Film 'M's in the digital age - still relevant?

R

rayfoxlee

Raymondo
Local time
12:35 PM
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
258
Let me explain! For those of us that don't have a darkroom, scanned 35mm negs (eg. Nikon Coolscan) probably don't get the best out of the format and with the rise of the Fuji cameras, can it be argued that the quality from this new breed of camera makes film less relevant in terms of image quality?

Looking through the images and comments from the posts on the X100 and X Pro 1, these two deliver tremendous quality images and atmosphere in the right hands.

Perhaps my post processing of film images leaves something to be desired, but is film losing the battle on quality to the Fujis? How many of you have 'jumped ship' and not looked back?

Ray
 
One huge positive that film cameras will always have over digital is the battery life. This may not apply to everyone, but I find that on long camping trips, I use my digital cameras very sparingly, and the film cameras with near reckless abandon - quite the opposite of the usual film v digital situation.

This is by no means a conclusive proof of the relevancy of film, but it is one reason that could appeal to some people!
 
My wet dark room prints do not look like my digital prints via even the best ink jet printer...... that's how I judge the relevance not based on the way they look on a PC screen.
 
For myself it is about the very mechanical nature of my film Leica.

I choose to look at my M4-2 as a camera that can has a user interchangeable, photo sensitive silver halide on flexible substrate sensor. With a new section of the sensor being pulled in front of the film gate for each exposure by an easy thumb action on a lever. My camera is so advanced it is not stuck with the sensor installed at the factory like the vast number of digital cameras.


So yeah....I guess is yes, my film M is still relevant, at least to me.
 
rayfoxlee said:
Let me explain! For those of us that don't have a darkroom, scanned 35mm negs (eg. Nikon Coolscan) probably don't get the best out of the format and with the rise of the Fuji cameras, can it be argued that the quality from this new breed of camera makes film less relevant in terms of image quality?

Looking through the images and comments from the posts on the X100 and X Pro 1, these two deliver tremendous quality images and atmosphere in the right hands.

Perhaps my post processing of film images leaves something to be desired, but is film losing the battle on quality to the Fujis? How many of you have 'jumped ship' and not looked back?

Ray
Click to expand...

You're assuming that I would want to get 'the best out of the format'.

To my taste I am getting the best out of the format by scanning the film on a 3200dpi film scanner.
 
Relevant or not, it's what I have... Film + scanner.

But I want to do wet printing, I have a darkroom. Just haven't bothered for two years, but I know the results would be more pleasing.
 
I'm an old coot. I've been into photography for over 38 years, buying, using, discarding, keeping cameras, learning from each of them, in each format.

My sig only describes only a part of my inventory, I have dozens of the confounded cameras ! And I still use all of them - because they are specialized tools, adapted to each of my needs : When I go hiking, I'll bring with me a Fuji GSW690II, but when I want to do some architecture, it will be my toyo 45, or for a really wet circumstance, an old Nikonos III... My M6 is my constant companion, except when the mood takes me and I blow the dust off a Nikon F2as because I want to make some night pics of a jazz session and my 85mm f:1.4 is irreplaceable.

All of these are film cameras, I couldn't ever hope to have digital replacements at a reasonable price - if ever they were to be found (think large format).

I'm hedonistic in my approach : at my age, I refuse to limit my photographic pleasure to what a digital body in a reasonable price bracket will provide. Leica has instilled more than a bit of doubt in me with the M8 LCD maintenance fiasco, besides there's nothing for me in the new "M", and Pro digital SLRs are too damn heavy & expensive for an amateur (H4D & S2). Maybe I'll purchase an X-Pro1 now FW 2.0 is out. It might replace the M6 as my daily camera - maybe.

But as you see, in my case, it's not a question of being too rigidly set in my ways - it's just that I know film cameras inside out, they are tailor-made to my needs... and as long as film is available, why look for trouble when I've got what I want ?

But then it's only one (specific) man's opinion, not universal truth !:D
 
I switched to digital with a Coolpix 4500 in 2004. That's a great camera, and I still use it. It was great for kids because you cold shoot them surreptitiously with the waist level finder, pretending to be sorting out a menu. I got some great shots with that at 4.0MP and they could be enlarged too. Some of them, and their backups are slightly corrupted. GULP.

Fortunately, even as I got that camera and it became my main shooter, I would take my Leicas on holiday and made sure to take pictures of the children on slide film. All those pictures are still prefect and accessible. In fact, I have every negative of every shot I I've taken bar one roll I gave to a newspaper, since 1972 when I was 12.

There are other reasons to keep shooting with film, but this is one of mine. A backup needs to be inspected to be sure it is intact, a negative or a slide doesn't. You can't open and inspect thousands of files on a regular basis. If it's really good, film or digital, print it. Otherwise, 13 years from now your main drive copy and the backup might be inaccessible, and the accessory backup is lost, or the drive has died, or the data cable standard has changed......

And who else but me has more than one backup?
 
rayfoxlee said:
Let me explain! For those of us that don't have a darkroom, scanned 35mm negs (eg. Nikon Coolscan) probably don't get the best out of the format and with the rise of the Fuji cameras, can it be argued that the quality from this new breed of camera makes film less relevant in terms of image quality?

Looking through the images and comments from the posts on the X100 and X Pro 1, these two deliver tremendous quality images and atmosphere in the right hands.

Perhaps my post processing of film images leaves something to be desired, but is film losing the battle on quality to the Fujis? How many of you have 'jumped ship' and not looked back?

Ray
Click to expand...

Jumped the 35mm ship but still enjoy cruising on HMS 120 :)
 
the only thing i would wish is some sort of a 35mm film canister that loops up as a digital frame , so times when I need digital for convenience i can use it as i please
 
I still shoot my two M6 bodies and my Hasselblad; film is very relevant to me and my work. I scan my negs, health issues keep me from doing darkroom prints. With a good scanner, the quality is as good or better than the darkroom.
 
rayfoxlee said:
Let me explain! For those of us that don't have a darkroom, scanned 35mm negs (eg. Nikon Coolscan) probably don't get the best out of the format and with the rise of the Fuji cameras, can it be argued that the quality from this new breed of camera makes film less relevant in terms of image quality?

Looking through the images and comments from the posts on the X100 and X Pro 1, these two deliver tremendous quality images and atmosphere in the right hands.

Perhaps my post processing of film images leaves something to be desired, but is film losing the battle on quality to the Fujis? How many of you have 'jumped ship' and not looked back?

Ray
Click to expand...

You don't need an excuse to go digital. Just do it if you want to.

Digital has made great strides of late, and is worthy of pursuing as a capture medium without having to compare it to film or justify it. On the other hand, film has lost nothing to digital. Film is still film, and it entirely different from digital. Film photography is better now than it ever has been. Even with the demise of many excellent emulsions, the ones that remain are the best that have ever existed.

For me, only film is relevant, as I like to make prints in my darkroom.

Perhaps for you, considerations such as scanning are more imporant.
 
i recently started to shoot the occasional roll of film again...but it was more because i wanted to use a film camera than use film...i know, a bit crazy!
 
back alley said:
i recently started to shoot the occasional roll of film again...but it was more because i wanted to use a film camera than use film...i know, a bit crazy!
Click to expand...

Same here, I love the old cameras even more than film. Although I do like the *surprises* film provides...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom