Film vs. Digital

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I also prefer the look of wet prints but it's been many years since I'd had to physically take a file to a lab for printing. The pricing has been too reasonable to consider a home inkjet printer to be cost-effective and the quality has been outstanding. I don't know what is available in Australia but in the US numerous labs have on-line ordering software and deliver by UPS or FedEx within a day or two of placing the order. I care not where the lab is located. Look for a lab that uses ROES software.

 

You have the advantage of living in the US over me. Oz prices are somewhat limiting, especially if you do a lot of 'play' printing as I do. ie. Try a print this way, then that etc. Convenience of immediate feedback (similar to Digital camera s over film), plus the hands on satisfaction of doing it oneself, all steers me to keeping it all in house.

 

In my circumstances (complex), 'in house' is the most viable option, with only the really big stuff going out.

[plasticman]

Where did I say anything like this and how does what I did actually write run down film?

 

Indeed, Alan, I've noticed that your indefatigable presence in these particular threads (which I'll roughly characterize as 'film doom'), is always so encouraging to film users, and particularly to anyone possibly wavering in their intention to try film for the first time.

[AlexP.cal]

The nikon is fine but would need to be a very big kit to have a wide angle lens. The Leica on the other hand will be small no matter what. The Leica is very precise, while the FE is clunky in every move it makes. Its shutter sounds like a hassy's. I love the feel of the Leica and the rangefinder camera fits me better. I want a really really nice camera that will last me, inspire me, and finally be super compact and discrete.

[AlexP.cal]

I am leaning towards the M7 as the M9 will need upgrading and I hate that process I just want to shoot. Also If anyone lives in the Bay Area of California please tell me I am dying for some street photography company. Thank you anyone who has posted answers to my questions!

[AlanG]

Indeed, Alan, I've noticed that your indefatigable presence in these particular threads (which I'll roughly characterize as 'film doom'), is always so encouraging to film users, and particularly to anyone possibly wavering in their intention to try film for the first time.

 

OK, I'll encourage you. Film will be around forever. All of our film cameras (but no digital ones) will be cherished by and useful to generations to come for hundreds of years.

 

Feel better now?

 

Is this more about an attachment to a camera than anything about photography?

[pico]

[...] I care not where the lab is located. Look for a lab that uses ROES software.

 

I recall working with e machine shop when it was being established, The inventor-owner said that he is buying time on otherwise idle machines anywhere, with the limiting factor being delivery time. So the parts I had made could come from my neighborhood, or China.

 

That's pretty cool, but I do miss visiting the printer in-person, trialing a few strips and so-forth. That's something I may have to give up when our local printer finally shuts down. They don't get much business anymore.

[Torquinian]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not a hard choice. I like to use an SLR and can't afford an S2. Currently using an R3 bought 8th January 1980 and an R8 bought 8th February 2004.Five assorted lenses, [ or six if you count the 2x Extender]

[01af]

I just want to shoot.

If that is true then you should prefer the M9 over the M7 because the latter will fiercely interrupt your flow every thirty-six exposures. The former won't.

 

 

... as the M9 will need upgrading and I hate that process ...

What a bizarre reason to turn a digital camera down! The M9 (or any digital camera) won't ever need upgrading. It can be upgraded from time to time—which is a good thing—but doesn't need to. If you hate upgrading then don't do it, as simple as that.

 

That said, I don't want to talk you into digital when film is what you want to shoot. There's nothing wrong with film (provided you have, and use, a darkroom and an enlarger). Just don't base your choice on absurd reasons or silly misconceptions.

 

After all, shooting film only makes sense when wet-printing is your primary way to turn your negatives into pictures, and scanning only serves as a secondary path for showing your actual work on the Internet. Using a scanner as your primary, or only, way to process your negatives is a very bad idea. Don't think good scanning was easy, or quick! It's intricate and laborious. If digital images is what you want or need then use a digital camera. It's quicker, cheaper, easier, more flexible, and yields better results than scanned film.

[plasticman]

OK, I'll encourage you. Film will be around forever. All of our film cameras (but no digital ones) will be cherished by and useful to generations to come for hundreds of years.

 

Feel better now?

 

Alan - it's not about me. I have none of these illusions. I don't need them - I'm enjoying film NOW (and digital, for that matter - just not as much).

 

What I find exhausting is your tireless negative input about film. And also the denial that follows it - you're always apparently film's greatest fan, whenever anyone calls you out. What a waste of time and effort.

[plasticman]

If that is true then you should prefer the M9 over the M7 because the latter will fiercely interrupt your flow every thirty-six exposures. The former won't.

 

 

 

What a bizarre reason to turn a digital camera down! The M9 (or any digital camera) won't ever need upgrading. It can be upgraded from time to time—which is a good thing—but doesn't need to. If you hate upgrading then don't do it, as simple as that.

 

That said, I don't want to talk you into digital when film is what you want to shoot. There's nothing wrong with film (provided you have, and use, a darkroom and an enlarger). Just don't base your choice on absurd reasons or silly misconceptions.

 

After all, shooting film only makes sense when wet-printing is your primary way to turn your negatives into pictures, and scanning only serves as a secondary path for showing your actual work on the Internet. Using a scanner as your primary, or only, way to process your negatives is a very bad idea. Don't think good scanning was easy, or quick! It's intricate and laborious. If digital images is what you want or need then use a digital camera. It's quicker, cheaper, easier, more flexible, and yields better results than scanned film.

 

This is complete absolute ignorant bigoted rubbish.

[stunsworth]

This is complete absolute ignorant bigoted rubbish.

 

I know. It's déjà vu all over again.

[stunsworth]

That said, I don't want to talk you into digital when film is what you want to shoot. There's nothing wrong with film (provided you have, and use, a darkroom and an enlarger).

 

There's nothing wrong if you have a scanner and and inkjet printer either. Both are capable of giving superb results, even if the results differ from one another.

[plasticman]

I know. It's déjà vu all over again.

 

Indeed Steve, I dunno why I bother getting angry about these people really.

It's what my signature is about - the sort of person that compares a Norman Rockwell and a Caravaggio or the Brancacci Chapel frescoes and says (imagine a whiny voice): "The Rockwell is obviously better because there's more detail"

[agrokid]

For those of you that are still shooting film, what do you see as the benefits vs. shooting with a M8, M8.2 or M9?

 

Seems to me there aren't many benefits left. I'm still using a film Rollei 35SE, because it is unbelievable compact and has a Zeiss Sonnar 40/2.8. Much, much smaller than my Digilux-2. To get a Leica as compact I'd need a D-Lux 5 but that has an EVF as an accessory, which is easily knocked off. So small size is the benefit I get from my baby Rollei. (I still have a Rollei TLR but prefer the Digilux). However, I'm one of those guys who flatly refuses to do his own develop and print. Been there. Done that. Never again. So I depend on the very few labs in the UK who still handle film. Frankly I can't see them going on much longer. Next month Velvia goes up 20% which means, I guess, another steep fall in the number of users. Then there's the huge, unspoken problem of scanners. They too are declining in numbers rapidly, and the labs need them to scan film. When their current scanner fails, why bother to replace it? That's when my lovely little Rollei will retire. Digilux for everything then. For me, the film versus digital argument has nothing to do with pixels or quality. I want prints on paper not the web, and almost always smaller than 10x8inches. Rollei and Digilux are both adequate for me. Rollei is smaller, Digilux is more versatile. Small usually wins.

[xalo]

AlexP.cal, first, thanks for reviving this thread. Reading some of its earlier pages made my afternoon (the deceased, beaten equus still has some power).

 

If I sense well what you mean by not wanting to "upgrade the M9", I really like and share this argument (anyway): it's resisting obsolescence (cudos to Sean Reid), pushed a little further. It's tiring to run after every new digital camera for more (heavily marketed but rather rarely exploited) detail (replace by any desired feature), buy more computing power, hard drives, cards, card readers, what have you - and this is the luxury version of the point. Not wanting to or not being able to feed that stream of money (resources, energy, time for research for acquisition) into new, very soon again obsolete gear is another. But then we're almost touching a political (or religious?) argument, eternal growth...

 

It was beaten, err, said before, a cared-for film Leica may likely last out your life-span, film will still be around (granted, you need to have the bucks to buy and opportunity to process it) and if you enjoy the images that come out of this process (naked-eye observable matter shaped by your choices!) you could well be happy ever after. Even once the grain- and noiseless (or grain-emulating, as you wish), totally colour-accurate 100 MP fool-proof RF or DSLR is finally available.

 

Cheers,

 

Alexander

[Guest sterlinstarlin]

I look at the M9 as purchasing film and processing in advance. There's no loss really, the camera pays for itself in a couple of years. Of course you have to like the look of digital for this to matter. It took me ages to come around. The need to upgrade thing dosen't make much sense to me. And I doubt it will to most Leica users. We wouldn't be shooting Leica, film or digital, if we were prone to chasing the latest and greatest thing. Many people sing the praises of Leica film bodies past and present. Just read this forum, you'll see. Already the M8 has followers who see nothing in the M9. There will be M9 users who see nothing to gain in the M10, ...

[sblitz]

i grew up shooting film, went serious into digital a little more than a year ago when i bought the m9. missed film, recently bought an m4 -- a GREAT camera. i agree about pricing out the m9 as film + processing and suddenly it becomes a less expensive proposition over the course of a few years. as for buying an m10? only if the DR approaches film, if not no reason. the great thing about shoot portra 160 or 400 is that when shooting in the shade with a sunny background the film shot still holds a semblance of color that the m9 does not. there are other differences to be sure, mainly ease of use, fast turn around, etc. but these differences all have a price. so when i have the time and don't have to pay, the m4 keeps coming out of my bag before the m9. not good vs bad, just personal preference. needs no justification. it is what i enjoy

[kanzlr]

I shoot film and digital and I never wet print, but still most of my photography is film based now.

Good scanning is rather easy if you have the right tools and get into a decent workflow.

 

a good scanner (Coolscan) + Vuescan + Colorneg = fast and easy with high quality. Colornegs film templates are very good, a few corrections here and there, safe them as a preset if you like them, done.

[AlanG]

 

What I find exhausting...

 

Maybe ride a bike. That's what I do and I have loads of energy.

 

As for photography and film vs. digital... gear has been around for a very long time that mostly showed the limitations of the majority of photographers using it. As time went on photography became easier from a technical and accessibility standpoint and more capable in various ways too. Eventually, more people were able to reach a given level of photographic skill and artistry. Digital photography has accelerated these trends for numerous reasons that film can't match.

 

At this point most of these arguments about film vs. digital, wet printing vs. inkjet, etc. etc. are simply diversions for their own sake. Just as thinking that someone might want to use a Leica IIIA in 200 years is all about a romantic view of a metal and glass box that is not likely to be shared by very many people at that point in time... a lot of this is non-objective but valid to the individual none-the-less because it is emotional to them for some reason. But outside of photo forums, few will judge the success of an image based on film or digital, wet printing or inkjet, Leica or iPhone.

 

And thus film use is in decline as digital is cheaper, more expensive, too complicated, faster, more difficult, easier, less artistic, more artistic, more convenient, worse, equal, and better. However for a variety of reasons, digital is the trend and while bucking that trend is obviously rewarding to some... does it really matter in any significant way at this point what someone uses?

 

The near universal accessibility and immediacy of photography and video has been revolutionary for communication and that was not possible with film.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jdsheepdog]

I recently sold my M8 and put the money into an MP. The M8 had never really become a part of me the way that my ancient and beloved M3 is. It was a litany of dead batteries, big charger fiddly IR filters and the inevitable concern of all electronic equipment in the tropics. I found I was using the M8 as an exposure meter and a composition checker, and taking the photograph with the M3. The universe was an imperfect place.

 

Also, it was already obsolete, as will be the M9 and all DSLR’s in one or two years. My grandchildren will argue about both the MP and the M3.

 

So at least at first, it was an equipment issue, rather than a pure film issue, although I agree with all the comments made already about care and discipline.

 

I now carry Velvia in the MP behind a 28mm aspheric, and B & W (not sure what I like best yet) behind a 50mm Summilux in the M3, and a 90mm Elmarit in the very small bag that also has a yellow filter, more film, and NO spare batteries, and NO damned charger.

 

The universe is again unfolding as it should.