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

For me it is digital M that is not relevant. Leica did such a good job building my M6 that it is all the camera I need for rangefinder work. I admit I now scan, but my darkroom equipment is only hibernating. I am delighted with the quality of the hybrid results and learning to scan well has been fun and a new challenge.
 
I don't have the time for film processing & darkroom (or scanning), and film and film processing expense has become too great. So I try not to think about what I liked about film and film gear, and instead just try to make the best images I can with digital. And I'm now able to see that digital can give me enough to be happy.
 
This is a question arising out of confusion. You put B&W and colour photography in one bag. For colour, I believe that digital has become very relevant a long time ago. A 6MP camera like Epson RD1 has already been relevant enough, to consider using it for colour instead of film, particularly, if you do not enlarge beyond 11x14.
On the other hand, in B&W there is as yet NOT A SINGLE CAMERA which in my opinion is relevant enough to choose it over film. This includes the Phase One 180, scanning backs and NASA cameras.
 
It is relevant, because the process of photographing is an important part of the whole image making process I really like. The feel and usage of the same rangefinder camera over many years is a main factor. That's why my film M bodies remain relevant to me.
As long there is a fairly supply of film emulsions.
 
U27794I1348400677.SEQ.0.jpg


For me, personally, yes. But on the large scale, I don't know. It is true, developing and printing/scanning film is quite labor intensive, takes some practice and probably does not pay off for most professional photographers or amateurs who may need quick uploads to social networking sites, blogs, etc. In short, I guess that film Leicas are still relevant for those who like film photography and rangefinders, but that surely is not the majority of camera users.
 
Until there isn't any good work being done with film cameras, it is still relevant. It's nice that we have great digital cameras coming out, but film is still holding its own. Why do we worry so much about the death of things so much here?
 
developing own film or stop altogether

developing own film or stop altogether

I shot quite a lot of film the past year, but since it becomes harder to get the film - decently - developed, I don't know if I will go through with it... will see coming year.
My wife said lately I should go back developing my own b&w film, and leave the color.
 
jsrockit said:
Until there isn't any good work being done with film cameras, it is still relevant. It's nice that we have great digital cameras coming out, but film is still holding its own. Why do we worry so much about the death of things so much here?
Click to expand...

because stupid executives with mba's running the major film producers think that killing film is a good idea
 
paradoxbox said:
because stupid executives with mba's running the major film producers think that killing film is a good idea
Click to expand...

No, it is more cost effective to do something else with their cash. However, film will be around for a long time still... from smaller companies that care about the product as well as money (and not only money).
 
jsrockit said:
[...] Why do we worry so much about the death of things so much here?
Click to expand...

My guesses:

1. Good film cameras are - for most - a significant investment, if film dies, the bodies would turn into useless bricks. The good point is: one could still use the lenses on dedicated digital bodies.

2. Some people may like the craft of processing and wet printing and the qualitative results that can be obtained with film. If film dies, the craft would die also.

Digital took over the market for obvious reasons. If film and film bodies are relevant in the future really depends on the user base. If film is not relevant for coming generations, the user base would shrink even further and in the end film manufacturing would be non profitable as would be the production of film bodies.

That makes me wonder what the market segments are that are still using film and what are they producing? I think it would be interesting to make that more visible.
 
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...

not at all joe. when my film cameras stop working then it will cease to be relevant. not sure it will happen in my lifetime though
 
I posted the question on the basis of the image quality from film, rather than the user experience of Leica Ms. I would agree that the cameras are an absolute joy to use, but wanted to find out just how close film and digital were now. For those who say that the look of film is the reason that they still use it, does not software such as Silver Efex Pro put the two mediums on an equal footing. After all, digital does give a cleaner image and the resolution of some of the Fuji lenses now must surely bring parity - doesn't it? Adding the look of film with Silver Efex Pro must get close - or possibly surpass film results?

Chris Crawford makes an interesting point that he can scan to a better quality than darkroom output. This seems to run contrary to what many experience here. Chris, what scanner are you using? My Coolscan V ED is the best I have and affording anything that approaches pro scan quality is just not an option.

Ray
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom