hausen
Well-known
And if your digital Leica is with you or in Germany having its sensor replaced.
Would You Go From Digital + Film to Just One
- Thread starter ktmrider
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 51
- Views 7K
And if your digital Leica is with you or in Germany having its sensor replaced.
icebear
Veteran
First I got a used M9 and still shot b&w on film occasionally often C41 monochrome like ... ok forget the film type already, there you go 😉.
After I got a Monochrom (only new was an option at the time) I have completely stopped using film. The Leica charger is so small and I have 3 batteries which cover about 1000 shots - without recharging. That's about 28 film rolls. The argument that a digital camera needs a battery is correct, yes but god heavens, so what. Does your cell phone run on air alone😀.
I still have 3 film M's and I haven't gotten over myself to draw a line and say goodbye to them. Of course a lot of sentimental ballast attached to my very first Leica, M6. Travels to Japan, climbing Fuji-san at night, Tsukiji fish market when it was still open etc. But these are paperweights kept dry with desiccant in a closet but they will not be used anytime soon.
After I got a Monochrom (only new was an option at the time) I have completely stopped using film. The Leica charger is so small and I have 3 batteries which cover about 1000 shots - without recharging. That's about 28 film rolls. The argument that a digital camera needs a battery is correct, yes but god heavens, so what. Does your cell phone run on air alone😀.
I still have 3 film M's and I haven't gotten over myself to draw a line and say goodbye to them. Of course a lot of sentimental ballast attached to my very first Leica, M6. Travels to Japan, climbing Fuji-san at night, Tsukiji fish market when it was still open etc. But these are paperweights kept dry with desiccant in a closet but they will not be used anytime soon.
ktmrider
Well-known
Actually, I returned in mid November from 90 days in Europe with the M9. It lived in a backpack for a lot of the trip so I sent it to Leica, NJ in December for a CLA. It came back from them in early February with a new sensor and 1 year warranty on the CLA. Cannot complain about customer service.
I think I just like film better and it has more to do with the fact that I developed my first images from a 4X5 Graflex in 1966 as a freshman in high school. Again, not saying that film is better then digital as they both have their place. However, I am a stranger to LR and processing images on a computer.
I think the optimum for me will be a film camera and then sending the color someplace and having it developed and scanned. I would think about selling the M9 but the hit on digital prices just rubs me the wrong way. I know the M, like the X100T, has some newer/nicer features but the original X100 (like the M9) still produces great images. And as long as Leica replaces the sensors, I will just use the M2 as needed.
I think I just like film better and it has more to do with the fact that I developed my first images from a 4X5 Graflex in 1966 as a freshman in high school. Again, not saying that film is better then digital as they both have their place. However, I am a stranger to LR and processing images on a computer.
I think the optimum for me will be a film camera and then sending the color someplace and having it developed and scanned. I would think about selling the M9 but the hit on digital prices just rubs me the wrong way. I know the M, like the X100T, has some newer/nicer features but the original X100 (like the M9) still produces great images. And as long as Leica replaces the sensors, I will just use the M2 as needed.
JChrome
Street Worker
It really depends on the length of time you'll be traveling. If I were to travel for over a month, I would reconsider using film. Carrying that much film can be a hassle.
But if your on the fence, you don't seem 100% "sold" on film (like most others here are including me). If that's the case and you aren't in love with the film aesthetic then digital is probably the way to go.
But if your on the fence, you don't seem 100% "sold" on film (like most others here are including me). If that's the case and you aren't in love with the film aesthetic then digital is probably the way to go.
ktmrider
Well-known
An old friend of mine (Melissa Farlow) has shot a couple books for National Geographic and back in 2002 she was working on one dealing with public lands. She asked me to accompany her to Alaska as guide, assistant and chief cook and bottle washer. She knew I had a lot of Alaska wilderness experience.
In 2002, she was still shooting film. I remember we stopped in Fairbanks after two weeks in the bush. She must have fedex'ed 200 rolls of 35mm to National Geo for processing. A year later, she and her husband (another Geographic photographer) had gone to digital. There was still a lot of stuff packed for one of their photo assignments but film was not in the picture.
And I do not have a strong preference for images produced from either film or digital. It is the content of the image that is important. I remember being told early in my career that 35mm was not up to it because of grain (that from a press photographer still using a 4X5 Speed Graflex). Again, it is the content. I can see the advantages of both mediums but more comfortable on film due to familiarity.
In 2002, she was still shooting film. I remember we stopped in Fairbanks after two weeks in the bush. She must have fedex'ed 200 rolls of 35mm to National Geo for processing. A year later, she and her husband (another Geographic photographer) had gone to digital. There was still a lot of stuff packed for one of their photo assignments but film was not in the picture.
And I do not have a strong preference for images produced from either film or digital. It is the content of the image that is important. I remember being told early in my career that 35mm was not up to it because of grain (that from a press photographer still using a 4X5 Speed Graflex). Again, it is the content. I can see the advantages of both mediums but more comfortable on film due to familiarity.
jloden
Established
If you just like film better, I certainly wouldn't feel obligated to take a digital camera - especially when you're only shooting to please yourself! If the work load with film is part of the issue, then sending it out to be developed and scanned at a good lab eases that quite a bit, albeit at some expense.
Right now I'm coming from the opposite end of this conundrum; I started on digital and recently discovered I enjoy film quite a bit. The tricky part is figuring out how to integrate the two. I want to work film into my shooting, but don't feel comfortable with relying on it completely either. I'm spoiled by infinitely variable ISO settings, color/B&W at will, immediacy, and digital workflow 😀
My current approach (subject to change at any moment, haha) is to carry one film camera and one digital. Either I shoot an A7 alongside a film M since I can share lenses between them, or I bring a film camera as my primary shooter and use an X100T for the digital shots.
The past couple of weeks I've been enjoying the X100T in conjunction with an Instax SP-1 printer for making instant prints, and it's really been a hit with everyone. It's only been a few weeks, but I have taken to carrying the X100T + SP-1 for digital and instant prints, along with a MF film camera. I could see that being a great way to travel for sharing small prints with people you meet, assuming you're into portraits.
Right now I'm coming from the opposite end of this conundrum; I started on digital and recently discovered I enjoy film quite a bit. The tricky part is figuring out how to integrate the two. I want to work film into my shooting, but don't feel comfortable with relying on it completely either. I'm spoiled by infinitely variable ISO settings, color/B&W at will, immediacy, and digital workflow 😀
My current approach (subject to change at any moment, haha) is to carry one film camera and one digital. Either I shoot an A7 alongside a film M since I can share lenses between them, or I bring a film camera as my primary shooter and use an X100T for the digital shots.
The past couple of weeks I've been enjoying the X100T in conjunction with an Instax SP-1 printer for making instant prints, and it's really been a hit with everyone. It's only been a few weeks, but I have taken to carrying the X100T + SP-1 for digital and instant prints, along with a MF film camera. I could see that being a great way to travel for sharing small prints with people you meet, assuming you're into portraits.
lukitas
second hand noob
I was late to the digital revolution. Got in with a second hand D3100, that I mostly used to scan the negs off my Leicas. Hated the ergonomics of the thing, the boxing glove with a big dick shape, the PASM thing, gag me with a spoon.
The fuji XE-2, with the kit lens, and an M adaptor ring, feels like a liberation : The controls are where they ought to be, auto ISO is a gift of god, when I want to control both aperture and speed, and working in the lightroom is the most fun I had since my dad taught me to use a darkroom, and the time an old Swiss taught me how to affect a print by pouring chemicals over the four colour raster films that they would use to make the litho plates.
If you can discipline yourself not to chimp, to wait till you can process your images on a computer, digital is fine. Fortunately, there are cheaper options than Leica.
The fuji XE-2, with the kit lens, and an M adaptor ring, feels like a liberation : The controls are where they ought to be, auto ISO is a gift of god, when I want to control both aperture and speed, and working in the lightroom is the most fun I had since my dad taught me to use a darkroom, and the time an old Swiss taught me how to affect a print by pouring chemicals over the four colour raster films that they would use to make the litho plates.
If you can discipline yourself not to chimp, to wait till you can process your images on a computer, digital is fine. Fortunately, there are cheaper options than Leica.
Ranchu
Veteran
I regret now shooting any digital at all, so it's certainly possible to go back to shooting film only. I've never regretted shooting anything on film instead of digital, that's for sure.
🙂
🙂
mdwsta4
Matty Westside
I've been doing this since November when the X100T came out. The prints break down so many barriers and create new opportunities (for me at least). Was a huge hit in both Fiji and Peru. Only wish I had the combo when I was in Japan last year.
I have been SO tempted with the 645z. Perhaps if I find one up for sale in a year or so I'll pick one up. It'd be great for traveling rather than the Hasselblad I use now.
I have been SO tempted with the 645z. Perhaps if I find one up for sale in a year or so I'll pick one up. It'd be great for traveling rather than the Hasselblad I use now.
Hsg
who dares wins
I don't know how many rolls of B&W film it takes for a photographer to learn how to expose, develop and process/print B&W film. A rough estimate for learning any craft is 10,000 hours, so one could say 10,000 rolls of B&W film to learn B&W film photography.
How much would it cost to buy 10,000 rolls of B&W film? $30,000? A really conservative estimate.
I shoot more than 10,000 images a month. In summer time its more than that.
But then I like color, so how much 10,000 rolls of color film will cost...
By simple numbers, I see that shooting film is beyond my budget, and my photographic output.
How much would it cost to buy 10,000 rolls of B&W film? $30,000? A really conservative estimate.
I shoot more than 10,000 images a month. In summer time its more than that.
But then I like color, so how much 10,000 rolls of color film will cost...
By simple numbers, I see that shooting film is beyond my budget, and my photographic output.
Ranchu
Veteran
Btw.
Malcolm Gladwell is irrelevant, and it really doesn't take 10,000 hours to master something. He just made it up.
http://www.malcolmgladwellbookgenerator.com/
Malcolm Gladwell is irrelevant, and it really doesn't take 10,000 hours to master something. He just made it up.
http://www.malcolmgladwellbookgenerator.com/
farlymac
PF McFarland
I take a lot of day trips, usually packing only one roll of film (likely because I'm just testing the camera). And there's been many a time after shooting up that roll that I wish I'd brought the digicam with me when other photographic opportunities presented themselves. It's good to have a back-up.
PF
PF
mani
Well-known
I solved your 'problem' by always popping an extra film in the bag.
ktmrider
Well-known
10000 hours to master a craft is BS! I was a professional pilot for 33 years flying rather hazardous missions from aircraft carriers and later chasing drug smugglers. My total flight time was under 10000 hours and I would argue that flying is certainly a complicated craft, especially since I operated from an aircraft carrier with less than 1000 hours early in my career. And it could be argued that I had mastered the craft since I am still alive.
Of the more then 10000 images you shoot monthly, how many do you use? Some months I shoot barely a roll of film and am happy with the results. But I am no longer a professional and I can afford shooting just about anything out there. But I am rather selective of the subjects I shoot.
Actually, I see the biggest advantage to digital is the weight of the equipment. With cameras like the X100 producing excellent quality files and weighing much less than 35mm film cameras, they are a joy to carry. In some ways, history repeats itself as Barnack invented the 35mm camera so he would not have to carry a large view camera to the top of some of the hills he hiked in Germany, or so the legend of Leica goes.
Of the more then 10000 images you shoot monthly, how many do you use? Some months I shoot barely a roll of film and am happy with the results. But I am no longer a professional and I can afford shooting just about anything out there. But I am rather selective of the subjects I shoot.
Actually, I see the biggest advantage to digital is the weight of the equipment. With cameras like the X100 producing excellent quality files and weighing much less than 35mm film cameras, they are a joy to carry. In some ways, history repeats itself as Barnack invented the 35mm camera so he would not have to carry a large view camera to the top of some of the hills he hiked in Germany, or so the legend of Leica goes.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Recently I took a ten day driving holiday in Queensland's outback with no particular agenda and staying wherever I happened to land at the end of the day ... mostly country pubs.
I took nothing but my (new then) M240 and a few lenses. I also took my laptop and halfway through the trip took the time to review what I had shot to that point because I was curious as to how I was seeing what was around me and how I was relating to it with the camera and focal lengths I had chosen. I thought about using film for the trip but decided against it and have no regrets.
I took nothing but my (new then) M240 and a few lenses. I also took my laptop and halfway through the trip took the time to review what I had shot to that point because I was curious as to how I was seeing what was around me and how I was relating to it with the camera and focal lengths I had chosen. I thought about using film for the trip but decided against it and have no regrets.
sc_rufctr
Leica nuts
I shoot both. Digital, Canon 1Ds mkii, Leica R8, DMR... Film Leica Ms & R6.2.
For me it's easy. Once you remove the option of digital you shoot less but take more care. So I just carry a film camera and a bag of rolls. I let them sit for a while before developing. Sometimes up to six months but usually no longer than 4 weeks.
I like working this way because the sense of urgency isn't there. My photography is about me so I do it in such a way as to enjoy it.
When I need to be more productive it's digital all the way but even then I treat it as film. That means I take care with exposure and framing.
Firing off hundreds of snaps hoping to get a good one is not productive IMO. I can see why people do it but it's not for me.
Photography should be about fun even if you're getting paid.
For me it's easy. Once you remove the option of digital you shoot less but take more care. So I just carry a film camera and a bag of rolls. I let them sit for a while before developing. Sometimes up to six months but usually no longer than 4 weeks.
I like working this way because the sense of urgency isn't there. My photography is about me so I do it in such a way as to enjoy it.
When I need to be more productive it's digital all the way but even then I treat it as film. That means I take care with exposure and framing.
Firing off hundreds of snaps hoping to get a good one is not productive IMO. I can see why people do it but it's not for me.
Photography should be about fun even if you're getting paid.
dct
perpetual amateur
That makes around 350 images per day? Every day! Add the time for screening and post processing: When do you sleep during your month? 😉
Or do you use just a few keepers per day? All right, this might be a working process for you.
To each his own.
I can only concur with exactly this.
ktmrider
Well-known
One of the often repeated arguments for film over digital is that it makes the photographer slow down and the responses from this thread seem to bear that out. So take fewer photos but get a higher return. It seems to be the way to go.
Again, not trying to get into the digital vs film debate. There also appear to be many, many factors in the decision: process, cameras, LR vs darkroom etc. I am feeling so normal since everyone who has posted has mentioned or implied the above.
Again, not trying to get into the digital vs film debate. There also appear to be many, many factors in the decision: process, cameras, LR vs darkroom etc. I am feeling so normal since everyone who has posted has mentioned or implied the above.
robert blu
quiet photographer
When traveling I oft take a film camera, two lenses (one is on the camera) and a small sized digital (a Leica x1 in my case but recently many interesting alternative are on the market).
I use the film camera as main camera with a 100 or 400 iso film in it and use the digital for interiors when I need higher iso (1600). I found it works well.
robert
PS: but if I should make a longer journey, more weeks I think digital has its benefits...
I use the film camera as main camera with a 100 or 400 iso film in it and use the digital for interiors when I need higher iso (1600). I found it works well.
robert
PS: but if I should make a longer journey, more weeks I think digital has its benefits...
isoterica
Established
Always take two cameras when I travel but I've come to discover over the last three trips, vacations that really mattered, that taking all digital meant images were left on my hard drive and will remain unless I make a book of them or something.. Media changes. With film I would have had photos that I might not look at for a while but they would be there when I wanted them later. So going back to film with a digital backup on vacations. Two cameras though because murphy's law..
Similar threads
