Yodica Andromeda 35mm Film in a Nikon F5

Stefan Wilde replied:

Comment posted: 24/10/2025

Hello Kodachromeguy, thank you for your thought provoking comment! An endless cycle of experimenting - that made me reread the post ... I usually associate an experiment with the attempt to gather experience. Experience that makes me understand a thing or process in order to be able to reproduce it more efficiently or with better results. In other words, in my book it is a part of becoming better at a craft. Yet, the article seems to challenge this idea. What if the experiment has a different focus? To me, the post suggests the intention to introduce an element of randomness into the process of photography. This will yield new perspectives on the subject of the picture which may or may not show you a different aspect. Of course if you understand how the process works you gain reliability and can be some intentional in picture taking. But you might also lose the uniqueness and newness of a process you don't control. By allowing randomness, you experiment more with your own perception of a subject than with mastery of a controlled process. Personally, I 'm in the camp of those who feel that they still need to learn to get to an intentional, technically correct and emotionally involving result. However, I sympathise with a different approach.

Stefan Wilde replied:

Comment posted: 25/10/2025

Hi Andrés, just a thought - you seem to imply that a creative process is constituted by intentionality and control. While I agree in principle, I wonder if that is not a matter of gradual difference. To use your picture, if the cat chooses to walk on the piano, the only living thing being creative is the cat - if it does so for the noise. But what if I intentionally made the cat walk on the piano? What if I could choose between a cat and a Chihuahua? What if I also could choose between a piano and a harpsichord? The question is, does creativity require a high degree of control and the exclusion of as many random influences as possible or can creativity also be intentionally letting chance happen? Again, just a thought...

Jens replied:

Comment posted: 25/10/2025

Hi Jeffery, Lovely to read your comment – and I smiled at your “why bother with trash film?” thought. Fair point! But for me, that’s actually the whole charm of it. You see, not knowing what’s on the roll when you finally get it back from the lab after a few weeks — that is the magic of analogue photography. It’s like opening a small time capsule. And when the film stock is a bit “odd” or experimental, the suspense gets even better. If someone’s after perfection, by all means, go for it. And if someone thinks it’s a waste of money — well, they’re free to save it. I’m after something else. I find interesting photos come either from digital experiments — unusual angles, new perspectives on the over-photographed — or from film that distorts colour and tone in unpredictable ways. That’s exciting! And I’m holding a tiny piece of photographic history in my hands while doing it. That’s what soothes me. It gives me a good feeling. And it sparks conversations with people who love the unusual — while the perfectionists simply shake their heads. And yes, the endless moaning about scan quality on 35mmc… I do get it — a perfectionist might find it unacceptable. But honestly, take a look at some old slides that have spent decades in a damp cellar. They all look like that — faded, blotchy, imperfect. That’s their charm. So really… what’s the fuss about? Cheers, Jens