Rangefinder or Film?

Leica Geek

Leica Geek

Well-known
Local time
1:11 AM
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
213
Location
Glendale, Californa
View My Gallery
Which do we really like more the film or the rangefinder. I love the rangefinder, but can't afford an M8 to shoot digital. To tell you the truth there's something that feels really great when shooting film that I don't get when I shoot digital. I don't know what it is.

I think it's the process that makes any medium enjoyable. I paint and I draw, which guess are outdated methods of communicating graphically. Nevertheless, I love it and I can't stop it even if I tried. I kind of feel that way about shooting rangefinders. I think it's the fact that the film camera is mechanical and there are all these moving parts that are calibrated perfectly to capture an image. It's really facinating to me that someone created something so precise and beautiful. I still honestly enjoy shooting my Leica lllf the most. I don't know what it is about that camera, but I always get good stuff from that camera.

What is it for all of you?

Excuse me if I'm rambling.
 
You must remember that when photography came in being in the 19th Century the demise of painting was predicted. Satellite radio was precicted to be the wave of the future. Today 40% drop in its stock value. And, what ever happened to DAT?
 
I like rangefinders a lot, but I also like just using film and have a film SLR, which I enjoy using too. So... both! I would have a DRF if I could afford it, but I'm not letting go of my M3 if I can help it. DSLR's are also a better tool for some jobs than RF's or film SLR's, but I don't enjoy using them as much now that I've had the priviledge of using some quality film cameras.
 
I used to shoot headshots, weddings, for a while to survive when the animation industry went to hell a few years back. SLRs are great, if you have to get the shot. They are fast, and let's not forget the zooms and macro lenses that come in handy. But now that things are better and I'm drawing for a living again I really enjoy my RFs that I can carry around with me in a small bag to shoot for pleasure now. My G2 got some use at some of the wedding I did and the results were fantastic.
 
For me, Getting back to basics

For me, Getting back to basics

First I love the RF, then 2nd Film.

With my AF SLR or DSLR, All I do is point and shoot..unless I am in my studio.
With the Film RF. It is getting back to pre-visualizing more in my head. I purposely got a Non-RF coupled lens for my 1st lens, (CV25) so I had to adjust everything from outside the VF. It FORCES me to think about each photo. And I find myself enjoying the resulting photo's better. Because I am more involved in their creation from the get go.

I have bought a 55/2.8 Industar 61/LD and a Leitz 135/4.5 Hektor. So now I can enjoy the RF focusing too. with the TTL meter in my Bessa R2.

But, for me. It was all about getting back to the basics of photography and being more involved with each photo taken. 🙂 😀
 
I love film photography because I love the process: I see, I shoot, I develop, I learn. I don't like digital except for the expediency (for shooting stuff I'm selling, mostly). I don't criticize others for shooting digital, but it's not for me. There's something about seeing the negative as it dries that does it for me. I'm not learning frame-by-frame, but roll-by-roll.
As for rangefinders, I like the compactness, weight, and lack of vibration. I still use older SLRs, but rangefinders are what I use in the street. They're quiet and immediate.
 
I still have my first camera a Nikon FE, black. It's still a pretty camera that just sits in a drawer at home. Maybe I'll take it for a walk soon. I treat my camera like pets. "Who wants to go for a walk?"
 
Leica Geek said:
Bessa R2 is nice. I have one but can't get used to shooting with the internal meter. I still carry around my incident meter. Cargo pants are good for that. The Bessa is a little loud.
Click to expand...

A bit louder than a cloth shutter, agreed. But I am getting used to the metalic sound. Even if someone is 5 feet away, they can't hear the shutter. my RFF pic of a guy getting a smoke out of his box, heard nothing when I took his picture AS I walked past him. (the 82 degree gallery)
 
I think for me it's film.

I have limited funds to allocate to photography, so I prioritize. Right now my only rangefinder is an Agfa Ambi Silette which needs a CLA, and I decided instead to have the shutter for my 4x5 CLA'd so that I can start shooting with it. For 35mm, I'm enjoying my old Canon FTb and nice FD lenses (which seem to be sharper than the Agfa's, anyway), but I do enjoy the rangefinder style of photography.

It doesn't help that the same local shop which is doing the LF shutter work has a user M3 - I looked through that viewfinder and wow, the Agfa just doesn't compare!
 
This is a good question. Kinda makes me think as I read through the responses. I guess for me it is film, too. There's just something intangible I love about shooting film that doesn't quite exist in the same way when I'm working with a digital camera. I really enjoy using a rangefinder, and appreciate what it brings to photography.

If I were in a position where I had to choose between shooting only film, but not with a rangefinder, or shoot only with a rangefinder, yet not use film (digital), I'd have to go with film. For me, it's better to have film in a SLR or other format than a digital rangefinder.

Like I said, interesting question. Thanks for asking!
 
popstar said:
This is a good question. Kinda makes me think as I read through the responses. I guess for me it is film, too. There's just something intangible I love about shooting film that doesn't quite exist in the same way when I'm working with a digital camera. I really enjoy using a rangefinder, and appreciate what it brings to photography.

If I were in a position where I had to choose between shooting only film, but not with a rangefinder, or shoot only with a rangefinder, yet not use film (digital), I'd have to go with film. For me, it's better to have film in a SLR or other format than a digital rangefinder.

Like I said, interesting question. Thanks for asking!
Click to expand...

You know I'll have to agree with you on that. Film is in a way a metaphor to a way of being that is disappearing. By this I mean, when you shoot film you have to think ahead, shoot, and wait for the results. If you process and print your photos, that process takes pratice and patience. Practice and Patience is disappearing and being replaced with built in obsolescence and instant gratification and the idea that if it doesn't work throw it away. Quality and Craft is being replaced with Quantity and Crap.
 
It's the rangefinder. Not having my vision constrained by a camera lens just works so well for the kinds of things I like to shoot.

I used to say I loved film, I really believed I loved film, I loved the results I got with film (at their best) and even after I started using digital cameras I thought I'd always want to make a place for film.

But after using the R-D 1 for a couple of years I've been forced to admit that I never really cared about film at all. All I care about is the pictures. For a long time film was the only way to get the pictures I wanted, but that's no longer the case.

The chronic sentimentalist in me regrets this a bit. That's partly because of all the time and effort I spent developing expertise in the film medium. And I suspect it's partly because nostalgia allows me to remember the happy moments of pulling wet film off a reel and seeing what looked like it might be a really good picture... while forgetting all the moments of frustration at pullling film off the reel (or prints out of the wash) and seeing that what I had gotten wasn't as good as I had hoped.

But whatever the reason -- and keeping in mind that I still might go out and shoot a roll of film tomorrow if I wanted to -- I've had to come to terms with the fact that I'm no longer committed to film anymore. I guess you could say that film and I are no longer in a serious relationship, we're just good friends.


PS -- Shooting digitally doesn't negate the value of planning and patience. One thing any serious digital photographer learns quickly is that you can't trust what you see on the LCD. It's like a studio photographer's Polaroid -- it provides useful information, but it has to be interpreted in the light of experience. Gratification with a digital image doesn't come until you've executed the necessary post-production steps, generated the final output, and compared it to your intentions or hopes. In that respect, it's no different from the traditional wet process.
 
Last edited:
it's using rf cameras for me as well.

if i loved the film process i would never have sold my darkroom set up and gone to photoshop + lab = prints.
it's not that i don't like film, but the lazy side of me likes the relative ease of digital.
i might save/plan for a used rd-1 someday or whatever drf is available in my price range.
 
Film, forever! I will only shoot digital when film becomes too expensive. I guess that I would rather know that I have actually worked for the end result. I think the thing that I hate most about most of the digital crowd, is that no one takes their time anymore. Instead of getting it right the first time, their philosophy seems to be, "It can always be fixed on the computer." I just couldn't imagine myself in the digital world. To me it matters what type of camera. I beleive the engine that makes the camera run should be film. As said before, film just has that quality about it. It completes the camera in a way that a cmos could never do.
 
Here's how I interpret the question (and I do have an answer). If, for example, I had the world's perfect rangefinder camera....but it was ditigal, would that be more or less satisfying than having the perfect film but being stuck with a mediocre rangefinder. Answer is easy. I don't care what rangefinder they made digital, I wouldn't get any joy from using it. Film, film, film, film, film, film. And I like what you said about the mechanics all working together perfectly to produce an image on a piece of film. Very well put.
 
Thats tough, in the end, I love film, theres a deep history in it, theres technique, a romanticism in it, and skill required to shoot film, I can easily take out one of my Nikon DSLRs, throw a lens and some filters on and get a nice shot, quickly, I like digital for all the experimentation and fast learning it provides, you can mess around and see the results fast, I basically use that knowledge and apply it when Im shooting film, I guess in the end digital for me is 1 - An "easier" way to photograph, and 2- A very very good learning tool for me to go and apply it to film shooting. Bottom line, Ill never stop shooting film, and Ill never stop using RF's for that matter, both are part of the reasons I fell in love with photography, and continue to love it....Good question though! It can turn out to be a thinker for some 🙂
Bryan
 
It's definitely film for me. The subtleties of choice of emulsion, the matching of b&w film and developer, the sheer brilliance of colour transparencies - there's a combination of quality and versatility that digital photography doesn't come close to matching.

And much as I love rangefinder photography, I enjoy shooting with my Olympus OM SLR gear just as much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom