Digital converts

[Marty]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Who here has added a film body to their digital equipment (or replaced it altogether) and never shot film before. Please share your experiences. There have been a few threads about this before but as far as I know never any long term observations. Have you persisted, or given up?

 

I know there are plenty of born-again filmshooters who tried digital but went back. It would be nice to hear experiences from those who had never shot film because that is where I'm at. I'm loving my M9 but the lure of using a timeless classic like, say, an MP with the wonderfully tangible, living and ageing medium of film and never having to touch a computer (for photography) is getting stronger and stronger.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Jamie Roberts]

Marty--I don't fit the profile, since I shot tons of film before digital and shoot both now, quite happily, but seriously: you've never, ever shot film??

 

Man, I feel very old all of a sudden. Lars--I'm gonna need a tag-line; "the old man from the days before iPods" or something.

 

Seriously, Marty, if you haven't shot film then get to it! Buy a used M body (you have the lenses) and try it out... worst case is you'll have to sell the used body for what you paid.

 

Couple of things to consider:

 

• make sure the lab has a clue, eh? A pro lab with a solid rep is the way to get decent results from film
  
• I can't imagine going back to light tables and loupes just to check neg. density. Make sure they can at least give you a reasonable scan in terms of resolution, noise and colour
  
• if they can't, and you really don't want to touch a computer, then you're going to need some way to view the negative to really get a sense for what might be accomplished there in a print.
  
• automated proof prints aren't the end product usually, but just another way of looking at the neg. Depends on how serious you are about image quality though. But you have invested in a system that is capable of stunning stuff, so I'm assuming you don't just want snaps.
  

There... and if you're really up to it, you could learn to develop BW film at home. It's not that hard--though be prepared to ruin a few rolls

[andybarton]

There... and if you're really up to it, you could learn to develop BW film at home. It's not that hard--though be prepared to ruin a few rolls

 

If you can follow a recipie for a boiled egg, you can successfully develop a film

[Jamie Roberts]

If you can follow a recipie for a boiled egg, you can successfully develop a film

 

Exactly...

 

Maybe it's just me, but when I first started many years ago now, I couldn't quite get the hang of feeding the film onto the reels...nothing but frustration.

 

But they were cheap and finicky, though--but I bet they're still being sold And then all of a sudden I got the knack... like riding a bike.... so purposely using exposed film for practice is recommended if you're a total klutz like me, anyway.

 

(Heck--you change your own lens mounts, don't you? )

[photokalia]

Who here has added a film body to their digital equipment (or replaced it altogether) and never shot film before. Please share your experiences. There have been a few threads about this before but as far as I know never any long term observations. Have you persisted, or given up?

 

I know there are plenty of born-again filmshooters who tried digital but went back. It would be nice to hear experiences from those who had never shot film because that is where I'm at. I'm loving my M9 but the lure of using a timeless classic like, say, an MP with the wonderfully tangible, living and ageing medium of film and never having to touch a computer (for photography) is getting stronger and stronger.

 

Aside from a couple of shots on my parent's SLRs when I was a kid, I've pretty much been using digital all my life. I took a detour into film at the end of last year (sold my DSLR) while trying to save up for an M8, and I think that even if I do get an M8 or M9 in the end, I'll never see digital in the same light again (I used to think that a little post processing could produce the same results as film, or at least give a more pleasing result... how wrong I was).

 

I've shot over 80 rolls this year already (mostly 35mm BW), and I'm not about to stop!

[theendlesshouse]

What some pro labs now charge for a single negative scan is criminal.

 

Digital photography has enabled many poor photographers to become good photographers in the same way computers have enabled many poor graphic designers and architects to become adequate or good - the reliance on the machine.

 

Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit! Indeed!

[marcusperkins]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Marty--I don't fit the profile, since I shot tons of film before digital and shoot both now, quite happily, but seriously: you've never, ever shot film??

 

Man, I feel very old all of a sudden. Lars--I'm gonna need a tag-line; "the old man from the days before iPods" or something.

 

Haha, exactly how I feel when I meet people who haven't shot film.

 

There's a lot of talk, some of it justified, about how digital has improved photography for many. Looking back over the past 10 years, I personally don't feel it it has improved my hit rate at all, but it is difficult to quantify. It definitely has benefits for commercial work, but not for documentary photographers.

 

On the other hand, shooting film in the age of digital will surely improve ones craft in terms of the thought process - you have to think before the picture is taken, rather then after when looking at the screen.

 

Marty, I note you are London based - I suggest you shoot a roll of something with balls like Tri-x 400 (rated at 320) or Neopan 1600 (rated at 1200), then drop it into a lab called Darkside in Helmet Row EC1 - ask for Antony. Get it processed and contacted, then have a couple hand prints whilst you're there.

 

It's a great way to see what CAN be achieved - then you're free to start experimenting on your own. One of the big problems for people shooting film for the first time is the disappointment as a result of poor lab work. Jamie's advice is spot on regarding finding a good lab.

 

If you're near to Kingston, there's a great minilab for consistent colour neg processing and scanning. let me know if you need the details.

[Adrian Lord]

I am afraid you WILL touch a computer again because you'll realise you need a scanner...

 

But that is great because you have the best of all worlds - film and digital combined.

 

And scanned B+W with a Nikoncoolscan for example comes up just fantastically on the computer screen.

 

The real fun is in printing - I haven't stared that again yet but have a Leica enlarger waiting in the wings upstairs...

[Jamie Roberts]

What some pro labs now charge for a single negative scan is criminal.

 

Digital photography has enabled many poor photographers to become good photographers in the same way computers have enabled many poor graphic designers and architects to become adequate or good - the reliance on the machine.

{snipped}

 

Yes... scans can be very very expensive.... so you want to find a lab you can trust (and it looks like Marcus pointed Marty in the right direction!)

 

I do just want to comment on the notion that digital lets people be better photographers through a kind of laziness... I don't think that's true at all. I agree with Marcus, though, that film requires careful thought. The only problem is that careful thought comes through practice, and film can get expensive.

 

When I was learning photography on film, the barrier to experimentation and learning was often the sheer cost of film, chemistry, and print materials. When I got hired by my university as an undergrad to shoot events (and had access to all the film and development equipment I could want!) my photography improved a lot; I didn't have to worry about taking more shots to get the shot (within reason) and I learned about light, composition, etc.. a lot more quickly than if I had to finance it myself.

 

So digital is even better in that way: the cost is usually borne up front, so someone starting out doesn't need to worry about the cost of each shot!

 

That helps a lot, I think, when you need to learn to see light, figure out exposure, and work with movement for the first time.

 

Of course, once you've learned that stuff then the cost / benefit to digital is a little different.

 

OTH, it's actually a little harder to expose digital well under adverse conditions than BW film, so I'm not sure people with digital are "relying on the machine" more now than they rely on film exposure latitude and the colour and print knowledge from Kodak / Fuji / Agfa (knowledge almost gone in the digital realm).

 

Put it another way, an M8 or M9 isn't exactly an easy camera to use well... but feedback can be instant. So once you've actually learned how to hold highlights with digital shooting positive film is pretty easy too (oh, if you get the colour balance right)

[semrich]

Jamie has a point about learning a lot in the beginning with digital. I started this as a hobby with a D-Lux 2, and into digital rangefinders, and learned from the instant feedback experience. Then I wanted to give film a go with all those lenses and now my R-D1 and M8 spend most of the time on the shelf while I use my vintage 35 mm and MF film cameras, developing my own B&W film (sometimes color also) and scanning. I just enjoy the entire film process more.

 

I notice more and more people going the same path on the film section of the forum.

[mmk60]

I think that one can learn so much in photography with a digital camera fairly quickly because of its instant gratification. The M8 is not an easy camera to shoot well and I would say that it has made me learn a lot and made more careful with my photo taking process. I am now confidently shooting with films with no LCD to look at after each 'click'.

 

If you ever miss the instant gratification of the digital tech, you can always pick up a instant film camera

 

Enjoy

[Marty]

Thanks for the encouragement. Jamie thanks for the gentle introduction, Marcus thanks for the pointers.

 

As for scanning, I am not even interested in that strange as it sounds. Nor home development for that matter. The pursuit of film is based purely on the aesthetics of the medium (not even IQ, film "signature", workflow or whatever else is commonly argued). It is alive, organic and perishes, like a painting. To preserve something accurately with eye-watering technical quality I would go with a digital M any day. But my best pictures are never good because of that, they work because of the artistic content. And film I reckon amplifies this.

 

Of course this could also be discussed in the digital forum, but there film is generally snubbed for reasons that don't interest me in the first place...