_larky
Well-known
I need advice, and please let's not let this turn into a digital vs film debate.
I decided to give film one more chance, and purchased an M6 for the task. I've had the camera 3 days and have fallen in love, however my brain kicked in and:
Film cost = £4 average per roll.
Dev = £2.50 average.
Scanner = £300 for an average one.
Quality of £300 scanner = not as good as a good digital camera.
So each shot costs me roughly 18 pence and will not give me the same quality as a good digital. True, I have greats negs, but I'll never have a darkroom.
So my question is do I spend the £300 on the scanner, or do I save that cash, sell the M6, and go for an M8. Crop factor I can deal with, I have a lens, I can deal with it's little nuisances.
What does film give me that digital doesn't. Other than some physical files?
I decided to give film one more chance, and purchased an M6 for the task. I've had the camera 3 days and have fallen in love, however my brain kicked in and:
Film cost = £4 average per roll.
Dev = £2.50 average.
Scanner = £300 for an average one.
Quality of £300 scanner = not as good as a good digital camera.
So each shot costs me roughly 18 pence and will not give me the same quality as a good digital. True, I have greats negs, but I'll never have a darkroom.
So my question is do I spend the £300 on the scanner, or do I save that cash, sell the M6, and go for an M8. Crop factor I can deal with, I have a lens, I can deal with it's little nuisances.
What does film give me that digital doesn't. Other than some physical files?
pphuang
brain drain...
"Quality" is in the eyes of the beholder. There is no universal right answer, only an answer that is right for you. People love film because of 1) the tactile pleasure (ritual?) of shooting analog 2) the "look" of film, or 3) both.
It is up to you to decide whether its worth the extra cost/hassle/whatever.
If the answer is no, just sell the camera and move on. If you enjoy shooting film, and there is no pressing financial need to sell, why not just keep the camera?
It is up to you to decide whether its worth the extra cost/hassle/whatever.
If the answer is no, just sell the camera and move on. If you enjoy shooting film, and there is no pressing financial need to sell, why not just keep the camera?
Last edited:
sepiareverb
genius and moron
You can always get prints made for you of negatives you like. You seem to be in the UK- no end of good printers there it seems. But you seem to want the cheap way out?
Film gives you a physical original, something some of us over a certain age have a certain attachment to.
Film gives you a physical original, something some of us over a certain age have a certain attachment to.
mugent
Well-known
I don't think 'absolute quality' is a great way to choose between digital and film, if this was the ultimate goal, we wouldn't use 35mm film at all, we'd use medium format, or large format. Personally, I'm moving more towards digital, it's not just a cost thing, but the hassle. I don't get much free time, so the time take to dev/scan/remove dust isn't time well spent.
If you like shooting film, and the cost isn't a burden, keep shooting it, I think we let our brains get in the way of too many decisions.
MT
If you like shooting film, and the cost isn't a burden, keep shooting it, I think we let our brains get in the way of too many decisions.
MT
_larky
Well-known
I think, after a night's sleep, to view digital as the fun side of my photography. The heart side. The digital side will be the head side, and will be 90% of what I shoot. So the M6 stays, along with the el cheapo scanner which I'll use to make contact sheets. If I get any real keepers I'll have them scanned by a lab.
My aim is to, at the end of the first year with the Leica, to have a coffee table book made up for myself of the 35 best shots. Depending upon cost of lab scanning, it will be either a new scanner in a year or the lab, we'll see.
Crisis over, heart and head working together.
I think loading a new film last night helped. I miss that tactile stuff.
My aim is to, at the end of the first year with the Leica, to have a coffee table book made up for myself of the 35 best shots. Depending upon cost of lab scanning, it will be either a new scanner in a year or the lab, we'll see.
Crisis over, heart and head working together.
I think loading a new film last night helped. I miss that tactile stuff.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
A tactile process that is very rewarding (when followed to the conclusion). Unlike what the modern world seems to project on us, we, human beings are actually programmed to enjoy working with our hands.
Archiver
Veteran
I get a tremendous feeling of pleasure from loading, shooting and unloading a high quality film camera. It's part tactile pleasure, part nostalgia, and part fantasy, where I remember being a child and shooting with Dad's SLR's, and imagining myself in some tangential way as being connected with HCB, Kertesz and Erwitt by activity.
You know what I get from film? Surprise. Not knowing what is on a roll of film is often a source of joy, as images from a forgotten past are suddenly revealed through a loupe, a contact sheet, a scanned image. I have about five film cameras that haven't changed rolls since 2007. I shoot maybe one or two images at a time, then put them away while I play with something else. When those rolls are developed I will have 36 surprises per camera. I can't get that with a digital camera that instantly displays what I've shot.
If someone tries to measure film against digital using a 'quality' metric, digital will win in so many ways. It also wins for convenience and even cost over time. $5000 buys me one roll of colour negative film, shot, developed, scanned and printed, once a week for well over three years. It could also buy me a M8, a computer, and virtually unlimited photos for over three years. But it doesn't give me the tactile pleasure of a film Leica.
You know what I get from film? Surprise. Not knowing what is on a roll of film is often a source of joy, as images from a forgotten past are suddenly revealed through a loupe, a contact sheet, a scanned image. I have about five film cameras that haven't changed rolls since 2007. I shoot maybe one or two images at a time, then put them away while I play with something else. When those rolls are developed I will have 36 surprises per camera. I can't get that with a digital camera that instantly displays what I've shot.
If someone tries to measure film against digital using a 'quality' metric, digital will win in so many ways. It also wins for convenience and even cost over time. $5000 buys me one roll of colour negative film, shot, developed, scanned and printed, once a week for well over three years. It could also buy me a M8, a computer, and virtually unlimited photos for over three years. But it doesn't give me the tactile pleasure of a film Leica.
print44
Well-known
Im going through the same series of questions as you, but maybe not quite resolved them yet. I have a D90 which I lusted over before I bought it and convinced myself that it - the digital format - was exactly what my photography had always needed. An inexhaustible supply of 'free film' essentially, along with free and instant 'processing'. The advent of computer post production of the image is certainly and undeniably a huge relief after the tedium of the darkroom. I kindof enjoyed printing - until I got silver poisoning from too much time with my hands in the fixer (stupid!).
But the D90 has not been the answer. It is not - for me - intuitive enough. There are issues with actually taking a picture when I want it to - and not when it decides everything is OK. I take pictures which I don't tend to look at, but dump into folders on my pc. As far as the image quality goes I have nothing to complain about - they're clean, great, colourful, sharp etc etc.
But. Something isn't happening. Which used to happen when I shot film.
So. I buy a lovely little IIIf and go back to the start. And I love taking pictures again. And even though I get the films developed at Max Spielmann (!!) and burned onto crappy CDs at some stupid res, I get excited every time I go to collect the envelope of negs and the CD. I buy a beaten up M4-2 and take some of the best pics ever (even though I discover it fogs the film). So that must be the answer I think. Film is back!
But. Hang on. 2 films a week all year (only 2) = £416.
Process/CD by Max S = £520. No way am I going back to the dev tank. Plus I want a Leica M having sent the M4-2 back = £500 minimum for a half decent M4-P. In two years the cost of the material and processing alone is more than a s/h M8.
So. I guess my question now is - if I shot using an M8 and a suitable wide-ish angle Leica lens would I really be able to tell the difference between these digital images once they were post produced and printed (on a pc) and the scanned negs of the real world M4-p with a 35mm Leica lens? Assuming a high res scan.
Assuming the M8 functions like a film camera - ie its shutter operates as I depress the button irrespective of what it might think of my aperture and speed settings why am I depriving myself of all those 'free films' and 'free processing'? Is the subjective appeal of film really so great? Or is it all about the image and an M8 is just a tool to help me to create the image?
But the D90 has not been the answer. It is not - for me - intuitive enough. There are issues with actually taking a picture when I want it to - and not when it decides everything is OK. I take pictures which I don't tend to look at, but dump into folders on my pc. As far as the image quality goes I have nothing to complain about - they're clean, great, colourful, sharp etc etc.
But. Something isn't happening. Which used to happen when I shot film.
So. I buy a lovely little IIIf and go back to the start. And I love taking pictures again. And even though I get the films developed at Max Spielmann (!!) and burned onto crappy CDs at some stupid res, I get excited every time I go to collect the envelope of negs and the CD. I buy a beaten up M4-2 and take some of the best pics ever (even though I discover it fogs the film). So that must be the answer I think. Film is back!
But. Hang on. 2 films a week all year (only 2) = £416.
Process/CD by Max S = £520. No way am I going back to the dev tank. Plus I want a Leica M having sent the M4-2 back = £500 minimum for a half decent M4-P. In two years the cost of the material and processing alone is more than a s/h M8.
So. I guess my question now is - if I shot using an M8 and a suitable wide-ish angle Leica lens would I really be able to tell the difference between these digital images once they were post produced and printed (on a pc) and the scanned negs of the real world M4-p with a 35mm Leica lens? Assuming a high res scan.
Assuming the M8 functions like a film camera - ie its shutter operates as I depress the button irrespective of what it might think of my aperture and speed settings why am I depriving myself of all those 'free films' and 'free processing'? Is the subjective appeal of film really so great? Or is it all about the image and an M8 is just a tool to help me to create the image?
semrich
Well-known
I started shooting film and loved the process including developing and scanning. Also never thought i could get a darkroom, and then a darkroom appeared for me to use and I'm printing from the negatives of the shots I like the most and getting a good sense of accomplishment from it. I'm sure glad I have those negatives because of the choices I now have, scan and inkjet print or the darkroom and a silver gelatin print. Could never do that with my M8.
Steve_F
Well-known
So you buy an M6, keep it say, 25 years and dont replace it because it doesn't go out of date. In that that time how many digitals will you have gotten through?
Of course youre paying the film and process but factor in all hardware and software upgrades too.
Total cost =?
Playing devils advocate here.
Who cares, do what you want, follow your heart.
Steve.
Of course youre paying the film and process but factor in all hardware and software upgrades too.
Total cost =?
Playing devils advocate here.
Who cares, do what you want, follow your heart.
Steve.
_larky
Well-known
I was having a panic attack! It ended very abruptly when I was looking through some scans I made fo film I processed 2 year ago and never scanned because I had no means to do so.
Even though my processing technique is about as bad as it gets, and the negs have watermarks and dust and hairs and scratches and are really baldy souped, they have a warmth and tonality and honesty I can't see in any digital shot I've ever taken.
I still think it's too expensive, but I'll wear some gloves and take the pills (extreme reaction when I process film myself, even with gloves on) and start dunking myself again. I have found the scanner I want and summer is on the way.
Now I need to learn it all again, photography I mean, you really do tend to lose the skill when you go digital.
Even though my processing technique is about as bad as it gets, and the negs have watermarks and dust and hairs and scratches and are really baldy souped, they have a warmth and tonality and honesty I can't see in any digital shot I've ever taken.
I still think it's too expensive, but I'll wear some gloves and take the pills (extreme reaction when I process film myself, even with gloves on) and start dunking myself again. I have found the scanner I want and summer is on the way.
Now I need to learn it all again, photography I mean, you really do tend to lose the skill when you go digital.
print44
Well-known
Which scanner are you going to use?
_larky
Well-known
Plustek 7400 with Silverfast Suites I own already. I don't need dust removal, it wont cope with my level of fluff
print44
Well-known
I've been deliberately using no light meter, and it's really made me think about light again - for the first time in about 20 years. I could go down the M6 road, but have this suspicion that the meterless Ms are the better bet...
print44
Well-known
I was looking at one of the Epson Perfections (V700?) flatbeds - but maybe the Plustek is a good buy? Youre obviously happy with the results and the operation of the thing?
Nomad Z
Well-known
For which film? I usually pay about £2 a roll for 35mm (Superia for colour negs, Rollei Retro or Legacy Pro for B&W).
Not too bad - my local pro lab is more like £3.50 for colour. I do my own B&W for about 50p a roll.
Or about 7p for home-developed B&W (at the prices I buy it at).
Physical files that survive all computer crashes.
Dynamic range.
Less fretting over precise exposure.
A lack of the same dust bunny pattern infesting every shot.
A lack of dust bunny paranoia every time you change a lens.
The feel of a manual film camera.
Stuff you can get scanned elsewhere if you really want better quality.
Stuff that can be wet printed by a lab for the hang-it-on-the-wall shots.
The tonal gradation of wet prints.
No hassles with IR cut filters?
A fresh sensor every time you wind on.
A bewildering array of sensor types to choose from.
_larky
Well-known
I don't use mine either, don't use it on the X100 also. I am pretty good at guessing. But it's nice to have it. I may go for a meterless M at some point, but I always wanted the M6 for reasons I can't put into words. It's beautiful
_larky
Well-known
print44
Well-known
The other reason I hanker after the pre-M6 cameras is that they have that logo/engraving. How daft is that? Because I'm sure if a regular M6 had a nice Leica/Leitz logo I'd be in there like a shot. What is that? snobbery? Geekery?
jordanstarr
J.R.Starr
You'll have to obviously come to your own conclusion, but I'll give you some things to think about:
1. The Print - The final product for me what is more important, that's why I shoot film and use a darkroom. I find it far superior in every sense (paper quality, image quality, personal control and interpretation). However, if you get a cheap film scanner, obviously the M8 is going to be better. If it's just for web, well why would you buy a $2000+ camera body without a lens for that? If you want exhibition prints, a darkroom print from a great Print Master can run you nearly as close as a great digital printer. Do you want the end product to be tangible or just on your screen? I've seen plenty of cheap cameras take pictures as good as a Leica when it's on a small screen.
2. Lenses - I'm not sure how wide you like to shoot, but as you go wider, the lenses for Leica generally get more expensive. So, if you get the M8, you'll be spending more on a 24mm to get that wider look than you would the 28mm lens.
3. Organization - If you don't constantly back up and re-back up your digital files, you could lose everything forever. All it takes it a hard drive to crash or your friend to knock your computer onto the ground. Obviously this is the same concern if you're digitalizing your negatives, but at least the negatives won't disappear and will likely outlive you -a CD or hard drive will not.
4. What "look" do you prefer? Film and digital give a similar look on a screen, but as a print, they're very different.
5. What's going to happen in the long run? As another member pointed out, your M6 will retain it's value forever. Your M8 will drop like a rock and has since it came out. Your M6 will likely also outlive the electrical components of your M8.
6. Are you planning on going pro or making a living off of photography? There's arguments on both digital and film sides of this, but customers mostly want something digital and quick.
You have a lot of things to think about and you're going to feel some pain one way or the other. Good luck.
1. The Print - The final product for me what is more important, that's why I shoot film and use a darkroom. I find it far superior in every sense (paper quality, image quality, personal control and interpretation). However, if you get a cheap film scanner, obviously the M8 is going to be better. If it's just for web, well why would you buy a $2000+ camera body without a lens for that? If you want exhibition prints, a darkroom print from a great Print Master can run you nearly as close as a great digital printer. Do you want the end product to be tangible or just on your screen? I've seen plenty of cheap cameras take pictures as good as a Leica when it's on a small screen.
2. Lenses - I'm not sure how wide you like to shoot, but as you go wider, the lenses for Leica generally get more expensive. So, if you get the M8, you'll be spending more on a 24mm to get that wider look than you would the 28mm lens.
3. Organization - If you don't constantly back up and re-back up your digital files, you could lose everything forever. All it takes it a hard drive to crash or your friend to knock your computer onto the ground. Obviously this is the same concern if you're digitalizing your negatives, but at least the negatives won't disappear and will likely outlive you -a CD or hard drive will not.
4. What "look" do you prefer? Film and digital give a similar look on a screen, but as a print, they're very different.
5. What's going to happen in the long run? As another member pointed out, your M6 will retain it's value forever. Your M8 will drop like a rock and has since it came out. Your M6 will likely also outlive the electrical components of your M8.
6. Are you planning on going pro or making a living off of photography? There's arguments on both digital and film sides of this, but customers mostly want something digital and quick.
You have a lot of things to think about and you're going to feel some pain one way or the other. Good luck.