Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › What is a nice used SLR 35mm camera?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What is a nice used SLR 35mm camera? - Page 3

post #31 of 109
2/3/09 at 2:03am
A lot of times now they'll assume that if you're having film 'developed' you'll be scanning it yourself. Three basic options at most pro labs: Developing Developing + Proof Sheet (8x10 with all your images printed onto one sheet - you can then mark which you'd like to see printed with a red china marker) Developing + prints (3x5,4x6,4x4, etc.) - this gets costly for black and white I recommend the second - you can then store your negatives in one 35mm storage sheet and the proof right next to them and have an easy index of all your images.
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 109
2/3/09 at 2:08am
Thread Starter 
Is worth getting a cheap (<$99) scanner to scan in your negatives?
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 109
2/3/09 at 2:37am
Not really. No desktop scanner is going to give you the quality needed to make prints. They'll give you something to see online, and you could make a proof sheet with a photo printer, but that's about it.

Even the higher-dollar photo-designated scanners (ArtixScan M1, Epson V700/V750 and their predecessors) are marginal for 35mm prints. (nb: some people disagree on this, but I've not seen good results on small format with these - the scanning method gets you around a 4x enlargement without quality suffering. For a 6x6 negative, that's an 8" print, for a 4x5 negative that's a 16"x20" print - for a 35mm negative, that's 3"x4.5"). You could fudge a bit based on usage - a Holga negative is already defocused, what's a bit of extra enlargement? Ditto pinholes, obv..

Unfortunately for us all, digital basically killed dedicated film scanner development - a Nikon Coolscan costs the same or a bit more than it did five years ago, and I'm pretty sure they're on the same model.
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 109
2/3/09 at 2:41am
Thread Starter 
Thanks! Mylab crashes firefox everytime I go to it. Does it work for you?
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 109
2/3/09 at 2:47am
The lab I use in Tokyo develops and scans my film to CD ROM with high-resolution jpegs. This gives me the option of getting prints from the digital data or using a custom wet-process print service.

Of course, Japanese photo-geekdom is some next-level shit.
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 109
2/3/09 at 3:27am
Mylab is working through Safari for me. It's a pretty simple site, I don't know what might be tripping up Firefox.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 109
2/3/09 at 4:07pm
Thread Starter 
It is a java website. It worked on IE.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 109
2/3/09 at 4:54pm
This is an interesting thread. I hope a few contributors can answer a couple questions: Where do you go to learn about photography, and older film cameras in particular? Is there an SF equivalent for the pursuit? Is the appeal the 'vintage' look of the photos once they're developed? If so, can anyone link me to some shots? Even better if there's a comparison with a DSLR.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 109
2/3/09 at 6:46pm
Thread Starter 
Here are two websites that have taken up a lot of hours of my life the last couple weeks. http://www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm http://www.photoethnography.com/equipment.html
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 109
2/3/09 at 9:43pm
I still have my fathers AE-1 Program with the 50/1.4 FD. Obviously I wouldn't give up my DSLR for it but it's a very fun camera to have.
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 109
2/5/09 at 9:16pm
Thread Starter 
I just got my F2 and man that is a camera. It is awesome! It was made in 78 and it was an LA Times camera.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 109
2/6/09 at 4:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by holymadness View Post
Is the appeal the 'vintage' look of the photos once they're developed? If so, can anyone link me to some shots? Even better if there's a comparison with a DSLR.

Take a look at my Flickr gallery in my sig, if you haven't already. All my photos are shot on film using Leicas with manual exposure and manual focus (all info about camera, lens and film is included for each photo). I'd say many of them have a "classic" look, though "vintage" would be a stretch, considering the highly advanced, modern optics I'm using as well as the advances made in film technology in recent years. The films available now are some of the best ever produced, although the legendary Kodachrome is sadly slated to go extinct.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that many photographers are rediscovering film photography (this thread included). Some have always shot film. I even read somewhere that sales of view cameras, which use sheet film, have been rising. Rumors of film's death have been greatly exaggerated.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 109
2/6/09 at 1:51pm
Thread Starter 
Your flickr gallery and it looks great. It is one of the reasons that I am getting bw400cn. It got mixed reviews it seems like, but the pictures I have seen have been very good. It is also good for the kids that I will be working with at the homeless shelter since we can get that film developed anywhere.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 109
2/10/09 at 3:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeljkrell View Post
I just got my F2 and man that is a camera. It is awesome! It was made in 78 and it was an LA Times camera.

So it would be an F2A, then? The F2 in any configuration is one of the finest cameras ever built. It's extremely solid and versatile. It set the standard in its day. Congratulations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeljkrell View Post
Your flickr gallery and it looks great. It is one of the reasons that I am getting bw400cn. It got mixed reviews it seems like, but the pictures I have seen have been very good. It is also good for the kids that I will be working with at the homeless shelter since we can get that film developed anywhere.

BW400CN has an excellent range of grey tones and makes for very richly expressive photos. Tri-X is also fantastic. It has a wide exposure lattitude that makes it a very forgiving film. Ilford films are also worth trying if they're available where you are.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 109
2/10/09 at 3:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nantucket Red View Post
Take a look at my Flickr gallery in my sig, if you haven't already. All my photos are shot on film using Leicas with manual exposure and manual focus (all info about camera, lens and film is included for each photo). I'd say many of them have a "classic" look, though "vintage" would be a stretch, considering the highly advanced, modern optics I'm using as well as the advances made in film technology in recent years. The films available now are some of the best ever produced, although the legendary Kodachrome is sadly slated to go extinct.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that many photographers are rediscovering film photography (this thread included). Some have always shot film. I even read somewhere that sales of view cameras, which use sheet film, have been rising. Rumors of film's death have been greatly exaggerated.
Your gallery is amazing, you are a great photographer. I assume none of the images is retouched? And just for interest's sake, how are you getting them online, scanning?

I am still not quite clear on the differences between SLR and DSLR, though. In what ways could you qualify the variations between the two? Would it be in sharpness, grey scale, colour vibrancy, etc.?

It also seems to me that a lot of the appeal is nostalgia. Not necessarily to rediscover your own past, but to be able to work with a mechanical object in your hands instead of letting a computer do it all for you. I know several writers who prefer the 'feel' of a typewriter for their important projects, despite all the editing difficulties it causes them.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › What is a nice used SLR 35mm camera?