HLing
Well-known
"... I've had the camera 3 days and have fallen in love, however my brain kicked in and:
Film cost = £4 average per roll.
Dev = £2.50 average.
Scanner = £300 for an average one.
Quality of £300 scanner = not as good as a good digital camera.
So each shot costs me roughly 18 pence and will not give me the same quality as a good digital...."
Money can't buy you love...
"... True, I have greats negs, but I'll never have a darkroom...."
Great negs tend to attract darkrooms....besides, if you went digital and then a darkroom became available...it would be :bang:
Film cost = £4 average per roll.
Dev = £2.50 average.
Scanner = £300 for an average one.
Quality of £300 scanner = not as good as a good digital camera.
So each shot costs me roughly 18 pence and will not give me the same quality as a good digital...."
Money can't buy you love...
"... True, I have greats negs, but I'll never have a darkroom...."
Great negs tend to attract darkrooms....besides, if you went digital and then a darkroom became available...it would be :bang:
_larky
Well-known
I've decided to do both.
For me, the use of film is an aid to learning photography again. The delay in gaining access to the images I think gives me a more objective view of them. Also, the fact that they will never be as tack sharp, or void of dust and scratches because my processing technique is so lazy, simply means the image itself has to be much stronger.
The use of a fully manual film camera is very different to using the X100 fully manual. That makes no real sense until you try it, and maybe it's just me. Having 36 exposure instead of 580+ per trip slows me down, it makes me think much harder. Although I feel I need to loosen up on some cheap films first.
I'll never be pro, this is a hobby. I do hope to someday have a show and sell some pieces, and at the end of my year with the X100 I will be having a small book made, but that's for myself only I think.
I worried about the cost, but really I have digital to go nuts with at lunchtime, and film to take care over and enjoy for the entire process, from loading to scanning. Slowing down means you take more time, you edit more as it can take hours to get a good scan.
I feel I have answered my own questions.
For me, the use of film is an aid to learning photography again. The delay in gaining access to the images I think gives me a more objective view of them. Also, the fact that they will never be as tack sharp, or void of dust and scratches because my processing technique is so lazy, simply means the image itself has to be much stronger.
The use of a fully manual film camera is very different to using the X100 fully manual. That makes no real sense until you try it, and maybe it's just me. Having 36 exposure instead of 580+ per trip slows me down, it makes me think much harder. Although I feel I need to loosen up on some cheap films first.
I'll never be pro, this is a hobby. I do hope to someday have a show and sell some pieces, and at the end of my year with the X100 I will be having a small book made, but that's for myself only I think.
I worried about the cost, but really I have digital to go nuts with at lunchtime, and film to take care over and enjoy for the entire process, from loading to scanning. Slowing down means you take more time, you edit more as it can take hours to get a good scan.
I feel I have answered my own questions.
alistair.o
Well-known
...I feel I have answered my own questions.
Agreed. If it were about money then digital is cheaper everytime but it not about money. It is all about two experiences, both giving pleasure.
Look forward to those books (plural)
Have fun
btgc
Veteran
If that would be only about money, people would only drink instant coffee, eat semifabricates processed in microwave oven and wear jeans as low cost solution.
Look at bulk rolls for B&W and process it yourself. That cuts costs and adds flexibility.
Look at bulk rolls for B&W and process it yourself. That cuts costs and adds flexibility.
ped
Small brown dog
If I hadn't found out how to process my own film I don't know if I would do it any more. It's a simple thing to do and a very satisfying part of the process. Issues like dust and water marks are easy to avoid when you have practiced a bit. I used to have terrible probs with water marks and nearly packed it in, before I workled on a brill final rinse method.
I have the same thoughts, but I have narrowed it down to two bodies and two lenses, one digital and one film. My own personal stuff I always use film if I have the right stuff loaded. More disposable stuff I tend to use digital, especially if it's for someone else.
I don't know weather it's the extra effort it takes, but I look at my film prints as having far more depth than my digital, usually. All my shots from film (and a few faves from digital) go into a lovely leather book which I constantly update with my favourite pictures. It's no coincidence that the majority were shot on film. Even totally gear ignorant friends have commented that the pictures look 'more 3D' etc.
However for colour shots, I always use digital.
I have the same thoughts, but I have narrowed it down to two bodies and two lenses, one digital and one film. My own personal stuff I always use film if I have the right stuff loaded. More disposable stuff I tend to use digital, especially if it's for someone else.
I don't know weather it's the extra effort it takes, but I look at my film prints as having far more depth than my digital, usually. All my shots from film (and a few faves from digital) go into a lovely leather book which I constantly update with my favourite pictures. It's no coincidence that the majority were shot on film. Even totally gear ignorant friends have commented that the pictures look 'more 3D' etc.
However for colour shots, I always use digital.
rogerzilla
Well-known
My maths:
Full frame body that can take my Leica lenses (well, some of them) - 5000 GBP.
An M2 and M3 body - 1000 GBP
4000 GBP is an metric shedload of film and processing. It would keep me going for 20 years, during which time that M9 body would probably have been replaced three times.
I can't cope with a crop factor; I like my 21mm lens to be a 21mm lens. Actually, if film vanished tomorrow, I'd join the masses and go back to horrible SLR kit like a Nikon D700, because new Leica is just too expensive.
Full frame body that can take my Leica lenses (well, some of them) - 5000 GBP.
An M2 and M3 body - 1000 GBP
4000 GBP is an metric shedload of film and processing. It would keep me going for 20 years, during which time that M9 body would probably have been replaced three times.
I can't cope with a crop factor; I like my 21mm lens to be a 21mm lens. Actually, if film vanished tomorrow, I'd join the masses and go back to horrible SLR kit like a Nikon D700, because new Leica is just too expensive.
Last edited:
Archiver
Veteran
From a digital shooter's perspective, it goes the other way.
I already have a computer and I am happy with its performance. All I need is to buy the occasional 2TB harddrive to back up my files.
So USD$7000 buys me a M9. The M9 will last for at least five years, hopefully more. In that time I can take as many photos as I can press the shutter button, within reason.
On a trip to Japan, I took at least 350 images per day with the M9. That's close to ten rolls of film a day in all ISO ranges, and it gave me a complete photographic record of the trip.
I can't even begin to think of what that would have cost me had I shot film in that volume, especially if shooting Reala, Ektar and Pro400H as I enjoy. And then there's the issue of development vs. automated digital raw processing.
I already have a computer and I am happy with its performance. All I need is to buy the occasional 2TB harddrive to back up my files.
So USD$7000 buys me a M9. The M9 will last for at least five years, hopefully more. In that time I can take as many photos as I can press the shutter button, within reason.
On a trip to Japan, I took at least 350 images per day with the M9. That's close to ten rolls of film a day in all ISO ranges, and it gave me a complete photographic record of the trip.
I can't even begin to think of what that would have cost me had I shot film in that volume, especially if shooting Reala, Ektar and Pro400H as I enjoy. And then there's the issue of development vs. automated digital raw processing.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
So do I. Well, several, actually. My wife and I are still using maybe half a dozen of the 20 or so computers I've bought over the last 25 years, and the price of computers nowadays is trivial, so even when something faster does come along, I can't get excited about it (decent screens are another matter).
On the other hand, I've just come back from Arles, where I shot 518 pictures on a 9 day trip, not counting the ones I deleted on the spot: call it 15 rolls. Quite a lot were 'notebook' pictures: gallery interiors, Artists' Statements and commentaries, etc., where post processing wasn't important. Going through 500+ pics is tedious enough: I can't imagine 350 a day on a regular basis. What do you do with this 'complete record'?
I don't argue with your cost analysis: $7000 for an M9 is 700 rolls of 36-exposure at $10/roll, the least you're likely to pay for decent film and processing, and over 5 years that´s 140 rolls/year or a 2-3 rolls a week. I'd hope for more like 10 years or even 20 from the M9, though, at which point the cost is trivial, the more so as where I live, it's more like $20-$30/roll for colour film and ref prints. It's just that I can't help wondering why you take quite so many pictures; what you do with them; and (most of all) how you find the time to review and process them.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Not really. If you can bring in slide film at a fiver a roll, processed, you're doing well. Hell, B+W can easily cost that, processing it yourself, if you use decent fresh film and chemicals.
At a fiver a roll, 4000 GBP is 800 rolls, or 40 rolls/year for 20 years. Not what I'd call heavy usage. And besides, why would the M9 be replaced three times in 20 years?
Cheers,
R.
Neare
Well-known
I know what you mean Roger, but technology is without a doubt going to change a quite a great deal in 20 years.
The 'Decent enough' rational is not always good enough for many people. People always what to keep up with the current market.
A M9 might still work in 20 years, but it sure won't be the industry standard of the time. How many people are still using windows 98' for example? Because it still works.
Stuart John
Well-known
Cameras and operating systems are rather different things. Most people upgrade their PCs because they need to run modern software that won't run on an older machine with an older OS.
My old 433 celeron machine still runs and with a fresh win98 install it will run as good as when it was new. Trouble is most modern applications or OS will slow it to a crawl. I could not process RAW files with that machine running win2000 and Nikon Capture 4. Well I could but I had to wait several minutes to open a RAW file and several minutes to save it again.
A camera does not suffer from these problems. Manufactures don't add bloatware to the camera firmware to force you to buy a new camera. You usually don't install applications on a camera so if the camera was good enough and you like the results you could continue to use it as long as it still works.
My old 433 celeron machine still runs and with a fresh win98 install it will run as good as when it was new. Trouble is most modern applications or OS will slow it to a crawl. I could not process RAW files with that machine running win2000 and Nikon Capture 4. Well I could but I had to wait several minutes to open a RAW file and several minutes to save it again.
A camera does not suffer from these problems. Manufactures don't add bloatware to the camera firmware to force you to buy a new camera. You usually don't install applications on a camera so if the camera was good enough and you like the results you could continue to use it as long as it still works.
Neare
Well-known
That's not the point I'm trying to make.
Say you're shooting a high profile job for a clothing line or something. They want a file that can be enlarged the length of a store window. The standard of today would be a DMF camera, say a hassy h4d for these sorts of jobs.
Then you go an turn up with a contax nd (6mp full frame).
Is the job doable to an extent? Yes.
Appropriate for the industry standard? No.
Will your clients appreciate you performing and results sub par to the industry standard simply because your old gear is 'good enough'? Certainly not.
In 20 years, our 18mp full frame of today may be the equivalent of the 6mp full frame of yesterday, or it may even be more archaic.
Say you're shooting a high profile job for a clothing line or something. They want a file that can be enlarged the length of a store window. The standard of today would be a DMF camera, say a hassy h4d for these sorts of jobs.
Then you go an turn up with a contax nd (6mp full frame).
Is the job doable to an extent? Yes.
Appropriate for the industry standard? No.
Will your clients appreciate you performing and results sub par to the industry standard simply because your old gear is 'good enough'? Certainly not.
In 20 years, our 18mp full frame of today may be the equivalent of the 6mp full frame of yesterday, or it may even be more archaic.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Um... I think I've still got Windows 95 on one machine, precisely because it still works for the (very limited) applications I run on that machine.
Of course there are a few improvements you can make to an M9, better high ISO performance being the most obvious candidate, but given a manual focus, rangefinder camera with manually set exposures (including aperture priority) and manual aperture ring, how many changes can you make? And if you never go above A3 in repro and A2 or so in prints, how much more than 18 megapixels do you need?
I'd seriously suggest that unless there's a good reason to buy something new (in the case of a camera, seriously better functionality or image quality), it's downright stupid to do so.
EDIT: There is no 'industry standard': there is only the tool for the job. You wouldn't use an M9 for the same purposes you use an S2 or Hasselblad today: why would you in 20 years' time? How is anyone going to tell from the image that you are using a 20-year-old camera?
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Neare
Well-known
I'm not refering to the design on the M, but to the internal technology. People are always going to upgrade and sensor technology is going to continuously be improved upon. The M9 is not the holy grail of sensor technology. It's also not about what one can tell from the image, but about the confidence of the photographer in their own gear.
In 20 years we might have a 35mm full frame sensor shooting at 500mp and people will buy it. Most people won't sit back and say "I don't need 500mp, I only need 18." While it may be true for their type of work that they only 'need' 18, firstly they will 'want' 500 and secondly they wouldn't intentionally disadvantage themselves in the same field where their colleagues are using 500.
Not to mention by then we will have better battery and storage technology too.
In 20 years time when everyone is talking about their M17's (or M17-P's, or M's with foveon sensors or that 'bokeh later' sensor etc.) you might find that you're the only person left using the M9.
With regards to R&D: There is always a bigger fish.
In 20 years we might have a 35mm full frame sensor shooting at 500mp and people will buy it. Most people won't sit back and say "I don't need 500mp, I only need 18." While it may be true for their type of work that they only 'need' 18, firstly they will 'want' 500 and secondly they wouldn't intentionally disadvantage themselves in the same field where their colleagues are using 500.
Not to mention by then we will have better battery and storage technology too.
In 20 years time when everyone is talking about their M17's (or M17-P's, or M's with foveon sensors or that 'bokeh later' sensor etc.) you might find that you're the only person left using the M9.
With regards to R&D: There is always a bigger fish.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Exacly how would they be 'disadvantaging' themselves? If no-one can tell from the image what they used, and they are happy with their 20-year-old M9, where is the 'disadvantage'?
Sure, there will be improvements. I don't doubt it. But to buy something just because it is new, and to reject the M9 just because it is old, is nothing but mindless consumerism.
If there is a real advantage, and if you can afford it, yes, go for the newer camera. If not: well, a fool and his money are soon parted.
Plenty of people stilll drive old cars, take pictures with old cameras, etc., because they like both the process and the results. Why should the M9 be any different? Look at the following that the Epson RD enjoys to this day. Do you REALLY believe that no-one will be using M9s in 2030?
Cheers,
R.
Neare
Well-known
Yeah I do believe no one will, all perhaps yourself if you're so set on this.
It is consumerism but it is inevitable that it will happen in the future as with all the digital cameras over the past 20 years.
It's not that cameras are going to get more expensive, they are going to get more advanced. People will upgrade not on the basis of what they need, but due to the fact that more developed technology can introduce more possibilities.
Why would people not upgrade when in 20 years, for the same price as an M9 today you may get cameras that can print at the same detail of A2 today at 30x20ft then. For all we know in 20 years a 35mm digital sensor could produce results of a detail and resolution quality similar to Large format. Would you not upgrade then if your M could achieve that?
There is so much left to explore in the realm of sensor technology. I guarantee that before the decade is out there will be new digital M's far surpassing the M9.
justsayda
Member
Crisis of faith
Crisis of faith
Dear Larky
You're evidently suffering to a similar "crisis of faith" that I am, going both by your own posts and those in reply to my threads on the film/digital thing.
A young colleague of mine loves reminding my about how I waxed on about the benefits of digital over film now that I'm getting back into film.
A back-breaking day making a floor for my soon-to-be completed (he says) darkroom almost had me swapping Mr Nikon some money for anything that had a model number beginning with "D".
This, and the fact that I'm labouring to build a cramped space to share with smelly chemicals in semi-darkness make me wonder why I'd want to do this in preference to sitting in front of a monitor with a cup of tea and a cigarette.
I myself think about the superior quality of film, then look at something I shot in RAW filling my computer monitor and thinking "well, that's pretty good to say it's 5mp filling a 15"-wide monitor.
Then I look at a 120 tranny on a lightbox and think "no way could digital compete", in the same way I don't think digital can do the same kind of black-and-white as film.
But then I think of the particular "style" of post-processed colour I like with digital and wonder how the hell I could get that with film.
I honestly think what I'm going to have to do - to retain my sanity if nothing else - is to use film for black-and-white and, at some point in the future, buy a decent DSLR.
Either that, or take up stamp collecting instead.
As I told a photographic friend recently, I really am a man in a crisis.
Crisis of faith
Dear Larky
You're evidently suffering to a similar "crisis of faith" that I am, going both by your own posts and those in reply to my threads on the film/digital thing.
A young colleague of mine loves reminding my about how I waxed on about the benefits of digital over film now that I'm getting back into film.
A back-breaking day making a floor for my soon-to-be completed (he says) darkroom almost had me swapping Mr Nikon some money for anything that had a model number beginning with "D".
This, and the fact that I'm labouring to build a cramped space to share with smelly chemicals in semi-darkness make me wonder why I'd want to do this in preference to sitting in front of a monitor with a cup of tea and a cigarette.
I myself think about the superior quality of film, then look at something I shot in RAW filling my computer monitor and thinking "well, that's pretty good to say it's 5mp filling a 15"-wide monitor.
Then I look at a 120 tranny on a lightbox and think "no way could digital compete", in the same way I don't think digital can do the same kind of black-and-white as film.
But then I think of the particular "style" of post-processed colour I like with digital and wonder how the hell I could get that with film.
I honestly think what I'm going to have to do - to retain my sanity if nothing else - is to use film for black-and-white and, at some point in the future, buy a decent DSLR.
Either that, or take up stamp collecting instead.
As I told a photographic friend recently, I really am a man in a crisis.
studio58
Newbie
you could always do what I just did.... buy an M6 TTL Millennium. Script on top and old school rewind and wind on lever. Brass top and bottom plates... very cool
I imagine a painter doing the same calculation... Brushes £50, Paint £30, Canvas £20... wow, thats over £20 for only one frame. I´d better use a digital camera.
Seriously... people spend so much cash on crap they dont really need, film is only a very minor sin.
You either love the results you are getting with film or you dont. There is no point in convincing you.
leicapixie
Well-known
Film for me is simplicity. My M camera has never needed a battery. Battery and memory cards are the terror of my digital life! Photos may not be as clean as digital, but they are ALL there on downloading! Scanning easily done here in Canada, or by me--slow! Prefer hi-rez scans at local store. Inexpensive.