Sell M9 and Return to Film Only?

Fraser said:
Someone who doesn't look after digital images is I doubt going to be looking after there negatives that well.
I've probably lost a lot of film by being under deadline and not fixing and washing properly where as I know exactly where all my digital images are and they are perfectly safe.
Unless I'm wet printing my workflow is the same select in photomechanic into photoshop crop resize correct exposure colour and sharpen thats it.
Is it not that you would like a new camera, it seems sensible to have a film and digital with the same lens mount.
good luck.
Click to expand...

Ok yes, under the worst possible circumstances and with someone who doesn't care, film can be less archival. But somehow I doubt we're dealing with the worst possible circumstances here, and nobody is shooting film on deadline anymore. All you have to do is develop properly, and sleeve in a print file. Assuming some physical catastrophe doesn't occur, with B&W film you're good for upwards of 100 years and more if you selenium tone your film. With the best practices on digital it's a much bigger gamble. Few digital mediums last longer than a decade, and even if they don't corrode to an unreadable state, you WILL have trouble finding a machine that can work with the media or the file or both. Your best bet is to constantly be moving the files to new media types but that's only as good as you are, and stops when you die.

Don't take my word for it, ask the Library of Congress or any major film studio. Their archives are analog.
 
Regarding safeguarding your digital files: I think the best solution is to make a print of anything you love. If you're concerned that your grandchildren will have a box of something to remember your days on the planet, there's nothing better than a box of prints.
 
Huss said:
Not me!

I was making the point that the depreciation argument is actually worse for new film than new digital. Much much much worse as can be seen.
Click to expand...

I would argue only in a few cases. I bought a new Chamonix 45N2 recently and sold it for about 80% of it's buying price. Not too bad. The F6 and Leica are just in a tough spot because there are SO many alternatives to them, in addition to a decade or more production of the same model. When it comes to large format, recently discontinued Rolleiflex's, or similar the usual rules hold.
 
Huss said:
For you.

I do not find it a PITA at all. I find it a complete pleasure giving the results I want.

Sure, if I need to take a snap of my cat to post on the internet I'll use a digicam...
Click to expand...

you're a lucky man...say hi to the cat for me as well.
 
Honestly, the answer should come from within you. Why do you take photographs? Do you sell them? Are you a for making a living out of photography? If yes, then you can think of ways to keep making money with both. If you are like me, I do it for love to the art, I have 15,000 pieces in my computer that I do not see much often, and rarely print, only for exhibitions or contests. Doing film without dark room for printing is half analog-half digital, not the best. One satisfaction of film, is that you have to work at it and can see the product coming out. Again, time is a factor in both cases. Digital requires a lot of time in front of the computer, and film requires a lot of time in the lab.
 
Fraser said:
How is it that film is for serious pictures that will change the world but digital is for snaps of cats?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Search for cat pics on the internet. See how many are shot on film...

The great unwashed have spoken. Digicams are the choice of cat snappers.
 
Fraser said:
How is it that film is for serious pictures that will change the world but digital is for snaps of cats?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Maybe he archives his stuff correctly and those photos of his cat won't matter in two weeks but those portraits of something else will, so he chose to shoot a medium that is more archival for him?
 
Hey, quit picking on my cat.

He loves posing.

Or maybe he's just sleeping.

I will admit though, he doesn't seem to interested in pawing through the prints.

Though sometimes on cool mornings he takes a run and slides through them. :)
 
And what would be wrong with cat pics on film ?

Scan-110731-0008.jpg


r3-Scan-130622-0006.jpg


Not sure though why this has become a film vs. digital debate.

Roland.
 
There is lots of great advice here. I do photography as a hobby but honestly it is not a passion. It was in college and for a couple years when I was a professional. Then forty years ago I became a professional pilot.

I don't need the money so I don't need to sell anything. I enjoy owning cameras and have had one Leica or another in the cabinet since 1976. I will probably keep what I own (awaiting an M5 from Sherry) but really don't see upgrading to a 240. I bought the M9 a couple years ago to see if I wanted to go digital and honestly I don't. I still enjoy film. If I sell the M9, I will probably pick up some version of the X100 or perhaps something like the Ricoh GR2 or X70.

Honestly, I probably won't make a decision until the guy who wants the M9 shows me the cash. However, I am off to Asia for a three week trip at the end of October and I think I will just be taking the M2 with 35mm and lots of TriX (perhaps a couple rolls of Ektar as well) to see if I can be happy with just film.

Of course, it was not that many years ago that film was all we had. A friend of mine who shoots for NATGEO said 2002 was the year it changed and that is only one year before the Iraq war started. Imagine that!
 
ktmriasder said:
There is lots of great advice here. I do photography as a hobby but honestly it is not a passion. It was in college and for a couple years when I was a professional. Then forty years ago I became a professional pilot. . . .
Click to expand...
This is why so many people here are talking at cross purposes. If photography is a passion, as it has been for me for almost 50 years, the responses of those for whom it is a pastime will be all but meaningless. Likewise, those for whom it is merely a pastime are likely to stare blankly at the responses of those who are passionate.

Cheers,

R.
 
ktmrider said:
. . . Flying redefines passions.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Flying is not always the be-all and end-all. One can be passionate about all kinds of things. I know/knew pilots who take/took flying in their stride, but reserve/reserved their passion for other things.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger, you miss my point about flying. It was something I did but was not passionate about but it was better then working for a living. But once you have any aircraft in the air, your primary concern becomes getting it back on the ground in one piece. That is why I said flying defines passion. After all, we are cheating gravity! Perhaps, that is the reason US Navy pilots rate themselves by the number of traps on an aircraft carrier!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom