Setting the stage / lowering expectations for photographers. This is intended to be a quick fun video about my experiences taking photos with two point & shoot fully automatic film cameras. Nothing more than that - just a bit of lighthearted entertainment. Something anyone could have a go at. I don't have any desire to start developing my own film and film photography is not a hobby I intend to invest any time in. I already have a full-time 'hobby' in making youtube videos. Like all my videos, it's a quick dip into a topic before moving straight on to the next one. As a child I noticed that well-meaning, but ultimately off-putting advice would follow as soon as I showed the slightest glimmer of an interest in any topic. I'd play chess once and someone would suggest joining a chess club. I'd get a computer for playing games and I was immediately destined to be a programmer. Kick a football - join a team etc... Sometimes though all you want is just to have a bit of fun - you don't want to 'take up a hobby' and you don't need a pastime to take over all your free time - if someone cooks dinner it doesn't necessarily follow that they want to become a professional chef. There are of course many people who like their activities to be structured and organised - they want to join a club and get deeply into something, but I'm not one of them. I prefer to skim lots of things but never settle on one, which is perfect for youtube where each video can be about something different. After each video, comments will often fill with advice from people who are really deeply into whatever the thing is that was featured. These can be advice on how to take that topic further as well as point out the things that should have been covered and what was wrong with the video. The person commenting will usually know much more about the topic than the person who made the video, because they were just a presenter, rather than an expert...and they were making a short video introduction to a topic the commenter had ploughed years of their life into. Back in the 1980s my favourite TV show was Tomorrows World - each week they'd show new technology. Perhaps one week Kieran Prendiville would demonstrate a device, for example a multi-track digital recorder. The people who made that machine would know more about it than him. The people using it professionally in a recording studio would also know more about it than him...however he was just presenting the script he'd been given to summarise this device in a five minute slot on a prime time TV show to a varied audience. When the show was over and he went home that night, he wouldn't carry on using that digital recorder. Next week he would show something else. This week's video was about taking black and white film with two fully auto point and shoot cameras. Next week will be about something completely different. As a serial hobbyist, I move from topic to topic, never staying too long in one place. Some of the things I try out in a video I will continue using behind the scenes - but for this to happen they need to have minimum impact on my time because each week a new video has to come out featuring something unusual or interesting, hopefully both.
To your point of making you think about the photo's more, there's no instant verification about how well it would turn out (which you mentioned in the roll-out-credits). You were also limited to those (nearly) 40 photo's... that's it. The film ends, and you hadn't bought any more, and soon there won't BE any more (of that type). It makes you think about if what you're looking at is worth the effort for that frame. On digital, you get instant verification/gratification, you're basically unlimited on storage (number of photos or even quality of photos on most high-end smartphones now), there's less to consider because of "well I'll just try that again." Film doesn't give you that, it's more methodical, and certainly more pricey.
I think you mentioned that tangentially in the Polaroid/Instant Film videos too (or maybe that was Tom Scott), "is this frame I'm looking at worth a pound to me to click the button?"
Don’t know if it was mentioned , I’m just watching your video now but recently there are rumors that Fuji is rethinking starting up Black and White film again.
Dustin Sparks I have to disagree. As it’s been proven film is still the archival medium of choice and still has a very important place in today’s modern world . It will not be going away anytime soon. Movie studios still archive a film print today and has been proven to last 150 plus years. In the consumer world I can see where digital is the right choice for some people but for people who shoot medium and large formats digital is nowhere close and at the costs of medium format offerings I can be kept in film for the rest of my life.
When visiting London, our house-mate looked outside to see that it had stopped raining, and cheerfully informed us that "oh it's going to be sunny out today!" I think she and we had a slightly different definition of "sunny." Namely, ours implied there would be visible sun. ;-)
Actually it rarely rains in Liverpool. I've lived here over the decade. Compared to where I grew up (Hertfordshire) it used to rain so much more down south. I have never owned an umbrella in Liverpool as I've never needed it. Also Liverpool is incredibly colourful and beautiful, despite what people who are gullible enough to believe myths about here will tell you. It is incredibly windy here though. And then if you go to Manchester on the train it probably WILL rain.
Like he said, Acros was already a popular and well-regarded film. And the news about it ending was several months ago. Techmoan isn't going to change much now.
There are other monochrome films available. Kodak still make a range as do Ilford. Agfa officially stopped producing B&W film in 2014 but sold their trademark name to Lupus and their production technology to Rollei. For a more budget film there is Kentmere, they are owned by Harman, which also produces the more pricey Ilford films. There are also a couple of new monochrome films: Bergger Pancromatic 400 and the made in Belgium JCH Street Pan ISO 400 Black & White Film. Not forgetting Ilford XP2 Super which is processed in C41 colour chemistry which should make getting it developed quicker commercially, but not so easy at home. Another advantage of the XP2 Super is that as a chromogenic film it is transparent to IR, allowing scanners with Digital ICE (Digital Image Correction and Enhancement) to automatically edit out dust spots, finger marks and scratches. There may well be other B&W films available, I no longer keep up to date on what is out there.
on the winding mechanisms. the latter camera isn't more efficient mechanically. they just wind the film differently. each method has it's pros and cons. the olympus o unwinds the entire roll inside and spools exposed frames into the canister while the other one simply pulls the film out for each frame you take and then returns the film after you have finished. if you accidentally open the film compartment on the olympus, the exposed pictures are protected whereas the unexposed film is protected on the other camera. if you ever play with film again I recommend that you try the olympus mju-II even if just for your own enjoyment. it was a very compact and automated point and shoot camera with an excellent lens.
Interesting video, thanks. I ran the family photo shop and studio for the last 15 years of its 50 years trading. Closed in 1998. I didn't see either the Minolta or that Olympus, but we did sell loads of AF-10s. I noticed that the Olympus had the DX pins in the film compartment. These 'read' the DX code on the film canister and set the meter up to suit the film speed. As for the developing (Max Spielmann?), having had a minilab, if it's run on 'full auto' rather than 'operator input', you can easily get a difference in print density from film to film. The only way to tell the true difference would be to check the negatives using a 10x lupe or even a low-power microscope. If you ran those films through the lab again, you would get different results, I'm sure.
I enjoyed the photography section of Art College in the late 90s, we were given old looking 35mm cameras to go out into the nearby town and look for form, line, texture and pattern, I got a nice one of a friend with a traffic cone on his head too!
From my experience, Minolta bottom covers are prone to scratching (not as much as Leica's, though), and many amateurs prefer to preserve as much original kit as possible, and don't use cameras much. I wouldn't peel that cover either, by the way, even if I would use the camera. I have about dozen various cameras from the past 100 years, some come with their own history, although none are in that great shape. When I bought one Graflex Speed Graphic on eBay for historical purposes (I research the American camera history as a hobby, being one of two Russians who does that), the seller knew the history of it and the original owner, and was kind enough to pass that knowledge to me... that was the decisive factor, together with a regulation medkit fiberglass case from the early 1950s or even 1940s that was a camera case, although I could get a camera in much better shape for the same money. The original owner, USMC gunnery sergeant Edwin Brey, broke the crucial part of the rangefinder mechanism, turning the otherwise perfect Top Rangefinder Speed Graphic into a view camera. I'm almost sure that he did it deliberately because the camera had the Hasselblad 500C ground glass taped onto the center of the original ground glass as an extra focusing aid, there were some things in the package indicating that he shot landscapes and staged portraits as a hobby and/or for some extra income. Since he was an army photographer during the Korean war and even in the beginning of Vietnam war (he left the army in between them and bought that camera in between, in 1959, I guess, and with German Schneider lens), he probably had some unfavorable personal feelings towards using Graflex rangefinders... The problem is that that rangefinder pull-rod is a very fragile brass pipe with some crazy number of tiny non-metric metal balls there and a spring, and I have absolutely no means to recreate that (you have trouble making anything non-metric in Russia, will be too expensive). All other Top Rangefinder Graphics I've seen for sale are either in mint condition and prohibitively expensive, or have that element broken as well.
This seems to be a near-universal experience. I've had 4 Minolta SLRs from the 80s, all with the bottom plastic still intact. I'm preserving the tradition of not removing them.
Thanks so much for linking to my piece about the O-Product! (Mass Made Soul) Big fan of your channel, so chuffed to see you showcasing this quirky camera!
Techmoan, I am one of those people you mentioned who is "deeply into" black and white film photography. Not gonna lecture you, just wanted to say that you are correct about the pleasant experience of doing things "the hard way" sometimes, be it photography or listening to music, etc. I think it has to do with the fact that smart phone and digital tech has made things so easy that we fail to appreciate the end product. A photo you had to think about and work on is more satisfying. And for my part, being about the same age as you, I remember how much fun it was to buy a record and gaze at the cover art with friends while it played. Music is much more fun when its the focus of activity rather than just a background noise.
Fran Blanche Fran It's Fran(again)!!! I enjoy your videos too btw... Nice to see you in the interwebs, and I do agree on your statement. Hope someday you'll collab with Techmoan on some gadget fix or something there abouts. Cheers from a subscriber of your channel =)
I just found this camera in a trash can outside of a camera store that was closing .. I started to look up videos and googled it and was amazed because it looks like it’s in a good condition . When I put the battery’s in the flash worked . I was curious to see which exact film to get for it to try it out
That's cool to know about the AF-10, I already have one, I used it as a wedding table camera at a wedding last year, I will say it did the best job out of all of the cameras I used that night. I assumed the AF-10 is a bit like the MJU only bigger and a lot cheaper to buy.
As someone who loves film and develops his own photos it’s lovely to see you have a bit of fun with these slightly odd point and shoots. Sure they’re not perfect but it fits in perfectly with your other videos. I would love to see any more oddball film things if you have them too!
@@Seele2015au They are both a tabular grain type. They share nothing in common beyond that. This is further evidenced by the Acros' near complete lack if reciprocity failure, which the Ilfords still have.
35 mm films may also be used in good SRL film cameras or rangefinders, so they are in no way restricted to use in dubious point-and-shoot cameras. And, if kept in a fridge, an expiry date is not a problem. It's a question of overexposing/underexposing and underdeveloping/overdeveloping.
Highly interesting and entertaining as always - and as a blind guy, I'm not that much into photography. Still, your delivery and enthusiasm made this a treat to listen to.
Think you hit the nail on the head there at the end is the anticipation factors with film and you do get more involved in the photography because you've only got limited amount of shots, good video nice to see your encouraging people to get out and get more engaged in photography.
Great video. I had never seen these cameras before - I suspect the thinking behind the design of the Minolta was that it would look vaguely similar to a Leica (and would cost quite a bit less). Acros is a fantastic film, and it's a real shame that Fuji are discontinuing it. The only thing I'd say is that it's slightly tricky to test out cameras with true black and white film, as - unlike c-41 or slide film - there are an almost infinite number of ways it can be developed and that the tone of the prints are largely down to the taste of the person who prints or scans them. I used to get black and white film developed at high street places many years ago, and some of the prints I got back were really bad. Given that one of the themes of this video was that pictures were being shot on a (almost) discontinued film, perhaps a small follow-up (by whoever is interested) could be done with a similarly at-risk film from Fuji - Provia slide film. The cool thing about slide film is that it doesn't tend to tolerate exposure errors, and would be a real test of the camera's auto exposure, and also that the what-you-see-is-what-you-get nature of the processed slide means that the results from two different cameras can be compared by just holding them up to a light and eyeballing them.
I think you hit the nail on the head at the end there, the reason people are going more for the analogue experience is because you have to take the time to use it, therefore making it more enjoyable, that's why I have my small vinyl collection, even though I have the same music, give or take, on my phone... :)
Same deal with old video games. There's something special to pulling a cartridge from your shelf and plugging it in, along with maintaining and cleaning your whole setup.
Yeah, I'm fine with the goal of technological progress being to eliminate inconvenience from human existence, but I also think that such inconvenience needs to be preserved as an option for those who want to dedicate their time or their interest to something. Objectively, waiting for photos to develop is less convenient than having them instantly, but people still like to wait because of the sense of anticipation. Unfortunately, I think enjoyable inconvenience is going to get harder and harder to come by as capitalists chase the next big profit-maker and abandon the things that the public have come to love. The only way, in my opinion, to keep enjoyably inconvenient things really safe is to eliminate the profit motive on a global scale. (And that's my piece.)
On a recent visit to Tokyo, just by accident I came by a store which amazed me. It was devoted entirely to film photography. Paper, chemicals, enlargers, films in fact everything you might need to set up a darkroom. Like walking into a time warp. Only it was 2017.
I have always missed the excitement when you have made pictures and send them to develop. I always had to pick them up in the city and go to a pub to watch the pictures with a friend. Just like when you bought a new LP album.
I thought the Olympus camera had the sharper photos of the two, but I liked the more contrasty look of the Minolta. The Minolta was noticeably blurry at the corners in some photos however. Overall, I liked the Olympus better.
I had been eyeballing that Olympus O camera on ebay for a couple months now. This video makes me wanna pull the trigger and buy it. So many great shots from that camera!
This is the coolest channel on RUclips. The host is like the age of dads of most millennials on RUclips. No clickbait, no over the top hyperactive nonsense. Just a middle aged man talking about cool, quirky and forgotten gadgets.
I know you've been dong this for a couple of videos now, but talking over the credits is much appreciated, its usually 2 minutes of just the same music but you still want to thank your Patreons, over time I ended up exiting the video when I saw there were no Muppets at the end but I do stick through again for the extra insight / or any extra of your comments at the end, thanks :)
What I like about some of the “retro tech” is the more visceral experience from them. I’m also old enough to know what it was like prior to mass produced cassettes, etc. With vinyl, it was pulling out this giant sleeve (as a kid) and having this huge album art to sit and look at. Oh, and if it were a gate-fold double album (or more), it was heaven. Same with film photography. I love my old 35 mm SLR cameras. I love shooting B&W film. But my favourite part is going into the dark room and developing the film and the photos myself. The sights, sounds, smells, and textures. I was lucky I had a camera shop in my neighbourhood where the owner refurbished SLRs and other old cameras. He also carried many of the “toy” cameras (I love me a Holga). Alas, over the past couple of years, he retired and we moved to an entirely different country. I’m sure there’s a good shop around here somewhere, but I haven’t had the chance to look yet. Anyway. It’s all very visceral for me and a bit of nostalgia for the type of joy those experiences brought me.
Regarding your bit at the end, human beings are tactile creatures...we respond to touch. A mechanical switch can feel good to us, but it can also feel off or wrong to us. Touchscreens don't provide any kind of tactile feedback, so while smartphones are useful devices, they're a kind of soulless unfulfilling user experience. Things like vinyl records and film cameras are tactile devices that can provide a more satisfying user experience, even if they ultimately require more effort on your part to use.
I know there are lots of people who will balk at the vinyl record analogy because they already think people who buy records are silly for doing so, however it's not the only example I wanted to mention (I had to edit it for length). There has been a big increase in people baking cakes at home over the last few years - no doubt due to TV baking shows. It would be easier, less time consuming and sometimes cheaper just to buy a cake, but many people like the satisfaction that comes from baking their own. Sometimes the simplest option isn't the most satisfying one. The internet likes to focus on best, quickest, easiest...and it's usually A or B - rarely can two opposing ideas co-exist. But just because you enjoy something you don't have to be all in on it - you might like to ride a bicycle, but it doesn't mean you have to get rid of your car. So I'll keep taking smartphone photos and every now and then I may take a roll of film to mix things up a bit. Just like I buy records and I stream music. Like many of these things it isn't a matter of what's best - it's about finding something you enjoy doing, and each person needs to discover their own thing.
You can use taptic Feedback on a Smartphone when tapping a Button or typing. And every Phone has another Vibration Motor, so i dont think There is "no Soul" Also every Phone has another Design and Materials.
For the past couple of years I've been using a very old (1973) Minolta SRT-102, and I can say without a doubt it's the best camera I've ever used, everything on it is manual and I even develop and print the film myself. I highly recommend reviewing an older Minolta, you'd be pleasantly surprised.
Wow - those B&W pictures look vintage! I still have my Minolta AF-EII from back in the day, I believe it was the pinnacle of point & shoot 35mm cameras! Available second hand now for about a tenner! Those disposable cameras are becoming hard to find now as well... Also you have reminded me - I have rolls I need to get developed still, I wonder if it's worth the effort though...
I consider myself incredibly lucky to have been selected to partake in my high school's photography classes. It was a bit of a rough selection process because the main equipment, some very old 35mm SLR cameras were very easily broken. We had everything from empty refillable film hulls to big rolls of film to refill them, tools to do so and projectors to turn the negatives into prints of any size. It was an amazing experience to be able to wind your own 5 picture can put into the SLR you were rented take the pictures yourself. Then take it back to the dark room, unwind it yourself develop it yourself and make final prints yourself of the pictures. Gave me a completely different perspective on photography. I don't know if you can still get all the supplies including the black and white film, developer and fixer anymore to do it but if anyone can, i highly recommend it. We never did color photography because my teacher said developing color photographs requires the use of a developer with cyanide in it, and we weren't allowed to handle something so toxic.
I'm a B&W shooter. My on-the-go B&W film negatives are Kodak T-Max 400 & Rollei RPX 400, and I often use it on my Minolta X-700. The price range between these two negatives in my country in Indonesia are 3 US dollars in difference: T-Max 400 is $ 8 (approximately 110.000 in Rupiah) and RPX 400 is $ 3 (aprrox. 78.000) -- in two different camera and developing stores which I visited regularly.
You mentioned that the Minolta seemed to be ready to go right away as where the Olympus took a few moments to get ready after putting the film in. i think this is in part that some cameras draw out the entire spool of film from the camera and spool it back into the canister as you take your photos ie the Olympus, whereas others spool out the film as the pictures are being taken ie the Minolta. The first method can be beneficial in that if the film door is opened by accident you wont loose all of your photos you have taken, usually just the last photo. as where the other method you would loose all the photos taken but the remainder of the film in the canister would still be able to be used.
Was looking through the comments to see if anyone else picked up on this. I prefer it to wind it fully out and then back in the canister so you lose as few pictures as possible if you accidentally open the back.
My mum has a 1980s solar powered camera. The blues it captures are incredible. Despite never seeing the sun for 30 years i took it out of It's case and it whirred to life!
very smart doing your closing comments in the video over the closing names, makes me stay for the whole video before clicking out to the next one [the format reminds me of the old 90's tv show outtros hahahaha]
Ilford FP4 and HP5 is still out there, swear by the stuff. I still use an old Agfa 1950's TLR with FP4 Plus 120 with a Lee yellow filter alongside my Nikon DSLR. Easy to develop, easy to use, resolution in gigapixels and easy on the eye. Medium format is sometimes the way to go :-) (Edit - with my original Leningrad-4 lightmeter it's point at the sky, at the ground then select the halfway point, FP4 and HP5 are quite tolerant) It's the Tefifon of photography. Plenty examples on Ilford's website :-)
Yeah I use a yashica mat 124 with delta 100. Super sharp super high resolution. Can't compare it to digital because of how stunning the photos look,. 120 is definatly worth getting into
@@skygolding16Ilford Delta 120 is available try it with some no name TLR out of some charity shop sometime :-) the world is best in black and white sometimes... advise yellow filter for dark sky it brings the clouds out... a lot of my stuff are 'things' against a dark background. B&W rocks :-) Lee 101 Yellow i've held the swatch in front of the lens before! Sometimes things are best seen in analogue.
I've taken a liking to Fomapan. The good thing about B&W film is that it's much simpler to manufacture and process than colour film. There's still a handful of smaller B&W film makers around the world hanging on to the remaining market. And it can be processed at home in the bathroom/kitchen/laundry.
I think you're getting a bit ahead of yourself as far as the resolution of 6x6 120 film is concerned. Gigapixels would be 1,000 megapixels which is ridiculous. There have been scientific tests that show the resolving power of the average film to be around 7mp for 35mm and 40mp for 6x6. Don't get me wrong I love ilford film and 120 but even an ultra sharp film like pan f or micro film isn't going to get much above 100mp on a 120 camera. That being said 8x10 large format could probably get close to 1,000mp on microfilm.
Ilford make XP2 black and white negative film that is processed in colour chemicals in any mini lab. Its very sharp and has a wide latitude with fine grain. Good stuff.
Knowing you only have 30 something shots makes you think more about every shot you take. You put more thought into wether it's worth taking a photo of. That's the difference between a picture and a photograph.
That and the delayed gratification of waiting for the resulting images. I myself rarely review photos in camera even on digital cameras. I wait until I'm back at the computer to see them. It gets a similar feeling. I still have "unlimited" exposures though. A friend of mine used to take a GoPro v1 camera on vacation for still photos. Not even a viewfinder on that one. Point, shoot, and hope for the best. And once back from vacation was the first time he had any chance of seeing what got exposed.
I believe the limitation of available shots forces the photographer to internally edit and frame the photograph. I have two midrange digital cameras with multiple lenses and add on devices. My daughter clicks away and picks the best ones. I was trained on an old 35mm camera with film, so I do more internal editing in choosing the shot and lens considering the lighting and framing by the old rule of thirds etc, even with a digital camera with unlimited shots. I cannot say my photos are better or worse, as I believe both ways have merit. I do believe I have less "throw away" photos. I miss the darkroom and the ability to manipulate the film stock and chemical developing.
Try instant photography with Polaroids. ~2.5 euros per picture and only 8 pictures in a pack. Too cold and the picture is ruined. Too hot and the picture is ruined. Sunlight on the fresh picture and it's ruined. So lovely and nerve wracking at the same time.
Early digicams were kinda/sorta like that too, in regards to how much space you had on the internal memory, or on early memory cards, or even how many floppies you had in your bag in regards to the Mavicas..
The downside is near the end of a role where you just want to see the damned pictures and start snapping out of focus pictures of the neighbour's cat or something just to have an excuse to go to the shop. People forget those things with the rose tinted glasses. In my experience, the first 3/4 of the role is the pics you actually wanted.
Good points on the anticipation of getting your film developed and you get to see what you took. That was a fun aspect to photography, but there was also that element of disappointment when you find out that some key pictures didn't come out or the entire roll was lost due to who knows what. I remember combing through our old photo albums and the odd box or two where pictures that didn't make the albums went to live and really enjoyed them.
From my experience with both Olympus and Minolta Point and Shoot cameras I must agree with your findings about the contrast that the Olympus and Minolta produce, I have several Olympus cameras that I almost always find it to take good balanced contrasted photos with, the Minolta cameras seem to produce a little more punch if you will to photos, I can't say scientifically why this is the result, but it could be due to various apertures and shutter speed combinations that the cameras pair to take a photo. Out side of Olympus and Minolta however I own numerous cameras from across the years, from the early 2000s to the early 1900s, it started as a college class with a $7 Konica SLR camera and now has grown to over 100 different cameras and formats. Fortunately I can rationalize my buying of such an outrageous number by using various cameras as a gimmick to freelance photography and sell prints when I can. Either way it is both a fun hobby and a victimless addiction (unless you count your pocket money). Glad to see the O-Product being used outside of being just a decoration.
One of the best compact 35mm cameras I had was an Olympus 35RD. This was a rangefinder camera with a fabulous 6-element F. Zuiko 40mm f1.7 lens with mechanical Seiko leaf shutter. It produced crisp sharp photos. It had aperture priority automatic, apart from the light meter which needed a battery it was entirely mechanical. It was easy to use with a fixed guide number flash (same output each time with no sensor to reduce the flash if the subject was close) as it had a 'flashmatic' setting: you set the flash guide number and then the focus was mechanically linked to the lens aperture which was adjusted automatically to give consistent exposures. I bought mine in 1979 for £99.00 and made good use of it for around 15 years. When I looked at it in 2002 I found that grease/oil had spread to the aperture and shutter mechanisms, the foam rubber light seal on the back had perished to sticky tar and the mercury cell needed for the metering was no longer available. I sourced some new rubber seal material and found an adaptor to fit a silver oxide cell in place of the mercury cell. I did research how to dismantle and clean the grease from the shutter but decided that it was more work than I was happy doing, so in 2003 I auctioned the camera on Ebay as a repair project with all the instructions and information I had found. It sold for £68.00, the buyer emailed me a month or so later to let me know he had completed the restoration and was very pleased with the camera.
The RD is a wonderful shooter, I have the RC and am always pleased with the quality of photos it produces, I plan on acquiring a RD at some point as well. I also have a few mju that I either was given by family or I found in thrift and charity shops.
Very interesting video. Film cameras do bring a more reflective mindset with them. When you step back again, and use a film camera that doesn't have automatic exposure, and range, the brain becomes fully engaged.
I like how B/W pictures automatically look both more aesthetically pleasing, somewhat artsy and as if the pictures were taken centuries ago. Really fun project :)
It happens less with SLRs because you can't see through the viewfinder when a cap is on. I really don't like lensacaps on P&S. I still loose my lenscaps from time to time...
Developing B&W film at home is easy. Worth doing if you're going to shoot film on a semi-regular basis. And the anticipation of waiting to see how they'll come out is half the fun.
Ilford Pan F was my go-to B&W film back in my youth, and Fuji Velvia was my colour negative film of choice. But I did love Pan F: so much tonal subtlety...
I’d have to agree, I like the Olympus camera better. Having said that, I own an Olympus film camera, from the 60s I think, Olympus Trip 35. Not taken any B&W on it, but colour film photos came out looking great. The reason I mention it, it happens to look a lot like the Minolta. Great video.
I grew up with vinyl and never stopped playing or buying it despite having a stack of CD's. The same goes for film as I use to use it in the 80's however my smartphone restarted my photography again and I had an old medium format Yashica in the shed which still worked.
@@Techmoan if you dig around forums some believe Fujifilm decommissioned all equipment used to make film years ago when film was 'on the way out', and that they haven't actually made any film in ages. So what they've sold ever since has been stocked in a big freezer, then 'discontinued' once its ran out. Bit of a conspiracy theory but would seem to explain why they'd ditch films during their resurgence.
Fujifilm like film, see the Instax sales! It gets them more money than their digital line. But the quality is worse than Polaroid from what I've heard, so it's cheap plastic cameras and mass produced 10 image film packs. The complex classic film isn't so popular anymore which I guess makes it not worth doing in small batches when you have big factory machines dedicated to it. It's a shame, Fuji keeps upping their film prices but still doesn't save the production. Someone even offered to buy their film making equipment, they didn't want to sell it. So we are left with Kodak restarting production on smaller scale, Ilford which also makes large formats on special order once per year, Foma which benefits from cheap Czech labor, and two enthusiast companies trying to restart production with old equipment saved from defunct businesses: Adox and Film Ferrania. The rest is very small specialist makers, rebadged industrial and old stocks, outsourced production in the exisiting companies and several simple relabels of existing commercial products.
I'm really amazed with the quality of that Olympus camera! Both were acceptably sharp, but the Olympus took photos that were so sharp & well exposed that, if I were shown them without context, I probably wouldn't have guessed they were done on a point & shoot.
As someone who only had a 35mm colour point and shoot camera as a child and then moved onto digital, I've been enjoying your small series about film cameras, both weird formats and weird cameras. I know a fair bit about setting up a digital camera in manual mode, but don't really know what kind of considerations film needed. And I do enjoy film grain, even though I've never used it for at least a decade. So it's just been nice to see you mess around with some point and shoots of a few different varieties, and seeing those index sheets inside the envelopes and everything is a nice little bit of nostalgia. But by and large it just makes me want to stick to using digital, compared to only getting a few dozen shots per roll!
Yes agree with you on the photos - the Olympus pictures actually look like old fashion photos due to the greying - whereas the other pictures looked like a modern digital camera set to b/w mode as the blacks were too black.
This video is very enjoyable. Back in the day when normal analog / mechanical cameras were a thing, I remember it was quite a costly hobby. Nothing I could afford at that time. But, never really had the interest either 😁
I've seen black & white Ilford at Boots a little while ago. They also still do the one-time-use cameras. Bit a bit of clever hacking you can smash them open and find a completely usable film inside. Pro-tip: cover the lens and fill it with blank photos completely before opening, they're usually unwound to start with and go backwards, so by filling the film with black exposures in the original case first, you actually wind the whole film into the container.
For some time I've been thinking of taking my old Polaroid 35mm point-and-shoot film camera back in use, at least for one film roll, just for the old times sake. This video fuels that idea even more, maybe I'll do it soon :) Got that camera in 1994 and still have also it's original box, leather case, manual, etc. It's one of those black plastic cameras which I guess themselves look kind of retro today :D Putted it in storage when I got my first digital camera. Removed the batteries of course, including the button cell battery which keeps the date going on.
When I worked in the Hi Fi trade many of the shops sold photographic equipment as well. I still have an old Kodak Retina 1A and a Leica compact and a Cannon AE1P with a lot of lenses.
Thank you for your video, I enjoyed it very much ,even though I have used old film for years past I don’t intend going back to it.. but I do understand for some people that making things more complicated or making them an event is more pleasure.
Thanks for finally making a video about real film, not that instant stuff. There is plenty of b/w and color film available and the exp date is almost meaningless. Your film will still work just fine many many years after it is expired and for even longer life, freeze it. You can develop at home with a dark bag, a paterson tank and some monobath for $50 USD total. And the monobath developer can be used over and over again. Look up the Film Photography Project, they sell everything and they ship worldwide. Now you need to do a color film review. Kodak color plus is my favorite. Thanks again for this great video, love all the retro tech!
I've been on holiday to Scarborough several times as I just love the place. Your 3rd picture from camera A of the cafe had me convinced thats where the cafe was, only because of the view of the Italian Gardens in the background! I was quite surprised to find I was correct :D
I still have my last film camera, I think it's Olympus (point and shoot, auto focus, not very expensive). I haven't used it for many years, but it's sad to think I won't be able to get film for it anymore. My first camera (a hand-me-down as a child) took 126 cartridge film, and used flash cubes (four single-use bulbs, so you had to check before you took a picture to make sure the bulb on front wasn't burned out). Gadzooks, I'm old!
Never tried this stock, but fascinating to see as a discontinued camera buff myself. I always loved shooting in BW from film school to today - still have some Tri-X and some c-41 process BW film kicking around.
I use 9x12 cm plate cameras from the 1910's to the late 1920's with sheet film adapters in the plate holders. One of my favourite lenses is a Goerz Dogmar 6,3/135 mm from 1916. If you want to try a good british bellows camera for 120 roll film, the Ensign Selfix 820 with the Ross Xpres lens is an excellent choise!
Back in the early 90's, I experimented with b/w film on a few rolls. To my surprise, it was amazing how the details of the subject just "popped" out. I suppose with the color we look for different things but with monochrome we have to more fully examine it. Maybe high resolution monochrome can be a new extension to smartphone camera "art"??
I've been rocking a Cannon AE-1 for the past few months and man, has it been fun. I am looking at more and more specialty films such as the rollie Infrared film. But one thing i have overlooked was Black and white, Ilford 400 is a good brand but there is an extreme lack of films with an unusual ISO. If you want to take some action shots, 3200 speed film is increesingly harder to find. Im happy that the film resurgance is happening though, It will be nice having more and more creative films on the market!
For fast film Kodak P3200 in 35mm is better, in 120 you have only Ilfrod Delta 3200. They are slower stock designed for pushing, there's not really native fast film, I guess it's the process limitation. There's couple sites where you can buy really unique films, often very slow ones (ISO 6 and lower) designed for copying. Try Film photography project or northernfilm shop on ebay. They also sell cinema stock but that has remjet layer and can't be processed in C-41 or it will ruin the machine and need complete cleanup.
I gotta say the photos you took were wonderful--in terms of composition, framing, grayscale range, etc. Really enjoyed them. As someone who used to develop and print my own B&W 35mm film, I understand the idea of things being harder to do so you enjoy them more. You should watch the video by Fran Blanche where she learns how to do wet-plate photography and processing--lots of time and effort for each photo, more than I would wish to do.
I'm impressed that you found a developer that can handle traditional silver B&W film properly. I hope Kodak doesn't discontinue Tri-X 400. Its very flexible for indoor and outdoor photography and easy to develop at home with minimal tools. I haven't shot with it in 15 years, but it looks like a newer version with less grain has been released (I'll leave that up for debate if that is a good or bad thing!). Maybe get a couple of rolls and take a shot at developing it yourself? Its a fun and satisfying process.
A excellent video right up my street as a film user, I have ten roll bundle of across 100 in my freezer paid about £20.00 for it a couple of years ago. The place that developed your film done a excellent job most are terrible at it........Anyway a really enjoyable 22 minutes...
Quite a photographer yourself there. I'm not one myself, but you should factor in your own eye, because I was quite moved by both. The framing, the choices of subject and the patience of them. Lovely stuff. You say you enjoyed this project, and it shows.
Black and white film is also easy to develope at home. A converted closet or a small area set aside as a darkroom and a couple of simple chemicals is all you need to get started developing negatives and slides. If you want to make your own prints you'll need an enlarger or a scanner that works with film.
Thanks Mat, great video, Black and white photography is a much more creative art, and in these days of instant everything, its good to rediscover the joy of anticipation, wether its a few seconds to prepare an LP for playing or a few days waiting for your photos to be developed and printed,
This could be my favorite of your videos now, the ending just cinched it for me. :) I've been an Olympus fan for awhile, and I recently got new batteries for my now ten year old DSLR from them. It takes more time to take good photos with that camera too. :)
Setting the stage / lowering expectations for photographers.
This is intended to be a quick fun video about my experiences taking photos with two point & shoot fully automatic film cameras. Nothing more than that - just a bit of lighthearted entertainment. Something anyone could have a go at.
I don't have any desire to start developing my own film and film photography is not a hobby I intend to invest any time in. I already have a full-time 'hobby' in making youtube videos.
Like all my videos, it's a quick dip into a topic before moving straight on to the next one.
As a child I noticed that well-meaning, but ultimately off-putting advice would follow as soon as I showed the slightest glimmer of an interest in any topic.
I'd play chess once and someone would suggest joining a chess club. I'd get a computer for playing games and I was immediately destined to be a programmer. Kick a football - join a team etc...
Sometimes though all you want is just to have a bit of fun - you don't want to 'take up a hobby' and you don't need a pastime to take over all your free time - if someone cooks dinner it doesn't necessarily follow that they want to become a professional chef.
There are of course many people who like their activities to be structured and organised - they want to join a club and get deeply into something, but I'm not one of them. I prefer to skim lots of things but never settle on one, which is perfect for youtube where each video can be about something different.
After each video, comments will often fill with advice from people who are really deeply into whatever the thing is that was featured. These can be advice on how to take that topic further as well as point out the things that should have been covered and what was wrong with the video. The person commenting will usually know much more about the topic than the person who made the video, because they were just a presenter, rather than an expert...and they were making a short video introduction to a topic the commenter had ploughed years of their life into.
Back in the 1980s my favourite TV show was Tomorrows World - each week they'd show new technology. Perhaps one week Kieran Prendiville would demonstrate a device, for example a multi-track digital recorder. The people who made that machine would know more about it than him. The people using it professionally in a recording studio would also know more about it than him...however he was just presenting the script he'd been given to summarise this device in a five minute slot on a prime time TV show to a varied audience. When the show was over and he went home that night, he wouldn't carry on using that digital recorder. Next week he would show something else.
This week's video was about taking black and white film with two fully auto point and shoot cameras. Next week will be about something completely different. As a serial hobbyist, I move from topic to topic, never staying too long in one place. Some of the things I try out in a video I will continue using behind the scenes - but for this to happen they need to have minimum impact on my time because each week a new video has to come out featuring something unusual or interesting, hopefully both.
To your point of making you think about the photo's more, there's no instant verification about how well it would turn out (which you mentioned in the roll-out-credits). You were also limited to those (nearly) 40 photo's... that's it. The film ends, and you hadn't bought any more, and soon there won't BE any more (of that type). It makes you think about if what you're looking at is worth the effort for that frame. On digital, you get instant verification/gratification, you're basically unlimited on storage (number of photos or even quality of photos on most high-end smartphones now), there's less to consider because of "well I'll just try that again." Film doesn't give you that, it's more methodical, and certainly more pricey.
I think you mentioned that tangentially in the Polaroid/Instant Film videos too (or maybe that was Tom Scott), "is this frame I'm looking at worth a pound to me to click the button?"
Great Video! It would be interesting if you did a video on Valve Radios - I think it would fit well in the retro tech side of your channel
Don’t know if it was mentioned , I’m just watching your video now but recently there are rumors that Fuji is rethinking starting up Black and White film again.
Dustin Sparks I have to disagree. As it’s been proven film is still the archival medium of choice and still has a very important place in today’s modern world . It will not be going away anytime soon. Movie studios still archive a film print today and has been proven to last 150 plus years.
In the consumer world I can see where digital is the right choice for some people but for people who shoot medium and large formats digital is nowhere close and at the costs of medium format offerings I can be kept in film for the rest of my life.
little known fact: the pictures of rainy overcast Liverpool are actually in color
Doh! I knew it!
Kidneypuddle!! Lol! I'm going to refer to it like that from now on.. :D
When visiting London, our house-mate looked outside to see that it had stopped raining, and cheerfully informed us that "oh it's going to be sunny out today!"
I think she and we had a slightly different definition of "sunny." Namely, ours implied there would be visible sun. ;-)
Sounds like Victoria, British Columbia where I live. Maybe that's why so many Brits retire there.
Actually it rarely rains in Liverpool. I've lived here over the decade. Compared to where I grew up (Hertfordshire) it used to rain so much more down south. I have never owned an umbrella in Liverpool as I've never needed it. Also Liverpool is incredibly colourful and beautiful, despite what people who are gullible enough to believe myths about here will tell you. It is incredibly windy here though. And then if you go to Manchester on the train it probably WILL rain.
You're gonna Techmoan Effect the hell out of those films on amazon xD
Sold out now
They've been discontinued for a few months now, sadly. I'm hoarding 20 rolls in the fridge for future use.
Like he said, Acros was already a popular and well-regarded film. And the news about it ending was several months ago. Techmoan isn't going to change much now.
Amazon UK still has some but the price (at time of writing this 17:58 on 27 Aug 18) is over £10.
There are other monochrome films available. Kodak still make a range as do Ilford. Agfa officially stopped producing B&W film in 2014 but sold their trademark name to Lupus and their production technology to Rollei. For a more budget film there is Kentmere, they are owned by Harman, which also produces the more pricey Ilford films.
There are also a couple of new monochrome films: Bergger Pancromatic 400 and the made in Belgium JCH Street Pan ISO 400 Black & White Film.
Not forgetting Ilford XP2 Super which is processed in C41 colour chemistry which should make getting it developed quicker commercially, but not so easy at home. Another advantage of the XP2 Super is that as a chromogenic film it is transparent to IR, allowing scanners with Digital ICE (Digital Image Correction and Enhancement) to automatically edit out dust spots, finger marks and scratches.
There may well be other B&W films available, I no longer keep up to date on what is out there.
Still have my mother's Pentax K-1000 and it's great!
Classic camera
on the winding mechanisms.
the latter camera isn't more efficient mechanically.
they just wind the film differently.
each method has it's pros and cons.
the olympus o unwinds the entire roll inside and spools exposed frames into the canister while the other one simply pulls the film out for each frame you take and then returns the film after you have finished.
if you accidentally open the film compartment on the olympus, the exposed pictures are protected whereas the unexposed film is protected on the other camera.
if you ever play with film again I recommend that you try the olympus mju-II
even if just for your own enjoyment.
it was a very compact and automated point and shoot camera with an excellent lens.
I've bought and sold a few of those. They are very popular. In the States, it's called the Stylus Epic.
Interesting video, thanks. I ran the family photo shop and studio for the last 15 years of its 50 years trading. Closed in 1998. I didn't see either the Minolta or that Olympus, but we did sell loads of AF-10s. I noticed that the Olympus had the DX pins in the film compartment. These 'read' the DX code on the film canister and set the meter up to suit the film speed. As for the developing (Max Spielmann?), having had a minilab, if it's run on 'full auto' rather than 'operator input', you can easily get a difference in print density from film to film. The only way to tell the true difference would be to check the negatives using a 10x lupe or even a low-power microscope. If you ran those films through the lab again, you would get different results, I'm sure.
I enjoyed the photography section of Art College in the late 90s, we were given old looking 35mm cameras to go out into the nearby town and look for form, line, texture and pattern, I got a nice one of a friend with a traffic cone on his head too!
Nearly all used Minolta cameras I've had the previous owner left the protective cover on the bottom. I enjoy peeling them off.
From my experience, Minolta bottom covers are prone to scratching (not as much as Leica's, though), and many amateurs prefer to preserve as much original kit as possible, and don't use cameras much. I wouldn't peel that cover either, by the way, even if I would use the camera. I have about dozen various cameras from the past 100 years, some come with their own history, although none are in that great shape. When I bought one Graflex Speed Graphic on eBay for historical purposes (I research the American camera history as a hobby, being one of two Russians who does that), the seller knew the history of it and the original owner, and was kind enough to pass that knowledge to me... that was the decisive factor, together with a regulation medkit fiberglass case from the early 1950s or even 1940s that was a camera case, although I could get a camera in much better shape for the same money.
The original owner, USMC gunnery sergeant Edwin Brey, broke the crucial part of the rangefinder mechanism, turning the otherwise perfect Top Rangefinder Speed Graphic into a view camera. I'm almost sure that he did it deliberately because the camera had the Hasselblad 500C ground glass taped onto the center of the original ground glass as an extra focusing aid, there were some things in the package indicating that he shot landscapes and staged portraits as a hobby and/or for some extra income. Since he was an army photographer during the Korean war and even in the beginning of Vietnam war (he left the army in between them and bought that camera in between, in 1959, I guess, and with German Schneider lens), he probably had some unfavorable personal feelings towards using Graflex rangefinders... The problem is that that rangefinder pull-rod is a very fragile brass pipe with some crazy number of tiny non-metric metal balls there and a spring, and I have absolutely no means to recreate that (you have trouble making anything non-metric in Russia, will be too expensive). All other Top Rangefinder Graphics I've seen for sale are either in mint condition and prohibitively expensive, or have that element broken as well.
This seems to be a near-universal experience. I've had 4 Minolta SLRs from the 80s, all with the bottom plastic still intact. I'm preserving the tradition of not removing them.
Thanks so much for linking to my piece about the O-Product! (Mass Made Soul) Big fan of your channel, so chuffed to see you showcasing this quirky camera!
It's a great piece with good pictures.
Techmoan, I am one of those people you mentioned who is "deeply into" black and white film photography. Not gonna lecture you, just wanted to say that you are correct about the pleasant experience of doing things "the hard way" sometimes, be it photography or listening to music, etc. I think it has to do with the fact that smart phone and digital tech has made things so easy that we fail to appreciate the end product. A photo you had to think about and work on is more satisfying. And for my part, being about the same age as you, I remember how much fun it was to buy a record and gaze at the cover art with friends while it played. Music is much more fun when its the focus of activity rather than just a background noise.
It's all about the lens and aperture.... a beautiful camera that Olympus!
what about shutter speed?
Fran Blanche Fran It's Fran(again)!!! I enjoy your videos too btw... Nice to see you in the interwebs, and I do agree on your statement. Hope someday you'll collab with Techmoan on some gadget fix or something there abouts. Cheers from a subscriber of your channel =)
It's obviously about how pretty the camera body is, His picture prove it! :)
I just found this camera in a trash can outside of a camera store that was closing .. I started to look up videos and googled it and was amazed because it looks like it’s in a good condition . When I put the battery’s in the flash worked . I was curious to see which exact film to get for it to try it out
That's cool to know about the AF-10, I already have one, I used it as a wedding table camera at a wedding last year, I will say it did the best job out of all of the cameras I used that night. I assumed the AF-10 is a bit like the MJU only bigger and a lot cheaper to buy.
As someone who loves film and develops his own photos it’s lovely to see you have a bit of fun with these slightly odd point and shoots. Sure they’re not perfect but it fits in perfectly with your other videos. I would love to see any more oddball film things if you have them too!
Gotta say.. those b&w photos turned out pretty well. Thanks for putting this together!
I liked Iford’s film stock. Really nice B&W negative film. Especially their lower ISO range.
For sure! When im in the mood for a bit of contrast, PanF 50 is always on hand!
Acros used Ilford's Delta 100 technology so there's a good substitute in the shops.
@@Seele2015au They are both a tabular grain type. They share nothing in common beyond that. This is further evidenced by the Acros' near complete lack if reciprocity failure, which the Ilfords still have.
It pushes beautifully as well (HP5+ 400 pushed to 800 is my current preference)
35 mm films may also be used in good SRL film cameras or rangefinders, so they are in no way restricted to use in dubious point-and-shoot cameras. And, if kept in a fridge, an expiry date is not a problem. It's a question of overexposing/underexposing and underdeveloping/overdeveloping.
I enjoy these as much as any of the tv shows its seems to be like from when I was a teenager. Thank you again.
Highly interesting and entertaining as always - and as a blind guy, I'm not that much into photography. Still, your delivery and enthusiasm made this a treat to listen to.
Think you hit the nail on the head there at the end is the anticipation factors with film and you do get more involved in the photography because you've only got limited amount of shots, good video nice to see your encouraging people to get out and get more engaged in photography.
Great video. I had never seen these cameras before - I suspect the thinking behind the design of the Minolta was that it would look vaguely similar to a Leica (and would cost quite a bit less).
Acros is a fantastic film, and it's a real shame that Fuji are discontinuing it. The only thing I'd say is that it's slightly tricky to test out cameras with true black and white film, as - unlike c-41 or slide film - there are an almost infinite number of ways it can be developed and that the tone of the prints are largely down to the taste of the person who prints or scans them. I used to get black and white film developed at high street places many years ago, and some of the prints I got back were really bad.
Given that one of the themes of this video was that pictures were being shot on a (almost) discontinued film, perhaps a small follow-up (by whoever is interested) could be done with a similarly at-risk film from Fuji - Provia slide film.
The cool thing about slide film is that it doesn't tend to tolerate exposure errors, and would be a real test of the camera's auto exposure, and also that the what-you-see-is-what-you-get nature of the processed slide means that the results from two different cameras can be compared by just holding them up to a light and eyeballing them.
I think you hit the nail on the head at the end there, the reason people are going more for the analogue experience is because you have to take the time to use it, therefore making it more enjoyable, that's why I have my small vinyl collection, even though I have the same music, give or take, on my phone... :)
Same deal with old video games. There's something special to pulling a cartridge from your shelf and plugging it in, along with maintaining and cleaning your whole setup.
Yeah, I'm fine with the goal of technological progress being to eliminate inconvenience from human existence, but I also think that such inconvenience needs to be preserved as an option for those who want to dedicate their time or their interest to something. Objectively, waiting for photos to develop is less convenient than having them instantly, but people still like to wait because of the sense of anticipation. Unfortunately, I think enjoyable inconvenience is going to get harder and harder to come by as capitalists chase the next big profit-maker and abandon the things that the public have come to love. The only way, in my opinion, to keep enjoyably inconvenient things really safe is to eliminate the profit motive on a global scale. (And that's my piece.)
Really enjoyed this video Mat, probably one of your best yet. Inspirational and informative.
On a recent visit to Tokyo, just by accident I came by a store which amazed me. It was devoted entirely to film photography. Paper, chemicals, enlargers, films in fact everything you might need to set up a darkroom. Like walking into a time warp. Only it was 2017.
I have always missed the excitement when you have made pictures and send them to develop. I always had to pick them up in the city and go to a pub to watch the pictures with a friend. Just like when you bought a new LP album.
I thought the Olympus camera had the sharper photos of the two, but I liked the more contrasty look of the Minolta. The Minolta was noticeably blurry at the corners in some photos however. Overall, I liked the Olympus better.
I had been eyeballing that Olympus O camera on ebay for a couple months now. This video makes me wanna pull the trigger and buy it. So many great shots from that camera!
Your closing thoughts are absolutely true. I with more people took pride in their activities instead of just throwing caution to the wind.
I really love your final thoughts that you've added to the end of your videos. They're very insightful!
This is the coolest channel on RUclips. The host is like the age of dads of most millennials on RUclips. No clickbait, no over the top hyperactive nonsense. Just a middle aged man talking about cool, quirky and forgotten gadgets.
I know you've been dong this for a couple of videos now, but talking over the credits is much appreciated, its usually 2 minutes of just the same music but you still want to thank your Patreons, over time I ended up exiting the video when I saw there were no Muppets at the end but I do stick through again for the extra insight / or any extra of your comments at the end, thanks :)
Well done. Your photo subject choices were spot on for B&W film....
I love these retro vlogs...2/3 of my life has been retro too ..
What I like about some of the “retro tech” is the more visceral experience from them. I’m also old enough to know what it was like prior to mass produced cassettes, etc.
With vinyl, it was pulling out this giant sleeve (as a kid) and having this huge album art to sit and look at. Oh, and if it were a gate-fold double album (or more), it was heaven.
Same with film photography. I love my old 35 mm SLR cameras. I love shooting B&W film. But my favourite part is going into the dark room and developing the film and the photos myself. The sights, sounds, smells, and textures.
I was lucky I had a camera shop in my neighbourhood where the owner refurbished SLRs and other old cameras. He also carried many of the “toy” cameras (I love me a Holga). Alas, over the past couple of years, he retired and we moved to an entirely different country. I’m sure there’s a good shop around here somewhere, but I haven’t had the chance to look yet.
Anyway. It’s all very visceral for me and a bit of nostalgia for the type of joy those experiences brought me.
Damn that end statement hits right home! Things go way too fast these days. Slowing it down makes it so much more enjoyable. Well spoken!
I love B&W photography. Especially film based. Digital B&W just doesn't have the same effect. Great video too!
Regarding your bit at the end, human beings are tactile creatures...we respond to touch. A mechanical switch can feel good to us, but it can also feel off or wrong to us. Touchscreens don't provide any kind of tactile feedback, so while smartphones are useful devices, they're a kind of soulless unfulfilling user experience. Things like vinyl records and film cameras are tactile devices that can provide a more satisfying user experience, even if they ultimately require more effort on your part to use.
Agreed.
I know there are lots of people who will balk at the vinyl record analogy because they already think people who buy records are silly for doing so, however it's not the only example I wanted to mention (I had to edit it for length). There has been a big increase in people baking cakes at home over the last few years - no doubt due to TV baking shows. It would be easier, less time consuming and sometimes cheaper just to buy a cake, but many people like the satisfaction that comes from baking their own. Sometimes the simplest option isn't the most satisfying one.
The internet likes to focus on best, quickest, easiest...and it's usually A or B - rarely can two opposing ideas co-exist. But just because you enjoy something you don't have to be all in on it - you might like to ride a bicycle, but it doesn't mean you have to get rid of your car. So I'll keep taking smartphone photos and every now and then I may take a roll of film to mix things up a bit. Just like I buy records and I stream music.
Like many of these things it isn't a matter of what's best - it's about finding something you enjoy doing, and each person needs to discover their own thing.
That's why I use a film camera and a pebble 2
This is exactly it for me. I like to touch my music, and CDs just don't butter my baps, frankly.
You can use taptic Feedback on a Smartphone when tapping a Button or typing. And every Phone has another Vibration Motor, so i dont think There is "no Soul"
Also every Phone has another Design and Materials.
Have to give props for some of the scenes you choose to take pictures of.. Structures or city scenery are excellent choices.
For the past couple of years I've been using a very old (1973) Minolta SRT-102, and I can say without a doubt it's the best camera I've ever used, everything on it is manual and I even develop and print the film myself. I highly recommend reviewing an older Minolta, you'd be pleasantly surprised.
They brings back memories of my camera-shop days, in 1990's.
Both are wonderful conditions.
Wow - those B&W pictures look vintage! I still have my Minolta AF-EII from back in the day, I believe it was the pinnacle of point & shoot 35mm cameras! Available second hand now for about a tenner!
Those disposable cameras are becoming hard to find now as well...
Also you have reminded me - I have rolls I need to get developed still, I wonder if it's worth the effort though...
Your videos are always so great! I love seeing and hearing your prospective.
I consider myself incredibly lucky to have been selected to partake in my high school's photography classes. It was a bit of a rough selection process because the main equipment, some very old 35mm SLR cameras were very easily broken. We had everything from empty refillable film hulls to big rolls of film to refill them, tools to do so and projectors to turn the negatives into prints of any size.
It was an amazing experience to be able to wind your own 5 picture can put into the SLR you were rented take the pictures yourself. Then take it back to the dark room, unwind it yourself develop it yourself and make final prints yourself of the pictures. Gave me a completely different perspective on photography. I don't know if you can still get all the supplies including the black and white film, developer and fixer anymore to do it but if anyone can, i highly recommend it.
We never did color photography because my teacher said developing color photographs requires the use of a developer with cyanide in it, and we weren't allowed to handle something so toxic.
Aah, memories! I worked in an independent camera shop from 1986 - 2006. The tales I could tell!
I'm a B&W shooter. My on-the-go B&W film negatives are Kodak T-Max 400 & Rollei RPX 400, and I often use it on my Minolta X-700. The price range between these two negatives in my country in Indonesia are 3 US dollars in difference: T-Max 400 is $ 8 (approximately 110.000 in Rupiah) and RPX 400 is $ 3 (aprrox. 78.000) -- in two different camera and developing stores which I visited regularly.
You mentioned that the Minolta seemed to be ready to go right away as where the Olympus took a few moments to get ready after putting the film in. i think this is in part that some cameras draw out the entire spool of film from the camera and spool it back into the canister as you take your photos ie the Olympus, whereas others spool out the film as the pictures are being taken ie the Minolta. The first method can be beneficial in that if the film door is opened by accident you wont loose all of your photos you have taken, usually just the last photo. as where the other method you would loose all the photos taken but the remainder of the film in the canister would still be able to be used.
Was looking through the comments to see if anyone else picked up on this. I prefer it to wind it fully out and then back in the canister so you lose as few pictures as possible if you accidentally open the back.
My mum has a 1980s solar powered camera. The blues it captures are incredible. Despite never seeing the sun for 30 years i took it out of It's case and it whirred to life!
As usual a great video. This inspired me to go get myself a vintage olympus trip 35. From 1979 and some black and white film for it. Thanks
Those illustrations, The Joy of Instructions
Loved your last comments on the enjoyment of analogue photography! I would also encourage people to do the whole process by themselves.
Awesome video, I only use film and film cameras so seeing video on this topic made by you is great!!!
very smart doing your closing comments in the video over the closing names, makes me stay for the whole video before clicking out to the next one [the format reminds me of the old 90's tv show outtros hahahaha]
Ilford FP4 and HP5 is still out there, swear by the stuff. I still use an old Agfa 1950's TLR with FP4 Plus 120 with a Lee yellow filter alongside my Nikon DSLR. Easy to develop, easy to use, resolution in gigapixels and easy on the eye. Medium format is sometimes the way to go :-)
(Edit - with my original Leningrad-4 lightmeter it's point at the sky, at the ground then select the halfway point, FP4 and HP5 are quite tolerant)
It's the Tefifon of photography. Plenty examples on Ilford's website :-)
Yeah I use a yashica mat 124 with delta 100. Super sharp super high resolution. Can't compare it to digital because of how stunning the photos look,. 120 is definatly worth getting into
@@skygolding16Ilford Delta 120 is available try it with some no name TLR out of some charity shop sometime :-) the world is best in black and white sometimes... advise yellow filter for dark sky it brings the clouds out... a lot of my stuff are 'things' against a dark background. B&W rocks :-) Lee 101 Yellow i've held the swatch in front of the lens before! Sometimes things are best seen in analogue.
I've taken a liking to Fomapan. The good thing about B&W film is that it's much simpler to manufacture and process than colour film. There's still a handful of smaller B&W film makers around the world hanging on to the remaining market. And it can be processed at home in the bathroom/kitchen/laundry.
I think you're getting a bit ahead of yourself as far as the resolution of 6x6 120 film is concerned. Gigapixels would be 1,000 megapixels which is ridiculous. There have been scientific tests that show the resolving power of the average film to be around 7mp for 35mm and 40mp for 6x6. Don't get me wrong I love ilford film and 120 but even an ultra sharp film like pan f or micro film isn't going to get much above 100mp on a 120 camera. That being said 8x10 large format could probably get close to 1,000mp on microfilm.
Try Kentmere film. It's Ilfords 'Budget' range but isnt discernably different
Ilford make XP2 black and white negative film that is processed in colour chemicals in any mini lab. Its very sharp and has a wide latitude with fine grain. Good stuff.
XP2 with wide lattitude? From my experience, it was closer to slide film.
@@Brutalexecution What ISO did you use? I use between 100 and 400
My go to film for scanning
Knowing you only have 30 something shots makes you think more about every shot you take. You put more thought into wether it's worth taking a photo of. That's the difference between a picture and a photograph.
That and the delayed gratification of waiting for the resulting images.
I myself rarely review photos in camera even on digital cameras. I wait until I'm back at the computer to see them. It gets a similar feeling. I still have "unlimited" exposures though.
A friend of mine used to take a GoPro v1 camera on vacation for still photos. Not even a viewfinder on that one. Point, shoot, and hope for the best. And once back from vacation was the first time he had any chance of seeing what got exposed.
I believe the limitation of available shots forces the photographer to internally edit and frame the photograph. I have two midrange digital cameras with multiple lenses and add on devices. My daughter clicks away and picks the best ones. I was trained on an old 35mm camera with film, so I do more internal editing in choosing the shot and lens considering the lighting and framing by the old rule of thirds etc, even with a digital camera with unlimited shots. I cannot say my photos are better or worse, as I believe both ways have merit. I do believe I have less "throw away" photos. I miss the darkroom and the ability to manipulate the film stock and chemical developing.
Try instant photography with Polaroids. ~2.5 euros per picture and only 8 pictures in a pack. Too cold and the picture is ruined. Too hot and the picture is ruined. Sunlight on the fresh picture and it's ruined. So lovely and nerve wracking at the same time.
Early digicams were kinda/sorta like that too, in regards to how much space you had on the internal memory, or on early memory cards, or even how many floppies you had in your bag in regards to the Mavicas..
The downside is near the end of a role where you just want to see the damned pictures and start snapping out of focus pictures of the neighbour's cat or something just to have an excuse to go to the shop. People forget those things with the rose tinted glasses. In my experience, the first 3/4 of the role is the pics you actually wanted.
Good points on the anticipation of getting your film developed and you get to see what you took. That was a fun aspect to photography, but there was also that element of disappointment when you find out that some key pictures didn't come out or the entire roll was lost due to who knows what. I remember combing through our old photo albums and the odd box or two where pictures that didn't make the albums went to live and really enjoyed them.
From my experience with both Olympus and Minolta Point and Shoot cameras I must agree with your findings about the contrast that the Olympus and Minolta produce, I have several Olympus cameras that I almost always find it to take good balanced contrasted photos with, the Minolta cameras seem to produce a little more punch if you will to photos, I can't say scientifically why this is the result, but it could be due to various apertures and shutter speed combinations that the cameras pair to take a photo. Out side of Olympus and Minolta however I own numerous cameras from across the years, from the early 2000s to the early 1900s, it started as a college class with a $7 Konica SLR camera and now has grown to over 100 different cameras and formats. Fortunately I can rationalize my buying of such an outrageous number by using various cameras as a gimmick to freelance photography and sell prints when I can. Either way it is both a fun hobby and a victimless addiction (unless you count your pocket money). Glad to see the O-Product being used outside of being just a decoration.
One of the best compact 35mm cameras I had was an Olympus 35RD. This was a rangefinder camera with a fabulous 6-element F. Zuiko 40mm f1.7 lens with mechanical Seiko leaf shutter. It produced crisp sharp photos. It had aperture priority automatic, apart from the light meter which needed a battery it was entirely mechanical. It was easy to use with a fixed guide number flash (same output each time with no sensor to reduce the flash if the subject was close) as it had a 'flashmatic' setting: you set the flash guide number and then the focus was mechanically linked to the lens aperture which was adjusted automatically to give consistent exposures.
I bought mine in 1979 for £99.00 and made good use of it for around 15 years. When I looked at it in 2002 I found that grease/oil had spread to the aperture and shutter mechanisms, the foam rubber light seal on the back had perished to sticky tar and the mercury cell needed for the metering was no longer available.
I sourced some new rubber seal material and found an adaptor to fit a silver oxide cell in place of the mercury cell. I did research how to dismantle and clean the grease from the shutter but decided that it was more work than I was happy doing, so in 2003 I auctioned the camera on Ebay as a repair project with all the instructions and information I had found. It sold for £68.00, the buyer emailed me a month or so later to let me know he had completed the restoration and was very pleased with the camera.
The RD is a wonderful shooter, I have the RC and am always pleased with the quality of photos it produces, I plan on acquiring a RD at some point as well. I also have a few mju that I either was given by family or I found in thrift and charity shops.
wow ive just discovered your channel , thank you very much a lot of memory's from my younger years came flooding back.
I love the scenes during the credits
Very interesting video. Film cameras do bring a more reflective mindset with them. When you step back again, and use a film camera that doesn't have automatic exposure, and range, the brain becomes fully engaged.
I like how B/W pictures automatically look both more aesthetically pleasing, somewhat artsy and as if the pictures were taken centuries ago. Really fun project :)
So how many photos did you take with lens cap on"
He's right about lens caps. Anything that gets in the way of
getting a picture is bad.
It happens less with SLRs because you can't see through the viewfinder when a cap is on. I really don't like lensacaps on P&S. I still loose my lenscaps from time to time...
I'd hazard a guess and say that the neither camera will fire when the lens cap is covered.
let's hear it for electronic viewfinders.
None until the 120 I got, bit hard with an SLR :)
Love the look of that Minolta.
Developing B&W film at home is easy. Worth doing if you're going to shoot film on a semi-regular basis. And the anticipation of waiting to see how they'll come out is half the fun.
Ilford Pan F was my go-to B&W film back in my youth, and Fuji Velvia was my colour negative film of choice. But I did love Pan F: so much tonal subtlety...
I’d have to agree, I like the Olympus camera better. Having said that, I own an Olympus film camera, from the 60s I think, Olympus Trip 35. Not taken any B&W on it, but colour film photos came out looking great. The reason I mention it, it happens to look a lot like the Minolta. Great video.
... as a side note, your images are really great! Nicely done.
I grew up with vinyl and never stopped playing or buying it despite having a stack of CD's. The same goes for film as I use to use it in the 80's however my smartphone restarted my photography again and I had an old medium format Yashica in the shed which still worked.
BIG plus from me for taking the topoc of vintage film cameras!
Worth noting that Agfa Vista is rebranded Fuji C200, so that's why that one's going too.
Ahhh - that makes sense.
Seems Fujifilm really don't like film - perhaps they're in the wrong business.
@@Techmoan if you dig around forums some believe Fujifilm decommissioned all equipment used to make film years ago when film was 'on the way out', and that they haven't actually made any film in ages. So what they've sold ever since has been stocked in a big freezer, then 'discontinued' once its ran out. Bit of a conspiracy theory but would seem to explain why they'd ditch films during their resurgence.
Fujifilm like film, see the Instax sales! It gets them more money than their digital line. But the quality is worse than Polaroid from what I've heard, so it's cheap plastic cameras and mass produced 10 image film packs. The complex classic film isn't so popular anymore which I guess makes it not worth doing in small batches when you have big factory machines dedicated to it. It's a shame, Fuji keeps upping their film prices but still doesn't save the production. Someone even offered to buy their film making equipment, they didn't want to sell it.
So we are left with Kodak restarting production on smaller scale, Ilford which also makes large formats on special order once per year, Foma which benefits from cheap Czech labor, and two enthusiast companies trying to restart production with old equipment saved from defunct businesses: Adox and Film Ferrania. The rest is very small specialist makers, rebadged industrial and old stocks, outsourced production in the exisiting companies and several simple relabels of existing commercial products.
@@Techmoan ironic considering Fujifilm has film in it's name
Excellent video and music! Love seeing these old cameras!
I'm really amazed with the quality of that Olympus camera! Both were acceptably sharp, but the Olympus took photos that were so sharp & well exposed that, if I were shown them without context, I probably wouldn't have guessed they were done on a point & shoot.
As someone who only had a 35mm colour point and shoot camera as a child and then moved onto digital, I've been enjoying your small series about film cameras, both weird formats and weird cameras. I know a fair bit about setting up a digital camera in manual mode, but don't really know what kind of considerations film needed. And I do enjoy film grain, even though I've never used it for at least a decade. So it's just been nice to see you mess around with some point and shoots of a few different varieties, and seeing those index sheets inside the envelopes and everything is a nice little bit of nostalgia. But by and large it just makes me want to stick to using digital, compared to only getting a few dozen shots per roll!
Yes agree with you on the photos - the Olympus pictures actually look like old fashion photos due to the greying - whereas the other pictures looked like a modern digital camera set to b/w mode as the blacks were too black.
This video is very enjoyable. Back in the day when normal analog / mechanical cameras were a thing, I remember it was quite a costly hobby.
Nothing I could afford at that time. But, never really had the interest either 😁
I'm glad I ordered some B&W film last week already because this makes me want to go shoot some
I just love your videos. I find them very interesting
and relaxing to watch.
I've seen black & white Ilford at Boots a little while ago. They also still do the one-time-use cameras. Bit a bit of clever hacking you can smash them open and find a completely usable film inside. Pro-tip: cover the lens and fill it with blank photos completely before opening, they're usually unwound to start with and go backwards, so by filling the film with black exposures in the original case first, you actually wind the whole film into the container.
For some time I've been thinking of taking my old Polaroid 35mm point-and-shoot film camera back in use, at least for one film roll, just for the old times sake. This video fuels that idea even more, maybe I'll do it soon :)
Got that camera in 1994 and still have also it's original box, leather case, manual, etc. It's one of those black plastic cameras which I guess themselves look kind of retro today :D
Putted it in storage when I got my first digital camera. Removed the batteries of course, including the button cell battery which keeps the date going on.
That O-Product has such a lovely design, it almost looks like one of those prop camera designs you see in "futuristic" movies.
When I worked in the Hi Fi trade many of the shops sold photographic equipment as well.
I still have an old Kodak Retina 1A and a Leica compact and a Cannon AE1P with a lot of lenses.
4:14 Somehow, I feel that flash module is intended to mimic the look of the external modules for those flash bulbs antique cameras used.
Thank you for your video, I enjoyed it very much ,even though I have used old film for years past I don’t intend going back to it.. but I do understand for some people that making things more complicated or making them an event is more pleasure.
Thanks for finally making a video about real film, not that instant stuff. There is plenty of b/w and color film available and the exp date is almost meaningless. Your film will still work just fine many many years after it is expired and for even longer life, freeze it. You can develop at home with a dark bag, a paterson tank and some monobath for $50 USD total. And the monobath developer can be used over and over again. Look up the Film Photography Project, they sell everything and they ship worldwide.
Now you need to do a color film review. Kodak color plus is my favorite. Thanks again for this great video, love all the retro tech!
I've been on holiday to Scarborough several times as I just love the place. Your 3rd picture from camera A of the cafe had me convinced thats where the cafe was, only because of the view of the Italian Gardens in the background! I was quite surprised to find I was correct :D
I still have my last film camera, I think it's Olympus (point and shoot, auto focus, not very expensive). I haven't used it for many years, but it's sad to think I won't be able to get film for it anymore. My first camera (a hand-me-down as a child) took 126 cartridge film, and used flash cubes (four single-use bulbs, so you had to check before you took a picture to make sure the bulb on front wasn't burned out). Gadzooks, I'm old!
Never tried this stock, but fascinating to see as a discontinued camera buff myself. I always loved shooting in BW from film school to today - still have some Tri-X and some c-41 process BW film kicking around.
Fujifilm Neopan Acros is the film emulation type I use for all my black and white photo conversions in GIMP - it has a very nice tone
I use 9x12 cm plate cameras from the 1910's to the late 1920's with sheet film adapters in the plate holders. One of my favourite lenses is a Goerz Dogmar 6,3/135 mm from 1916. If you want to try a good british bellows camera for 120 roll film, the Ensign Selfix 820 with the Ross Xpres lens is an excellent choise!
Back in the early 90's, I experimented with b/w film on a few rolls. To my surprise, it was amazing how the details of the subject just "popped" out. I suppose with the color we look for different things but with monochrome we have to more fully examine it. Maybe high resolution monochrome can be a new extension to smartphone camera "art"??
I've been rocking a Cannon AE-1 for the past few months and man, has it been fun. I am looking at more and more specialty films such as the rollie Infrared film. But one thing i have overlooked was Black and white, Ilford 400 is a good brand but there is an extreme lack of films with an unusual ISO. If you want to take some action shots, 3200 speed film is increesingly harder to find. Im happy that the film resurgance is happening though, It will be nice having more and more creative films on the market!
harrison corey Kodak and Ilford both make an ISO 3200. So if anything it’s easier to find since the Kodak is a fairly recent reintroduction.
Ilford makes panf which is a slow 50 iso Film.
For fast film Kodak P3200 in 35mm is better, in 120 you have only Ilfrod Delta 3200. They are slower stock designed for pushing, there's not really native fast film, I guess it's the process limitation.
There's couple sites where you can buy really unique films, often very slow ones (ISO 6 and lower) designed for copying. Try Film photography project or northernfilm shop on ebay. They also sell cinema stock but that has remjet layer and can't be processed in C-41 or it will ruin the machine and need complete cleanup.
totally agree with your end monologue.. plus love your channel :)
I gotta say the photos you took were wonderful--in terms of composition, framing, grayscale range, etc. Really enjoyed them. As someone who used to develop and print my own B&W 35mm film, I understand the idea of things being harder to do so you enjoy them more. You should watch the video by Fran Blanche where she learns how to do wet-plate photography and processing--lots of time and effort for each photo, more than I would wish to do.
I'm impressed that you found a developer that can handle traditional silver B&W film properly. I hope Kodak doesn't discontinue Tri-X 400. Its very flexible for indoor and outdoor photography and easy to develop at home with minimal tools. I haven't shot with it in 15 years, but it looks like a newer version with less grain has been released (I'll leave that up for debate if that is a good or bad thing!). Maybe get a couple of rolls and take a shot at developing it yourself? Its a fun and satisfying process.
15:45 That's a great shot. Kudos.
those are some mad real cameras
what a great shoot-out
thanks for sharing this with us
really enjoyed watching this
A excellent video right up my street as a film user, I have ten roll bundle of across 100 in my freezer paid about £20.00 for it a couple of years ago. The place that developed your film done a excellent job most are terrible at it........Anyway a really enjoyable 22 minutes...
Quite a photographer yourself there. I'm not one myself, but you should factor in your own eye, because I was quite moved by both. The framing, the choices of subject and the patience of them. Lovely stuff. You say you enjoyed this project, and it shows.
Black and white film is also easy to develope at home. A converted closet or a small area set aside as a darkroom and a couple of simple chemicals is all you need to get started developing negatives and slides. If you want to make your own prints you'll need an enlarger or a scanner that works with film.
Thanks Mat, great video, Black and white photography is a much more creative art, and in these days of instant everything, its good to rediscover the joy of anticipation, wether its a few seconds to prepare an LP for playing or a few days waiting for your photos to be developed and printed,
This could be my favorite of your videos now, the ending just cinched it for me. :) I've been an Olympus fan for awhile, and I recently got new batteries for my now ten year old DSLR from them. It takes more time to take good photos with that camera too. :)