funbear
Newbie
This is not a digital vs. film thread.... I am interested in hearing from film users to better understand the film market....
I am curious why most of you still elect to shoot 35mm film?
Do you think you will continue with film, or are you on the fence with digital now ?
Do you scan your film, or darkroom print from your film?
If equipment cost was equal for both, and you had to re purchase gear after a theft, would it be film or digital?
Is it the rangefinder camera you are most attracted to, or is it film in general?
This would probably make an interesting poll....
I am curious why most of you still elect to shoot 35mm film?
Do you think you will continue with film, or are you on the fence with digital now ?
Do you scan your film, or darkroom print from your film?
If equipment cost was equal for both, and you had to re purchase gear after a theft, would it be film or digital?
Is it the rangefinder camera you are most attracted to, or is it film in general?
This would probably make an interesting poll....
David William White
Well-known
Film, film, film. 135, 120, 4x5. Tri-X, 125PX, Pan F, some Ektachrome (for slide shows). No fence. Proper wet print, some scanning (when time permits). If/when film vanishes, I'll shoot paper, dammit! Digital's for the wife.
retnull
Well-known
Black and white tonality is superior with film. But, I am happy to be proven wrong....it would save me some money. Next I will try the Panasonic G1 with old glass. If I like what I see, then it's time to move on.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Film photography is a hobby for me. A bit like having an old car, I guess. I like the look, the feel and the tradition of it. I process my own B&W film and use my little darkroom - cum -brewery - cum laundry. Colour I get done at the local Camera shop.
I use rangefinders now because my eyes were having difficulty focussing my SLR, especially in low light, and I also like the fact that they are less bulky and weigh less. But they don't do everything as well as an SLR.
I'm probably on the verge of getting a decent digital but it won't be a DSLR, nor a simple point and shoot. What I want hasn't been invented yet but it's getting closer. What I don't want with digital is to spend hours and hours hunched over my computer doing post-production. But I always get my colour (neg) films scanned put on CD.
Having said all that, sometimes I take a holiday and get my negatives scanned, put on a CD and then I can choose how I want to proceed.
I use rangefinders now because my eyes were having difficulty focussing my SLR, especially in low light, and I also like the fact that they are less bulky and weigh less. But they don't do everything as well as an SLR.
I'm probably on the verge of getting a decent digital but it won't be a DSLR, nor a simple point and shoot. What I want hasn't been invented yet but it's getting closer. What I don't want with digital is to spend hours and hours hunched over my computer doing post-production. But I always get my colour (neg) films scanned put on CD.
Having said all that, sometimes I take a holiday and get my negatives scanned, put on a CD and then I can choose how I want to proceed.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The trouble with your question is ... when you're asking a film shooter why they prefer film they will invariably say because they don't like digital and don't like the look of it. It makes it very hard to avoid it becoming another film verses digital discussion.
It has to be film for me because it allows me to do things like this ...
and like this ...
I'm not clever enough to achieve this sort of result with digital but I'm sure something near to it can be obtained if you have the processing skills and required photoshop plugins ... but it won't smell right!
edit ... I forgot to mention I'm purely hybrid. I scan and print digitally and I can't see myself ever prefering digital capture to film in spite of the fact that I am in effect creating a digital final result!
It has to be film for me because it allows me to do things like this ...
and like this ...
I'm not clever enough to achieve this sort of result with digital but I'm sure something near to it can be obtained if you have the processing skills and required photoshop plugins ... but it won't smell right!
edit ... I forgot to mention I'm purely hybrid. I scan and print digitally and I can't see myself ever prefering digital capture to film in spite of the fact that I am in effect creating a digital final result!
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Oh ... and I forgot to mention ... GRAIN! Not noise!
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
I just printed my first films by myself it is 2am here in Canada and I look at my prints and ask why I do this, because I like it... Although I am not satisfied and disappointed with my first experience :bang:, I think I will try again...Well I will definitely continue to shoot with film no matter I cant print by myself perfectly
digital is attactive indeed but to easy for me
it is 2am here in Canada and I look at my prints and ask why I do this, because I like it... Although I am not satisfied and disappointed with my first experience :bang:, I think I will try again...Well I will definitely continue to shoot with film no matter I cant print by myself perfectly digital is attactive indeed but to easy for me
funbear
Newbie
Interesting......
>I'm probably on the verge of getting a decent digital but it won't be a DSLR, nor a simple point and shoot. What I want hasn't been invented yet but it's getting closer
I feel like the next 20MP Epson type rangefinder digital camera will make a lot of converts, specially if it comes equipped with M mount. For $2k type price range... I would imagine this will happen in the next year or two the way progress keeps moving. There currently is a gap between digicams and SLR's now.
I shoot both....but film is my primary media. I usually scan, so I end up with digital either way. PS is so powerful these days, the flexibility to correct an image or alter it, has become a hobby to itself.
I still see a few niches for film....
1) as mentioned, B&W... hard to beat film...
2) WA and SWA lenses, digital is not compatible with very wide angle lenses....
3) field friendly vs. all the electronic gadgest associated with digital.
4) Stereo shooters, myself included, where chromes are the final product.
5) Simplicity for those who don't want to be bothered with post processing learning curve, time, etc. .. as mentioned above.
It's interesting that the Mamiya 7 rangefinder camera still sells well.... IMO, this is because of its simplicity, ultra sharp lenses and best WA lenses made. It will rival the BEST digital has to offer. However, this is a 6x7 image area, quite a leap over 35mm, so it makes sense why that system still has its following. I have a complete M7 kit and love it.
I am curious though, how well does the Leica M film bodies sell these days? It's impressive that Zeiss Ikons continue to sell well. Zeiss wants to sell lenses, so I guess the Ikon body is nothing more than a means to an end.....good for us..
>I'm probably on the verge of getting a decent digital but it won't be a DSLR, nor a simple point and shoot. What I want hasn't been invented yet but it's getting closer
I feel like the next 20MP Epson type rangefinder digital camera will make a lot of converts, specially if it comes equipped with M mount. For $2k type price range... I would imagine this will happen in the next year or two the way progress keeps moving. There currently is a gap between digicams and SLR's now.
I shoot both....but film is my primary media. I usually scan, so I end up with digital either way. PS is so powerful these days, the flexibility to correct an image or alter it, has become a hobby to itself.
I still see a few niches for film....
1) as mentioned, B&W... hard to beat film...
2) WA and SWA lenses, digital is not compatible with very wide angle lenses....
3) field friendly vs. all the electronic gadgest associated with digital.
4) Stereo shooters, myself included, where chromes are the final product.
5) Simplicity for those who don't want to be bothered with post processing learning curve, time, etc. .. as mentioned above.
It's interesting that the Mamiya 7 rangefinder camera still sells well.... IMO, this is because of its simplicity, ultra sharp lenses and best WA lenses made. It will rival the BEST digital has to offer. However, this is a 6x7 image area, quite a leap over 35mm, so it makes sense why that system still has its following. I have a complete M7 kit and love it.
I am curious though, how well does the Leica M film bodies sell these days? It's impressive that Zeiss Ikons continue to sell well. Zeiss wants to sell lenses, so I guess the Ikon body is nothing more than a means to an end.....good for us..
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Quality.
I use both film and digi, but digi B+W rarely comes within 100 miles of the quality of film B+W. For colour, slide film or Ektar 100 in the MP delivers better quality than the M8.2 (more detail and better texture) with the camera on a tripod, or with very short hand-held times), but the difference is rarely decisive.
Tashi delek,
Roger
I use both film and digi, but digi B+W rarely comes within 100 miles of the quality of film B+W. For colour, slide film or Ektar 100 in the MP delivers better quality than the M8.2 (more detail and better texture) with the camera on a tripod, or with very short hand-held times), but the difference is rarely decisive.
Tashi delek,
Roger
maddoc
... likes film again.
After I got my first Leica some time ago, I gave up on digital (Nikon D1x and Epson R-D1s) and went completely back using only film. Film is less convenient, more expensive, slower to process but since so many turned to the digital route, I can now get classic film cameras (Hasselblad, Rolleiflex, Leica), I could only dream about back then in high-school, for a song. If I would have the space for a permanent darkroom installation, wet-printing would be the way to go, at the moment I scan my films.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Gabor ... you bring up an important point that can't be overlooked. Using a film camera can be a very tactile experience as is the processing of the negatives if you chose to do it yourself.
funbear
Newbie
Maddoc, valid point....but I would think this is more applicable to MF than 35mm... as MF IQ is a big leap up from 35mm. BTW, have used Leica bodies dropped significantly in price in the past few years? I have not been following the used market.
I wonder if Leicas new hybrid (almost MF digital) system will make or break the company. It must have cost a fortune to develop such a new system...and their previous digital offerings fell short of what was expected by most Leicas users. IIRC, all new lenses must be used with the body, which makes the switch over for many users too $$, specially during a recession.
I would have thought a 25MP rangefinder with M mount would have been the safer bet? Agree?
I wonder if Leicas new hybrid (almost MF digital) system will make or break the company. It must have cost a fortune to develop such a new system...and their previous digital offerings fell short of what was expected by most Leicas users. IIRC, all new lenses must be used with the body, which makes the switch over for many users too $$, specially during a recession.
I would have thought a 25MP rangefinder with M mount would have been the safer bet? Agree?
funbear
Newbie
> I forgot to mention I'm purely hybrid. I scan and print digitally and I can't see myself ever prefering digital capture to film in spite of the fact that I am in effect creating a digital final result!
Other than B&W, or SWA users.... I think the right camera will push some over the edge. 25MP is one heck of a challenge for 35mm "color" film. But the current crop of rangefinder digital cameras, .... i agree...
While many of the best digital cameras are still quite expensive, the other value of film bodies is the cameras don't loose $5k in value every 2 years. The high end Canon and Nikon uses buy a new body every 2 years for $8k, then sell their previous generation body for $3k... this trend has gone on for awhile.
But now that Sony has hit the market with a 25MP body, new for $2500, I imagine this will start to change... you can't loose $5k if you only paid $2500 I wonder if this will drift into the rangefinder digital market.
Other than B&W, or SWA users.... I think the right camera will push some over the edge. 25MP is one heck of a challenge for 35mm "color" film. But the current crop of rangefinder digital cameras, .... i agree...
While many of the best digital cameras are still quite expensive, the other value of film bodies is the cameras don't loose $5k in value every 2 years
. The high end Canon and Nikon uses buy a new body every 2 years for $8k, then sell their previous generation body for $3k... this trend has gone on for awhile. But now that Sony has hit the market with a 25MP body, new for $2500, I imagine this will start to change... you can't loose $5k if you only paid $2500
I wonder if this will drift into the rangefinder digital market.
btgc
Veteran
This is to what I agree. Digital is OK, I scan film and PP images, though I yet have to learn how to use digital camera. Maybe I haven't explored digital carefully, though going through menus to change settings and not being able to set aperture by turning ring on lens leaves me feeling like driving too comfortable car where driver is disconnected from road. I still smile when remember owning and driving Golf Mk1 (Rabbit) GTI
maddoc
... likes film again.
Keith, funbear,
... processing BW film my own (I stopped processing C41 because of the smell of the warm chemicals and a new-born baby in our small apt.) is a) fun and b) allows me to "experiment" with different emulsions, developers etc. Also having a first look at a still wet negative is more satisfying than looking at a LCD display at the back of the camera (at least for me ).
Today, I brought my M4-P with 40mm M-Rokkor, MR-4 meter, and loaded with Tri-X and IF I can get one shot that I like from that roll, I am happy.
... processing BW film my own (I stopped processing C41 because of the smell of the warm chemicals and a new-born baby in our small apt.
) is a) fun and b) allows me to "experiment" with different emulsions, developers etc. Also having a first look at a still wet negative is more satisfying than looking at a LCD display at the back of the camera (at least for me ). Today, I brought my M4-P with 40mm M-Rokkor, MR-4 meter, and loaded with Tri-X and IF I can get one shot that I like from that roll, I am happy.
Avotius
Some guy
I still shoot film because film has a good feel to it that I don't get in digital, especially in black and white where I can get results like this:
You just don't get that with digital. That said I am in the middle of trying to move most of my equipment to a digital oriented kit because film is hard to get here and developing is even harder, also because as my photo library swells exponentially it makes more sense to do it digital especially for searching and archiving.
You just don't get that with digital. That said I am in the middle of trying to move most of my equipment to a digital oriented kit because film is hard to get here and developing is even harder, also because as my photo library swells exponentially it makes more sense to do it digital especially for searching and archiving.
funbear
Newbie
I am quite impressed by how many still like working with chemicals.... i would have never suspected this. We all have different areas of photography we find enjoyable. For me, its shooting (and preparing to shoot)....everything after that is a chore... or a means to an end.
Regarding going through tons of menus to set apt. and ss.... most cameras have a manual mode, where they act like our rangefinders, you set both.... good point about feeling connected though. In the end, capture is apt., ss and focus distance.... not that complicated, till you get 5000 menus to confuse you - even on the prosumer digital cameras. My 50d is so complicated, I marvel most prosumers can follow it...
The one component of digital that really satisfies me though....is instant feedback of the exposure results. A histogram of the exposure you just took....well, that is just plain coool. Nothing worse than fast changing light and loosing 1/2 stop with chrome film, gosh does that piss me off....
I now keep a small Gossen digi meter attached to my Ikon so I can keep an eye on it
Regarding going through tons of menus to set apt. and ss.... most cameras have a manual mode, where they act like our rangefinders, you set both.... good point about feeling connected though. In the end, capture is apt., ss and focus distance.... not that complicated, till you get 5000 menus to confuse you - even on the prosumer digital cameras. My 50d is so complicated, I marvel most prosumers can follow it...
The one component of digital that really satisfies me though....is instant feedback of the exposure results. A histogram of the exposure you just took....well, that is just plain coool. Nothing worse than fast changing light and loosing 1/2 stop with chrome film, gosh does that piss me off....
I now keep a small Gossen digi meter attached to my Ikon so I can keep an eye on it
mfogiel
Veteran
There are 2 important reasons to shoot film. The main is the quality in B&W, which digital still cannot match, the second is, that film cameras are still much more "perfected" tools - they have been around for a century or more, and the design, ergonomics, quality of materials, weight, etc, are still superior to digital in most cases. Then, for some, the fact that you are not so much electricity dependent also counts. I shoot exclusively B&W film, develop myself and scan, for lack of time and space to do it in a darkroom.
Here's a grab shot made on a train in poor lighting with a very silent camera (M7) with a great lens (C Sonnar 50) on a great film (Fomapan 200) and developed in a great developer (Prescysol EF). I could not have made this with digital, it would have been too noisy, too slow, too conspicuous, and woulod never give me this tonality.
Here's a grab shot made on a train in poor lighting with a very silent camera (M7) with a great lens (C Sonnar 50) on a great film (Fomapan 200) and developed in a great developer (Prescysol EF). I could not have made this with digital, it would have been too noisy, too slow, too conspicuous, and woulod never give me this tonality.
Last edited:
funbear
Newbie
Avotius, killer image!! Thanks for posting...
I should have taken a poll... mfogiels point is well taken, B&W rocks, even in 35mm, the film is that good.. makes me wonder what % of rangefinder users shoot predominately B&W....sounds like a high % to me....
drifting off topic for a moment.... for stereo, where a trannie is the final product, what is the best B&W film to start with for both dynamic range, ZERO grain under 8x mag. and ultra sharp. I just sent a few rolls of Delta and Scala to Dr. 5..... any other suggestions?
I should have taken a poll... mfogiels point is well taken, B&W rocks, even in 35mm, the film is that good.. makes me wonder what % of rangefinder users shoot predominately B&W....sounds like a high % to me....
drifting off topic for a moment.... for stereo, where a trannie is the final product, what is the best B&W film to start with for both dynamic range, ZERO grain under 8x mag. and ultra sharp. I just sent a few rolls of Delta and Scala to Dr. 5..... any other suggestions?
Larky
Well-known
Do you think you will continue with film, or are you on the fence with digital now ?
I will continue but slowly transfer fully over to digital. When a new digi RF comes out which isn't broken in many ways according to the users (I wont mention which one I mean!) for a sensible price I'll make the final move to digital.
Do you scan your film, or darkroom print from your film?
Scan it.
If equipment cost was equal for both, and you had to re purchase gear after a theft, would it be film or digital?
Digital, all the way.
Is it the rangefinder camera you are most attracted to, or is it film in general?
The camera.
For me digital makes more sense. It's faster, cheaper, gets me better results. But I'm one of the younger generation who grew up with computers. I think film is a great place to start, a great place to learn, and it's fun and experimental which helps to loosen you up. But when you start taking it more seriously and you don't do landscapes etc where you have time to make that one shot 'the one' digital starts to make more sense, at least to me.
I will continue but slowly transfer fully over to digital. When a new digi RF comes out which isn't broken in many ways according to the users (I wont mention which one I mean!) for a sensible price I'll make the final move to digital.
Do you scan your film, or darkroom print from your film?
Scan it.
If equipment cost was equal for both, and you had to re purchase gear after a theft, would it be film or digital?
Digital, all the way.
Is it the rangefinder camera you are most attracted to, or is it film in general?
The camera.
For me digital makes more sense. It's faster, cheaper, gets me better results. But I'm one of the younger generation who grew up with computers. I think film is a great place to start, a great place to learn, and it's fun and experimental which helps to loosen you up. But when you start taking it more seriously and you don't do landscapes etc where you have time to make that one shot 'the one' digital starts to make more sense, at least to me.