Is it worth dusting down my analogue camera?

mike65

I was about to post a dumb-ass "recommend me a digital camera for less than xxx euro" thread when I thought 'I have a complete camera system sitting in a cupboard'. Its an 80s Ricoh XR-P with various Sigma lenses, filters, blah blah blah. The the fully manual exposure mode is flakey but otherwise all works as far as I can tell without putting a roll of film through it.

Should I bother? Or is digital the future?



Mike

ThOnda

If the lenses are good, it is worth. But expensive.

Hugh_C

ThOnda wrote: »

If the lenses are good, it is worth. But expensive.

It's worth it - feck the expense, you can always just develop the neg/transparency and scan the result.

mathias

I shoot film myself , especially Velvia , but it is indeed very very expensive these days , not to mention extremely unreliable.

Unless you go to a pro shop like Gunns for Development , these days there just arnt too many places around that can reliably process anything but bog standard film for you.

If the teenager behind the desk has to do anything other than pop it in the machine they are lost. It bugs me to admit it , but film is dying a slow death.

Of course , if you have your own Darkroom , thats different , Unfortunately Im not allowed to have " Smelly " chemicals in the house

Hugh_C

Hugh_C wrote: »

It's worth it

What's more is that it'll probably force you to think a bit more about composition / framing etc than digital. I suppose it's akin to the zoom/prime lens argument.

mike65

Its the infrastructure supporting film that is the worry, the last time I was active I bought and returned the film to Hennebry's on the Quay and never got a bad box of fujichrome back. I better go in and check what they provide these days.

Mike.

trishw78

Hennebry's don't have a great stock. The last time I gave the a film to be developed it came back badly cut and was very expensive. Try Sam McCauly's up town.

mike65

Cheers.

Mike.

deRanged

Hugh_C wrote: »

just develop the neg/transparency and scan the result.

yup, it's costing me about 4 euro a roll for c-41 film at the minute. I'm happy with that, and taking film forces me to stop and think about what I'm doing. I tend to be snap happy with digital and leave things for post processing.

thefizz

mathias wrote: »

I shoot film myself , especially Velvia , but it is indeed very very expensive these days , not to mention extremely unreliable.

Unless you go to a pro shop like Gunns for Development , these days there just arnt too many places around that can reliably process anything but bog standard film for you.

If the teenager behind the desk has to do anything other than pop it in the machine they are lost. It bugs me to admit it , but film is dying a slow death.

Of course , if you have your own Darkroom , thats different , Unfortunately Im not allowed to have " Smelly " chemicals in the house

You could get the odourless chemicals.

ch3rry

mike65 wrote: »

I was about to post a dumb-ass "recommend me a digital camera for less than xxx euro" thread

Mike

There's nothing dumb-ass about asking around for advice. I'm sure you were a "dumb-ass" once.

Is digital the future?

Now that is actually the most dumb-ass question I've ever heard.

RDM_83

Just spent 7.50 getting 24 colour photo's developped in the Camera exchange, thats really too much for me so two questions
1-has the price of film processing gone up everywhere (only been shooting film for since xmass but think the price was 6.30 then
2-Scanning negatives, this seems like the way for me to go especially since I'm still messing up the lighting a bit with my shots (always seem to under expose), but do you need a high quality scanner or specific software? got access to a (x-large) Epsom Expression in college.

JMcL

Hennebrys, McCauleys et al are probably going to send the rolls of for development somewhere, so you're probably at the mercy of whatever commercial lab get them (I think Spectra generally). 7dayshop are good for film at good prices, and Hetty has a very good reputation for processing (I haven't sent anything to her yet, but I've a couple of rolls that need developed, so I intend to giver her a go shortly)

thefizz

RDM_83 wrote: »

Just spent 7.50 getting 24 colour photo's developped in the Camera exchange, thats really too much for me so two questions
1-has the price of film processing gone up everywhere (only been shooting film for since xmass but think the price was 6.30 then
2-Scanning negatives, this seems like the way for me to go especially since I'm still messing up the lighting a bit with my shots (always seem to under expose), but do you need a high quality scanner or specific software? got access to a (x-large) Epsom Expression in college.

Re point 2, you might be better off reading and practicing your exposures to improve that aspect of your photography.

thedarkroom

First things first, to Mike

"mike65
Location: Waterford, due to inertia"

Due to inertia? There is an undertone of an apology for your choice of location. Don't knock it. I'm from Gorey but spent four years in the 'Regional' from 1978 and then worked there for a year. I loved the place, for a 'city' it had a small town intimacy about it which beats the pants off Dublin. Obviously twenty five years would see a lot of changes but I still like visiting the place when I get a chance.

On the subject of analogue over digital, I'm involved in teaching photography and run a photography section in a university and certainly film has taken a hit over the last few years but, believe it or not, internationally, it has started to experience a bit of a revival. When you are using film, you approach photography in a totally different manner, more thought out and calculated. Your composition thought process is far more alert, it is different way of learning.
It is now being realised that people, when learning, can be too casual in their observation and creativity and that film is less forgiving to mistakes. It's a bit like depending too much on spell check in MicroSoft Word, it corrects your mistakes and grammar but you feel somewhat lacking when you look at the final presentation as it is compromised by an external interference. With digital photography, people learn to be lazy in their initial approach to and taking of a photograph because they know that they can 'improve' the photo later by changing the tonal range and exposure, removing the pole from someone's head or correcting mistakes that they couldn't bother doing initially.
I am not knocking digital photography, far from it. I have been in the darkrooms for thirty years now but I actually got rid of my own home darkroom (broke my heart) last December and sent it to a very worthy home in Bray to someone who gives it good use.
You only have to look at the excellent work on these pages to see that digital photography is well up for the job when in the right capable hands. All I'm saying is that not only is film not gone, but it is coming back again and with good reason.
Dust off your Ricoh and Sigmas and go for it!

David

trishw78

On a side note I'll be keeping my EOS 3000 for the foreseeable future.

EDIT:
Sam McCauley do they're film processing in-house I think. But Hennerby's definately send it out it takes them about a week to come back depending on the time of day you drop it in to Sam's it's 24hrs.

mike65

thedarkroom/David,

Thanks for the gee-up, the location description is a joke at my expense not Waterfords.

Regarding McCauleys processing, its good if its in-house. The 7-9 day turnaround was deffo an annoyance in the olden days.

Mike.

RDM_83

thefizz wrote: »

Re point 2, you might be better off reading and practicing your exposures to improve that aspect of your photography.

Sorry not quite what I meant, trying to improve my exposures (and often taking two or three photo's of the same shot at different exposures) so at the minute when I get a film developed I'm having quiet a few doubles of varying standard which isn't really worth it.so was wondering if any particular software is suggested for scanning negatives (I know when I scan photo's at present the digital image appears to be slightly darker than the prints themselves so tend to tweek them with histogram function)