I seem to shoot differently with film. Do you?

[Guest nafpie]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Using film required more thought as you don't (or at least I don't) have unlimited chances to get the shot.

 

I disagree with that.

 

Stefan

[iShutterbug]

'tin ear'--tin neg, glass neg, celluloid neg (film), digital neg--each a different medium producing different results--add lenses to that mix--a discussion of infinity by finite minds, each with their own history, biases, skill level--'skill level'--that's judgmental, assuming a superior position as one artist who can judge others--we take what we will from the comments--back to 'tin ear'--they might not be getting all that's there but i for one trust they're enjoying what they do get--i imagine there'd be those who'd call my digital tin but sometimes it's a symphony to me.

 

--don

[Jaybob]

Don't confuse "slow/manual" with "film."

 

I actually don't shoot my M9 much differently than I did an M4 or M4-2 (and certainly very little differently than I did a motor-incorporated Konica RF). I imagine someone who used an EOS-1 film camera in 2000 and an EOS-1Ds today also notices very little difference between "then" and "now" - at least while shooting. With a digital back on it, my Hassy SWC would still be knob-wound, scale-focused and slow.

 

Certainly, in my film/SLR days, I much preferred using a Nikon F/F3/FM2 to an "auto-optimized" F4/F5/F100 - but "digital vs. film" was no part of that equation at all.

 

For better or worse, most cameras since 1985 have been motorized, AF, and occasionally biggish (except Leicas) - and therefore most digital cameras today are motorized, AF and occasionally biggish (except Leicas). But that has nothing to do with digital per se.

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

I think a person will shoot as deliberately or as un-deliberately as they want to shoot regardless of camera in hand.

 

For the wedding work I do, I shoot with a D3, but I prefer to have it on S (single frame advance) or CL (continuous Low) dialed back through the custom settings in the menus to 3 frames per second. 9 times out of 10, my finger is off the trigger before the third exposure is tripped. I shoot the same way with an F5, continuous low or single. Film or digital, similar bodies, same shooting style.

 

I'm not saying good results cannot be had using a machine gun technique, film or digital. For completely fluid situations like say, basketball, it's helpful to be able to have an advance speed that you can turn up. I remember a newspaper editor of mine who talked me into selling the two N90s bodies I was using in the late 90s to upgrade to F5 bodies. He told me that for sports shooting, I was gonna need those "in-between frames". I am not adverse to using continuous high of my digital camera if the situation calls for it, but all day? Just thinking about the noise alone gives me a headache.

 

I prefer not to shoot that way, for 95% of the photography that I now do.

I prefer not to have 4500 images to look through later as well.

 

Although I don't use an M9, I would imagine the techniques that I use for photography I wouldn't differ at all from the M2 or the M3 that I presently use.

 

I prefer to shoot deliberately regardless of digital or film, and whatever the advance rate is set on.

 

The Digilux 2 however, that's just plain slow.

 

Jay

[adan]

Here's a quick test - here's my magazine for Nov./Dec. 2010 (at least through Jan. 1 - those who come to this thread after then will have to look in the "back issues"). As it happens it contains a mix of film and digital shots, both by two different shooters.

 

Leaving aside technical considerations (not germane to this thread), can anyone tell BY SHOOTING STYLE which are digital and which are film?

 

ColoradoSeen - Home

 

I toss in this quote - although perhaps the source is not one respected in the Leica forum:

 

"Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not important." - Henri Cartier-Bresson

[Jaybob]

Here's a quick test - here's my magazine for Nov./Dec. 2010 (at least through Jan. 1 - those who come to this thread after then will have to look in the "back issues"). As it happens it contains a mix of film and digital shots, both by two different shooters.

 

Leaving aside technical considerations (not germane to this thread), can anyone tell BY SHOOTING STYLE which are digital and which are film?

 

ColoradoSeen - Home

 

 

Or Canon or Nikon or Leica?

[adan]

Let us say - SLR vs. rangefinder. There are some of each of those, too. I suspect that those may - may - be easier to distinguish. But not certain.

 

Another quote - surprisingly also from the master of the Decisive Moment:

 

"We seldom take great pictures. You have to milk the cow a lot and get lots of milk to make a little piece of cheese." - Henri Cartier-Bresson

[iShutterbug]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As one who's been shooting LTMs since the late '50s, and who still shoots their original IIIf, plus who has a state-of-the-art digital system and pp, I'm intrigued no one has mentioned measuring light, or exposure, so far in this thread, in which the thrust seems to be the deliberative intent when shooting film (vs auto digital).

 

If you grew up shooting film there was always one thing that slowed you down when the light was changing (and it generally was if you were outside) and that was the deliberative act of getting out the exposure meter and taking a reading. Often you had to make a minor adjustment in shutter speed or aperture, at which point you had to factor that into your overall photographic equation: would you increase/decrease shutter speed or f/stop; would you stop or blur action, increase or lessen dof, etc.? Dare we call that 'vision'--a photographic vision which stayed in our mind up until we had that film developed and we could see how close we came to our original 'vision', the reason we took that picture in the first place?

 

I just wanted to add that element to this discussion because it was a big one to me transitioning from all-manual classic film Leicas to modern all-automatic dslrs--where, yes, there's the automatic winding, automatic focus, automatic exposure, automatic everything--what the heck am I doing out here?

 

When I take the IIIf out sometimes I find myself wondering if slowing down and taking that incident/spot exposure meter reading and deciding speed/aperture is/was the fun of it, perhaps the meat of photography as it was. Getting that equation right. Assuming focus and framing and timing were similar in either mediums, that I think is/was the big difference for me.

 

I have to say that going back to film occasionally, recalling and forcing me to slow down and take into account all the elements, definitely makes me a better photographer, digital or otherwise.

 

--don

[bill]

Leaving aside technical considerations (not germane to this thread), can anyone tell BY SHOOTING STYLE which are digital and which are film?

 

Course not.

 

But, again, you are missing the point (and taking this debate into the realms of film vs digital, which I am sure none of us would relish).

 

You are inviting us to form an opinion based upon the end result. For me, that is only part of the story. I don't care a feather or a fig what tool you used to get the shot, nor how fast or how slowly you worked to do so. What I would be interested to know is this - did you enjoy yourself in the process?

 

The point I am trying to make is that the journey is as important - and as enjoyable to me as the destination. I enjoy shooting film; I enjoy thinking, I enjoy working within the confines of what I have loaded in the body at the time. It is no more complicated than that.

 

Your mileage undoubtedly does differ and that is fine; life would be boring if we were all the same. But please don't try to tell me that you and those who share your view are right and that I and those who see the world as I do are wrong - that would be terribly tedious, Old Boy

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[bill]

When I take the IIIf out sometimes I find myself wondering if slowing down and taking that incident/spot exposure meter reading and deciding speed/aperture is/was the fun of it, perhaps the meat of photography as it was. Getting that equation right. Assuming focus and framing and timing were similar in either mediums, that I think is/was the big difference for me.

 

I have to say that going back to film occasionally, recalling and forcing me to slow down and take into account all the elements, definitely makes me a better photographer, digital or otherwise.

 

Yup.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Jaybob]

When I take the IIIf out sometimes I find myself wondering if slowing down and taking that incident/spot exposure meter reading and deciding speed/aperture is/was the fun of it, the meat of photography as it was. Getting that equation right.

 

The Meter can be very helpful.

I carry and use a Sekonic handheld, D3 or M3, mostly to give myself a baseline. I've been a big fan of the histogram since about 1999.

[wildlightphoto]

... I'm intrigued no one has mentioned measuring light, or exposure, so far in this thread, in which the thrust seems to be the deliberative intent when shooting film (vs auto digital).

 

Perhaps because the auto/manual and film/digital choices are independent? Auto exposure came long before digital, and I use the R8/DMR in manual mode 100% of the time. The DMR's histogram is my hand-held exposure meter.

[adan]

Hi, Bill. I guess my point would be that I ALWAYS enjoy taking pictures, regardless of what's inside the camera. (Well, maybe not 8x10, and my 5D will be MORE enjoyable once I get a Haoda screen for it....).

 

I'd say a thread that starts out "I've noticed recently that I shoot differently with film." was on the film vs. - something - path from the get-go. Differently compared to what? Paper negatives? Wet Plates? Daguerrotypes? ___________?

 

100 years ago, if the Internet existed, there might well have been "film vs. glass plates" threads. (Someone with a collection of old BJPs can probably dig up a letters column from 1908.)

 

Today, if someone says "I shoot differently with film," the implied comparison is with, well, you fill in the blank.

[BRJR]

I've noticed recently that I shoot differently with film. I'm not even sure how or why, but with film I'm more likely to really capture a moment vs just get a shot. Obviously I shoot less, but I don't consciously think I'm 'waiting' for the right moment. Maybe being forced to slow down means that I don't take all the random shots between the really good ones? :-) I'm curious to know if anyone else finds they approach things differently--but not on a conscious level-- just curious to get others' thoughts on this.

 

Karen

1. I haven't shot zilch, nada, nada, nada with my Leica MP film camera yet; got this camera a few days ago, and it's quite baffling compared to my digital cameras, including my Leica M9 & M8.2 that all I had to do was insert an SD card, battery, slap on a lens & start shooting away.

 

2. First thing I need to do with the MP is to read the manual so that I'll know how to open the camera, insert a roll of film, take off that little cap on front of the MP's body, so that I can insert the battery (even though it's not needed, except for a wider range of metering). As you can see, I have quite a ways to go in getting use to a "film" camera --- but, I will make it.

 

3. Here's a picture (I've previously posted it) of my Leica MP film camera on top of the box (on the right) that it arrived in, along with some of my other, more straight forward gear :

 

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4002/5146370010_bf7ab90bda.jpg

[Julian Thompson]

For me the problem with the digital shooting is still restraint. even though I know I CAN delete unwanted shots I also know it adds a lot of work to editing later to actually sift through all those 'same old' photos and get to the crux of the scene. Sometimes, my selection will be poor and I'll make errors at editing point.

 

With film I make those choices at the point of shot - and so it's much harder work - but because I'm in the moment at that point the relevance of the editing is much better.

 

By editing later - sometimes weeks or months later - I don't feel as though I have the same artistic control. I'm an editor - not an artist. And I don't like that.

 

So - if I can be an artist in film then this is the ultimate for me. No amount of pixels can beat the feeling. But if I do shoot digitally then if I can mimic the frugality of proper film shooting and come home with a selection only of quality shots then that feeling comes close.

[tomasis7]

 

 

More or less.

 

Stefan

 

thanks for your such admirable open mindness.

 

for sure, your photos are fantastically interesting and you can troll everything

[Archiver]

Like many others, I shoot more deliberately with film, but I also experiment less. I am more comfortable to experiment with digital as I know that I haven't 'wasted a frame' which will cost me afterwards.

 

I also found that my skill and confidence with shooting a rangefinder increased dramatically with the M9, compared with the Zeiss Ikon. With the instant feedback I would know whether I had the image or not, and what I needed to do to make it right.

 

Transitioning from a very automated digital shooting mentality (a DSLR) to a film rangefinder was a real shock. I felt like I had to manually focus exactly every time, even in broad daylight and with a fast film that would have allowed textbook hyperfocal technique. The M9 gave me a steep but certain learning curve that offered feedback at every second, and now I am far more confident and proficient with rangefinder shooting (compared with before). I did not get that from film, despite running many rolls through the Ikon.

 

Now I have a M7, and I have good qualities from both worlds. My rangefinder technique is a lot better, I understand Leica metering much more, and I can get that 'film look' which I still have yet to achieve in Lightroom. Plus the feeling of shooting with a well crafted machine that will live with me for decades.

[qvsm]

Great thread, have enjoyed reading through this far. I bought an M8 this week - and for the same reason as above - it will help me experiment and learn my way into both the rangefinder and Leica M worlds. Likewise I'm coming from a canon full frame DSLR background so theres a lot to adjust to. The Leica that I lust after the most though is the MP, we'll see how the next 6-12 months go with the M8.