Hey all newb here ;)

[Kramertron2000]

Hey everyone, first post.

Im a total newbie to photography in general. Jumping in the deep end, I got myself an old SLR camera and lens (Nikomat FTn and Nikkor 50mm f/2 lens), and a few rolls of film.

Be interesting to see how my first rolls turn out. Im interested in developing myself as well, but to start with Im just learning how to take good shots.

[ameerat42]

Welcome to AP, Kramerton. I suppose you mean a "Nikkormat FTn..."

Well it's interesting that you bought a film camera, and that you will start by learning to
take good shots. The turnaround time for seeing your results may get to be a bit long.
You'll have to finish the roll, get it developed and printed, and, hope that the results are
good enough to allow you to evaluate your efforts.

Presumably you will wish to post some of your pictures here for evaluation and CC, all to
help with your learning process. That will involve digitising the images somehow, and that
introduces other variables into the process...

[Kramertron2000]

Indeed.

Nikomat is the Japanese name for Nikkormat (mine came from Japan, and has Nikomat on the plate above the lens attachment).

Its just a bit of a hobby really, so turnaround time isnt too big a deal (cost is a bit high though, especially until I start developing the film myself). I do have a point and shoot digital (and my phone of course), and Iv taken many pictures on them over the years, but without any real attention to technique etc.

As for digitizing pictures I have thought about purchasing either a film scanner to at least check which negatives are worth printing (a cheaper one) or a flatbed or better quality second hand film scanner to do that.

To start with though - at least until I get develpment supplies, Ill just send my film away (nearest place to me that developes film as far as I know, is Cairns, and my local camera house will send them off for $20/roll). No doubt you can also get digital copies when you get the film processed too.

[ameerat42]

Ah, that explains it.:th3: I had completely forgotten that I used to see that version of the name in photography magazines.

And yes, you can get them scanned at time of development. That might be a more practical option than prints. If you do get scans done
with development, ask for 16-bit tiffs instead of 8-bit jpegs. You will (hopefully) get a larger tonal range recorded that way.

[Kramertron2000]

Awesome. Thanks for the tip

[ricktas]

Welcome to AP. You will find quite a few of us (older members) have some film experience, but the vast majority of members are digital now..even us older ones. I reckon the last time I developed film would have been in the 1980s or early 1990s. I still have 3 film cameras, a little 110 format, an SLR, and a medium format one... I now call them memorabilia:D.|

Looking forward to following your journey. Learning to shoot on film is a lot slower that learning on digital, so take your time.. and take a note book. Record the settings you use for each shot, because when your film is developed, if you made mistakes, you can review your settings in your note book and learn from that.

[Kramertron2000]

Thanks for the welcome. For me film has a bit of a nostalgia to it. Im old enough to have been around when most people still used film (I was born in 89), and good digital cameras were still to expensive even for many professionals. I remember school photos being taken on a massive film camera (Im assuming medium or large format) through primary school and even maybe the first couple of years of highschool.

Definitely taking my time with it - Iv had the camera and lens since friday and Iv only taken 4 shots so far, and my sister had a go at taking one of me and my cat (which will most likely be blurry as hell because it was inside, hand held with a shutter speed of like 1/2s).

I bought a little notebook to record what each picture is of and what the settings were, and Im using a light meter app on my phone until I get the little prongs that go on the lenses to couple the in camera meter - it was missing on my lens, which I didnt notice until it arrived. The other reason I was interested in film is exactly that - it will force me to take good notes. Im a scientist by trade (going hack to do a PhD next year) and note taking is critical, so its good practice.

One good thing about it is the initial outlay is pretty cheap - good quality, sturdy as a brick shithouse camera, professional quality (and still considered some of the sharpest lenses around) lens and a roll of film set me back about $120. If after the first couple of rolls I decide its not for me or lose interest, Im not out of pocket any more than a big night out or day of shopping, and I still have a peice of retro history.

[ameerat42]

Just to return to an aside you made - having a P+S camera and and phone (camera) - these are valid
photographic devices. On your (laudable) learning quest using film, don't discount these others. A film
camera alone will not force you to adopt an orthodox photographic discipline. Photography is muchly
a challenge in any way, and as such, a pursuit that promotes learning.

Recently here we introduced an incentive to highlight the use of camera phones as a photographic option.
Here is a section of the Gear Talk forum (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/forumdisplay.php?197-Mobile-Phone-(cameras)) related to mobile phone cameras. For photos taken with mobile
cams the convention is to place them in the appropriate genre forum, like Landscapes, and add words like
"Mobile Cam/Phone".

So this is to say that in learning photography, "don't limit yourself".

[Mary Anne]

Hello Kramerton and Welcome to AP.
What a interesting thread I enjoyed reading it, will look forward to seeing what you post on the Forums.
Hope all goes well with the gear you bought and it works out for you.

[Kramertron2000]

Thank you both.

I agree camera phones and even digital point and shoots are definitely legitimate and are capable of taking some excellent pictures. The beauty of those is that you can snap a picture and if it looks good you can check the EXIF data to see what the settings were, which you can then transfer to a (d)SLR to get the same effect. Not to mention all the post processing you can instantly do with digital.

Having said all that, I think I ruined my point and shoot trying to take pictures of a solar eclipse a few years ago (everything has a pink cast unless I set it to tungsten light mode, then its chrome blue). For some reason I always struggled to get a good picture with it though (it was a cheap model, and one of those ones where the shutter fires like 2 seconds after you push the button), its a bit easier on my phone, but harder to steady because of the shape and weight distribution.

[Bensch]

Welcome to AP, looking forward to seeing your photos :th3:

[Kramertron2000]

One thing I should have mentioned before too is what Im interested in photographing :lol2:

Im a biochemist and botanist (my science degree was majoring in biochemistry, but botany was a major component of my study) and Im planning on going back to uni to do a PhD next year. Id like to focus more on botany, and hopefully also get out and do more fieldwork with that because its what I enjoyed most.

Id really like to be able to get nice plant and fungi pictures as well as habitat shots, so most of my shots will be in the plants and fungi subforum. The best part about shooting plants is they dont really move :flowersnap: The difficult part can be getting the right bits in focus and actually being able to take a picture (eg. Epiphytic orchids would be a challenge, and I have in the past hung from the edge of steep hills/cliffs holding the rocks with one hand and my phone in the other). Many of my photos, at least later on may not be the classically "good" ones, with artistic composition, but may instead be focused on capturing a particular detail For example, for a taxonomic illustration, the important element may be the veination of a leaf, or the way the leaves are positioned along a stem.

No reason they cant be both beautiful and informative though, and many of the best taxonomic works and field guides are the best because of the way the illustrations are able to capture the important details in an aesthetically pleasing way.

Edit- and I do realize that using a film SLR probably wont be a reliable way to take important pictures, itll just be for the fun of it and for the note-taking. Ill take important pictures with my phone, or a digital camera of some kind

[Mark L]

Ill take important pictures with my phone, or a digital camera of some kind
You need to get a better digital camera than your phone for important pictures. I also think getting a good DSLR trumps playing with film these days. And I dislike the PPing involved but it's worth it.
Welcome aboard to AP.

[Kramertron2000]

Yeah Ill probably look at a better second hand digital at some point, but really I dont need professional quality pictures for anything important.

Of course modern dSLRs outperform film now, but they are also quite a bit more expensive (even second hand) as well. For a bit of fun and some nostalgia, film is cool to play around with, and all the kit I have so far has set me back less than $200 (inluding 3 rolls of film). If I lose interest its no big loss. The other thing that attracts me to film is that I have a background in chemistry, so devleoping my own film sounds interesting, and will save a heap of money too (but in the long run digital is of course cheaper, even with an expensive dSLR)

- - - Updated - - -

The other advantage of nikkon is the lenses I get for the film camera will work on most nikkon dSLRs (but some things like light metering wont), and vice versa.

[arthurking83]

....

The other advantage of nikkon is the lenses I get for the film camera will work on most nikkon dSLRs (but some things like light metering wont), and vice versa.

The camera you get can be important here.

Exactly which lenses do you have?
Are any non Ai?

If any are Ai or Ais, I'd say your best cheapest option would be a D300.
It has some quirks, but they're probably not important to you.

rough guide on value .. about $300-ish.
If you can budget for a wee bit more, D700 would be my prime choice! :th3:
For all intents and purposes a D300 with a 135 format sensor.

Other than non Ai lenses(and some old fisheyes) both those cameras will work with old lenses AND give you stop down metering... etc.
They have the ability to allow non CPU lens inputs into the camera, and you manually select what the lens type is.
Doesn't really work for old non CPU zoom lenses tho, other than as a kind of work around.

So, for example, if you had an old 50/3.5 mm macro lens: you would take the time to set it up in the banks of non CPU in the camera.
When the lens is mounted, if this is the only lens currently set in the non CPU lens memory banks, it's 'recognised' by default, and the camera thinks it's mounted.
As you turn the aperture, the camera knows and operates the lens just as it does with modern lenses.

Metering is limited to central spot only(ie. no other AF point spots actually meter, only the central spot can meter) or matrix mode.

These cameras have 9 memory banks for non CPU lenses.
Note that there are other cameras that do this in the Nikon range too.
D200 is about the only cheaper model, but it's sensor is very old now, nowhere near as good as the D300.
All the other cameras with this feature will be more expensive than those three models.

EDIT: also, forget the scanner(if it's only for scanning film) there are better methods.
1/. get a dedicated macro rail like Nikon's PB series ie. PB3, 4 5, 6. Some are better than others for various reasons, but they then cost more. I'd recommend a PB-4. They have dedicated film holder attachments accessories, eg, for the PB4 you can get the PS-4.
That's the setup I have. Any worn bellows issues they may have can easily be patched. Cost can be about $200-ish if you're patient.
In fact, if you subsequently decide that macro is a form of photography that you'd like to get into, I'd highly recommend the PB-4 + PS-4 film holder attachment. It's Nikon's best.

2/. the far cheaper option is to use something home made, like a 'shoe box'. The reason you need something like a 'shoe box' is that you need to keep all stray light between the lens and the film to zero! Any other method yields lower contrast results.
You then use a macro lens, or an attachment like an extension tube for any non macro lens to allow the non macro lens to achieve closer focus than it natively can.

Like Am said, 16bit tiffs are good for digitising film, but even better is a 14bit raw file. Far more flexible, and once experimentation has started, you then realise the additional results that the raw workflow allows.
I started with the macro rail setup(PB4+PS4) and then subsequently got myself a scanner(needed a scanner for other docs). Tested the film strip scanning workflow but the raw workflow gave much easier to work with results.

Option 3/. is to get the film developing place(if you don't develop yourself) to digitise the film, but the results can be lacking of quality.


Hope that helps.

[ameerat42]

You might have to specify your requirements for digitising the film, and maybe pay a bit more.

[arthurking83]

You might have to specify your requirements for digitising the film, and maybe pay a bit more.

Maybe to start with!
But for the long term(ie. if more film exposures are to be made in the future) I wouldn't bother.

I also looked into it getting some films scanned professionally, but still the same issue of 16bit TIFF.
A primary issue with TIFF is (basically) whitebalance, it's set and forget, and the film has more to do with whitebalance than does the the light source used to scan the film.
With a raw file, you can readjust whitebalance to be a lot more balanced(overall) in a much easier manner than you can by tweaking all the various colour sliders.
This also depends on what software you're prepared to use too.

Obviously the OP is budget constrained, if they can give a budget to work with, it'll be easy to work out some gear options to contemplate future 'investment' strategies.

[Kramertron2000]

Thanks for the responses guys. So far I only have a non-ai 50mm f/2 lens, and I just ordered an old non-ai 35mm f/2.8 (single coat version), so they wont be best for use on digital, but older lenses are cheap anyway, and I guess you cant really have too many different lenses.

I just finished my first roll of colour film (Fuji superia 400asa) the other day. Just for convenience I took it to camera house to get it processed in Cairns, and I just opted for getting it scanned and put on CD rather than printed. They didnt give any options as to the file format etc. In future Ill probably send them somewhere else where I have more options (someone on a local Facebook group gave me some recommendations). I dont have all that high hopes for this roll - there are some shots I know I stuffed up for sure, so no doubt there will be other unexpected results.

As far as digitizing myself later on and budget, its hard to say. Id probably be able to spend a few hundred on something (maybe more if I save), but when I do my PhD next year Ill no doubt be more limited and need to save for longer. Seeing as Im just beginning, Im probably going to wait until I get a few rolls processed before I get to far into post processing myself. If I were to get a film scanner, it would probably just be a really cheap one to check which negatives are worth printing rather than to actually edit on the computer.

[bitsnpieces]

Looks like you're already deep into the world of photography here, and it's only the welcoming party. :)

Welcome, and keep it up

[fillum]

Welcome K2K (can I call you that ? :) )

Some thoughts...

I do realize that using a film SLR probably wont be a reliable way to take important pictures
Film SLRs were used to shoot 'important' images for decades, and continue to do so. With appropriate technique, lighting, etc there's no reason that you can't make good images on film (although digital has obvious benefits).


If I were to get a film scanner, it would probably just be a really cheap one to check which negatives are worth printing rather than to actually edit on the computer.If you just want to examine negatives the cheapest and simplest way is to use a home-made lightbox and a loupe. A lightbox can be as simple as an upturned white "Tupperware" container and a torch. I think it's also possible to use a phone or tablet as a lightbox. A camera lens can apparently be used as a loupe but I think a basic loupe is pretty cheap anyway.

It would be worth checking out what resources your university might have that you could access. Maybe a decent scanner? They might also have a darkroom so you might be able access some of the equip to develop your own film, etc.



Cheers.

[Kramertron2000]

Thanks for the suggestions - a lightbox seems like a good option. Uni does have darkrooms I could use too. The ones I know of are for biochemistry (viewing fluorescence based assays etc., but they are the size of an average bathroom with benches, so would be more than suitable for film development and maybe even making prints). Id say the arts department would also have some good scanners, but they only do new media arts there and I think the only photography subjects are for digital, but surely they would have a scanner good enough for scanning film.

As for the important images thing, you are right (and I would definitely like to use my camera in the field, but I will no doubt be taking digital backup shots). Its something Iv mulled over for a bit now - it was good enough for nearly a century, and no doubt still good enough now. The only real problem is you cant see the pictures straight away, so you have to make sure you can actually take a good picture :lol:

- - - Updated - - -

And yes you can call me K2K lol