[QUOTE=tinos;32182893]I mostly scan to document my stuff, and scanning large takes longer. I've found 600 produces a sufficient scan for most web uses, and 300 for pure documentation. I then put all the film into a labeled binder, and label the scan folder with the same date/description. When I need to make prints of certain images I go back and scan larger.
Works for me & my older film scanner
[editline]8th September 2011[/editline]
The newer Diana+'s are pretty nice, with the pinhole option. I use that often.
A pinhole picture is a pinhole picture, and the Diana+ does it well.
When unloading the film you should do it in a dark bag, as the film doesn't always roll up correctly. This will prevent light leaks.
These cameras arn't meant to get DSLR or even SLR results, in my opinion, they capture something that digital can't ever catch, something real and raw. And with the whole photo industry going for perfection, it has it's artistic place in experimentation, and rawness.
Buy one knowing you will need to learn it's own quirks, and how to deal with them.
Also, the Diana has a more predictable picture than the Holga. And the first gen Holgas were realllly unpredictable. You had to tape them all up with photo tape.[/QUOTE]
Yer in my photography class, We made pinhole cameras and did pinhole photography, cause a death kid from my old school came over and stood right in front of it >.> and i was shouting like I NEED SUN, and he was like, what? and i was like I NEED SUN, MOVE, and then like 2 minutes later he got what i meant, and i had a fucking shadow in my picture :( We also developed film, thats a bitch, Putting it in the bag and trying to wind it up is so hard :L i dont know how my lecturer does it so quickly, But I went into jessops asked if they develop black and white film and they said, yer it takes 2 - 3 weeks, I was like, ok i will do it at college, 1) free 2) i can do it in like 1-2 hours.
I will look into the Diana+ cameras though, After using my Nikon F2 i fell in love with the old robust way of taken pictures, im easily amused as when you go to take a picture in the view finder there is a needle which has your aperture and shutter speed, and then if the needle is in the center, it will be a good exposure, if its to the left it will be over exposed and to the right it will be under exposed, But yer, Will look at buying a diana after payday :D
If you can spare the money a Diana is fun but you might find a trift store camera more worth the money, but the diana definetly has something that others don´t.
[QUOTE=Ohfoohy;32191906]I have no idea what's wrong with my film advance lever. It has no resistance(loose) whats the best way to take the roll out without ruining it? I have many more questions too![/QUOTE]
If it's really loose then it might not have caught the film. If that's what happened, the the film rewind lever won't spin if you pull the advance lever. If it doesn't spin then you can pop it open and load the film again, as it can't get loose if you used any of the frames.
[QUOTE=ep9832;32200723]If it's really loose then it might not have caught the film. If that's what happened, the the film rewind lever won't spin if you pull the advance lever. If it doesn't spin then you can pop it open and load the film again, as it can't get loose if you used any of the frames.[/QUOTE]
the FML moment, if it wasnt in properly and you was taking pictures and they havnt been recorded.
[QUOTE=moosef;32210610]the FML moment, if it wasnt in properly and you was taking pictures and they havnt been recorded.[/QUOTE]
I've had this happen to me before, and let me tell you, it sucks balls.
[QUOTE=moosef;32199089]when you go to take a picture in the view finder there is a needle which has your aperture and shutter speed...[/QUOTE]
I'd just like to note that the diana+ is a very primitive camera, you won't find any sort of light meeter on it. Just 4 apertures, including the pinhole.
and like Dutchlike said, no-namer thrift store cameras sometimes have nice aspects as well, I have a few.
Well I've just shot a roll through the "new" Zenit TTL and I love the camera so far. Now I have to get it developed. I'm going to shot a through rolls through it tommorow as I'm going out to do some urbex.
Hipsters use film because of it's deepness and mysterious hidden sense, even if the film camera will cost five times more than a digital one. The result will always be worse, it's like cleaning a house with a toothbrush instead of using a mop.
[QUOTE=Kira;32218504]Hipsters use film because of it's deepness and mysterious hidden sense, even if the film camera will cost five times more than a digital one. The result will always be worse, it's like cleaning a house with a toothbrush instead of using a mop.[/QUOTE]
What the hell was the point of this post?
Not too sure. I'm not a hipster; but I use film. Your logic is flawed, Kira. I got my üb3r3><pen51\/3 camera for free.
[QUOTE=Kira;32218504]Hipsters use film because of it's deepness and mysterious hidden sense, even if the film camera will cost five times more than a digital one. The result will always be worse, it's like cleaning a house with a toothbrush instead of using a mop.[/QUOTE]
You base this post on what facts?
EDIT:
My film-camera was free for me. And it's older than your mum.
[QUOTE=Kira;32218504]Hipsters use film because of it's deepness and mysterious hidden sense, even if the film camera will cost five times more than a digital one. The result will always be worse, it's like cleaning a house with a toothbrush instead of using a mop.[/QUOTE]
I can't describe in words at how retard your post is. Hipsters use film because they think they're cool. Professional film cameras cost a fraction of professional digital cameras and plus film gives you more detail. Film has a lot more detail than digital and it probably will for a while. And sometimes the result will be worse, but most of the time it's the same or better. And your analogy at the end, it's backfired at you; Because when you clean a house with a toothbrush it will be more thoroughly cleaned then if you used a mop, it just takes some more time to clean the house. Just like how film gives you more detail it just takes some more time to see your photos compared to digital.
/rant
I mean, why using a film camera if you're not a hipster and you have enough money to choose between different types of cameras? Film has no advances versus digital cameras.
[QUOTE=Kira;32218920]I mean, why using a film camera if you're not a hipster and you have enough money to choose between different types of cameras? Film has no advances versus digital cameras.[/QUOTE]
It's clear you have no idea what the perks of using a film camera actually are.
read the thread, kira.
Having said that, film has inherently different properties than digital, and can capture a wider gamut of light from brighter brights to darker darks in the same image, something digital fails to do because it just takes light in linearly instead of how chemicals slow down their exposure when they reach highlights, saving high key detail.
Resolution of film isn't measured in megapixels, and noise is not a matter of how much it looks like your lens is covered in cotton candy. You can scan 35mm film to be absolutely gigantic and it will still hold about the same detail you'd end up getting out of a photo from a high end consumer SLR, though with obvious grain; grain actually looks good and smooth, even when blown up to huge sizes instead of getting pixelated.
I can go on, but I'm sure by now five more replies have stacked up saying "omg you're stupid", so I'll just post. Jumping into a thread filled with people who like film and saying "Film is stupid and only hipsters like it because it's ~deep~" is about the same as me jumping into a thread about motorcycles and saying "motorcycles are for beardy guys who wear leather because it's ~tough~" or the drug thread saying "drugs are for retarded high school drop-outs who rob their family members for cash because it's ~cool~".
Ok, let's say I'm not talking about professional photographers with 3000$ film cameras, I'm talking about people who are making photos just as a hobby.
[QUOTE=Kira;32219024]Ok, let's say I'm not talking about professional photographers with 3000$ film cameras, I'm talking about people who are making photos just as a hobby.[/QUOTE]
You're going to get pretty much the same results with a $3000 film camera as a $100 used one. It depends more on the film.
I've got more to say about this but I can't be arsed writing it down right now, I might do it later or tomorrow if nobody else has already.
[QUOTE=Kira;32219024]Ok, let's say I'm not talking about professional photographers with 3000$ film cameras, I'm talking about people who are making photos just as a hobby.[/QUOTE]
Its actually much cheaper to use film for me and it gives me results I thought would be impossible for me to take, its just a nicer to use than digital.
All I was trying to say is that I hate people who are using film not because it will give them a result that would be impossible to do using digital cameras, but because film is so "not-mainstream".
[QUOTE=Kira;32219024]Ok, let's say I'm not talking about professional photographers with 3000$ film cameras, I'm talking about people who are making photos just as a hobby.[/QUOTE]
I spent $30 on a camera from 1957, it shoots 6x6cm film that can be blown up to print 6 feet square easily. My usual film camera costs maybe $50-75 on ebay, and a roll of "professional" film only cost $3.99 for 36-40 shots.
[QUOTE=Kira;32219130]All I was trying to say is that I hate people who are using film not because it will give them a result that would be impossible to do using digital cameras, but because film is so "not-mainstream".[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you're hopeless.
[QUOTE=Kira;32219130]All I was trying to say is that I hate people who are using film not because it will give them a result that would be impossible to do using digital cameras, but because film is so "not-mainstream".[/QUOTE]
then go hate the person making those claims, not the cameras.
[QUOTE=Kira;32219130]All I was trying to say is that I hate people who are using film not because it will give them a result that would be impossible to do using digital cameras, but because film is so "not-mainstream".[/QUOTE]
That's not exactly what you said, but using it just because it's "not-mainstream", I can agree is... I don't like saying stupid, but you know what I mean...
Using film is also in many ways more challenging (if you care about your photos), and thus you're going to wind (pun intended) up learning a lot more about photography.
[QUOTE=daijitsu;32219176]I spent $30 on a camera from 1957, it shoots 6x6cm film that can be blown up to print 6 feet square easily. My usual film camera costs maybe $50-75 on ebay, and a roll of "professional" film only cost $3.99 for 36-40 shots.[/QUOTE]
Yes, and tell me that your film camera can do something, that digital ones cannot. It's downgrading.
[QUOTE=tinos;32214914]I'd just like to note that the diana+ is a very primitive camera, you won't find any sort of light meeter on it. Just 4 apertures, including the pinhole.
and like Dutchlike said, no-namer thrift store cameras sometimes have nice aspects as well, I have a few.[/QUOTE]The 4 apertures are enough though, and very easy to use and learn, it's completely barebones and you can experiment freely with, thats [B]the[/B] thing that makes the diana worth anything.
[QUOTE=Kira;32219130]All I was trying to say is that I hate people who are using film not because it will give them a result that would be impossible to do using digital cameras, but because film is so "not-mainstream".[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone in this thread uses film because its "not-mainstream", most here use it because they prefer it. but the people who use film because its "not-mainstream" I think would be them lomography peoples
[QUOTE=Kira;32219208]Yes, and tell me that your film camera can do something, that digital ones cannot. It's downgrading.[/QUOTE]
He already did.
Disregarding what I said, film still has a very special color and look, as well as an often superior dynamic range. (Depending on film).
The grain also looks better, and it's possible to make huge enlargements without buying extremely expensive equipment / camera gear.
If you can't read what people post you should stop taking part in discussions.
[QUOTE=Kira;32219208]Yes, and tell me that your film camera can do something, that digital ones cannot. It's downgrading.[/QUOTE]
I know you're just here to troll it up (or are genuinely just closed minded), but I'll humor you. Give me a moment to write, and don't get yourself banned til then.
[QUOTE=Kira;32219208]Yes, and tell me that your film camera can do something, that digital ones cannot. It's downgrading.[/QUOTE] Double Exposures.
Not suck when enlarging.
And even then, if some people like using film just because it's film, then that is their choice, their hobby, and perhaps they like the extra challenge it adds to photography. It's a hobby, people do it because they think it's fun.
And [B]even then[/B], there's no reason for you to come barging into this thread with your hate on people who use film.
[QUOTE=daijitsu;32219291]I know you're just here to troll it up (or are genuinely just a closed minded tard), but I'll humor you. Give me a moment to write, and don't get yourself banned til then.[/QUOTE]
Ok, here's what I think. All I care for, while doing any job, is the result, not the process. There can be a lot of ways to make the same photo - you can use an old white/black film-camera, make the photo, scan the film and you have grainy black and white photo. OR, you can just take a new digital camera, make a clean image and then just stylize this image however you want. The process is different, but who cares about process, if the result is the point? But, if you like the process itself more than a result - whatever makes you happy, but that's not a reason to make this "film-cult".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.