35mm Camera (do any of you use them any more?)

I'll include a poll as well just for the sake.

But since watching an episode on tv (yonks ago), it did a short thing on Lomo cameras and how people want to get the authentic look.

Despite only just buying 2 cameras today (I should have bought the Lomo of choice some time ago), I've now come to a conundrum of where can I get some fresh, decent 35mm film from, and where can I get the processed [somewhere that does prints and cd's preferably (with the latter does anyone know at what resolution they scan them in at?)]

So if anyone knows of somewhere worth checking either online or in town, I don't mind buying stuff that is near the best before date, but I don't want to end up paying £5 for a film, for what will be a side-hobby... (and a mini-competition between me and a friend).

I know 35mm's are a bit obscure, but this is what I've bought:

• VOIGTLANDER VITO B
• LOMO COSMIC 35 (unfortunately it is the westernised version, but still a classic)

I bought both for £18 including postage which I think is pretty decent (but they all seem to go fairly cheap), however the proof will be in the pudding when I get them in my hands and see them working and what the photos come out like [I'm no pro!].

I will say however that I am looking for a LOMO SMENA SYMBOL (ideally the original USSR one, that has the russian written on it :) - cuz I'm sad like that)

Why? Because I liked the idea of having a small classic camera to take 'different' photos with, and to have a good mess around/play with :) [Have I just shot myself in the foot tho... :angst:]

Anywho...

What experience do you have with 35mm cameras, and what do you use occasionally / on the side ?
And... where do you get your films from? I know some chemists have clear outs from time to time but I seem to have missed all those :(
Also do you have any comments/tips for the two cameras I just bought?

Thank you :)

PS. I know they are cheap cameras and the photos will come out as such, I've just heard good things about the output, and would love some vintage looking shots, like are in my parents photo albums :D

The Poll is multiple choice btw, in-case you're cool enough to have your own dark room for processing your own photos.

Digital all the way for me. I used to take photos with 35mm but it was so expensive for processing and you had to pay for every click, even the rubbish shots. With digital I only print the ones I actually want.

Added to that you can manipulate them on the PC and as if that wasn't enough digital gives better picture quality now.

The Gadget Show did a comparison test where they too a photo with a 35mm camera and a digital and had them blown up to a ridiculous size and hung them on the side of a building. The digital camera had noticeably clearer picture and better colour too.

Film was good in it's day but everything eventually gets replaced by better technology.

My digital camera is only a point and shoot compact (though it has manual controls) - I also have a 35mm film SLR (Minolta Dynax 404) - quite a cheapo SLR, but fantastic results. Still better than my digital, though it's more hit and miss.

Films from camera shops like jacobs - always get good film. Always go to similar shops for processing as well - online results are terrible.

I've used a borrowed 35mm a few times at uni and they're great to play with, good for learning the principles of photography as there's no idiot-mode to rely on :P . Still, they are a pain in the back side when it comes to developing though: film is expensive, processing is expensive (and lengthy) and without a darkroom or film scanner it's hard to do any post-processing. Digital is definately MUCH easier and more economical in that respect.

Where film wins out, and why I go through all the effort of swilling developing fluid over negatives in the uni darkroom, are the weird quirks and random artifacts you get on film that you can't really replicate realistically in Photoshop. Lomo cameras are pretty famous for the hazy discolouring and vignetting they produce, which give the photo a very cool atmosphere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

.....

Films from camera shops like jacobs - always get good film. Always go to similar shops for processing as well - online results are terrible.

---

Difficult to get processing done online. I tried shoving the film down the phone line, but I find an envelope and the postal service works better. :D

Seriously, some mail-order labs are VERY good. You just have to be a bit careful who you use, but I'd argue to same applies to high street processors. I do have one locally that;s very good, but that's because they do a lot of pro-work. They even have a deal with a local pro studio, whereby they do the studio's 35mm work, and the studio (which has it's own processing machines, set up for medium format) does MF when someone brings it into the high street branch. And that high street will will, for a price manually print each image, if you wish .... by which I mean, manually calibrate and adjust, image by image. It's slow, and expensive, but for some (large, typically) prints, it's worth it.

And yes, I still use 35mm, though I have to admit, not terribly much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

Difficult to get processing done online. I tried shoving the film down the phone line, but I find an envelope and the postal service works better. :D

---

*mutter* :p

Quote:

---

Seriously, some mail-order labs are VERY good. You just have to be a bit careful who you use, but I'd argue to same applies to high street processors.

---

You're right, of course, but I've always liked being able to chat to a person about the prints and what to improve etc.

I use digital for pretty much everything, however, I occassionally play with 35mm stuff. I get film from ebay mostly (Fuji is always my personal preference). I normally take the film to ASDA and get them to put it on CD as well as doing the prints - the digital versions come out at around 2mp.

I've currently got the following:

Yashica J (35mm "rangefinder") with film in.
Fed 4 - http://77.102.196.41/fed_4_rangefinder.htm
Zenit E (M42 SLR), Zenit B (ditto) - http://77.102.196.41/zenit_b_zenit_e.htm
and a Lomo LC-A (bought from ebay germany for around £40) - http://77.102.196.41/sherriff_lomo_lca.htm - and asked ASDA not to do any colour processing on the pictures. These were some of the results:

http://77.102.196.41/photos/gallery/...0011.thumb.jpg http://77.102.196.41/photos/gallery/...0012.thumb.jpg http://77.102.196.41/photos/gallery/...0018.thumb.jpg http://77.102.196.41/photos/gallery/...0022.thumb.jpg

more here: http://77.102.196.41/photos/gallery/...=lomo_lca_2005

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

*mutter* :p

---

Well, that was rather "open mouth, firmly insert foot, keep pushing until reaching the knee", wasn't it? :D :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

You're right, of course, but I've always liked being able to chat to a person about the prints and what to improve etc.

---

Agreed. I've got the best of both worlds, though. A decent mail-order lab or two (if I can find their address) and that local service.

But I have to say, the convenience (and absence of a cost-per-image unless you print) means I do most stuff digitally these days. Mainly, the 35mm stuff is when I want the colour punch of Velvia, and I still have a small stock of that in my fridge. I keep meaning to dig one of the 35mm out, though, and have a B&W session, 'cos I find it makes me think differently.

Also, while digital being so much cheaper does make me take a lot more pics, it has a converse effect too. I find I don't think so much, or plan so much. Sometimes, I think it's good for me to go back to 35mm, because the fact that every time I click the shutter I can hear the cash register ring makes me think more about when I click it, and therefore, put a bit more effort into actually getting the picture, rather than just taking a photo, if you know what I mean.

I took a Dynax 7 on the train from Edinburgh to Beijing. It was an experience, and one that I don't regret, but I don't think I'm going back.

I reckon I shoot 10,000 frames a year, give or take. Based on the cheapest prices I can find, for the same cost an my Sony a900 (1400 pounds) I can shoot for half a year in slide or B&W film, or a full year in colour negative - both including development. After that the money runs out. With the a900 I can keep shooting - with the film I'm left with good memories.

There's also the scanning to consider - I'm just flat out not interested in a darkroom or making prints that way. So I've got a lovely film scanner, but it takes a real age to get the film digitised, and then you've got to deal with the dust and scratches - colour balance is also a real b****. Not fun.

Not being able to delete shots is a killer sometimes... Sure maybe I should have brought along more film, but I'm an amateur, I still make mistakes. Being able to free up more space on the card by deleting the cr*p is wonderful when you're a few hundred miles away from the nearest source of film - decent or otherwise. It's great to be able to take snapshots too - I was always husbanding my film, it's a frame gone whether it's a great shot or a snapshot of a Chinglish sign. With digital you can just set a custom mode to a low quality jpg, snap whatever amuses you, then go back to the RAWs.

Finally, digital has its advantages - it's very accurate and very malleable, especially with the new FF sensors, way more so than slides. You don't need to bracket because you can see what you're getting and you know if things go wrong. In Mongolia my Dynax 7 was getting thrashed about in bumpy vans driving cross-country and I started to notice that the AF didn't give the sharpnest image in the viewfinder - it was sharper if I manually tweaked focus back a notch or 2. So how do you deal with that when you can't review the shots for another month? You take each wide-aperture shot twice, one where the AF thinks the focus is, one where the viewfinder shows the sharpest image...

A lot of these problems could be solved by more experience with film, backup kit, better scanners, doing my own processing... They can also be solved with a digital camera. If I had the cash and the time I'd love to have kept my Dynax 7 and 35/2 with a nice stash of Kodak Gold 200, Fuji Press 800 and Ilford Delta 3200, but I don't so it's all been sold and replaced by an a900 and a Zeiss 24-70. Mistake? Up to you:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3154/...0601ca7e_o.jpg

Oh - quick point about the Gadget Show's test. It was basic at best - sure it was probably a fair comparison of ISO 400 digital Vs film, but who really shoots ISO 400 in a studio??? If you're into photography (anything for that matter) the key is to use your kit based on the situation - this way you can optimise your results. It would have been great to see some really high quality slide film Vs the D700. We also never got told the film used, the scanning process, the developer... The colour caste could be dealt with there for starters - to me it seems that they got the WB right with the digital, but wrong with the film shot.

Of course the digital would have won anyway on other tests - notably clean high ISO, but a lot of people just don't do that all that often - personally I'm all about IQ at base ISO, a tripod and maybe a couple of NDs. The results are valid, but too simplistic to apply to all situations, possibly even the majority of situations.

Going OT but Brammers whats the a900 like?

Utterly awesome. Anything in particular?

Just curious. I got the A200 and was just wondering if as I improve The bigger models where good enough to make the SOny Range a valid competitor for Cannon/Nikon

The a900 is right up there with the 5DMkII - what it loses in a stop of high ISO performance (above 1600), video mode, live view and easy availability of super tele primes/dedicated tilt and shift lenses it makes up for with built in image stabilisation, a better viewfinder, better AF, a touch more resolution and some better lenses. I've got a 4 lens lineup - 2 you can call a draw - KM 17-35 is the same as the Tamron on which it's based, 50mm f1.4s are much of a muchness. The Canon 24-70 L isn't as sharp as the CZ 24-70, nor is the AF as good - ignoring the effect of the body, the motor just doesn't whirr as fast. The Canon 135L doesn't have the corner sharpness of the CZ 135 wide open. Not much in it, but the difference is there. You'd chose between these 2 based on whether you had any previous experience with the system or whether you wanted video or a stabilised 135mm prime etc.

It's not a D700 though - the build is nowhere near as pro, neither is the AF. You can't really compare the 2 - when I made my choice I didn't think 'do I want a Nikon or a Sony' - I thought 'do I want a super-tough, awesome AF high ISO with decent resolution' camera or 'do I want a tough, decent AF with decent high ISO and awesome resolution' camera. Although Nikon's 24-70 is reportedly better than Canon's (never used it I'm afraid) I'm also a lover of 135mm primes and Nikon's is a bit... oddball.

You got a bargain on that LC-A Joshwa!!! They seem to be £80+ now; but that aside I think it's a bit too advanced a camera for me :D

Which high street and postal services would you recommend? Boots?

Nice pictures by the way! [I'll have to ask them not to mess around with the colours as well :) ] - now for getting them digitised did you do that yourself, or did you get it on a CD as well? 2mp is a bit p*ss poor imo :(

And Virtual Monkey are you only allowed to use the uni dark room because you do photography or are they fairly open to who can use it?

I've got to pop into town so will read the rest a bit later on :)