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

I'm currently in the process of trading my M9 for a second MP or an M6 to accompany
my MP. Cannot find any joy with my M9 that just fills my computor hard drive with
thousands of pictures that does not mean anything to me.

My keeper rate with my MP is wastly higher, the pictures in their imperfection (compared
to the digital) talks to me.

Do not speculate wether film will be around in 10, 20, 39 years (i think it will though),
I just shoot and enjoy the analog process. In 20 years my M9 would have been on the
scrap yeard anyway since the electronics most probably would have gone bust.

Not so with my MP. ;-)

I might not be alive in 20 years, so worrying about the analog future is of no use.

Just my USD 0,02 :)
 
Joe, if wanting to use film cameras just for fun is "...a bit crazy.." then count me in, I don't want to be sane. I think there is a large number of people here who agree with you and still shoot film just because they enjoy the experience.


With my film cameras I've got; aperture*shutter speed*focus, that's it. Most of my cameras don't even have built in light meters. I like my chosen hobby.


Sure, you can spend a lot, if you have a large disposable income, but even if your retired, (me) and have to be very frugal it doesn't have to cost a fortune to just have fun. Over the last year I've had a total outlay of about $300, mostly for B&W film and chemicals. That included $15 for a pristine Canon QL17 GIII, working perfectly and only needing the usual foam replacement. No digital RF or mirrorless can come close to that dollars to fun ratio.

So a persons personal budget can be another factor.
 
As mentioned above, battery life is absolutely the worst thing about digital for those of us in cold climes. I cannot shoot the M9 here in the winter if I'm outside for more than twenty minutes many days. Sure, change the batteries, or keep the camera in my coat, or, or, or... Those cold weather tips do certainly work to a point, but it can get very cold here in Vermont, even my M7s can be troublesome. The MPs and the Rollei just work with no issues even at 0°F. At below 20°F the M9 is not easy, so yes a film camera is relevant for me.
 
With all due respect and consideration, I think the more relevant question is:

"Why do we keep debating this?" It is wonderful to have options!
 
Ray, I think we have two issues here:
The first one, indeed, is related to what we get from the camera. Being able to work on film oneself or having a serious lab (as I think I found) is really a good thing, because pictures are anyway representing part of our life, real or virtual if it's an artistical approach.
That said, I'd use (and currently do) film over digital just for the sake of it, I see I'm not alone thinking a very simple film camera connects to my subject much more than a digital one.
If digital is useful for body (work means feeding it), film is useful for the soul, and that also is "hungry" :)
 
Ray
Silver Efex something is not able to turn a digital shot into a Tri X image any better, than a plastic surgeon would be able to turn a 100 years old woman into this years Miss Universum. If information is not there, you cannot create it , no matter how hard you try.
 
mfogiel said:
Ray
Silver Efex something is not able to turn a digital shot into a Tri X image any better, than a plastic surgeon would be able to turn a 100 years old woman into this years Miss Universum. If information is not there, you cannot create it , no matter how hard you try.
Click to expand...

Completely agree, although I'm finding that DxO Labs Filmpack 3 does a much more convincing job than Silver Efex...
 
rayfoxlee said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ray, I have the Nikon 8000ED scanner. Even though it has the same resolution as your Coolscan V, I think I get better quality from it. The reason is that I scan everything, even 35mm, with the glass negative carrier that is an optional purchase for the 8000 and 9000 scanners. To get the highest sharpness from film scans, the film must be completely flat.

Another issue is that scans of black and white negatives come out very flat (low contrast) from the Nikon Scanners. This is because they're designed to capture the very wide density range of a color transparency. Negatives, both black and white and color, have a smaller density range (because darkroom paper is contrasty, the flat negative prints perfectly in the darkroom). I think a lot of people scan their negs and don't do any post-process because they've convinced themselves that editing the scan in photoshop is somehow wrong or 'cheating', when in fact it is an absolute requirement to get the best tonality from a scan.
 
I just picked up a D600. The sensor is truly amazing and pretty much trounces film in most areas.

But I have no plans to stop shooting film. There's just something about how film looks and I love the process...

In terms of ergonomics the D600 is very, very good, but for me it's no match for an F2/F3 or Leica M. The D600 is the most compact FF DSLR out there, but it's still a brick compared to most film cameras.

But there is no way around digital for certain tasks and jobs. The D600 very impressive, but I sure wouldn't mind an M10, if it wasn't for the price.
 
Im only new here and cant believe the number of film is dead, film vs digital topics. The image quality debate and all that.

For me Photography is about fun and taking photos on film is what i find most fun so thats why i use it. For me its more a live and exciting now i have an M4 and i hope it stays that way.

If digital becomes fun for me again in the future ill begin to use digital again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom