Matt Wells

When I say shoot blind I mean you have to construct the image you want in you head and adjust the lighting, aperture etc etc to achieve that. You can't see it in the flesh until it has been processed. I understand tenobell's point though. The other thing I like about film is that it is so tangible. In a world where everything is becoming increasingly virtual and digital, not real, it is easy to understand why many people like something simple. OK I know the chemisty behind film technology is not necessarily that simple - but the film photographic process is so desparately simple - I could make a camera in my office with some card and matt black paint, load it in a changing bag and go and take a picture! A guy who works for me went to a sale at the weekend and saw a super8 camera for sale - £1.50. knowing my interest he bought it. I am now going to buy 1 roll of Kodachrome 40 in an effort to make a film for less than £15: budget: Camera £1.50 Film: £10 Stamp (to mail film to Kodak): 0.42p TOTAL £11.92 Matt

I think the MAIN point here is that quality is NOT the issue. I, and many others, shoot film because I like the experience of shooting film. I like it because of the challenges it represents. Some people, often people who are unfamiliar with film photography, like shooting digital because of the experience that offers. But they are two different experiences. You are either forming and manipulating your image IN the camera (especially if you shoot reversal) or you are manipulating your image, chiefly, on a computer and on the lcd screen. With film you are essentially blind and thus this is the skill and challenge which attracts me (and many others); with digital you can see everything and this does not excite me, although it may excite others, especially if you are a roving newspaper photographer. It's apples and oranges! Matt

Oh, although the commercial applications of digital are obvious, it just does not do it for me. Digital photography just seems to be a hollow experience.....where the only real challenge is composition. Anyone can compose a reasonable photo, snap it digitally and then manipulate it in photoshop. And in the end you don't have a tangible negative, but a load of 1's and 0's. I'm getting married next year - Digital phtotgraphy has been BANNED and any professional weilding a digital camera and PC has been overlooked in the quest to find my wedding photographer. An interesting aside to this is that all the professionals originating digitally seem to have the most cheesy portfolios you ever saw, whereas the pros who originate purelly on film seem to have the most taseful and, well, basically better photos. I am sure that this is because when you know each shot is costing you nothing you just snap away at anything and even if there is anything decent you have to wade through so many shots to find it. Matt

In some respects comparing digital and film photography is like apples and oranges. Both systems present different challenges and at different points. It is just that with film the photographer has to really understand light and the technology of how film works. Basically the challenges are more complex and demand greater experience to achieve a really well exposed negative. I love the challenge of film and when you get it right the rewards and excitement just gets better and better :) Matt

Oh boy, now I feel OLD... :( Yeesh, I thought slides were common enough that... oh, forget it. Just got back my first slides - I shot 1 roll of Kodachrome 200 and 1 roll of kodachrome 64. Now I understand why people like slides........Just amazing. Matt

Motion picture photography has been under fire from electronic media for years - a lot longer than still photography. I think I am right in saying that 50 years ago Variety magazine wrote "Film is dead" when the first (2 inch) video tape came out. For me I just like film - like some people like vinyl etc. matt

I have to disagree to a certain extent with Mitch - If exposed well the level of grain is really much lower than expected, especially with the 50ASA daylight from Pro8 - ideal for snow. I used some last year and was stunned by the quality. The Vision 200T is also excellent - which means the Vision2 200 should be awesome. However I would agree that 16 will always yield a higher resolution, it is just the quality achievable in S8 now means the convenience of the format in terms of small light cameras and ease of loading makes it my choice for quick off the hip work. Matt Birmingham UK

I love the look of "El Mariachi" - I love the grainy 16mm. But it depends what type of look you want. There have been some storming films made on 16mm for economy reasons. Matt

For shooting ski stuff and being new to film I would definitely go for Super8. And I would look out for super8 cameras by (in this order) Beaulieu (make sure it is well serviced and decent battery) Nizo Bauer Canon Super8 is probably easied to load film into than any other camera still or motion - and you will be thankful of this when you are kneeling down on the snow in bright sunlight changing the cartridge. For quality images in Super8 try some of the negative film stocks as sold by Pro8mm. Avoid the traditional reversal stocks (Kodachrome 40; Ektachrome 125) as these are very unforgiving to a novice, ESPECIALLY in scens of high contrast - ie. snow. ("reversal" film comes out as a normal projectable positive image when it is processed) As you will have lots of light try the 50ASA Pro8 stock. I have used this in snow and the images were amazingly good. Also as it is negative there is lots to play around with during telecine (converting the film to tape) You could also use the Vision 200T (available from both Kodak and Pro8) with some neutral density - I have just taken delivery of 10 rolls of this for my ski trip to the alpes next week!! Cant wait :) ) A lot of super8 footage seen on TV is often made to look crappy - but infact you will be able to achieve excellent quality images which have a wonderful individual look. Steer clear of Standard 8 (or double 8 as it is often known) as you have to use daylight reels like 16mm and turn them round when it has run half way through - a real fiddle and you might miss a great ski jump! Also only reversal film is available. The great thing about Super8 (and 16mm) is that the formats produce a really high quality bad image - if you can understand that - watch Once upon a time in Mexico (dir Robert Rodriguez) shot digitally - the picture is too good, and too crisp (something that can also be levelled as some 35mm work) This is just my personal taste however. Another excellent source of help with Super8 and 16mm is the forum at: http://www.filmshooting.com/ Have fun Matt Birmingham UK

I have been shooting super8 for around 5 years and recently got into 16mm. The only thing I am lacking is a decent exposure meter. I am always a bit suspicious of the one I have as it is not all that professional and has also been dropped and kicked around a lot. Does anyone have any suggestions as to good makes and models, ideally incident/reflected combined meter. I'm not bothered about the age as long as it is quick to use, and quality. Cheers Matt