Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 1, 2010, 11:59 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark1616 View Post
It's crazy isn't it, how did we cope when we shot film??? From what we've seen it was all worth it though.
Well, for starters, there was no "burst" mode. So right there you can reduce the total by 5-10 times easily. Then, since film/development were expensive, we did not shoot 2, 3, 4 images at different exposures or in P, A, S or scene modes just to compare the differences and then pick the best of the crop, etc. etc, etc. We were a lot more selective back then and because we could not see the results immediately, we did not take the same picture twice or three times because someone blinked. We carried a couple of 24 or 36 films and once their were finished, we were done. That's how we managed!
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2010, 1:11 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Washington State
Posts: 930
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tullio View Post
Well, for starters, there was no "burst" mode. So right there you can reduce the total by 5-10 times easily. Then, since film/development were expensive, we did not shoot 2, 3, 4 images at different exposures or in P, A, S or scene modes just to compare the differences and then pick the best of the crop, etc. etc, etc. We were a lot more selective back then and because we could not see the results immediately, we did not take the same picture twice or three times because someone blinked. We carried a couple of 24 or 36 films and once their were finished, we were done. That's how we managed!
And that is exactly why I still like to on occasion shoot film. Keeps my eye sharp, or at least I like to think it does.

John
jelow1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2010, 1:30 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jelow1966 View Post
And that is exactly why I still like to on occasion shoot film. Keeps my eye sharp, or at least I like to think it does.

John
Well, I keep my eye sharp by shooting with my G1/EP1 and all those MF lenses I have!
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2010, 8:55 AM   #14
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tullio View Post
Well, for starters, there was no "burst" mode. So right there you can reduce the total by 5-10 times easily. Then, since film/development were expensive, we did not shoot 2, 3, 4 images at different exposures or in P, A, S or scene modes just to compare the differences and then pick the best of the crop, etc. etc, etc. We were a lot more selective back then and because we could not see the results immediately, we did not take the same picture twice or three times because someone blinked. We carried a couple of 24 or 36 films and once their were finished, we were done. That's how we managed!
Not sure what you were shooting with, but there were certainly options for shooting at higher fps..... I had 3 and 5 fps options so could eat a film in 10 seconds or less if I so desired.

However, this wasn't what I was trying to say, that now we don't shoot well, just that we would have struggled to get the same results due to ISO, timing etc that need the extra volume, especially for the non pro.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2010, 9:15 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

Yep, the last film SLR I used was a Nikon F2AS and I had an MD2 motor drive, complete with the MB2 battery pack that held.....I can't even remember now, but I think it was 10 AA batteries(!), and it could plow through a 36 exposure roll of film in very little time if I set it to the highest firing rate, and that was *really old* technology. I think an F5 could do 36 frames in something like 3-4 seconds.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2010, 10:07 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

I admit, there was a long period in my life during which I did not do much photography at all. So, my SLR gear was kinda frozen in time. I had a Praktica, a Pentax ME Super, and a Ricoh and none of them had any motor-drive of any kind (so, no auto film reload, burst mode or anything). So, I was going back in time quite a bit.

Going back to what you are actually suggesting, I did not suggest we now don't shoot well. We just had to plan a lot better during those days. Because the films were no larger than 36, if I knew I was going to be shooting in low light conditions, I'd buy 1 or 2 400 ASA either 12 or 24 pictures (12 would give me more flexibility) and that was it. Most young folks today have very little idea of how much limitation there was and how much planning it was required before we went on day trips.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2010, 9:36 AM   #17
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

It's true, our tools have changed us, but having the basics of old are very helpful. I do admit that when shooting a wedding I usually take 2 shots of everything so I can clone the 'blinkers', but then it's not costing my any more or eating up precious film. Shooting in the studio, I like to be tethered too so the client has a view instantly (won't always show them as it is distracting) but I can point out improvements etc that again would have been possible in film.

Something else I will admit though, I quite fancy getting a film body again as I now have much better glass than I used to so would like to have a play..... hmmmmmm.
__________________
Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out.

Have fun everyone!


See what I'm up to visit my Plymouth Wedding Photography
site or go to my blog.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2010, 10:36 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Well, film camera bodies are cheap on eBay (particularly the ones being sold w/o any lenses as many people end up paying a good amount of money for the bodies with good prime lenses just to get the lens itself). Since I moved to digital, I've learned a lot because I can play with settings and shoot till my heart's content without feeling the impact in my pocket. I'm curious as how effective I'd be shooting film now vs. then. My SLRs still work...I just can't be bothered to spend money on film and film development. I can buy another 8 Gb memory card with the money a roll of 36-exposure film + development will cost me.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:21 PM.