The mid 1960's

[tigerburnie]

I thought I'd carry on the conversation here as we hi-jacked the macro thread of John's and took it off topic. As well as wages and the cost of fuel it got me thinking about photography costs, I didn't have my own camera till later in the '60's, I used to borrow my Dads, which I'm sure a Kodak 35mm of some sort. Black and white film was around half a crown for 24 exposures and I remember taking it on a school trip with the railway enthusiasts club to Crewe and Mold Junction, I took this image at that time, I think it was taken in 1964.
2-1-2010_009 by tigerburnie, on Flickr

[NathCarr91]

Love it! You can really the feel the vintage with it! The aesthetics of film is probably one of the best things I love about it.

Film is insanely priced now, I still use black and white film. Can pick a roll of kentmere up for around £5 36exposure. But my last roll of colour film which was Kodak was £11.50

I'd shoot way more film if it was cheaper to do, as I do actually prefer it over digital sometimes. Just has a slower pace to it I find

[Trev B]

I can remember buying twenty-five rolls of Kodachrome 64 for a trip to The Shetland Islands and it cost me just under a £100. Every shot had to count at that price! To this day I never use burst.
Worse still was 16mm film.

[tigerburnie]

My last film camera was a Mamiya C330, with 120 roll film, I have images somewhere, I swapped it for an Opticron telescope, still got a Weston light meter somewhere in the loft.

[Bill53]

Wonderful nostalgic image Burnie, film and processing was always comparatively expensive.
My last film camera was a Bronica SQA, wish I'd kept it!

[@imagesBV]

Great photo...our modern digital images out-resolve film of those days.....but a great image.
We couldnt afford film very often...but I used my Dad's halina compact and my Mum has a Grey plastic Kodax box like camera that took 120 film.
I took a nice set of images with it in the Lakes when I was about 11 years old....sellotaped them as a concertina but unfortunately I cant find them anywhere.

I'm tempted to set up with a film camera again....but I'd want an enlarger and do my own mono prints.....dont really have time for that now but a potential retirement project.

[NathCarr91]

You're right there Brian, modern day technology really does out resolve film. Sometimes though I look at some pictures and think that it's to sharp. Like clinically clean/sharp. I think film grain is more appealing in some images.

I've managed to save a little money by scanning my own negatives at home and loading them into my computer. This probably saves around £5/6 per roll. But it's not the quickest and takes around an hour/hour half to scan a roll of 24 in, plus editing time like dust delete etc.

[Lavenderhill]

Wonderful photo, I love it. Wonder if the engine survived and is still aound and in use?

I like film cameras, using one made me think about the settings to make every image count and it is a slower way of life. I do also like my digital camera which has enabled me to take sports images and also helped with my abstract images I indulge in from time to time.

My first camera was a Kodak brownie 127 which I still have, I recall my first trip with this camera was in the 1960s to see the ship Queen Mary docked in Southampton. still have the photo.

Rose

[NathCarr91]

My first camera was a Kodak brownie 127 which I still have, I recall my first trip with this camera was in the 1960s to see the ship Queen Mary docked in Southampton. still have the photo.

Rose

Rose it's would be great to see that picture

[tigerburnie]

Pro's and con's as always, digital for wildlife shots, though I did do some macro shots in the 1980's with film. But using my medium format for landscapes, buildings etc when the subject wasn't going to fly away was a joy. I don't have the space or the inclination to process film myself and it was costly getting them done when I last did some in 2004, who knows what it would cost now.

[NathCarr91]

Pro's and con's as always, digital for wildlife shots, though I did do some macro shots in the 1980's with film. But using my medium format for landscapes, buildings etc when the subject wasn't going to fly away was a joy. I don't have the space or the inclination to process film myself and it was costly getting them done when I last did some in 2004, who knows what it would cost now.

I've always wanted to try medium format for landscapes.

Couple of guys I know still do and they love it!

Om term of cost. My last roll of 35mm I got developed which was in May this year, cost £18 for 36 exposures with developed and 7x5 prints. With just very basic amendments (dust delete & colour correction) which I assume the scanner does automatically anyway like mine.

Analogue wonderland do a variety of packages. It's £20 for colour 35mm developed with with premium TIFF scans and a professional editing package and £25 for black and white.

If you just want your negatives developed and sent back to you with no scans or photos (so you can scan yourself) it's £5 for colour and £8 for black and white.

[tigerburnie]

Always wanted a Hasselblad, keep looking at them now, not cheap are they?

[El Sid]

Wonderful photo, I love it. Wonder if the engine survived and is still aound and in use?

Rose

It looks like it may well still be around - though possibly not in steam.

Wonder if ColinW has a recent(ish) pic?

Edit
Yes he does!

[NathCarr91]

Always wanted a Hasselblad, keep looking at them now, not cheap are they?

They're really shooting up in price! I read an article a while ago that a space mission managed to retrieve a film camera that was taken on the first ever moon landing...it was a hasselblad. Something like 12 hasselblad cameras are still on the surface of the moon......I bet that put the value of the moon up a bit