flame suit on... but -->

[iridium7777]

anyone here consider to switching either forward or back to digital?

i got my first range finder an m6 ttl with a 35 lens as my one and only combo in mid august. i took some great pictures along the way and all together probably went through almost 50 rolls of film.


about a month ago we had our first big snow storm and after taking 2 rolls of film, i book about 60 pictures with my old dslr. and when i got home it hit me...... the ease of digital. in probably less than 5 minutes i had all my dlsr pictures on the web, sharing them with my girlfriend. some of them were good i thought, probably better than what i get out of film. the 2 rolls of film, i still haven't developed so i can't fully comment.

just made me think... these 50 rolls have cost me probably around 450$ to buy+develop. and what do i have out of them? crappy 1.2mb wallgreen scans. if i wanted them blown up, i have to pay someone even more money to scan them in higher resolution and pay for printing. i doubt it'd be cheaper than 2.99$ to print an 8x10 digital at wallgreens though. or, i can probably buy a decent printer somewhere in 200-300$ range and print my own digital stuff on quality photo paper.


so now i'm thinking about selling my d50 kit, my rf stuff and picking up a used canon 5d + their 50 1.4 lens. i don't think the canon is that much bigger than my m6? and is probably much better at iso800 than my nikon d50 is. and i don't do b&w so i don't really need film in that way.

anyone consider something like this and follow through with it? anyone done this?

 

[rogue_designer]

HERETIC!!

😀

It sounds like for your needs, and the way you shoot - maybe film doesn't make that much sense. How about the differences between an RF and an SLR (you could find an RD-1, for instance if you wanted a digital RF) - depending on what you are shooting, that may or may not be a factor.

 

[Tuolumne]

Try the R-D1 if you like rangefinders. It is a truly great digital camera. As for the rest, almost all of the film I shoot these days is medium format, which still easily distinguishes itself and distances itself from digital. For the rest, I have a hard time not shooting my R-D1 over anything else. If you were a fine arts photographer, you would probably think differently. But if you are not, your thinking is hard to counter.

/T

 

[Pablito]

i can probably buy a decent printer somewhere in 200-300$ range and print my own digital stuff on quality photo paper.

It will cost you several dollars per print just in ink, never mind the paper. Just beware. Do it for the extra control it will give you or because you want to do it yourself. But the ink is EXHORBITANT. The bigger printers that hold much larger ink tanks are a bit more cost effective.

 

[jbf]

Its not the film or the digital that is "making" your photos better... Keep in mind that you are taking more photos with the digital and seeing your results quicker.

I think if your shooting a lot of photos and not getting that many good shots out of each "photo session" then maybe look more at what you see in other peoples photographs that make them good.

Perhaps you are just moving way too fast, even with film and thats why your not getting as many good shots as you would like.

Personally I had the same problem when I first started off with photography. I would get a few photographs that I would like, but I'd go through a ton of film.

It was not until I began to slow down and think about all of the general foundations upon which one considers a good photograph (visual elements such as composition, lighting, etc) then I began to notice I was getting more and more photographs in each roll that I enjoyed and liked.

Sure, it is going to cost you to develop film and have it scanned... though keep in mind that with a film camera, the only thing you'll ever really be updating is perhaps getting a different lens. Besides that you are just buying film and developing.

Take into consideration a new digital camera and how much good glass and that camera will cost. How long will it function for what you need, and just how 'soon' will you be feeling the need (maybe just the 'want') of upgrading?

It's easy to say "oh, this will last me and I wont want to upgrade" but chances are you will get bitten by the digital technology conundrum of upgrades, etc.

How much would you be able to sell that same digital camera in four years?

Just as an example... I bought a Nikon D70s and a 18-70mm kit lens about three or four years ago. I paid at least close to 1,300 dollars for it.

How much can I sell it for now?

$650

That's over half of the price drop.

I sold a Canon G7 not too long ago that went for almost the same price!! And the D70s is a far better camera and performer.


Also, take into account the cost of hard drive space and other "backup" means. You'll have to figure that in as well.



My point is that neither one is really cheaper. The initial cost may be higher for one or lower for the other so it may seem.... but in the end there is just as much hidden cost in a digital setup as a film setup.

But I think if your not satisfied with the results your getting you should possibly look into why it is happening.

Take a look at the good photographs you get from film... and the good photographs you get from digital. If both are the same quality then there you go... its not the system.

Chances are perhaps by honing your skills and getting your self to think more consciously about why the good photos worked, and why the bad ones didnt, you could really become a better photographer and also end up using much less film. 😉


In any case, I hope you find your happiness. You and everyone else in this world deserves at least that. 🙂 Try to have fun with it, and if you honestly think the DSLR is going to make you happy then go for it...

me? I'm staying with my rfs and film. 🙂

 

[Tuolumne]

That's why you should just buy an R-D1. There is no upgrade path, and the camera is good enough not to need one. (I exagerate a bit, but not that much.)

/T

 

[Prosaic]

anyone consider something like this and follow through with it? anyone done this?

I went from 5D to M7.

 

[feenej]

Consider keeping your M6 to save youself from having to re-purchase it if you change your mind in the future.

 

[RayPA]

anyone here consider to switching either forward or back to digital?

...

anyone consider something like this and follow through with it? anyone done this?

of course.

and

no.


I think to shoot film, you have to really like shooting film, and, to shoot film these days and get the most out of it, IMO, you really need to scan your own. Relying on drugstore scans just doesn't cut it, especially since the employees can't seem to not scratch the negs. As you've stated the added cost and time investment of professional lab scans is just as big a PITA.

It's best to pick and choose when you'll shoot film and when you'll shoot digital. For stuff you absolutely have to have posted ASAP, or for stuff that would drive you crazy to scan, shoot digital. If that's mostly the type of stuff you shoot, then minimize (or sell) your film gear and shoot more (or exclusively) digital.

Shooting film isn't for everyone. No big deal. Shoot digital if you prefer it.



.

 

[charlesfoto]

I think the instant gratification of digital has changed the mindset of many photographers who now forego quality for ease, speed, etc. I've actually gone in reverse...always using film but heavy into digital the past few years for a variety of things. Continually disappointed with the digital results and the amount of time taken in front of a computer, I've put my last DSLR up for sale, a Nikon D200, and have gone back to 100% film with the Contax G2, Mamiya 7II, and will get a used F6 for the Nikon lenses. I'm happy once again. 🙂

 

[kevin m]

IMHO the only reason to shoot film is to have the advantage of using a rangefinder camera without spending $5000+ (who can keep up with the price increases) for a Leica M8.

Seconded, and I'd add that if the 'crop factor' bugs you, that's another reason.

Check with your lab to see if they offer better quality (higher resolution) scans. Some do. Otherwise, buy yourself a good film scanner.

If it weren't for rangefinders, I wouldn't be shooting film at all.

 

[iridium7777]

thanks for all the replies and no bashing. as much as i like rd1 for a variety of reasons and about the same price, i'd rather put all my $eggs into the canon 5d basket.

my idea is that 5d is full frame, i'd get one prime, the 50mm, and that would be enough -- a great rig for walking around and anything else that you ever wanted to do with a rf and a 50mm. if someone wanted to book me or something, i can always rent a zoom lens for 3 days or eventually buy one.

i wouldn't use the 5d to just shoot 1000 pictures and pick out 2 of them and photoshop the hell out of them and be happy.


i do tend to shoot fairly slow with film; because i can't see the result right away i try to snap the same kinda image a couple times over, to make sure i get it, maybe that's why i went through a lot of film.

to be honest... my best pictures ever, to me anywyas, were taken with my rf. my problem is i don't know how to make them into nice large photographs worthy of displaying? i stoped at a camera store and a guy said it'd cost me $20 to scan a single picture and about 89$ to blow it up to about a meter big. he showed me the paper that i'd be printed on and it seems like it would be just a print, really nothing special.

those guys that really do "photos" and develop photos... could someone suggest a place to where i can send a negative and have it blown up on real photo paper? maybe if i saw that "transition" between film and final print i'd help me. right now i'm just worried that even though i have all these negatives, what good are they if i can't get them to hang on my walls?

and yes, m8 would be great, but only at the price of a used 5d.

 

[shadowfox]

Sure you can get a 5D, just be cautioned not to expect it to handle like an M6, the way you take pictures will be different so your pictures may be also.

Maybe you'll like it better. If so go for it, there's definitely way more lens choices for you on the 5D than M6.

To me pictures from film has a certain sparkle/characteristic/texture that no digital shot can match. Conversely, digital has that clarity and cleanness that film can't match.

But I just like film better 😀

Edit: Added below to respond to later post from OP

About printing big, I use Imagekind.com and Mpix.com as my printers. They did a good job printing my pictures up to 24x16 and it's not terribly expensive. The expensive one is framing. A decent one will run you $150 or so.

 

[sirius]

Hi iridium7777,

I empathize with you. I will bet you that many many of the people on RFF have a their film cameras, but also have a great DSLR too. There is a certain way of working that goes along with using rangefinders. Yes, digital is quick and convenient and easier to experiment with because of instant feedback.

I keep using them because I love to work with the cameras, and, when I do score with a lovely image, I like the results better than my digital. I'll be honest and say that I'm probably less able to take a good picture with my Leica than with my 20D. I have to think a lot more with the Leica---for better or worse---, and I'm slower moving.

Have you held the 5D? It seems like a very big heavy camera to me and it doesn't have a built in flash. Those aren't negatives, just considerations. I really really love the images that the 5D makes. You will have a great camera with the 50/1.4.

 

[peterm1]

I do honestly think digital has the potential to make me a better photographer. Assuming its within me already of course. I can take more photos. I can experiment more. I can get instant feedback (not to say gratification.) I can learn that if I try "this" then "that" happens.

And of course as I have it in digital form from the get go its easy to upload to my PC and correct any minor deficiencies in P/S - something I could never do in the analogue world of photography as I never had a lab, never learned to airbrush or to dodge or to burn. If the horizon is slightly off horizontal. No problem. If the shadows are slightly too dark. Fixed. if my subject is slightly under saturated for a really dramatic shot. Not an issue. These computer and graphic manipulation skills are part and parcel of being a digital photographer now, incidentally - every bit as much as lab work and printing was for many film based photogs.

But its the taking of digital shots where the advantage really lays for me. The ability to take shot after shot and to instantly know what results you are getting helps the learning process immeasurably. In a practical sense it also means not screwing up too many photo opps. There is little to now stop me taking several shots in the expectation of getting several good ones where once I would have taken one and hoped for the best or taken a number in the knowledge that few would be any good at all. I went to the beach for 5 days over Xmas and shot probably 400 exposures. There is just no way I would have exposed so many film negatives and if I had I feel sure that not many would have been good. A higher proportion of these digital shots were keepers, probably because my photography has improved thru experimentation and maybe because with instant feedback of digital I can immediately make changes - that is to say where previously there was trial and error, now there is more trial and less error.

I love my film cameras but force of circumstance and opportunity means I am using them less and one day I may be forced to sell. Or of course one day I may experience a renaissance of interest in film shooting, which is why I have not yet sold - apart from loving the handling of these old beauties. I do recognize too that film has some inherent characteristics that digital may not (yet) fully match. But this need not always be so . I have a Panasonic L1 and part of its inbuilt software allows you to set the "film" type for various shots. It emulates different films in effect. There is stand alone processing software which does likewise and some savvy use of "curves" etc in PS can also do this. (e/g I have tones down contrast and changed from color to black and white to give very passable imitations of low contrast shots by (say) a Summar.) The day will no doubt come when this becomes seamless and digital shots will be truly indistinguishable from film shots.

 

[Ororaro]

The real qustion is really and only: Why did you ever use film? You we're wrong all along if it was simply to use a Leica, IMO.

 

[nobbylon]

I'd say keep what you have! perfect set up, digital for the convenience of snapshotting (is that a word?) and the m6 for rf film. I use an epson 4990 for scanning and I'm more than happy with the results from my film scans. For my prints I just upload to a printer on the web (photobox) and have always been happy with them. 10x8's usually. My normal carry around everywhere kit is my D70 with either a 24 or 50mm prime and my m6ttl with a 35 sum. I do like the digital for exactly the reasons you give but there is something just nice about using a RF with film. I'd say the only reason to sell the m6 is to buy another M.

 

[Tuolumne]

Let me just say that you can get good scans and excellent print output doing it yourself for alot less money than the prices at the pro labs lead you to believe. I use an Epson 4990 flat bed scanner and an Epson R1800 printer. They may not give you the highest possible quality, but I get results with this combo printing 13x19 that are far better than anything I ever got when sending film out to be printed in the old analogue days.

Could it be better? Sure.

Do I care? No.

/T

Edit: BTW, the only problem with this combo that makes me still prefer digital for many things is that it is very time consuming to scan film. Very.

 

[GeneW]

To me both film and digital are exciting technologies. For some purposes I often like one better than the other. That's why in the past six months I've bought both a new Nikon D200 AND a new Bessa R3A. I enjoy both media.

Gene

 

[iridium7777]

one camera, one lens, and one film that i can bring everywhere with me and take pictures of things that i want to remember and small enough to fit into my man purse. that and knowing that the camera won't stop working like my d50 did when i went to minnesota last winter cuz it was so damn cold. and i don't fus around in photoshop, if the picture is bad it's bad.

The real qustion is really and only: Why did you ever use film? You we're wrong all along if it was simply to use a Leica, IMO.