Sometimes, I wonder why I bother with film !

sometimes a part of the decision is more practical...like there is no way i can stand for hours in a darkroom any more...but sitting in from of my mac is easier on my hip.

the last few years of shooting film was with xp2, develope and scan done by the lab and process in front of my camputer...digital looks as good if not better.
 
If using film: "Is not worth effort".

Then you need to shoot digital, that affords a faster turn around for viewing your photos..

Film has it place in the photographic genre, as does digital...
Many shoot both, and use film to add that "Film Grain" and "Tonality" that may not be available with a Sensors limited DR range, and HOW it records high ISO noise as far as a "Grainy" look, or "Smeared" look in the darkest of shades...

BUT, Many great looking B&W photos are just fine with Digital.... it boils down to: The added time involved from "Soup to File/Print" may be too limiting, plus the unknown of having to "Wait" during development to see if your photos where exposed properly for your workflow... Digital affords "instant" previews... so you can it again if needed..... expect, Street, where the "Moment" is not repeatable.

I shoot both, and enjoy each process differently.
 
Last edited:
i'm lucky enough to have a dRF and a dSLR, yet this morning i was out first-time with a Mamiya 7 burning some practice rolls. i'm not ready for 100% digital, not yet.

of course it depends on what and how much one shoots, and for whom.
 
srtiwari said:
Andy, the pictures were fun to take and process quickly as LR3 does a great job. They were taken this morning when my girl friend 's dog (the Husky) met my new pet Poodle for the first time . I loved the images but was not necessarily trying to make them look like film, since I'm not sure what the 'Digital vs Film look' is. As someone said, (tongue-in-cheek) maybe the differences boil down to adding grain and USM !

I think it would be useful for someone to try and describe the 'look' of digital (or film) in away that can others can see and identify. (I recently compared some old and new lenses hoping to differentiate their signatures, and was surprised at how little the differences in 'look' were).
Maybe its time to do a little test to try and distinguish digital from film images ! 😀
Click to expand...

Hope I did not sound snotty with my comment. Was actually trying not to. I don't actually get into the "Holy war" of Fim v. Digital. To me, and I think this is what you are saying... getting the shot comes first.
If I was to use a few words to describe the "look" thing that I personally go for in film. It would be.. "lo-fi" .

Sometimes I want a lo-fidelity look. I'm not able to get it with Digital. Probably from lack of effort but, I don't see it from others digital work either.
Again, I would be happy to have your shot with either. Actually being there in a similar situation I would be happy with an iPhone shot.

Not to hijack and I hope you don't mind.
This one is of my Lab Liza meeting her new buddy and housemate Hugo for the first time (and hike). 😀
Liza has passed on after a grand life. Hugo is still my constant companion.

I'm happy to have it even if it's not great in IQ.
4761091555_bb43da391a_z.jpg
 
I use film because we like to sit down and pass a set of prints around, and I like using many of my film cameras. Some of the lenses that I like to use can only be used with film cameras. I use the M9, M8, and EP2 quite a bit.

But for the convenience of some outings, getting back a set of prints to enjoy with family and friends is more fun than looking at a Monitor. Printing out all of the pictures from Digital would take more time and money than just dropping a roll of film off to Sam's.

This thread is more of a Film vs Digital debate than it is about the M9. I have yet to convert any of my M8 or M9 images to monochrome. If I want monochrome, I either shoot film or use a monochrome camera.

Last set of prints back were from a Minolta Hi-Matic 7s-II at a Fall festival. Now that is a sharp 40/1.7 lens, and a fun to use camera. Used the Ep2 to make video's, the HM-7s-II for prints.
 
srtiwari said:
I think it would be useful for someone to try and describe the 'look' of digital (or film) in away that can others can see and identify. (I recently compared some old and new lenses hoping to differentiate their signatures, and was surprised at how little the differences in 'look' were).
Maybe its time to do a little test to try and distinguish digital from film images ! 😀
Click to expand...

Well now I am a little confused. Have you ever used film before?
 
NickTrop said:
You delusions about the superiority of film are beginning to melt away... APS-C and full frame sensored digitals have recently caught up to/surpassed small format (35mm) film, overall, in IQ...

Film's place is now:

1. "Full frame in your pocket". The film camera I mostly shoot now is the Olympus XA (which I adore...)
2. Good lighting low speed film (Still edges out digital by a hair.)
3. Medium format and large format (digital will never touch this...)
4. For fun. Let's face it, the old rangefinders are simply fun to shoot, they are charming, and bring a tactile joy to the table no digital can match
5. You enjoy developing negs and making wet prints (nobody sane enjoys scanning negatives...)
Click to expand...

Because of #4 I'm still shooting more film than digital. Add the slow process from pushing the button until you see the first time the image: Perfect thrill, exactly what I want, if I don't have any commitment delivering images in a short time frame.
 
Follow your heart. I shoot 80% digital but still love film. Some subjects just work better in classic black and white. Plus shooting film is good practice it keeps you on your game and you don't fall into the digital lazy workflow.
 
I went out today with my digital digilux-2 and came home with one picture I liked out of 50. If I would have used film, my success rate for sure would have been higher. More thought, more patience, more results. That's film.
 
srtiwari said:
Not sure if your question is a serious one, but yes, of course. Are you confused that I am confused about the F vs D differences ? 😉
Click to expand...


My life is a whole circle of confusion...😛

Tell ya what, since you missed the Atlanta 2011 RFF Meet last April, come on up in 2012 with both a film and digital camera and we guarantee you a great time either way. Nothing wrong with being a hybrid amongst friends!🙂
 
thomasw_ said:
Subhash, Love your husky -- here is mine.

Off-frame Glance by thomasw_, on Flickr

BTW, so to contribute to the topics raised in the thread, the main reason I shoot BW film is because I prefer the look of the wet print to the digital print. I do enjoy developing film and wet printing, but not so much the scanning or using PS. Using the computer to deal with images takes away some of the joy of the process for me.

I am firm about my preferences, and firm in the conviction that one should follow their own preferences with regard to creative processes. Thus I agree with Subhash that he is quite able to make his own decisions on these matters 😉
Click to expand...

Thats a great looking dog, Thomas !

I am not knocking either method- Digital vs Film. How can ? I own 2 M2s, an M3, an M6, M7, and an M9, to say nothing of a G1(Panny) and some MF gear. I'm just not quite sure how to see and define the differences. I am hoping someone is going to come up and list some soon.
 
dave lackey said:
My life is a whole circle of confusion...😛

Tell ya what, since you missed the Atlanta 2011 RFF Meet last April, come on up in 2012 with both a film and digital camera and we guarantee you a great time either way. Nothing wrong with being a hybrid amongst friends!🙂
Click to expand...

I did regret missing it last year, but will definitely be there for the next one. Thank you. And yes, I'll bring both- one for the instant gratification, and the other for the "Look" 😀
 
srtiwari said:
Thats a great looking dog, Thomas !

I am not knocking either method- Digital vs Film. How can ? I own 2 M2s, an M3, an M6, M7, and an M9, to say nothing of a G1(Panny) and some MF gear. I'm just not quite sure how to see and define the differences. I am hoping someone is going to come up and list some soon.
Click to expand...

Need a list? How about a show and tell? Again, if you happen through Atlanta, give me a shout and we can go over a list of the reasons why I chose film images for my documentary work over digital. :angel:

In the meantime, if you tire of the M9, let me know and I can take it out for daily exercise to keep it in tune for you over the winter.😉
 
jippiejee said:
I went out today with my digital digilux-2 and came home with one picture I liked out of 50. If I would have used film, my success rate for sure would have been higher. More thought, more patience, more results. That's film.
Click to expand...

I never understood this reasoning, it is like blaming the process for personal lack of control. Yea my car is too powerful that is why I got a speeding ticket. I would hate to try that answer out on my better half.

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Is there a way to calibrate a Pentax ESII meter at home?
Replies
9
Views
438
Tim Murphy
T
L
Leica CL film and Voigtländer 21mm F4.0 Color Skopar P-Type VM
Replies
7
Views
343
LeicaCLfilm
L
S
Rollei bay 1 UV filter
Replies
13
Views
1K
seany65
S
B
appeal of film over digital?
22 23 24
Replies
462
Views
27K
PetPhoto
P
T
Film versus Digital, and vice versa
2 3
Replies
42
Views
3K
Tim Murphy
T
Back
Top Bottom