Analog film photography and cameras

First ever roll of Tri-X 400. Shot on the XA as usual.

More on http://imdabestmayne.tumblr.com and http://flickr.com/photos/mah_shoes

^+^^ some really stunning photos!

that one of the seals is nuts!

were they dead, or just napping?

that one of the seals is nuts!

were they dead, or just napping?

Just being lazy - it's the only place in the Northern hemisphere that Elephant seals go to mate that's on the coast rather than on small islands apparently. In December all the males arrive and some time later some crazy number are born and apparently you can barely even see the sand on the beach as it's totally packed with the fuckers!
http://www.bigsurcalifornia.org/elephant-seals.html

Ah well thats good... would be dead good to slap one on the ass.

Boosch!

Happy New Year, Film people - I'm after some advice.

After several years digital, I'd like to venture back into the world of film.
I've always wanted to develop my own photos at home but never had the room - now I have.
All my current SLR kit is Canon EF, so I'll be looking to pick up a second hand film EOS off the bay. I was originally going to pick up an EOS 300 - as that's what I used to have, but didn't realise how cheap they had become - so am now maybe considering an EOS 5 but think it may just be a bit too bulky.

On the digital side I've had a 350D for several years and am quite happy with it, (can't afford a 5D)
It's strictly for fun, I'm no professional, just want a decent manual SLR that fits EF lenses and is reliable more than anything else.

Would appreciate any advice.

In my opinion the selection of ef mount slrs is pretty naff compared to say Nikon. It's either bulky like the Eos 5 or even more so, the Eos 1, or it's cheap plastic looking stuff like the Eos 300.

Unless your dead set on using whatever ef mount lenses you have then you might find something like an Olympus OM or Nikon set up more appealing.

I always think when it comes to film, a camera is a camera, it doesn't matter what body you get, it's the lens and the type of film you use that matter, also the format like 35mm, medium or large, of course. If its just for fun, I'd just pick the cheapest decent one. Lke one of my tutors at uni used to say, a camera body is merely a box with a mirror in it. This is obviously a very simplified description of a camera, but in nutshell, that's what it is.

Did you also want to develop the film as well? As in process it too? Doing black and white shoud be easy enough but I'd be carful with doing colour, i have only ever know 2 people who have been brave enough to have tried it and the result was not worth the time and money put in it. If you were talking about developing the actually photos then again, black and white is easy as long as you have all the bits and room, but I'd stay away from "wet" processing colour photo, unless you have a RA-4 machine whuch would allow you to develop the exposed photo paper from Dry to dry. Mainly because the chemicals needed for such process is toxic. Also, you'd have to do it in complete darkness, no safe light is allowed.

Hope it helps

Claire, I don't know of any unreliable EOS film cameras. Maybe there are, but I've never heard of them. So buy a 300X (I have this, and don't regret it) for mere chicken-feed, or a EOS 1v or EOS 1n for just between £150-£190, and I'm sure you would be happy with either. Obviously the capabilities of the EOS-1v are as much as a photographer could ever want.

Thanks Ashe, I think I will prob get another 300, as they are cheap as chips - and I know how they work and I already have the lenses. If I get more into it then I may spend some more money. Developing wise I'm only going to be doing black & white as I know that's fairly simple.

I few from a Trip 35 that I sold off last summer.

Amazingly sharp! Especially the zip detail on the jacket, and then the wrought iron fence and spiderweb.

Thanks, it was fun but just got too dear with development costs, never mind printing!

Thought you guys would like these - some very powerful imagery:

Diego Levy - uses Hassleblad and 35mm.

Christian Poveda - Film and digital. Shot dead in 2009.

Christian's obit

Follow-up on his killers.

La Vida Loca site.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/220924281770?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649

^ just putting it here ;)

If that is yours, it unfortunately breaks forum rules.

If it's not yours, then it's a nice little entry camera.

So don't need another film SLR but that might just kickstart my return to darkside.

Im saving of a Leica M6 and a 50... It seems never ending but i'll get there eventually!

Apart from the sublime quietude that is the quality of Leitz, is the M6 really worth the money? Oh yes, and the F1.0 Noctilux is a bit of a special calling card. Not in resolution, but in light gathering.

They aren't all that expensive 5/600 but it has the inbuilt metering and is a workhorse. Its the lenses that cripple me. The 50s are even more expensive that my nikon primes. But the quality is unreal.

Defo won't be able to afford a 1.0 ever tho ha

Michael Chrisman - 365 day pinhole exposure.

best I've seen of that sort of thing, lovely city skyline - I wonder if anyone has tried putting them through stop and fix to try and retain the image?

Sad times.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/kodak-bankruptcy-chapter-11_n_1184101.html

Is this Kodak on the whole, films/chemicals and all?