Spanik
Well-known
My only reason to use film is that I like film cameras best. The day they make a digital that works like a mechanical camera from the 70's I'll change directly.
Buying a film camera but only to use a lab?
- Thread starter danielsterno
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 65
- Views 6K
My only reason to use film is that I like film cameras best. The day they make a digital that works like a mechanical camera from the 70's I'll change directly.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Spanik
Well-known
A rangefinder isn't a proper camera 😀 Less flippant, it doesn't suit my way of working at all. I need from close up (not quite macro) to some tele over mostly wide angles and I really, really dislike auxilary finders.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, nor's digital. Nor 35mm. Nor film. Nor dry plates... We all have our comfort zones. But you have to admit that the M9 is a digital M, in a way that (for example) Nikon's current cameras are not digital Fs. I think Nikon needs to introduce an FD, which is to an F as the M9 is to an M4.
Cheers,
R.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Add the EVF.
Spanik
Well-known
Maybe we shouldn't do that discussion here and leave the thread to the original question.
The poster said "I really, really dislike auxilary finders"
willie_901
Veteran
I would only use a lab. There are a lot of good labs out there.
More importantly for me, I would only use medium format film. The 35 mm negative surface area just isn't large enough to justify the expense.
More importantly for me, I would only use medium format film. The 35 mm negative surface area just isn't large enough to justify the expense.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Well, there's that. 😉
I left the DSLR world for digital M's because I don't like EVFs either. The M-240 does offer an EVF option for those folks who can stand to use them.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
You are not quirky, you are beyond reasonable, you follow your heart, not just your head or what other people say. 🙂
Film is obsolete only for those who hated film processing, or those who never shoot it, thus forming opinion from other people's.
I am one of many who are a living proofs that choosing to shoot film today is not just for nostalgia... I came from using digital cameras, I have no "memory" of shooting with film ever. I like the process, the cameras, and the results.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Just pointing out the obvious answer, but he probably wants an SLR anyway. Nothing wrong with that, you can shoot film with an SLR too.
Back to the topic at hand:
The only real question regarding the decision as to whether to use a lab or process your own film is whether you can get what you're looking for. If you can get that from a lab doing the processing for you, why not? If you prefer to get it by doing the processing yourself, have the equipment, time, and skill to do so, why not?
Beyond that question, it's really up to you. Many people prefer the shooting but not the processing and rendering. Others prefer the rendering work. Some like both. It's completely up to you as to which way to go depending on what you want to achieve and how you get it.
I don't have a lot of time to spend in processing film ... I consider it boring and tedious work ... and the local lab does a darn fine job with standard films shot at rated speed. So I use them. When I want to push or pull a film, I do it myself. I do want control of the scanning and rendering process, so I make the time to do that, even though scanning is also a tedious bit of drudgery.
G
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
A long time ago my dad told me that when I needed something done, I could either spend the time to learn how and the time to do it myself or I could spend $ to have someone else do it. The "trick" was figuring out when and how to make that decision.
Because photography is not how I earn my living, I have the luxury of indulging my preferences with out much concern about the practicalities.
So, I am very happy to use my motley assortment of film cameras and mail off the film to get back clean negatives and excellent scans.
I can spend time to re-learn developing, time to sort out my used chemicals, and time to get good prints. And, then, scan the results anyway if I want to show them to anyone else but my immediate circle of family and friends.
I prefer to let the skilled folks at the lab I use do the developing and scanning.
My answer to the OP's question: yes it make perfect sense for me to buy film cameras only to use a lab.
Rob
Because photography is not how I earn my living, I have the luxury of indulging my preferences with out much concern about the practicalities.
So, I am very happy to use my motley assortment of film cameras and mail off the film to get back clean negatives and excellent scans.
I can spend time to re-learn developing, time to sort out my used chemicals, and time to get good prints. And, then, scan the results anyway if I want to show them to anyone else but my immediate circle of family and friends.
I prefer to let the skilled folks at the lab I use do the developing and scanning.
My answer to the OP's question: yes it make perfect sense for me to buy film cameras only to use a lab.
Rob
John Lawrence
Well-known
To be honest, with as many hours I sit in front of a computer screen, to make my living, and for reading, movies, and other things, I am looking forward to getting away from it for a while, even if it means dealing with developing chemicals. 🙂
Ronald M
Veteran
In my opinion it a total waste of time unless you home process. Even then a good D800e file or M9 outshines any film I ever used. It goes to be printed at a lab that uses a laser printer on real photo paper. The results are stunning and way better than I ever got home processing color with Leicas V35.
Haigh
Gary Haigh
If it helps, I use film since I process and scan/darkroom print myself. If I had to rely on a lab I would just shoot digital and give up the look of film on a darkroom print.
thegman
Veteran
Guess I'm totally wasting my time then. I'm not sure what "outshines" means, but if you mean technical resolution, then I don't doubt it for a second that a good D800e file can show more resolution than a film shot. I also don't doubt the reverse can be equally true.
Anyway, whilst I do plan to do my own processing at some point, when I have more time on my hands, I find the results from labs tends to be good enough for me.
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
I think it is a very personal choice, I like (wet) printing almost as much as shooting so I would definitively say that it is worth the hassle, at the same time I don't mind going to a lab if that's good and I don't have time, especially for processing colour. In the end I think that the most important part in the choice is how comfortably you are able to do each of these things. If you don't have a proper space for printing and you need to turn your toilet into a darkroom with other members of the family telling you to hurry up probably that's not going to make the experience very nice, if you don't have a good lab close to home and you have to send via an international courier your rolls every time you need to process them it won't work either, but if you have a proper space, respectively a good lab closed to you place, processing home can be a pleasure, respectively using a lab could make sense.
GLF
GLF
Similar threads
