M8 users that still use film?

E

eleskin

Well-known
Local time
3:55 AM
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,080
I was on a shoot today inside Bethlehem Steel's furnaces (Bethlehem PA) today with my M8 and I have to say I regard film better for this situation than digital. the problem is when shooting inside a dark structure, one wants to get details from the outside where it is brighter. There always seems to be a problem with dynamic range in extreme lighting (at least with the M8). Yes, I know one can set up the camera on a tripod, and take multiple exposures and layer them in photoshop, but over the years, I have shot thousands of rolls of film. In extreme lighting, my Fuji GSW 690 and my Pentax 645N have never failed me, and the scanned negatives are perfect with little work in Photoshop. I can safely say for 80% of my shooting, the M8 is great, otherwise, film (I shot Ilford Delta 400) has the edge. Is it not easier in some situations to get a negative in larger formats with alot of information on it and not go through the trouble of layering separate exposures in photoshop?

A good friend of mine that went to graduate school in New York with back in 1992 answered the following question when I asked him at the Photo Expo Plus last week. I asked if his experience with film made him a better photographer with a digital camera. He said yes, in that with film, you have the experience with another medium, and can se the advantages with digital and the advantages with film. The biggest issue to him waqs shadow detail, and here Leica and Canon lenses rule. Today, young people have no clue to what film can and cannot do, which means they also do not know what digital can and cannot do.

With all this in mind, how many of you still shoot film and use the M8, and why?
 
eleskin said:
Today, young people have no clue to what film can and cannot do, which means they also do not know what digital can and cannot do.
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem to follow. The world is full of plenty of technologies that superseded older that no one remembers or cares to. "Young people today have no clue what daguerreotypes can and can't do, which means they also do not know what digital can and cannot do."

I shoot my R-D1, and I also shoot film. But I prefer my R-D1. It's just so damn fast and convenient, and the results at least rival my film shots.

/T
 
I have two film Ms that I try to use but when going out the door I get pulled toward the M8 due due to quality of image and ease of use (no processing and scanning). Even after years of film M shooting, I learned a lot from the M8 due to the greater number of images shot, the instant feedback on what works and doesn't work, and experimentation with wide open high speed lenses in daylight (due to high shutter speed capability w/o need for ND filters).
 
I like IdeaDog's answer, fun to use different stuff. With film I'm largely a medium-format shooter, but I treat my M8 like any other M camera. There's still processing, I don't take more shots than with film as that would tend to clog up the processing stage, there's no instant feedback since I don't see the images until later. What I find most convenient and different about the M8 is that the shooting does not go in segments of rolls or parts of rolls, and there's a kind of freedom in that... The segment is however many shots fit logically as a group, which I document as if it were a roll of film.
 
I certainly use both. The M8 is more suitable for illustration -- pictures for articles and colour -- while the MP is a hands-down winner for B+W and personal work.

Cheers,

R.
 
I use the M8 mainly for color, and my Mamiya 7 for B&W. For really serious work where the finest of detail is required I use an Arca Swiss 4x5 and Rodenstock glass. I have yet to see anything digital match a drum scanned 4x5 chrome. It's just not happening yet.

~ Jeff
 
Ditto. And the fact that I love the look provided by film (even scanned). I have no doubt that if I were to really bone up on my photoshop & postprocessing skills (or pay money for plug-ins & "skins") that I could come very close to replicating the look of film, but I would still enjoy using my film cameras for non-practical reasons.

As to eleskin's original question, I don't know whether there are current digital sensors that have enough dynamic range to handle the situation he describes (I wouldn't be surprised if there are), but even assuming there are, it may be still be more efficient & cost-effective for many shooters to use film.

IdeaDog said:
I, like plenty of people, use both. Mainly because it's fun to play with different kinds of toys.
Click to expand...
 
Roger,

Perhaps you didn't receive the PM i had sent you, I wondered whether you would take advantage of the upgrade or simply get the new M8.2 ??

The shutter noise or lack of is real improvement


Scott
 
I have no doubt that if I were to really bone up on my photoshop & postprocessing skills (or pay money for plug-ins & "skins") that I could come very close to replicating the look of film...
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I have that software but I still have my doubts. Photoshop is a god-send for doing basic darkroom work, color correction, etc.; it really does put the power of a lab right at your fingertips. But all the plug-ins and software I've tried that are supposed to mimic film fall short. Scanned (digitized) film still looks like film in a way that digital capture rarely does.

If I could do this with my digital cameras, I'd sell all my film bodies tomorrow:

2986341413_9ddbcebeca.jpg
 
kevin m said:
Hmmm, I have that software but I still have my doubts. Photoshop is a god-send for doing basic darkroom work, color correction, etc.; it really does put the power of a lab right at your fingertips. But all the plug-ins and software I've tried that are supposed to mimic film fall short. Scanned (digitized) film still looks like film in a way that digital capture rarely does.

If I could do this with my digital cameras, I'd sell all my film bodies tomorrow:

2986341413_9ddbcebeca.jpg
Click to expand...

Ok, what film was that?

/T
 
Still shoot both film and digital, but very rarely colour film. I think its just i can develop and print my own black and white to my own satisfaction, but would still have to use a lab for colour film.

Richard
 
Tuolumne said:
That doesn't seem to follow. The world is full of plenty of technologies that superseded older that no one remembers or cares to. "Young people today have no clue what daguerreotypes can and can't do, which means they also do not know what digital can and cannot do."

I shoot my R-D1, and I also shoot film. But I prefer my R-D1. It's just so damn fast and convenient, and the results at least rival my film shots.

/T
Click to expand...

You might be guilty of a bit of a false comparison, well in a way.

Certainly this is true in some cases, and people hang on to say, fountain pens, simply because they like them. Mechanical watches are still preferred to quartz.

But to say, for example, that you watch TV because it is more convenient than seeing a play, or a film at a theater does not equate all three. Nor is all food microwaved, well, yet. I am betting some kids have never eaten popcorn other than microwaved though.

There were a lot of reasons to replace daguerreotypes, and yes, I listen to MP3 players despite the fact I know CD's and records are better.

I too, find myself shooting more digital, and though I may be looking for a new freezer to store film in, I may very well take my first trip with no film at all.

The convenience of digital is hard to ignore, but film, scanned or not, unless it becomes terribly Inconvenient, is still an option. I see times when I want a 6x9, or 6x17 image and for the time, digital is not the option there.

It ultimately should be a matter of taste, but I can see a day when I see buying a digital camera as more than a temporary solution.


Regards, John
 
Last edited:
Richard Marks said:
Still shoot both film and digital, but very rarely colour film. I think its just i can develop and print my own black and white to my own satisfaction, but would still have to use a lab for colour film.

Richard
Click to expand...


I said that until my friend Jorge showed me how to print RA4, it is easier than B&W in many ways. I use a Jobo Slot processor, but am not sure if they are still making them. I also bought a roller processor, well, I did give them $10 and they helped me carry it to the car.

Just about a bullet proof set up.

I must admit right now I am trying to figure how to get a lab to print the way I want it conveniently.


Regards, John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom