File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
/p/ I have decided that I would like to begin film photography. I have a year of experience behind a DSLR and would like to add film to my list of techniques. I can get a nikon N65 from my sister for little cost, however is this worth it? I want to be able to do multiple exposures and such.

tl;dr going to film, can has N65, want multiple exposure, will it work/how?
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
http://www.bythom.com/n65guide.htm
>> Anonymous
step 1: GTFO
step 2: sage
step 3: kill yourself
>> Anonymous
>>102611
The N65 is a bit limited there. Try making a pinhole camera. You can do as many multiples as you want with one.
>> Anonymous
>>102616
but it's not profitable, so fail.
>> Anonymous
if you want to learn how to be an ACTUAL photographer with like, you know, skill and stuff, you should probably shoot film despite what the digifags say here- the camera you listed isnt exactly the most amazing camera though, I would suggest and F3 or one of nikons other f- series bodies to really learn, plus, buy a light meter, that way you can make perfect exposures, maybe move onto a larger format etc etc
>> Anonymous
>>103434

Post up your amazing photography that proves that all digitally produced photography and the photographers that use it pales by comparison to your master work. Then and only then will I believe your claim about being an "ACTUAL" photographer.
>> Anonymous
>>103436
If you can't shoot film you aren't a good photographer. If you don't shoot film because digital is more practical, that says nothing.
>> Anonymous
>>103523

Shooting film doesn't make you a good photographer or an "ACTUAL" photographer. You may as well say that if you can't shoot digital then you aren't a good photographer too. It makes just as much sense as that drivel.

Every monkey with a camera on holiday was shooting film too a few years ago, you know. There were no digital cameras for the consumers. It doesn't require any special skills to use any more than digital. Not every photographer who used film or slides were masters of the craft, simply competent as far as mechanical operation and use of it. This doesn't make good pictures. It's only snobbish idiots that obsess over it being the mark of an "ACTUAL" photographer now. Usually young ones that are late to the game, I notice. Like new generations of wannabe photographers who masturbate over their Holgas or eBay purchases and think anything with film makes them "artists" and churn out endless pretentious crap for their fellow artfags to fellate them over. Good pictures and results is what makes a good photographer. Use what gets you the results you need or want. That is what matters.

If you are after a certain look you know how to get using film or want a certain ability or result you can't get another way, then it makes sense. More sense than trying a thousand hours in Photoshop if that isn't your thing. It's always to do with what is more practical. What suits your purpose. Otherwise we'd never have compromised with 35mm and people would have stuck with medium or even large formats.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>103534
>You may as well say that if you can't shoot digital then you aren't a good photographer too.
I'd say that that's true. For 98.3%* of photography, whether you're exposing a sensor or a chemical emulsion on a strip of plastic really doesn't matter. After learning on nothing but digital, my first roll of film from my old-ass Minolta SLR turned out quite well.

My point is, if you're a good photographer, even if you've never picked up a film camera before, you're probably going to be able to take some good shots with it. And vice versa.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>103543
(* Percentage pulled out of my ass)
>> Anonymous
OP here, I don't want to switch to film, I merely want to learn the techniques associated with it so I have that background. Also I feel with the added cost of development, it will make me think more about what and how I'm taking a picture than just snapping at any damn thing I see. Secondly I agree that being an "actual" photographer has nothing to do with shooting film v. digital. The way I see it is that an "actual" photographer has a mastery of their art including photographic technique and vision as well as whatever type of post-processing they choose to do (digital or dark room)
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>103554
I hear this argument all the time, that film makes you think more about your shots, due to limited frames per roll and cost. Maybe I'm missing something, but I feel that if this is the case, you have the wrong attitude about photography in the first place. Both require discipline to excel.
>> Anonymous
I've been using my dads old Pentax K1000 kinofilm and Mamiya S654 for about 2 years now. I develop the film at home (i turn the bathroom into a darkroom) and scan the negatives with our scanner. No pics to post tho, they're on my fathers laptop atm. With the pentax I use mostly B&W film, sometimes with a polarizer and on some pics I've used an IR filter, it comes out great on B&W. Also, I normally use ISO 200 film.

For lenses (on the pentax), I have a 50mm f/2.4-22, 28mm f/4-8 and a great 130mm f/1.4-11.

On the mamiya I have a tele, a 50mm and an 85mm, but I can't remember the aperture for those as my dad has been using it mostly the past 4 months.

I'm growing tired of buying film every two weeks and developing it atleas twice a month, so I'm thinking of going digital. I took the time to count how much I've used on film and developing these last 2 years, and I'm well past 1500 euro. So, getting a digital will definately pay itself back.

I've tested some of the DSLR:s my dad has brought home from work, and really the biggest changes are auto focus and having to turn the thing on (and ofcourse it's easier since the Pentax K1000 is full manual). The main "skill" with film that you don't learn with digital is how to put the film in the camera. That's pretty much it. Everything you can do with film you can do better with digital these days, and film and digital are basically the same thing when it comes to just taking pictures (not counting in that with digital you can see how it turns out instantly, etc).
>> Anonymous
>>103554

I don't see the lure of film.

What does film have that digital doesn't?

Elf_man already brought up that if you need money to steady your finger so you compose better shots, something is wrong.

I just don't see how you get a better understanding of photography, and how it will make you a better photographer. Understanding how a camera works (the physical mechanics, aperture etc) are necessary in both. Understanding the chemical reaction in film doesn't make you a better photographer.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I've used DSLR's a bit. They weren't that great. There's a sense of satisfaction that comes from shooting with film, then processing the film yourself and then making prints from the negatives. It's much more satisfying than digital could ever be.

pic related
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>103564
The other side of it is that, as an example, no one has successfully replicated the look of velvia yet. Close, but not quite, so that it's noticeable.
Certain types of film have qualities that can recommend them, one point being their rendering of highlights, as well as other characteristics that an experienced photographer can bring out and can't be replicated yet. What it comes down to is a matter of choice and preference. See my post here>>103563
>> Anonymous
>>103569

I forgot. This was shot with a Canon Rebel G, 400TX film and a Canon 17-40/4.0 EF-L USM lens. lol.