Has anyone gone digital then given it up?

[pedaes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having had, like many, a darkroom in the past I can understand people,as in TomB's post above, wanting to go for the whole experience if they have the facility and time. What I don't understand is shooting on film, having a lab process the film and scanning it to print digitally. Perhaps there is something in this I am missing, but it makes less sense to someone who has used film and wet printed for 30+ years before "going digital".

[wattsy]

What I don't understand is shooting on film, having a lab process the film and scanning it to print digitally. Perhaps there is something in this I am missing,

 

Yes.

1) Scanned film looks very different to digital.

2) Some people (myself included) prefer what you might call the film capture process. Film cameras tend to be simpler, are often quieter, work at a different pace and have a different vibe about them.

3) Some like to have a physical negative as an ultimate backup.

[Advertisement]

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

[andyedward]

i suppose i don't understand the concept of "giving up digital" as you stated in your original post. digital is the technology of NOW....my opinion that anyone into a particular interest should at least be versed on the machinery of now.

 

For example, a race car driver from the 70s may prefer driving race cars from the 70s, however he will surely be more than happy to drive a race car from now as well. The more options and the more experiences, the better, IMO. I don't really see the point in reducing one's technological options as it is merely introducing limitations to the mix.

 

What percentage of shooting time does your m8.1 take up?

[cheewai_m6]

I personally never considered giving up digital, but it has made me love film more. A bit like driving an automatic car, although I hate driving automatics, and i mean hate! I don't hate digital at all. It makes me appreciate and like driving a manual even more.

[wellyau]

i suppose i don't understand the concept of "giving up digital" as you stated in your original post. digital is the technology of NOW....my opinion that anyone into a particular interest should at least be versed on the machinery of now.

 

For example, a race car driver from the 70s may prefer driving race cars from the 70s, however he will surely be more than happy to drive a race car from now as well. The more options and the more experiences, the better, IMO. I don't really see the point in reducing one's technological options as it is merely introducing limitations to the mix.

 

How about painters? Should they be discarding their brushes and paints and taking up Wacom tablets and Photoshop instead? My vague plan for the future is to start selling prints of my work that I've shot with both large format and 35mm. It's my belief that a major selling point is that I'm using traditional processes.

 

Everyone has a digital camera and whether you're using a Leica digital or a Nikon D800, there's little to distinguish yourself from other digital shooters.

 

Sure if you're producing commercial photography, make your life easier but then the process is far less important than fine art/landscape photography that I'm interested in.

[Messsucherkamera]

Yes.

1) Scanned film looks very different to digital.

2) Some people (myself included) prefer what you might call the film capture process. Film cameras tend to be simpler, are often quieter, work at a different pace and have a different vibe about them.

3) Some like to have a physical negative as an ultimate backup.

 

Speaking as someone who shoots with Tri-X and an M4-P then has inkjet prints made, I will say +1 on wattsy's observations.

 

Some call this the "hybrid" process: Shooting film and then making inkjet prints from scans of the negatives. In some ways, this process gives the photographer the most siginificant benefits of both film based Leica M photography and inkjet printing.

 

My fine art prints are made by a professional printer who is both brilliant and extremely talented regarding the inkjet process. I have serious doubts that I would ever be able to match his expertise and results, given the mind numbing number of man hours (untold thousands) he has spent honing his inkjet printing abilities. Sure, I could print my own and save a ton of money; I could also produce half-assed prints that look like crap. What's the point of that??

 

I look forward to having my own wet darkroom again one day in the near future where I will be able to make my own silver prints. My focus will be on honing and perfecting my darkroom printing skills to eventually produce my own silver prints for exhibit but I will leave the inkjet printing to my colleague who currently makes my inkjet prints.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Messsucherkamera

[thrid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Tri-X

Picked up a 5D and sold it quickly.Lousy exposure range compared to negative film.

Back to Tri-X

D700. Great camera, rarely used it, sold it.

More Tri-X

D600 for work purposes. Nice camera.

Still shooting Tri-X.

Want an Imacon or drumscanner.

Edited December 12, 2012 by thrid

[thrid]

Yes.

1) Scanned film looks very different to digital.

2) Some people (myself included) prefer what you might call the film capture process. Film cameras tend to be simpler, are often quieter, work at a different pace and have a different vibe about them.

3) Some like to have a physical negative as an ultimate backup.

 

I couldn't be more in agreement.

[Messsucherkamera]

Tri-X

Picked up a 5D and sold it quickly.Lousy exposure range compared to negative film.

Back to Tri-X

D700. Great camera, rarely used it, sold it.

More Tri-X

D600 for work purposes. Nice camera.

Still shooting Tri-X.

Want an Imacon or drumscanner.

 

Interesting.

 

Perhaps there's a recognizable pattern here?

[thrid]

Interesting.

 

Perhaps there's a recognizable pattern here?

 

"The true definition of madness is repeating the same action, over and over, hoping for a different result."

- Albert Einstein

[kivis]

Although my digital shoots were generally very "accurate", I could never get excited about them. With film I get surprised with "character".

[stephen.w]

Next month I will be in Vienna and will hopefully trade my X1 (and possibly my Zeiss 35/2, but that's another story) towards a new 50 Summilux asph, assuming that LeicaShop have one in stock. If I do, my photography will also be 100% on film.

[too old to care]

I am not 100% film, but I did sell my 5DII and a bunch of L series lenses to obtain more darkroom equipment and a nice Hasselblad. But, it is still tempting just to grab a point-and-shoot (LX3) for those family shots, and I often use digital (Pentax K5 with bellows) to copy negatives or slides.

 

Wayne

[Kugelfest]

I absolutely love film but due to the conviniece with digital I recently picked up a M8. Kids and family takes alot of time these days so digital is really practical. Still shooting film though.

[semi-ambivalent]

I did not say one has to give up digital. Reread my post. I only if one wanted to or was considering it. This is not an anti digital thread.

 

This is a good point. There's lots of people who seem almost to try and create digital/film conflict (not saying you are ). They're two different workflows with differing sets of technology requirements. But they can co-exist just fine if people would just let them.

 

Digital has some advantages that are very hard to over-look. Digital PJ looks great but other than that most of the digital work I see is pretty hokey, as if people are just incapable of resisting all the dials and sliders in Lightroom (or whatever it's called). I think HDR images are an embarrassment. I prefer people demonstrate both skill and restraint.

 

For me film's needs operate on a more psychological level than do digital's. I am lucky to have a wet darkroom and the comfortable orange lighting, the smell of the chemistry and the steady stream of Jazz from the speakers slows time waaay down. It's profoundly relaxing.

 

Perhaps the OP could dabble cheaply in film without getting rid of the digital camera. Test the waters. The digital depreciation tax makes getting out painful, especially if you're going to eventually get back in.

[CalArts 99]

Everyone has a digital camera and whether you're using a Leica digital or a Nikon D800, there's little to distinguish yourself from other digital shooters.

 

The context and content of the image is what distinguishes someone from someone else. Think about it. Before digital, we were all using analog processes. Everybody had a film camera. What made someone different from anybody else were the final images that they produced. Robert Frank used the same camera, lenses, and film that people on this very forum are using (and hey, Sebastiao Salgado is using digital tools now.) The difference is Frank's intellect and the way he sees the world in front of him (and Salgado, too.) After all is said and done, the most important tool is what you already have between your ears and how you use it.

 

There tends to be much dwelling over the tools, materials, and technical end of the spectrum. One should just use the tools that they prefer, and which work for them to produce an end product. The emphasis should be on why one is making images in the first place, the context of those images, and the purpose of those images. But if a choice between film or digital (or 4x5 film versus 35mm film, etc.,) helps to promote one's own agenda with their particular image making (e.g., a certain aesthetic, etc.,) then one should certainly make that choice. (e.g., Sally Mann chooses to use arcane processes and antique cameras and yet while her technique is specific and intentional, there is a substantial context to her image making and why she is doing what she does. And the content of her images is directly related to the technical process itself.)

 

Nonetheless, the tools themselves won't necessarily make or break anybody. Case in point, if any of history's regarded photographers were 'stuck' with a simple digital point and shoot camera, they would have still made compelling images. The only reason a viewer of an image is ever interested in "what camera did they use" is to try to understand what they maybe should use to hopefully make the same sort of compelling imagery. Hence the constant references to HCB that Leica owners always make I think it's just part of human nature to feel that way (at least until they become more confident in themselves.)

[shootinglulu]

I don't dislike digital and I like the rendering of the M9 a lot of the time but it does not thrilll me as film does.

 

Next year I'm using film only -Rollei tlr and film M- not touching a digital camera and I'm hoping my bathroom efforts will improve. It's quite an exciting prospect.

[andyedward]

Speaking for myself and nobody else, the following quote by Theodore Roosevelt applies to my photography since moving to film, and to my life in general:

 

“Nothing in the world is worth having or worth doing unless it means effort, pain, difficulty… I have never in my life envied a human being who led an easy life. I have envied a great many people who led difficult lives and led them well.”

[patashnik]

If I had access to a dark room, I might have. But seeing that I have to scan those negatives, it hardly makes much sense to me.

 

Other than that, I think that my chrome Leica MP is a "better" camera than my Monochrom or M9-P. Go figure. Also, I never understood those "giving up digital" posts on a (digital) internet forum.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Cyril Jayant]

I shoot digital and film. I like them both. I also take showers and have baths. One is quick and convenient, the other is slower and more measured. One delivers a clean me with the minimum of delay. The other delivers a relaxed me but takes a little more time. I would never give up one for the other.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Well said and +ONE