mdg137
Established
I went digital back in 2005/2006-- left my M6TTL's and Hasselblads behind.
Ive returned Leica M after forays with Canon, Nikon, Sony etc-- the M240 finally combined the simplicity and ergonomics I wanted.
Earlier this year, struggling a bit creatively, I thought I might give film a try again, to shake things up a bit. Picked up an M4 and an MP, and a Minolta 5400 scanner.
I shot a few rolls, and actually went back into my archives to scan a large number of negs I never got around to scanning before.
What I found, to my surprise, is that somewhere along the way, Ive been swayed partially by the ease of the digital process, partly by the habit of throwing a few memory cards in the bag instead of 20 rolls of film, partly by the cult of sharpness, and most of all by the immediacy of digital...
Ive been spoiled by seeing my images immediately, and being able to make minor tweaks to composition or exposure. With digital, I have far fewer "If only I had.." or "I should have..." moments.
Im not claiming the objective superiority of any media choice, but I was a bit shocked at my own subjective changes over the last decade.
Anyone else had this experience? It seems contrary to the general feeling here on RF.
Ive returned Leica M after forays with Canon, Nikon, Sony etc-- the M240 finally combined the simplicity and ergonomics I wanted.
Earlier this year, struggling a bit creatively, I thought I might give film a try again, to shake things up a bit. Picked up an M4 and an MP, and a Minolta 5400 scanner.
I shot a few rolls, and actually went back into my archives to scan a large number of negs I never got around to scanning before.
What I found, to my surprise, is that somewhere along the way, Ive been swayed partially by the ease of the digital process, partly by the habit of throwing a few memory cards in the bag instead of 20 rolls of film, partly by the cult of sharpness, and most of all by the immediacy of digital...
Ive been spoiled by seeing my images immediately, and being able to make minor tweaks to composition or exposure. With digital, I have far fewer "If only I had.." or "I should have..." moments.
Im not claiming the objective superiority of any media choice, but I was a bit shocked at my own subjective changes over the last decade.
Anyone else had this experience? It seems contrary to the general feeling here on RF.
mdg137
Established
One other note, on the positive side for film, M film bodies still have no equal in terms of haptics...
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
So, you purchased two Ms, scanner, shot few rolls of film and scanned large amount of negatives - all of it earlier THIS year?
Few memory cards instead of twenty roll is machne gunning to me, sure digital is more convinient for spray shot.
My max was two cards. Getting good pictures from them after was boring routine. And charging batteries to support this value was inconvinient.
Few memory cards instead of twenty roll is machne gunning to me, sure digital is more convinient for spray shot.
My max was two cards. Getting good pictures from them after was boring routine. And charging batteries to support this value was inconvinient.
mdg137
Established
Correction, LAST year.
And the 20 rolls of film was not for an afternoon, but a week trip... and Im not talking 64gb cards, but rather smaller capacity cards, shooting RAW and jepg
Ben Z
Veteran
Digital has not changed my style of shooting at all, so if I woke up tomorrow and digital was all a dream like the last episode of Newhart, I could go back to film and never miss digital at all. However as it's not a dream, many film emulsions have been discontinued, all the film processing labs within driving distance are gone, and the costs of shooting film have gone way up. The only economical way for me is develop it and scan it myself, and that's a lot of work only to end up back with a digital file anyway. That's what dragged me kicking and screaming into the digital age in the first place, and what stops me from defrosting the ziplock bags full of film in my freezer and shooting them with the dozen or so high-end film cameras I still own.
VertovSvilova
Well-known
If the aesthetics of film isn't worth the effort to you, then don't use it. And if you prefer the look of digital over film, then why use film in the first place. But if you do prefer the aesthetics of film and simply don't want to use it because you're too lazy to make the effort (including finding labs, and buying film, etc.) then that's another story altogether. 
All worthwhile creative productions come from effort; nothing is easy. I just got through reading an interview with an independent film maker and the effort (and expensive) that she had to endure to make her spectacular production was really inspiring. Especially in these days of trying to make life 'easier' by following the path of least resistance.
All worthwhile creative productions come from effort; nothing is easy. I just got through reading an interview with an independent film maker and the effort (and expensive) that she had to endure to make her spectacular production was really inspiring. Especially in these days of trying to make life 'easier' by following the path of least resistance.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
It's true that we have less film available nowadays but I was looking for something the other day and noticed a page in the book (dated 1986) listing the films available; roughly 18 slide colour films, 10 negative or print colour films and 15 B&W negative films. But the figure for B&W includes one slide film, one I-Red and one for surveillance work.
So a wider choice but, like most, I used just one of each type and didn't change much until forced to* and the current ones are as good if not better. Now I'm trying to find out the prices for them in the 80's.
Some other costs; in 1937 Kodachrome was USD 3.50 for 18 exp but cheaper in the UK at 12/6 (that's 62p). Agfacolor then was 6/- (30p) for 36 slides. All those prices included processing. Would someone like to do the sums to compare to today's prices?
Regards, David
* Example, used FP4 and then used FP4+ when it replaced it. And I like Fomapan 200.
It's true that we have less film available nowadays but I was looking for something the other day and noticed a page in the book (dated 1986) listing the films available; roughly 18 slide colour films, 10 negative or print colour films and 15 B&W negative films. But the figure for B&W includes one slide film, one I-Red and one for surveillance work.
So a wider choice but, like most, I used just one of each type and didn't change much until forced to* and the current ones are as good if not better. Now I'm trying to find out the prices for them in the 80's.
Some other costs; in 1937 Kodachrome was USD 3.50 for 18 exp but cheaper in the UK at 12/6 (that's 62p). Agfacolor then was 6/- (30p) for 36 slides. All those prices included processing. Would someone like to do the sums to compare to today's prices?
Regards, David
* Example, used FP4 and then used FP4+ when it replaced it. And I like Fomapan 200.
Last edited:
mdarnton
Well-known
I don't need choice. All I've ever shot for about 50 years is Tri-X. Functionally for me, nothing is different from 1964 in film availability.
I sold all of my film stuff in 2008 when I bought a Nikon D300. Then after a year or two I bought a Nikon film body for back up, and about two years later, I was back to almost all film. The digital look just wasn't cutting it for me. Now I'm mostly shooting 8x10 film, and some 4x5 and 5x7.
Digital was a short side trip.
I sold all of my film stuff in 2008 when I bought a Nikon D300. Then after a year or two I bought a Nikon film body for back up, and about two years later, I was back to almost all film. The digital look just wasn't cutting it for me. Now I'm mostly shooting 8x10 film, and some 4x5 and 5x7.
Digital was a short side trip.
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
My first digital camera was a Canon G5 in whatever year it was that it hit the shelves. I was impressed with all the whizzy technology and soon ended up with a Nikon D70 - which allowed me to use most of the Nikon lenses I had for my film gear.
Briefly, I shot nothing other than digital. The speed and convenience and the precision - colours sharpness, etc. was very alluring. Then I realised that I was starting to get a bit bored with the "perfect" representations provided by the digital technology and, not being someone who has the desire or imagination to turn my photographs into digital art by means of significant post processing / Photoshopping / HDR and all that, I had a bit of a film renaissance.
These days, I still shoot 75-80% film and the rest digital. I prefer the aesthetic of film and don't imagine that will change anytime soon, after all, I've been shooting it since the early 1970's. However, I'm not stupid enough to deny the benefits of digital when it comes to instant gratification and resolving power of caeras like the D800 (which I own).
What flummoxes me completely, however, is the belief some some seem to hold that you can only choose one or the other. I like both and, unless finances dictate that I have to choose, then I'll decide day-to-day, location-by-location and topic-by-topic which medium I'm going to use.
Briefly, I shot nothing other than digital. The speed and convenience and the precision - colours sharpness, etc. was very alluring. Then I realised that I was starting to get a bit bored with the "perfect" representations provided by the digital technology and, not being someone who has the desire or imagination to turn my photographs into digital art by means of significant post processing / Photoshopping / HDR and all that, I had a bit of a film renaissance.
These days, I still shoot 75-80% film and the rest digital. I prefer the aesthetic of film and don't imagine that will change anytime soon, after all, I've been shooting it since the early 1970's. However, I'm not stupid enough to deny the benefits of digital when it comes to instant gratification and resolving power of caeras like the D800 (which I own).
What flummoxes me completely, however, is the belief some some seem to hold that you can only choose one or the other. I like both and, unless finances dictate that I have to choose, then I'll decide day-to-day, location-by-location and topic-by-topic which medium I'm going to use.
Turtle
Veteran
I was a film only photographer until a few years ago. Since then, I have spent a lot of time working on my PP to get the tonality and overall look that I want to see. The Leica Monochrom makes it easier, but I am very happy with the output from my colour cameras now. Printing, papers and hybrid processes are getting better all the time and so I feel comfortable largely leaving film behind. I will keep some kit, however, because the two will never be quite the same.
Digital has helped me be more productive and I do not feel I am producing work of lower quality at all. It is the opposite, actually; however, I would not be able to say that had I not spend the time I did working my ass off in the darkroom. Everything I learnt there has proven a wonderful investment in this era of badly printed digital B&W with hideous tones. Film takes no prisoners and those who've poisoned themselves with nasty chemicals can proudly call themselves veterans! You have to put the time in with film - you have no choice - and that time equates to understanding B&W regardless of medium. If many current digital photographers put the same time into learning digital B&W that film users have, then maybe there would be no difference, but the fact is that very few do and you can tell.
My trusty Leica film Ms that produced my biggest projects have not been used in years, but I won't be selling them anytime soon. They went with me to very special places. Besides, they will be needed again. I think...
Digital has helped me be more productive and I do not feel I am producing work of lower quality at all. It is the opposite, actually; however, I would not be able to say that had I not spend the time I did working my ass off in the darkroom. Everything I learnt there has proven a wonderful investment in this era of badly printed digital B&W with hideous tones. Film takes no prisoners and those who've poisoned themselves with nasty chemicals can proudly call themselves veterans! You have to put the time in with film - you have no choice - and that time equates to understanding B&W regardless of medium. If many current digital photographers put the same time into learning digital B&W that film users have, then maybe there would be no difference, but the fact is that very few do and you can tell.
My trusty Leica film Ms that produced my biggest projects have not been used in years, but I won't be selling them anytime soon. They went with me to very special places. Besides, they will be needed again. I think...
leicapixie
Well-known
The crunch moment is when the PC loses 1 and a half years work..
Part of a book and thousands of images.
My negatives have never faded (OK 2 jobs processed commercially). I am shooting since the 60's..
I mostly use digital but Point and Shoot only.
Perfect for internet sharing and making prints, 4x6 up to 8x12.
I have done 16 x 20! I get prints made.
Part of a book and thousands of images.
My negatives have never faded (OK 2 jobs processed commercially). I am shooting since the 60's..
I mostly use digital but Point and Shoot only.
Perfect for internet sharing and making prints, 4x6 up to 8x12.
I have done 16 x 20! I get prints made.
Nope. I've done the opposite. Nearly 3 years ago I put down my digital cameras and have yet to pick them up aside from quick snapshots for non valued images. Anything serious, and out come the film cameras.
Digital bores me to tears. I *refuse* to worship the altar of extreme sharpeness, as if that had ANYTHING to do with what makes good photography.
I loathe chimping. I loathe menus.
I LOATHE sitting at a computer.
I adore the freedom that film gives me. I adore the high quality cameras that film lets me shoot.
VertovSvilova
Well-known
Just to play the devil's advocate, I wonder what users of 8x10 view cameras like Ansel Adams or Nicholas Nixon might say about that
Granted, a view camera with sheet film has other attributes besides sharp detail (like perspective control and tonal separation) but high resolution of detail is an important characteristic that is a big part of why they are used over small format film cameras.And of course one can make any digital image soft, fuzzy, and warm too.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
I bought my first and only digital camera in April of 2014. It is a Leica M240. It makes travel photography and low light shooting a LOT easier than using my M4-P.
I have only one digital camera; I still have seven film cameras. My approach has evolved to "shoot with the M240 for color, shoot with the M4-P (or XPAN, Nikon FM2n, F3hp, F100, Rollei 35 SE or Olympus Stylus) for black and white." This works just fine, so far.
I can't see ever not shooting film - unless they stop making every last film emulsion, which seems unlikely. As long as I can lay hands on a brick of Tri-X when I need it, I'm good to go.
I have only one digital camera; I still have seven film cameras. My approach has evolved to "shoot with the M240 for color, shoot with the M4-P (or XPAN, Nikon FM2n, F3hp, F100, Rollei 35 SE or Olympus Stylus) for black and white." This works just fine, so far.
I can't see ever not shooting film - unless they stop making every last film emulsion, which seems unlikely. As long as I can lay hands on a brick of Tri-X when I need it, I'm good to go.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I moved to using digital capture only when I opened my photo business at the end of 2004. I didn't touch film again until 2011, after I'd closed the business and taken up doing other things professionally.
For me, shooting film is a bit of nostalgia, a bit of applying 'creative constraints' to promote new creativity, and a bit of liking the different aesthetic. When I work with film nowadays, a little bit goes a long way—I prefer to work with instant film or medium format, making only a few exposures, etc.
G
For me, shooting film is a bit of nostalgia, a bit of applying 'creative constraints' to promote new creativity, and a bit of liking the different aesthetic. When I work with film nowadays, a little bit goes a long way—I prefer to work with instant film or medium format, making only a few exposures, etc.
G
Tom Niblick
Well-known
I have a similar story. I shot 4x5 and 8x10 chromes for my art reproduction business, ran my own E6 line, put those chromes on a drum scanner and then printed those negs/plates on an offset press in the 80s and 90s. Mid 90s the press became an Iris digital printer and the scanner changed from analog (film) to digital. Late in the 90s the 4x5 got a scan back and the whole process became digital. Digital simply made my working life so much easier and allowed me to lower my prices so that nearly every artist could afford my services. The quality of my product also benefited as digital allows so much adjustment. A RGB workflow produces a higher quality repo than CMYK.
I retired last month after 45 years of photography and printmaking. Digital imaging was my way of life for half of those years. I never saw digital as a lesser art. Digital sped up the process and increased the quality. Most importantly, digital saved an enormous amount of waste products from entering the landfill. Few realize the fact that making a color poster or fine art print in the 60s or 70s required 7 pieces of 16x20 film, 8 pieces of 24x30 (or larger) film, at least 6 sheets of 24x30 or larger mylar, rubylith, chromalin or color key proofs, 4 aluminum plates and a trash can full of make-ready sheets on press. The 80s and 90s reduced the amount of film used to 4 poster sized sheets but even that was one hell of a lot of the earth's precious resources. Today it is just a shot on a digital camera, a little photoshop time and then send the print to the 9900. Changing to digital saved countless tons of film and tens of thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals from haunting future generations. Mother Earth loves digital!
Today I happily shoot with my digital Leicas and print on a midsize Epson. Sure I miss those lovely tonal transitions you get with tri-x when enlarged onto a high quality silver rich paper. Nothing out of an Epson, Canon or HP printer can match this look. In fact, I consider scanning negatives and printing the photos on a digital printer a ******* process - neither truly analog nor digital. Still I'm not sure if I will go back to pure analog photography or even analog capture/digital printing. That process had its day. I think I'll continue to embrace the future. Just don't let me hear the quiet snick of a M4's shutter or smell a fresh roll of film out of the can or see the sunrise after a night in the darkroom. I might weaken.
MiguelATF
Newbie
I must have spent a few thousand hours living in darkrooms, from the mid 60's through the mid 80's. During those hours, I must have inhaled so many chemicals that half of my remaining, functioning brain cells probably have mutated or transmigrated to other realms. During that time, I shot with Leica's and Contaxes (old old rangefinders) - and then for years with Pentax SLRS, from the venerable screw-mounts through the later (and vastly more convenient, or so I thought) bayonet-mount K models. Interspersed along the way with some cool Olympus Pen half-frame cameras - and a delightfully diminutive Rollei 35.
Then I started fooling around with digital cameras. An ancient Fujifilm. Another ancient Casio. My first semi-decent digital camera was one of the Leicia-lensed early compact Lumixes, followed by a few more. A very cool Olympus semi-professional compact, the legendary C-8080. And then, finally, coming full circle, I bought a Pentax DSLR - the CCD-sensored K200D which had - and still has, to my eye, truly amazing color capabilities, not to mention fine Pentax lenses.
But - the best part - recently - has been the software for processing my digital negatives. Especially all of the recent generations of Lightroom plug-ins - which actually emulate tonalities and grain of different negative and positive 35mm film/s that I used for decades. The subtlety, power and potential complexity of contemporary digital darkrooms - equals or puts to shame what I did in real darkrooms for decades.
My current digital cameras are two truly fine Lumix bodies with excellent sensors and a range of fine optics - and a diminutive Ricoh GR compact. I honestly have serious problems differentiating their output....with the best of my analog film work. So much so that I've finally, reluctantly, decided to sell my ancient 1930's vintage Leica III RF - which has been in the family for decades - because I'd rather use my digital cameras ... then jump through the multiple hoops of physical processing.
I hang out with many fine photographer friends who extol the virtues of still shooting with film ... and I have to smile .... and inwardly thank my lucky stars I'll never set foot in another darkroom again.
Then I started fooling around with digital cameras. An ancient Fujifilm. Another ancient Casio. My first semi-decent digital camera was one of the Leicia-lensed early compact Lumixes, followed by a few more. A very cool Olympus semi-professional compact, the legendary C-8080. And then, finally, coming full circle, I bought a Pentax DSLR - the CCD-sensored K200D which had - and still has, to my eye, truly amazing color capabilities, not to mention fine Pentax lenses.
But - the best part - recently - has been the software for processing my digital negatives. Especially all of the recent generations of Lightroom plug-ins - which actually emulate tonalities and grain of different negative and positive 35mm film/s that I used for decades. The subtlety, power and potential complexity of contemporary digital darkrooms - equals or puts to shame what I did in real darkrooms for decades.
My current digital cameras are two truly fine Lumix bodies with excellent sensors and a range of fine optics - and a diminutive Ricoh GR compact. I honestly have serious problems differentiating their output....with the best of my analog film work. So much so that I've finally, reluctantly, decided to sell my ancient 1930's vintage Leica III RF - which has been in the family for decades - because I'd rather use my digital cameras ... then jump through the multiple hoops of physical processing.
I hang out with many fine photographer friends who extol the virtues of still shooting with film ... and I have to smile .... and inwardly thank my lucky stars I'll never set foot in another darkroom again.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Somebody ought to document all the stories related to media transitions.
On a more personal note:
I've left many places, possibly never to return, but the negatives and positives always follow me wherever I go. :angel:
On a more personal note:
I've left many places, possibly never to return, but the negatives and positives always follow me wherever I go. :angel: