Came back to film, possibly for 3 days.

the annual raise should cover my new found curiosity for shooting film (again).

My main problem is not the cost of film, but how do I explain to the General at home where that Hexar RF comes from?
 
Less is more

Less is more

The Leica M8/M9 because of the shutter don't feel or sound like my M's! It's important to me. The cost of a camera that gives quality that is easily matched by an entry DSLR, is a bad investment. Also there is a problem with longer lenses on digital M. Sure i don't know how to focus, using RFDR M since the late 50's.I like the fact that i have limited exposures on film. Less editing, less wastage.Do I use digital? Professionally I use the digital, but with "Point and Shoot" compacts as my work is for Internet. Reality! There is little difference in quality between small sensors and large sensors, if maximum size is 11 x 14". Before a posse comes after me, do some checking! A top pro with large format experience has also discovered this..I have 3 PC in storage due to non compliance with my programs or Internet interface! I found a complete Canonscan scanner with everything in original box! It does not work with Windows 7 or Apple OS latest. Sick of adding newer more stupid equipment.
When I take/make a photo all I want to do is push the button, not fight with a menu.
 
When using film for making photographs, I process with chemicals, printing in a darkroom. I don't scan film, yet anyway. Haven't used any color film for several years. When I did I processed the film and printed. I have a color analyzer I bought around 1970 that helped. My darkroom dates way back and I still have it set up and I use it whenever needed.

Have a roll of B&W 120 film loaded (shot with a 1950's Mamiyaflex camera!) in a Paterson tank and going to develop in D-76 today! Fun! And smiles!

When I shoot with digital stuff, I process on the computer and the viewing of the images varies.

Don't really see the need to scan. I have slides that go back to the 1960's and my Kodak Carousal projector works just fine. I can still get replacement bulbs!

Back in the olden days, I would take 75 to 80 slides for a wedding. Then have the Bride & Groom over to my studio where I would have a get together, show the slides. When they said, "I'd like a print of that one," I would pull the slide out of the tray and make the print(s) for them. Much longer process as compared to digital. Remember doing fondues in the 1970's?

I still like using film, perhaps because of nostalgia as that's where I started.

My opinion, digital has caught up to and in most cases has surpassed film. I have some pretty nice 40 by 30 prints that look pretty darn nice, at least the client bought them! Ha!

My recommendation, if you're going to use film, carry the process through to the print. Find a darkroom to use or get the stuff as enlargers can be had, many times, for a song & a dance. Besides, black & white Ag gel prints should last quite a while.

Hope this helps you.
 
Roger Hicks said:
On the other hand, I've just come back from Arles, where I shot 518 pictures on a 9 day trip, not counting the ones I deleted on the spot: call it 15 rolls. Quite a lot were 'notebook' pictures: gallery interiors, Artists' Statements and commentaries, etc., where post processing wasn't important. Going through 500+ pics is tedious enough: I can't imagine 350 a day on a regular basis. What do you do with this 'complete record'?

I don't argue with your cost analysis: $7000 for an M9 is 700 rolls of 36-exposure at $10/roll, the least you're likely to pay for decent film and processing, and over 5 years that´s 140 rolls/year or a 2-3 rolls a week. I'd hope for more like 10 years or even 20 from the M9, though, at which point the cost is trivial, the more so as where I live, it's more like $20-$30/roll for colour film and ref prints. It's just that I can't help wondering why you take quite so many pictures; what you do with them; and (most of all) how you find the time to review and process them.
Click to expand...

Hi Roger,

I hope to get 10 or even 20 years from the M9 as well, but what with digital products being what they are, I am not as sure of their longevity as the film cameras, of course. There's a lovely little black M4-2 I've been eyeing of late. It's lighter than my M9 and M7, almost the same size and weight as the Fuji X100. And being a M4-2 it was made well over 40 years ago. A good service and it is right for another few decades. Food for thought, but I digress.

When it comes to processing the thousands of photos I took while in Japan, I imported them all to Lightroom and exported them using an automated preset I devised. While this was running, I went off and did whatever else I wanted to do. In the following days and weeks, I had a very enjoyable time going through the images and finding ones that I wanted to process individually.

I do not claim to be such a good photographer that I had a high percentage of keepers from such a run and gun method. If you add the Ricoh GRD photos to the M9 photos, I took an average of 620 images every day! I'd say that less than 20 per day were ones that I would process individually, let alone print and hang on a wall. But it gave me the ability to practically relive the trip as it progressed, all the way through.

As for why I take so many: I admit to a slightly obsessive streak, although I don't take anywhere near this amount in normal life. Japan was on my list of 'must do in this lifetime' things, and I wanted to capture as much of it as I could. I've had an intense fascination with that country for most of my life and the opportunity to spend three weeks there and travel through it was something I couldn't just walk through.
 
I doubt people will still be using a "camera" to take photos in 20 years.

As for film, just like someone already said, either you will love to do it or you don't. There's no point trying to be convinced that film is better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom