allanb Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I long ago made the transition to a digital camera but I still have a pre-digital SLR (a Canon AE-1) which gave me a lot of enjoyment.I have an urge to get it out of the cupboard and play with it again. What is the practicality, and what are the economics, of using a machine like that today? Can you still buy film, and can you still find people who will develop it and make prints? Is the whole idea just ridiculous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex H Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=1094&pq-locale=en_GB&_requestid=13662 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allanb Posted July 15, 2011 Author Share Posted July 15, 2011 Thank you. It looks as though I don't really have a good reason to get the AE-1 back in action. But I hate the thought of a nice piece of equipment lying neglected at the back of a cupboard.Something to think about! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkkent Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 I don't know whether you are in France or the UK, but if you do a search for 35mm film processing you will find a number of services, including mail order.If you are in the UK why don't you just go into your nearest Jessops and ask? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allanb Posted July 15, 2011 Author Share Posted July 15, 2011 I live in France, rather a long way from any big towns. I don't know Jessops, but if you know of a French equivalent I'll certainly talk to them, if they're not too far away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balham Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Try Phox. I deal with the local one to where I live. Have just had a load of prints done for an exposition I have comming up (well, two expositions). I still use film though the film I used to use I can't find locally (Neopan 400). There many photographers that stll use film. I saw a documentary a short while ago featuring the photographer Anita Khemka. One of the cameras she was using was a Nikon F100. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christine Animal Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 Hello Balham, I just had a quick look at your blog and one of the photos of an elderly lady sitting in London around 1970 just reminds me of one I took in Paris in 1984. It's on this page http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/6/815842/ShowPost.aspx#815842It was fun when we used to post all our photos, but hardly anyone seems to go into that section lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pads Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 Yes I use to enjoy seeing all the photos to chris ..trouble is its so differcult now to post a pic ...for the feeble minded like me ..since they did the changes I havnt been able to post one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balham Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 Impressed by the camera you were using. nice images there.I also started on a Fujica, a ST605. Nice camera, still got it, still works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 I've got a lovely 120 twin lens reflex which I'd love to be able to find a good reason to use again, but I guess it will sit in it's case unused, but not unloved. I think it's a Yashica Mat (with some numbers that I can't remember). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powerdesal Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 I have a Minolta XD7 with all the kit, long lenses, flash, motor drive etc etc, its probably worth about zilch on the second hand market, what a shame ! I can't see any future use for it and it seems a shame to bin it but what's the choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert the InfoGipsy Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 [quote user="JohnM"]I've got a lovely 120 twin lens reflex which I'd love to be able to find a good reason to use again, but I guess it will sit in it's case unused, but not unloved. I think it's a Yashica Mat (with some numbers that I can't remember).[/quote]First guess is that it's a Yash 635 -- it had an adapter to use either 35mm or 120 IIRC. I would give it a good home.On the subject of the thread as a whole, for most people there's no point in going back to film. If you're one of the keen types with access to a darkroom and enjoy sploshing about in hypo then it's a different matter. For anyone who's intending to send their films off for printing I'd say 'don't bother' because the overall cost is high and there is practically zero chance that the results from commercial D&P will look better than digital prints.I strongly suspect that the few people who believe that film gives a different 'look' from digital could actually achieve the same result with a bit of prodding around in something like lightroom. It would be interesting to do the equivalent of a blind tasting to see how many can pick out film-based images from digital.By the way, I'm the owner of 3 x 35mm SLRs, two 6x6 120's and a Durst enlarger, but I'm a bit of a luddite in this area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balham Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 But why no future for it (the XD7)? I have a Minolta X700, it has been all over the place with me and I still use it. It is a shame that people give up on older working material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert the InfoGipsy Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 [quote user="Balham"]But why no future for it (the XD7)? I have a Minolta X700, it has been all over the place with me and I still use it. It is a shame that people give up on older working material.[/quote]I think that for most people the convenience of digital outweighs the nostalgia value of 'real' cameras. I would guess that most camera users just want something that gives them relable snapshots. Then there are the ones who want to take things further but would have never bothered with a wet darkroom. There's also the cost factor. Effectively digital photography is free once you've got the kit. With 35mm film it costs about 25-30p per frame for a 36 exp B&W film and lab development; that's before you get anything printed. Colour costs slightly more. Those prices are based on specialist suppliers & labs in the UK. You wouldn't necessarily save much doing your own processing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkkent Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 [quote user="Albert the InfoGipsy"]On the subject of the thread as a whole, for most people there's no point in going back to film. If you're one of the keen types with access to a darkroom and enjoy sploshing about in hypo then it's a different matter. For anyone who's intending to send their films off for printing I'd say 'don't bother' because the overall cost is high and there is practically zero chance that the results from commercial D&P will look better than digital prints.I strongly suspect that the few people who believe that film gives a different 'look' from digital could actually achieve the same result with a bit of prodding around in something like lightroom. It would be interesting to do the equivalent of a blind tasting to see how many can pick out film-based images from digital.[/quote]I have a few thousand colour slides accumulated over the decades so I bought a Minolta scanner to digitise them. I now have a few thousand digital images and the main problem is cataloguing them ... but that's another story.My wife and children didn't like slides, they wanted prints that could be carried around and showed to friends. Occasionally I find an unprocessed negative film which I take to my local Jessops. They have a processing machine in the shop and I ask them to just process the film and not supply prints. I then scan the negatives and get inverted images.In almost every case I find that it is necessary to tweak the results using Photoshop. It may be that the film gives a "truer" image and that I have been conditioned by the brighter, more vibrant images that my Lumix FZ50 provides. But film is now old technology, using it is expensive, laborious, complex and subject to catastrophe. I'm more than happy to allow others to sing its praises ... but nostalgia isn't what it used to be ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Coeur de Lion Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 [quote user="Clarkkent"]In almost every case I find that it is necessary to tweak the results using Photoshop. It may be that the film gives a "truer" image and that I have been conditioned by the brighter, more vibrant images that my Lumix FZ50 provides.[/quote]That's because photoshop is the digital equivalent of a darkroom. Technically all images require post processing to draw their proper potential out. However, most photos don't deserve it, just the ones that do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 I think mine is a Yashica Mat 124G, that is from memory as I can't find it at the moment (However, I've just done a search and found a pic that looks like it). I will have to find it as it is often used as a prop whenever the choir I am in sing "Flash Bang Wallop". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert the InfoGipsy Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 There are some 124Gs on eBay for about £150. That seems to be the going price depending on condition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Wow... perhaps I need to think about selling it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now