Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film > Film vs Digital

Film vs Digital Discussions about the relative advantages and disadvantages of Film vs Digital are important as they can help us understand our choices as photographers. Each medium has strengths and weaknesses which can best be used in a given circumstance. While this makes for an interesting and useful discussion, DO NOT attack others who disagree with you. Forum rules are explained in the RFF FAQ linked at the top of each page.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Sell M9 and Return to Film Only?
Old 10-13-2016   #1
ktmrider
Registered User
 
ktmrider is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: el paso, texas
Age: 64
Posts: 866
Sell M9 and Return to Film Only?

For the past couple years I have owned an M9 and a couple M2's as well as half a dozen M mount lenses. I have been shooting them equally and honestly not very heavily. I use the M9 mostly for travel while trying to just use TriX in the film cameras.

And it should be noted that I have never posted a photo on the internet.

Now, I have a fair offer for the M9 and am thinking about taking it. If I do, I would be left with a (new) M5 and an M2. I would probably pick up a small cheaper digital like the Fuji X70, X100 or Ricoh GR for travel.

My question is for those of you who shoot a mix of digital or who have gone back to film only, do you miss having a digital camera in the bag? Do you regret selling your Leica M digital?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #2
Scapevision
90% Film
 
Scapevision is offline
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 327
Go back to film.
__________________
Flickr
scapevision.ca
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #3
tightsqueez
Registered User
 
tightsqueez's Avatar
 
tightsqueez is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cleveland, Ohio USA
Posts: 262
I've owned about six M9's over the years. I'd sell, buy another again, sometimes having two... but I ended up selling all of them when I got the Monochrom. Digital color just doesn't do it for me. I suppose I didn't put in enough effort to get the look I was after. The "look" is definitely there to be found but color is highly subjective; I'd rather scan a color slide and be done with it.

Anyways, long story short, I sold the Monochrom and regretted it for a year. Big time. Never thought I'd prefer digital black and white over film but I do. I'm not saying it's better, it's just different. And I like that difference.

So yes, I regretted it. And yes, I do have another Monochrom now.

EDIT: I'd say keep the M9. It's nice having an M-mount digital to stick your lenses on. Can't do that with the X70, X100 or Ricoh GR can you?

Last edited by tightsqueez : 10-13-2016 at 05:18. Reason: Additional thought
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #4
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 66
Posts: 3,383
I shoot a mixture of digital and film.
Whist I enjoy shooting my two film Leica I wouldn`t be without a digital camera.

A Richo GR is great for everyday carry and travel.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #5
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 504
This is really a workflow question I think. If you want to deal with the film workflow it can be (IMO) more rewarding than digital. There are still some dedicated 35mm scanners on the market that are affordable and very high quality (Primefilm XA). Personally I ditched my M 240 because there were too many compromises for a digital camera and the cost is too high to keep it around. I kept my M4 and 2 lenses and when I shoot with my Leica on trips I think I enjoy the experience a bit more. I'd say go for it! I am pretty biased against the M9 though. I've never understood the appeal of that clunker. But when we're talking about the M9 vs Portra 160, HP5, or Provia....uh yeah film wins for aesthetics.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #6
Gregm61
Registered User
 
Gregm61 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 223
I love shooting black & white film. Color today is a PITA with so few good labs to choose from. I wouldn't go back to color film over digital, no way, and I'd certainly not sell the M9.

You already have a good body for shooting film and I'd take an M9 for travel over any small, cheap digital P&S. I bought a new M262 earlier this year and have held on to my M9P, sending it in to get the new sensor in January. Got it back in Mid-May and still love using it today. I picked up a set of M9 profiles a while back for ACR from Huelight, which includes a great monochrome conversion.

I wouldn't do it, but that's me, not you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #7
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,502
If you decide to pick up a X100, consider at least a X100S. The improvements in the S and T models are significant. Of course if you prefer to avoid adapting to S/T XTrans raw rendering the X100 would work.

For travel you might want to pick up one or both of the teleconverters. The teleconverters are high quality optics.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand – object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #8
Ko.Fe.
Me. Write ESL. Ko.
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Age: 50
Posts: 4,352
To me carrying full digital body, in addition to film M is nothing but hassle on travel.

Small digital is very handy on travel if your main interest is with film. I used little Panasonic Lumix with Leica zoom on recent trip to Moscow . It was in the pouch on the belt. Easy to pull out by the hand stripe, take picture and place it back. M4-2 was on the neck stripe ready for something worth of the film. I took few hundreds snapshots and dozen of portraits with this little digital P&S.

This particular Lumix is in the rough shape after years of abuse from kids and me. Front element has big scratch, sometimes lens would't extract fully on the power on and battery, memory card door is gone. Yet, it gives good enough travel pictures. And battery needs charge only once a week with pictures taken daily.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #9
Vobluda
Registered User
 
Vobluda is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Age: 42
Posts: 828
Film is dead, keep the M and sell the M2s, eventually get Monochrom.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #10
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is online now
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 68
Posts: 3,698
I sold my M9 and never regretted it. I use digital (Nikons) in my work but 99.9% of my personal work is B&W film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #11
aldobonnard
Registered User
 
aldobonnard is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 280
Interestingly, leisure digital photographers will go to a great length of efforts in their attempts to mimic film rendering, but in the end that will never be nearly as good as the genuine original film.
Digital is useful and unmissable for professional photographers, but it is of little sense to pretend that film is dead. It just has become a niche of keen amateurs and passionate users, most photographers having gone digital, which is understandable and fully justified.
Yes, I own several digital rangefinders incl. a M and several film rangefinders..
and use BW and colour slide film for "importants" moments.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #12
waileong
Registered User
 
waileong is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 540
But you have a digital camera or two.
__________________
waileong’s Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #13
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by aldobonnard View Post
Interestingly, leisure digital photographers will go to a great length of efforts in their attempts to mimic film rendering, but in the end that will never be nearly as good as the genuine original film.
This only seems to matter to those who want the look of film, but the convenience of digital. Many people I know, that use digital, don't care that it doesn't look like film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #14
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,126
Sell the M9 and get a 240. Super reliable travel camera and prices are down. You will be able to shoot your slow and small lenses in the dark, and can leave your second body / film camera and bags of film at home. That's what I do anyways.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #15
ktmrider
Registered User
 
ktmrider is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: el paso, texas
Age: 64
Posts: 866
Normally, I don't mind moving cameras around (after 50 years still searching for perfect camera) but there is no denying that digital technology is great. Having said that I have been shooting film for fifty years and have never gotten into digital workflow (Photoshop is still an alien application).

And honestly color film is a pain these days. I remember when I went to color negative about fifteen years ago as Kodachrome was being discontinued. And I know the digital camera just keep depreciating.

Have an offer of $2500 for the M9 which is $500 more then I would get on a trade in.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #16
brennanphotoguy
Registered User
 
brennanphotoguy's Avatar
 
brennanphotoguy is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NYC
Age: 27
Posts: 787
I shot Canon digital then hybrid Canon and various film systems and then swapped out the Canon stuff for Fuji stuff and then went all film. I don't regret it at all. The only reason I'd go back to using a digital camera would be for strictly work purposes and it wouldn't be fancy. If you don't post on the web and just shoot for yourself then use the stuff that makes you happiest or that you feel the most "connected" to. Grab something small and unobtrusive for digital stuff when you just have to have it if you really want to. A Ricoh GR will fit the bill and fit in your back pocket. I don't feel hindered at all by not having a digital camera. Anything I could shoot digitally I can shoot with film if I really want or need to.
__________________
M3 / IIIg / Rollei 3.5E3
www.instagram.com/brennan_mckissick
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #17
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 3,777
Sell the M9, get the Sofort. Perfect combo of film and digital as like digital you can confirm your results almost immediately, but in doing so you have a real film print.

Sofort, it is the future of photography.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #18
BLKRCAT
100% Film
 
BLKRCAT's Avatar
 
BLKRCAT is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,383
You're asking a totally subjective question and film people will tell you to go to film while digi people will tell you to stay with digital.

however...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scapevision View Post
Go back to film.
This.
__________________
TumblrYoutube
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #19
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 49
Posts: 5,582
If you are staying with M mount lenses, why are you considering selling the M9 ?
These days it makes sense to have a digital body to compliment your film ones.
The M9 is a great fit. Keep it.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #20
Robert Lai
Registered User
 
Robert Lai is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,267
I never saw the appeal of having to pay so much for a digital camera, only to see it depreciate rapidly after a few months. So, I have plenty of film cameras, and only a P&S digital + cell phone.
I have a Nikon Coolscan 9000 scanner, so I go "digital" via that route.

What hurt me personally was a hard drive accident that wiped out years of digital images. Yes, I know I'm supposed to store them in multiple different drives and media, but who really has all that time?
Not an irredeemable loss, as I still have all of my negatives and slides, and I can start over again with the Coolscan. There goes all that time that I "saved" by not storing on multiple media / drives.

Anyway, this experience has soured me on the digital medium.
I would say to sell the M9 and cash out. An M5 is a really great camera, with probably the best spot meter that Leica ever put into a camera.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #21
Ko.Fe.
Me. Write ESL. Ko.
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Age: 50
Posts: 4,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vobluda View Post
Film is dead, keep the M and sell the M2s, eventually get Monochrom.
How Czech are you?

https://www.fomafoto.com/index.php
Quote:
You can purchase here Fomapan films, Sheet films, Fomaspeed, Fomabrom and Fomatone printing paper . All produced by Foma Bohemia located in Czech Republic.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #22
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Lai View Post
I never saw the appeal of having to pay so much for a digital camera, only to see it depreciate rapidly after a few months. So, I have plenty of film cameras, and only a P&S digital + cell phone.
I have a Nikon Coolscan 9000 scanner, so I go "digital" via that route.

What hurt me personally was a hard drive accident that wiped out years of digital images. Yes, I know I'm supposed to store them in multiple different drives and media, but who really has all that time?
Not an irredeemable loss, as I still have all of my negatives and slides, and I can start over again with the Coolscan. There goes all that time that I "saved" by not storing on multiple media / drives.

Anyway, this experience has soured me on the digital medium.
I would say to sell the M9 and cash out. An M5 is a really great camera, with probably the best spot meter that Leica ever put into a camera.
+1

Film is much better if you care about the longevity of your images at all. Your grand kids are not going to find a box full of working hard drives or SD cards full of readable raw files. Prints, sure, if you're constantly making archival pigment prints but I doubt that's happening. Even with good DAM procedures that only buys you the amount of time you're willing to put into it. Short of a catastrophic loss, my negatives and slides are safe. Even if you're using off site cloud storage it doesn't take much to imagine a few server failures at Dropbox or Google or Amazon.

Plus for me, there is something to the workflow of film that lets me re-examine contact sheets or chromes years after the event that works better on film. I'm much more likely to put together a portfolio of 5-10 year old images this way. Digital images are too 'in the moment' and quickly get shuffled away as time goes on.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #23
pepeguitarra
Registered User
 
pepeguitarra's Avatar
 
pepeguitarra is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 686
Sell everything and just keep the M5.
__________________
It is not a photo until you print it! Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #24
Merlijn53
Registered User
 
Merlijn53 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 167
About a year ago I decided to sell all digital stuff, got a Hasselblad 500 cm set and went back to the darkroom after 15 years. I bought a Lumix lx100 just to be sure. I keep it in my bag as a backup, hardly use it and never look at the pictures I shot with it. For me analog is so much more fun and I have not missed digital for one second. I you feel like using only film, just do it.
Regards,
Frank
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #25
tightsqueez
Registered User
 
tightsqueez's Avatar
 
tightsqueez is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cleveland, Ohio USA
Posts: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by faberryman View Post
Only you can answer the question for yourself. Others' experiences are not relevant.
Looking through your previous posts and this comment, they must be irrelevant as well.

Good to know.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #26
mlu19
Registered User
 
mlu19 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 67
Having a digital = convenience
Having a digital AND film = convenience and more options

Keep the M9 since you already have M lenses!
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #27
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 63
Posts: 2,689
I use digital and film and have specific situations where each type proves particularly useful. However, I cannot help but feel that digital could work in all situations where I currently use film, where the opposite may not be true.

At this point I do not need to make your decision but, if for some reason I needed that money for something more important, then I would certainly sell the digital Leica in favor of my film cameras.

A decision which I would almost certainly regret immediately.
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #28
scigeek
Registered User
 
scigeek's Avatar
 
scigeek is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wales, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vobluda View Post
Film is dead, keep the M and sell the M2s, eventually get Monochrom.
Film is not dead. Flog the digital.
__________________
"She stripped off her rancid poncho, and laid out nekkid on the floor. We did it 'till we were unconcho, and it was useless any more." F. Zappa .
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #29
Fraser
Registered User
 
Fraser is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaveKodak View Post
+1

Film is much better if you care about the longevity of your images at all. Your grand kids are not going to find a box full of working hard drives or SD cards full of readable raw files. Prints, sure, if you're constantly making archival pigment prints but I doubt that's happening. Even with good DAM procedures that only buys you the amount of time you're willing to put into it. Short of a catastrophic loss, my negatives and slides are safe. Even if you're using off site cloud storage it doesn't take much to imagine a few server failures at Dropbox or Google or Amazon.

Plus for me, there is something to the workflow of film that lets me re-examine contact sheets or chromes years after the event that works better on film. I'm much more likely to put together a portfolio of 5-10 year old images this way. Digital images are too 'in the moment' and quickly get shuffled away as time goes on.
Someone who doesn't look after digital images is I doubt going to be looking after there negatives that well.
I've probably lost a lot of film by being under deadline and not fixing and washing properly where as I know exactly where all my digital images are and they are perfectly safe.
Unless I'm wet printing my workflow is the same select in photomechanic into photoshop crop resize correct exposure colour and sharpen thats it.
Is it not that you would like a new camera, it seems sensible to have a film and digital with the same lens mount.
good luck.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #30
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
 
Juan Valdenebro's Avatar
 
Juan Valdenebro is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Barcelona and Colombia
Age: 45
Posts: 4,293
Lately I feel the big reason for using film cameras is wet printing, and that can be done without selling your M9, which is a great camera that uses great lenses you already own, whenever you need its convenience... In other words, the problem -to me- would be owning an M9 that made me avoid film...
Cheers,
Juan
__________________
F i l m means fun!
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #31
back alley
IMAGES
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: true north strong & free
Posts: 40,187
sell the car
keep the horse...

film is such a pita these days...even if you have your own darkroom and shoot b&w film.
today digital is the image maker of popular choice.
film can still be fun as a throw back experience but shooting it full time is a thing of the past for a minority of image makers.
__________________
heart soul & a camera

xt20...xe2...xe1...
16...23...23...27...50...56...55-200

original canon F1...T90...24/2.8...100/2.8...200/2.8...300/5.6
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #32
pechelman
resu deretsiger
 
pechelman is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktmrider View Post
For the past couple years I have owned an M9 and a couple M2's as well as half a dozen M mount lenses. I have been shooting them equally and honestly not very heavily.
Honestly, lots of good opinion above, but before you can consider ANY of them, I think you need to reflect and ask yourself why you arent shooting the cameras you have now before you make any decision about selling\trading\etc.
__________________
Phil
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #33
Pete B
Registered User
 
Pete B's Avatar
 
Pete B is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,061
I'm another who'd advocate getting the M240. I could never gel with the M9 but after 6 years of almost purely film, the M-P has moved me back in the digital direction, and I now have a Leica Q on its way. The disappointment caused by the poor scanning of the last lab I sent a trip's film to has made me re-evaluate film. They're rescanning as I type but it could be the last film-only trip. I also feel my M-P is better for landscape and the nuances of my lens collection.
Pete
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #34
luuca
Registered User
 
luuca's Avatar
 
luuca is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: italy
Age: 42
Posts: 449
it's been a year I don't touch my M9 in favour of the MP with ektar100, portra400 or trix400.

I don't sell it because I don't need it, but in this year I didn't miss the digital camera.

my smartphone is enough for snapshots
__________________
.
.
http://alliluca.wordpress.com
.
.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #35
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 3,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Lai View Post
I never saw the appeal of having to pay so much for a digital camera, only to see it depreciate rapidly after a few months.
If you buy a new film camera, they actually depreciate far more rapidly than digital. Why? Because they are essentially the same camera that have been made for years, so there are plenty of them on the used market.
A new Nikon F6 is $2300. Take that new F6 out of the box and it is worth about $900. And I picked one up for less than that.
A new Leica M7 is $5K. Take it out of the box and you will be lucky to get $2500 for it. I picked my perfect one up for $1500.

A new Nikon D750 is $1900. Take it out of the box and it is worth $1500...
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #36
brennanphotoguy
Registered User
 
brennanphotoguy's Avatar
 
brennanphotoguy is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NYC
Age: 27
Posts: 787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraser View Post
Someone who doesn't look after digital images is I doubt going to be looking after there negatives that well...
good luck.
What makes you think that? I care for my film a lot more than I do the digital stuff because the film stuff matters more to me. If it matters, you'll protect it or do it right no matter what format you're shooting.
__________________
M3 / IIIg / Rollei 3.5E3
www.instagram.com/brennan_mckissick
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #37
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 3,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by back alley View Post

film is such a pita these days...
For you.

I do not find it a PITA at all. I find it a complete pleasure giving the results I want.

Sure, if I need to take a snap of my cat to post on the internet I'll use a digicam...
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #38
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
If you buy a new film camera, they actually depreciate far more rapidly than digital. Why? Because they are essentially the same camera that have been made for years, so there are plenty of them on the used market.
A new Nikon F6 is $2300. Take that new F6 out of the box and it is worth about $900. And I picked one up for less than that.
A new Leica M7 is $5K. Take it out of the box and you will be lucky to get $2500 for it. I picked my perfect one up for $1500.

A new Nikon D750 is $1900. Take it out of the box and it is worth $1500...
Who is buying new film cameras?

I bought a 'just-CLA'd' M4 for $1000.00 recently. It's still worth $1000.00. I bought a brand new Travelwide 4x5 camera for $139, and sold it for $450.00. Film equipment can easily keep 80-100% of it's value from the used market. But yes, you'd be crazy to buy a new F6 or M7. Then again, crazy people buy new M-As... Those things will not be holding their value.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #39
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 3,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaveKodak View Post
Who is buying new film cameras?

I bought a 'just-CLA'd' M4 for $1000.00 recently. It's still worth $1000.00. I bought a brand new Travelwide 4x5 camera for $139, and sold it for $450.00. Film equipment can easily keep 80-100% of it's value from the used market. But yes, you'd be crazy to buy a new F6 or M7. Then again, crazy people buy new M-As... Those things will not be holding their value.
Not me!

I was making the point that the depreciation argument is actually worse for new film than new digital. Much much much worse as can be seen.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2016   #40
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraser View Post
Someone who doesn't look after digital images is I doubt going to be looking after there negatives that well.
I've probably lost a lot of film by being under deadline and not fixing and washing properly where as I know exactly where all my digital images are and they are perfectly safe.
Unless I'm wet printing my workflow is the same select in photomechanic into photoshop crop resize correct exposure colour and sharpen thats it.
Is it not that you would like a new camera, it seems sensible to have a film and digital with the same lens mount.
good luck.
Ok yes, under the worst possible circumstances and with someone who doesn't care, film can be less archival. But somehow I doubt we're dealing with the worst possible circumstances here, and nobody is shooting film on deadline anymore. All you have to do is develop properly, and sleeve in a print file. Assuming some physical catastrophe doesn't occur, with B&W film you're good for upwards of 100 years and more if you selenium tone your film. With the best practices on digital it's a much bigger gamble. Few digital mediums last longer than a decade, and even if they don't corrode to an unreadable state, you WILL have trouble finding a machine that can work with the media or the file or both. Your best bet is to constantly be moving the files to new media types but that's only as good as you are, and stops when you die.

Don't take my word for it, ask the Library of Congress or any major film studio. Their archives are analog.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:18.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.