Never developed film before. Need RC paper. Teacher recommended Ilford multigrade IV. Can't seem to find it at my local camera store.

In fact, I can't seem to find anything but inkjet paper. Unless, you know, that's the same thing and I am just 100% n00b

bhphotovideo.com

I will probably order from them, but I want to know what I'm looking at, and would rather buy from local pictureline. Thanks for the reference though.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ci=802&N=4288586366+4289268059+4291407242

There you go, boss. I assume you want black and white. If you need any more assistance with photo developing and printing, hit me up.

Right, I get that that is what I need. I guess my post was a little vague. I am mostly confused about the term resin coated. Is the inkjet paper just resin coated to give a printed photo a film look?

I will hit you up if I have more questions for sure!

no. the difference between true photographic paper and inkjet photographic paper is that photographic paper has a silver-gelatin emulsion on it that makes it sensitive to light, whereas inkjet photo paper is just regular paper that has been treated to accept pigment more readily with less smudgies and bleed than regular old paper.

I also can assist with photo stuff. it was my major for a while till i figured out i dont have the talent or ambition to make money out of it.

also resin coated paper is generally recommended for beginning photographers mainly because a) its cheaper than fiber, and b) its easier to work with.

That's what I figured, I didn't imagine the inkjet paper would be photosensitive at all, but I've been wrong before, and my google-fu seemed weak (no definite answer).

Thanks guys

I think they want us to use resin coated because it goes faster, and won't clog up the lab.

Fiber is a pain in the ass. You'll get into it when you get to advanced classes. Some people say it looks better, but I like the darker blacks you get with RC. It's a personal preference of mine, but you may differ.

Warning, this **** gets addictive. Just wait until you're in the darkroom burning and dodging for about 3 hours on one print. Get some photoreactive transparent paper to make that **** easier. You can overlay it on the paper you're printing on to make burning and dodging easier. There are so many ways to make awesome looking prints. Spend the money on filters and such. It's really worth it. And get good film. I was always pleased with Fuji 400.

And for christ's sake get a good lens. You need something that is 1.2f or lower. Only use prime lenses. I'd suggest getting about a 55mm 1.2. It's gonna cost you, but it's worth it. I'm a big Cannon fanboy, but the other brands are really equally as good. Light and lens is everything, man. I can't preach that enough. If the light is not there, do not take the photo.

And if you're not on a tripod, never shoot anything at less than 120. It's gonna be blurry. But I suggest getting a tripod, because the longer you expose film at a tighter aperture the more detail you're going to get. I cannot emphasize enough that this **** is addictive.

Digital will kill your love of photography, though. Don't ever get into it.

Nikon forever.

lulwut?

I understand that the dark room is a place where a lot of awesome stuff can happen, but saying digital will kill your love of photography is just dumb. He can go out and take 1000 pictures in a day and get instant feedback on each one. Digital lets you improve far more rapidly, as long as you're trying to improve.

You *****. You had to do it didn't you?

The difference in the quality of glass is amazing..... no I don't want to start a fight.

Spook, if you want your photos to looks ****ty, buy Nikon. Otherwise, buy Canon, Mamiya, or if you've got the money, Hasselblad.

This is all really null and void, to be honest. As a Marine, you should know that it's not the quality of your gear, but how you use it.

To me, digital takes all of the fun out of it. It's no longer a challenge. There's no skill involved because you can just use trial and error forever. I contend that anyone using a digital camera should have at least 2 years using film, otherwise they have no idea what they're doing as a photographer.

I wasn't even so much as fleetingly interested in photography until digital photography came along. If I had to screw around and buy all sorts of film and crap, I wouldn't do it. Hell, I don't really do much NOW. But 95% of the fun for me is using Photoshop afterwards, and I don't care if it's authentic or not, it's a passion many others share.

In addition, trial and error doesn't mean crap if you don't know what you're doing. And digital has allowed completely new methods for photography.

In short I disagree and you suck.

You realize you're kind of like the guy who advises someone that they should shell out the money for a Ferrari when they're just asking for advice on how to put a turbo on their Miata.

You realize that Cannon and Nikon cost about the same and I suggest one over the other based on personal experience? I suggested a few high priced brands if he wanted to get something really insane. Really what I suggested was that he buy something decent, and if he wanted to splurge, I pointed him in the right direction.

Comparing this to buying an automobile is insane. I'm am suggesting a product that will cost spook 500 dollars, (if that) while you are suggesting that I am trying to convince him to buy something that will cost him a thousand times more. Get a grip on reality.

I'm taking photography as part of the film AAS I am getting, so I won't be doing any advanced classes (anytime soon). I already have a Canon 60d and enjoy digital photography because I can control myself and compose my shots with the viewfinder and not check them.

Digital photography is my primary medium and I am learning film to, well, just to learn it.

Oh, and the twats just didnt list the paper on their website!

Shooting film on a Canon 650 ($50 with 28-80mm) that is almost the same age as me. Just bought a 28mm f1.8 because I like wide angle, which it will be on my film camera, while it will be a near textbook normal lens on my 1.6 crop sensor camera.

But you're right, it's all how I use them. Which is why I have no problem with digital vs analog in any art form.

I only advocate film because it's just more fun to me. It's like building a table from scratch as opposed to buying one from ikea that you assemble yourself. I find the end result to be much more satisfying and personal.

And generally speaking, the older the camera the better. With newer ones you get the crappy digital light meters, or god forbid the automatic setting that will hose you on your exposures again and again.

PROTIP: Learn the hell out of your shutter speed f stop combos. It will save you time and time again.

Antony, you're kind of weird.

I did film photography for years; and I recently switched to digital. They honestly don't feel much different to me -- it's always been about feel, not numbers, for settings; and the photo itself is about what's in my head, not what I'm using.