WigglePig Posted September 13, 2010 Share #1 Posted September 13, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Morning all, After one and a half years of happy shooting with my M8 I have finally made the decision and sold it, replacing it with a very nice M6 classic. I feel happier already and I'm looking forward to trying all sorts of different films, as well as getting into home-processing of some C41. My M6 came with a late 50mm Elmar and I have to say I really like both the way it handles and the results it produces; I'll post a piccie or two when I get my scanner up and running. I feel I've come back to proper photography now and I'll leave the digital stuff to compact cameras in future. Tra Wiggly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 13, 2010 Posted September 13, 2010 Hi WigglePig, Take a look here M8 gone...back to film for me!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted September 13, 2010 Share #2 Posted September 13, 2010 I just can't understand all this either-or stuff:confused:. I often have an M9 and M3 (or nowadays M6) hanging side by side over my shoulder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WigglePig Posted September 13, 2010 Author Share #3 Posted September 13, 2010 It's more a question of having the cash available to have both cameras; I don't so I have to decide which does what I want and which I can rely on to keep doing it! The M8, whilst it does what I want I'm not at all sure it will keep on, whereas I can get a film M serviced just about anywhere and so it'll keep going. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 13, 2010 Share #4 Posted September 13, 2010 Well, yes and no - on one hand I did indeed buy a brand new M6 for 1100 Euro, which is an outlay, on the other hand I regularly use a quite nice IIIf, which set me back 300 Euro. It is just a matter of dividing the funds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted September 13, 2010 Share #5 Posted September 13, 2010 ...a simple question of choice, Jaap. Given Wiggly's circumstances (and his criteria), which may or may not differ from yours, he *had* to choose between digital and film. Wiggly, here's to many more years of enjoyment with your equipment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 13, 2010 Share #6 Posted September 13, 2010 I fully appreciate that - it is just that some see film and digital as mutually incompatible - I see them as supplementary. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PasMichiel Posted September 13, 2010 Share #7 Posted September 13, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I fully appreciate that - it is just that some see film and digital as mutually incompatible - I see them as supplementary. I totally agree. And IF you have to choose (in terms of money): Digital is cheaper... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted September 13, 2010 Share #8 Posted September 13, 2010 I totally agree. And IF you have to choose (in terms of money): Digital is cheaper... ...and here we go again... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PasMichiel Posted September 13, 2010 Share #9 Posted September 13, 2010 ...and here we go again... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipper Posted September 13, 2010 Share #10 Posted September 13, 2010 I just can't understand all this either-or stuff:confused:. I often have an M9 and M3 (or nowadays M6) hanging side by side over my shoulder. In principal I very much agree with you Jaapv, but don't be too hard on the guy - not everyone has the wherewithal, or (silly as it sounds) wants to own 2 Leicas, and in the past I've sometimes had to swap one for one in favour of more pressing desires. He has already said he's still using a compact for digital, so I don't think it is too much of an idealogical thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WigglePig Posted September 13, 2010 Author Share #11 Posted September 13, 2010 Actually, I have an M2 and an M6, although I'll probably sell the M2 TBH (need the cash!) Don't get me wrong, I really like the M8 and I'm sure the M9 is just as good. However, I have always been concerned about long-term servicing for the M8...if my M2 or M6 go wrong or need a CLA, there are a number of places I can go to get it done; with the M8 it HAS to go back to Solms. If Leica should fold, or simply run out of spares for a yet-to-be-found widespread problem (or it just becomes uneconomical), then I have no chance of resurrecting a broken M8. In short, I don't trust that I'll be able to use my M8 in 10 years whereas I'm pretty happy that I will be able to continue using a film M. Of course, things may not pan out this way but having carefully considered my options I made a decision to sell the M8 now, while the value is still pretty good, and get a later film setup that I will enjoy just as much, if not more. A few years of using digital fairly much exclusively have taught me one important thing: I like taking photographs and I like taking photographs on film more than I like using digital. :shrug: I guess it's the whole alchemy thing, plus I feel more connected to the act when using film. Maybe I'm just losing some marbles? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 13, 2010 Share #12 Posted September 13, 2010 Wigglepig, don'take my comment personally - it was aimed at the fundamentalists on both sides, who are sure to step into the thread. There are some aspects to film that are lost in digital - and vica versa. However, I was reading a book by Fraser and Schewe and found an interesting comment, that much of the film vs digital debate on resolution is sparked by the fact that many users use the same one-pass sharpening technique for digital captures and scanned film alike- shortchanging digital in quality. It may well be true, also applied to exposure and dynamic range, that much of the perceived superior quality of film is due to inadequate digital processing, this being a relatively new thing to many users. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipper Posted September 13, 2010 Share #13 Posted September 13, 2010 fair point W... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 13, 2010 Share #14 Posted September 13, 2010 It is at least interesting - They point out that Photoshop was originally developed for scanned film images so it still bears the vestiges of that. Anyway, another hilarious observation by Bruce Fraser is that when otherwise sane photographers are confronted with the information that an image is digital the concept of reasonable viewing distance shrinks from the distance at which one can view the whole photograph to a distance that is largely determined by the length of the nose of the photographer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted September 13, 2010 Share #15 Posted September 13, 2010 Wigglepig, don'take my comment personally - it was aimed at the fundamentalists on both sides, who are sure to step into the thread. There are some aspects to film that are lost in digital - and vica versa. However, I was reading a book by Fraser and Schewe and found an interesting comment, that much of the film vs digital debate on resolution is sparked by the fact that many users use the same one-pass sharpening technique for digital captures and scanned film alike- shortchanging digital in quality. It may well be true, also applied to exposure and dynamic range, that much of the perceived superior quality of film is due to inadequate digital processing, this being a relatively new thing to many users. But Jaap - not wanting to be a fundamentalist here - but this is the same old rap about film-advocates being doddery greybeards confused by new-fangled technology that we hear about at some point in all of these debates. Some of us that have grown up with computers and sensors before we started taking our own pictures simply don't fit that caricature. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 13, 2010 Share #16 Posted September 13, 2010 Just quoting a minimal remark. In fact, it is much to the point. The book is about 50-50 filmscan and digital capture in sharpening and noise/grain reduction. Highly recommended for any scanned-film or digital photographer. In the end the results from both media are much closer than one would expect, provided the correct techniques for each medium are observed. The whole subject of sharpening/grain-noise/contrast control is fascinating and very much more complicated than one would think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted September 13, 2010 Share #17 Posted September 13, 2010 Just quoting a minimal remark. In fact, it is much to the point. The book is about 50-50 filmscan and digital capture in sharpening and noise/grain reduction. Highly recommended for any scanned-film or digital photographer. In the end the results from both media are much closer than one would expect, provided the correct techniques for each medium are observed. The whole subject of sharpening/grain-noise/contrast control is fascinating and very much more complicated than one would think. We've discussed the different looks, and the reasons why film can, and often does, look very different to the same scene shot with a digital sensor many times before. I seriously can't be bothered to re-iterate them here again. Suffice to say, that some films can be shot with some lenses to look almost indistinguishable from film, and the opposite is also true. Very quickly (before I fetch my daughter from nursery) there are many people who've worked with digital files for a while, who've found that something is missing from the look they are striving to achieve. They often find that by trying film - either for the first time or as 'returnees'. I find it strange that digital adherents can't then refrain from harrying the person that made that choice - on the basis of economy, ecology, aesthetics - whatever. This seems to me at least as bad-mannered as if I contributed to a centerfold-problem or cracked-sensor thread by writing: "HUH! I TOLD YOU SO!" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted September 13, 2010 Share #18 Posted September 13, 2010 I am going to smoke a roll of film and an SD card to decide which is best. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 13, 2010 Share #19 Posted September 13, 2010 We've discussed the different looks, and the reasons why film can, and often does, look very different to the same scene shot with a digital sensor many times before. I seriously can't be bothered to re-iterate them here again. Suffice to say, that some films can be shot with some lenses to look almost indistinguishable from film, and the opposite is also true. Very quickly (before I fetch my daughter from nursery) there are many people who've worked with digital files for a while, who've found that something is missing from the look they are striving to achieve. They often find that by trying film - either for the first time or as 'returnees'. I find it strange that digital adherents can't then refrain from harrying the person that made that choice - on the basis of economy, ecology, aesthetics - whatever. This seems to me at least as bad-mannered as if I contributed to a centerfold-problem or cracked-sensor thread by writing: "HUH! I TOLD YOU SO!" If you rank me there - you make a mistake. And if so, I resent the use of the word "harry" as soon as somebody tries to present a balanced view. I am saying that many alledged advantages of film can be attributed to inadequate handling of the fairly new - compared to film- technical aspects of the digital capture. As for me - I use and appreciate both, but find the objective results of the fields where film used to reign come closer and closer as I progress on the digital path. Which, in my case, spans a decade already. Film- that I have used for five times as long. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted September 13, 2010 Share #20 Posted September 13, 2010 Burn the heretics! Come on chaps, why can't we all just get along...? Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.