My return to film

[JBA]

Every part of the film experience is inherently satisfying for me, while for digital the only really satisfying part is the convenience. Otherwise, I find it like riding a bike with no air in the tires.

Then again, I kicked the tires of an M8.2 last week and spent a good part of this past weekend out shooting with two very talented M8 photographers. If I could find a "soul" in any digital camera, it would be that one. Still, $6k would buy a lot of Kodachrome!

[KM-25]

Originally Posted by JBA

Every part of the film experience is inherently satisfying for me, while for digital the only really satisfying part is the convenience. Otherwise, I find it like riding a bike with no air in the tires.

Then again, I kicked the tires of an M8.2 last week and spent a good part of this past weekend out shooting with two very talented M8 photographers. If I could find a "soul" in any digital camera, it would be that one. Still, $6k would buy a lot of Kodachrome!

I came home today and found the front tire on my Mtn. bike is flat again...does that mean the front of the bike is digital and the back film...:-)

I expect to rack up about 8K in Kodachrome processing bills in the next 18 months...

[twittle]

Originally Posted by KM-25

I expect to rack up about 8K in Kodachrome processing bills in the next 18 months...

Oy! That makes about 900 rolls at Dwayne's current prices. My few per year make me an absolute piker in comparison.

[firststream]

I'm really looking forward to some images taken with your Leica Null camera - it is a fascinating body. At the store on Saturday, the shop owner said he would sell one (used) to me, providing I wouldn't use it. I thought he was kidding, but I was wrong.
He had no trouble parting with an M7 though... ;-)

[noah_addis]

Originally Posted by gtownby

...It is about the actual grain coming out of a roll of Tri-X. The wonderful look of true sloppy-edge silver prints. The special colors of your favorite film. Those are the reasons to choose film for a shoot over digital...

I couldn't agree more. While I too like the process of working with film, and I do prefer the feel of my MP bodies to my M8 bodies, the look of the final photographs is the main reason I like film.

It's been said a million times but is still true--It's not a matter of one being better than the other, they're just different. I love the grain of 35mm Tri-x. And the medium to large size prints from the M8 are amazing.

I'd shoot all film if I could, but the reality is that I need digital for most of my clients and occasionally for my personal work due to logistical concerns. So the great thing about the M-system is now I can work with the same cameras for both film and digital.

What I don't understand is why, whenever one of these film/digital threads comes up, a few people always say their way is best and the other way is bad or obsolete. There are many good reasons to shoot film and just as many good reasons to shoot digital.

[kenneth]

I think that there is room for both digital and film formats. Digital has great convenience and if I were a profession photographer I would certainly use digital format but as I am a bumbling amateur who likes the whole playing around approach then I prefer to use film. I can see where people are coming from when they refer to the soul of a camera. For me though the soul connection is with the photographers who took pictures on film from the past and I feel that connection with them using the medium they used. The only difference is that they were better at it than me

[tomasis7]

Originally Posted by Shootist

That is the most ridiculous statement I have very read. And it has not been the first time I have heard it.
In twenty year people will say "Why did anybody ever use film once Digital came out".

attitude of shootist annoys me..

it tells that he is BLIND

he doesnt see my input like if I call him as an complete idiot lol

now that is that attitude among other things..

[tomasis7]

Originally Posted by wls.shanghai

Gentlemen -

I agree with "Shootist" - also for me, no Camera has a soul,
it is the photographer that has the soul.

for me, all Cameras are tools only -

and a LEICA is for me the finest & best tool

wls


btw: I can make with (almost) all Cameras fine images

noo.... wrong


if soul combined with best tools, produces B E T T E R pictures. period

it is undeniable fact!!!

[Jeff Day]

Originally Posted by KM-25

I came home today and found the front tire on my Mtn. bike is flat again...does that mean the front of the bike is digital and the back film...:-)

I expect to rack up about 8K in Kodachrome processing bills in the next 18 months...

I just visited your Kodachrome website - awesome! A couple of weeks ago I got back a box of slides I shot on Kodachrome through my Leica MP & 35mm Summicron 2 ASPH and I was astonished at how much more dramatic the photos were than those taken of the same thing with my Leica digital camera. The Kodachrome images had a life-like - almost holographic - three-dimensionality about them that was breathtaking. Kodachrome is truly an American national treasure of the modern age. It is probably too much to hope that it will be continue to be made for that group of photographers who still cherish its outstanding properties, but nonetheless, I shall hope!

[Doc Henry]

Originally Posted by Norman

I personally like film. Since I'm not a profeesional I'm not forced to use digital. One could always say " Why has anyone bothered to paint once photography was invented".

Comparison is fair !
and it is the sense of my purposes !
Thanks
Regards
Henry

[bobtodrick]

I just had to add my final thoughts to this thread.
Why is it that the 'film' people all seem to say (paraphrased) "I know film and digital each have their strong points, but for myself I find a quality about film that I like better".....
whilst the 'digital' crowd seems to respond (paraphrased) "you film guys don't know what you're talking about and you're all dinosaurs that will be proven wrong"....
I don't much like the digital attitude.

[bill]

Originally Posted by bobtodrick

I just had to add my final thoughts to this thread.
Why is it that the 'film' people all seem to say (paraphrased) "I know film and digital each have their strong points, but for myself I find a quality about film that I like better".....
whilst the 'digital' crowd seems to respond (paraphrased) "you film guys don't know what you're talking about and you're all dinosaurs that will be proven wrong"....
I don't much like the digital attitude.

Bob, you are not the only one to pick up on that. I use both, without making a big fuss about it. It seems to be those who have given up on film entirely, rather than those who started with digital first, who are the worst. I think it is a form of self-justification.

As to "soul", call it what you will, but there is something. My own view is straightforward - I think differently when shooting with film. Whether that is because of the film itself, or the equipment it runs through, does not really matter. The fact remains that, for me at least, shooting a roll of film is both more challenging and more fun. I'm not a Pro, I'm not working to spec., or to deadlines, so the immediacy, while nice, is not a necessity.

Regards,

Bill

[rob_x2004]

Originally Posted by JBA

Not for nothing have I opted to jump through all sorts of hoops to shoot Kodachrome in Tokyo.

Well if I lived in Tokyo .....

[JBA]

Originally Posted by rob_x2004

Well if I lived in Tokyo .....

You'd have to order your Kodachrome from Dwayne's and send it there for processing just like everyone else. What's your point?

[Gentleman Villain]

Originally Posted by bobtodrick

I just had to add my final thoughts to this thread.
Why is it that the 'film' people all seem to say (paraphrased) "I know film and digital each have their strong points, but for myself I find a quality about film that I like better".....
whilst the 'digital' crowd seems to respond (paraphrased) "you film guys don't know what you're talking about and you're all dinosaurs that will be proven wrong"....
I don't much like the digital attitude.

you're totally right

I've tried to explain in a couple of previous threads that an entirely new culture in photography has sprung up with digital. Part of the digital culture seems to be the attitude that seems to come with it LOL I'd like to compare it to fashion. Fashion is about the moment. Fashion is about what is cool right now Digital is the same way. Digital is married to technological innovation so it will always be changing as technology advances. Digital photography will always be at the mercy of trends in a similar manner as fashion. As new technology comes along and creates new looks... then the digital shooters will adapt to the new trends and forget the old ones. For example, a 2 megapixel image may have been acceptable 10 years ago but now it isn't. Digital is driven by trends and the people that are married to digital are going to view the world with a fashionista attitude. This often translates into arrogance....since they don't consider anything that is outside of the immediate moment to be legitimate.

On the contrary, film shooters are less susceptible to fashionable trends...Film shooters are more concerned with timeless aspects of photography. This is a more mature attitude and it seems to translate into a more nuanced perspective when comparing film with digital.

Just one man's opinion...I could always be wrong tho

Originally Posted by bill

Bob, you are not the only one to pick up on that. I use both, without making a big fuss about it. It seems to be those who have given up on film entirely, rather than those who started with digital first, who are the worst. I think it is a form of self-justification.

As to "soul", call it what you will, but there is something. My own view is straightforward - I think differently when shooting with film. Whether that is because of the film itself, or the equipment it runs through, does not really matter. The fact remains that, for me at least, shooting a roll of film is both more challenging and more fun. I'm not a Pro, I'm not working to spec., or to deadlines, so the immediacy, while nice, is not a necessity.

Regards,

Bill

Yes, digital is soulless in comparison to film. But there might be an easily explainable reason for this

Imagine that you encounter a person with absolutely no pores in his skin. You might wonder if that person is a robot or clone because all humans have pores. Only a souless non-human could be pore-less. Imagine that you see a person that has red eyes. Humans do not normally have red eyes in nature, so you might be inclined to think that a person with red eyes is a soulless vampire LOL

Now apply that type of reasoning to the digital image. Digital images are not capable of capturing all of the subtle variations in tone that the human eye can see in nature. So, digital images often look a bit "off" to the aware human eye. Something feels unnatural. If it's not natural then our sub-conscious translates that into man-made and soulless.

Digital images are loaded with things that we would NEVER encounter in nature. Digital images often contain neutral skintones. We never see neutral skintones in nature...This un-natural quality to digital might translate into a feeling of soullessness when viewing images of human subjects with neutral skintones. Also, the random pattern of film grain emulates the random texture patterns that we see in nature. However, the non-random patterns of pixels render texture in a clinical and non-natural way in the digital image. This difference in texture is the difference between the natural and the man-made....so our sub-conscious can translate this into soullessness

Sorry, I'm not the best writer ...but I think that probably gets the point across....people are certainly free to disagree if they want....but I do think that there are tangible reasons why the human mind will interpret digital images as soulless...and no amount of PP can change this (PP actually makes it worse)

[jpattison]

It's the same with audio reproduction

Vinyl on a good turntable has soul!

John

[earleygallery]

Originally Posted by bobtodrick

I just had to add my final thoughts to this thread.
Why is it that the 'film' people all seem to say (paraphrased) "I know film and digital each have their strong points, but for myself I find a quality about film that I like better".....
whilst the 'digital' crowd seems to respond (paraphrased) "you film guys don't know what you're talking about and you're all dinosaurs that will be proven wrong"....
I don't much like the digital attitude.

I've also noticed this tendency. Digitalists in self denial perhaps

I mostly use film. Why? Because I prefer it, to me it just produces more pleasing results. I like choosing the film to suit the job/purpose in mind (rather than relying on photoshop tweaks and artificial film emulation programs).

That said, I use digital too. Why? Because it is convenient, quick, fast, sometimes necessary, more economical. My 'carry everywhere' camera is a digital, it makes much more sense for those unexpected and ad hoc shots - I don't need to wait to finish a whole roll of film for starters.

I certainly don't 'blame' anyone who chooses to shoot entirely digital and can understand the arguments regarding availability of good processing etc., but I do think they are missing out by ignoring film.

[Doc Henry]

Originally Posted by jpattison

It's the same with audio reproduction
Vinyl on a good turntable has soul!
John

I agree with you John ...and with vacuum pre and amplifier it's better
... softer and less hard than the digital sound
High fidelity in music and in photo : the same purpose
Henry

[wls.shanghai]

Originally Posted by Doc Henry

I agree with you John ...and with vacuum pre and amplifier it's better
... softer and less hard than the digital sound
High fidelity in music and in photo : the same purpose
Henry

Henry

Connaisseur & jouisseur

wls

[twittle]

Originally Posted by Doc Henry

I agree with you John ...and with vacuum pre and amplifier it's better
... softer and less hard than the digital sound
High fidelity in music and in photo : the same purpose
Henry

While I largely agree with this sentiment, it should also be noted that there is some very pleasant-sounding solid-state equipment out there that is in complete harmony with the vinyl ideal. Digital amplification, on the other hand, is a complete abomination. The comparison of film with Hi-Fi analogue audio is certainly apt.