Rangefinder or Film?

I'd say it's definately film, that might be because of the fact, that I just have one RF (Oly 35 RC) but as I also do concert and opera shootings I have to use focal length greater than 135mm. The Minolta XE I'm using is a nice camera, but it's a bit bulky for streetphotog. so maybe an OM-4 would be the way to go in the future.
 
Film has No. 1 importance for me, method of capturing light, be it RF, TLR or SLR way is important also, but it depends on the subject photographed. For example:

Macro, Tele ----» I'll take SLR anytime
Lowlight or "street" -----» I prefer RF camera, no contest
Portrait ------» Both

Main attraction of film against digital is wonderful pallete of film emulsions to choose between, albeit by onslaught of digital (CCD sensors) it is dangerously pauperized. I hope film, at least better (PRO) emulsions, will stay with us and I am prepared (with resignation) to pay premium for its availability. I am not a PRO, so economic and other assignment-dependent calculations are happily excluded from my considerations.

Regards from Ilford (Delta&Pan) & Fuji (Velvia&Provia&Astia) & Kodak (Tri-X&Portra) NON-PRO, strictly-amateur, always-lacking-spare-time-for-favourite-hobby photographer.
 
I really enjoy the whole process of producing photographs using film from loading to watching the prints dry. Having said that, I'd rather use my M2's for the capture part of the process than anything else. So that's a both for me I suppose.
 
I’m going to have to say both….

Actually, I like film for the sort of photos I’m most likely to take with a rangefinder camera.
If I were shooting macros or sports, I’d use a slr and go with digital. For my tastes, film doesn’t add anything in those situations. For landscapes I’m sort of neutral, leaning towards digital.
Where people and the human environment are concerned though, I like the look and feel of film.
 
Film is great. I'm not ready to "go digital" yet because I'm simply having far too much fun with film at the moment. Maybe others here are further down the photographic path than I, have tried all the films and have become bored, or at least dissinterested in them. But not me, not yet. Maybe one day I'll tire of film, or it'll become too expensive to justify, but until then, give me film.
 
I just working through approximately 100 "contact sheets" from four months in Europe this past summer approximately 20% of which were taken with an R-D1.

My intention is to find the images that I want to print for an upcoming show.

While I took some very good photographs (IMHO) with the R-D1, if I look at the number of images selected (film vs. digital) and the consistency of same, I think I do better with film (and my M7) then the digital alternative.

This further reenforces my increasing urge to sell off my two R-D1's.
 
What's missing with digital? If my existing camera could magically shoot digital with the quality of the film of my choice there would be no excuse for me to shoot digital. Until then, I'm shooting film and loving it. More film less booze the costs work out fine.
 
Leica Geek said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you do what you enjoy you will be happy.

Why concern yourself with what others do to make themselves happy?

Life is not a contest - its a personal journey.
 
I'll say this: I really can't do anything with a roll of film by itself (unexposed, that is).

I can't do anything with the camera by itself (I'm not a collector).

So it's rangefinder and film. Mystery solved! 😀
 
Well done Gabriel. That may be one of the most concise answers here.

And I appreciate where Athena is coming from; she is clearly on a higher GAS-free plane. I don't know how many of us will choose to follow...
 
For me it's both. I like mechanical/manual cameras (regardless if RF or not) simply because I want to shoot pics "unplugged". And, the character of the lens shows very well with film. With digital, I don't see much character at all. But that's just me. 😛
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
I'll say this: I really can't do anything with a roll of film by itself (unexposed, that is).

I can't do anything with the camera by itself (I'm not a collector).

So it's rangefinder and film. Mystery solved! 😀
Click to expand...

Dear Archangel Gabriel,

This is a surprising post.

Aren't you currently shooting with the M8?

Certainly you have a prominent presence on those threads stating so.

So, are you being truthful with us when you say "So it's rangefinder and film. Mystery solved...".?
 
jlw said:
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.
Click to expand...

Very well said. When I can afford an M8 I will probably come the same conclusion, but for now I shoot film. How much a RD-1's going for these days?
 
I love using film especially black and white in my rangefinders, these I would use for certain purposes.
For other shooting I use my DSLR but my main love is for the rangefinders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom