teo
Well-known
I like film for hobby photography, but shoot 1's and 0's for work and casual snaps.
Coming back from Digital?
- Thread starter HuubL
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 194
- Views 6K
Damaso
Photojournalist
After shooting nearly all digital for three years I am back to mostly shooting film. THere are many days when I go out to do a shoot and the digital slr stays at home. Now when I can afford an M8/M9 I will get one...
aparat
Established
I have never really left film, though I now use a DSLR for family snapshots (just easier that way), and for everything else I use film. I just love working with film.
aparat
aparat
dshugar
RF newbie
I was sort of sad when I bought my DSLR and never used my film SLR again. I sold it soon afterwards but just recently 'rediscovered' shooting with film, pretty much coincident with discovering this forum! I suppose buying a rangefinder helped, too.
sonyleica
Member
Hi, do you guys develop your films at home or let it developed on street labs. I am really interested in jumping to film, but I am not sure if I will be happy with the results. I don't have the darkroom skills, although I am planning to master it in the future. But in the meantime, I guess I will rely on streetlab to process films and this is my doubt, considering the IQ variability issues.
bigdood
wanderlustin'
My dSLR has driven me back to film. I rediscovered the enjoyment I get out of snappin' photos and am getting more into retro and 'toy' cameras and leaving the digital back most of the time these days. Currently saving up to get the goods to start processing my own film at home.
Chris101
summicronia
If you shoot B&W, you don't really need any skills, darkroom or otherwise. It takes about $50 worth of equipment and chemicals, and you can do it in a well lit bathroom, except for loading the film onto the reels. For that step, a closet or changing bag is fine.sonyleica said:
And then you'll need a scanner, although I've heard about people shooting the negatives with a digital camera instead.
semrich
Well-known
I started into photography as a hobby 2 years ago with a digital P&S then went to digital rangefinders. With the lenses I have it was an easy decision to go to film. Now I develop and scan my film and enjoy shooting film and the look of it more than digital.
R
ruben
Guest
Very recently a highly talented digital/analogue tech, aged by his early thirties, announced me he is done with digital. The reason ? When mooving to a new house and packaging their stuff he and his wife noticed they have albums of two of their elder kids, but no album from their youngest one.
"The reason ?" he told me, "all the pics of my youngest kid are inside the computer. Therefore I took out the batteries from my digital cameras, put them back in their packages, and no more digital shooting. Back to film!"
I kept thinking about his attitude. Although he is very much aware he can have prints from digital cameras, in his mind it is more cumbersome for some reason. And in his mind too, prints are associated to film. He prefers to deliver the canister to the lab and get back 36 pics rather than starting downloading, selecting, editing, etc.
Cheers,
Ruben
"The reason ?" he told me, "all the pics of my youngest kid are inside the computer. Therefore I took out the batteries from my digital cameras, put them back in their packages, and no more digital shooting. Back to film!"
I kept thinking about his attitude. Although he is very much aware he can have prints from digital cameras, in his mind it is more cumbersome for some reason. And in his mind too, prints are associated to film. He prefers to deliver the canister to the lab and get back 36 pics rather than starting downloading, selecting, editing, etc.
Cheers,
Ruben
los
Established
i really enjoy my canon rangefinder glass. if i could use it on a full frame digital body, i would not shoot film anymore. i print 12x18, and the little canon 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 do an outstanding job.
Athos6
Tao Master
I sold all my film gear to get a D200, then I got a Nokkormat ftn, "just for fun." Well now I have a M2 and an F3. I'm thinking I'll use the D200 for landscapes and events and the film cameras for street shooting.
Chris101
summicronia
A DSLR also makes a great light meter!
srichmond
Established
Chris - you're totally right about a DSLR being a great light meter. I must admit, I've "checked" before. I do feel guilty though! lol
I got into photography about 3 years before digital cameras became popular. So I'm lucky I picked up all the darkroom skills and skills associated with manual focus & manual exposure SLRs. Being a student, and not having a lot of money meant that the attraction of digital was great - you could shoot loads and never have to worry about the development costs. I went out and bought DLSRs, lenses, everything. Was great.
HOWEVER - this year, I got back into film again, after getting an M6. I love B&W photography, and there's no better way to do it than with film. The thought and time that goes into each exposure cannot be compared with the time that goes into digital. For me, this is much more rewarding.
It's more a state of mind, than anything else, I think. Equally great results can be acheived with digital, but I confess to liking the process of film more. I also like the film "look". Digital has a clinical look, and can be easily spotted, I think. This is very subjective - I know!
Film also means you can use really fantastic cameras like the Lecia M, and justify the expense because they don't really get out of date, like digital cameras. Again, very subjective.
I got into photography about 3 years before digital cameras became popular. So I'm lucky I picked up all the darkroom skills and skills associated with manual focus & manual exposure SLRs. Being a student, and not having a lot of money meant that the attraction of digital was great - you could shoot loads and never have to worry about the development costs. I went out and bought DLSRs, lenses, everything. Was great.
HOWEVER - this year, I got back into film again, after getting an M6. I love B&W photography, and there's no better way to do it than with film. The thought and time that goes into each exposure cannot be compared with the time that goes into digital. For me, this is much more rewarding.
It's more a state of mind, than anything else, I think. Equally great results can be acheived with digital, but I confess to liking the process of film more. I also like the film "look". Digital has a clinical look, and can be easily spotted, I think. This is very subjective - I know!
Film also means you can use really fantastic cameras like the Lecia M, and justify the expense because they don't really get out of date, like digital cameras. Again, very subjective.
Jan Van Laethem
Nikkor. What else?
I've tried digital, but found it's not for me
For me it is not so much a matter of film versus digital, but more a matter of simplicity versus complexity. I started out as a kid borrowing my father’s or mother’s cameras, but when my interest grew and money became more readily available, I bought the best AF camera my money could buy at that time. I thought I needed the best AF and metering system available, but soon found out that I didn’t. Landscapes were done with the AF turned off using the depth-of-field scale on the lens, macro again with AF turned off and low light and backlight shots proved to turn out better when I metered with a handheld meter than when I left the camera’s matrix metering determine the exposure. As a result of this, I reverted to manual cameras: FM3a, then a second hand F3HP, both of which I use almost exclusively now. It seems like I’m going backwards in time, as I am now more and more interested in classic SLRs and rangefinders. I love the simplicity of manual cameras: aperture, shutter speed, a bright viewfinder and a responsive shutter are all I need to take a picture. Granted, I could use a DSLR or digital RF and turn off the AF, but I prefer manual film cameras.
About six months ago I tried a friend’s D200 and although the shots came out nice, I just couldn’t get to grips with it. Every time I wanted to change one of the manual lenses I brought with me on the shoot, I had to dial in the lenses’ data, which I found extremely annoying. I now have a CD full of shots that I have looked at twice. I haven’t even printed one image. On the other hand, I find that holding a strip of slide film or black and white negative film up to the light is very rewarding. There is something direct and final about a film image, something that a digital file could never contain.
I think I will be using film for as long as I can. Maybe the ever escalating film and processing costs may eventually force me to reconsider, but I’m holding on for now.
For me it is not so much a matter of film versus digital, but more a matter of simplicity versus complexity. I started out as a kid borrowing my father’s or mother’s cameras, but when my interest grew and money became more readily available, I bought the best AF camera my money could buy at that time. I thought I needed the best AF and metering system available, but soon found out that I didn’t. Landscapes were done with the AF turned off using the depth-of-field scale on the lens, macro again with AF turned off and low light and backlight shots proved to turn out better when I metered with a handheld meter than when I left the camera’s matrix metering determine the exposure. As a result of this, I reverted to manual cameras: FM3a, then a second hand F3HP, both of which I use almost exclusively now. It seems like I’m going backwards in time, as I am now more and more interested in classic SLRs and rangefinders. I love the simplicity of manual cameras: aperture, shutter speed, a bright viewfinder and a responsive shutter are all I need to take a picture. Granted, I could use a DSLR or digital RF and turn off the AF, but I prefer manual film cameras.
About six months ago I tried a friend’s D200 and although the shots came out nice, I just couldn’t get to grips with it. Every time I wanted to change one of the manual lenses I brought with me on the shoot, I had to dial in the lenses’ data, which I found extremely annoying. I now have a CD full of shots that I have looked at twice. I haven’t even printed one image. On the other hand, I find that holding a strip of slide film or black and white negative film up to the light is very rewarding. There is something direct and final about a film image, something that a digital file could never contain.
I think I will be using film for as long as I can. Maybe the ever escalating film and processing costs may eventually force me to reconsider, but I’m holding on for now.
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
You might find this interesting. I was at a wedding this weekend & spoke with the photographer. She had a 2 crew members shooting. All were shooting digital. 2 dslr & one digital camera. They would shoot a 1000 photos not knowing what they would get. But, when they shot the portraits in private -- that they knew would be blown up -- they used a film Bronica S & scanned the negatives. She felt that the digitals were good for the grab shots if you didn't know how they would come out or if they would sell but for the important stuff a large film format was the best. We ended the conversation with her advising me not to ever sell my film cameras.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I know a 'wedding photographer' that recently had to pull his Pentax 645 out of retirement for a job, the family of the bride insisted on slides, scanned and printed. The funny thing was these people were not photo people, they had seen some of his slides on a web page.
I jumped on digital when it started, (Sony Mavica-the first one $900 down the drain), and I kept trying. First, I thought the color is OK, but I'll conquer this B&W conversion thing. After about 14 months I loaded my RF and SLRs with B&W film. Now, I'm just not happy with digital color, So it is back to C-41 and Slides.
Kodak Porta160vs:
I jumped on digital when it started, (Sony Mavica-the first one $900 down the drain), and I kept trying. First, I thought the color is OK, but I'll conquer this B&W conversion thing. After about 14 months I loaded my RF and SLRs with B&W film. Now, I'm just not happy with digital color, So it is back to C-41 and Slides.
Kodak Porta160vs:
Last edited:
colyn
ישו משיח
I shoot both. Never left film nor will I.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Digital color to me looks plastic toy like. Also, the variety of different color 'looks' from the many film choices, I find really adds to the mystic of a photo. The more you try to make digital color look like film color the worse it looks, at least that is the way I feel about it. Add that to the narrow dynamic range of digital (and slide film) , the color balance problems, and it just doesn't do it for me. Digital color is here to stay, but to me it is like looking at a TV set, (maybe that will change).
JLANTZ
Too many cameras man
I like cameras, period. I like taking pictures. period. What I use is what I feel like using at the time. I like mixing things. Like M42 lenses on my Canon digital SLR's. Like scanning large format negatives on my scanner. Digital is lazy and a lot of times I feel like being lazy. When I want to challenge myself I grab one of my rangefinders and load some B&W in and go shooting. Like this weekend. Loaded up my Zorki 3 and a Jupiter 8 lens and some HP5 36 exp film. Went shooting at a local farmer's market. Could not figure out why I was up past 45 shots on a 36 exp roll though........ guess I will find out when I develop the roll this week. Luckily I had my Canon XTI as a backup.
Looks Like I shoot both, one verified, the other with hope and faith.
Jess
Looks Like I shoot both, one verified, the other with hope and faith.
Jess
kuzano
Veteran
Well said, and I would add:
Well said, and I would add:
I've been shooting film for 40 years. I shoot some digital now... at least enough to add it to my roster of community ed classes at the local college.
I agree with you on the new look in imaging that digital offers. I would say it's a new media and should be embraced as such. Attempts to make digital look like film are futile and unnecessary.
If one likes the look of film, then shoot film. I still like film.
If one likes the look of digital, shoot digital and be happy with the new results.
The real issue with film vs digital is not in image quality. It's in trying to make digital an exact replacement of film.
To add to that, it offers the same disadvantage that artists have always been faced with in working in two mediums and trying to be excellent at both.
Choose one or the other and focus, so to speak. It will take a rare person who can master both productively.
Well said, and I would add:
I've been shooting film for 40 years. I shoot some digital now... at least enough to add it to my roster of community ed classes at the local college.
I agree with you on the new look in imaging that digital offers. I would say it's a new media and should be embraced as such. Attempts to make digital look like film are futile and unnecessary.
If one likes the look of film, then shoot film. I still like film.
If one likes the look of digital, shoot digital and be happy with the new results.
The real issue with film vs digital is not in image quality. It's in trying to make digital an exact replacement of film.
To add to that, it offers the same disadvantage that artists have always been faced with in working in two mediums and trying to be excellent at both.
Choose one or the other and focus, so to speak. It will take a rare person who can master both productively.