First reel

Thursday, April 29, 2004

There is this certain joy in holding a film reel that digital photography doesn’t provide. Maybe it’s with how it curls around itself, how it plays with the light.

Maybe it’s with the incredible amount of physical space it takes up. 36 pictures to a reel versus tens of thousands for the same volume of hard disk space.

Or maybe it’s with how horrendously expensive non-digital photography is. Rs. 85 for a reel of ISO 100 film (100 for ISO 400), Rs. 40 for developing the negatives, and Rs. 190 for a 600 dpi scan. Considering that each frame is just over an inch wide, 600 dpi barely covers the resolution of an average monitor.

But I still see myself experimenting with film in the coming few months.

Update: Some math. My digital cameras have together captured 7043 images in the last one and a half years. If I had used film instead, the cost in film and processing would be 7043 pictures divided by 36 to a reel, multiplied by whole of 85 rupees per reel plus 40 rupees for processing plus 190 rupees for scanning. (7043 / 36) * (85 + 40 + 190) = Rs. 61,625.25. Those cameras have more than paid for themselves. Even the 50k price tag on the D70 seems reasonable. Now if only I was making any money off this.

latelyontime — Apr 29, 2004 4:57:07 PM — # ↩

I am sucha horribly miserable photographer that i generally avoid commenting on anyting that claims to hold blood relationships with picture posts. however i think i like what was written here. there was an almost neo-romanticism and a kind of victorian untilitarianism blended here that it made me feel good! am i babbling again? Possibly...but oh well, what has been said can not be unsaid (or some such thing that shakespeare meant!)
beerbal — Apr 29, 2004 5:10:24 PM — # ↩

There is this certain joy in holding a film reel that digital photography doesn’t provide

And even taking a picture with a digital camera doesn't seem to involve the photographer at all: just hold it impassively at chest height and nobody can even tell when the picture was taken unless it has one of those red-eye reduction disco lights.
- Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 30, 2004 12:29:23 AM — # ↩
  
  The Nikon D70 forces you to use the eyepiece. No LCD preview.
  - beerbal — Apr 30, 2004 3:32:17 AM — # ↩
    
    Ah, they're getting there. Soon, they'll use film too. :)
  - sidcarter — Apr 30, 2004 5:24:44 AM — # ↩
    
    The Nikon D70 forces you to use the eyepiece. No LCD preview.
    
    That's an SLR. No (Digital) SLR provides an LCD preview. You want LCD preview, get a Digital Camera.
  - sunson — May 3, 2004 8:15:09 AM — # ↩
    
    Only those near-SLR cameras have this optional "viewfinder" equivalent. kalyan has (had?) a nikon near-SLR thingy. I looked into the viewfinder and found an LCD display in there. I decided my next camera would be ONLY an SLR. Nothing less. (and no. No Digital SLRs have realtime-LCD-preview. Afterall, they are SLRs :) ).
    
    But I dont think there is any "fault" in holding the camera at chest-level and shooting as long as you get the shot that you wanted.
sriramb — Apr 30, 2004 2:57:29 AM — # ↩

Aaaah! the joys of film!
Digital may at some point overtake film, but given today's sensor technology, there's no match for film, sp. chrome(slide) when it comes to resolution. And there's the concept of "grain" in film that is absent in digital. All said and done, the sheer excitement of shooting a roll of film, and waiting in eager anticipation to receive the developed roll from the lab, is reason enough to stick to film. Film forces you to be a perfectionist; there is no instant feedback like digital. Just my 5 cents ....
irq2 — Apr 30, 2004 3:36:36 AM — # ↩

My uncle develops the reel and makes prints from them too. He ain't no professional (he's in Oracle... heh). Remember the B&W photos I showed you once? They were taken from a camera that he had given me - an ancient Mamiya-Sekor 528TL.
madhav — Apr 30, 2004 4:13:21 AM — # ↩

Ah, I need to understand more about the economy part. Will ping you sometime.
hserus — Apr 30, 2004 9:03:16 AM — # ↩

you could make money all right - nat geo might not take it but there are lots of journals in india that'd buy these off you .. whatever they pay might be enough to meet your film expenses i guess.

-srs (whose skills almost pass their limit trying to handle a sony cybershot 5 megapixel point and shoot)