I Shot My First Roll of Film in 16 Years and the Results Almost Brought Me to Tears

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.

One image that stands out from my first roll on the Trip is this view across this field of sheep on the outskirts of Brighton, the sea on the horizon. It’s a poorly exposed shot and a relatively underwhelming scene but it cuts me to the core. I took this while waiting for a taxi, having just walked a mile to a more convenient pick-up point to try to avoid a queue of traffic, on my way to the funeral of a close friend that had died suddenly from heart failure. I probably wouldn’t have taken this photo — even as a snap on my phone — if not for the Trip in my pocket. Having this photograph on film makes it feel more like something. I don’t know what that something is, exactly — a strange mixture of emotions — but I feel it more intensely. Knowing that there’s a small strip of plastic that holds this image, that keeps a piece of that day, perhaps makes me invest in this memory deeper than I would have otherwise.

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?

Andy Day's picture

Andy Day is a British photographer and writer living in France. He began photographing parkour in 2003 and has been doing weird things in the city and elsewhere ever since. He's addicted to climbing and owns a fairly useless dog. He has an MA in Sociology & Photography which often makes him ponder what all of this really means.

Log in or register to post comments
80 Comments
Previous comments

I went to inordinate trouble to register for this site simply because the level of negativity for this charming and well produced article seems over bearing.I felt compelled to comment. I shoot digital. All day long. Every day. But what makes me happiest, is scan day. That is the day the lab i use in Alabama sends me back the scans of the handful of rolls of film i have managed to shoot outside of my day job. These Are a visceral experience. They are of varying degrees of sharpness and exposure, the images are meditative and meticulously executed, counted carefully by the frame. They are grainy. They are everything that digital is not. And that is the point.
Shooting digital, one only thinks in terms of post production. Shooting film, is the existential experience of story telling. Yes there is post production involved, but not from the outset.
To so heavy handedly lambast this article is short sighted and selfish. Image making is about the narrative, it is the emoting one puts into the image, and that warm and fuzzy feeling when one sees the result. Film heightens that experience for people who find themselves bored with gigabytes of perfect captures.
Film is expensive. No denying that.
But finding a lab whom processes and scans your film well is a treasure that will bring countless smiles to even the most "curmudgeonous" commenter on here. Cheers. Thanks for the great article and video.

Well said. Thanks for taking the time to register and comment. Your words ring very true for myself and a lot of other folks as well. I shoot digital for all client work, but in my own time, and as my hobby, I really enjoy the tactile qualities that film has. I also enjoyed reading Andy's article and totally get where he's coming from. Ignore the nay-sayers, they will always find a way to critique what others think/enjoy/believe.

Thanks Steve! Fortunately, I've been around long enough to know how to ignore the weird anger and negativity that can appear after sharing thoughts and work online. The overwhelming majority of responses to this article have been positive and it's been fantastic to hear other people's experiences. 😊

Thank you for taking the effort, Richard.

Richard,

Thanks for taking the time and thanks for sharing your experiences and thoughts. Very much appreciated. I wish you many happy scan days. 😊🙏🏻

I shot film, then processed it in the basement of my parent's house way back when; "no thanks" to ever doing that again. But to each his own. I guess some folks like to tinker with and drive Model T Fords too. Whenever I see the mention by film photographers that it makes them slow down and be more deliberative, it occurs to me it would be easier, and a whole lot cheaper to grab a DSLR with a OVF, find a 256MB SD card, tape over the back screen, install an almost fully-drained battery, and then go out and shoot 12 or 24 images. You can wait a week or two to look at them batch edited through one of those film-grain effect Instagram filters. Problem solved.

Exactly right sir. I have used film most of my life, but also do digital. Each has its place. Good point on taping over the back screen, installing an almost fully-drained battery and then shoot 12 or 24 images. I also just make quality scans of the slides and then can do whatever later in the computer. Let each person do what is comfortable and pleasing to them. Thank you.

What is the problem with most of the commenters here. Rambling negativity about who knows what. If someone else has found a modicum of happiness in a process, a piece of equipment, a style, or any other act, process, or device why do YOU care? Are all of you really that freaking miserable that you have to try and p!$$ all over their happiness? What the heck is wrong with YOU people?! What a miserable bunch of worthless crybabies. It's too expensive, it's too difficult, then shut up and DON'T DO IT. No one is making you. If you're so miserable that you can't stand someone else enjoying something, just stop being a photographer and go somewhere else. Leave the people that have found something they enjoy alone. Wow....

In response to Douglas Liebig "... What is the problem with most of the commenters here. Rambling negativity about who knows what. If someone else has found a modicum of happiness in a process, a piece of equipment, a style, or any other act, process, or device why do YOU care? Are all of you really that freaking miserable that you have to try and p!$$ all over their happiness? What the heck is wrong with YOU people?! What a miserable bunch of worthless crybabies. It's too expensive, it's too difficult, then shut up and DON'T DO IT. No one is making you. If you're so miserable that you can't stand someone else enjoying something, just stop being a photographer and go somewhere else. Leave the people that have found something they enjoy alone ..."

Good point.

In context, Fstoppers, PetaPixel, and others sites, have had some non-articles that ONLY contained a YouTube video, unrelated to the author of an otherwise empty non-article.

Thinking this was another of those teasers, I watch the video, and responded to the video BEFORE reading the article.

The article seems to be a transcript of the words in the video, the video seems to be a thought-stream that was transcribed into the article, and the video is essentially a throw-away, and probably should NOT have been included here, it is visually totally unrelated to the process and pictures shared in the article ( in the video, the viewing audience walks backward through the woods watching someone think out loud while walking their dog ).

Discussing - and critiquing - the presentation:
- video
- article
- photos
... is legitimate.

No one is saying "... Don't enjoy film photography ..."

But there was no "... happiness ..." - re-read the article.

Even the author seems to be stuck on what happened here:
- images captured and not immediately reviewed,
- just like their iPhone could have done, which they complained about,
- then shared here as digital images,
- just like their iPhone could have done, which they complained about.

The negativity, so to speak, is divisible into a handful of categories:
- response to headline clickbait-and-switch
- a video unrelated to the headline,
- images that are not illustrative on their own of anything special,
- images that could have been direct and or manipulations of digital capture anyway ( wanna discuss the author's negativity, so to speak, about their iPhone ? ),
- commenters sniping at each other rather than responding to the opening video/article/photos.

Including, ahem ...

Try again?

Just because I'd like to know people's experience of the video/article/photos does not mean folks will go there.

If "... happiness ..." is what you got, then "... happiness ..." is what you got.

Thanks for exploring this and sharing.
.

In response to “waffle”

If the website is giving you such a negative experience, why don’t you just log out, and not log back in…. Believe me that would be the best outcome for all.

You know what? You should try photography. I'm saying photography, not what I saw on your flickr account.

Don't mind me just logging in for the first time in forever to downvote Peter Blaise's comments.

👊🏻☺️

There's some absolute crackers in here, Peter. You really haven't improved over the years, have you?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/peterblaise/

Yep. These guys that are most critical or try too hard to act like know-it-all's often fall into this category.

Peter is one of the worst examples I've seen in a long time. It feels like he needs to seek help.

I don’t normally involve myself in speaking about others work (unless it’s invisible, then I’ll bite) but guys like him really need to wind their necks in with the arrogance, it only ends in tears.

Back in the day, I was brutal; these days, I make a real effort to be nice to people, and like you, I generally don't say anything negative about someone's work.

However, occasionally someone is particularly deserving; and this fool decided he wanted to respond to my comment, and then doubled down.

A few cans short of a 6 pack is my guess after reading some of those rants, either that or on a serious wind up, who knows.

His dismissive negativity about the article and video was just uncalled for though, of all the articles on here to go in on, this wasn’t it.

Yeah, it was just over the top. Not cool at all.

You say in the video that there is no light meter, that isn't correct though the meter may not work if the selenium cell hasn't always been covered which may result in it failing.
You also describe it as classic 1980s which again is a bit off the mark as the camera dates from the 60s and apart from the shutter button colour remained unchanged in design until it was discontinued in 1984.

Nitpicking aside, they are deserving of their reputation as classic cameras, I was given my first by my parents as a 10-year-old in 1972, bought new so I could take pictures on my first time away from home, a school trip to the Isle of man.
I no longer have the photos I took back then, they were probably terrible and found their way to a bin, but I do have the camera which works as well today as it did back then and has over the years been joined by several others, it's one of those cameras you see in a charity shop and just have to buy, working or not.

Without digging through my archives I don't have any example shots to hand though I did find this one-shot during Fashion Week in Paris, I used to shoot a lot of the stuff outside shows on a trip as it was far easier than pulling out the cameras I used for runway and the like.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CSuaUKfMnix/

Thanks Johnny!

After reading all these comments...well many of them, too many became redundant....I forgot what the article was about.
Oh...and by the way...to the individual in the spotlight - they do make salves and creams for those hemerroids. Just make sure your butty applies it deeply and correctly. Surgery is also an option.

The photo of your father is wonderful. Thank you for sharing it, and the story of your foray back to the analog world.

The shot of your dad is perfect Andy. Love those in the moment daily life photos.

It is nice to see he enjoyed taking film photos again. That is good for guy in the video.

If I never see an roll of film again in my life that will be just fine. Not all of us miss film. :)

It's great that some photographers can find joy or fulfillment in shooting film, or in otherwise using older methods or gear with which to take and produce photos.

However, if I went out and shot wildlife with film, I think that when I saw the results, I would be brought to tears, too.

Very thankful to have modern digital gear that is capable of producing high quality marketable images in all kinds of less-than-ideal conditions.

I've only just realised film is an alternate process, even if photographers haven't worked that out yet.

I look at all the people saying "I used film, and you wouldn't catch me going back to that, and therefore film is garbage". But then I look at Michael Kenna, who still shoots film, and who is one of the most imitated photographers around.

I look at Marc Adamus, who is probably more imitated than Kenna; it's spectacular, but it leaves me cold. Likewise, I was shooting in a rainforest the other day, and the images are nice enough, but I've done them, and seen them done to death.

The question ultimately comes back to questions of art; these processes - all of them (digital; film; pinhole; wet plate; camera obscura; tin type; etc) - are just tools in fulfilling the artist's vision.

I only shoot film. No reason to change. I have no interest in digital. And when I look at digital photos, I know why. I use digital for work: shooting paintings from artists, making books about their work, invitation cards for art galleries... with these photos.
I remember here someone telling me "Can you imagine a Hubble or a Cassini or a Mars rover equipped with film cameras!?" as if he was working with Hubble, Cassini or a Mars rover. That was and still is a bad argument to try to say that film photo isn't good, like when he was saying that film photography is from the 19th and 20th century. That last one was his best joke. Attached is a photo "from the 19th century" shot with Mamiya C330 on Foma 100.

Crying? Dying? Screaming?

Thanks for the click bait headline.

You can do better.