Film vs. Digital

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

For the sake of accuracy, you must also accept that your M3 is also obsolete. Of course, like the M8, it still functions well as originally designed. The fact that you prefer the M3 is totally valid.

 

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.

 

Seems to me that if you needed to carry spare batteries and charger, you were shooting heavily. Conversely, the same shoot rate with the MP would necessitate a 'cartload' of film to be carried for the MP. I suggest that your real argument is that you prefer the MP over the M8. Again, a totally valid POV, but please be realistic about why. Logically it cannot be for reasons you enumerate, because my own experience demonstrates to me the excessive bulk of that amount of film compared to a charger and spare battery.

[jdsheepdog]

A couple of points in reply, not defence, clarification maybe.

First, I am not a professional photographer (a Naval Architect, actually) so while my film volume is not great, the frustration of leaving the M8 unused and finding it flat, or close, meant paying attention to the electric supply.

 

It was not my first M8. My first was replaced under warranty, because it flattened batteries in a couple of days, despite being off and untouched. Hence my lack of confidence.

 

Is the M3 obsolete? Not sure about that, in some ways it is more advanced than the MP (viewfinder) and lets see how well the M8 works when it is over 50 years old.

 

Finally, I live and work in the Philippines and off the beaten track at that. If electronics dream of a hell, this is it.

 

I also use for work a little shock proof, waterproof, H-Bomb proof digital Pentax digital that doubles as my diary of when and where I was using film, considering the time that processing takes from where I am, it is easy to lose track.

[Advertisement]

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

[erl]

Your clarification actually puts the 'real' picture much more clearly. The real reasons for your preferences are clear and sensible. Electronics in your particular circumstance would be a bit of a pain.

 

As for your M3, well it is technically obsolete, just as is my M6, but that does not mean inferior by any measure. It just means a later model(s) exists, but not necessarily better.

Edited April 27, 2012 by erl

[AlexP.cal]

I had no idea people would react to my post like this! Thank you so much! I think I am going to go film. I love the grain and contrast of black and white film. To me digital looks flat and not interesting at all. Film has depth of course your capturing the image on an actual 3d object. While a sensor converts things to something virtual.

[IkarusJohn]

Notwithstanding the fact that antiques have to be 100 years old ...

 

What?

 

I would suggest that the vast majority of people would consider ANY film camera an "antique", certainly those made in the 30s and 40s.

 

Absolutely. I consider my M3 to be antique - it's 50 years old and uses a technology which is superseded (digital). Obsolete? Mmm, perhaps not. While the M3 is no longer produced, the MP and M7 really differ only in minor details (film loading, exposure meter and view finder).

 

As Leica will still service and repair it, and film is still available, I'm happy for my my M3 to be antique, but it's not obsolete. There is such simple pleasure at picking up a tool with such clear vision - it holds film, provides a focusing aid and has a reliable shutter. That's it.

 

Nothing could inspire more confidence. But digital is the future. A bunch of aging, anorak wearing enthusiasts won't change that.

 

Cheers

John

[IkarusJohn]

I had no idea people would react to my post like this! Thank you so much! I think I am going to go film. I love the grain and contrast of black and white film. To me digital looks flat and not interesting at all. Film has depth of course your capturing the image on an actual 3d object. While a sensor converts things to something virtual.

 

Good for you, Alex.

 

I wouldn't bother with an MP or M7, or even an M6. Go for an M3. You'll find one in good condition easily enough, get it serviced, and you'll be sorted. Then get yourself a light meter (actually, I use an App on my phone - I think it was free).

 

The great thing is that you will then think more about the picture before you press the shutter release.

 

Cheers

John

[AlexP.cal]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I really enjoy all of your replies. My problem with the M3 is that I need the ability to shoot wide lenses like 35mm and 28mm, so the M3 is not for me. Thank you for your reply though

[StS]

Well, if you are leaning towards an M3 but want a frame for a 35mm lens, there is the M2, which has the same simplicity. If you would like a frame for the 28mm lens as well, the M6 could be your choice, which also adds a very good exposure meter. I'm omissing the larger M5, which is more expensive (small number built, higher collection value) but offers no advantage over the M6, in my view.

 

I found coloured filters very helpful for black and white photography, so my tip would be to add at least a yellow filter.

 

Have fun

 

Stefan

[kanzlr]

I love the grain and contrast of black and white film. To me digital looks flat and not interesting at all. Film has depth of course your capturing the image on an actual 3d object. While a sensor converts things to something virtual.

 

Just a matter of processing.

I shoot both, film and digital, and to me, this is a myth, nothing more. Spread by people who have no clue about proper post processing a digital image.

 

In contrary, I think Film already filters through its specific character, whereas digital gives you a clean file with more info to work from. So film really is a restriction, almost like an Art filter on a digital P&S...

[erl]

Just a matter of processing.

I shoot both, film and digital, and to me, this is a myth, nothing more. Spread by people who have no clue about proper post processing a digital image.

 

In contrary, I think Film already filters through its specific character, whereas digital gives you a clean file with more info to work from. So film really is a restriction, almost like an Art filter on a digital P&S...

 

Bernhard, you are half right IMO. A lot of rubbish is posted about the limitations of film and for digital. The real limitation is is the photographer, not the medium.

 

Film is not a restriction, just another way of doing it. It can also be argued that film offers more than digital. Choose your argument and someone will take the flip side.

 

The reality is a combo of cost, taste, preference, skill, etc ......... ad infinitum!

 

This does not solve AlexP.cal's problem. Only he can.

[250swb]

I love the grain and contrast of black and white film. To me digital looks flat and not interesting at all.

 

So change it in post processing. Add some grain to your digital image, turn up the contrast, you don't have to sit looking at what comes out of the camera as if it can't be touched. Your taste should take precedence over the default setting.

 

Steve

[01af]

To me digital looks flat and not interesting at all. Film has depth of course your capturing the image on an actual 3-D object. While a sensor converts things to something virtual.

Just a matter of processing. I shoot both, film and digital, and to me, this is a myth, nothing more. Spread by people who have no clue about proper post-processing a digital image.

Exactly.

 

A poorly crafted analog image looks bad. A poorly crafted digital image looks bad, too, but in a different way. With poor craftmanship, you can tell an analog image from a digital easily. However when comparing a well-crafted analog image to a well-crafted digital image, you'll be hard-pressed to see any difference. The better the craftmanship, the smaller the difference between the results of the two principles.

 

Of course, the crafts are different. Image-processing techniques that will lead to a good ananlog image don't lead to a good digital image. And vice versa. Some principles, rules, and techniques of photography and processing apply to both but then, some don't. Those who are old hands in the wet darkroom, with decades of practice and expertise to their credit, all of sudden are beginners again when switching to digital.

 

I guess that's one of the main reasons why there's so much fear, misconceptions, and animosity against digital among the die-hard film users, while at the same time most digital users are having no problems with the notion that film is just fine (albeit tedious). They only roll their eyes (or possibly get furious) when film users try spreading silly and off-key myths—again!—about what digital allegedly is or what it is not.

[kanzlr]

I never was good at wet printing anyway

 

I treat a film image just the same as a digital one. Just that "copying" the negative by means of a Coolscan takes a bit longer than copying an SD card

 

Of course you have to post process film images, just like digital ones. You do things a bit differently, yes. But after scanning and negative to positive conversion I also apply levels, curves, and selective colour. Usually that's all there is to do and it makes a huge difference.

[jdsheepdog]

Just a general point, I think the title of this thread, while understandable is possibly unfortunate "Film vs. Digital" implies some form of conflict, with a winner and loser. It is daft to look at it that way. Yes there are obvious things that a digital camera can do that film cannnot. I am not going to poke my MP into (f'rinstance) a piece of malfunctioning equipment, or a leaky tank and press the button to find out what is going on.

 

For me, my digital is a work tool and a diary, and it does this brilliantly.

 

Similiarly, there are some things that film can do that digital cannot. Film, as others have mentioned, invokes care, and craft. I have had an M8, and for me for me at least, the end image is more satysfying than what I was getting from the M8. This may be subjective, but film delivers more predictably the mood or other quality that I was trying to acheive when I pressed the button.

[xalo]

This thread has something of an enjoyable exercise in polemics, to be taken with a grain of salt (and perhaps at 'seconde degré', as the French would say). There obviously (for me) is no binary positioning required as to what light recording means to use or not to use. But sharing what either option entails in our diverse views sure is interesting. In the case of digital photography (which I practice, too, but perhaps just not cherish quite as much as film), the dynamics of obsolescence are just hitting harder, faster and more expensively (in line with the general context of the digital economy). Clearly it is one of Leica's cultivated differences to be somewhat less affected by this than other brands.

I write that and then think of the quite high M9 prestige sales (as opposed to the long reflected and calculated acquisitions) and the "M10" speculations, wishes and rumours... Too bad we don't have the Forum's archives prior to the release of the M3 to compare notes.

 

Alexander

[Peter H]

APS film was practically still-born, and the loss of 110 and 126 cartridges is hardly either news, or a great loss.

 

..........

 

Somewhere in my garage I have an Instamatic camera with a 126 cartridge still in it. I'd use it but I can't get the flashcubes any more!

[chris_livsey]

Somewhere in my garage I have an Instamatic camera with a 126 cartridge still in it. I'd use it but I can't get the flashcubes any more!

 

 

Flash Bulbs and Flash Cubes (Magicubes) | Photo Supplies UK

 

 

:D

[250swb]

For re-loading 126 cartridges with 35mm film go here

 

Instamatic Retro

 

 

 

Steve

[chris_livsey]

I have posted this link before, but if it pops up on a search it may be useful. Disc film as well !!

Process C-22 - Old Film Processing, Disc Film scanning - UK, Europe, Australia and Worldwide

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear