Just shot a family vacation entirely on film

[Scuzi]

I got the film hand checked on the way out. I’m hoping the Spanish airport security staff are just as understanding.

It has been one of those once in a lifetime opportunities. Not necessarily because the destination has been anything special, but because the kids are at that age where it’s the last vacation we’ll have with them as proper kids.

I’m not sure if it was a stupid idea or not. 8x rolls of 120, 12x rolls of 135. I guess I’ll find out in a couple of weeks…

I have arranged to release equity from the house to cover development and scanning.

I do intend to update this thread with my various film photography experiences.

 

[Scuzi]

I'll be interested to see what your comments are once you're there with Spanish Secruty. I'll be in Spain next month and I'm in two minds on whether or not to take the film cameras or just stick with the digital instead.

I flew out of Bristol. I walked up to the lady at security with a ziploc bag full of film and said “this is photographic film, can you plea….”
She interrupted me and said “I know what it is and I’d be happy to swab it”. Wonderful!
I think they have CT scanners at Palma which can do a number on film, so I’m really hoping they don’t force it through. Either way I’m sure there will be some results out of the 550-odd frames. Or my experiment will go spectacularly wrong and I’ll have to make do with a handful of the wife’s iPhone photos.

Film stock used included:
Kodak Gold 200, 120 & 135.
Cinestill 50D 120
Portra 400 120
Lomo 800 120
Cinestill 800 135
Wolfen NC500 135
Kodak Ultramax 135
Harman Phoenix 135
Flic Film Elektra 100 (Re-spooled Kodak Aerocolor) 135.

Also bought a couple of these locally and gave them to the kids. Can’t wait to see what comes out!

 

[Scuzi]

Coming back through Palma wasn’t as easy as the first leg of the journey. I asked the lady at security who was lovely and very understanding but said she needed her supervisor’s approval. After a minute, he waddled over with a face like thunder, bag of film in his hand, and said “I put this in X-ray or I put it in the bin”. . I asked him to explain and he motioned towards the bin so I reluctantly agreed to having it scanned. It’ll probably be okay with minimal to no impact as it wasn’t a CT scanner, and most of it was ISO 400 or lower.

 

[Scuzi]

Lol and you'll have to digitise them to show us!

I like film, it really makes you think about each shot before you press the shutter.

I’ll show you all some of the less personal ones, but most of the shots are of my kids as I document their lives, and I choose not to share those. That’s something that is alien to a lot of photographers I speak to. They cannot understand the concept of putting so much effort into it only to not share most of it. I used to be crushed if I took photos that the internet didn’t like, and was always confused by the dissonance of really loving a photo that everyone else thought was rubbish. But I guess I’ve grown out of that over time.

I’ve just reread that paragraph and realised it comes off a bit cocky and pretentious but I assure you that wasn’t my intention! Just sharing my own personal journey.

Regarding film making you think - absolutely. My success rate per shot was always better with film when compared to digital. I did fall into a “spray and pray” method of operating on digital with the various automatic bracketing and continuous shooting modes, and would find that whilst I would end up with hundreds of frames, quite a few of which were technically good, they rarely evoked any sort of feeling or emotion for me. With film, I get that evocative effect with a much higher percentage of the photos, despite many of them not being as technically accurate or as sharp as the digital versions. I attribute this to a greater degree of thought being put into each shot through necessity (and cost sensitivity!) which by some inexplicable means, seems to add value. And somehow, that effect does transfer when the negatives are digitised with a decent lab scanner. It must be in the realms of possibility to produce a sensor which replicates this.

Looking at cost, the 20 rolls of film came to around £250-300. Processing with high-res scans was £210. So probably around £500 before I hand pick a select few to have printed from the negatives in a darkroom. At around £1 a shot, that’s obscene (certainly from my wife’s perspective), but if end up with as little as say 20 shots out of the 500+ taken that are truly excellent (at least in my eyes) and capture those given moments in a way that I just couldn’t with digital, and we have those to look back upon for the rest of our lives, then for me it’s £500 well spent.

I’ll go through some of my film photos to see if there are any I can share here to try to exemplify what I’m not articulating very well.

 

[Scuzi]

It's really not that big a real running film through scanners, not hand luggage ones anyway. Used to do it all the time, although I rarely shoot film now.

£500 seems pretty insane, in reality you aren't going to capture anything digital wouldn't, so don't try and justify it that way It's just an interesting project, which is cool!

I still shoot a roll through my hand-me-down Nikon EM from time to time, as I have a draw full of film that is years out of date to get through.

Yeah, if I had a load of Ilford Delta 3200 I think I might be properly worried, but I’m fairly relaxed about one pass through a scanner. Just thought it was worth avoiding if at all possible given the financial sink.

I disagree slightly about not capturing anything digital wouldn’t. I find a much higher hit rate for technically good shots with digital, but a much lower hit rate of shots I genuinely love and connect with. Perhaps it’s a load of old romantic nonsense, but I’ll happily take that if the shots move me!

One thing I cannot replicate on digital, even with a Fuji XTrans, and with a lot of processing, is the subtle roll off from mid tones into highlights that many film stocks offer. With the power of software nowadays it surely must be possible to replicate, but I have yet to find a convincing method.

Then there is the medium format “look”, especially on the 6x7 negatives. I don’t know if this translates to the MF class digital sensors, although I haven’t seen it all that prevalent in GFX shots. It’s a moot point though because I cannot afford a medium format digital camera. Well, I can, but I’d have to make other sacrifices.

 

[Scuzi]

The scans are back. After a few tweaks, mostly gamma correction and some crops as I didn't want to interfere with the original look too much, I can share the following with you. Most of my favourite shots include the kids which I don't want to share widely, but I'm happy with how these which I can share turned out. There don't appear to be any ill effects from the x-ray scan.

Cinestill 50D 120, Bronica ETRS, Zenzanon 75mm f/2.8

Cinestill 800T, Minolta X-300, MD 50mm f/1.7

Flic Film Elektra 100 (Re-spooled Kodak Aerocolor IV), Minolta X-300, MD 50mm f/1.7

 

[Scuzi]

Kodak Gold 200 35mm, Minolta X-300, MD 50mm f/1.7

Kodak Gold 200 120, Bronica ETRS, Zenzanon 75mm f/2.8

Lomography Lomo Color Negative 800, Bronica ETRS, Zenzanon 75mm f/2.8

Kodak Portra 400, Bronica ETRS, Zenzanon 75mm f/2.8

 

[Scuzi]

Kodak Ultramax 400 35mm, Minolta X-300, MD 50mm f/1.7

Swisspro disposable underwater camera (ISO400 Kodak film I believe...)

Wolfen Color NC500, Minolta X-300, MD 50mm f/1.7

 

[Scuzi]

Would I do it again? Sort of. I think I'd shoot more of a hybrid. It was bloody expensive but I got some images I'm extremely happy with that I don't think I would have been able to achieve with digital. However, I did miss a lot of shots which I probably could have got with an autofocus digital camera. It was an interesting project nevertheless and I learned a lot about photography and what I want from it.

Main observations:

• Kodak Gold 200 in 35mm is vastly different to the 120 stock. The medium format film appears to be completely different and much better overall. The 35mm stock is okay but I prefer Ultramax 400.
• Ultramax 400 is my favourite 35mm film. The colour and contrast mix it offers is fantastic for this type of environment. For me, it blows a lot of much more expensive film away.
• In 120 format I really like Kodak Gold, but was pleasantly surprised by Lomo 800. Cinestill 50D was great for the location but even in harsh sunlight, I was having to be careful with the shutter speeds.
• Wolfen NC500 is crap unless you want the extremely low saturation, low contrast, low sharpness, high grain look. It looks similar to Lomo Metropolis.
• Flic Elektra as re-spooled Kodak Aerocolor IV offers a really interesting colour profile with strong reds. It's sharp and has low-grain. I really like the look it offers.

 

[Scuzi]

In the interests of documenting this journey, I have a couple of updates.

I came across a Minolta X-700 in the local charity shop. It looks like it was bought and never left the box. Absolutely spotless with a beautiful Rokkor 50mm f/1.7. £70 which is a steal. Paired it up with the Minolta Auto 280 flash.

Put up a shelf to keep them out of dark boxes.

I also just bought some expired film.

20x 35mm Fuji Superia X-tra 800. Expired 2007. I’m going to sell some of this if anyone is interested.

5x Fuji Pro 400H. Expired 2014.

5x 220 (20 shots [6x7], 24 shots [6x6], 30 shots [6x4.5] per roll) Kodak Portra 400 Vivid Color. Expired 2003.

To top it all off, I ruined a full roll of shots (36exp Gold 200) by forgetting it was still in the camera having not been rewound and opening the back. The earlier shots on the roll might still be okay but we’ll see.

 

[Scuzi]

Waw, love the shots you took! Look superb!

Thank you! I’ll continue to share what I can as I get rolls processed. I have 4 rolls to go to the lab next week so hopefully some keepers from that.

 

[Scuzi]

The lab sent back the latest batch. Nothing too interesting in this lot except a couple of the kids and the dog which I’m pretty happy with, but I did test out a roll of the Fuji Superia 800 and the Kodak Portra 400VC to see how they held up considering how expired they are. I was pleasantly surprised with the Fuji, less so with the Kodak but it’s good enough for something I’m sure.

Exposure tests:

Fuji Superia Xtra 800, expired 2007 and stored in an under stairs closet since. Not refrigerated.
Shot with a Minolta X-700, Rokkor 50mm f/1.7.
Quite pleased with this, especially as I have another 19 rolls! It has a cyan cast in some lights, and needs 2-3 stops more light to get the best from it, which is still a useable speed. It responds well to flash too. I expected much more grain, but the properly exposed shots have similar or less grain than Kodak Gold 200 in 35mm for example.

Box speed (ISO 800)

+1 stop (ISO 400)

+2 stops (ISO 200)

+3 stops (ISO 100)

Some random examples metered at +2 stops (ISO 200)…

Kodak Portra 400 VC 220, expired 2003. As above, stored in an under stairs closet since around 2002 and not refrigerated.
Shot with Mamiya RB67 Pro S, Sekor C 180mm.
I didn’t bother to expose at 400 because it would have been predictably bad. It’s overall a bit flat, which isn’t surprising considering it’s over 20 years expired. It really needs +3 stops to get the most out of it so it’ll be of limited use outside a studio setting until the brighter days come back.


+1 stop (ISO 200)

+2 stops (ISO 100)

+3 stops (ISO 50)

Out in the wild, metered at ISO 100

And finally, some random shots using Kodak Gold 200 on the RB67, it’s awesome for £7 a roll in 120 format!