Learning film photography

[TheFoo]

Originally Posted by Luc-Emmanuel

Arguing over the internet is not something I enjoy, so here are some recommandations to your original question:
http://www.amazon.com/Americans-Robe...4157220&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Brandt-Photogr...4157254&sr=1-4

!luc

Originally Posted by LabelKing

I'd suggest looking at photobooks to see what kind of photography you enjoy.

You may find a preference towards documentary style photography a la Winogrand, Friedlander, Arbus, Eggleston or more studio oriented shots such as Avedon or Penn or even highly controlled stylized images like Newton or Bourdin. There are of course, other stylistic themes like architectural or so-called topographic styles.

Your composition will depend on your stylistic inclinations.

I think I need to go far more basic than this. I'm looking for references that will teach me how to take photos from a more technical point of view. I'm not trying to make art.

 

[celery]

Do you have access to, or are you building your own darkroom?

Because, that is the real core of film photography. Yes film does have a somewhat different feel than digital, but to truly shoot film you have to participate in the processing of your photos as that's where crucial decisions are made.

A lot of people turn their nose when they hear that photoshop has been used on an image, and carry the misconception that film photography is more "pure" because it isn't shopped, but most of the great film photographers spent the majority of their time in the darkroom post-processing.

Maybe you just want to snap pictures using a film camera, in which case, enjoy!

 

[bigbjorn]

Mafoofan, do you have this: http://www.amazon.com/Kodak-Professi.../dp/0879857986 It is an excellent resource, both as a primer and as a reference to keep in the camera bag. Highly recommended.

 

[Luc-Emmanuel]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

I think I need to go far more basic than this. I'm looking for references that will teach me how to take photos from a more technical point of view. I'm not trying to make art.
Sorry, I don't have any handy references in english for this.
If you have access to a public library, you could easily find this sort of book there.
!luc

 

[Pale Male]

Suggest Michael Freeman's "The 35 mm Handbook".

I like the Olympus OM system for many reasons -- rangefinder size but SLR. Ridiculously cheap these days.

But most of my actual shooting is with a Contax G1. I've said this in another thread, but again -- a Bentley for the price of a new Beetle. And the design quality matches the optics.

Taking a good class would do you no harm. Of course, as in most classroom settings, so much depends on the instructor.

 

[A Y]

Originally Posted by TRINI

I think one of my frustrations with film photography and particularly with a range finder would be the delay in knowing whether or not the damn shot was in focus or not.

You know, many fine photographs, even of very fast action, were captured well before autofocus DSLRs.

I'd say the majority of good photos were shot well before autofocus cameras in general.

One real problem today is that sensors are so high resolution that many lenses cannot keep up with them. Combine that with obsessive pixel-peeping, and you have more photographers worrying about their technique than their artistry than ever before.

--Andre

 

[A Y]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

I think I need to go far more basic than this. I'm looking for references that will teach me how to take photos from a more technical point of view. I'm not trying to make art.

You want Photographic Materials and Processes, though it can get pretty technical.

--Andre

 

[indesertum]

i love rangefinders get a voigtlander bessa r and then get the nokton 50mm f/1.1 probably 1.6k for the whole shebang, but a lot cheaper than a leica and fantastic quality. if not the f/1.1, the f/1.5 is a good choice as well. two other options contax g2 (a seirously sexy machine. one downside is i believe there isn't a lens that is under f/2.0. i could be wrong. i also didnt like the autofocus that much, but in a "rangefinder" sometimes autofocus can be really appreciated) a simple pentax slr will also do (k1000 comes to mind, me super as well). if you want something with better options, then a mx or lx is the top of the line. get the pentax 43mm limited lens (true normal as 50mm is actually slightly telescopic). build quality is awesome, lens quality is awesome, price is reasonable here's an article on luminous that really praised the 3 limited manula primes http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...02-05-02.shtml here's cameraquest echoing what i said above http://www.cameraquest.com/rfbuy.htm but seriously. voigtlanders are really really nice and wondeful to hold in your hands. if i had spare money and i werent such a poor student i would buy a voigtlander and the leica summilux f/1.4 or the mentioned nokton and not look back. well. maybe a 35 mm and a 80ish mm prime. but then that would be actually it and not look back.

but then again if i had money i'd prolly also buy a pentax mx and the 3 limited primes.

i dont like being so poor

 

[Jbreen1]

How hard is it to get into photography professionally? I just finished college and have no idea what I'm going to do so I'm thinking about going to the Art Institute for photography or graphic design. I've talked to them and they said to get my associate's in either of them I can probably skip most of the general education classes since I already have a BS. Considering that it shouldn't take me very long and it's something I'm sure I'd enjoy, at least getting the experience and education.

 

[indesertum]

i dunno man. most people i know say either get out of photography or do photography and something else like graphic design. i think the industry is hard to get into, get good at, or be recognized for your work.

that being said, it does sound like fun.

 

[Jbreen1]

Originally Posted by indesertum

i dunno man. most people i know say either get out of photography or do photography and something else like graphic design. i think the industry is hard to get into, get good at, or be recognized for your work.

that being said, it does sound like fun.

Yea it seems like a really tough career path. Tons of photographers and it's hard to distinguish yourself and create a niche. I'm still considering the Art Institute though, even if just to blow off getting a job for another couple years lol. Graphic arts seems like it can be very competitive and create a lot of stress. And I'm assuming only 1% of people in either field really end up making "good" money.

 

[pseudonym]

^ Stay away from that direction, man.

I love photography as much as the next guy, but it's just a strong hobby for me.

 

[indesertum]

i think maybe wedding and studio photography and maybe photojournalism is the only chance you have at making a living and it's not a very good chance at all.

why do you have to go to graphic school to learn photography? you can always get a job and take classes at the art institute on the side. is the art institute willing to pay for tuition and living? because otherwise you're putting money into something that's not going to have worthwhile return

 

[celery]

I was a wedding photog for a bit and let me tell you, after you work with a few bridezillas and their mothers, you realize that a boring ass desk job is way better.

Studio photography can earn you some money, but the photography skills are secondary to business skills. Think of it as similar to owning a restaurant, you need to hustle every single day, long hours, do your own marketing, and keep a clean books so you know if you're wasting your time or not. Also, your major competition is charging next to nothing (places in the mall and such have cheaper labor and more access to clients).

Best option going the portrait route is to be female and to specialize in new mother + infant photography cause they're not thinking straight and you can charge them an arm and a leg.

What about fashion photography? Bwahahahaha! If you think 3-6 month internships in the law/financial/pretty much anything else fields are bad? Fashion photographers have a line of people 1000 miles long waiting and desperate for a chance to intern for a year or more (yeah that's no pay, you don't take pictures, you pretty much just carry ****). And at the end of it all, you'll still lose your chance at a real gig to someone who is already famous or has connections in the fashion world (like the Olsen twin).

As a hobby artist you could potentially make some side cash at art festivals, people are usually looser with their money, and if you have good stuff, you can probably sell prints for $50 a pop.

 

[aizan]

ah, the siren call of leica. tie him to the mast! if your favorite photographers are street photographers and photojournalists, and if that's the sort of photography you find yourself doing, you should probably get a leica. if not, there are many other types of cameras out there that may be more appropriate. the craft of photography - david vestal ben lifson's articles on composition are now only available through archive.org: http://web.archive.org/web/200702110.../01/index.html one of the books he recommends is "on painting" by leon battista alberti, which has some great thoughts on composition.