Should I bother with film?

znapper said:
- Leica schmeica.....seriously, when you look at it from a different standpoint, it's just a light-tight jewelery box with a fancy logo, it's the glass that matters, you can use Leica-glass on IE a Voigtländer R3M. (Yes, I know I am pissing of the Leica-boys with this, but it doesn't make it any less true).
Click to expand...

The hardest thing about owning a leica is having to listen to non-sense like this.
I will volunteer my services as a resident "Leica-boy", and I am pissed off!
I will have owned my m3 for 25 years next month, and it is by far the one thing in my life that I have bought (other than medical care) that has paid itself back most generously over that time. Yes, it is just a camera. No, it is not a jewelry box!
 
For me, if you're undecided about film, I'd probably try out medium format first. You can get inexpensive, portable cameras, like the folders, or if you're talking a budget around a Leica M6, a GF670, Plaubel Makina, or a Mamiya 7.

With 35mm, as good as it is (at the moment I only use 35mm), you are getting what digital was made to replicate. Medium format is a very different look, more resolution than you'll ever need, and it's forgiving to scan, a decent flatbed will get great scans.

With medium format, you're getting what is probably on balance, the best film has to offer. It's a great balance of size, shots per roll, and technical quality. My Zeiss Super Ikonta IV gave better technical quality than my Leicas ever did, was smaller, and cost less.

The only thing I tend to miss in medium format is inexpensive wide lenses, and the longer lenses can be physically very large compared to those for 35mm cameras.
 
thegman said:
For me, if you're undecided about film, I'd probably try out medium format first. You can get inexpensive, portable cameras, like the folders, or if you're talking a budget around a Leica M6, a GF670, Plaubel Makina, or a Mamiya 7.

With 35mm, as good as it is (at the moment I only use 35mm), you are getting what digital was made to replicate. Medium format is a very different look, more resolution than you'll ever need, and it's forgiving to scan, a decent flatbed will get great scans.

With medium format, you're getting what is probably on balance, the best film has to offer. It's a great balance of size, shots per roll, and technical quality. My Zeiss Super Ikonta IV gave better technical quality than my Leicas ever did, was smaller, and cost less.

The only thing I tend to miss in medium format is inexpensive wide lenses, and the longer lenses can be physically very large compared to those for 35mm cameras.
Click to expand...

+1 to trying Medium Format.

My evolution was 100% digital and then 100% 35mm film and now 100% Medium Format film. Next up is a large format field camera :).

You can buy amazing* Medium Format cameras for next to nothing! I started with a Pentax 67 (their lenses can be 150-300$ and they are great** lenses). The Fuji GW690 is phenomenal.. great glass, great price and beautiful 6x9 negatives.

You can't replicate the Medium Format look with digital. I agree pretty much with everything thegman said.

To add some of the things I miss from Medium Format:
- Fast lenses (the fastest goes down to F2). You're only shooting at night if you're shooting 1600 or 3200.
- Film processing can be expensive. A roll of 36 35mm frames costs as much as a roll of 10 6x7's.

Also of note, you cannot* shoot fast with Medium Format. The focus throws on the lenses are very long (because the DoF is so shallow). So these cameras will make you shoot differently, and methodically. Which, for me, is perfect and will make you a better photographer.
 
CNNY said:
...Yes, it is just a camera. No, it is not a jewelry box!
Click to expand...
It is OK.

Comparing Leica to Jewelry Box is fresh one, comparing to cars comparison to cameras and equalization of quality with resolution. :)
 
I did.

I went from 100% digital (Nikon) to 100% film (Leica) - apart from my phone.

I dabbled in film in my teens, never serious, never any more than snapshots.

I did it for a few reasons;
-I was sick of the DSLR experience, mainly the size and tunnel like viewfinder.
-I wanted to try a Leica, but could never afford an M9 (at the time).

I picked up a used M6 and a voigtlander 2.5/35, and within 3 months had sold all my digital gear. I've since added a leica 2/50 from '73 and have no intentions of getting another digital camera - I love the look (as in output) and process of using film. I shoot mostly (95%) B&W film - I'll second Chris Crawford that B&W film is amazing, far better than digital B&W. I don't do enough colour to comment.

I had never developed film myself before, but it wan't hard. I have no intention of getting a full darkroom, it just isn't feasible. I scan my negatives using a plustek 8100 scanner, then into Lightroom for curves and the like, then printing with an inkjet.

My advice is to not be scared, follow Chris Crawfords tech pages, and enjoy.

Expenses (in A$)
-Camera $800
-lens $400
-scanner $300
-Vuescan $80?
-changing bag $40
-Measuring stuff and chems ~$100 initial
-I managed to get quite a bit of stuff (developing tank etc) for free from some older friends who were happy to see it put to use.

All in all it was pretty cheap, all paid for from the sale of my digital gear in the end.

My advice would be that if you want a Leica, get a Leica. Don't waste money and time not getting what you'll end up with anyway. If you plan on doing MF too, get a scanner that can do both.

Cheers,
Michael
 
znapper said:
To the OP:
These days, if I were you, I would get hold of a (very) decent Medium format camera (Hasselblad or a Rolleiflex 2.8F) and shoot medium format.

If you are used to the clean nature and impeccable quality of digital, then medium format is probably the only thing that will satisfy you properly.
Well, unless you plan to shoot Tmax 100, Acros 100 or another bigger brand 100 ISO film or Velvia 50 slides.

35mm is practical, but it does tend to have a few drawbacks like:
- Dust more apparent on scans.
- Obviously grain and resolution.
- Quality does not equivalent modern digital high-end cameras (it really doesn't, despite what people might claim).
- 36 frames is too much anyway, unless you are on holiday or shooting an event, it's more to scan and you need to shoot longer to use up the film....which may be a challenge if you are going to "make photographs" and not snapshots.
- Leica schmeica.....seriously, when you look at it from a different standpoint, it's just a light-tight jewelery box with a fancy logo, it's the glass that matters, you can use Leica-glass on IE a Voigtländer R3M. (Yes, I know I am pissing of the Leica-boys with this, but it doesn't make it any less true).

If you were to go for 35mm anyway, then go for a proper high-end Nikon or Canon Autofocus SLR and quality optics, so your shots are in focus and sharp and with good exposure.

I shoot most formats from 35mm up to 6*9, rangefinders, SLR's, TLR's.....russian, japanese, German, whatever....and I also shoot digital and I scan and use the darkroom for my analog work.

There are so many other nice things to be had, beside "a leica". :)
Click to expand...

"Go away kid . . . you bother me. Ya' littel - - - whipper - - - schnapper"

W.C. Fields

Least i should be misunderstood, the znapper raises some good questions, especially if you continue to use digital capture and are looking for a niche for your film shooting. I agree with some of his reservations about 35mm, including the number of shots on a roll and the scanning hassle. On the other hand the more apparent qualities of 35mm film -- more apparent grain for instance -- can easily be seen as an advantage. I would also say that the rangefinder is a nice shooting experience; no need to fall for the Leica mystique, if it annoys you. There are alternatives to Leica.
 
jkrumsick said:
The Fuji GW690 is phenomenal..
Click to expand...

I agree, they're nice cameras and not expensive.

Also, for the price of a leica kit you can also pick up an as new Fuji GF670 or GF670W - it has the best viewfinder I've ever looked through, and at least the W (haven't seen large prints from the other) an incredible lens. Similar quality to an M, near silent leaf shutter, only slightly larger, but the negatives are around 5 times bigger!
 
Bronica ETRsi cameras are pretty cheap these days. The drawback is - obviously - the size and bulk, but the results can be pretty good.

Also agree also with a previous poster: 36 frames can last a long time if you are not a prolific shooter. MF is better in this regards, as you see the results quicker, and 'practice' developing more frequently.
 
Sparrow said:
.... an interesting idea, but what about those people who simply like to impose their opinions on everyone else?
Click to expand...

Hi,

Good question but what about those poor people who have no opinions?

Or worse, those ones who know you have to start with the M6 or M7 and a back up body and a Noctilux and all the other lenses must have ASPH glass, always use 3200 ISO film and so on?

And funnily enough few recommend a tripod today yet they'll need one as they are obviously going to produce billboards and posters at least; well, until they discover what they cost and how difficult it is to display them all.

As for enlargers, there's cheap and nasty out there and brilliant and not-so-dear. No one seems to have mentioned this...

MF is great but does everyone turn out or need 18" x 24" prints all the time?

Experience and chatting to people in labs tells me most want 4" x 6" and a few go to 5" x 7" and even fewer realise it should be a half an inch wider to use the full neg. Why pay for edge definition and then cut it off on 8" x 10" or 5 x 7's? Hence my frequent comments about P&S's which can turn out excellent and usable print sizes.

Experience, again, tells me that theory and practice often differ; my version of DIY includes comments on darkrooms at midnight in the summer when the last but one film won't load and worse.

I've not mentioned the costs of all this and the problems that can write off an expensive camera but that reminds me to sign off and add it's just my 2d worth.

Regards, David
 
To the original question:

I am back to film from a DSLR. I develop film but scan and print digital. I enjoy it very much:

1) I do real b&w now; no converting and thinking "well it might have been OK in color too.."

2) close to your point: I can afford an analog Leica, which is wonderful although I have been using Nikons all my life.

3) about the results: my results are better because I do much more now:
-> I more easily take the Leica with me than the D700, and
-> because using it is more fun, and
-> because my results motivate me it makes them even better and so on

But although the M6 is not so expensive and the value loss, if you sell after a while, will be limited, I would maybe start with a SLR that you get for nearly nothing (and coming from Nikon, my favorite would be the FM)
 
I you have been using fine digital equipment for the past 10 years, and you arre wondering about switching to film; I would think that you are using SLR's. So you have two things which you will or should be considering. Will I like using film and will I like using range-finder cameras. if you go after an M6. I would get a good film slr and then try film for awhile. You are used to using an slr and so you can focus on the film process.

Mike
 
yay for film and film cameras!

Some really good advice here.
Look, film is all about slowing down, anyway.

The advantage of using GAS over electric is that you control the heat much better :p !
 
CNNY said:
The hardest thing about owning a leica is having to listen to non-sense like this. I will volunteer my services as a resident "Leica-boy", and I am pissed off
Click to expand...

Let's not get emotional now...

Honestly I read a lot of RFF and rarely see much anti-Leica sentiment. On the flip-side, Leica gets so much love around here it can get kind of repetitive.

I haven't joined the Leica club. But, if I didn't love medium format so much, I'd definitely get an M3.

Back to the OP, did you make any determinations yet?
 
photomoof said:
Never was for me, I used a Nikon motor drive on my first SP, then motor drives on my F's. When I bought two Leica M4-P's, I bought winders for them both (and boy were they loud).

Even had a Pentax 250 for an NEA funded project.

When I was first into photography I loved "fast."
Click to expand...

It's all relative, isn't it?

The question isn't whether or not film at one point was part of the apex of acceleration, the question is whether the speed of speed, the parameters of speed, or the goalposts by which speed is measured, haven't changed dramatically since motor-driven SLRs? Today, the speed of film has to be measured against the speed of digital. Or am I missing something?
 
OK, back to the original question.

I've always enjoyed film, the cameras are better made and the results as good if not better in black and white. I guess B&W is possible but I guess that means a specialised printer.

Most film cameras are a joy to use; I guess this is because the computer people didn't get to design them but were merely called in to do a job. I often find digital cameras irritating, with about three exceptions.

Go ahead and buy a Leica by all means, it's your money but read what we all have to say first. If your digital camera has a zoom lens then worry about going to prime lenses. They can cost a fortune and you'll probably need several.

After buying the camera body and lens(es), just buy a (B&W?) film and get it done by a lab. That's because the next step is a big one but first go ahead and start developing; then decide on scanning and / or wet printing (I mean enlarging).

Mostly an enlarger means a proper darkroom and free evenings or days. It not something you can use to do one print but is rather for batches of prints or just one difficult one. Equipping a darkroom can be expensive, btw.

So my 2d worth is really to say take it one step at a time and you'll enjoy it most.

Regards, David
 
For a very cheap way to test the water - in the rangefinder world - buy an Olympus 35RC or a Canon QL 17 GIII

Both can be bought for less than £60 in the UK and (compared with an M6 plus lens) will allow you to test whether you like to format or not, at 1/10th of the price.

Just an idea.
 
It's not "gear chasing." Would anyone be characterizing it that way if a person wanted to go from 35mm film to a TLR? He just wants a different experience.

Skip the Pentax K1000. Get something that is going to feel good in the hand. Get something that might lead you towards growth with that system. If you don't imagine you want to only buy Pentax manual focus lenses, don't buy a Pentax. Not that there's anything wrong with Pentax....

Also, i don't believe an automatic move into Medium Format is the way to go. Unless the objective is to closely match the resolution of the digital stuff you've been shooting. But, i'd look at the types of images that inspire you and that you want to make. If you want to shoot street, and admire Daido or HC-B , a Pentax 67 is not going to give you the same kinds of results. Bigger and sharper aren't necessarily improvements. Get what you're going to get based on the context of the final product.

Note that there are lots of little nuance-y characteristics of film cameras that will affect your efficiency/enjoyment. Things like the fact that certain cameras might not have an AE lock tied to the half-press of the shutter button.... AF or no AF. Winder or no winder. Which way the focus ring turns.... Luckily, there is a wealth of information out there to help make a decision.

re: Leica —*if you've got it in your head that a Leica is the end all be all, no amount of counsel will rid you of the feeling, short of actually experiencing it for a while. I tried it, with three M7s and a Zeiss Ikon. And, a bunch of super-expensive lenses. Only to find out i really don't like rangefinders, and that i like my $40 'amateur' nikon SLR lens gives me the results i had been looking for all that time.... But, now i know. Wondering is not fun.
 
f16sunshine said:
My advice... look at images... lots of images.

The reason to shoot film rather than digital is for the results.
If after viewing and comparing a lot of images from each (F&D) you find something about film you are missing with digital ...give it a try.
Click to expand...

I would argue that many use film because of the process.
 
David Hughes said:
Hi,



MF is great but does everyone turn out or need 18" x 24" prints all the time?

Experience and chatting to people in labs tells me most want 4" x 6" and a few go to 5" x 7" and even fewer realise it should be a half an inch wider to use the full neg. Why pay for edge definition and then cut it off on 8" x 10" or 5 x 7's? Hence my frequent comments about P&S's which can turn out excellent and usable print sizes.

Regards, David
Click to expand...

It's not just about print-size.
A simple A4 print, will be smoother and with better gradients from a medium-format camera than from your 35mm negative.

Let's say we're using Tri-X for example.

The grain (and dust) will make a smaller impact from a medium-format shot (if that is what one wants, some use 400 for the speed, not the grain).

This also holds true for scanning.

With medium format, it's simply more information in the frame, which means finer details and better gradients.

I do shoot 35mm, by all means, but for quality alone, I use medium format (and for the fun of using old RF's and TLR's). :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom