Tomas M
Member
of film or digital. After spending years buying gear, hoping I'll be able to sell it for a bit of money to fund my next purchase, I've realised I've got pretty well no where. I've made the decision to buy a camera I've always wanted, and (hopefully) not be tainted by other beautiful gear online. This camera, obviously, is a Leica M. But now I'm fighting inside me whether or not to ditch the idea of a film M in favour of an X100, oh the choices!
I've shot film for some time now and love it, but I get down sometimes and wonder why I go to all the effort I do to go buy film and have it developed, and other times I absolutely love the stuff (that's when I get a roll with a lot of photos I like on it, haha). But, on the other hand, part of my mind is telling me to go digital, so I don't have to have the heartbreak of wasting $20 on a roll of film when I get duds on it, and so I'll be able to change my ISO whenever I like, and to go from colour to Bw whenever I like, etc.
BUT, like everyone else, I love the challenge (sometimes!) of being restricted to a certain ISO, or black and white. I like having to work around that, and I usually get better results with this, and I'm only concentrated on getting the right exposure and the image itself, rather than messing about with settings, whether to go black and white or not, and all that.
So, after this big ramble, my question is, would it be worth my while to pick up a film M, and continue putting money into every shot I take, or going for an X100, and having the convenience of being able to pick and choose my images?
I've shot film for some time now and love it, but I get down sometimes and wonder why I go to all the effort I do to go buy film and have it developed, and other times I absolutely love the stuff (that's when I get a roll with a lot of photos I like on it, haha). But, on the other hand, part of my mind is telling me to go digital, so I don't have to have the heartbreak of wasting $20 on a roll of film when I get duds on it, and so I'll be able to change my ISO whenever I like, and to go from colour to Bw whenever I like, etc.
BUT, like everyone else, I love the challenge (sometimes!) of being restricted to a certain ISO, or black and white. I like having to work around that, and I usually get better results with this, and I'm only concentrated on getting the right exposure and the image itself, rather than messing about with settings, whether to go black and white or not, and all that.
So, after this big ramble, my question is, would it be worth my while to pick up a film M, and continue putting money into every shot I take, or going for an X100, and having the convenience of being able to pick and choose my images?
loquax ludens
Well-known
I think you are the only one who can say which camera is better for you. I use both film and digital, but mostly film.
The cost of using film can be greatly reduced by doing your own film development and printing or scanning. Developing film costs very little in terms of equipment and supplies, and doesn't require a darkroom. Printing optically in a darkroom is a bit more costly to set up. Scanning is pretty economical after the cost of the scanner.
Also, if you have a scanner, you can have your film developed and sleeved only without any scans or prints. Personally, I like prints, but they do add a lot to the cost of using film. Processing only without scans or prints is usually very cheap. I can have it done for under $2 per roll.
If you want to shoot B&W film, developing it yourself is definitely the best and cheapest approach. When it comes to C-41 or E-6, it is generally cheaper to have it done at a lab, unless you are processing enough of such film to use up the chemicals before they go bad.
Personally, I'd opt for both the film M and the X-100.
The cost of using film can be greatly reduced by doing your own film development and printing or scanning. Developing film costs very little in terms of equipment and supplies, and doesn't require a darkroom. Printing optically in a darkroom is a bit more costly to set up. Scanning is pretty economical after the cost of the scanner.
Also, if you have a scanner, you can have your film developed and sleeved only without any scans or prints. Personally, I like prints, but they do add a lot to the cost of using film. Processing only without scans or prints is usually very cheap. I can have it done for under $2 per roll.
If you want to shoot B&W film, developing it yourself is definitely the best and cheapest approach. When it comes to C-41 or E-6, it is generally cheaper to have it done at a lab, unless you are processing enough of such film to use up the chemicals before they go bad.
Personally, I'd opt for both the film M and the X-100.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
At this time, go with digital.
You've given film a try, it's fair to give digital a try also.
Then you'll realize that digital has it's own quirk and annoyance also.
Or not.
Photography is supposed to be fun and it even has some meditative quality in it.
Over-analyzing choices should not suck the enjoyment out of it.
For me, digital is more often boring than not.
Film is imperfect, which makes it addicting.
Plus, I went all the way to darkroom printing, which offers a whole other realm of satisfaction (for lack of a better word).
You've given film a try, it's fair to give digital a try also.
Then you'll realize that digital has it's own quirk and annoyance also.
Or not.
Photography is supposed to be fun and it even has some meditative quality in it.
Over-analyzing choices should not suck the enjoyment out of it.
For me, digital is more often boring than not.
Film is imperfect, which makes it addicting.
Plus, I went all the way to darkroom printing, which offers a whole other realm of satisfaction (for lack of a better word).
loquax ludens
Well-known
Same here. I enjoy my darkroom way too much to turn away from it. I do use digital also, but I very much prefer the film and darkroom workflow. But then, it's a hobby for me. My photographic pursuits do not put bread on the table.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Its an impossible choice so I use both for different reasons. You can make colour film B&W just like you can colour digital, the ISO thing is a little tougher but you can still shoot between 50-800 changing ISO 'on the fly' with films like XP2.
I tend to know what my subject is before I shoot so I know what film to take, for instance macro bug shots or flowers are going to be colour, portraits or low light work better in mono for me.
In the end its a personal choice, that will be driven by all sorts of issues; cost, speed ease of workflow could point you towards digital. Or you may enjoy working with a physical medium, or a certain film, or shoot slides, not wish to work on the computer etc which might point you toward a film based workflow.
Use both, choose the one you wish to use on a job by job basis.
I tend to know what my subject is before I shoot so I know what film to take, for instance macro bug shots or flowers are going to be colour, portraits or low light work better in mono for me.
In the end its a personal choice, that will be driven by all sorts of issues; cost, speed ease of workflow could point you towards digital. Or you may enjoy working with a physical medium, or a certain film, or shoot slides, not wish to work on the computer etc which might point you toward a film based workflow.
Use both, choose the one you wish to use on a job by job basis.
RSilva
Member
I use both and for me that fits perfectly. While it is easier to shot digital, it's a pain to post-process.
With digital I end a week with 500 images to process (almost all go to the trash).
With film a single roll can live in the camera for two weeks and almost all of the images are keepers.
With digital I end a week with 500 images to process (almost all go to the trash).
With film a single roll can live in the camera for two weeks and almost all of the images are keepers.