back alley
IMAGES
sometimes a part of the decision is more practical...like there is no way i can stand for hours in a darkroom any more...but sitting in from of my mac is easier on my hip.
the last few years of shooting film was with xp2, develope and scan done by the lab and process in front of my camputer...digital looks as good if not better.
the last few years of shooting film was with xp2, develope and scan done by the lab and process in front of my camputer...digital looks as good if not better.
DNG
Film Friendly
If using film: "Is not worth effort".
Then you need to shoot digital, that affords a faster turn around for viewing your photos..
Film has it place in the photographic genre, as does digital...
Many shoot both, and use film to add that "Film Grain" and "Tonality" that may not be available with a Sensors limited DR range, and HOW it records high ISO noise as far as a "Grainy" look, or "Smeared" look in the darkest of shades...
BUT, Many great looking B&W photos are just fine with Digital.... it boils down to: The added time involved from "Soup to File/Print" may be too limiting, plus the unknown of having to "Wait" during development to see if your photos where exposed properly for your workflow... Digital affords "instant" previews... so you can it again if needed..... expect, Street, where the "Moment" is not repeatable.
I shoot both, and enjoy each process differently.
Then you need to shoot digital, that affords a faster turn around for viewing your photos..
Film has it place in the photographic genre, as does digital...
Many shoot both, and use film to add that "Film Grain" and "Tonality" that may not be available with a Sensors limited DR range, and HOW it records high ISO noise as far as a "Grainy" look, or "Smeared" look in the darkest of shades...
BUT, Many great looking B&W photos are just fine with Digital.... it boils down to: The added time involved from "Soup to File/Print" may be too limiting, plus the unknown of having to "Wait" during development to see if your photos where exposed properly for your workflow... Digital affords "instant" previews... so you can it again if needed..... expect, Street, where the "Moment" is not repeatable.
I shoot both, and enjoy each process differently.
Last edited:
srtiwari
Daktari
If you read the initial post, you'll see that I was not really asking for advice on whether or not I should use film. I think I know how to make that decision.
MCTuomey
Veteran
i'm lucky enough to have a dRF and a dSLR, yet this morning i was out first-time with a Mamiya 7 burning some practice rolls. i'm not ready for 100% digital, not yet.
of course it depends on what and how much one shoots, and for whom.
of course it depends on what and how much one shoots, and for whom.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Andy, the pictures were fun to take and process quickly as LR3 does a great job. They were taken this morning when my girl friend 's dog (the Husky) met my new pet Poodle for the first time . I loved the images but was not necessarily trying to make them look like film, since I'm not sure what the 'Digital vs Film look' is. As someone said, (tongue-in-cheek) maybe the differences boil down to adding grain and USM !
I think it would be useful for someone to try and describe the 'look' of digital (or film) in away that can others can see and identify. (I recently compared some old and new lenses hoping to differentiate their signatures, and was surprised at how little the differences in 'look' were).
Maybe its time to do a little test to try and distinguish digital from film images !
Hope I did not sound snotty with my comment. Was actually trying not to. I don't actually get into the "Holy war" of Fim v. Digital. To me, and I think this is what you are saying... getting the shot comes first.
If I was to use a few words to describe the "look" thing that I personally go for in film. It would be.. "lo-fi" .
Sometimes I want a lo-fidelity look. I'm not able to get it with Digital. Probably from lack of effort but, I don't see it from others digital work either.
Again, I would be happy to have your shot with either. Actually being there in a similar situation I would be happy with an iPhone shot.
Not to hijack and I hope you don't mind.
This one is of my Lab Liza meeting her new buddy and housemate Hugo for the first time (and hike).
Liza has passed on after a grand life. Hugo is still my constant companion.
I'm happy to have it even if it's not great in IQ.
I use film because we like to sit down and pass a set of prints around, and I like using many of my film cameras. Some of the lenses that I like to use can only be used with film cameras. I use the M9, M8, and EP2 quite a bit.
But for the convenience of some outings, getting back a set of prints to enjoy with family and friends is more fun than looking at a Monitor. Printing out all of the pictures from Digital would take more time and money than just dropping a roll of film off to Sam's.
This thread is more of a Film vs Digital debate than it is about the M9. I have yet to convert any of my M8 or M9 images to monochrome. If I want monochrome, I either shoot film or use a monochrome camera.
Last set of prints back were from a Minolta Hi-Matic 7s-II at a Fall festival. Now that is a sharp 40/1.7 lens, and a fun to use camera. Used the Ep2 to make video's, the HM-7s-II for prints.
But for the convenience of some outings, getting back a set of prints to enjoy with family and friends is more fun than looking at a Monitor. Printing out all of the pictures from Digital would take more time and money than just dropping a roll of film off to Sam's.
This thread is more of a Film vs Digital debate than it is about the M9. I have yet to convert any of my M8 or M9 images to monochrome. If I want monochrome, I either shoot film or use a monochrome camera.
Last set of prints back were from a Minolta Hi-Matic 7s-II at a Fall festival. Now that is a sharp 40/1.7 lens, and a fun to use camera. Used the Ep2 to make video's, the HM-7s-II for prints.
Snowbuzz
Well-known
I think it would be useful for someone to try and describe the 'look' of digital (or film) in away that can others can see and identify. (I recently compared some old and new lenses hoping to differentiate their signatures, and was surprised at how little the differences in 'look' were).
Maybe its time to do a little test to try and distinguish digital from film images !
Well now I am a little confused. Have you ever used film before?
dct
perpetual amateur
Because of #4 I'm still shooting more film than digital. Add the slow process from pushing the button until you see the first time the image: Perfect thrill, exactly what I want, if I don't have any commitment delivering images in a short time frame.
cosmonaut
Well-known
Follow your heart. I shoot 80% digital but still love film. Some subjects just work better in classic black and white. Plus shooting film is good practice it keeps you on your game and you don't fall into the digital lazy workflow.
jippiejee
Well-known
I went out today with my digital digilux-2 and came home with one picture I liked out of 50. If I would have used film, my success rate for sure would have been higher. More thought, more patience, more results. That's film.
srtiwari
Daktari
Not sure if your question is a serious one, but yes, of course. Are you confused that I am confused about the F vs D differences ?
TXForester
Well-known
You got to admire a man who admits his girlfriend's dog is bigger than his dog.
Both are fine looking animals.
dave lackey
Veteran
Not sure if your question is a serious one, but yes, of course. Are you confused that I am confused about the F vs D differences ?
My life is a whole circle of confusion...
Tell ya what, since you missed the Atlanta 2011 RFF Meet last April, come on up in 2012 with both a film and digital camera and we guarantee you a great time either way. Nothing wrong with being a hybrid amongst friends!
srtiwari
Daktari
Subhash, Love your husky -- here is mine.
Off-frame Glance by thomasw_, on Flickr
BTW, so to contribute to the topics raised in the thread, the main reason I shoot BW film is because I prefer the look of the wet print to the digital print. I do enjoy developing film and wet printing, but not so much the scanning or using PS. Using the computer to deal with images takes away some of the joy of the process for me.
I am firm about my preferences, and firm in the conviction that one should follow their own preferences with regard to creative processes. Thus I agree with Subhash that he is quite able to make his own decisions on these matters
Thats a great looking dog, Thomas !
I am not knocking either method- Digital vs Film. How can ? I own 2 M2s, an M3, an M6, M7, and an M9, to say nothing of a G1(Panny) and some MF gear. I'm just not quite sure how to see and define the differences. I am hoping someone is going to come up and list some soon.
back alley
IMAGES
no...that's YOU with film.
i shoot digital the same as i did film...slow and thoughtfully.
srtiwari
Daktari
My life is a whole circle of confusion...
Tell ya what, since you missed the Atlanta 2011 RFF Meet last April, come on up in 2012 with both a film and digital camera and we guarantee you a great time either way. Nothing wrong with being a hybrid amongst friends!
I did regret missing it last year, but will definitely be there for the next one. Thank you. And yes, I'll bring both- one for the instant gratification, and the other for the "Look"
dave lackey
Veteran
Need a list? How about a show and tell? Again, if you happen through Atlanta, give me a shout and we can go over a list of the reasons why I chose film images for my documentary work over digital. :angel:
In the meantime, if you tire of the M9, let me know and I can take it out for daily exercise to keep it in tune for you over the winter.
Ducky
Well-known
And it shows, love your blog, Joe.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I never understood this reasoning, it is like blaming the process for personal lack of control. Yea my car is too powerful that is why I got a speeding ticket. I would hate to try that answer out on my better half.
Bob