Going Back To Film From M8

I stuck with pepperoni and olives. Silly to choose pepperoni over olives, or olives over pepperoni, when they make a really nice pizza together.

I also have my film and my digital. I can't imagine having the tunnel vision to dispose one in order to use the other.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
I stuck with pepperoni and olives. Silly to choose pepperoni over olives, or olives over pepperoni, when they make a really nice pizza together.

I also have my film and my digital. I can't imagine having the tunnel vision to dispose one in order to use the other.
Click to expand...


But Dave's not necessarily disposing of digital as such as he talks about it for street shooting etc with a high end point and shoot. I think very few people abandon digital totally ... I certainly never would as it certainly has a place in my needs!
 
Keith said:
But Dave's not necessarily disposing of digital as such as he talks about it for street shooting etc with a high end point and shoot. I think very few people abandon digital totally ... I certainly never would as it certainly has a place in my needs!
Click to expand...

Hmm...I thought the whole point of getting rid of the M8, as he said in his original post, was to...

dcsang said:
...say goodbye after playing with her [the M8] for 7 months - I can't say that she wasn't fun but I think I want the "slow, long, love making" of film and not the "wham bam thank you ma'am" of digital when it comes to rangefinder photography.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I like both my pepperoni and olives in my pizza; sometimes separately. Occasionally some pineapple, sometimes mushrooms.

What's important is that I have options.
 
I've started to find that "street" shooting can just as well be done with (and sometimes is more discreet with) a small P&S like the Ricoh GRD II or the Panasonic DMC-LX3 versus any M camera. That said, those are still digital - I can still garner some good shots with them and it still satisfies my "I want to see it now" lust.
Click to expand...


Personally in Dave's shoes I'd be putting the M8 on the back burner unless he is actually hell bent on getting rid of it. To me selling it instantly puts you two or three grand out of pocket and by the sounds of it he has plenty of other cameras to keep him happy.
 
Dave, one more back-goer here :D I just sold a month ago or so my 2 M8s, and I am now back to full-film when it comes to M. Actually, after re-starting a film workflow I have been adding some more film cameras as well (Mamiya 6; Super Ikonta; Olympus XA) and I couldn't be happier. Digital stays, of course, at the moment in the shape of a D3 which I use for part of my pro work (concert, low light, some studio stuff, etc).
 
Hey folks... wow.. I rarely think my ideas would render such discussion but I must say that I'm happy (and Keith, I too am happy this didn't turn into digital vs film because that's not what this is about).

I am not turning my back on digital - I would be dumb, I believe, to do so because I NEED digital to stay competitive and attain/retain jobs for my wedding and portraiture work. EVERYONE, except for the rare afficianado, asks if you provide them with a DVD of the "files" to be able to print.

Long gone are the days where photographers "retain the negatives for 3 years" - digital is far too ubiquitous and the public are aware of what they need/want and if you won't give it to them, well, let's face it, they'll go to someone who will give it to them and, likely, at a cheaper price.

Digital hasn't "killed" photography but it has made every person a potential "photographer".

That said, the reason for using film, for me, for my personal work, is exactly as I stated - I really like feeling like I'm 12-18 years old again and developing good old HP5+ or Tri-X in the dark. There's something organic about it that I can't put into words. The entire process is nostalgia for me - it's like finding that old bicycle you had as a kid. Heck, look at Citizen Kane... Rosebud... in the end.. is all that was required right? :D

I guess we all enjoy using a rangefinder (that's why we're here right?) and some enjoy using Leicas (especially those over at the Leica Forum) but who cares if it's digital (M8 / RD-1) or film other than the person behind the viewfinder. I just decided that I prefer film for the time being.

Maybe one day I'll be "good enough" in skill to use a rangefinder for a wedding - and at that point, I'll probably want to go back to digital for the ease of use but for now, I'll just use my film; do things a wee bit slower, and when I want the immediacy for street shooting I'll opt for my Ricoh GRD II or the Panasonic DMC-LX3..

Cheers and Thanks,
Dave
 
Great thread Dave!
I shot a wedding this summer using on rangefinders and film. A Hexar RF with Fuji Across 100 and a Fuji GA635 with 400 Pro H. The couple was happy with the shots and I was happy with the shots! They still go their DVD of images because I scanned the best ones, and they also have the original negs. Double backup!
I would totally get an M8 if I had nothing but money. I've had a couple of goes at using one (I can rent it at the local camera shop) and really like it, but never felt it could truly take the place of my film Ms.
In the last five years I've only shot one wedding digitally - on a Canon 20D. The image quality was fantastic, but the workflow killed me! I learned then that I don't enjoy RAW workflow and actually find it easier to scan and edit from film. I don't know if I'll shoot my next wedding on SLR or RF but it will be on film.
 
I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's a lot of people like Dave around ... who have had their honeymoon with the M8 and discovered it's not quite for them. There does appear to be a few though and that may be a problem for Leica ... there's been a lot of used M8's appearing in the classifieds lately, most with very little use. How many of them actually sold though is another question but if the second hand M8 market is a bit flush it will have to knock sales of new ones around ... for a company struggling through hard times of their own and now battling with a global recession it's not a good scenario.

I don't know how sales of the M8.2 are going but I coudn't imagine that they'd be matching sales of the first model after it's release a couple of years ago when prospective buyers were panting in anticipation and the forums were buzzing with speculation about just how good the camera would be!

Whatever anyone thinks of the M8, good or bad, it certainly won't prevent it from becoming the modern day enigma machine ... the technology that Germany almost got right ... but not quite!
 
I have an MP and an M7.

I am not a professional photographer, but my wife actually thought my photos were getting better with every roll of film. Shooting with film does hone your skills. I find that I am forced to calculate each time I release the shutter because I know I only get 1 or 2 shots per moment. This act then turns subliminal and I soon realised that I was reading the shots better as it becomes habitual.

I'd rather be a sniper than a machine gunner. I was on the M8 for a year. Then for some reason, I decided to shoot a holiday trip on film. My wife said the photos from the trip sucked. I sold the M8.

Besides, 1.33 crop cuts off so much fall off from a Noct or Lux that it takes the characteristics of these lens away.

Besides (again) I would rather shoot a true 50mm on film rather than a 35mm on the M8 to get a 50mm+- crop. Why distort your subjects?
 
As I've said recently, I too am back (partially) from digital to film, I got a nice little Bessa T 101 Heliar set. My main reason for shooting digital was /is that I shoot for internet stock and it provides a little retirement income, but . . .

Shooting for stock is not fun for me, It does give my photography "purpose" although I know that is not necessary. I use my D300 more like a film camera than a digital camera. I never "chimp". I don't bracket. I don't take endless frames of the same subject without thought or preplanning.

I don't miss the cost of film or processing. I like being able to download the images to my computer. I like the idea of the PS darkroom.

So, right now, I will shoot the T for fun and maybe think about going with film full-time. It sure feels good to have all the controls right where they should be and to figure exposure and wind the film on.

Some manufacturers have almost got a digital RF right — the Epson RD-1, the Leica M8, even the Sigma DP-1, but I don't think any manufacturer has yet nailed it. Until they do, I suppose we'll continue to be torn.
 
I have to say that I'm somewhat surprised by the number of people who have or are abandoning their M8s. It was supposed to be the best of both worlds, the film Ms and the new horizon, the digital world. I guess it wasn't all that after all, huh? After all, it was supposed to be DIFFERENT, because it'd be a REAL M camera, not just another soul-less digicam, right? But I'm seeing exactly the same reasons for leaving as with any other So-Ni-Can digital.
 
Patman said:
I think it was about 1987 when on a trip to Florida I purchased a Kodak 260 and was totally amazed at the pictures it took, when I showed them to a Girl at Disneyland at the Kodak booth she was utterly amazed and I predicted then that the demise of film was coming. So all of you going back to film better consider this, I doubt film will be around very much longer, not when high end cameras are giving better images than any film could ever match and will just get better, and the prices will too, then you will have no recourse but to play catch up. I believe this will take place in the next 5 to 10 years. Mark my words!
Click to expand...

Not sure if your post was serious, or tongue-in-cheek? Why would you think that film will be gone in just 5 years when by your own words you had great results in 1987 and here, almost 22 years later digital still hasn't killed off film?

I think that in many situations, The M8.2 or some other brand 10, 12, 16 or 20MP digital SLR is already capable of equaling a film camera's results and yet the whole process still leaves many of us with an empty feeling and sends us back to our film cameras.

It's like chasing for months, the most perfectly beautiful, girl (or guy, ladies) and finally going out with them, only to find they couldn't have an intelligent conversation. Yeah, it may be sexy and fun for a few months, but it then got tiresome.
 
I have tried to shoot more film, but when push comes to shove I find myself picking up my R-D1 or current favorite P&S digital. The only film shooting I find superior to digital imaging is medium-format, which far exceeds any digital camera I have used. But MF is heavy and slow, and I am tired and lazy, so even then I find it hard not to carry digital instead of film. I am now on a trip to Israel. I brought my new Lumix G1 and a Leica M5 with 3.5cm f3.5 ltm lens and the new Kodak Ektar 100 film. I haven't had a chance to examine the digital shots closely, but I have been so happy with the G1 and its kit 14mm-45mm lens (2x crop factor) that I have only used the M5 out of a sense of "duty". Taken maybe 1 roll of photos with it. I don't find digital shooting either empty or unsatisfying. Quite the contrary, actually. When I shoot film, I feel as if I'm a blind man in love with photography. Digital returns my vision to me.

/T
 
I've started to find that "street" shooting can just as well be done with (and sometimes is more discreet with) a small P&S like the Ricoh GRD II or the Panasonic DMC-LX3 versus any M camera. That said, those are still digital - I can still garner some good shots with them and it still satisfies my "I want to see it now" lust.
Click to expand...
Dave, i recently got back from Buenos Aires, where I was using my Rd1s and my Ricoh GRD, and there were times I thought it would be great to be just carrying the Ricoh. Looking at my street shots, I think I prefer the ones I took with the Ricoh. And as counter-RFF as it seems, one of the reasons I like the Ricoh is I found to my surprise that I like composing on the screen. That said, I was more than happy to have the Epsons, especially for night and low-light shots.

But for me there is no analog RF to go back to. Like Mick Jagger quipped when the Beatles released "Get Back," -- they have no back to get back to. I was attracted to the R-D1 because it was the closest digital equivalent in size and handling to the Olympus OM system I had been using for 30 years. I didn't have a rangefinder background. I wasn't migrating from an M system.

I don't have much nostalgia for developing film. My results were inconsistent. Furthermore, since the early nineties, I had primarily been shooting in colour. Basically binge shootings on vacation, and then darkroom rentals the rest of the year. I never figured out masks and things, and I think anyone who has dodged and burned printing colour, with the resultant colour shifts, appreciates the advantages digital colour printing provides.

I appreciate Helen's comments about batteries and sensor cleaning (funny I didn't notice how dirty my sensor was until the last day when I looked at the sky and beach shots.) But then I don't miss changing film, although I've never owned a Leica, so never had the chance to develop the baseplate in the mouth technique.

For me, it's not just the immediacy. With analog, waiting to scan or to print, because of other time commitments, I ended up having what I called "the pile." Negatives and slides I never got around to printing. One of the lies I told myself to convince myself to go digital, was that I would then have more time to go through the old ones. But of course digital leads to shooting more and more.

That said, your post has me leaning more and more to finally getting the CLAs and repairs on my Olympus bodies. While I don't see them becoming my primary cameras, I miss using them. That, I guess, is similar to your feelings about missing your manual M's for reasons that are not necessarily to tied to the question of film versus digital.

And welcome back.
 
I also got back to film after almost two years with the Leica M8, the reason for this is most importantly the look and feeling i get from film, but also for archival reasons, after working over 10 years 100% digital i have gotten a HUUUUUGGGGGEEE digital archive which is soon to be 4 TB, this is getting scarier and scarier to keep safe, and i can't imagine how this will be any better in the future, a fellow photographer friend of mine just lost 7 years of work due to a major computer error, this is scary and also why i have all of my data double up and in two different places, but i do not feel that there is ever going to be completely safe storing images digitally... (having a film/neg archive + and high res scanned images is way safer, and is the best of both worlds, since you have both a digital and a analog version)

I have not sold my M8, (and not intend to) but i rarely use it anymore, and i think there will be more and more photographers moving back to film, because of this, and the somehow static look of digital images (of course this fixable in PS, but takes up a lot of time you could have spent outside photographing...) ...after being blinded by technology for the last 10 years (i gladly admit to that) i feel what i have been looking for all this time was the same thing i was running away from in 1998...

And i do not, like others in this and other threads regarding this issue think that going this route could be the end for Leica for not being able to sell their newest digital cameras, a lot of people will of course keep shooting digital, but the others choosing film as their medium will hopefully also be able to get upgrades for their tools in the future and by doing so, sales are up and everyone is happy (i really hope they will make film Leica's for years to come, and hopefully make a M7.2 with a faster shutter, which is the only thing i miss from my M8...

I like digital and will keep shooting some of my work (bread & butter jobs) but for work with a slight importance i will use film until someone makes a camera that can produce both a digital and a film image in the same body at the same time, which probably never is going to happen... :)

Keep shooting silver and pixles... :)
 
atufte1@mac.com said:
I like digital and will keep shooting some of my work (bread & butter jobs) but for work with a slight importance i will use film until someone makes a camera that can produce both a digital and a film image in the same body at the same time, which probably never is going to happen... :)

Keep shooting silver and pixles... :)
Click to expand...

I think it is fair to say that we all work in different ways with a variety of tools both film and digital. Sometimes our "signature images" ( by this i mean ones we deem are important or ones decided by a wider public, be it commercially, market led or critical acclaim in the more aesthetic sense) ) are often made with the camera we had with us at the time, which is not always the one we most enjoy using, be it film or digital. Which is why i always aspire to the one camera, one lens theory but sadly for me with my sort of work - this just isn't practical.
 
"after working over 10 years 100% digital i have gotten a HUUUUUGGGGGEEE digital archive which is soon to be 4 TB, this is getting scarier and scarier to keep safe."

The question, though, besides any concerns about archival security, is would you have shot the equivalent of 4 TB in that same period of time if you had only had film at your disposal? Personally or professionally?
 
Fred Burton said:
"after working over 10 years 100% digital i have gotten a HUUUUUGGGGGEEE digital archive which is soon to be 4 TB, this is getting scarier and scarier to keep safe."

The question, though, besides any concerns about archival security, is would you have shot the equivalent of 4 TB in that same period of time if you had only had film at your disposal? Personally or professionally?
Click to expand...

Excellent question Fred.

Hence my initial comment regarding "clicking away with wild abandon" - digital makes it easy to think in one's head "Oh, it's ok, I can just erase it later" or "If it's not good, I'll just not process it".

Now maybe some folks actually DO shoot that much if it was film - but I know my shooting style would be cost prohibitive nowadays and I am a very light shooter - I rarely fire off many frames-per-second and instead opt for singular shots.

I wonder how others would compare their shooting style now (if they're using mainly digital) versus if they were only using film?

Cheers,
Dave
 
dcsang said:
I wonder how others would compare their shooting style now (if they're using mainly digital) versus if they were only using film?

Cheers,
Dave
Click to expand...


Dave: I shoot the same way with a digital as with film - only when i feel the moment's right. I think what has changed, at least for me, is the post production side - i make many more files from the original scanned neg or RAW file than i would make prints, in the darkroom, as its cheaper! The storage issue is a big one for me but would be enormous if i had the time to scan my entire film archive as 90% is 120 which yield huge tiff files when scanned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom