Until recently, the last time I shot an entire roll of film was on a Canon EOS 5, sometime in the mid-2000s. Last month, I put a roll of black-and-white film through my mother’s old Olympus Trip 35, and the results sparked some strong emotions.
I have vague memories of my the Olympus Trip 35 from my childhood. I think it came with the family on a trip to Weston-super-Mare, a classic British seaside resort, around 1984, when I was barely old enough to tie my shoelaces. Technology moved on, and since the end of the 1980s, it has remained in my parents’ attic.
The global pandemic has meant very few visits back to my family home, but in November, I finally returned — this time with an empty car — to free my parents from the junk that has accumulated in their attic as a result of my various moves between countries. I’d been longing to see if their old Olympus Trip still worked and, like so many other photographers, remind myself of what it’s like to shoot without the flexibility and carefree instantaneity of digital.
A foggy morning and the molehills littering our village football pitch. You'd be able to see them better if this shot weren't poorly exposed on relatively inexpensive film. All part of the fun.
Unsure of the Trip’s potential, I ordered some of the cheapest film available, and with winter approaching, faster film made more sense. I received two rolls of Fomapan 400 and watched a YouTube video showing how to load the Trip to ensure that I wasn’t being an idiot.
The Olympus Trip 35 is an interesting camera. It’s a bit more than a point-and-shoot, as it features an aperture ring, and focusing requires you to guess the distance to your subject before selecting "uncomfortably close," "not quite so close," "that's a bit farther back now," and "really quite far away." These vague distances are indicated by various symbols of people and mountains, though there are feet and inches on the underside of the lens if you feel like cheating. There’s no control over the shutter speed, and the camera will choose automatically between 1/40th and 1/200th of a second so if you decide to stray from Automatic and set your aperture, you’ll need a very good eye or a light meter. ISO 400 proved to be a good choice, and while a few of the negatives have worked the scanning process quite hard, I didn’t lose a single frame to poor exposure.
Perhaps the world doesn’t need another article on the joys of shooting on film, but regardless: the medium makes you more thoughtful and more considered in your approach, if simply through the knowledge that frames are finite and each one costs you money. There’s the knowledge that every push of the shutter results in a chemical process and a physical image: this shifts your appreciation of how a photograph exists, making it a tangible thing that doesn’t live solely as a series of digits. To a degree, it’s also a connection to a historic process, of pioneers playing with silver chloride and mercury vapor, and the mechanization of the image — a leap not dissimilar to the arrival of the printed word — that transformed how we shape and perceive the world around us.
If you’re anything like me, over the last 20 months, the global pandemic may have occasionally led your brain to some dark corners. I’ve been fortunate, and I count my blessings, but the reduced travel and sense of isolation from friends and family have prompted a few morbid moments.
Somewhere near Brighton, U.K. That grainy thing forming the horizon is the sea.
The portrait of my father — the second frame on this roll of 36 images — does something similar. I couldn’t say to my father: “hey, Dad, let me take a shot because I'm increasingly aware that you won’t be here forever and I want a photo of you.” The newly loaded Trip was an excuse to capture my father as I think of him: in his favorite chair, reading a book, sipping a cup of tea. The only things missing are his cat and one of his many mandolins. The eyes are a touch soft (focus is by guesswork, remember), but I don’t care. They say that gear won’t make you a photographer, but in this case, the gear was the reason for creating one of the most meaningful images I’ve ever captured.
At some point, I’ll probably treat myself to a more serious film camera — I’d love a Nikon FM2 or maybe a Contax 139 — but right now, there’s a house to renovate and plenty of other things to spend my money on. Cameras are cheap but film is expensive and, frustratingly, becoming more so. For now, the Trip will be reserved for random, novel, or meaningful moments — such as my wife holding our new kitten, shortly after trimming off a section of her claw with an angle grinder, or a trip to a bird sanctuary with my nephews — moments that feel like they deserve the magic offered by silver halide. And if that magic comes only from within me, what does it matter?
I’m 70 years old. First started “taking photos” by joining my school’s camera club in the late 60’s. If memory serves me , a friend and I shared a Minolta. We learned to use it, laughed at the photos we took, made a mess developing the rolls of film. Thank you Andy Day for sharing. It brought tears to my eyes together with fleeting memories of those days. No, I’m not a photographer but I do enjoy using my X-T20 around my flat - the cats, birds by the dirty river….. This is one of those rare occasions I actually post a comment on anything. I really enjoy the photos you took, especially the one with “That grainy thing forming the horizon……”😂 Thank you for sharing your experience.
Thanks for your words, Kamal. Keep enjoying your X-T20. 😊
That same psedo_nostalgia for coal bins in apartment houses. Ice men hauling ice up 5 flights of stairs, and cupping blisters for dyptheria
Whatever you can do with film, you can do on your computer.... Other than smell up the house by spilling hypo
Wow. To live in the world you do must be quite miserable. Glad I don't.
In response to Douglas Liebig "... Wow. To live in the world you do must be quite miserable. Glad I don't ..."
The comment from charles hoffman was about NOT living in such a world, especially if one can choose NOT to.
Such as choosing NOT to get involved in film again, as a way to avoid the "misery", as you suggest, of using film, compared to digital capture and processing through to presentation.
On topic, any reaction to the opening video/article/photos?
Thanks for exploring this and sharing.
.
Seriously? Are you that unaware of the words he used? Are you telling me that he was being positive when he said "psedo_nostalgia for coal bins in apartment houses. Ice men hauling ice up 5 flights of stairs, and cupping blisters for dyptheria" or the part about stinking up the place.
1. If he doesn't want to shoot film, then he doesn't HAVE to. The writer wasn't forcing him to.
2. The two of you are so feable in your own security that an article about someone else enjoying the process makes you post idiotic comments like this?
You are an expert at trolling with your negative and arrogant BS..why don't you give us a break and try something positive for once...
In response to John Kelsey "... You are an expert at trolling with your negative and arrogant BS..why don't you give us a break and try something positive for once ..."
I've seen many camera and photography discussion venues turn into folks showing up only to be negative, so to speak, about other folks that they think are being negative, so to speak - it's really very funny, in an ironic sort of way.
On topic, any reaction to the reopening video/article/photos?
Thanks for exploring this and sharing.
.
In response to charles hoffman "... That same psedo_nostalgia for coal bins in apartment houses. Ice men hauling ice up 5 flights of stairs, and cupping blisters for dyptheria Whatever you can do with film, you can do on your computer.... Other than smell up the house by spilling hypo ..."
Agreed, 1,000%.
Film's not even environmentally friendly, or vegetarian, and this waste of video did not even take any time to learn and master the tools available.
"... Hi, here's a video of me doing something careless and inconsequential ..."
The presenter paid as much attention to photographic storytelling - via still photography and video - as they paid attention to their dog or to their walk in the woods - NONE.
Yeah ... NO.
I want my 8 minutes back, Fstoppers.
.
You really just aren't a very happy person.
I feel for you.
To be honest, you can do whatever you do with any camera (including digital) in front of a computer, using Paint by drawing all the pixels. Advanced nerds can achieve the same thing with a random hex editor.
Still, it is much easier to achieve the expected result by using the tool meant for that purpose.
"Whatever you can do with film, you can do on your computer.... "
Totally wrong. The grain that one will add on a layer to his digital photos is so noticeable. And you know why? Because grain is part of the film structure but on digital photo there's only 0 and 1 and the digital sharpness under that grain layer is soooo noticeable. Digital photo is so boring that people developed film presets. What a joke! One wants a film look? Then he should shoot film like I always say. People want to get rid of their ugly digital noise to add fake grain. Give me a break.
Nice walk in the woods BACKWARDS!
I downloaded it and played it backwards with the sound off and with my fist held up in the middle of the scene to block the interrupting thingy in the middle, and THEN it was a nice walk in the woods FORWARDS!
Absolutely no other value in the video.
Next.
.
You don’t half spout some nonsense, how is it that photography is so good at attracting utter wafflers.
Think about your target audience before typing, it might reign you in a touch.
In response to Stuart C "... You don’t half spout some nonsense, how is it that photography is so good at attracting utter wafflers. Think about your target audience before typing, it might reign you in a touch ..."
Back at ya.
Anyway, what did YOU think of the presentation, in video form or in written form?
You did not say.
- - - - -
It's not photography that attracts whatever, it's the presentations:
- informative ( not this one )
- provocative ( this one in a frustrating way )
- erroneous ( not necessarily this one )
- keeps the advertisements from bumping into each other, publish-or-perish filler ( very much this one )
At least I found a way to engage this video and created a functional purpose - a FORWARDS walk in the woods.
I don't think the videographer understood that they were going to have us viewers walking BACKWARDS.
- - - - -
So, back at ya, what did you find?
Did you re-watch the video with your hand blocking the middle so all you saw was the woods receding away from you?
Thanks for exploring this and sharing.
..
Oh, this video was created by the Fstopper article author!
Hey, Andy, get free Google Picasa and auto-convert your digital to black-and-white film, and enjoy those iPhone photos of yours that you've yet to explore.
I convert color to black-and-white once using a green filter, and then again using a red filter, then I review the full color, and wow, what a learning experience in tone versus chrome.
Seriously, bro, you did NOT treat this like it was your ONLY camera, as if this was your only storytelling vehicle and outlet.
And don't worry about the world not needing another article on the joys of shooting film - your video has no joy in it whatsoever.
Was that your goal?
Hey, in CoViD-times, low contrast dark-gray-to-light-gray may accurately be the story you feel like telling.
Now, learn the tools, re-learn those tools, and after 100 to 1,000 rolls, come back and tell us what story you found best told through those tools.
Thanks for exploring this and sharing.
.
After eye rolling my way through your broken-record TL;DR gibbering, I was thinking, "Man, I bet this is one of those knuckledraggers that's been shooting for decades upon decades and still shoots like he just started yesterday." And, voila, I was not wrong.
LOL! https://www.flickr.com/photos/peterblaise/
--- "Now, learn the tools, re-learn those tools"
Practice what preach, son.
After reading his comments and seeing that flickr page one can only facepalm lol
That Flickr page looks like a reCAPTCHA test - select all images containing a crosswalk.
Yeah. After looking at that flickr page I can only say.....well...there are no words.
Oh he's definitely the cookey old man that shows up to a wedding with his camera and gets an aisle seat. The one sticking way out as she's coming down!!
I have seen much better photos from a monkey https://www.facebook.com/DavidJSlater/
I followed the link https://www.flickr.com/photos/peterblaise/ and I now know why he's shooting digital. For such photos, shooting film would be throwing money down the drain. Oh, btw, B&W photo isn't a color photo turned into B&W. It requires much more than this. First it requires a B&W subject. There's wonderful photos that would be s..t turned into B&W. But I was talking about wonderful photos, not that amount of 0 and 1 that I saw on his flickr page.
Wow- what a pit of negativity in the comments. This was a very nice article/essay. Thanks for sharing. EDIT: just read essay, did t access video.
In response to John Kane "... Wow- what a pit of negativity in the comments. This was a very nice article/essay. Thanks for sharing ..."
It's not negativity, it's lostness.
The author seems lost.
Hey, it's CoViD-times, maybe we're all a little lost.
Did you watch the video, or did you only read the article?
I watched the video first.
The article actually reads better than the video, at least because in written form, the presenter AND the audience are not paying attention to the "... fairly useless dog ..." or to the distracting, though more interesting, but article-wise, irrelevant woods.
It motivated me to re-order a series of books by Andreas Feininger ( I gave my originals away ), I figure those, plus re-reading Ansel-Adam's The Camera/The Negative/The Print, and re-reading A Choice of Weapons by Gordon Parks, should drench me in the black-and-white FILM photography thing once more ( everyone has their own touchstones, see also Andres Kertesz. William Eugene Smith, Vivian Maier, and endless others - tell us who connects with you ).
Plus, I have an intense and studied connection to the photographic engineers who designed my cameras, and an intimate familiarity with my camera gear - I've written "beyond the owner's manual" references, many folks on Fstoppers are well-represented in technical discussions all over the web and elsewhere - so I don't need to watch a YouTube video to remember how to load film ( though Gordon Parks had the camera-seller load film for him, so film-loading naivete is not a critique ).
- - - - -
Back at you, what did you find provocative in the ".. nice article/essay ..."?
Thanks for exploring this and sharing.
.
I have recently digitised about 30 rolls of film, most of them b/w, some in colour. About a third are 645 negatives, the rest 35mm. Some films were correctly exposed, many underexposed and some overexposed. I used the Nikon ES-2 film scanner for the 35mm films and a homemade scanner for the 645 negatives, a D800E and a Micro Nikkor 55mm f/2.8. The results were stunning. I had not expected this wide exposure latitude. It's incredible what you can get out of your (old) negatives.
That's why I can't understand why most photos in this article look so bad. The picture here is from the early 1960s. It was taken with a compact Kodak or Agfa camera and one of those tiny flash cubes (4 flashes). It's in the basement of my grandparents' house. (It's history, the grandparents and the house). You can see the relatively wide dynamic range, from the overexposed faces to the dark backgrounds.
It could have been done with the photos in this article. I agree with Charles and Peter. If you make videos and publish them, please make them stand out from the crowd of poorly made videos. They should at least contain something new and interesting, at least the photos should stand out a bit.
In response to Jan Holler [ snipped ] "... I have recently digitised about 30 rolls of film, most of them b/w, some in colour ... Nikon ES-2 film scanner ... [ and ] a homemade scanner ... [ via ] a D800E and a Micro Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 ... The results were stunning ... It could have been done with the photos in this article. I agree with Charles and Peter. If you make videos and publish them, please make them stand out from the crowd of poorly made videos. They should at least contain something new and interesting, at least the photos should stand out a bit ...".
I have the top of the Minolta line film scanner, and it takes ALL DAY to scan ONE ROLL of film to the max, I have to be there to keep the tray going in straight, I have to switch for each cut length of 4 frames to get an entire 36-frame roll, I then have 36 x 256 MB files ( ! ) to tweak.
Yeah, a 256 MB master file FOR EACH FRAME - 10 GB per roll, HUNDREDS of rolls to go.
I gave up and just propped a stack of 4x6-es in front of a mini-tripod-mounted digital camera and snap, next, snap, next, snap, next, to digitize 36 frames in about 2 minutes, where even an old 5 MP camera is happy-making.
My point, and I do have one, is that revisiting FILM IS A PAIN, a royal pain, not just an expense-per-frame compared to free-after-purchase digital, and I did not even go back into the chemical darkroom to develop my own film and print it.
A comment in the presentation of having something "solid" in silver halide that lasts just reminded me that it's so hard to use that "solid" thingy compared to a quick and portable and accessible digital file.
I thought maybe the presentation was going to compare to mom's photos, study them, and be informed as to how the camera was originally used, maybe try to recreate some images, and learn from there, compare, but that opportunity was totally missed for now.
- - - - -
Bottom line - this presentation sums up the aloneness and sadness and malaise of CoViD-times, and for that, it is a marking-point in time, hopefully, a corner, where we will someday look back and think, "... Wow, we were in a dark, dark place for a long, long time ..."
Sadly, climate-change, and collapsing democracies, bring their own darkness, so these times may be unrelenting for us, but there are dynamics if we look for them.
There are dynamics if we look for them.
Thanks, Andy and all, for exploring this and sharing.
.
"These personal photos are not good enough. Here, everyone, look at one of mine instead." 🤦🏻♂️
It is not mine, fool.
Why is subjective psychological experience invalid as subject matter?
Is there some reason subjective psychological experience must be tied to some sort of objective standard, vis-á-vis photographic output (which is still subjective)?
I thought it was a lovely article, Andy.
In response to William Murray "... Why is subjective psychological experience invalid as subject matter? Is there some reason subjective psychological experience must be tied to some sort of objective standard, vis-á-vis photographic output (which is still subjective)?
I thought it was a lovely article, Andy ..."
Agreed.
The clickbait-and-switch headline may be the culprit:
[ I Shot My First Roll of Film in 16 Years
... and the Results Almost Brought Me to Tears ]
What does anyone think the headline SHOULD have been instead?
[ Revisiting Film Photography Made Me Cry,
... NOT Because Of The Images,
... But Because The Process Is SO PAINFUL
... And Uncontrollable And Expensive ]
Does anybody else have a summary of their experience of the presentation?
Thanks for exploring this and sharing.
.
7 comments so far and no added value whatsoever, well done.
Even if you didn't like it, there is no need to be a prick about it.
In response to Matus Straka "... 7 comments so far and no added value whatsoever, well done. Even if you didn't like it, there is no need to be a prick about it ..."
I am not the topic here.
Back at ya, added value much? ;-)
Did you try masking the central object in the video to experience walking backward through the woods?
Actually, there's tons of value here, in the opening video, in the article transcript, and in the comments, if one looks for provocative gems.
As I asked before you arrived:
"... books by Andreas Feininger ,,,
... plus re-reading Ansel-Adam's The Camera/The Negative/The Print ...
... and re-reading A Choice of Weapons by Gordon Parks ...
... should drench ... in the black-and-white FILM photography thing once more ...
... everyone has their own touchstones, see also ...
... Andres Kertesz.
... William Eugene Smith,
... Vivian Maier,
... and endless others ...
... tell us who connects with you ..."
So, on whatever you think the topic subject is, tell us who connects with you.
Thanks for exploring this and sharing.
.
Peter, Andy demonstrated emotional vulneralbility, and all you have done is shit all over him.
Since you have made a very real point of claiming to be a learned subject matter expert, how about you link to your work? I expect that it is consistently world class.
I cannot express just how much I despise bullies, who hide behind computer screens.
In response to William Murray "... Peter, Andy demonstrated emotional vulneralbility, and all you have done is shit all over him. Since you have made a very real point of claiming to be a learned subject matter expert, how about you link to your work? I expect that it is consistently world class. I cannot express just how much I depise bullies, who hide behind computer screens ..."
( a ) I found value in the video, and shared how I got there ( downloading it, playing it backward with the sound off, covering the middle object, to experience a nice forward walk in the woods ). Did you watch the video, first, or at all? Did you read the article, first, or at all?
( b ) I found value in the article, noting overwhelming darkness and malaise in CoViD-times.
( c ) If anyone believes the images themselves as presented fulfill the headline, please do share.
( d ) I am not the subject of the opening topic video/article/photos. There is a conflict between the concept of the author discovering personal angst versus the audience making "world-class" presentations, if anyone cares to explore that. We can web search if anyone wants to review each other's public offerings for any reason. I am not hiding, that's my mane and my face, and I am hanging in here to maintain an open dialog, on topic, hopefully.
- - - - -
Do you experience the article images supporting the article headline?
You mention "... emotional vulnerability ...", do you feel informed and inspired in how photographic storytelling address that?
Thanks for exploring this and sharing.
.
Let's give this a crack.
Yoù have been taking photos for a very long time; you've read all the books; but you have never received the recognition you believe you are entitled to, most likely because you just aren't any good.
So, now you are old and bitter, and you try to compensate for your shattered self-esteem by demonstrating your manifest superiority on the Internet.
However, that tiny dopamine hit you get when people respond to your pathetic comments never lasts, and you are the same abject failure you have always been when you wake up in the morning.
You have nothing of value or consequence to contribute.
You hit the nail on the head.
I’m ready to lose my mind merely by seeing another comment start ‘in response to’ 😂
P.S. did you even watch that video backwards with your hand over the screen, did ya, did ya.
I hear you...
Right? lol
In response to William Murray "... Let's give this a crack. Yoù have been taking photos for a very long time; you've read all the books; but you have never received the recognition you believe you are entitled to, most likely because you just aren't any good. So, now you are old and bitter, and you try to compensate for your shattered self-esteem by demonstrating your manifest superiority on the Internet. However, that tiny dopamine hit you get when people respond to your pathetic comments never lasts, and you are the same abject failure you have always been when you wake up in the morning. You have nothing of value or consequence to contribute ..."
I am not the topic here, this is about Andy Day's video/article/photos.
- - - - -
I'll cull some criteria, perhaps critical photographic criteria, from the comment above:
- recognition
- entitlement
- good
... as processes or goals for photographic storytelling.
Or something like that.
I'm not sure how those criteria relate to Andy Day's video/article.photos, yet I'm averse by now to expect clarification.
It's not mine to explore.
- - - - -
Andy mentions his own:
- emotions
- memories
- family
- NOT flexibility
- NOT carefree instantaneity
- thoughtful, considered approach
- appreciation of how a photograph exists, a tangible thing
- a connection to a historic process
- intense feeling
- meaning
- random
- novel
- magic
Those are things we could discuss, along with our experience of the opening video, article, and photos.
For example, the thought that a film capture is a tangible thing is odd, considering that it's a latent image, defined as invisible, intangible.
But, yes, one can hold developed film, and see a physical image on it, but only after development, but before development, it's even hidden from our physical touch.
Yet what was shared are digital; images, not little pieces of tangible developed film.
And, during photographic capture, film is as latent and invisible as a digital image on a memory card ... before digital development.
Except Polaroid instant film, NOT in the discussion, yet.
And, most modern digital cameras have a presentation display for immediate review of otherwise latent images, film cameras do not, though everyone wants to hold a developing Polaroid.
And Andy suggests, "... the magic offered by silver halide. And ... that magic comes only from within me ...".
In other words, there's really nothing special about film except our baseless belief in non-existent magic.
And, as Andy concluded. "... does it matter? ..."
A way of interpreting that is to toss the entire film diversion, and get back into striving to communicate, even with ourselves, through photographic storytelling.
As others responding here suggest, yeah, the falsely misremembered non-glories of film have been revisited and re-explored ad nauseum, please stop going there.
- - - - -
Many of us have film cameras - and film - still in our possession.
Many of us have developed film archives.
However, for example, I've been digital since the 1980s, in that I've been scanning into the computer - film capture and initial development, then digital development, and presentation.
20 years later, for me, when digital capture qualities and price crossed advantageously, I went digital capture, too, and I made each additional image "free" after equipment purchase ... except for storage and printing costs ( yet, even commercial color laser 17x11" prints can be had for ~$1, so that's minimizable ).
Now, 20 years later some folks are still saying, "... Remember the magic of film? ..."
Yeah.
There was none.
It's all in our mind, non-existent, not even latent.
Yet "... Remember the magic of film? ..." threads keep cropping up perennially nevertheless.
Others suggest analogies to other antiques not worth revisiting.
I'll ask - does anyone remember having a car with hand-crank access through the bodywork to the crankshaft of the engine to start it manually with no battery, and if you remember, do you really, really miss it, and if you could go back, would you go back to a hand-crank start, and what for?
Yes, that car was magic BEFORE it was bested, and I moved on, for a reason.
Yes, film was magic BEFORE it was bested, and we moved on, for a reason.
- - - - -
Okay, that's more - thanks for the provocation, Andy, and others.
And thanks, all, for exploring this and sharing.
.
I'm old enough that I grew up shooting on film, and I thought it was magic before digital was ever on the horizon. I still shoot it for that reason. I have a good friend who restored a 1923 Model T with a handcrank, and he thinks it's magic and uses it as his daily driver when the weather is nice. Your arguments seem to mostly hinge on cost, quality, and ease of use, and that's fine, but your experience and perspective are not the same as everyone else's, and other people may not value those things in the same proportions or might value other things entirely. Your arguments also seem to hinge on your experiences and perspective being the absolute, which they're not (nor are mine, or anyone else's). Beyond that logical error, you're also being rather rude and condescending and (intentionally?) blowing past the point and spirit of the article.
Also, you don't have to say "in response to" and quote the previous message; our board is threaded for that reason.
What part of "you have nothing of value or consequence to contribute" was unclear? Did I stutter?
"I am not the topic here, this is about Andy Day's video/article/photos." no but you're the one spitting on the article and the one with a 30 pages flickr account full of something I wouldn't call photography. The only reason we can call it photography is because you made those images with a camera. If not, I'd say my cat make the same everyday in his litter.
The one saying “Thanks for exploring this and sharing” really needs to explore something else, like, explosives and share their organs when the inevitable happens. I wouldn’t mind so much if their body of work was brilliant instead of looking like being made by a drunk ten year old using a ten year old iPhone.
He would have got away with it had he mafe a single post.
Thanks William, glad you enjoyed the article. 😊
The portrait of your father is beautiful, Andy.
As an aside, you might consider an F3; I am reminded of what a joy they are to shoot whenever I pick mine up.
Thank you for sharing. Enjoyed the story and images.