View Full Version : Came back to film, possibly for 3 days.
I need advice, and please let's not let this turn into a digital vs film debate.
I decided to give film one more chance, and purchased an M6 for the task. I've had the camera 3 days and have fallen in love, however my brain kicked in and:
Film cost = £4 average per roll.
Dev = £2.50 average.
Scanner = £300 for an average one.
Quality of £300 scanner = not as good as a good digital camera.
So each shot costs me roughly 18 pence and will not give me the same quality as a good digital. True, I have greats negs, but I'll never have a darkroom.
So my question is do I spend the £300 on the scanner, or do I save that cash, sell the M6, and go for an M8. Crop factor I can deal with, I have a lens, I can deal with it's little nuisances.
What does film give me that digital doesn't. Other than some physical files?
"Quality" is in the eyes of the beholder. There is no universal right answer, only an answer that is right for you. People love film because of 1) the tactile pleasure (ritual?) of shooting analog 2) the "look" of film, or 3) both.
It is up to you to decide whether its worth the extra cost/hassle/whatever.
If the answer is no, just sell the camera and move on. If you enjoy shooting film, and there is no pressing financial need to sell, why not just keep the camera?
sepiareverb
05-08-2011, 14:56
You can always get prints made for you of negatives you like. You seem to be in the UK- no end of good printers there it seems. But you seem to want the cheap way out?
Film gives you a physical original, something some of us over a certain age have a certain attachment to.
I don't think 'absolute quality' is a great way to choose between digital and film, if this was the ultimate goal, we wouldn't use 35mm film at all, we'd use medium format, or large format. Personally, I'm moving more towards digital, it's not just a cost thing, but the hassle. I don't get much free time, so the time take to dev/scan/remove dust isn't time well spent.
If you like shooting film, and the cost isn't a burden, keep shooting it, I think we let our brains get in the way of too many decisions.
MT
I think, after a night's sleep, to view digital as the fun side of my photography. The heart side. The digital side will be the head side, and will be 90% of what I shoot. So the M6 stays, along with the el cheapo scanner which I'll use to make contact sheets. If I get any real keepers I'll have them scanned by a lab.
My aim is to, at the end of the first year with the Leica, to have a coffee table book made up for myself of the 35 best shots. Depending upon cost of lab scanning, it will be either a new scanner in a year or the lab, we'll see.
Crisis over, heart and head working together.
I think loading a new film last night helped. I miss that tactile stuff.
shadowfox
05-09-2011, 10:17
What does film give me that digital doesn't. Other than some physical files?
A tactile process that is very rewarding (when followed to the conclusion). Unlike what the modern world seems to project on us, we, human beings are actually programmed to enjoy working with our hands.
Archiver
05-10-2011, 01:03
I get a tremendous feeling of pleasure from loading, shooting and unloading a high quality film camera. It's part tactile pleasure, part nostalgia, and part fantasy, where I remember being a child and shooting with Dad's SLR's, and imagining myself in some tangential way as being connected with HCB, Kertesz and Erwitt by activity.
You know what I get from film? Surprise. Not knowing what is on a roll of film is often a source of joy, as images from a forgotten past are suddenly revealed through a loupe, a contact sheet, a scanned image. I have about five film cameras that haven't changed rolls since 2007. I shoot maybe one or two images at a time, then put them away while I play with something else. When those rolls are developed I will have 36 surprises per camera. I can't get that with a digital camera that instantly displays what I've shot.
If someone tries to measure film against digital using a 'quality' metric, digital will win in so many ways. It also wins for convenience and even cost over time. $5000 buys me one roll of colour negative film, shot, developed, scanned and printed, once a week for well over three years. It could also buy me a M8, a computer, and virtually unlimited photos for over three years. But it doesn't give me the tactile pleasure of a film Leica.
Im going through the same series of questions as you, but maybe not quite resolved them yet. I have a D90 which I lusted over before I bought it and convinced myself that it - the digital format - was exactly what my photography had always needed. An inexhaustible supply of 'free film' essentially, along with free and instant 'processing'. The advent of computer post production of the image is certainly and undeniably a huge relief after the tedium of the darkroom. I kindof enjoyed printing - until I got silver poisoning from too much time with my hands in the fixer (stupid!).
But the D90 has not been the answer. It is not - for me - intuitive enough. There are issues with actually taking a picture when I want it to - and not when it decides everything is OK. I take pictures which I don't tend to look at, but dump into folders on my pc. As far as the image quality goes I have nothing to complain about - they're clean, great, colourful, sharp etc etc.
But. Something isn't happening. Which used to happen when I shot film.
So. I buy a lovely little IIIf and go back to the start. And I love taking pictures again. And even though I get the films developed at Max Spielmann (!!) and burned onto crappy CDs at some stupid res, I get excited every time I go to collect the envelope of negs and the CD. I buy a beaten up M4-2 and take some of the best pics ever (even though I discover it fogs the film). So that must be the answer I think. Film is back!
But. Hang on. 2 films a week all year (only 2) = £416.
Process/CD by Max S = £520. No way am I going back to the dev tank. Plus I want a Leica M having sent the M4-2 back = £500 minimum for a half decent M4-P. In two years the cost of the material and processing alone is more than a s/h M8.
So. I guess my question now is - if I shot using an M8 and a suitable wide-ish angle Leica lens would I really be able to tell the difference between these digital images once they were post produced and printed (on a pc) and the scanned negs of the real world M4-p with a 35mm Leica lens? Assuming a high res scan.
Assuming the M8 functions like a film camera - ie its shutter operates as I depress the button irrespective of what it might think of my aperture and speed settings why am I depriving myself of all those 'free films' and 'free processing'? Is the subjective appeal of film really so great? Or is it all about the image and an M8 is just a tool to help me to create the image?
I started shooting film and loved the process including developing and scanning. Also never thought i could get a darkroom, and then a darkroom appeared for me to use and I'm printing from the negatives of the shots I like the most and getting a good sense of accomplishment from it. I'm sure glad I have those negatives because of the choices I now have, scan and inkjet print or the darkroom and a silver gelatin print. Could never do that with my M8.
So you buy an M6, keep it say, 25 years and dont replace it because it doesn't go out of date. In that that time how many digitals will you have gotten through?
Of course youre paying the film and process but factor in all hardware and software upgrades too.
Total cost =?
Playing devils advocate here.
Who cares, do what you want, follow your heart. ;)
Steve.
I was having a panic attack! It ended very abruptly when I was looking through some scans I made fo film I processed 2 year ago and never scanned because I had no means to do so.
Even though my processing technique is about as bad as it gets, and the negs have watermarks and dust and hairs and scratches and are really baldy souped, they have a warmth and tonality and honesty I can't see in any digital shot I've ever taken.
I still think it's too expensive, but I'll wear some gloves and take the pills (extreme reaction when I process film myself, even with gloves on) and start dunking myself again. I have found the scanner I want and summer is on the way.
Now I need to learn it all again, photography I mean, you really do tend to lose the skill when you go digital.
Which scanner are you going to use?
Plustek 7400 with Silverfast Suites I own already. I don't need dust removal, it wont cope with my level of fluff :D
I've been deliberately using no light meter, and it's really made me think about light again - for the first time in about 20 years. I could go down the M6 road, but have this suspicion that the meterless Ms are the better bet...
I was looking at one of the Epson Perfections (V700?) flatbeds - but maybe the Plustek is a good buy? Youre obviously happy with the results and the operation of the thing?
Film cost = £4 average per roll.
For which film? I usually pay about £2 a roll for 35mm (Superia for colour negs, Rollei Retro or Legacy Pro for B&W).
Dev = £2.50 average.
Not too bad - my local pro lab is more like £3.50 for colour. I do my own B&W for about 50p a roll.
So each shot costs me roughly 18 pence
Or about 7p for home-developed B&W (at the prices I buy it at).
What does film give me that digital doesn't. Other than some physical files?
Physical files that survive all computer crashes.
Dynamic range.
Less fretting over precise exposure.
A lack of the same dust bunny pattern infesting every shot.
A lack of dust bunny paranoia every time you change a lens.
The feel of a manual film camera.
Stuff you can get scanned elsewhere if you really want better quality.
Stuff that can be wet printed by a lab for the hang-it-on-the-wall shots.
The tonal gradation of wet prints.
No hassles with IR cut filters?
A fresh sensor every time you wind on.
A bewildering array of sensor types to choose from.
I don't use mine either, don't use it on the X100 also. I am pretty good at guessing. But it's nice to have it. I may go for a meterless M at some point, but I always wanted the M6 for reasons I can't put into words. It's beautiful :)
I was looking at one of the Epson Perfections (V700?) flatbeds - but maybe the Plustek is a good buy? Youre obviously happy with the results and the operation of the thing?
Haven't bought it yet :) I'll post an update when I do.
The other reason I hanker after the pre-M6 cameras is that they have that logo/engraving. How daft is that? Because I'm sure if a regular M6 had a nice Leica/Leitz logo I'd be in there like a shot. What is that? snobbery? Geekery?
jordanstarr
05-14-2011, 14:46
You'll have to obviously come to your own conclusion, but I'll give you some things to think about:
1. The Print - The final product for me what is more important, that's why I shoot film and use a darkroom. I find it far superior in every sense (paper quality, image quality, personal control and interpretation). However, if you get a cheap film scanner, obviously the M8 is going to be better. If it's just for web, well why would you buy a $2000+ camera body without a lens for that? If you want exhibition prints, a darkroom print from a great Print Master can run you nearly as close as a great digital printer. Do you want the end product to be tangible or just on your screen? I've seen plenty of cheap cameras take pictures as good as a Leica when it's on a small screen.
2. Lenses - I'm not sure how wide you like to shoot, but as you go wider, the lenses for Leica generally get more expensive. So, if you get the M8, you'll be spending more on a 24mm to get that wider look than you would the 28mm lens.
3. Organization - If you don't constantly back up and re-back up your digital files, you could lose everything forever. All it takes it a hard drive to crash or your friend to knock your computer onto the ground. Obviously this is the same concern if you're digitalizing your negatives, but at least the negatives won't disappear and will likely outlive you -a CD or hard drive will not.
4. What "look" do you prefer? Film and digital give a similar look on a screen, but as a print, they're very different.
5. What's going to happen in the long run? As another member pointed out, your M6 will retain it's value forever. Your M8 will drop like a rock and has since it came out. Your M6 will likely also outlive the electrical components of your M8.
6. Are you planning on going pro or making a living off of photography? There's arguments on both digital and film sides of this, but customers mostly want something digital and quick.
You have a lot of things to think about and you're going to feel some pain one way or the other. Good luck.
"... I've had the camera 3 days and have fallen in love, however my brain kicked in and:
Film cost = £4 average per roll.
Dev = £2.50 average.
Scanner = £300 for an average one.
Quality of £300 scanner = not as good as a good digital camera.
So each shot costs me roughly 18 pence and will not give me the same quality as a good digital...."
Money can't buy you love...
"... True, I have greats negs, but I'll never have a darkroom...."
Great negs tend to attract darkrooms....besides, if you went digital and then a darkroom became available...it would be :bang:
I've decided to do both.
For me, the use of film is an aid to learning photography again. The delay in gaining access to the images I think gives me a more objective view of them. Also, the fact that they will never be as tack sharp, or void of dust and scratches because my processing technique is so lazy, simply means the image itself has to be much stronger.
The use of a fully manual film camera is very different to using the X100 fully manual. That makes no real sense until you try it, and maybe it's just me. Having 36 exposure instead of 580+ per trip slows me down, it makes me think much harder. Although I feel I need to loosen up on some cheap films first.
I'll never be pro, this is a hobby. I do hope to someday have a show and sell some pieces, and at the end of my year with the X100 I will be having a small book made, but that's for myself only I think.
I worried about the cost, but really I have digital to go nuts with at lunchtime, and film to take care over and enjoy for the entire process, from loading to scanning. Slowing down means you take more time, you edit more as it can take hours to get a good scan.
I feel I have answered my own questions. :)
alistair.o
05-15-2011, 01:23
...I feel I have answered my own questions. :)
Agreed. If it were about money then digital is cheaper everytime but it not about money. It is all about two experiences, both giving pleasure.
Look forward to those books (plural)
Have fun
If that would be only about money, people would only drink instant coffee, eat semifabricates processed in microwave oven and wear jeans as low cost solution.
Look at bulk rolls for B&W and process it yourself. That cuts costs and adds flexibility.
If I hadn't found out how to process my own film I don't know if I would do it any more. It's a simple thing to do and a very satisfying part of the process. Issues like dust and water marks are easy to avoid when you have practiced a bit. I used to have terrible probs with water marks and nearly packed it in, before I workled on a brill final rinse method.
I have the same thoughts, but I have narrowed it down to two bodies and two lenses, one digital and one film. My own personal stuff I always use film if I have the right stuff loaded. More disposable stuff I tend to use digital, especially if it's for someone else.
I don't know weather it's the extra effort it takes, but I look at my film prints as having far more depth than my digital, usually. All my shots from film (and a few faves from digital) go into a lovely leather book which I constantly update with my favourite pictures. It's no coincidence that the majority were shot on film. Even totally gear ignorant friends have commented that the pictures look 'more 3D' etc.
However for colour shots, I always use digital.
rogerzilla
06-06-2011, 12:38
My maths:
Full frame body that can take my Leica lenses (well, some of them) - 5000 GBP.
An M2 and M3 body - 1000 GBP
4000 GBP is an metric shedload of film and processing. It would keep me going for 20 years, during which time that M9 body would probably have been replaced three times.
I can't cope with a crop factor; I like my 21mm lens to be a 21mm lens. Actually, if film vanished tomorrow, I'd join the masses and go back to horrible SLR kit like a Nikon D700, because new Leica is just too expensive.
Archiver
07-17-2011, 23:57
From a digital shooter's perspective, it goes the other way.
I already have a computer and I am happy with its performance. All I need is to buy the occasional 2TB harddrive to back up my files.
So USD$7000 buys me a M9. The M9 will last for at least five years, hopefully more. In that time I can take as many photos as I can press the shutter button, within reason.
On a trip to Japan, I took at least 350 images per day with the M9. That's close to ten rolls of film a day in all ISO ranges, and it gave me a complete photographic record of the trip.
I can't even begin to think of what that would have cost me had I shot film in that volume, especially if shooting Reala, Ektar and Pro400H as I enjoy. And then there's the issue of development vs. automated digital raw processing.
Roger Hicks
07-18-2011, 00:17
From a digital shooter's perspective, it goes the other way.
I already have a computer and I am happy with its performance. All I need is to buy the occasional 2TB harddrive to back up my files.
So USD$7000 buys me a M9. The M9 will last for at least five years, hopefully more. In that time I can take as many photos as I can press the shutter button, within reason.
On a trip to Japan, I took at least 350 images per day with the M9. That's close to ten rolls of film a day in all ISO ranges, and it gave me a complete photographic record of the trip.
I can't even begin to think of what that would have cost me had I shot film in that volume, especially if shooting Reala, Ektar and Pro400H as I enjoy. And then there's the issue of development vs. automated digital raw processing.
So do I. Well, several, actually. My wife and I are still using maybe half a dozen of the 20 or so computers I've bought over the last 25 years, and the price of computers nowadays is trivial, so even when something faster does come along, I can't get excited about it (decent screens are another matter).
On the other hand, I've just come back from Arles, where I shot 518 pictures on a 9 day trip, not counting the ones I deleted on the spot: call it 15 rolls. Quite a lot were 'notebook' pictures: gallery interiors, Artists' Statements and commentaries, etc., where post processing wasn't important. Going through 500+ pics is tedious enough: I can't imagine 350 a day on a regular basis. What do you do with this 'complete record'?
I don't argue with your cost analysis: $7000 for an M9 is 700 rolls of 36-exposure at $10/roll, the least you're likely to pay for decent film and processing, and over 5 years that´s 140 rolls/year or a 2-3 rolls a week. I'd hope for more like 10 years or even 20 from the M9, though, at which point the cost is trivial, the more so as where I live, it's more like $20-$30/roll for colour film and ref prints. It's just that I can't help wondering why you take quite so many pictures; what you do with them; and (most of all) how you find the time to review and process them.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
07-18-2011, 00:22
My maths:
Full frame body that can take my Leica lenses (well, some of them) - 5000 GBP.
An M2 and M3 body - 1000 GBP
4000 GBP is an metric shedload of film and processing. It would keep me going for 20 years, during which time that M9 body would probably have been replaced three times.
I can't cope with a crop factor; I like my 21mm lens to be a 21mm lens. Actually, if film vanished tomorrow, I'd join the masses and go back to horrible SLR kit like a Nikon D700, because new Leica is just too expensive.
Not really. If you can bring in slide film at a fiver a roll, processed, you're doing well. Hell, B+W can easily cost that, processing it yourself, if you use decent fresh film and chemicals.
At a fiver a roll, 4000 GBP is 800 rolls, or 40 rolls/year for 20 years. Not what I'd call heavy usage. And besides, why would the M9 be replaced three times in 20 years?
Cheers,
R.
And besides, why would the M9 be replaced three times in 20 years?
I know what you mean Roger, but technology is without a doubt going to change a quite a great deal in 20 years.
The 'Decent enough' rational is not always good enough for many people. People always what to keep up with the current market.
A M9 might still work in 20 years, but it sure won't be the industry standard of the time. How many people are still using windows 98' for example? Because it still works.
Stuart John
07-18-2011, 06:09
Cameras and operating systems are rather different things. Most people upgrade their PCs because they need to run modern software that won't run on an older machine with an older OS.
My old 433 celeron machine still runs and with a fresh win98 install it will run as good as when it was new. Trouble is most modern applications or OS will slow it to a crawl. I could not process RAW files with that machine running win2000 and Nikon Capture 4. Well I could but I had to wait several minutes to open a RAW file and several minutes to save it again.
A camera does not suffer from these problems. Manufactures don't add bloatware to the camera firmware to force you to buy a new camera. You usually don't install applications on a camera so if the camera was good enough and you like the results you could continue to use it as long as it still works.
That's not the point I'm trying to make.
Say you're shooting a high profile job for a clothing line or something. They want a file that can be enlarged the length of a store window. The standard of today would be a DMF camera, say a hassy h4d for these sorts of jobs.
Then you go an turn up with a contax nd (6mp full frame).
Is the job doable to an extent? Yes.
Appropriate for the industry standard? No.
Will your clients appreciate you performing and results sub par to the industry standard simply because your old gear is 'good enough'? Certainly not.
In 20 years, our 18mp full frame of today may be the equivalent of the 6mp full frame of yesterday, or it may even be more archaic.
Roger Hicks
07-18-2011, 06:35
I know what you mean Roger, but technology is without a doubt going to change a quite a great deal in 20 years.
The 'Decent enough' rational is not always good enough for many people. People always what to keep up with the current market.
A M9 might still work in 20 years, but it sure won't be the industry standard of the time. How many people are still using windows 98' for example? Because it still works.
Um... I think I've still got Windows 95 on one machine, precisely because it still works for the (very limited) applications I run on that machine.
Of course there are a few improvements you can make to an M9, better high ISO performance being the most obvious candidate, but given a manual focus, rangefinder camera with manually set exposures (including aperture priority) and manual aperture ring, how many changes can you make? And if you never go above A3 in repro and A2 or so in prints, how much more than 18 megapixels do you need?
I'd seriously suggest that unless there's a good reason to buy something new (in the case of a camera, seriously better functionality or image quality), it's downright stupid to do so.
EDIT: There is no 'industry standard': there is only the tool for the job. You wouldn't use an M9 for the same purposes you use an S2 or Hasselblad today: why would you in 20 years' time? How is anyone going to tell from the image that you are using a 20-year-old camera?
Cheers,
R.
I'm not refering to the design on the M, but to the internal technology. People are always going to upgrade and sensor technology is going to continuously be improved upon. The M9 is not the holy grail of sensor technology. It's also not about what one can tell from the image, but about the confidence of the photographer in their own gear.
In 20 years we might have a 35mm full frame sensor shooting at 500mp and people will buy it. Most people won't sit back and say "I don't need 500mp, I only need 18." While it may be true for their type of work that they only 'need' 18, firstly they will 'want' 500 and secondly they wouldn't intentionally disadvantage themselves in the same field where their colleagues are using 500.
Not to mention by then we will have better battery and storage technology too.
In 20 years time when everyone is talking about their M17's (or M17-P's, or M's with foveon sensors or that 'bokeh later' sensor etc.) you might find that you're the only person left using the M9.
With regards to R&D: There is always a bigger fish.
Roger Hicks
07-18-2011, 07:36
I'm not refering to the design on the M, but to the internal technology. People are always going to upgrade and sensor technology is going to continuously be improved upon. The M9 is not the holy grail of sensor technology. It's also not about what one can tell from the image, but about the confidence of the photographer in their own gear.
In 20 years we might have a 35mm full frame sensor shooting at 500mp and people will buy it. Most people won't sit back and say "I don't need 500mp, I only need 18." While it may be true for their type of work that they only 'need' 18, firstly they will 'want' 500 and secondly they wouldn't intentionally disadvantage themselves in the same field where their colleagues are using 500.
Not to mention by then we will have better battery and storage technology too.
In 20 years time when everyone is talking about their M17's (or M17-P's, or M's with foveon sensors or that 'bokeh later' sensor etc.) you might find that you're the only person left using the M9.
With regards to R&D: There is always a bigger fish.
Exacly how would they be 'disadvantaging' themselves? If no-one can tell from the image what they used, and they are happy with their 20-year-old M9, where is the 'disadvantage'?
Sure, there will be improvements. I don't doubt it. But to buy something just because it is new, and to reject the M9 just because it is old, is nothing but mindless consumerism.
If there is a real advantage, and if you can afford it, yes, go for the newer camera. If not: well, a fool and his money are soon parted.
Plenty of people stilll drive old cars, take pictures with old cameras, etc., because they like both the process and the results. Why should the M9 be any different? Look at the following that the Epson RD enjoys to this day. Do you REALLY believe that no-one will be using M9s in 2030?
Cheers,
R.
Exacly how would they be 'disadvantaging' themselves? If no-one can tell from the image what they used, and they are happy with their 20-year-old M9, where is the 'disadvantage'?
Sure, there will be improvements. I don't doubt it. But to buy something just because it is new, and to reject the M9 just because it is old, is nothing but mindless consumerism.
If there is a real advantage, and if you can afford it, yes, go for the newer camera. If not: well, a fool and his money are soon parted.
Plenty of people stilll drive old cars, take pictures with old cameras, etc., because they like both the process and the results. Why should the M9 be any different? Look at the following that the Epson RD enjoys to this day. Do you REALLY believe that no-one will be using M9s in 2030?
Cheers,
R.
Yeah I do believe no one will, all perhaps yourself if you're so set on this. :p
It is consumerism but it is inevitable that it will happen in the future as with all the digital cameras over the past 20 years.
It's not that cameras are going to get more expensive, they are going to get more advanced. People will upgrade not on the basis of what they need, but due to the fact that more developed technology can introduce more possibilities.
Why would people not upgrade when in 20 years, for the same price as an M9 today you may get cameras that can print at the same detail of A2 today at 30x20ft then. For all we know in 20 years a 35mm digital sensor could produce results of a detail and resolution quality similar to Large format. Would you not upgrade then if your M could achieve that?
There is so much left to explore in the realm of sensor technology. I guarantee that before the decade is out there will be new digital M's far surpassing the M9.
justsayda
07-19-2011, 14:53
Dear Larky
You're evidently suffering to a similar "crisis of faith" that I am, going both by your own posts and those in reply to my threads on the film/digital thing.
A young colleague of mine loves reminding my about how I waxed on about the benefits of digital over film now that I'm getting back into film.
A back-breaking day making a floor for my soon-to-be completed (he says) darkroom almost had me swapping Mr Nikon some money for anything that had a model number beginning with "D".
This, and the fact that I'm labouring to build a cramped space to share with smelly chemicals in semi-darkness make me wonder why I'd want to do this in preference to sitting in front of a monitor with a cup of tea and a cigarette.
I myself think about the superior quality of film, then look at something I shot in RAW filling my computer monitor and thinking "well, that's pretty good to say it's 5mp filling a 15"-wide monitor.
Then I look at a 120 tranny on a lightbox and think "no way could digital compete", in the same way I don't think digital can do the same kind of black-and-white as film.
But then I think of the particular "style" of post-processed colour I like with digital and wonder how the hell I could get that with film.
I honestly think what I'm going to have to do - to retain my sanity if nothing else - is to use film for black-and-white and, at some point in the future, buy a decent DSLR.
Either that, or take up stamp collecting instead.
As I told a photographic friend recently, I really am a man in a crisis.
studio58
11-23-2011, 01:04
The other reason I hanker after the pre-M6 cameras is that they have that logo/engraving. How daft is that? Because I'm sure if a regular M6 had a nice Leica/Leitz logo I'd be in there like a shot. What is that? snobbery? Geekery?
you could always do what I just did.... buy an M6 TTL Millennium. Script on top and old school rewind and wind on lever. Brass top and bottom plates... very cool
Speedfreak
01-04-2012, 14:42
Film cost = £4 average per roll.
Dev = £2.50 average.
Scanner = £300 for an average one.
I imagine a painter doing the same calculation... Brushes £50, Paint £30, Canvas £20... wow, thats over £20 for only one frame. I´d better use a digital camera.
Seriously... people spend so much cash on crap they dont really need, film is only a very minor sin.
What does film give me that digital doesn't. Other than some physical files?
You either love the results you are getting with film or you dont. There is no point in convincing you.
leicapixie
03-09-2012, 02:31
Film for me is simplicity. My M camera has never needed a battery. Battery and memory cards are the terror of my digital life! Photos may not be as clean as digital, but they are ALL there on downloading! Scanning easily done here in Canada, or by me--slow! Prefer hi-rez scans at local store. Inexpensive.
the annual raise should cover my new found curiosity for shooting film (again).
My main problem is not the cost of film, but how do I explain to the General at home where that Hexar RF comes from?
leicapixie
03-10-2012, 01:58
The Leica M8/M9 because of the shutter don't feel or sound like my M's! It's important to me. The cost of a camera that gives quality that is easily matched by an entry DSLR, is a bad investment. Also there is a problem with longer lenses on digital M. Sure i don't know how to focus, using RFDR M since the late 50's.I like the fact that i have limited exposures on film. Less editing, less wastage.Do I use digital? Professionally I use the digital, but with "Point and Shoot" compacts as my work is for Internet. Reality! There is little difference in quality between small sensors and large sensors, if maximum size is 11 x 14". Before a posse comes after me, do some checking! A top pro with large format experience has also discovered this..I have 3 PC in storage due to non compliance with my programs or Internet interface! I found a complete Canonscan scanner with everything in original box! It does not work with Windows 7 or Apple OS latest. Sick of adding newer more stupid equipment.
When I take/make a photo all I want to do is push the button, not fight with a menu.
Bill Clark
03-11-2012, 07:39
When using film for making photographs, I process with chemicals, printing in a darkroom. I don't scan film, yet anyway. Haven't used any color film for several years. When I did I processed the film and printed. I have a color analyzer I bought around 1970 that helped. My darkroom dates way back and I still have it set up and I use it whenever needed.
Have a roll of B&W 120 film loaded (shot with a 1950's Mamiyaflex camera!) in a Paterson tank and going to develop in D-76 today! Fun! And smiles!
When I shoot with digital stuff, I process on the computer and the viewing of the images varies.
Don't really see the need to scan. I have slides that go back to the 1960's and my Kodak Carousal projector works just fine. I can still get replacement bulbs!
Back in the olden days, I would take 75 to 80 slides for a wedding. Then have the Bride & Groom over to my studio where I would have a get together, show the slides. When they said, "I'd like a print of that one," I would pull the slide out of the tray and make the print(s) for them. Much longer process as compared to digital. Remember doing fondues in the 1970's?
I still like using film, perhaps because of nostalgia as that's where I started.
My opinion, digital has caught up to and in most cases has surpassed film. I have some pretty nice 40 by 30 prints that look pretty darn nice, at least the client bought them! Ha!
My recommendation, if you're going to use film, carry the process through to the print. Find a darkroom to use or get the stuff as enlargers can be had, many times, for a song & a dance. Besides, black & white Ag gel prints should last quite a while.
Hope this helps you.
Archiver
03-15-2012, 02:28
On the other hand, I've just come back from Arles, where I shot 518 pictures on a 9 day trip, not counting the ones I deleted on the spot: call it 15 rolls. Quite a lot were 'notebook' pictures: gallery interiors, Artists' Statements and commentaries, etc., where post processing wasn't important. Going through 500+ pics is tedious enough: I can't imagine 350 a day on a regular basis. What do you do with this 'complete record'?
I don't argue with your cost analysis: $7000 for an M9 is 700 rolls of 36-exposure at $10/roll, the least you're likely to pay for decent film and processing, and over 5 years that´s 140 rolls/year or a 2-3 rolls a week. I'd hope for more like 10 years or even 20 from the M9, though, at which point the cost is trivial, the more so as where I live, it's more like $20-$30/roll for colour film and ref prints. It's just that I can't help wondering why you take quite so many pictures; what you do with them; and (most of all) how you find the time to review and process them.
Hi Roger,
I hope to get 10 or even 20 years from the M9 as well, but what with digital products being what they are, I am not as sure of their longevity as the film cameras, of course. There's a lovely little black M4-2 I've been eyeing of late. It's lighter than my M9 and M7, almost the same size and weight as the Fuji X100. And being a M4-2 it was made well over 40 years ago. A good service and it is right for another few decades. Food for thought, but I digress.
When it comes to processing the thousands of photos I took while in Japan, I imported them all to Lightroom and exported them using an automated preset I devised. While this was running, I went off and did whatever else I wanted to do. In the following days and weeks, I had a very enjoyable time going through the images and finding ones that I wanted to process individually.
I do not claim to be such a good photographer that I had a high percentage of keepers from such a run and gun method. If you add the Ricoh GRD photos to the M9 photos, I took an average of 620 images every day! I'd say that less than 20 per day were ones that I would process individually, let alone print and hang on a wall. But it gave me the ability to practically relive the trip as it progressed, all the way through.
As for why I take so many: I admit to a slightly obsessive streak, although I don't take anywhere near this amount in normal life. Japan was on my list of 'must do in this lifetime' things, and I wanted to capture as much of it as I could. I've had an intense fascination with that country for most of my life and the opportunity to spend three weeks there and travel through it was something I couldn't just walk through.
I doubt people will still be using a "camera" to take photos in 20 years.
As for film, just like someone already said, either you will love to do it or you don't. There's no point trying to be convinced that film is better.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.