"Star" is asking :"How to become an analogue photographer"?

[Sirius Glass]

I prefer the term "film" which most people understand as a concept and product.

 

[AgX]

"Film Camera" ?
Not over here. Most people would think of a cine camera.

 

[cliveh]

A film camera combines physics, mechanics, engineering, chemistry, an elementary time machine and magic all in one beautiful tactile instrument.

 

[removed account4]

what a secret

i think the secret is to just pick up a film ( or paper ) camea and use it ..
too much hype and nonsense

 

[BradS]

I totally agree with John.
Get a camera, load it with film and make some photographs.
What's the big deal?
Ordinary folk all around the world have been doing it for over a century.
All of this inane navel gazing is completely unnecessary (and boring).

 

[trendland]

Right - If you have done it there is no need to learn it again......
"How to become an analogue photographer (again)? "
....
with regards

 

[removed account4]

Right - If you have done it there is no need to learn it again......
"How to become an analogue photographer (again)? "
....
with regards

LOL how to do it again ?
the same way you did it before ...
pick up a camera put film ( or paper ) in it
and take pictures. even if you forgot, its not foreign
its very strange how people
make claim that using cameras can be so different
they aren't, they are pretty much exactly the same
and it seems that people who might believe otherwise
look too much into the technicalities and minute differences
as a defense mechanism, instead of embracing the sameness
... the big picture ... its just film, or paper,
its not like the person is mixing their own emulsion
or performing some death defying act ...

right on bradS !

 

[faberryman]

i think the secret is to just pick up a film ( or paper ) camea and use it ..
too much hype and nonsense

I totally agree with John.
Get a camera, load it with film and make some photographs.
What's the big deal?
Ordinary folk all around the world have been doing it for over a century.
All of this inane navel gazing is completely unnecessary (and boring).

I agree with John and Brad. Get a film camera, put some film in it, and take some pictures. There is no reason for developing a religion around it.

 

[trendland]

LOL how to do it again ?
the same way you did it before ...
pick up a camera put film ( or paper ) in it
and take pictures. even if you forgot, its not foreign
its very strange how people
make claim that using cameras can be so different
they aren't, they are pretty much exactly the same
and it seems that people who might believe otherwise
look too much into the technicalities and minute differences
as a defense mechanism, instead of embracing the sameness
... the big picture ... its just film, or paper,
its not like the person is mixing their own emulsion
or performing some death defying act ...

right on bradS !

Confusing? The article stated : "How to become an analogue photographer (again)"? Nethertheless the term "analogue" is a bit strange to people who use film since decades and now it is analogue - we all may know what is meant. Well : how to become "analogue" it is the wrong term. You definitive would agree with.I don't care so much about - therefore.....but I don't like it.
But it is more strange : to become again....that indicates that also people who used digital after they had experience with film - now have to learn to work with film again.....
Thats extreme strange.
You don't agree ? Therefore I would like to state : If you ever worked with film (I gues a couple of films would be enough so you don't need experience of many decades) - half a year experience is real enough - to have no need to learn it again.
Because you will never forget....
with regards

PS : Strange missunderstanding...

 

[trendland]

"Film Camera" ?
Not over here. Most people would think of a cine camera.

Right - at the begining with digital I sometimes stated :" I bought a used filmcamera last week in very good condition " the reaction of most people was :"Wow - you did it - (super)16mm or 35mm ?"

with regards

 

[removed account4]

Confusing? The article stated : "How to become an analogue photographer (again)"? Nethertheless the term "analogue" is a bit strange to people who use film since decades and now it is analogue - we all may know what is meant. Well : how to become "analogue" it is the wrong term. You definitive would agree with.I don't care so much about - therefore.....but I don't like it.
But it is more strange : to become again....that indicates that also people who used digital after they had experience with film - now have to learn to work with film again.....
Thats extreme strange.
You don't agree ? Therefore I would like to state : If you ever worked with film (I gues a couple of films would be enough so you don't need experience of many decades) - half a year experience is real enough - to have no need to learn it again.
Because you will never forget....
with regards

PS : Strange missunderstanding...

not sure if i would agree that it is a strange misunderstanding, it doesn't make any sense at all.
pick up a disposible camera push the button, wind, or if it isn't disposable .. install film ( after reading instructions someplace )
push the button, repeat ... there really isn't anything to learn or to think of that is different than using a cellphone or digital p/s or whatever.
maybe learn now to take the film out and drop it off at a lab ?
analog/analogue doesn't mean much its just a word to express "non digital " that people might understand.
the whole idea that anyone has to learn any of this is kind of bizarre ...
i don't think a toddler with his/her mom's cellphone camera had to learn anything and i don't think
a toddler with a p/s non-digital camera has to learn anything either ,,
it is sad there are always people to divide by expressing extreme differences when the differences are barely differences at all ..

 

[trendland]

....OK - ...but sometimes there is a part left to somebody to learn first...
with regards

 

[TheRook]

Why not film photography? I know there are processes like paper negatives that don't require film, but in the vast majority of cases when people say analog photography they are talking about film.

The term I generally use, yes.
But I simply refuse to use the term "analogue photography".

 

[AgX]

This is not the first time we are having such terminology discussion. The arguments thus are not new. Most of us do not like the term analog in this context.
But alternitives often do not work. Yet.
We are in a dilemma.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

On the few and rare occasions someone has noticed me making photos, the question always is: "is that a film camera?"

 

[AgX]

Theo, this "film" dilemma is language dependant
What works for you, may not work in other parts of the world.

 

[removed account4]

"camera " in french refers to a movie camera ( as agx suggested )

 

[AgX]

The same time languages are constantly changing.

Where people now with "film camera" still think of something cinematic the same time they may already actually use "video camera" for anything cinematic.
And with still- and moving-images capture meanwhile merged, there will be no more dividing terminology at all.
And "film camera" maybe understood as oldfashioned still camera...

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I see, yes. I've even heard people on television refer to "filming" an event when obviously they are using electronic television cameras.

"Film at 11!"

 

[tomfrh]

but in the vast majority of cases when people say analog photography they are talking about film.

+1

Is it young people who started with digital who call it "analog"?

 

[tomfrh]

A simple 135 film should have the eqivalent more than 20MP in comparison to digital.

Tech pan maybe. Fine grained normal film 10-20MP, grainy stuff <10MP

 

[trendland]

Tech pan maybe. Fine grained normal film 10-20MP, grainy stuff <10MP

So let´s use the most grainy stuff we could find to get the minimum of 55MP equivalent in 6x7/6x8/6x9 with 120 films.
Or let´s use films with better characteristics in concern of resolution to get 110 MP with 6x7/6x8/6x9....
Or let´s get $ 49,000 from your bank acount to buy a digital Phase one with 100MP :

What a confusing decision ?

But never mind - in case of doubts I would like to get best characteritics in 4,5 x 6 with equipment in best used ( mint) condition - like this here :

Meanwhile I use a cheap 6x6 with Agfa Solinar lens ( the seller wasn´t informed about the value of that lens - $ 19,50 .... )

Here it is the normal Agfa Apotar - I got it also in best condition.

But this is a real sensation :

The Solinar give a resolution ( with slow films at F 5,6 / F 8 ) you will not beliefe.

So - how to become an ....... ?

with regards

 

[tomfrh]

So let´s use the most grainy stuff we could find to get the minimum of 55MP equivalent in 6x7/6x8/6x9 with 120 films.
Or let´s use films with better characteristics in concern of resolution to get 110 MP with 6x7/6x8/6x9....

How do you get those numbers?

 

[faberryman]

Is it young people who started with digital who call it "analog"?

Probably older film users who wanted to make it sound special. I shoot film. I don't shoot analog.

 

[trendland]

How do you get those numbers?

Easy maths : 4,5 x 6 has 2,8...x the space of 35mm film. 6x7 has (around) 5,2.... x the space of 35mm. 6x8 is (around) 5,5... x ....and 6x9 has a little less as 6 x the space of a single 35mm negative in 24x36mm...
As we would say the minimum in comparison is around 10mp (with 35 mm film) we may use a factor of 5,5 to compare 120 film with midt format cameras generaly as the midt of 6x7/6x8/6x9. But it isn't realistic comparable as we all might know.
Because it is dependable of so many impacts. But (I hope) the worst grainy "normal" film in 24x36 has > 8 mp.
From my experience - one of a number of films with real bad resolution AND grain (it is Not the same - by the way) is from Ferrania. The "Solaris 100/200..if you would use those films with E.I ISO 400/800 you definitivly would feel as you shot "pocket 110" with 35mm equipment.
I could imagine an overdriven push process at the very max. with E.I. 1600 =
massive underexposure with Solaris emulsions would restrict resolution also to the max < 3mp equivalent compared with cheap 3mp digital cameras of the 2000 area. But with such comparison we should not forget the restricted resolution of first and second generation of digital at low light. It is nearly the same.
with regards