Digital, when using digital in lieu of film

[EastNeuk]

Like many people on this forum, I very often prefer to shoot film. What's more, I generally prefer to shoot with medium format film cameras. As a sort of thought experiment, I was considering how I'd go about moving back principally to digital, if I were to need to do so. That is to say that I was thinking not about when digital would be better, or more convenient, but how I'd go about equipping myself and approaching picture taking, if I didn't have access to film equipment. The thought isn't wholly idle, as I may find myself in that situation for a while, although I'm hoping to avoid it.

So, I was curious, for people who are mainly film shooters, how would you go about shooting digital, if that were your only option? If I were deep pocketed enough, I think I'd lean towards using a Leica M Monochrome. Or, if it seems to work well, the forthcoming new version of the Pentax 645D. However, I'm not in a position to do that at the moment. After not using it for a while, I've been back to working with a Ricoh GXR A12 Mount and Olympus glass. Because I often crop to square, 6x7, or 8x10, it's a bit lower in resolution than I'd ideally want, but I like the general feel of the set-up. I'm waiting on a loupe to convert my sigma DPxMs' LCD screens into large viewfinders. What do, or would, others do if film were suddenly off the table, pitiable situation though that would be?

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

... how would you go about shooting digital, if that were your only option?

... What do, or would, others do if film were suddenly off the table, pitiable situation though that would be?

Well, I guess if I no longer had the possibility of shooting film I would shoot only digital, and I would do that just the way I do now for that ca. 30% of my work that already (or still) is digital. And that is post processing all my files desperately trying to achieve that contrasty, grainy and gritty look that I love and easily get from Tri-X & other 400 ISO film developed in Rodinal.

 

[EastNeuk]

Well, I guess if I no longer had the possibility of shooting film I would shoot only digital, and I would do that just the way I do now for that ca. 30% of my work that already (or still) is digital. And that is post processing all my files desperately trying to achieve that contrasty, grainy and gritty look that I love and easily get from Tri-X & other 400 ISO film developed in Rodinal.

I wish you'd written something a bit cheerier, but I understand the sentiment very well.

 

[Scrambler]

I'm not a big MF shooter, but I honestly think this is where the game is changing at the moment.

Smaller sensor cameras (than MF) can now have resolutions comparable to MF film. In many ways these megapixel monsters need to be handled like MF: tripods, remote releases and the like.

I would wonder whether a Nikon or Sony 36MP (or more if you are considering in a few years) would "do the job" as well as any digital can. After all, they have 90% of the pixels of a 645D, without an AA filter so almost certainly higher definition. Using adapted quality SLR or RF glass or the native high-quality prime lenses with large apertures should approximate the shallow depth of field, or stopping down give high-resolution cropable images.

And if you think of the cameras as small-bodied MF the necessity for tripods etc will seem natural.

 

[craygc]

My suggesting would be 1) to focus on how to get a digital file to 'look' how you want, and 2) stop focusing on 'resolution' as the primary parameter. If you like shooting film - even MF - then there must be aspects apart from resolution that appeal.

As an example, both taken at the same time, the first is a Sony Nex 5n and the second is 645 MF on HP5. The digital file certainly cant keep up with the Nikon 9000 scan of the neg as you enlarge it but a larger sensor might. For me, digital takes a lot of work to look the way I want it to; there are certainly circumstances where it excels and many others where it doesn't. At the end of the day my hearts in film.

Nex 5n

645 MF + HP5

 

[nikku]

Like many people on this forum, I very often prefer to shoot film. <snip>
So, I was curious, for people who are mainly film shooters, how would you go about shooting digital, if that were your only option? <snip> What do, or would, others do if film were suddenly off the table, pitiable situation though that would be?

Having thought about this before, I've decided that I would a. sell off all of my film bodies and manual lenses at deeply discounted prices (if indeed they could even be sold at all), b. keep one Olympus OM for display/sentimental value, and c. get a used M type 240 (or whatever the current equivalent Leica CMOS body would be in this hypothetical) and Summilux (probably 50mm) to use in conjunction with my current m4/3rds setup.

I don't mind digital, and use it quite often, but prefer film for a variety of reasons.

(Two things I would really really miss if film went away completely: Tri-X, and 6x9 transparencies. I don't think either of those can be duplicated with digital sensors (at least not yet)).

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you view it, I don't think the disappearance of film will happen suddenly or completely, so trying to predict when to sell off film bodies is a fools' errand.

 

[defconfunk]

My main film shooting is done on Olympus 35mm SLRs and a Bronica 645.

If I was to move (back) to a purely digital workflow, I'd do do the following:
Use an EM-1, XT-1, or A7 depending on what mattered most to me (natural-to-me handling, old-school feel, or wide-angle compatible respectively). I'd mount up an OM adapter with my OM glass, shoot raw, and process in DxO Pro Optics with film pack.

Even without the filmpack, I get fairly good color-negative-esque colours simply by shooting my with my OM 50 1.8. Yes it is a 100mm equivalent lens on a m4/3 body, but I tend to shoot tighter than wide anyways. I can live without wide lenses. If wide lenses were critical ro my work, I'd step up to the A7 (and then bitch about the camera handling).

If I really wanted my old school controls, I'd get the XT-1 instead (I'm hoping that in five years when I replace my EM-1, Olympus will have a similar design).

And I'm sure there are plenty of good options beyond DxO, but it's the tool that works the same way my brain does, so it's the one I use.

 

[EastNeuk]

Film simulation and other thoughts

Film simulation and other thoughts

Thank you to everyone for your thoughts thus far. I've been experimenting with DxO film pack and Silver efex2 to try to get more of the look that I like out of digital. I'm interested in trying replichrome, which seems to be a good way to simulate colour film. I can't at the moment, since I'm mostly using DP Merrills, which aren't compatible with the software.

It's not that one can't get decent digital output. My DP Merrills certainly give one something to work with. There is something about the handling of primarily mechanical and manual cameras that I find more engaging. I have a loupe coming that effectively converts the LCD screen into a giant VF, and I'm hoping that will make for a more positive handling experience.

The use of older lenses and having the ability to choose amongst their distinctive renderings is one of the losses I feel with digital. I haven't tried the Sony A7 or A7r yet. As much as I like the GXR, I do rather wish I could use my lenses in their native fields of view. Reviewers often say the corners on this or that 'legacy' lens are soft wide open, etc, but many of those characteristics are part of what give lenses their individual looks. I don't have a strong sense of how individual older SLR lens character would play out on an A7, for example. I guess I should rent one and spring for an adapter to see.

 

[Koolzakukumba]

I wouldn't worry too much if I were you. I did the opposite and went home to film after being seduced by digital for about eight years. I missed the whole film and darkroom process. Digital just seemed too one dimensional to me. However, I'll happily admit that, in many respects, my digital photos are more dramatic than my film shots mainly because of the capabilities of Photoshop.

Some might argue that if the picture is everything then you should use whatever gives you the best results but I don't see it like that. There is so much more to film and darkroom than digital that I'm prepared to accept less control over the final image, especially since I don't have to make a living from it.

But if film disappeared then I'd pick up my D700 and just get on with it even though my photogaphy wouldn't be as enjoyable.