Why doesn't digital capture capture me?

If you had told me 10 years ago, when I started using digital cameras, that 10 years from now I would have forgone digital almost entirely and gone back to developing your own B&W as your primary way of shooting I would have laughed my a** off. Heck, even 5 years ago when I was waist-deep in Canon L lenses and a 1D-series body.

The answer was so simple but I had never tried a rangefinder until around 2006. A chance encounter with a Yashica MG-1. Once I bought an Olympus 35SP there was no going back.
 
FrankS said:
Photography is my hobby. I enjoy the process/journey, not just the final image/destination. (If I were a pro photographer I would not have the luxury of that choice. It would have to be all about the final image.) I do photography because I enjoy the doing of it. Then there is still the developing and the printing. I love photography! I don't want it to be easy. I want to have to give it some effort.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that. The part of photography I enjoy the most is the actual taking of pictures. Looking at the results is a kick, and often a surprise, but comes in second. Processing (and scanning for me) is, to use a food analogy, better than washing dishes but not as entertaining as actually cooking something.
 
PatrickONeill said:
film or digital does not capture me. what I'm photographing is what captures me.

The camera I have with me at that moment is incidental.
Click to expand...

Finally. HCB might have been known as Mr. Leica, but I'm sure that he would have taken marvelous pictures with a Brownie Hawkeye. It's the mind and the eye of the man behind the camera, not the camera.

Cheers...

Rem
 
When I got my digital camera, it was with the idea that I would save so much money on developing costs, since I didn't have to get every shot printed. And I waited to get a camera that would satisfy my basic needs, instead of just rushing out and buying the first thing that came along.

Well, I still took pictures the same way I did when using film, and for a while there was no decrease in the amount of prints I made. So getting on a photo sharing site was the next order of business, so I could show my work without the expense of making prints.

But there are pitfalls to all that, such as how high a level of security do you need to keep your stuff from being ripped off for commercial use?

To sum things up, I've replaced the darkroom/commercial processor with a computer, scanner, and two printers, and all the associated software to control it all. Which is all out of date either when I purchased it, or within a couple months. And prone to breakdowns at the most unoportune moments, either mechanically, or software.

So I started to shoot film again as therapy for all this rat race style of photography we have had to adopt. But it is hard to find good used equipment since all the camera shops disappeared, and film types are being discontinued at an accelerating pace.

I'll continue to do both analog and digital because with all the problems, there is still nothing that makes me happier than photography.
 
since shooting with my rd1, i have more prints hanging on my walls than ever before.
i email the processed file to a pro lab in town and they are ready for pick up, usually within a day or 2.
i normally get 8x10 or 8x12 prints, they are pretty inexpensive compared to large prints and i prefer small prints anyway, no change from my old darkroom days.
all my frames are the same, cheap black ikea frames, no need to change out prints as i just keep buying more frames. i hang them gallery style.
since getting the ipad, i have a built in portfolio presentation kit.
 
My involvement in photography is both work and personal. Most of my work is done with digital cameras. Most of my personal work is done with film cameras. Digital cameras have changed the way I work (I’m talking about work-work). Once I deliver a job, I have little need to archive the work images, unless they have value for me beyond my client’s needs. Anything I photograph with film is of personal value. I like the film process, the simple cameras; the ease of using film over digital for extended travel (no rechargeable batteries, uploading, laptop, chargers + cables, finding a source of AC power, the extra weight of the cameras and zoom lenses, sensor cleaning). If I were to retire today, I would have some kind of small, quality digital camera, for quick snaps, photos to illustrate design projects and for email. I agree with “peterm1” that, digital cameras are great tools for experimentation. They provide quick feedback and allow the photographer to test ideas, on the spot, that otherwise might be kept on hold until thoroughly tested.

Digital photography is an especially good tool for learning composition. If, however, you can previsualize, you don’t need the visual feedback that digital provides. For the kind of personal snapshots I take, that are free from complex artificial lighting, film is my choice. If I were doing a portrait requiring a number of flash heads, that don’t have modeling lights, I would use a digital camera. The feedback provided by the LCD and histogram, is a much better tool for me than a flash meter and Polaroid film. If given an image of value, I would rather the image be on film than a digital file. I process my b+w and send my K14 & E6 to a lab. I guess I should add, that I scan most of my film, though I still own an enlarger.
 
jamesdfloyd said:
Film is therapy!

I agree, that digital capture has of late failed to "capture" me, that is why I have dusted off the various rangefinders I have had in glass display cases for the past...God knows how many...years, and now I am asking annoying questions on this forum about which film people like and whether to develop & scan my own or pay to have it done.

The excitement of digital was the instant gratification of seeing the end result of the picture. Much like everything in life that has achieved instant gratification status, the lack of wait has taken the "specialness" out of the effort. Since I gave up the wedding photography business last year, there is no need to rush to the end of the story, but to experience the journey instead.

Today I am photographing almost 50 pieces of Nikon (D3) equipment for sale on eBay - its time to go back to my roots...b&w film, a hand held light meter and a purpose.

J.D.
Click to expand...


Hi James, you, having been in the 'business" may find this interesting. I too take photos for a living. No weddings though. A client asked my opinion on her daughters choice of media for her up coming wedding. We were in the middle of a "digital shoot" and almost all of my "work" output is digital. My client's daughter wanted her wedding photographed with film. The mother questioned this. I told her that I agreed with her daughter. I said the film could be scanned for any needed digital output and the archive of film would likely live through many changes in digital media. She kinda gave in. I asked about her daughter's choice and what she knew about photography. It turns out the daughter works at Lucas Film and is involved in high end digital editing.
 
jamesdfloyd said:
I know this will sound like a clique, but we all come to a "crisis point" in our lives where something simply helps. To me it is the very first camera I every bought, an Olympus Trip 35.

The "rewards" of being an executive are over rated and most litigious. Entitled 20-something year old staff members, political debates, ex-wives, train cancellations and traffic jams are taking their toll on me - even a 3 olive martini cannot help. A 35-year old camera, $4.32 worth of b&w film and a Saturday's stroll through NYC is the cheapest therapy I can ever hope for.

My biggest excitement for next week will be the anticipation of scans coming back from the lab around the corner from my office. My hope is that nothing can sour that.'

J.D.
Click to expand...

I agree absolutely, very wise, hell - I even like the smell of film and trimming the leader on my 1937 Leica 'Standard', how strange is that. I'm not an absolutist though, I still use my M8 too. 😎
 
Last edited:
I just love the hands on tactile feel of film developing and processing. I don't get that same feeling of involvement with digital. That said, there are negs that I can't print to my satisfaction on traditional silver paper that I know I should have scanned because it would be a relatively easy fix with Photoshop.
 
Captured by RFs

Captured by RFs

I got captured by RFs, and unwisely 😉 threw all of my resources into fancy RF lenses.

Although I do have and frequently use an M8 and had an RD-1, I still recognize that at this point in time, the M mount is principally a film-based system. The M9 may answer some of the deficiencies in the M mount digital platforms within my reach, but the price is too high for me.

Often when I look at the price/performance ratio of other systems, I feel some remorse. For the price of my three used Leica lenses, I could have had a really nice D700 set-up that would fulfill a persistent need in my preferred subjects and venues for super high ISO performance.

Looking back over photos I've taken, I now know I could have been happy with just the CV lenses with which I started, but having been "captured," I doubt I'll now part with my 3 Leicas, 2 Zeiss, 1 old Nikkor, 2 CVs, and a Rollei.

So I'm mostly trying to accept, love, and work with having been captured. Later on down the road I may reassess and change my kit, but I feel it's just better for me to stay and work with what I've got, which is admittedly pretty darn cool. In a few years there will perhaps be a relatively affordable, FF, high ISO digital M body...

Getting captured by RF lenses and "locked" into an M mount system is just fine with me.
 
Last edited:
Back to the original topic: why film? In my opinion, it has to do with subtleties of contrast and detail. My film photos have a certain snap that digital is lacking. When I attempt to put that snap into digital, I start losing highlights and shadow. I am unable to duplicate the results I get with MF portraits on Plus-X. I have a fairly recent DSLR with 2.8 zoom sitting on the table. I usually grab my Bronica S2.
 
I love both film and digital. I do find that the sheer cost of film in Australia inhibits me and hinders my experimenting more. I have a large number of technically OK but rather boring images from film but I can loosen up a lot with digital. My current exhibition is digital prints from scanned film.
Sorry if the above is muddled. I guess I am.
 
phil.wright said:
Huh? C8080 awful? This just does not compute...
Click to expand...
Same here. My fervent wish is that Olympus would take this model and update it with (1) a much faster and bigger buffer, (2) a faster and higher-res EVF (the existing one's not awful, but does show its age tech-wise), and (3) perhaps a larger, 10MP sensor, in that order of importance. (Don't touch that lens! I love it just as it is.)

I'd probably shoot digital at least a bit more if I had something like that.


- Barrett
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom