PointOmega
Established
I used to own a number of film Ms, all of which have since passed on, and have been using an X-pro 1 almost exclusively for the last couple of months. Went out and bought a new Voigtlander R3A body and Epson V700 on a whim yesterday. Shot my first roll on Tri-X this morning, got 36 negatives developed at Manhattan Color Lab for 8 bucks and just scanned the roll on the new Epson, using its native software. I am amazed - the B&W images I'm looking at on my screen have a certain something I have not been able to replicate in Silver Efex, call it soul or whatever. I actually tried to post-process them in Efex out of curiosity, and the originals look so much more natural. I'm guessing that my scans can only improve as I learn the process. I appreciate that there are people out there who have really mastered the Efex B&W conversion process, but it feels great to be able to generate B&W images that to me are awesome without having to do much beyond scanning real B&W film. The pictures I took this a.m. are all of family, so I'll post some others over the next few weeks.
In any case, to each their own, but I would definitely recommend that any digital converts out there give the ol' film a try. The workflow is way easier than I expected, and shooting the Voigtlander felt so much better than my X-pro, like suddenly remembering that first kiss 20 years ago.
I also feel pretty satisfied having bought a new rangefinder for less than $5,000. I expected the Voigtlander to suck (no reason really, just a Leica snob) and it actually works great, and feels great, though I don't expect it to last as long as my old Leicas. Feels like I did something to support perhaps the only company on earth that still cares about making film rangefinders for the common man. Feels so much better than passing cash around in a circle for used equipment. All in all, a great 24 hours. No affiliation whatsoever with any of the names mentioned above, just really happy.
In any case, to each their own, but I would definitely recommend that any digital converts out there give the ol' film a try. The workflow is way easier than I expected, and shooting the Voigtlander felt so much better than my X-pro, like suddenly remembering that first kiss 20 years ago.
I also feel pretty satisfied having bought a new rangefinder for less than $5,000. I expected the Voigtlander to suck (no reason really, just a Leica snob) and it actually works great, and feels great, though I don't expect it to last as long as my old Leicas. Feels like I did something to support perhaps the only company on earth that still cares about making film rangefinders for the common man. Feels so much better than passing cash around in a circle for used equipment. All in all, a great 24 hours. No affiliation whatsoever with any of the names mentioned above, just really happy.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
Cooool...it's Wonderful to be Drunk on One's creative endeavors
So what lens did you use on the R3A ?
Best- H
So what lens did you use on the R3A ?
Best- H
wblynch
Well-known
Great story! Thanks for posting.
PointOmega
Established
Thanks! Used a summicron v.4. Fantastic.
donz
Member
in term of long run for budget wise..which one better? the film or digital ?
wblynch
Well-known
Film. Cost of premium full-frame 35mm or even medium format film equipment puts digital to shame. It would take 10 years for digital to pay back that difference and that would be 10 years of inferior results.
donz
Member
How bout the cost of D800 with digital output or let say X pro 1 .. compare to the price of M6 body+film + negative processing + scanner etc..
Teuthida
Well-known
If you want to augment your Bessa/film experience, try shooting an F5, which you can pick up used for $350. Its like shooting a D4, but with film. AF, AE, motorized drive, matrix metering etc. After 10 years of digital, it feels weird, but liberating, to pop a roll of Tri-X in the back door.
clayne
shoot film or die
That's the funny part: film actually takes less time! Glad to see you've fell back in love with it again. The way light responds with an analogue medium is not to be underestimated. Ultimate sharpness means very little.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Let's say it's digital.
Does that matter if shooting film gives you more satisfaction?
Driving my truck cost me more than driving a car.
But I would not trade it as long as I still can afford it.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
PointOmega
Established
Glad it warmed your hearts. Seriously, I thought my new x-pro was the answer to my prayers (short of an M9), and it truly is an amazing digital camera, but man, there is nothing like shooting a roll, scanning in 15-30 minutes and then realizing you've just scored some shots that are beautiful beyond reckoning out of the box! And that bessa viewfinder? Holy crap, it makes my other cameras feel so confining. I am in my thirties and had years to shoot film, unlike some others here, but wow, I actually forgot how magical it can be. Totally different experience, beautiful (for me) results. Really freaking special. Seriously, like being 18 again on a Parisian summer night...yowza
PointOmega
Established
On the question of cost. For a "hobbyist" like myself, I figure 2 rolls a week generates a total of ~$1500 a year for film (at ~$5 a roll)+negative development (~$8-10 a roll). The scanner cost me $400, but you can get a plustek 7400 for about $230 if you have a little more time to scan. Seriously, I spend more than that each year on much sillier things. If you can spend $30 less a week on starbucks, etc., you won't even notice it.
Katie
Established
I love my Bessa (R4A) too. Feels so easy and right to me, too. Supplemented with a Mamiya 7, Canon 1V (and L glass), a Bronica ERTS, and a few old Minolta X series 35mm and I feel like I have it all covered. Scored a MAJOR film buy at an antique store and I can literally shoot 35mm as long as I'd like. I develop B&W and C41 myself, and scan on a V700. The only part I don't like is the scanning. Wet printing the B&W is magical, though. 
mani
Well-known
This isn't in your mind, at all. Film really does evoke a totally different emotional response.
Possibly that's because film chemicals respond to light in the same way that our eyes do, while a linear interpolated digital algorithm reading from a sensor site doesn't. Or maybe there's something else in the image - the natural sharpness or the organic grain?
Whatever it is, the difference is really there. It's just the same way that some people can't tell the difference between Thunderbird and Bordeaux.
loquax ludens
Well-known
Uh oh, this could turn into a film vs digital debate. Hopefully we're all tired of that by now. But at least we're in the right part of the forum for it.
I bought an X-Pro 1 because I needed a new digital P&S for convenience photography (ebay and craigslist ads, forum fodder, etc), but I'm finding it's actually a fair bit better and more pleasurable to use than I imagined it would be. To be fair, an X-Pro 1 is a bit beyond the type of point & shoot camera I was really after, but I liked the idea of interchangeable lenses.
My heart, however, belongs to film. I love the cameras, the process, and the look of film. I'd rather labor in my darkroom than struggle with Lightroom. But that doesn't mean I think film is better than digital. It is just better for me.
I bought an X-Pro 1 because I needed a new digital P&S for convenience photography (ebay and craigslist ads, forum fodder, etc), but I'm finding it's actually a fair bit better and more pleasurable to use than I imagined it would be. To be fair, an X-Pro 1 is a bit beyond the type of point & shoot camera I was really after, but I liked the idea of interchangeable lenses.
My heart, however, belongs to film. I love the cameras, the process, and the look of film. I'd rather labor in my darkroom than struggle with Lightroom. But that doesn't mean I think film is better than digital. It is just better for me.
wblynch
Well-known
My theory is that film is actually a 3-d medium, where light can hit the surface at different angles and can be recorded thus. But digital sensors are essentially a flat-plane 2-d media where light collects in little buckets that are sealed off from one another, side to side.
In my mind digital can never emulate film unless it can somehow record the third dimension.
In my mind digital can never emulate film unless it can somehow record the third dimension.
BardParker
Established
I've gotten back into film in the past few months. I have been sending film for process and scan at NCPS and Precision Camera with great results. However, I have started developing some of my own B&W film at home and now see a need for a scanner. I shoot 35mm and 120 medium format, so need a scanner that will do both formats. Sounds like the Epson V700 just might be the ticket. Any other recommendations that cost under $1000? Also, just how labor intensive is the scanning process? (Most posts hint that it's the least enjoyable aspect of film photography).
Regards,
Kent
Regards,
Kent
wblynch
Well-known
V-700 is probably the best under $1000.
Scanning can be fun and fast once you get the hang of it and develop a good workflow.
Digital ICE helps tremendously.
I spend no more time on scanning and post-processing my film than I did post processing my digital pics. And what upset me the most was all my digicam pics required post processing anyway.
I use Photoshop CS5 or PS Elements 10 and can pick the dust off in about 1 minute or less per photo. You get good at it real quickly.
With my Epson 4490, while 4 frames are scanning, I touch up the previous 4 and a roll of 36 goes by fast. A roll of 120 or 127 goes even faster with only 12 or 15 shots per.
Scanning can be fun and fast once you get the hang of it and develop a good workflow.
Digital ICE helps tremendously.
I spend no more time on scanning and post-processing my film than I did post processing my digital pics. And what upset me the most was all my digicam pics required post processing anyway.
I use Photoshop CS5 or PS Elements 10 and can pick the dust off in about 1 minute or less per photo. You get good at it real quickly.
With my Epson 4490, while 4 frames are scanning, I touch up the previous 4 and a roll of 36 goes by fast. A roll of 120 or 127 goes even faster with only 12 or 15 shots per.