Back to the joy of film photography, but now it is Digital

[olifaunt]

To each their own, but the development wait time for film always puzzles me when presented as a problem. If you take pictures consistently, you'll always have something new to look at. For argument's sake, today's pictures may take two weeks to see, but what about the photos from two weeks ago that you get to see today? For editing, some separation in time is often healthy, as much for digital photos as film. I actually prefer the surprise element when you see photos you don't even remember taking in a particular way.

 

[james.liam]

I’ve always got a few rolls in the freezer at the ready. I get the itch, drop one into my FM2/T or R8. The discipline of a finite number of shots forces greater deliberateness, more consideration of the framing and light conditions than freewheeling digital. Just finished up rolls of Ektachrome and Ektar and scanned on an Epson. Worth the exercise to remind yourself of the techniques long ago learned and now unlearned with digital. And the ‘look’ is very different.

 

[steveyork]

Never had the desire to go digital. I like the whole process of film, from loading cassettes, shooting, developing, editing ... alright scanning not that fun, but it's a mindless task. Set the scanner and read a book while it chugs away. I love all the variables with film that keep it interesting -- not only different lenses, but different filters, films, developers and techniques, ect. Not sure digital has as many options. The delayed satisfaction I actually enjoy; it extends the process/vacation, ect. I'm not a professional, so I don't need the results yesterday.

We're really blessed to have all the choices today. Many excellent digital cameras out there, producing fine images, and still a wide selection of films. I remember circa 2000 when all the loud mouths on on the old Leica photo.net forum telling us film will be no more in just a matter of years. And maybe that's why I still shoot film, because someday we may not have a choice (although that seems unlikely now).

I only shoot B&W and that's probably significant why I stayed with film too.

 

[james.liam]

Never had the desire to go digital....
I only shoot B&W and that's probably significant why I stayed with film too.

Then get a Leica Monochrom. Essentially an endless roll of B&W film.

 

[steveyork]

Then get a Leica Monochrom. Essentially an endless roll of B&W film.

I generally prefer the B&W image of film over digital. Just like some prefer older lenses or single coating for B&W. Newer is not always better. My opinion only.

 

[kshapero]

Just in case you pick up your FE again, half shutter press doesn’t lock exposure. Need to press the self timer towards the lens to do that

Yes, of course, Good point.🙄

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

I feel the same way about my Fujifilm XT30. I was out today testing my Rolleiflex 2.8F with Delta 400, but the Fuji could deliver colour, black and white, inside and out, with ISOs up to 6400 (I didn't want to go higher) at shutter speeds of 1/15th. This was inside an historic house with exceptionally poor light (to preserve the interior) and handheld film would not have stood a chance - flash entirely impermissable.

I could check the image was sharp and properly exposed, the autofocus removing my poor eyesight from the equation. Much as I love and shoot film I would have come away with no interior photos. A recent visit to the Fleet Air Arm museum with just film was fruitless in very low light.

17th century tapestry detail, Cotehele House, shot at iso6400 f2.8 at 1/15th.

 

[ptpdprinter]

The discipline of a finite number of shots forces greater deliberateness, more consideration of the framing and light conditions than freewheeling digital.

This is nonsense. Unless of course you have absolutely no self-control.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I generally prefer the B&W image of film over digital. Just like some prefer older lenses or single coating for B&W. Newer is not always better. My opinion only.

+1. If I would find camera which does same BW as at least old, cheap ECN2 film in Rodinal, not to mention HP5+ in hcB, I would do it. But Monochrome is not BW film for me.

Dirt cheap, 10+ yo Kodak 50D in Rodinal.

 

[Michael Markey]

This is nonsense. Unless of course you have absolutely no self-control.

Agreed .
I `ve never understood the hair shirt argument as applied to photography.

 

[Keith]

Originally Posted by ptpdprinter
This is nonsense. Unless of course you have absolutely no self-control.

Sorry but that didn't seem like a snark to me ... just fact.

 

[Corran]

Kiss your highlights goodbye!

 

[Steve M.]

".....six or seven guys developing Tri-X and making prints with old Stones albums playing."

Sounds like heaven to me, especially if it's the Some Girls album. Great songs and lots of energy on what was their last great album.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUdQTCCselA&list=RDjSIjHIWWr2g&index=2

 

[Deleted member 65559]

+1. But Monochrome is not BW film for me.

Dirt cheap, 10+ yo Kodak 50D in Rodinal.

Beautiful image K.

 

[dourbalistar]

Wow, nothing like the grouchy, buzzkill curmudgeons here on RFF, eh? 🙄 The man got a nice new Leica that he enjoys, and as he said in his OP, he's made his peace with digital. Can't we just congratulate him and wish him good light and happy shooting?

Let's argue about chrome or black instead, though I'm pretty sure the Stones settled that long ago: paint it black! 😉

 

[kshapero]

Wow, nothing like the grouchy, buzzkill curmudgeons here on RFF, eh? 🙄 The man got a nice new Leica that he enjoys, and as he said in his OP, he's made his peace with digital. Can't we just congratulate him and wish him good light and happy shooting?

Let's argue about chrome or black instead, though I'm pretty sure the Stones settled that long ago: paint it black! 😉

I knew I was starting trouble but my story actually has no villains, just snarky old guys.:dance:

 

[jamin-b]

enjoy yourself!

enjoy yourself!

Akiva,
I always enjoy your posts, and am happy for you. I got an M-8 a few years ago but hardly use it anymore. Buying a Fujifilm X-H1 for different reasons has relieved my Leica M10 itch for a good while if not for ever. With a cheap macro helicoid adapter from M to Fuji X I get my oversized collection of LTM and M lenses back in service with peak focusing, shorter minimum focus (with the Nikkor 5cm F/2 it gets to be almost macro!) and in - camera stabilization to boot!
Not trying to tempt you, just agreeing, digital definitely has its merits and should be celebrated.

 

[mlu19]

Staying true with M9 here since an M9 cannot go above iso 800 for colors...just like film. I feel unnatural when a camera can literally see in the dark (iso 3200-6400 and above). To me, first rule to photography is always good light.

With that said, I do enjoy the instant gratification side of my M9, bring able to see/edit/share photos much faster than film. It's always been a battle to pick which cameras to leave the house with. If I'm in the mindset for BW though, film is the answer, always.

 

[mconnealy]

I have nothing against digital; plenty of good digital work being done.
The arguments based on economy over film, however, are much exaggerated.

The price of HC-110 developer has increased about three times since I started using it. Still, look at the real cost. With a liter of HC-110 costing $35 you can process 66 rolls of film at 53 cents per roll at dilution B. If you do stand developing with 4mL the cost goes down to about 14 cents. Throw in a couple cents for fixer.

Processing color negatives these days is even quicker and easier than black and white. The packet of Unicolor C-41 powders has everything you need at about $25. I routinely get about 24 rolls of film done with a Unicolor kit. You do the math.

The last film camera I acquired at a flea market was a Retina IIa. It cost me ten bucks. Works fine.

 

[robert blu]

I knew I was starting trouble but my story actually has no villains, just snarky old guys.:dance:

And now we need or better I desire to see a few pictures from you! Please 🙂
robert