influence on people's behavior).

Why do people still ride horses when there are cars?  Cars are sooooo much more convenient.


----------



## Light Artisan

You seem to forget that there are point and shoot film cameras and people who bring them to Wal Mart for developing - that equates (to me) the people who shoot in Auto mode and bring their card straight to the store to print their photos.

Manual mode is manual mode in film or digital, it doesn't make you a better photographer just because you shoot manual. Shooting in Aperture priority is just as relative to photography as full manual for example. Knowing when to use what is the key, not film vs digital.


----------



## Canon AE-1

I really like creating vintage looking photos with a vintage camera. I'm wondering if you can get the same "vintage" feel with a digital, without any manipulation in post?
I took this a couple of weeks ago with my AE-1, no post work on it. Got the prints and scanned.


----------



## Josh66

molested_cow said:


> saltface said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ksmattfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Film does not require electricity to expose.  Useful in areas where batteries are scarce.  Also nice for all night exposures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming you're using a full manual camera. I've used up new batteries in a matter of hours with film doing star trails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.... I have done some star trail shots ( 10~35min exposures) and I can't remember when was the last time I put new batteries into my camera.
Click to expand...

Some cameras require power to hold the shutter open, some don't.
Not sure about my 1N RS, but I know the 10s doesn't use any power while it's exposing.  Well, just enough to keep the top LCD on - but really, how much energy does that take?  That's on even when the camera isn't (I think it might actually have it's own battery...)

I have never had a film body go through batteries as fast as a digital body, and I never used the LCD, at all.  (It was broken, so I didn't have a choice in the matter.  Now I'm just used to not having one.)

I got my 1N RS in the beginning of April, this year.  I don't use it every day, but probably every other day.  I've changed the batteries *one time* since then.  (It does take 8 AAs though - so it's not like there's a shortage of power for it.)

I've done all night star trails with it, blasted away at 10FPS, leave it on servo AF all the time, sometimes I forget to turn it off when I put it away - the batteries still last forever.  At first, I thought the battery meter might have been faulty because it never moved.  Then one day one of the bars fell off, lol.

Before that I was using a 10s.  It did need more frequent battery changes, but still - I'm talking every two months.  Not every week or sometimes daily (depending on use) like with my old 350D.

Even with the battery grip, that 350D needed fresh batteries at least weekly.

These days, I pretty much only use digital for posting stuff online, or testing an idea I have.  Checking how the lighting looks before I shoot it 'for real', lol.


----------



## flatflip

trekkin said:


> Film vs Digital is like....
> 
> Homemade hand-kneaded bread  _vs_ bread machine
> 
> A handwritten calligraphy letter on parchment  _vs_ email
> 
> A homemade gourmet meal _vs_ McDonalds
> 
> A long walk in the park  _vs_ a fast drive in the city
> 
> Bottom-up freedom of choice  _vs_ top-down Government-like control of everything you do
> 
> Either can take good photos.
> It all comes down to:  What sort of person are you?



A vinyl copy of "Let It Be" _vs_ a CD copy (mp3 = P&S) (remastered = full frame)

It's all about the dynamics.


----------



## Paul Ron

Canon AE-1 said:


> I really like creating vintage looking photos with a vintage camera. I'm wondering if you can get the same "vintage" feel with a digital, without any manipulation in post?
> I took this a couple of weeks ago with my AE-1, no post work on it. Got the prints and scanned.



Is that a dual trace analog Techtronics scope I see there?  A frequency counter n a frequency generator, soldering iron? No one uses em anymore, computer scopes are faster, capture n do all sorts of things that old banger never could but I stil love mine. 

Film vs Digital will always be a contraversal subject for conversation but it doesn't matter what or why you use it... just get out n shoot your butts off. Someone has to record the times we live in and photographers are notorious for that. Unless you prefer oil paints or pastels or water colors... etc etc etc. 

Can't we all get along?


----------



## Ron G

Sure is neater than my workbench.Ron G


----------



## Ken Rockwell Fan

I just picked up a mint N80 + 28-80 lens for $90 shipped off of feeBay. I can't find a good DSLR for that cheap. Tri X Pan till death I say!


----------



## John Mc

Sure cant!


----------



## Paul Ron

I'll have to post a pic of my old frquency counter with pixi tube display I got surpluss form the Army Navy store for $5. It came out of a 1940s submarine.


----------



## Ron G

Paul Ron said:


> I'll have to post a pic of my old frquency counter with pixi tube display I got surpluss form the Army Navy store for $5. It came out of a 1940s submarine.


What is the operating voltage for submarine stuff like that?
I have something here that looks pretty sophisticated that needs 28 volts which is aircraft material I think.My work area is just about due for another major cleaning,there are things there accumulated from 40 years or more.I often buy new items because I can't find what I need when I know that I have it)Ron G


----------



## Paul Ron

Check out the specs on my HP 521a counter described at the top of this page.....

http://www.prc68.com/I/HPac4a.shtml#M

I have the HP 521a Military version rack mount. It's 120VAC standard plug, maybe been converted? Anyway it is not from the 40s but made in the 50s rack mounted in subs I was told by the guy in the store. I was 11yrs old n spent a years worth of allowence to buy it. I lugged it home in a shopping cart, carried it up 4 stories, it weighed a ton! 

It was simplay amazing to be able to measure frequency, I had to have one. I also enjoyed using it on those cold winter nights, the heat it gave off was great. 

Now let me see if I can post a pic of her, that's more of a challenge than carrying my counter.


----------



## Ron G

Some of us still consider that stuff a treasure.I used to hang around a guy (retired military) that had a locomotive engine in his back yard for the generator because the local power provider could not supply the energy he needed for the R+D he was doing with lasers etc.This was back in the '70s.He had a rack full of gear with those pixie tubes for displays.That is where I learned to exercise an analog meter that might be sticky with a low frequency low amplitude pulse to free it up.
I do the same thing today with a function generator.I have even taken pics of the light meter being swept at a low shutter speed to show the movement.This was the meter in my Voigtlander Vito CL.
My Nikon 950 and 990s have very good macro capabilities and the pics show a lot of detail.
This gentleman has probably passed on by now (Bob Horwinski) but I will always remember the things that he showed me as he took me under his wing to help me along.Ron G


----------



## BAK61

I'm a newbie to all of it (8 months total). i started because of the Lomo store in manhattan, but the costs of developing 120 soon caught up with me. I cut back on the film and bought a digital; EPL1. I love knowing right away if i want the pic or not, without the cost of developing.....but there is something about film that digital can't duplicate...its the feel of ,say,age. Take a b/w photo of an old wrought iron fence with 120 and then digital....you'll see what i mean....but with digital it doesn't matter if i shoot 1 or 1000 pics,it's just a chip!


----------



## flatflip

BAK61 said:


> I'm a newbie to all of it (8 months total). i started because of the Lomo store in manhattan, but the costs of developing 120 soon caught up with me. I cut back on the film and bought a digital; EPL1. I love knowing right away if i want the pic or not, without the cost of developing.....but there is something about film that digital can't duplicate...its the feel of ,say,age. Take a b/w photo of an old wrought iron fence with 120 and then digital....you'll see what i mean....but with digital it doesn't matter if i shoot 1 or 1000 pics,it's just a chip!



Hey Newbie. I'm new to dslr and this forum. I think it's cool that we're drawn to this thread.

Mick


----------



## Bagpiper

Ron G said:


> ....I often buy new items because I can't find what I need when I know that I have it)Ron G



I am building my workshop in a spare room and I found I had 43 screwdrivers. I did the same. Bought new... lost them... bought some more new..... lost them. But hey new tools are always fun.

Thanks for sharing the pictures of your workshop.

Cheers
Jim


----------



## Paul Ron

Amzing how the old timers took us kids under their wing. The old German fellow in our building was a photographer/camera reapirmen and ham operator elctronics tinkerer. So I got involved in everything as a kid with lots of good advice n an education I can never get in any school. 

So yeah film to me is mother's milk, digital is store bought formula. 

The "feel" talked about is so very true. But today with silver papers being so lousey, it's hard to get that feel anymore.

I also love the look of old cameras, they are so nostolgic. People are always stopping me when I shoot to ask about my camera. Most of the older folks remeber having one in the family as a kid.


----------



## Ron G

My life needs to change a little.I have a new (to me) lens for a Bessamatic that I haven't even tried yet and that is a shame.I love to shoot my Konicas but just can't find the time.When I leave the house I grab one of my Nikon SQs and I'am off,that's no fun.I hardly ever use it when I am out either.Sad.Ron G


----------

