Buying a film camera but only to use a lab?

[danielsterno]

All:

here is a good overview of most present available film cameras by Ming Thein (who puts out good insight on gear-PP-etc: http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/01/24/film-diaries-picking-a-camera/#comment-21252

After his write up I ask the the question: Is it realistic in 2013 to consider to buy a film camera, if your not developing & printing the film (which is part of my quandary/decision if to go analog)?
His reply is:The tonal qualities and color (assuming you’re not restricting yourself to B&W) are definitely different, even if scanned. That said, the digitisation process definitely affects the look of the output. Whether it ‘makes sense’ for you or not depends heavily on whether you have access to a good lab or not, and I the economics make sense. One of the reasons why I only picked it up again recently is because I wasn’t happy with the commercial developing results, or the prices – it’s 100% DIY for me now.

Whats your view? How many of you have bought film Leica's knowing you are not developing/printing?. I am considering it, for many reasons one of enjoying the interaction with the Leica...
thanks in advance for your thoughts?-sterno

 

[Godfrey]

When I use film nowadays, I either have my negatives processed by a good lab, or process my negatives at home. Once the negative are processed, I scan them with a film scanner, and then shred them when I'm sure I've got all I can get from them.

I'm only interested in the images, not in storing film, and with a good film scanner on freshly processed, clean film, I'm getting everything that I want out of the film. It's the digital image data that I want for rendering and printing.

This nets me the look and feel of film, of film cameras, at minimum additional cost over working with digital cameras. A couple of good film scanners (one for 35mm and one for 120 format) were not cheap, but worth it to get the most out of my negatives.

I have exactly zero interest in getting back into darkroom printing anymore. Saw a gorgeous Phillips 35mm to 6x7 format enlarger yesterday, going for almost nothing. I would have sold my mom's right arm for one of those a couple of decades back, nowadays it's just more kibble that I'd never use. Such it is.

G

 

[danielsterno]

When I use film nowadays, I either have my negatives processed by a good lab, or process my negatives at home. Once the negative are processed, I scan them with a film scanner, and then shred them when I'm sure I've got all I can get from them.

I'm only interested in the images, not in storing film, and with a good film scanner on freshly processed, clean film, I'm getting everything that I want out of the film. It's the digital image data that I want for rendering and printing.

This nets me the look and feel of film, of film cameras, at minimum additional cost over working with digital cameras. A couple of good film scanners (one for 35mm and one for 120 format) were not cheap, but worth it to get the most out of my negatives.

I have exactly zero interest in getting back into darkroom printing anymore. Saw a gorgeous Phillips 35mm to 6x7 format enlarger yesterday, going for almost nothing. I would have sold my mom's right arm for one of those a couple of decades back, nowadays it's just more kibble that I'd never use. Such it is.

G

Godfrey:
Good, thorough feedback & I respect your insight- thank you.. -sterno.

 

[68degrees]

Once the negative are processed, I scan them with a film scanner, and then shred them when I'm sure I've got all I can get from them.

I'm only interested in the images, not in storing film, and with a good film scanner on freshly processed, clean film, I'm getting everything that I want out of the film. It's the digital image data that I want for rendering and printing.

This nets me the look and feel of film, of film cameras, at minimum additional cost over working with digital cameras. A couple of good film scanners (one for 35mm and one for 120 format) were not cheap, but worth it to get the most out of my negatives.

I have exactly zero interest in getting back into darkroom printing anymore. Saw a gorgeous Phillips 35mm to 6x7 format enlarger yesterday, going for almost nothing. I would have sold my mom's right arm for one of those a couple of decades back, nowadays it's just more kibble that I'd never use. Such it is.

G

do you think future scanners will be able to squeeze more data from the film than current scanning technology?

 

[RallyFan]

I did just recently pick up a Leica IIIf after years of digital only. My workflow will consist of developing at home and scanning (though I don't currently have a scanner...still researching that aspect). I don't know if I really care if my images are better or worse than what I can get with a digital camera. For me, the whole process is just more enjoyable. Even though dSLR's, mirrorless, and even high end compacts have full manual features, I feel like the process was just too robotic and I wasn't feeling a connection anymore.

The IIIf, even with it's drawbacks (small and separate range/viewfinders, quirky film loading, knob rewind), definitely brings a smile to my face every time I use it, and it makes me want to use it more. And developing at home - I love to go though the process and then at the end see the fruits of my labor (ok, there's not much labor involved in developing...).

But, to honestly answer your question, I don't think I'd go back to film if I had to rely on a lab. I think the costs would add up rather quickly then. To buy a scanner and all the stuff you need to develop, I'd think it would pay for itself within a year, and provide you with a lot more creative flexibility in the process.

 

[thegman]

I plan to at some point, but I've never developed a film in my life. I only use film, I don't even really use the digital camera in my phone.

In the UK, developing is very much available, in fact I know of a couple of new labs opened recently, AG Photo Lab, and of course Lomography have started developing too.

I do certainly plan to develop myself soon, but right now, labs are just fine, and a real time saver for me.

 

[furcafe]

Yes, if you can afford it & frankly, if you can afford Leica gear, you can probably afford it if you really like the aesthetic qualities of film. I know I do & prefer using mechanical cameras, but have never enjoyed the drudgery of developing film (wet prints can be fun, though). I also like having the option of not just distributing work digitally, but also printing both digitally & chemically & having a physical backup (which is why I would never shred my film). Of course, scanning is also drudgery, so lately I've taken advantage of good labs that do high quality scanning like Precision (for color), or outsource bulk scanning to outfits like Scancafe (B&W).

I've done the cost calculations & for me, the price of using film, even developed & scanned @ pro labs, works out favorably to buying & using my Leica digital bodies, especially because the vast majority of my photography is personal & not deadline driven. Obviously, the economics are different for dSLR users or if you do have to meet deadlines.

All:

here is a good overview of most present available film cameras by Ming Thein (who puts out good insight on gear-PP-etc: http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/01/24/film-diaries-picking-a-camera/#comment-21252

After his write up I ask the the question: Is it realistic in 2013 to consider to buy a film camera, if your not developing & printing the film (which is part of my quandary/decision if to go analog)?
His reply is:The tonal qualities and color (assuming you’re not restricting yourself to B&W) are definitely different, even if scanned. That said, the digitisation process definitely affects the look of the output. Whether it ‘makes sense’ for you or not depends heavily on whether you have access to a good lab or not, and I the economics make sense. One of the reasons why I only picked it up again recently is because I wasn’t happy with the commercial developing results, or the prices – it’s 100% DIY for me now.

Whats your view? How many of you have bought film Leica's knowing you are not developing/printing?. I am considering it, for many reasons one of enjoying the interaction with the Leica...
thanks in advance for your thoughts?-sterno

 

[thegman]

As for scanners, I'm far from an expert but it seems to me that modern scanners can get very nearly all available detail out of a negative, but it seems that getting all the colour/tonal detail out is a bit trickier, which is why Vuescan and the like offer multiple passes over the negative to drag as much out of the slide/negative as possible.

 

[pakeha]

All:

here is a good overview of most present available film cameras by Ming Thein (who puts out good insight on gear-PP-etc: http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/01/24/film-diaries-picking-a-camera/#comment-21252

After his write up I ask the the question: Is it realistic in 2013 to consider to buy a film camera, if your not developing & printing the film (which is part of my quandary/decision if to go analog)?
His reply is:The tonal qualities and color (assuming you’re not restricting yourself to B&W) are definitely different, even if scanned. That said, the digitisation process definitely affects the look of the output. Whether it ‘makes sense’ for you or not depends heavily on whether you have access to a good lab or not, and I the economics make sense. One of the reasons why I only picked it up again recently is because I wasn’t happy with the commercial developing results, or the prices – it’s 100% DIY for me now.

Whats your view? How many of you have bought film Leica's knowing you are not developing/printing?. I am considering it, for many reasons one of enjoying the interaction with the Leica...
thanks in advance for your thoughts?-sterno

So I need to buy a Leica? This will make all the difference?

 

[Mcary]

Let say a person is thinking of buying a Leica M kit so that they can mainly shoot color images. With that in mind they've narrowed their choices to either a used M9 for say $4200 or a used M6+Plustek 8100 for about 1500.00. Plus $400 Voigtlander 35mm F 2.5 for the lens. So their either looking at about $4600 if they go with the M9 or about $2100.00 if the go with the M6,
Leaving a difference of $2500.00 for film a processing.
Now for someone shooting and processing10-12 rolls of color C41 film(Portra (400) that $2100 is going go pretty fast say about a year to 16 months. Now on the other hand for someone that might only average 3-5 rolls a month that $2100 is going to last quit a bit longer.
Also for a lot of people $2100 is a lot of money to spend on camera gear at one time let alone $4600.00

 

[Pete B]

I use film cameras because they are straight forward to use and I enjoy the feel of a mechanical shutter. I develop my own black and white and scan it. Sometimes I have colour neg film developed by a lab then scan it myself. It can be very frustrating and time consuming. On returning from a trip with a few rolls of colourneg I get it developed and scanned at a pro lab (about £10 per roll). This process is much more satisfying to me that wading through hundreds of raw files from a digital camera.
Pete

 

[Spanik]

Don't see what this got to do with Leica either.

I see no point in developing/printing at home. If you have a good lab in reach and a good understanding with them, then you cannot keep your chemicals in condition like they do. Unless you have the same volume to handle.

Certainly not when you do 95% slides like I do.

I do admit that color prints can be a bit variable in result. But then again I don't do those that much that I can be certain that it isn't my technique shooting the film that makes the difference. Or the film itself.

 

[thegman]

I think sometimes film is like having a mortgage on a house, digital is like buying a nice car. You'll spend a lot on mortgage payments, but it's spread out over a lifetime. The car will cost you less, but be worthless eventually.

 

[cosmonaut]

Well with modern digital cameras the old film is better argument is really not valid anymore. I can make my digital files look like any film with a click of a preset. Digital has come of age and now affordable for most.
The Plustek is an amazing scanner for the price and I still like to shoot B&W and develop my own. I have just about gave up color film. The cost is just to high.

 

[Godfrey]

do you think future scanners will be able to squeeze more data from the film than current scanning technology?

Honestly, I don't think there's much more data to be had that matters. Both the Nikon Coolscan V and Super Coolscan 9000 are pulling much more out of the film than any wet lab optical printing ever could, never mind the Imacon Flextight scanners, and that's certainly good enough for my needs.

Besides that, the likelihood that I'll go back and re-scan work that I'm done and finished with is vanishingly small. I'm more interested in moving forwards and producing great photos, not constantly trying to make the old work better.

If a substantially better scanner appeared that allowed me to work more difficult, pathological negatives, fine: I'd upgrade to that and keep moving forwards. But I don't see it happening, and I produce pretty easy to scan negatives anyway.

G

 

[Biggles]

I haven't developed a single roll of film since I got back into film around 2005. Would rather do my own dentistry.

 

[matt_mcg2]

I do all my own b&w developing. I don't mind doing it, although I've not shot much recently so it's been at least 6 weeks since I last developed anything. I use an Epson flatbed (V500) for scanning, and it's straightforward enough. I like a lot of things about the film cameras I use, and don't find developing enough of a chore to stop using them.

I read Ming Thein's article. It was interesting, although I'm not sure I agree with him on everything. He complains about grain, but he's getting _way_ more grain on medium format film (Delta100 with a Hasselblad, for example) than I do. I'm fairly sure I have less visible grain in scans from HP5+ or Tmax 400.

 

[Jamesruff]

not everyone has the time, space, knowledge to self develop.
i only develop b&w at home, but have a E6 and C41 kits. im a little hesitant to do colour, lacking a bit of confidence. so for the moment i get a lab to do my colour films, then i scan and print.
my nearest lab is about 2hr drive away, so i need to sort this out.
if i had the space i would set up a darkroom.
i shoot a lot of medium and large format. not many digital cameras can match that experience.

 

[bjornkeizers]

I own 20+ camera's these days, and I send out all my rolls. There are several reasons:

- I shoot about two rolls per month usually. Sometimes more, sometimes less.
- I've never developed film, so I'd face a big learning curve and financial investment in doing my own processing and printing.
- I have ready access to a local minilab as well as local stores that send out to labs.
- I shoot a wide variety of film that would be difficult to process: everything from 35mm B&W, 110 color, slide film, etc. Yet more learning curve & investment in chemicals.

Now, I'm considering at least doing my own 35mm B&W in the near future, since I shoot more of that then any other film, but for the other stuff.... the labs are just less of a hassle.

 

[thegman]

Well with modern digital cameras the old film is better argument is really not valid anymore. I can make my digital files look like any film with a click of a preset. Digital has come of age and now affordable for most.
The Plustek is an amazing scanner for the price and I still like to shoot B&W and develop my own. I have just about gave up color film. The cost is just to high.

For me (and most here I think), it's not a matter of "film is better", it's just we like it more. Whisky is not better than red wine, but I prefer it.

And yes, you can certainly make digital files look pretty much indiscernable from film, but you can make a quartz watch look identical to a mechanical watch, but many will still prefer the real thing, for all the disadvantages.