Can you shoot wildlife using film? Well the obvious answer is yes. People took wildlife photos using film for a lot longer than they have using digital. Cherry Kearton (1871-1927) and his brother Richard (1862-1928) the naturalist and writer were very early pioneers of wildlife photography and they published the first natural history book entirely illustrated with wild photographs in 1895. Their 1898 book “With Nature And A Camera: being the adventures of a field naturalist and an animal photographer” illustrated with 160 photos was a best seller and inspired many people to become wildlife photographers. Other notable wildlife photographers from the film days include Eric Hoskins, Stephen Dalton and Heather Angel. “Hold on” I hear you say “they shot film because that was what available”. It’s a valid point, so can you shoot wildlife on film in 2024? The answer is yes, but it’s not as simple as it once was.

 

 

Back in the 1990’s and early 2000’s there were a lot of high speed film emulsions. Kodak had Ektar 1000 in colour negative, Ektachrome 400 slide film which could be pushed to 1600 ISO and TMax  P3200 in black and white. Ilford had its Delta 3200 black and white emulsion. Fuji had Fujicolour 1600 colour negative film, FujiChrome Provia 1600 which was a colour reversal film and Neopan 1600 Professional black and white film. Agfa (there’s a blast from the past) had a couple of 1000 ISO C41 film stocks and a 1000 ISO slide film. 3M made an E6 1000 ISO film which was sold under several trade names. Sakura, later Konica, had a 3200 ISO colour negative emulsion. Now in 2024 the situation is very different.There are no E6 films, only 2 colour negative films, but they are 800 ISO, and two black and white emulsions nominally rated at 3200. Camera and lens wise, well the secondhand market is your friend and top of the line cameras such as Nikon’s F4 or F5 can be picked up quite cheaply (although that is a relative term) as can Canon’s EOS1. Lenses aren’t difficult to come by, but their prices haven’t dropped like those of the camera bodies as they can still be used on DSLRs.

 

 

 

The parameters I set for myself with this project was that I had to use stuff that I already had, so while there are camera bodies more suited to shooting wildlife that have better autofocus and higher frame rates I stuck with my Canon EOS 30. Lens wise my Sigma 160-600 was the obvious choice. I did briefly think about using my Olympus OM cameras, but I didn’t have a suitable lens and I didn’t want to have to hunt around for a good copy of the hard to find Olympus OM 600 mm f/6.5. Also I didn’t fancy trying to find focus with my ageing eyes. So the Canon and Sigma combination won out.

The elephant in the room is the cost of film and developing. This is the major consideration. The following prices are for Australia as this is where I live. Kodak Portra 800 is $37 for 36 exp, Ilford Delta 3200 is $18, Kodak TMAX P3200 is $30, and Lomo 800 can cost as much as $48 for a single roll, but multipacks of 3 36 exp rolls can be bought for $140. The cost of processing is $10 for C41 and $18 for D76 (black and white). Those prices are for developing and cutting and sleeving. Now my Canon EOS 30 can shoot at 4 frames per second, so machine gunning birds in flight would see you get through a roll every 9 seconds at a cost of more than $1 per shot. Typically when I go out in the morning for three hours or so I’ll shoot around 3-4000 frames with my digital cameras so when I decided to undertake this project I decided that I’d only shoot a maximum of two rolls on an outing. Using my Canon EOS 30 meant that after finishing the film I could switch the body to my Canon 80d so I could make the most of the morning. I know that by developing your own film you can reduce the costs, and I’m hoping to do this in the future.

All the photos below are the full frame, and you can look at them larger by clicking on the image.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So after a few months what can I say? Well the first thing that really stuck out was the grain. Many photographers complain bitterly about noise in images, but that ain’t got nothing on the grain in these fast emulsions. Funnily enough I wasn’t too bothered with it in the black and white shots on Ilford Delta 3200 as I quite like the look. I had a Tri-X 400 pushed 2 stops developed in Rodinol phase many years ago which might explain that foible. The shots taken on Kodak Portra 800 were a bit different. I suppose I’d just become used to noise free images up to 1600 ISO on my digital cameras. Having said that I’ve got used to it and I quite like the results.

 

 

 

 

 

Digitising the negatives was an interesting experience. To keep costs down I scanned the images myself using a DSLR and a macro lens. The learning curve has been a bit on the steep side, especially for the colour negatives, and I’m still not sure whether I’m happy with the results or not. If I were to continue with this, and I think at this stage I will, I’ll probably get a dedicated film scanner. The reason being that while scanning using a camera was quite quick, about 1/2 an hour for a roll of 36, it was the faffing around in Lightroom and Photoshop that took a lot more time.

Was I happy with the final results? Yes. I think that it is an interesting exercise as it makes you really think. Firstly which film stock to use. The Ilford Delta 3200 is great for low light and misty atmospheric conditions. It’s not a film to use if getting the maximum feather detail is your aim. The Kodak Portra 800 is best suited to brighter conditions with a nice light. When shooting digital I use shutter priority and and auto ISO which means I can just concentrate on the composition. With film the ISO is not a variable, once you’ve loaded the film and start using it at that ISO you’re committed to that for the whole roll. The net result is that I have to be very aware of what my exposure is all the time. This is not a bad thing as it makes me more engaged with whole picture taking process. Were there any downsides beside the expense? Yes. I found that using film made me be a lot more conservative in my photos. I was not so inclined to experiment. Shooting birds in flight I’d only take 2 or 3 frames, whereas on digital I’d think nothing of taking 20 or 30 frames as I’d want to be sure of getting the wings in the perfect position. I’ve just become accustomed to subject tracking and have become quite reliant on it. Going back to an autofocus system developed in the 1990’s was a bit of a shock. It wasn’t as positive or sticky which meant there were a lot of out of focus pictures. I missed having a histogram in my viewfinder and the lack of instant feedback of the LCD screen. This meant I had to remember how much exposure compensation to give for a black bird on a very dark background or a backlit white egret. Having to wait a couple of weeks for the films to come back from the lab was a lesson in deferred gratification.

Would I give up digital and convert solely to film? Is my name Rothschild? No. I don’t see it as a binary choice. In many ways digital is a better medium for wildlife photography. It gives you more freedom – you can shoot in incredibly low light and you don’t have the feeling a meter is running as you take photos. Film does have its place as a creative alternative, if you are after a specific look or mood then it is ideal.