View Full Version : Leica M - a failed experiment?
mods - i'm not sure if this belongs in the right place or not. for that i apologize.
early this year, when i was looking back at all of my digital shots from the previous year (using either a canon 7d or nikon d80) i noticed that i lacked something. a lot of my shots were out of focus. a lot of shots just seemed to lack what a lot of people call mojo. in some respects, they were simply snapshots using an expensive and large camera.
after doing some reading online, i unearthed what some may call the slow camera movement (admittedly, this movement permeates all facets of life - food, sex, work, etc.). it got me thinking about framing, about exhaling while taking shots, and about focusing on more than just taking a picture and moving on. it got me thinking about the process of photography.
at the time, i believed that my greatest option was to sell my digital equipment and take a step back in time. i probably could have afforded to keep both (and surprisingly, my wife almost convinced me to do just that), but i decided it was better, creatively, if i just sold everything and turned over a new page.
enter the Leica m6.
although i had a smattering of nikon film stuff - a nikkormat, lenses - all inhereted from my ex-pro photographer dad, i felt the urge to purchase a leica. everyone said how different they were. whether it was for the lack of viewfinder blackout (or whatever its called), or whether it was for the greater ability to use the rangefinder to patiently observe your scenery and wait for that "decisive moment". not to mention how a leica feels in hand. that much is certainly true. its a marvelous machine. but this matters not if the machine sits parked inside of its bag, longing to be used.
all of these answers are among the more obvious for choosing a Leica. the more specific reason, for me, was that it provided me a blank slate to try my slow photography experiment.
and, like all experiments, i learned something through the process. i learned to frame, think about the picture, and then exhale while i took a picture. i learned the importance of 1/focal length to avoid camera blur. i learned that you needn't review all pictures on screen to ensure accuracy. whatever happens happens. with digital i learned to expect every picture to be perfect, for if it wasn't i could just take another picture and perfect it. with film, you simply can't do that. even if you take 100 frames of the same scene, you can never be certain that one will be perfect. or at least to your own liking.
i'm not sure if its a function of film or just a function of caring less, but i started to find that image sharpness and other useless details of a photo that are discussed on forums seemed remarkably insignificant. the technical (read: EXIF) qualities seemed to matter less and less.
but then i realized something. using film takes time. and ambition. this summer i went on vacaction. i primarily used my m6. i shot about 10 rolls of film, four of which were colour. i had those developed quite quickly and scanned to CD. i absolutely love a number of pictures on those rolls. however, there remains the black and white Tri-X. it's just sitting there waiting to be developed. since that trip, i have also amassed another half-dozen or so rolls, which are neatly aligned in sequential order of when they were shot. of the rolls i have developed, i've done next to nothing with those shots. i've printed maybe 3 pictures, and even fewer contact sheets. and yes, i have a dark room in my basement. fortunately, the total cost of installation was low.
i've come to realize i am a product of the 21st century. at times i feel awkward using a film camera in public. i feel like, at this stage in the game, using film is almost a cliche. from my perspective, i try to avoid cliches as much as possible. even if it means not being able to benefit from an excellent medium. not only this, but my desire to use film photography to stay off the computer also hasn't worked. instead i find myself manipulating old digital photos or scanning the internet for new and exciting works of others.
and there are the practical nuisances of film: loading film reels (serenity now!!), calculating exposure times when printing, spending hours trying to get one decent print. then having to repeat the entire process in the event that you want to reproduce your work for a friend.
what does this mean? i'm not sure whether i want to continue down this path of using film.
i've recently purchased a GRD III, which i absolutely love to use. i find myself using the skills i previously acquired with my Leica so there is at least one benefit. i also find myself using my dad's d80 at times. the same is true with using that camera - i feel more comfortable changing exposure, metering, etc. now that i've had my Leica.
yes, this thread is basically me rambling about my experience with film. my original intent in posting this was to get people to convince me to go film or digital, but i'm satisfied enough just typing this out.
if you have similar thoughts, or want to touch on anything i've written, feel free.
that's all for now i guess.
T
Wow, Im glad you directed me to this thread. Sounds like quite the debacle. I am also a "digital child" and find many film users my age to be hipsters. Nonetheless I love the look of film. The more I look at film the more I see how it differs from digital. With film come caveats. To some the process of using film is half, if not more, the fun. I am not at that stage because I am a new user of film. Your story shows me that even if you did not enjoy your film experience 100%, you still walked away with some knowledge about photography and yourself. So I would call it a success, not a failure. Thanks for the read!
-Elliott
Roger Hicks
12-07-2011, 00:56
How can people tell whether you're using a film camera or a digital camera? So why would the film camera make you feel uncomfortable?
If you're happier with digi, go digi. The purpose of photography is to take pictures, not to purify the soul through suffering. As Granny Weatherwax says, "Tell me where it says 'ought'".
Cheers,
R.
Teuthida
12-07-2011, 02:04
IMO, your experience with your Leica is less about your Leica and more about The use of film. And yes, shooting, developing and printing film is a much different (and in my mind , rewarding) experience than is shooting digital. And yes, if you came of age during the digital era, shooting film with a manual camera will teach you many things about the practice of photography. And yes, Leica's are fun cameras to use, although I don't subscribe to the well-worh theory that Using one will endow the experience with some mystical element absent when using any other manual film camera.
whtchocla7e
12-07-2011, 03:34
You could have reached the same conclusions after shooting with a dirt-cheap Olympus OM-1 or any other film camera buried in the landfills of time.
I think you approached your experiment wrong. Too many expectations, too fast (in part due to starting out with Leica gear).
Roger Hicks
12-07-2011, 05:09
You could have reached the same conclusions after shooting with a dirt-cheap Olympus OM-1 or any other film camera buried in the landfills of time.
I think you approached your experiment wrong. Too many expectations, too fast (in part due to starting out with Leica gear).
Ummmm.... Possibly. On the other hand, trying to 'live up to' a Leica might make some people try harder than working with a camera where they don't have high expectations. Doesn't have to be a Leica, of course: a Nikon F might be another great choice. But trying to shoot with a legendary camera, rather than something like an Olympus, might inspire some people more.
Yes, I know this will being hate mail from Olympus addicts, but really, either you're one of a very small group who have a very high regard for Olympus SLRs, or you can think of other old and now inexpensive cameras you'd rather have (Pentax SV, Nikkormat...). The point is, none of them is a legend in the same way as an M-series or Nikon F.
Cheers,
R.
i shared this with my wife and her response: "just keep your Leica - it's a classic."
and that is what i'll do.
shadowfox
12-08-2011, 14:32
T,
You're not the first who tried film (all the way to printing, good for you!) and found out that you don't enjoy it.
I followed almost exactly the same steps as you did, and I came out loving film *especially* printing.
All good! now you can back up your choice of using digital only with your experience. That is better than parroting what others said, yes?
Keep shooting, digital or film.
Huh...seems like you put an awful lot of stock in the gear...
Something to consider: Not everyone who buys a camera is destined to become a real photographer.
i too followed a similar path, but also came out with fairly the opposite conclusion. as a kid in his mid-20s, i also grew up almost exclusively with digital, but i've found that it's gotten to be too much. maybe i'm rebelling against the digital revolution -- my D90 with it's beautiful 85 1.4G sits looking pretty on my bookshelf, collecting dust. however, to be fair, a good deal of that has to do with a split-prism focus screen that was installed slightly mis-aligned, being incredibly annoying to either line things up in the split prism and take an out-of-focus picture, or intentionally misalign the image in the finder...
my path went Sony P&S, Nikon D200, D90, Nikon FG-20 (effectively by accident), my father's F that he bought new in college, Leica IIIc, and finally M4-P.
i've come to love the fully mechanical cameras -- they have a feel about them that the digital cameras lack with their planned obsolescence. i also enjoy the inherent permanence of film when you hit the shutter release. you pay for mistakes and do-overs. with digital, while the masters will always be amazing (% of shots taken vs. keepers), it seems that one can luck into nice shots simply by taking a billion of them. the ability to experiment free of consequence is nice, but when people just run around with a computer thinking for them, where's the fun/art in that?
i also like that i can head out with a roll of TMAX 400 and just by guestimating, get a roughly usable exposure.
were there a fully mechanical camera that happened to have a sensor instead of film, i'd certainly entertain using that, but none of the manufacturers see such a small market as worthwhile.
film, for me, is a better mix of art and science, where digital has become too heavily reliant on science. likewise, if there were a fully manual digital camera, i'd give that a try as well. no P mode, no A mode, no S mode. just dials for shutter, aperture, and ISO, with a button for the shutter release. maybe a meter, though, as sensor are less forgiving than B&W.
Problem solved: Carry your digital camera and your Leica Film camera with you at all times(at least for a while). For those times you do not have the patients for film or feel embarassed, pull out your digital.
For the times you are in love with what you are composing pull out your Leica.
Huh...seems like you put an awful lot of stock in the gear...
Something to consider: Not everyone who buys a camera is destined to become a real photographer.
perhaps i did, but as i said, i've certainly learned something from the process.
it's quite possible that i learned i am not a "real photographer," as you say. i think i am OK with that - given that that term is devoid of any substance. my aspiration is to take pictures that i am happy with, and pictures i can share with others.
i'm not in in for the money, though, as i have a normal day job that compensates me well enough to not worry about experiments such as this. as well, my day job is a stressful, and in some ways it sucks the life out of me. photography is a form of escape.
finally, to suggest that i am aspiring to be a "real photographer" merely by buying a camera is far from the truth. sure, i could buy something cheap and then work into it, but why bother if i can afford to try a Leica (or whatever other camera)?
thanks to everyone else who contributed to this discussion. i appreciate it.
Contarama
12-08-2011, 19:26
Not enough data to tell...get a M9!
Not enough data to tell...get a M9!
ha! no way. i'd much sooner get another DSLR. i don't think i could ever justify $6000+ on a camera body.
If the m9 were sub 4k I would own one, as im sure everyone else would as well. Keep your m6 and run it til it breaks.
thegf, sounds to me like you're not keen on doing your own processing. If that's true, sack it and give the job to those that do like to mess with chemicals.
I've just got (free) samples from BPD Photech and tbh I don't see the point of me ever doing wet printing again after seeing what they can do.
Looking back, the most fun I had with photography was being out with my kids and a p+s Olympus pen half frame. Never had to focus it and never got a shot I didn't like.
Whichever way gives you the most fun is the way to go imo.
Archiver
12-10-2011, 13:28
It looks to me that you love the act of photography itself and you love the results, but you find home developing and printing troublesome, and you don't like what you perceive to be the embarrassment of 'using film' in public.
While we all have consensus definitions of everyday objects and their purposes, like chairs are for sitting, cars are for driving and cameras are for taking photos, we all have varying personal associations as well. One guy might think that his pimped out black Escalade is the most beautiful thing he's ever owned. He thinks about sitting in it with a sense of pride and imagines that it shows that he's 'made it'. Someone else might think it's a gaudy waste of money and that the owner has no taste. Yet others might just think 'car' and nothing more.
Many years ago, when cellphones were becoming more popular, one of my friends had a violent hatred of them. I asked him if he ever thought of getting one, and he said definitely not, as he associated them with those 'show off yuppies who talk loudly on them'. I didn't see a cellphone like that at all, more as a simple tool to call home and others if necessary. He was unnecessarily caught up in what others thought, rather than what personal utility he could gain from it.
As for shooting film. I have no idea what kind of associations you have with it, apart from it seeming to be a cliche. I'm wondering if you've considered what a cliche it would be to avoid using something enjoyable and beneficial just because you're overly concerned about how you think others might perceive you? ;)
I can just see it now. You pull out your M6, and immediately every single pair of eyes on the street turns to look at you. Big thought balloons appear over their heads and words appear inside them: "Oooooh, look at the HIPSTER! I bet he really doesn't like using film, he's just using it to be COOL. I bet he likes to eat GLUTEN FREE and reads KEROUAC, not because it's healthy or interesting, but because he thinks its COOL..." :D I don't think this is really what is going on, do you?
Chances are that a very rare one or two might think you're a tryhard hipster phag, which says more about their judgemental mindset than anything about what you are doing. Some might look and think it is interesting. And most will have no opinion whatsoever, because unlike on RFF, the rest of the world doesn't really care what kind of camera you use.
I have about five rolls of Ilford in the fridge, waiting for me to finally get out the dev tank for twelve months, so I know about the reluctance to process. As much as I enjoy shooting film I also find it difficult to get past things that I find a bit tedious. After all, I can load a batch of raws into Lightroom, hit Export and have a cup of tea and read a book while dozens of images come out. With film I have to stick hands in a bag or sit in a dark wardrobe; manipulate a roll without getting fingerprints on it; thread it into the spool; fill the sink with water, use a thermometer, time things exactly, mix some chems, agitate agitate agitate ... Save that process for things that really mean a lot to you. Perhaps its special times with family or friends, maybe it's something else. And if you really don't like the process, just get someone else to do it.
i will admit that my fear of being judged as cliche was a bit overstated. i guess my point is that i feel a slight bit of discomfort in carrying around, and using, a film camera. i think it is actually more deep rooted; my dad, as a former pro, switched to digital. everyone in my family shoots digital (whether pro or just snapshots at christmas, etc.). so when i pull out a film camera, i get the common response of "why bother with film". unfortunately, this mentality has taken its toll on me, and i start to think the same thing. (consider a bully who tells his victim he is stupid. over time, the victim thinks he is stupid. yes, that's a crass analogy, but it is certainly apt.)
but then every time i pick up my m6 just for a fondle (not necessarily to shoot), i enjoy how it feels. the sounds it makes. but should i even be thinking about this? to make a further analogy, its like the guy who buys a brand new mercedes but doesn't drive it. is that the function of photography? to have a nice camera but feel afraid of taking nice pictures?
the more i see photos taken with a 5D + 50L or 35L, the more i think my decision has been made, and i should get rid of the m6. but then i touch my camera, and its more confusion.
i think this is the epitome of first world problems.
Oh man.....The angst.....
I'll just refer you to a previous response of mine that was in a thread with a similar amount of self doubt....http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1762720&postcount=13
Archiver
12-10-2011, 15:52
i will admit that my fear of being judged as cliche was a bit overstated. i guess my point is that i feel a slight bit of discomfort in carrying around, and using, a film camera. i think it is actually more deep rooted; my dad, as a former pro, switched to digital. everyone in my family shoots digital (whether pro or just snapshots at christmas, etc.). so when i pull out a film camera, i get the common response of "why bother with film". unfortunately, this mentality has taken its toll on me, and i start to think the same thing. (consider a bully who tells his victim he is stupid. over time, the victim thinks he is stupid. yes, that's a crass analogy, but it is certainly apt.)
but then every time i pick up my m6 just for a fondle (not necessarily to shoot), i enjoy how it feels. the sounds it makes. but should i even be thinking about this? to make a further analogy, its like the guy who buys a brand new mercedes but doesn't drive it. is that the function of photography? to have a nice camera but feel afraid of taking nice pictures?
the more i see photos taken with a 5D + 50L or 35L, the more i think my decision has been made, and i should get rid of the m6. but then i touch my camera, and its more confusion.
i think this is the epitome of first world problems.
Haptics are very important to objects that we use. A car might look great but handle poorly; women can be like that, too. ;) Did you know that the Japanese cosmetics company Shiseido makes all of their bottles and jars with this 'feeling' in mind as well? They are designed so that they feel good to use, with rounded edges and a precise number of turns for caps and lids.
I enjoy the feeling of a good DSLR but I love the feeling of a well made rangefinder. Many people find something viscerally satisfying about handling a Leica. I don't quite have this feeling with a 5DII, though.
Regarding the family's general attitude towards film photography, there's not much to be said about that. Family opinion is something we all deal with in one form or another, and over time we all find ways of dealing with it. At least it's not like the family is vehemently denigrating your choice of spouse at every opportunity, which does happen!
I have a 5DII and assorted L-lenses, but I have come to use that only for work. I like the looks, feel and images from my M9 much more, even though it lacks autofocus, has crapulent high ISO, has imprecise framing, no video at all, and has a shutter recock sound like a screeching bat. I would like the M9 even more if it were as slim as the M7 and had a cloth shutter, as this would contribute to the operational feel.
perhaps i did, but as i said, i've certainly learned something from the process.
it's quite possible that i learned i am not a "real photographer," as you say. i think i am OK with that - given that that term is devoid of any substance. my aspiration is to take pictures that i am happy with, and pictures i can share with others.
i'm not in in for the money, though, as i have a normal day job that compensates me well enough to not worry about experiments such as this. as well, my day job is a stressful, and in some ways it sucks the life out of me. photography is a form of escape.
finally, to suggest that i am aspiring to be a "real photographer" merely by buying a camera is far from the truth. sure, i could buy something cheap and then work into it, but why bother if i can afford to try a Leica (or whatever other camera)?
thanks to everyone else who contributed to this discussion. i appreciate it.
Yes, you have captured the essence of the issue entirely for me. I've struggled to decide if I am a film or digital photographer also. And I have found that the answer is just not that simple. I am a photographer. I love taking pictures. I use both film and digital. I love the slow process of exposing film. It just requires more thought. Some days I am entirely in the mood for that. Some days I am more interested in quickly getting what I want and at those times I take out my digital cameras. Often, I take both.
But it occurs to me that this discussion of film vs. digital is entirely artificial. Pointless. And unresolvable.
Also, there are no failed experiments. You conducted the experiment, you got a result. That is a success.
Photography is about capturing light. Not so much about the particular method.
Tom
LTN, thanks for the insights. i agree.
Don't think too much about yourself, just enjoy taking pics. As you have already said, you have a day job and photography should be fun (def. in your case), so don't spoil it! Life's too short.
Every path is individual. I found my 'zone' in LF for years and now it seems to be with rangefinders and increasingly 35mm rangefinders with grainy film at that. Things might change in which case it will happen all over again, but that's OK, right? There does not need to be a destination for the journey to have merit.
Fez Parker
12-20-2011, 11:43
You feel awkward using a film camera in public ? maybe its not cool enough for you ? Well I'd better give 'Brad Pitt' a call to let him know that using his M6 in public aint cool !
Fez Parker
12-20-2011, 11:51
sorry 2x Leica M cameras, (see link) what a square..........
http://www.leicatime.com/BradPittLeicas.jpg
yes, i feel uncomfortable. it doesn't mean i feel uncool though. forget it.
A lot of my friends and family think I'm crazy shooting with film. Just and old fart too set in his ways for the modern world. On the other hand I'm kind of a gadget guy, always with the newest smartphone, iPad or whatever.
The only way I can explain it is that taking pictures is important for me. The mental de-acceleration which culminates in capturing an instant is more rewarding than the final image. I find it difficult to achieve this zen of photography with a digital camera.
Your journey is very interesting to read. It is different than mine, and that is good that way.
I'm old. I grew up shooting with film and did that for 40+ years. I learned the hard way, starting on 4x5 and occasionally larger.
Now I find Digital a delight. I'm not crapping on film. I'm usin what maks sense. I don't have the time or energy to reopen a dark room I last used i the dark ages. But more than that I have the experience of having started in film and having a film discipline.
That means 36 frames or x holders of 4x5 or 12 or 24 120 or 220 rolls. But I also remember when bracketing mean having to reload and that there were too many frantic changes of film or emulsions, i.e. count version differences. Bracketing and all the rest was tougher.
Whatever.
Apply film discipline to digital, i.e. pretend you have only x frames or you have to use the same emulsion. No sudden shift of ISO, etc. When you get the discipline down, then you can start to uncork the freedom of digital.
Because fit will end up digital sooner or later when it comes to what people seek.
rogerzilla
12-28-2011, 22:22
You miss more potential shots with film because you shoot far less of it but (perversely) you normally get better shots because you make them count.
The only time in the last year that I felt I was missing something with film was when I had to shoot a load of pictures of a choir (who move!) in a dimly-lit church. A DSLR with image stabilisation and stupidly high ISO performance would have got better results. I still managed to do the job with a Leica M3, 90mm Elmarit and XP2, but only one in three shots was sharp - which is why I took so many. 1/8 second and 90mm is dubious, even with a monopod.
hey everyone, thanks for the helpful words.
as it turns out, i purchased a 5d mark ii. i find myself using many of the skills i developed, and actually enjoy using a DSLR again. i'm starting to get the hang of photoshop as well, which i think will help everything.
in addition to my previously mentioned woes, its largely a time thing. as "fun" as a darkroom can be, i find it hard to make time to develop/print after i've shot some pictures. with digital, i can spend an afternoon shooting and then having something ready shortly thereafter. it's not necessarily an instant gratification thing; its more timing. (my inability to go straight to the darkroom could also involve my inner "resistance," which Steven Pressfield describes in the War of Art (http://www.stevenpressfield.com/the-war-of-art/) - a great read.)
oh, and i landed a magazine shoot, which has a quick turnaround time and need for off-camera flashes, high framerates and fast shutter speeds. i could never shoot it with my leica.
i'm still deciding whether i should keep the m6 or if i should just abandon ship. i'm sure once my mastercard bill arrives, my decision will be easy. but i also don't like having too much stuff, so it may need to go. the way i see it, if i ever want another leica, i could probably find one pretty easy.
regards,
t
thirtyfivefifty
12-29-2011, 22:02
I learned photography with my father's old Konica FT-1 Motor. Loved that camera, despite the noisy motor film advance, up until the circuits failed after a couple years of use. Had dabbled into digital photography with the Nikon D80 a year prior to that moment, but didn't have that emotional connection, that experience I had when shooting with the Konica, so I eventually sold it a couple months later.
There were a couple things I learned in that short time shooting Nikon Digital, however. It made me think about all the aspects of shooting with film that were inconvenient for me, particularly costs, time, and being unable to change the film mid-roll. I also realized that I never had made a print and ignorantly skipped over the darkroom process, until I worked with its digital equivalent, Photoshop.
From there it was a real internal battle trying to find the camera for me. Canon EOS 40D? Yashica Electro 35 GSN? Maybe a Yashica Mat 124 G? Used them all but to no avail. They were all missing something, but I had gained so much in terms of knowledge, technique and vision on this path that blurred between digital and film. In a perfect world, there would be a rangefinder camera with a full-frame sensor in my hands, but we all know how much those cost.
Thankfully, I had held a Canon EOS 5D Mark II in my hands and immediately felt at home. The simple operation and viewfinder in combination with a full-frame sensor took me back to my 35mm SLR days with the Konica while enabling me to work in the photographic medium I excelled in, digital. Armed with a light meter, 35L and a 50L, I find myself as someone, as jmc56 (http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1776440&postcount=30) puts it, with "film discipline" working with the "freedom of digital". I even shoot with lower capacity CF cards, the rear lcd OFF, and dialed into M.
mynikonf2
12-30-2011, 05:35
Why must it boil down to an issue of "am I a film or digital person?" Relax, do whatever. Today I might wake up with the feeling for "shooting some film" or maybe I will want to "capture some digital images", I might even want to do both. :confused: No problem, until I start to anal -lies it too much (lie to myself). I like what I like at the moment I like it, that is all that I really can say with authority. Perhaps this has been best expressed by Cartier-Bresson's, "The Decisive Moment"..., or perhaps not? Sometimes the best decision we can make is no decision at all. :D
David Hughes
12-30-2011, 09:07
Hmmm, slide projectors are dirt cheap these days, even with Leitz on the side and on the lens. Why not try some slide film and send it off for processing by the makers. It's an eye-opener.
Regards, David
Teuthida
12-30-2011, 10:04
good luck with your decision. You sound like a thoughtful person, so I'm sure you'll settle on where you need to be photographically.
However....I'm betting there's going to be a Leica film camera in your bag for a long time. You'll eventually tire of the whiz-bang immediacy of digital, at leaat for your personal work.
My professional work is always digital, of course. My personal stuff, the photos that will matter in 25 years - family, friends, loved ones, daily life as its lived - remains film, always.
Experiments that give a discernable outcome, even if it's not what you expected, are not failed experiments.
Learning that a Leica is not the camera which works best for you right now is a valuable outcome.
mdarnton
12-31-2011, 07:51
I have been through both ends of this, a couple of times. I started with film, decades ago, then was an early adopter of digital, then back to film, then digital, and now I'm back on film.
Here are the things I've gotten out of all this:
1/ I don't like the darkroom (I knew that already)
2/ I like small cameras with good finders, and prime lenses
3/ I don't *need* more than a 24/28mm and 50mm lens
4/ I'm more comfy with B&W than color
5/ I really love Photoshop
My solution has been to buck up and develop the film. Then I "scan" it with my Nikon D300, and print it on my printer, IF I want prints, which I rarely do.
If you like using the Leica (not totally clear to me), if you like the look of film (not totally clear either), then developing film is not really that rough; it's the printing part that's time consuming and boring, so ditch that part. Get yourself a 4-reel tank--they're not expensive, and it will get you through the job that much quicker.
If none of the above applies, and you just don't like non-digital, I don't see any reason for sticking with film. However, having sold all my Leica stuff THREE times, I don't recommend you do that: every time I come back, prices seem to have tripled, and getting back in is painful. Just keep the Leica.
I think the concern about what people see is bogus. People see almost nothing that's going on around them. All of my friends noticed I'd started carrying a camera all the time again. Not a single one noticed that it wasn't the D300 they'd seen me using for the last four years or so.
Chris101
01-01-2012, 03:04
... as it turns out, i purchased a 5d mark ii. i find myself using many of the skills i developed, and actually enjoy using a DSLR again. ...
Well, there's the problem. You're a Canon guy. All that Nikon stuff was giving you the willies!
xxloverxx
01-01-2012, 16:50
I disagree with you saying that using film takes time and ambition — I went from digital to film and found that the only real difference was how the film captured light compared to the sensor.
It seems what you don't like is more the "after" side of things — organising, printing etc. and I can sympathise with that, but one thing that keeps me at film as far as that goes: there's a comfort knowing that your photos are more than just numbers in a file.
Maybe if you sent your photos to a lab to be processed, instead of trying to do everything yourself, you might change your opinion. When I first started out with film, I wanted a darkroom — 2 years later, I realise that all I really care about is making the photos (to the point that I'm not even in a hurry to get my film to the lab anymore — it just goes when I remember to get it there).
What I'm trying to say here, I think, is that you took on more than you could handle at the beginning — you're basically a step away from buying film in bulk and cutting it yourself. Find a good lab that develops well and does scanning/printing, then try again with film — it might really change how you see it. It'll be less work on you and more enjoying the equipment/photo-making side.
David Hughes
01-03-2012, 03:17
Finding a good lab and paying for film to be done is probably the answer. Best not to take on too much and many people who are brilliant in the studio are duffers in the darkroom.
Luckily film can be cheap. Compare the cost of (say) the M9 outfit with the M2 or M6 outfit and film.
Regards, David
i successfully loaded up 4 rolls of film (without headache!), and developed two. i am going to buy a scanner tomorrow.
in other words, i am stoked to give film a second chance!
it's kind of too bad i sold all my lenses in haste. i am just glad there were no takers on my m6. i'm not quite at square one, but i'm close enough. i've got a nokton 35 coming soon!
i tried out both a 5d mark ii and a d7000. i just couldn't get over the fact that all i wanted to do was pixel peep. and i was never happy. RF lenses seem to be much sharper than any SLR lens i've owned. i doubt i'll be getting any Leica glass any time soon, but even the Zeiss and Voigt stuff i've used has been stellar.
Paul Jenkin
02-21-2012, 04:07
When digital became the "norm" interms of user volume, I believed that I would end up "going digital" and that would be an end to my film usage of over 30 years. That, in itself, didn't bother me at the time as I mistakenly kidded myself that a photo is a photo, however it is taken.
I now use a mix of film and digital Leica M, Kinon SLR, Rolleiflex TLR, Hasselblad, Wista 4x5, Nikon D700 and a Panasonic Lumix LX3. I love using all of them as I see fit. It's fun. If it ever stops being fun, I'll sell the lot and take up something that is fun.
that's basically what i came to. i'm about to buy an x100 to fill the digital void.
Ronald M
03-05-2012, 01:27
A digital camera needs the same careful use as a film camera, from holding steady, good composition, good exposure,and proper focus . A massive number of frames will not make up for the lack of attention to above. If you work the same, the results are the same. Do not rely on auto functions 100% so they become a crutch.
philosomatographer
03-21-2012, 12:32
Ha! You should have tried switching to 4x5in (large format) film, now that is a labour of love. A baby can use a Leica M. In the beginning, I almost gave up many times. But, because it's so radically different (the process) from a DSLR, I stuck with it, slowly got better and better, and the images are in a completely different league to what any DSLR or 35mm camera can produce. I'm not that into "street" or spontaneous people photography, so 4x5in suits my vision well.
When the images have a unique look and quality, one tends to be willing to put much more effort into it. A Leica produces images that look just like any other 35mm camera, no big deal.
I also use a Leica (M3) and I will admit they are very nice cameras, with among the best image quality available in 35mm (but not universally so). But not even nearly in the same class as a decent $200 twin-reflex 6x6cm camera - such as even a Yashica - for example. I found the magic of film in larger formats, and ended up augmenting it with 35mm for when you have to go small and nimble.
Glad you made a decision that you are happy with though - I will close by saying that there probably isn't a photographer alive that doesn't believe that film is a pain in the backside. Some people just really like the results :p
This is one of my favourite sheets to date:
http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/150/a/e/twice_bitten__not_shy_by_philosomatographer-d3hky2o.jpg
paradoxbox
03-26-2012, 09:39
maybe i'm odd but i don't get how people can complain about the time black and white photos take.
developing black and white film takes literally 10 minutes. it's got to be one of the easiest photographic things you can do. i go outside, expose a roll, come back in, turn off the lights in my bathroom to change the film out and 15 minutes later i have the roll of film drying from a clothespin. pretty quick.
philosomatographer
03-26-2012, 11:29
I agree, paradoxbox - it really is simple, and the results very consistent. But still, many are not prepared for the discipline, and even 15 minutes of work is too much for those fully engrossed with digital's instant convenience.
I shoot B&W purely because the results are visibly different (not better, different). I've grown to mostly dislike digitally-desaturated monochrome imagery - it all looks the same.
maybe i'm odd but i don't get how people can complain about the time black and white photos take.
developing black and white film takes literally 10 minutes. it's got to be one of the easiest photographic things you can do. i go outside, expose a roll, come back in, turn off the lights in my bathroom to change the film out and 15 minutes later i have the roll of film drying from a clothespin. pretty quick.
RBruceCR
04-08-2012, 16:38
Keep them both, the M6 my dream camera (or the M3) and the digital. Shoot black and white and EIR with the Leica, get a lab to develop both and use the digital for color. Ask them to scan the negatives and play with your computer. Enjoy life, it is short!
RBruceCR
04-08-2012, 16:51
The only way I can explain it is that taking pictures is important for me. The mental de-acceleration which culminates in capturing an instant is more rewarding than the final image. I find it difficult to achieve this zen of photography with a digital camera.
Your journey is very interesting to read. It is different than mine, and that is good that way.
This is a great analysis!
mathomas
04-08-2012, 18:48
Why not use both? Like others, I've swapped back and forth a few times. I've landed on this (for now):
Digital for convenience, film for 'art'.
If I go out to "do photography", I generally take a film camera (and usually it's a medium format rig). I'm a "hybrid process" guy, so I scan and print digitally. I just love the slower process of hand-metering and using older film cameras. It's contemplative and exacting.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7003/6497791251_dcc30a9658_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mathomas/6497791251/)
100 strangers: brian (22/100) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mathomas/6497791251/) by mike thomas (http://www.flickr.com/people/mathomas/), on Flickr
But recently, there was a big fire in the foothills near my city and the smoke blew in near sunset and created amazing photographic conditions. I took my Sony A55. I captured HD video and stills. I posted them within an hour or so, to YouTube and flickr.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7062/6873352680_af5b4e09b1_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mathomas/6873352680/)
Lower North Fork Fire (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mathomas/6873352680/) by mike thomas (http://www.flickr.com/people/mathomas/), on Flickr
Horses for courses, IMO.
.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.