Jump to content

I Still Prefer Film


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am presently in Santa Fe, NM, for the LHSA spring shoot.  There are about 30 individuals here and just about every model of Leica, especially the digital varieties like SL, CL, M10, and M240.  And don't even get me started about all the lenses.  And Leica tech is here if you need to borrow a piece of equipment, so you get the idea.  But there are a couple other film bodies and even a couple screw mount Leicas but I think everyone with a film camera is also carrying a digital body.

 

Now, I got an MP240 a few months ago.  I have not used it much primarily as I have not been shooting much.  Today, while shooting a couple different assignments here in Santa Fe, I walked around with my 1958 M2 with a 35 or 50 and TriX.  I pulled the MP240 out of the bag once for a color photo.  

 

I discovered that I much prefer film, probably because that is what I learned to use back in the dark ages.  I developed and printed 4x5 while in high school in the late 1960's.  I am not trying to start a digital vs film debate (obviously I use both) but was wondering which you prefer and why.

 

I like the feel of the film Leicas I own (M2 and M5).  I like the whole process of throwing TriX into a tank and checking out the negatives when I hang the film up to dry, etc.  Technology is amazing and I am not knocking it.

 

What do you like and why?

Edited by ktmrider2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I still like film, Tri-X in particular but I would not say that I prefer it over digital image making.

 

Would I choose to shoot with Tri-X or digital?  It depends on the application and the subject matter.  If I chose digital, would I process the files as color or B&W?  Again, it depends on the application and the subject matter. 

 

For documentary and travel work, I would go with my M-P 240.  Digital shooting expedites the image making process by the enormous flexibility it has to offer and the speed with which you can work; I do not engage in the "spray and pray" shooting style but speed is crucial in documentary shooting.  Images come and go in the blink of an eye.  If you are advancing the film or changing film when the critical moment arrives, you lose.  You miss making the image and it is gone forever, never to return. 

 

With my M-P, a 32gb memory card will hold a little over 1000 images; I do not miss shots when advancing the film manually and by being required to rewind and reload every 36 exposures as I do with film.  I have done travel work on film with my film MP (back when it was still in my kit) and my M4-P.  I remember the heartache of traveling with three large size 10.5x12 inch Domke Film Guard lead lined protective film bags stuffed with scores of rolls of film.  Travel photography is much less work and therefore more enjoyable when done with my M-P 240.  Printed image quality from the files the M-P makes is outstanding, with exhibit quality 16x24 inch prints being easily possible when shooting at low to mid ISO ratings.

 

Film is a great choice for specific projects where missing shots is less of a worry, such as a project near home where the subject matter is readily available on a regular basis and travel costs amount to a gallon or two of gas for the car.  Wet silver prints made from Tri-X negs are a thing of beauty; I find the printed image quality at 10x15 inches to be outstanding.  I have not printed to 16x24 inches from Tri-X negs as I am willing to print smaller to maintain a high level of print quality. 

 

I would suspect that with an ISO 100 B&W film that has been stand processed, printing larger than 10x15 inches while retaining a high level of printed image quality would certainly be possible, if the printer is highly skilled.

 

Processing the film is time consuming but still enjoyable.  Doing your own processing will produce outstanding quality negatives; just follow the directions given by the film manufacturer and the chemistry manufacturer to the letter.  Your negs will come out so much nicer than if they were run through a mass developing lab. 

 

There is no voodoo or black magic in developing film; the average photographer can easily develop B&W, C-41 and even E-6 film at home in the kitchen sink and get outstanding results.  Attention to detail is all that is required.  E-6 requires close attention to temperature control in the early stages of the process (it's the same with C-41, but a bit less critical).  That is entirely achievable by using warm and cool tap water as a bath to maintain correct chemical temperature in your developing tank and chemicals by immersing the tank in a sink full of water of the desired temperature.  B&W is a joy to develop compared to E-6; there are fewer chemicals involved, fewer steps and temperature control is not nearly as critical.  Developing E-6 does require more care, but it is by no means a torturous experience.

 

Digital prints are different from film based silver prints; each has its own unique and specific look.  I don't think in terms of one being "better" than the other, although each has its advantages as well as its shortcomings. 

 

I say shoot both film and digital, depending on the application and subject matter.

 

Those are my thoughts, based on my experiences. YMMV.

Edited by Herr Barnack
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In many ways I still prefer film, largely because I appreciate the mechanical design of film cameras, and I’ve enjoyed the processing since about 1960. But I haven’t processed color for decades, and I miss the convenience of fast, local slide and color print processing. (Yes, there is still a fine lab in Austin, but that’s a drive and traffic I prefer to avoid at my age.)

So since finding the M9 & 10 - where the shooting process is basically the same as with my M film cameras - I use digital more often. I never found a dSLR enjoyable, though I used film SLRs along with Ms for decades. The SL would be appealing for my R lenses, but I can’t justify the cost for the limited use compared to RF. So I have a roll in an R4 right now. It still takes me a while to use up 36 exposures.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

In many ways I still prefer film, largely because I appreciate the mechanical design of film cameras...

 

For me, it's precisely this. Putting in a new roll of film, the mechanical winder, there is just something about that, that makes film cameras just so much more enjoyable. I enjoy taking photos with my M9 now as much as the day I got it, maybe even more now... but I recently got an MP and the whole process is even more fun.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not have a film M at this moment, but in the past I have had an M6 and an MP. I have also owned both generations of the Monochrom as well as the digital M-D. I have brief experience with the M7 due to renting one over a weekend.

 

So, with that background out of the way:

 

--I prefer the ergonomics and tactile experience of the film bodies over the digital bodies. The shutter release in particular is far superior on the M7 and MP relative to the digital bodies based on the 240 platform (I cannot speak to the M10).

 

--I love the colors of Porta 400 and the fact that it requires essentially zero post-processing to suit my taste.

 

--I'm pretty happy with the B&W results from the Monochrom, and I don't feel like I am losing too much relative to what I could do with B&W film.

 

--I do not love the logistical hassle and cost of film; in my case, it means packing the rolls, mailing to a lab, waiting, processing JPGs to add correct capture date, and filing the negatives.

 

--I like how digital lends itself to situations in which I may only want to capture 10-15 frames; I know this is possible with film, but for me, with film I think in units of 37 exposures, and I don't like having a roll with a mishmash of different situations.

 

I tend to go back and forth between the two mediums in cycles that last about 12 months. As others have noted, neither medium is superior; they are simply different means to a similar end. There's a good chance I will remedy my current lack of a film M by picking up an M7 at some point next year. I shied away from the M7 at first due to the appeal of the MP, but I've come to realize (or admit) that I would be more likely to use a film body if it has automatic exposure.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I prefer film. That said, most of the photography I've done lately has been digital, although I've not done much of that due to pressures of work etc.

 

You can't deny the convenience of digital, but convenience is the main benefit of it IMHO. Like a take away or ready meal versus 'proper' home cooking.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like film because it is simpler to get on it what I like as final image and I like the film photography as much more simple and less hassle image taking experience comparing to digital.

 

The problem is in rapidly increasing prices on all films I like and absence of fast, reliable and not expensive service for film cameras I like (Leica film M). Youxin Ye could do only certain things.

For more complicated problems we have very few technicians left and Leica service is expensive and not always good experience.  

And darkroom paper cost a fortune now...

 

But, yea, if feels great to talk about film on forums! :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have come to dislike 35mm film because it is so tiny. Pulling 6cm x 10cm film from the developing spools and printing them is entirely satisfying. No confounded exaggerated miniature defects. No burdensome exaggerated lens defects. Beautiful gradation.

 

So, if one were to want the same in digital, just how large a $en$or would he need?

.

Edited by pico
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For documentary and travel work, I would go with my M-P 240.  Digital shooting expedites the image making process by the enormous flexibility it has to offer and the speed with which you can work; I do not engage in the "spray and pray" shooting style but speed is crucial in documentary shooting.  Images come and go in the blink of an eye.  If you are advancing the film or changing film when the critical moment arrives, you lose.  You miss making the image and it is gone forever, never to return.

 

Ha! I can relate to that.

 

I shot four rolls of film in near riot conditions last month. Trying to change film on the M7 while neither being crushed by the crowd nor destroying the camera in the process was more than a little entertaining. Whoever designed the film loading mechanism for these cameras clearly possessed more than the conventional number of hands...

 

That said, the only significant shots that I missed were entirely my fault - and the choice of film vs digital is something conscious to give an "old style" feel to the images. I also do not think that I would risk an expensive digital Leica in some of the environments that I seem to find myself these days :-(

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!

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have come to dislike 35mm film because it is so tiny. Pulling 6cm x 10cm film from the developing spools and printing them is entirely satisfying. No confounded exaggerated miniature defects. No burdensome exaggerated lens defects. Beautiful gradation.

 

So, if one were to want the same in digital, just how large a $en$or would he need?

.

Bit tough to lug on of those cameras around though . . . .  

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, it's precisely this. Putting in a new roll of film, the mechanical winder, there is just something about that, that makes film cameras just so much more enjoyable. I enjoy taking photos with my M9 now as much as the day I got it, maybe even more now... but I recently got an MP and the whole process is even more fun.

 

 

Very well put.

I shoot digital more because of the convenience but enjoy shooting film for above reasons.

I also like the general look of film and the variety it offers.

Shooting expired film with its surprises and imperfections is endearing as well.

 

Digital looks fine:

M-D

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!

 

But analog looks more human:

M2

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like film because it is simpler to get on it what I like as final image and I like the film photography as much more simple and less hassle image taking experience comparing to digital.

 

The problem is in rapidly increasing prices on all films I like and absence of fast, reliable and not expensive service for film cameras I like (Leica film M). Youxin Ye could do only certain things.

For more complicated problems we have very few technicians left and Leica service is expensive and not always good experience.  

And darkroom paper cost a fortune now...

 

But, yea, if feels great to talk about film on forums! :)

 

Very true. I see as main issue regarding analog film technology that there will be less and less people out there servicing older analog cameras. I was given last year a nearly mint Kodak Retina SLR camera with several fitting Retina lenses all in excellent condition. The camera obviously wasn't used for a long time, the shutter was stuck and the winder didn't work correctly either - probably the reason why the former owner gave it away to a friend of mine (wo abandoned film photography many years ago) and who then handed it to me. To my knowledge there are currently only two people left worldwide who are willing to fix these fully mechanical and complex cameras (one of them I found out about much later after I already had my camera fixed by the other who formerly worked for Kodak making these kind of cameras in the 50s). I didn't think twice spending about $200 to get it fixed because it won't get cheaper later if at all to fix, lubricate, and clean it. 

 

I needed CLA for my M3 after I purchased it - same thing, it was sitting in a dry basement for decades unused before I got it in otherwise nearly mint condition. Youxin serviced it for me which was saved me potentially from a lot of trouble and additional cost with Leica itself - the Leica service center in New Jersey didn't even reply to my email request if the M3 could be serviced. Similar issue: there are only a few people outside of Leica who are willing to service older analog Leica cameras. 

 

With the revival of analog photography I hope that some younger people passionate about analog cameras see this as market niche and future business opportunity. One company based in Finland is already out there buying, fixing and selling just analog camera equipment (they are not cheap unfortunately). But I am afraid that a lot of engineering/mechanical knowledge about analog cameras might get lost before this transition occurs. Then a nice older film camera might just become a useless paper weight or shelf decoration. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true. I see as main issue regarding analog film technology that there will be less and less people out there servicing older analog cameras. I was given last year a nearly mint Kodak Retina SLR camera with several fitting Retina lenses all in excellent condition. The camera obviously wasn't used for a long time, the shutter was stuck and the winder didn't work correctly either - probably the reason why the former owner gave it away to a friend of mine (wo abandoned film photography many years ago) and who then handed it to me. To my knowledge there are currently only two people left worldwide who are willing to fix these fully mechanical and complex cameras (one of them I found out about much later after I already had my camera fixed by the other who formerly worked for Kodak making these kind of cameras in the 50s). I didn't think twice spending about $200 to get it fixed because it won't get cheaper later if at all to fix, lubricate, and clean it. 

 

I needed CLA for my M3 after I purchased it - same thing, it was sitting in a dry basement for decades unused before I got it in otherwise nearly mint condition. Youxin serviced it for me which was saved me potentially from a lot of trouble and additional cost with Leica itself - the Leica service center in New Jersey didn't even reply to my email request if the M3 could be serviced. Similar issue: there are only a few people outside of Leica who are willing to service older analog Leica cameras. 

 

With the revival of analog photography I hope that some younger people passionate about analog cameras see this as market niche and future business opportunity. One company based in Finland is already out there buying, fixing and selling just analog camera equipment (they are not cheap unfortunately). But I am afraid that a lot of engineering/mechanical knowledge about analog cameras might get lost before this transition occurs. Then a nice older film camera might just become a useless paper weight or shelf decoration. 

 

Hopefully, current masters like Don, Sherri, and Youxin are transferring their knowledge to young eager apprentices.

Lack of qualified technicians, in the US at least, is apparent for Japanese mechanical cameras as well.

The only person to whom I'd trust my Canon F-1N is an octogenarian in California...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just back from a week on the most westerly point of Scotland with my family. There's no wifi signal, no internet, no mobile, no TV. It's really just about being in a beautiful part of the world. I reckoned the only way to get through it would be reading books, and photography. 

 

I packed my 1966 Leica M2, 1960 35mm Summaron F2.8, 2015 50mm Summilux ASPH black chrome edition, and five rolls of Kodak Portra 400. I've rarely shot any colour film and, incredibly, never shot a colour image on either of those lenses, since I either shoot an M Monochrom mk1, or black and white film. 

 

Anyway, got the films developed, and scanned them yesterday. To cut a long story short, I'm not hankering after an M10 any more. The basic scans from the negatives needed no tweaking whatsoever. The images are lush and subtle and quite beautiful to my eyes. I'd forgotten how nice colour film was. Add to that the simple pleasure of using a mechanical camera that's older than I am, and I'm almost a born again colour film shooter. Like I've discovered a long-forgotten secret.

 

Best wishes, and great thread, by the way.

 

https://www.instagram.com/colintempleton/

 

 

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!

  • Like 17
Link to post
Share on other sites

The first photograph...   :o  :o

May I ask which scanner you are using? I need to get one and have very little knowledge of them. I can get my hands on a secondhand Coolscan V albeit quite expensive. I'm looking at the Plustek 8200 too, which seems to be quite well regarded.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The first photograph...   :o  :o

May I ask which scanner you are using? I need to get one and have very little knowledge of them. I can get my hands on a secondhand Coolscan V albeit quite expensive. I'm looking at the Plustek 8200 too, which seems to be quite well regarded.

 

Thank you - afraid I'm not too up on scanners. Back in the nineties I had a Nikon Coolscan, and it was pretty good, but it broke in the end. I don't think they're made any more. I'm fortunate to be a member of Street Level in Glasgow these days, and they have a Hasselblad scanner, which I'm allowed to use. I'm told it's not far off a drum scan in quality.

 

Sorry I'm not much help. I can't help but think that there must be good and inexpensive scanners around now though. The technology has improved since the nineties, and there's a renewed interest in film.

 

Best wishes,

 

Colin

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The first photograph...   :o  :o

May I ask which scanner you are using? I need to get one and have very little knowledge of them. I can get my hands on a secondhand Coolscan V albeit quite expensive. I'm looking at the Plustek 8200 too, which seems to be quite well regarded.

 

I made very good experience both with Plustek 8200i and now after I upgraded to the Epson V850 scanner which can handle all kind of negative formats. I use predominantly SiverFast 8 software in its latest update version with both scanners, but the Epson scanner software isn't bad either. 
 
Main con of the Plustek 8200i is the inconsistent sharpness when scanning framed slides which can very in slide holder thickness. There is no adjustment possible to allow better focusing. But the 8200i shines when scanning film negative (or positive) strips - the results are very sharp and good looking. A bit of a drawback when scanning many negatives is that the film holder needs to be moved manually for each frame - so every frame needs to be first scanned and then manually moved to the next one. 
 
The Epson V850 is doesn't suffer from the debits of the Plustek scanners - it comes with film holders which can be adjusted in height to allow accurate focusing if needed (generally you will be fine in the lowest standard position). Con here is that the plastic feet are not well fixed in a position of the film holder and can lead to unsharp scans if not carefully monitored that the correct position remains. Nice thing is that up to 3x6 of 35 mm frames can be scanned one after another with one film holder - the scanner is faster at similar ppi resolution compared to the Plustek scanner and delivers same good results after a bit of sharpening applied. I normally scan 35 mm negatives/slides at 3200 ppi which allows a very good resolution suitable for larger prints.
 
One more thing regarding software which is not often discussed in reviews: The Plustek 8200 is supplied with the latest SilverFast 8 Ai Suite version which is better than the SilverFast 8 SE Suite which comes with the more expensive Epson V850 scanner. The SE Suite does not allow for 16 bit grey scan option and forces the user to use the multi-exposure feature instead or scanning with 8 bit grey scales only. The ME scan option works fine and is recommended to use to get a better tonal range. The Ai suite allows directly for 16 bit grey scans and has a few more customizable features which I didn't use yet. Unfortunately even when owning both software packs for each scanner model, one does not work with the other and is permanently fixed to the scanner model it came with. To run the Ai Suite with the Epson V850 scanner, it needs to be separately purchased which defeats the benefit of purchasing the scanner with the free scan software. 
Vuescan is another option, but it also needs to be separately purchased - I have no experience with it. 
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...