ReThinking Photography

ambro51

UhOh.... I feel a retro moment occurring. Out of the dark forgotten mini museum that is/was my daughters bedroom closet.... Out comes what I bought her years ago. An Olympus OM1 with several lenses and other goodies. By all reckoning, it is still in sweet operating condition. It "feels" like a camera. It "looks" like a camera and we ALL remember w
how nice 35mm prints can be. This technology is not gone (yet) and RiteAid seems to have a very organized film processing operation. Right now I would say I am "relearning" film..but YES I can certainly see hooking this up to my copy stand and having a go with coins. Of course today we are digitally bound in some ways but I see interesting and long term use for 35mm and coins. Tony Carlotto, the Vermont Coppers Guru, a quite competent film photographer, done his book with home developed images. He showed me his research photo folder.....and prints are certainly more interesting to view than a computer screen.>>>>it is sad how we discard the things from the past that served us so well for so long.

BigA

I had the same camera way back when. I gave it to my son years ago to experiment with but I have no clue what became of it. I used to do my own developing which was fun but, I must admit, the present tools available make it much more interesting to tweak and print without a dedicated room....

keoj

I'm still a film guy in my non-coin life, but for coin documentation purposes, I think that digital may have it all over film. The amount of lighting and ISO variations that you can instantly get feedback from on digital seems to win in this front.

I sure that there are those that can make film "sing" but it seems too hard to do.

keoj

ctf_error_coins

Film is dead.

ctf_error_coins

<< <i>I
I sure that there are those that can make film "sing" but it seems too hard to do.

keoj >>



Look up "Kodachrome" by Paul Simon, one of my favorite songs of all time.

keoj

I still shoot film. Velvia.....not dead yet. Just esoteric.

ctf_error_coins

<< <i>I still shoot film. Velvia.....not dead yet. Just esoteric. >>



I have shot tens of thousands of 4x5 sheets of velvia ....... which is an awesome film

Digital 35mm BLOWS away 35mm velvia ......

Film is dead

ambro51

.....no form of photography is really "dead". People still do daguerreotypes calotypes ambrotypes tintypes dry plate autochromes etcEtc. I want to explore the Vermonts in a more artistic manner, maybe platinum palladium hand brushed prints, pairing the rustic coin with the rustic handmade image. Even the very first photographic process, the Niepce process using bitumen of Judea and lavender oil....has fans. I just got an order to build another one of these, a replica of Niepces 1825 camera. The buyer learning the process and wants to do it right.

ctf_error_coins

well duh .......

Film is dead in Commercial and CONSUMER uses .... which equates to film is dead ...

I think they still use buggy whips in the amish community

messydesk

If all you want is prints instead of a computer screen, Rite-Aid can print your digital images. I like prints as well, and an 8x10 print of a roughly 4000x3200 image is really something you can't duplicate on the computer screen. As for using film for coin shots, been there, done that, and could develop and print my own if I wanted I suppose, but life's too short and digital is better almost every way you measure it. I still have my trusty Nikon FM film camera as a keepsake, and a folding Eastman (with autographic back) I got at a flea market for $15 that needs the shutter repaired decorating my desk, and I doubt I'll use either again.

BryceM

A handwriten letter is so incredibly sentimental and usually includes or implies a deeper meaning than the typical e-mail, but when was the last time you got one of those?

Same thing. The positives of digtal photography clearly outweight film for most practical purposes, but with film it was sometimes possible to capture something magical that digital often misses. To get great results with film you really had to know what you were doing. Any fool can compose a quick e-mail.

TwoKopeiki

Sure, you can still shoot and develop film. But why would you want to spend the time to get an often-inferior result?

ctf_error_coins

<< <i> but with film it was sometimes possible to capture something magical that digital often misses.. >>



As a professional photographer for 35 years, The above statement make no sense to me at all ....

In Fact, the opposite is true .....

BryceM

YMMV. I won't presume to tell a professional photographer what to think.

Maybe when I was using film, actually getting a decent image was so magical it made a huge impression if/when it happened.......

Or, maybe you're just one of these "always forward, never look back" kind of people. Maybe sometimes the satisfaction derived from obtaining a result has something to do with the effort required than the end product.

ctf_error_coins

<< <i> Maybe sometimes the satisfaction derived from obtaining a result has something to do with the effort required than the end product. >>



Great Photography is All about Effort, relentless effort .....

Great photographers use the best tools available ...

Some of my best imagery is on film .....

I have not shot film in over 5 years ...

Go to my photo website if you want to see dedicated effort .......

ambro51

I think too in twenty years that pack of 24 prints may be much easier to find than 24 digital images. You know there is always more than one way to skin a cat. I like rediscovering film, it's too bad that it's difficult to get the "wholeniine yards" as most labs develop the film ok but then scan the negative so you end up with a computer still getting involved making the prints. Of course some labs still do it all optically|chemically.

Zoins

For film, check out Michael Fatali's gallery and the camera he uses.



In addition to the film itself, some people prefer the manual focus lenses from the 70s because the glass had more lead. This is no longer the case because it apparently interferes with auto-focusing systems.

ctf_error_coins

<< <i>I think too in twenty years that pack of 24 prints may be much easier to find than 24 digital images. You know there is always more than one way to skin a cat. I like rediscovering film, it's too bad that it's difficult to get the "whole mine yards" as most labs develop the film ok but then scan the negative so you end up with a computer still getting involved making the prints. Of course some labs still do it all optically|chemically. >>



Finding digital images is easy, If you catalog them correctly.

ALL of my 4x5 velvia transparencies are digitally scanned and digitally printed and the photographic paper is run thru photographic chemistry as real photo prints and are way nicer than "inkjet" prints.

Digital printing of film onto photographic paper results in way better and waaaaaaay more consistent prints.

The old darkroom with burning and dodging is way inferior to digital prints on photo paper,

ctf_error_coins

<< <i>For film, check out Michael Fatali's gallery and the camera he uses.



Why promote someone who got banned from Arches National Park for unethical practices ........ ????

Zoins

<< <i>

<< <i>For film, check out Michael Fatali's gallery and the camera he uses. >>



Why promote someone who got banned from Arches National Park for unethical practices ........ ???? >>



Because people make mistakes? That happened in 2001 and he has apologized. Also, the ban was for 2 years. Is he still banned?

ambro51

Ouch what OT arguments how 'bout moving the anger to the APUG forum where everymans keyboard is a rabid wolverine

ctf_error_coins

This thread is really about coin photography ...

Shooting film for coins makes no sense, unless you want to waste a lot of time, incur a lot of expenses, and the get inferior results .....

lcoopie

most professional photographers shoot digital

keoj

My last comment....to each his/her own. While most people now shoot digital, I know several pros that still shoot both digital and film. I will not speak for them but if they are still shooting film, they probably don't concur that film is dead....just re-purposed.
For coin work, there is no benefit of film.

keoj

ctf_error_coins

You can't even get 4x5 velvia FILM as its been discontinued ..

no more velvia

Zoins

<< <i>UhOh.... I feel a retro moment occurring. Out of the dark forgotten mini museum that is/was my daughters bedroom closet.... Out comes what I bought her years ago. An Olympus OM1 with several lenses and other goodies. By all reckoning, it is still in sweet operating condition. It "feels" like a camera. It "looks" like a camera and we ALL remember w
how nice 35mm prints can be. This technology is not gone (yet) and RiteAid seems to have a very organized film processing operation. Right now I would say I am "relearning" film..but YES I can certainly see hooking this up to my copy stand and having a go with coins. Of course today we are digitally bound in some ways but I see interesting and long term use for 35mm and coins. Tony Carlotto, the Vermont Coppers Guru, a quite competent film photographer, done his book with home developed images. He showed me his research photo folder.....and prints are certainly more interesting to view than a computer screen.>>>>it is sad how we discard the things from the past that served us so well for so long. >>



That's good to know about Tony Carlotto using a film camera to shoot photos for his Vermont Coppers coin book

If you do end up taking some coin photos with the OM1 or other film camera, I'd love to see the results.

Above all, have fun

ambro51

Dropped off a roll of 35 at rite aid tonite...not coins yet but a roll from one of my Leicas. Film goes out Tuesday and is back on Friday. Much to the curious stares of two clerks I counted the bags in the box, reaching in...feeling for a film canister... And counted 17 envelopes of film including mine. SO perhaps not so dead yet a little town of a few thousand scale this up to a country of 300 million and SOMEONE is still shooting film, and quite a bit of it. Errors on Coins you need to understand on the average only 1/3 of what I do is "normal". I follow a quite different drummer than most.

ctf_error_coins

<< <i> Errors on Coins you need to understand on the average only 1/3 of what I do is "normal". I follow a quite different drummer than most. >>



LMAO, as about 95% of what I do is odd.

I understand completely doing your own thing and that 99% plus of the population has no clue as to what I am into ....

4x5 nature (film) photography for 30 years

Buy and sell ERROR Coins

Open Ocean Kayak Fishing

Bonsai collection of my own making


I do love film, it's just that digital has so much more to offer.

lcoopie

real photographers use black and white film

mgoodm3

I haven't shot film to any significant extent.

My own theory on the "magic" of film is that with film you only have one shot to get things right. Film forces you to be more careful about your setup and technique. You take all of these shots and you have no idea how they have turned out. You now need to wait until the film is developed and anticipate the results. When a picture turns out nicely you have a bit more pride of ownership since you had to put all that work into a single shot.

More romantic than shooting a digital picture and seeing the results and moment later. The pictures may looks the same (you can fairly easily process the look of a specific film into a digital image in the post-processing), but the process is very different.

mayor1

Kinda OT but----I recently came into possession of some glass plates. How difficult and expensive is it to have prints made? Thanks, Bill.

ctf_error_coins

<< <i>Kinda OT but----I recently came into possession of some glass plates. How difficult and expensive is it to have prints made? Thanks, Bill. >>



You could make contact sheets with no darkroom equipment except trays, photo paper, and chemicals.

Very easy to make and very inexpensive to do it yourself.

Give it a try.

DIMEMAN

They still make film!!!!!!!!

WHY!!!!

That would be like using a typewriter to write a report!!!

TwoKopeiki

Pfft, film is too mainstream. Go ferrotype!

fcloud

<< <i>They still make film!!!!!!!!

WHY!!!!

That would be like using a typewriter to write a report!!! >>



Jon, There are still places where film is better than digital. I have been using digital since 2006. When we had the solar eclipse at sunset I used film. Film was a better choice. The quality of digital is very high; digital will replace film completely some day, but even at that point film would be a better choice in some venues. I have the solar sunset enlarged to 24 x 36. Taking images of small round disks go with digital.

messydesk

<< <i>They still make film!!!!!!!! WHY!!!!

That would be like using a typewriter to write a report!!! >>


I use a typewriter to fill out my PCGS submission forms -- Olivetti Lettera 22.

DIMEMAN

>>>I use a typewriter to fill out my PCGS submission forms -- Olivetti Lettera 22. <<<

AGAIN........WHY!!!!!

PCGSPhoto

Interesting thread. I've never photographed coins with film, but we do have old Kodachromes and medium and large format transparencies in the PCGS Archives. I've dabbled in film for the past several of years, processing at home and then scanning the negatives. I've experimented with TLRs, a Hasselblad, old 1970s Olympus Rangefinders, I had a Leica M4-P at one point, used a Holga, made a pinhole camera. I've also had an OM1 as well, i's a very nice camera and those old Zuiko lenses are great. Plus they can be adapted to the the Canon EOS system.

Why do it, and what did I get out of it? Firstly, I thought it was fun. Secondly, a camera is just a tool, and it was fascinating to explore all these different tools and methods to create a photograph/art. Thirdly, by having a limited system (one body, one fixed focal length) it forces you to adapt and learn to compose a photograph in a new way. Once I felt I became adept (or bored) at something I changed the system and repeated the process.

As far as film go, I've home processed black and white and color. Black and white is more difficult to process but easier to scan, color is easy to process but difficult to scan. I still have a photo enlarger setup with supplies in my garage. I actually tried to sell it this past weekend but the local used camera shop wouldn't take it. Nobody wants them any more. Traditional darkroom printing is very time consuming, and takes up a lot of space. But I do enjoy the black and white tones of film, and the GRAININESS of a film like Tri-X still doesn't have a digital equivalent (but I think it'll get there). Once you scan a TIFF you can easily make adjustments in Aperture or Lightroom as if it were an ordinary RAW digital photograph.

But now I've kind of settled into what I like shooting with best with. When I'm on vacation, or visiting someplace with my wife do you know what camera I use the most? A Canon s90. A point and shoot digital camera (it's getting on in age so now I'm considering the Sony rx100). I used to carry around a backpack with a lot of lenses and filters, and would make the photography a priority. I've sort of mellowed out in this regard; Just focusing more on spending time with family and friends or enjoying the view for what it is rather than stressing out about getting the shot.

I also cary an Olympus StylusEpic which is a film point in shoot with an impressive little lens with great sharpness and DOF. Out of all my film cameras that I've had the shots my best patron (my wife) has liked best are from this simple cheap point and shoot.

Or course my professional photography is a lot different, as you may well know.

messydesk

<< <i>>>>I use a typewriter to fill out my PCGS submission forms -- Olivetti Lettera 22. <<<

AGAIN........WHY!!!!! >>


Because it's easier to read than my handwriting, it doesn't have a spotty connection and time out (although I haven't tried the new and improved online submission yet), it works nicely on the multipart forms, and it's cool.

TwoSides2aCoin

I learned processing and color in a lab developing film and printing photos way back in the 90's.
I miss that trade, but translucive display film was most intriquing for me. I wanted to make lampshades using it. It's often seen as wall displays along the corridors in airports or places like that. It's backlit and would make excellent signage for a coin shop or show.

Rant over. Photography is a key component in the numismatic trade and those who can shoot really have a good eye.

There's a lot of silver in the paper and film.

Lakesammman

Way back in the 90's......

We used to spend $400-500K/yr on film in our Radiology practice - don't even have the dark room anymore - how things change!

Have been thinking of getting the new Leica M to put the old M3/M4 lenses back to use. Thanks for the reminder.......

LucyBop

all you old fuddy duddys, wouldn't know a good image if it fell from the sky and bopp'd you on the head.

nwcoast

Interesting thread and I'm sorry I'm coming into this so late....

I can appreciate the OP wanting to experiment with film some. Along with a handful of others on this board, I too was a career photographer for nearly thirty years before the digital revolution turned everything upside down. Though I shoot digital exclusively now, I still have a closet full of film cameras and a torn apart darkroom boxed up in the garage so there's a lot of history there.

I ran into an older photographer just last week while exploring a little town in eastern Washington and snapping some scenic pics. He was shooting an old building with an 8x10 view camera and film! We had a nice chat about film, chemistry and paper and I was surprised that he doesn't have any trouble finding film and chemicals, it's the silver based paper that's in very short supply. He told me he's got to order it from Europe now!

I have another young friend who has a fairly recent fine arts degree in photography and he shoots exclusively film. There is another group of mostly 'art' photographers I know that still work with film- both black and white and color... So, with all due respects to Christopher (who does beautiful work I might add), I wouldn't go so far as to declare film to be "dead". It's just 'hanging in there by a tread and on life support'- with flickers of life now and then... Reminds me of the old saying that "variety is the spice of life".

As for having the drug store process your stuff? An Ansel Adams quote comes to mind here, and that is.

"The negative is the equivalent to the composer's score, and the print is the performance".

The drug store will be printing the OP's negatives based on average values found in the negative and there's a lot that can happen on their end.....

With film and macro (super close up's), there was no forgiving. It was a craft and an art to get professional quality close up photos. Shooting color transparency film for publication, color balance was a significant challenge......There was NO auto white balance..........and slide film was unforgiving when it came to getting your color and exposure correct... And publications wanted and demanded transparency film.

As things stand NOW, digital photography is in my opinion far superior in almost all respects.... We could spend all day discussing the fine points of this topic I'm sure. It is this fact that motivated me to go back to school and make a mid-life career change into something that had a far better career prospects. I got out just in the nick of time!

And for Lakesammman....... I might add, that there was a certain degree of delight that came from shooting a very challenging intra-operative Roentgen exam on FILM... It was a ONE time deal, you've got a whole team scrubbed in and waiting, the film had to be placed, the exposure carefully calculated (with a significant degree of guess work given what's hidden under the sterile drapes) and the exposure made.... It was a decent wait, with a patient under anesthesia and not a lot of time to spare... but when that film came out, and it was RIGHT ON, it was BEAUTIFUL!!! I wouldn't go so far to profess it magical, but it was indeed more rewarding...
In Radiology, I'm not about to argue that digital doesn't ROCK... It's a whole new world!

As for coins, film and the drug store......might be fun to play around with OP, especially if you have lenses and macro tools that you don't have with your digital set up.... Might as well have fun.... I don't think I'd go back to film and coin photography, but that's just me.

ambro51

N interesting thread indeed and thanks especially to Phil for contributing. This morning I came across a 1/6 plate ambrotypes I shot in 1998. This image is a direct positive hence reversed but a nice detailed image. The difficulty here is that you work with natural light and getting the big camera in close blocks the light...

PCGSPhoto

Cool!

photog

Film. Is. Amazing.

That being said, as someone who shoots full frame digital (D700; upgrading to D800), crop sensor digital (D300), 35mm film (Nikon F, Nikon F5), 120 medium format (Mamiya RB67; Holga; Zero Image pinhole) -

Print film is subjective - and the fact that you brought Rite Aid's lab into the equation makes me shudder. You could put a roll through a machine to be developed, and take your negative to five different labs, and get five very different prints. Most places don't even have a tech printing the photos - machines do it automatically (and not that well; I ran a lab for years and the auto settings are just never, ever as good as a human, period; not unlike auto settings on a camera failing to be as reliable as manual settings if you know what you're doing). Not to mention - if that lab isn't maintaining their chemistry and performing maintenance weekly on the C41 machine, who knows how badly they'll mangle your film, eventually (it's a when, not if, situation, sorry to say).

If you really, truly want to test your prowess as a photographer, shoot E6 slide film. There's no bias. As long as the chemistry is good, the slides come out of the machine, and that's all there is to it. You either nailed it, or you didn't, there's no cheating with slide film. Yes, there's the added step of scanning a slide and having it printed, but as far as color accuracy, slide film is the way to go, and always has been.

I admire and applaud your effort, however. Long live film!

PinkFloyd

There is something special about a black and white shot off an enlarger. Film isn't dead...it never truly will be. It may be relegated to a narrow niche, but never dead IMO.

LanLord

In my opinion, learning how to shoot film back in the days before digital ever existed (I started in the 70s), made for a better understanding of how shutter speed, aperture and ISO/ASA work together to produce different results. It was important to learn that lesson quickly because film and processing were expensive. Today, most photogs just shoot by the hundreds or thousands and don't always know how to replicate the shooting conditions for a successful image.

Sure, many digital images out there are wonderful, I won't deny that, and there are many digital photogs that do understand the entire imaging technology, but many people with nice equipment don't understand what it's all about.

ambro51

You hit the nail on the head there. Strange no one mentioned the changed end use of photography today as an image that exists as data and an image on a computer screen as opposed to prints enlargements or slides. My goal as buried in this thread is to meld art and coin photography, rustic hand done platinum prints of the Vermonts sounds like a good project. My good old RiteAid I'm happy to report still does 35 mm film so while the esoteric fringe like me can ponder odd darkroom processes whoever wants to CAN dust off their old 35,buy a new battery and some fujifilm and STILL get those amazing packs of prints, just like the ones you find of your kids as tykes thirty years ago. >>>>>>>>>>somewhat of a numismatic analogy between the Olympus OM1 I mentioned in the Op....like mint and proof sets of that era they were high quality eagerly purchased by the millions gently used still exist but no one is buying them....pathetically low prices and a great opportunity for a film shooter

PCGSPhoto

One of the PCGS graders was telling me he used to photograph coins with an Olympus Pen, which some of you may know is a half frame camera (very tiny negatives). Not only was the photographic process more complicated back then, but the process of laying out, designing and proofing a catalog was more complex as well (or at least more time consuming). I'm pretty young myself, but I was part of my university's newspaper in 1999-2001, when things were still primarily shot on film and laid out by hand (think of the expense!). We put out a paper four times a week, but today that "paper" is only a website.