'Enry, This One Is For You!

There is a certain aesthetic quality using black and white film that really, really makes for drama in an image. Color is wonderful of course, but I'm not sure if any of Kaplans photo's would have been nearly so dramatic if they were in color.

You're the photo dude Panther, what say you?
 
I used to work in the Arts Faculty of a College in the UK and we had a suite of B&W darkrooms and processing rooms and the work some of the students produced was simply stunning. B&W photos can have a beauty that colour photos sometimes miss.
 
I just spent an hour or so digging through boxes of old photos that haven't seen the light of day in years! :isadizzy:

Here are a couple of B&W shots taken when I was experimenting with my first film SLR, a Pentax Spotmatic. They were probably taken in late 1979 as I bought my first SLR just after I got married for the first time which was in September 1979.

458912078_c2b86afce3.jpg


The camera was fully manual (no auto anything) and it's only 'advanced feature' was an electronic, moving needle, light meter built into the view finder.

The shots were taken with natural lighting that had a strong back-light component. IIRC the camera was tripod mounted, operated with a cable release and a fairly slow shutter speed.

Film was probably Kodak of some sort and processing/printing would have been done via the local chemist/pharmacy outlet who had to send it away to a regional processing facility. No 1 hour printing in those days!



 
Panther_99FS said:

:icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol:.......Next thing you know, the film bug will bite you again.....:mixedsmi:
Click to expand...
Oh I don't know about the film bug biting again, it's far too expensive trying to get film and get it processed these days. That's one of the real bonuses of digital photography, you can shoot hundreds of shots in search of the perfect one and it doesn't cost you anything for each shot and then you can delete all the bad ones. With film you have to pay for all the bad shots as well as the one good one.

I have considered getting a digital SLR for a long time now but don't have the money to spare, plus it would mean having to get new lenses too. I don't suppose my old camera bodies and lenses are worth much these days (either as a trade-in or on Ebay) as I bet there isn't much call for the old screw mount stuff.
 
Tako_Kichi said:
Oh I don't know about the film bug biting again, it's far too expensive trying to get film and get it processed these days..
Click to expand...

Not that expensive:
- My local lab charges $2.95 to develop 36 exposures of C41 color film.
- All my shots that you see above were scanned on a $150 Epson v500 scanner

A D600 digital full frame body alone costs $2000
 
Panther_99FS said:
Not that expensive:
- My local lab charges $2.95 to develop 36 exposures of C41 color film.
- All my shots that you see above were scanned on a $150 Epson v500 scanner
Click to expand...

Wish we could find those prices here in rural Canada! Although developing probably isn't too bad but printing cost an arm and a leg 20 years ago (compared to the UK then) which is one reason I cut back on my photography hobby. The film cameras have just sat in their bags since then, especially since I got my Olympus C-2040 digital 10 years ago.

Panther_99FS said:
A D600 digital full frame body alone costs $2000
Click to expand...

LOL...well I wasn't looking at that much. I have been pondering something like this for a while:

http://www.henrys.com/61879-NIKON-D3100-W-18-55VR-And-55-300VR.aspx#.UZB60sqv9Fs

It's probably entry level DSLR but it would meet my needs now and no doubt my almost complete set of Cokin filters could be put to artistic use again. :icon_lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top