Paris

by Jon

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

57

I think medium and large format photography is still a world dominated by film. While that fact is starting to change with more recent digital cameras that have extremely high megapixel counts (20mp or more), going to a larger format is SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper with film. The benefits of large format are particularly nice for landscape photography, but shine ...


47

Star trails (Google images search) are much easier to photograph using film equipment, for a few reasons: It won't kill your battery. A digital SLR will expose for an hour if you're lucky before the battery dies, depending on your power setup (extra grip vs no). A film camera can expose indefinitely without using any additional battery usage, which is ...


44

Infrared and ultraviolet photography is much more accessible with film. With digital it is possible, but generally involves modifying the sensor to remove the hot mirror, which is very expensive.


30

Film negatives are only light-sensitive while in the camera, until they are removed and processed. The processing includes a step to "fix" the image so that the negatives will not be further exposed by light. So once processed, film negatives (and slides) can be handled in daylight.


28

In short, reciprocity failure is how we describe film reacting unevenly to exposure. Usually, film's exposure is pretty linear: exposing film at f/2.8 for 1/60s will give you the same negative density as exposing at f/4 for 1/30s or f/2 for 1/125s. When you start to reduce the number of photons hitting your photosensitive material per second, though, things ...


27

It depends on what you are after from the experience. Are you playing with it just to see what wacko images you can get that are 'different' or 'alternate' to digital? In other words, are you exploring film like you would a Holga, a pinhole, or a lensbaby? then don't bother reading on. If, on the other hand, you are exploring film because you want to ...


25

The problem is definitely not overexposure; that renders negatives black. To work out whether it was underexposure or a development problem, there's a fairly straight-forward indicator: Do you see any edge markings (marked red in the example below)? They'll vary from film to film; not all will have barcodes, but there's usually a name or number at the ...


22

I don't think we can talk about quality difference anymore. The definite difference, in my opinion, is the need of power of digital cameras. If you are going mountain climbing then a film camera might be more appropriate since mountains still lack power plugs. Also, film cameras have a very low starting price. If you are a novice it is economically ...


21

The white balance should be indicated on the box and the datasheet for the film. There aren't too many choices though. Most films are daylight balanced for shooting in sunlight. If you were shooting in open shade, you were expected to use a slight warming filter to get rid of the blue cast. If you shot daylight-balanced film under tungsten light, you could ...


20

First an explanation; this answer extensively borrows from and combines points from a number of the existing answers to this question. To those from whom I have borrowed, thanks. A short answer to this question is "very little" but that hardly does justice to the intent of the question. So I'll make a long answer and divide it into sections. Spectral ...


20

Wikipedia page: Lomography Lomography was a fad from some time ago which involved using cheap, old Russian film cameras, primarily a camera called the LOMO LC-A, to create pictures with a poor technical quality. The term is a trademark of Lomographische AG, an Austrian company who now manufacture that and a range of other cheap plastic cameras for sale in ...


18

One thing that I like better about film photography is, that you can shoot slides and project these in large scale with their original resolution onto a screen, or even just a smooth white wall. Digital projectors will never give your 12 megapixel camera justice--most digital projectors cannot display anything beyond the "HD" format, which is really only 2 ...


18

I think, like you said, the canisters are made for protecting the film from external influences. The plastic casing of the capsules is not completely shut. Dust, small water drops and light might get inside without an extra casing.


17

Color film contains several layers, each sensitive to a different color of light (red, green, blue). When exposed to light and developed, these produce magenta, cyan and yellow colors in the negative. The printing process works in a similar way. This is similar to the way digital sensors work, in that there are filters to exclude all but one color of ...


17

Its better to scan the original slide/negative as its better to reproduce from as close to the source as possible meaning quality of reproduction goes down in this order: The source (whatever it was you actually were shooting) The slide/negative or digital camera file A print of the photograph. It essentially comes down to every stage of recording ...


16

The good news - all medium format gear is ridiculously cheap now that everyone switched to digital. Cheapest hardware is probably 645, Mamiya was always cheapest and is lens compatible right upto their most modern digital models. Although most people used them as eyelevel SLRs you can get a waistlevel finder for $10 My favorite 6x7 was always Mamiya RB67 ...


16

In theory you can get more out of a negative than a print. However, in practice you are more likely to have access to a flat bed scanner that can give a wonderful scan from the print. A good film scanner is much more expensive and slower. Considerations are similar for larger format film. But the costs go up even more, since the consumer-level film ...


16

You can't restore information that is lost, but if the effect is uniform over the entire image, or at least gradual, you can balance it out to restore the same look as it would originally have. With the added processing you will of course lose even a little more quality, but that is hardly visible. What you might see is that the limitations of the data gets ...


15

Attempt to Summarise (wiki) The options seem to be: 1 Keep them for posterity See John Cavan's answer. Personally, this is my favourite, because objects we think of as junk to be thrown away are really part of history. I put this into practice often. (My wife does not see things from quite such an historical perspective, however ;) 2 Give them to ...


15

Yes, you can. Changing lens won't reveal the film in an SLR; both mirror and shutter are in the way. The lens mount is only meant to pass light to the film during exposure — you can see light through the lens in the viewfinder when composing, but that light doesn't reach the film.


15

The 24°C (75°F) is the temperature below which the film should be maintained when stored for long periods of time. That is why many film photographers store their bulk film in a refrigerator. It will not harm the film to shoot it in conditions warmer than 24°C, but it will degrade it to store it in higher temperatures for extended periods. The 27° is a ...


15

Here's a dirty little secret: 35mm film has no aspect ratio at all until it is exposed. It is just one blank piece of film a specific width (35mm) and any practical length with perforations occupying the outer edges that leave a 24mm wide strip in between the perforations. What determines the dimensions of the photo is the size of the film plane each ...


15

You won't be able to tell by looking at the film. When the film is exposed, the changes in the crystals in the film's emulsion are invisible, and the exposed film is said to contain a latent image. This image is made visible by developing the film into negatives from which you can make prints (or for slide film, into slides). After this, a fixer is used to ...


14

You can calculate the reolution from the megapixels like this: ppi = sqrt(mp * 1000000 * 3/2) * 25.4 / 36 Which gives you: 6 mp = 2117 ppi 7 mp = 2286 ppi 8 mp = 2444 ppi 9 mp = 2592 ppi 10 mp = 2733 ppi 11 mp = 2866 ppi 12 mp = 2993 ppi


14

With a film camera, with every shot you take you get a new "sensor". With digital, that sensor stays in place and gathers dust and dirt.


14

That would really depend on what kind of effect you are going for, and which format you shoot. Some can't stand the more apparent grain that comes with higher speed film, but I think it adds character. Then there is development and printing, etc. I personally find B&W ISO 400 film to suit my taste though, mostly T-Max or Tri-X with a side of Ilford HP5 ...


14

There are film leader extractors (that at least used to be) available. I'd guess even now most decent camera stores should have one around to handle situations like yours. If you want to buy one, it looks like B&H still lists them. I would guess most others do too, though I haven't looked. In this case, it's probably cheaper to buy it locally if you can ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible