Jump to content

Back to film?


LeicaBraz

Recommended Posts

I think it only makes sense to go back to film if one develops film at home and then either wet-prints (horror!) or scans.

 

Agree?

Thanks

 

Personally I don't agree. I use colour film, C41, and I have a good lab in my home city who will process and print at a very reasonable cost, and do a good job. I like the discipline of 36 exposures in a roll; that is, the constraint of making a higher proportion of my images "count".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've not 'gone back' to film, I've never 'left' film.

 

It makes sense to use it if you want to use it. How doesn't matter. It makes sense to use my existing cameras, rather than making them redundant and spending money I don't have on high end digital cameras. It makes sense because I generally prefer the look of my film images.

 

I process my own B&W film (no additional space required) and scan the negs. I have the option of making a wet print if I choose - either commercially or by hiring a darkroom if I wanted to.

 

I use C41 and E6 and have them processed for me.

 

A scanned negative, printed on the inkjet, looks very different (to me) compared to a digital image.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes sense if you can use the cameras you want to use, and achieve better results than most achieve after hours of work with their digital files. Taken 300 photos on holiday? No problem. Peak imaging will have finished them in a day. Perfect!

 

Pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think it is a question of sense or what is the sense of using exorbitant expensive camera gear ?

I have fun using film and I want to use it. When I compare for examble portraits made with my M8 with portraits I did with my Hasselblad on film, I find more sharpness in digital but more nearness on film.

I just have had a nice weekend at the baltic sea. I carried with me a M6 and a M8 with 28, 40 and 75mm and a Hasselblad with 50 and 80mm. I did one roll Tri-X 120, one roll Tri-X 35 and about 40 captures on a SD-card.

Both worlds have their advantages, so if you ask for sense, I would say it make absolutely sense to use both technics;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I fail to see the supposed wisdom of sinking $8000US into an M9P or $7950 US into a Monochrom-M when I have two perfectly good film M cameras in my camera bag that I am content with.

 

That rings even more true given that I enjoy working with film and prefer the fingerprint of film based prints compared to digital images.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...