Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 150157	2021-09-29 22:20:00	What to do with an old film camera?	Tony (4941)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1480971	2021-10-17 19:09:00	I still have my box Brownie, although I can't buy the film for it any more. It was monochrome. I think there was 10 shots on a Kodak 620 film. In the day that the box Brownie was popular, I had to be careful that I only took a good photograph. Film was too expensive to waste on just anything. It had to be worthwhile. These days, with digital cameras, you can take as many as you want and if it doesn't turn out good enough, you just delete it and try again. And with portraits you can afford to take 3 or 4 and pick the best one. Quite a difference. Then print out your choice on photographic paper. That must have put a few people out of business. I used to take the exposed film to the chemist for developing and printing and I recall they did not chose which photographs to print, they just printed them all good or bad. It took a few days. I received the photographs and the negatives in a double envelope. After picking up the prints I would look at them even before I left the shop. With film I just had to wait until I got the prints back before I could see if my efforts were any good. Nowadays it's almost instantaneous. A big improvement.:clap	Roscoe (6288)
1480972	2021-10-17 22:27:00	I still have my box Brownie, although I can't buy the film for it any more . It was monochrome . I think there was 10 shots on a Kodak 620 film . In the day that the box Brownie was popular, I had to be careful that I only took a good photograph . Film was too expensive to waste on just anything . It had to be worthwhile . These days, with digital cameras, you can take as many as you want and if it doesn't turn out good enough, you just delete it and try again . And with portraits you can afford to take 3 or 4 and pick the best one . Quite a difference . Then print out your choice on photographic paper . That must have put a few people out of business . I used to take the exposed film to the chemist for developing and printing and I recall they did not chose which photographs to print, they just printed them all good or bad . It took a few days . I received the photographs and the negatives in a double envelope . After picking up the prints I would look at them even before I left the shop . With film I just had to wait until I got the prints back before I could see if my efforts were any good . Nowadays it's almost instantaneous . A big improvement . :clap The chemist places etc . . outsourced the job to a lab because they were lower cost from what I read they just hit the auto button without any user input that you might had gotten at a more expensive lab . I read that in the USA they had multiple machines set up in a industrial area overnight where they just load up all the film to have it processed as quick as possible . I think with reprints at a chemist they could reprint individual ones but it was more expensive per the photo than the set . In the late 2000s after my first digital SLR in 2004 I got into film . I was curious, how did pro wedding photographers get the shots . Then I started going to diff labs including expensive ones . Wellington had Image Lab which they had a pop up shop in Christchurch as well as a smaller lab in Auckland I think . 1 set of prints off normal colour negative film I recalled was $40 for one set of 6x4s printed . The colours were better more pop although with some computer experience it was similar to what Epson scanners do anyway . For the geeks I've found typical scans you get from those machines are a similar quality to an Epson scanner . I was once mistakenly given a Photo CD of scans by mistake . What I liked was slide film because there was no printing unless you requested it but the slide film you got back was great cos you got to see what the film was capable of and see it on the negs . No printing, no colour correction etc . In the film days taking shots was either done very little and then done more often with events . Now with digital we see film as expensive but back then it was what it was . People also made more toll calls as well back then . Now we see telephone calls as expensive, mobile included minutes are dime a dozen and we have FaceTime, WeChat, WhatsApp, Google Hangout or what is the newer version now, Facebook Messneger, Video calling and all that . For free less the data plan .	Nomad (952)
1480973	2021-10-17 22:54:00	We are becoming a throw away society in more ways than one . I was on a photography forum where someone was wondering how long a DSLR shutter would last . she said she had taken 110,000 photos on her camera since she bought it new 14 months previously . Same camera as I have owned in around half the length of time . I had take around 2500 shots in that time which is an average of 13 shots per day as opposed to her 258 shots per day . Crazy . That's not photography . The darn things take 10 frames/second and in some peoples videos on Faeces Book they their photography sounds like a machine gun firing . Thats not photography in my mind . They say using film slows you down . In my case with single shot cameras in my early photography years, I still rarely take more the 2 shots of an object . Just my thoughts :clap:clap Ken	kenj (9738)
1480974	2021-10-18 03:14:00	We are becoming a throw away society in more ways than one. I was on a photography forum where someone was wondering how long a DSLR shutter would last. she said she had taken 110,000 photos on her camera since she bought it new 14 months previously. Same camera as I have owned in around half the length of time. I had take around 2500 shots in that time which is an average of 13 shots per day as opposed to her 258 shots per day. Crazy. That's not photography. The darn things take 10 frames/second and in some peoples videos on Faeces Book they their photography sounds like a machine gun firing. Thats not photography in my mind. They say using film slows you down. In my case with single shot cameras in my early photography years, I still rarely take more the 2 shots of an object. Just my thoughts :clap:clap Ken Astro and star trails then blending images into one? Sports and wildlife? Time lapse? :confused: Or maybe just because they can. I just looked at my Lightroom catalog my digital files are organised by year. I average 1,500 to 2,000 per year. That is 55 x36 exposure rolls. :eek: To be fair though I was in a photography forum and they were saying in the past they took on average 5 rolls a day. Even now with film photography like Eric Kim on YouTube he does street photography with his Leica and some prime lenses he would go on a trip for sometime and have a 100 rolls in a zip lock bag. He might had gone back to digital after saying film was greater than digital, yeah hahah, I dunno eh.. ;)	Nomad (952)
1480975	2021-10-19 20:55:00	That's the thing. I feel really conflicted. One one hand I would like to be rid of it, but on the other hand it offends me to sell it for a pittance. I looked at your links, and even $50 is a bit of an insult. At least you get something and someone gets use of it. Better than throwing it in a landfill, surely?	Agent_24 (57)
1480976	2021-10-20 03:55:00	At least you get something and someone gets use of it. Better than throwing it in a landfill, surely? True and true. I just need to work myself up to it.	Tony (4941)
1 2 3