B-A-C Posted April 5, 2014 Share #81 Posted April 5, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Firstly, digital is great. So this is not a film vs digital debate for me. Until 2013 I had not shot film since 2001. I bought this old M6 because I cannot afford a digital M. Wow! What a blast! I have learned more about photography because of film than I would have otherwise. While owning an X100 I take out the M6 90% of the time. In fact if I didn't have the M6 I wouldn't be going out to photograph that much. Another fun aspect for me is the various film types available. It's so fun to change between Tri-X and Portra and Neopan....etc. Lastly I simply love Leica M lenses. Holding one in my hand is pure magic. I realize these lenses are film and digital but Leica lenses are technical marvels to me. Fun! Good shooting! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 Hi B-A-C, Take a look here what are the reasons we shoot film today?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
becker Posted April 7, 2014 Share #82 Posted April 7, 2014 its the better sex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landberg Posted April 7, 2014 Share #83 Posted April 7, 2014 Why not? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernd_muc Posted April 13, 2014 Share #84 Posted April 13, 2014 I would like a film Leica M6 or MP - funny thing though is that few people really dare to auction these cameras - most of them (that I saw) were for sale for 1000+ or start auctioning at a ridiculous price. That said, I "shot" a nice Busch Pressman D 4x5 for almost no money to re-start my analog adventure Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted April 13, 2014 Share #85 Posted April 13, 2014 its the better sex but not better than sex . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucisPictor Posted April 13, 2014 Share #86 Posted April 13, 2014 One reason for me is to have some film negatives of my kids which will even be there if all my digital backups were deleted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
myshkine Posted April 15, 2014 Share #87 Posted April 15, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) For me among the reasons are photos such as the ones below, from the '40s. The b/w is simply stunning. The colour one (next post) I believe must be a Kodachrome. Sorry Mod's if I posted pics here, but to me they are the reason to continue shooting film (as long as I find labs processing them...). [ATTACH]431662[/ATTACH] Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/223948-what-are-the-reasons-we-shoot-film-today/?do=findComment&comment=2568553'>More sharing options...
myshkine Posted April 15, 2014 Share #88 Posted April 15, 2014 The Kodachrome Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/223948-what-are-the-reasons-we-shoot-film-today/?do=findComment&comment=2568554'>More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted April 15, 2014 Share #89 Posted April 15, 2014 For me among the reasons are photos such as the ones below, from the '40s. The b/w is simply stunning. The colour one (next post) I believe must be a Kodachrome. Sorry Mod's if I posted pics here, but to me they are the reason to continue shooting film (as long as I find labs processing them...). Myshkine, Stunning indeed. Do you have negatives for the B&W shot? If so is there an emulsion identifier in the edge markings? Thanks, s-a Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamey Posted April 16, 2014 Share #90 Posted April 16, 2014 Lovely images. What is the reason why I still shoot Film today, because there isn't a real alternative. Ken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
myshkine Posted April 17, 2014 Share #91 Posted April 17, 2014 Myshkine, Stunning indeed. Do you have negatives for the B&W shot? If so is there an emulsion identifier in the edge markings? Thanks, s-a Unfortunately not. Actually the photo is taken from the internet. I agree it would be interesting to know the emulsion type. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted April 17, 2014 Share #92 Posted April 17, 2014 Unfortunately not. Actually the photo is taken from the internet. I agree it would be interesting to know the emulsion type. Thanks anyway. Very nice job scanning, btw. s-a Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xalo Posted April 17, 2014 Share #93 Posted April 17, 2014 For me among the reasons are photos such as the ones below, from the '40s. The b/w is simply stunning. The colour one (next post) I believe must be a Kodachrome. Sorry Mod's if I posted pics here, but to me they are the reason to continue shooting film (as long as I find labs processing them...). [ATTACH]431662[/ATTACH] Actually, this great image looks familiar but I cannot attach the author to it now — which, no to be totally OT, could also help to find a clue about the emulsion. Would you mind to indicate the source, ideally the author? (This, btw, is generally good practice, I think.) Alexander p.s.: Just found that Stanley Kubrick took the pic in 1946 and prints were made available in 2011 by the Museum of the City of New York (now under cc licence?). So, if someone in NY wants to quickly ask there what film Stan was using back then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted April 17, 2014 Share #94 Posted April 17, 2014 whatever the emulsion, whatever the year, this picture proves a beautiful woman is timeless Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted April 17, 2014 Share #95 Posted April 17, 2014 Add to that, a beautiful dress. I was lucky enough to see an exhibition of Stanley Kubrick's still images on one of my visits to Venice, shown in the Palazzo delle arti, delle scienze e letteratura. I am wondering if I saw that image then because it seems familiar. He worked with a Leica 111f and his images were great. He had a fabulous eye for composition and moment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted April 18, 2014 Share #96 Posted April 18, 2014 Agreed! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJH Posted April 18, 2014 Share #97 Posted April 18, 2014 Simply for most of the reasons already espoused by others in this thread and in particular Doc Henry's points. Its an odd thing but I find that I am enjoying photoshop much more now when handling the scans I get back from the lab then I managed when processing DNGs from the M8. Wasted far to many hours in the past fiddling with white balance and tone trying to get colours I liked or constantly tweaking the clarity slider etc. on B&W images, argggghh digital outside of the incredible Fuji-X jpegs was just pure frustration for me. It also needs to be said that the film M bodies are just so much sexier than the digital ones Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJH Posted April 18, 2014 Share #98 Posted April 18, 2014 The Kodachrome [ATTACH]431664[/ATTACH] You see this is a great example of what I meant about digital and fiddling with colour, if you took a digital version of that photograph and it came up in photoshop with colours similar to that one (probably a horrid lurid version) then one would feel compelled to fiddle with it and try and get 'correct' colour whatever that is. As it is the colour and especially its tonality in that Kodachrome is perfect to my eye, it is what it is, it looks like an old Kodachrome and we can take it and love it or not as is without any desire to make it into something else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Martin Posted April 18, 2014 Share #99 Posted April 18, 2014 If you any excuse to consider the quality of the images from black and white negatives have a look at the Vivian Maier book "Street Photographer" it's a fascinating story in its own right with some fantastic pictures too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luskentyre Posted April 18, 2014 Share #100 Posted April 18, 2014 My wife says the reason I enjoy shooting with film is that in the time between posting the film off for processing and getting it back I can convince myself I am a wonderful photographer. Until, that is, the film comes back and my obvious shortcomings are exposed. With digital the disappointment is instant. The real reason, as has been expressed by others, is simply the pleasure of using the collection of old film cameras that I possess. I have a ridiculous number of them but they are not shelf queens - they all get an airing from time to time. Currently I'm using my Leicaflex SL with the 60mm f2.8 Macro-Elmarit. Even allowing for the fact that the viewfinder is not at its best due to desilvering of the prism, it's still wonderfully easy to focus and the shutter noise is a joy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.