Guest malland Posted July 13, 2007 Share #1 Posted July 13, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) After posting the first picture below on the Photo Forum (People), and then looking at the second one below — both film shots — I started thinking whether the look of these pictures could drive me back to shooting with my M6 and film. Summilux-50 (pre-ASPH)/Nepoan 1600 DR Summicron/Tri-X But, then, I thought digital is no slouch either after looking at the following three pictures: Leica D-Lux 3 Ricoh GR-D And then I thought back to the real workflow of shooting film for me: 1. As I live in Bangkok and don't want to get into "tropical processing" I have to drive 45 minutes, just 2-3 miles, to drop off the film and back and another 45 minutes a couple of days later to pick it up. 2. Struggle to select frames for scanning from the contact sheets: not quite like looking at pictures in Lightroom. 3. Spend 15 minutes per high-res scan on an Imacon Precision III. 4. Spend another 15 minutes spotting or healing scratches, if any. In the end film does look like too much botheration! —Mitch/Potomac, MD Mitch Alland's slideshow on Flickr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 Hi Guest malland, Take a look here What would drive you back to film?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
telyt Posted July 13, 2007 Share #2 Posted July 13, 2007 film would have to give me instant clipping warnings if I were to consider it my primary medium. Checking the histogram afer the first few exposures allows me to adjust exposure if nessesary to prevent lost highlight or shadow detail: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted July 13, 2007 Share #3 Posted July 13, 2007 So after playing with a scanned image I can end up with this....... http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/29197-photo-im.html#post305281 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 13, 2007 Share #4 Posted July 13, 2007 Film will always be superior to digital as long as one compare apples to oranges i mean 24x36 or 18x24 bodies to small sensor digicams IMHO. Your pics # 3 and 4 could have been shot with an FF or APS body but # 1 and 2 would be impossible to get with a small sensor digicam due to the huge DoF of the latters. Great pics anyway! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted July 13, 2007 Share #5 Posted July 13, 2007 A giant electromagnetic pulse that destroyed every computer chip on the planet. Other than that..............digital photography it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapp Posted July 13, 2007 Share #6 Posted July 13, 2007 Private I am all film Professional I am all digital No way right no that I want to be both film or both digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted July 13, 2007 Share #7 Posted July 13, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) In some ways, I have gone back already, although I certainly don't feel that I have been "driven". It's horses for courses. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted July 13, 2007 Share #8 Posted July 13, 2007 Like I've just posted on the M8 forum this morning, I'm mostly using film these days ... digital has wasted a lot of time of mine. All I care about is pictures, right? ... they could be processed, and printed, framed by someone in the trade, who is more skilled and detailed than I am. That being said ... I'm not going to give up digital - I still have 6 DSLRs of different makes plus the M8 - because viewing pictures on the CRT/LCD has become a global trend. LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tummydoc Posted July 13, 2007 Share #9 Posted July 13, 2007 What would drive you back to film? If someone gave it to me for free, picked it up from me, developed it for free, scanned it at high resolution and burned it on a CD, brought it to me in about an hour. I'd still miss the instant review though. Unlike my pro friends who have a great deal of expertise and no trouble with getting the right exposure between shadows and highlights, with my lack of expertise I rely heavily on the histogram to know if I've got a printable exposure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry Posted July 13, 2007 Share #10 Posted July 13, 2007 Mitch, I'm still using film, so I don't need to be driven back. However, digital gets most of my attention nowadays. Great shots, BTW! Larry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
norm_snyder Posted July 13, 2007 Share #11 Posted July 13, 2007 Mitch-- Great work. This is great encouragement to consider a small-chip camera as back-up, rather than film. In my case, I just shipped my M8 [31003xx] back to Leica NJ, for consideration of what will be a second trip to the Solms camera spa, or possible replacement. I am carrying an M6, along with XP2 and/or HP5, the latter for push-processing, which I do myself [custom lab for C-41]. I must admit that the ability to change ISO has spoiled me...instead of having to change film in mid roll, remember to leave the tongue out and label the number of exposed frames, etc. How soon we can become spoiled. Also, the day I shipped the M8 off, I had occasion to be in a setting where a shoot was planned [fortunately close to home]. I put the M6 in the bag with the lenses, but forgot to put film in the bag! I realized how long it had been since I even had shot any film [Not since the M8 arrived last November]. Do you have a preference for the GR-D or the D-lux? I seem to remember a post in which you described the problems of using them in tandem, due to the differing user interface. Regards, Norman Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcd Posted July 13, 2007 Share #12 Posted July 13, 2007 Mitch - The pic made with the D-Lux 3 looks uncannily like Medan in North Sumatra, although I could be wrong... To answer your question, Since I got the DMR, and I was supposed to use my 2nd R8 body with film as a backup and I did NOT bring it to Indonesia, I have only shot digital with the R8/DMR and my little C-Lux 1 for almost the past 2 years or so. Now that I am visiting the folks in Canada and the DMR is in to get the function wheel repaired (the one that dropped off without warning last year) I only have film to contend with and the C-Lux 1. Here is the rub, I did not see this coming although Bill H had warned me, I don't wish to use film. Too many hassles, I got lazy, and I got used to not having to process film... Mind you there is a special portrait I want to do, I plan to do this one on film, but I still don't feel like it... I never thought I would utter these words... sigh... Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted July 13, 2007 Share #13 Posted July 13, 2007 What would drive you back to film? ... If someone gave it to me for free... In 2001, I attended a seminar at a pro photo store in the Boston area where a photog from the Buffalo area discussed his workflow, using a Kodak digital (Sony body and lenses) camera. He does a lot of yearbook and portrait stuff in his city. He said that after switching to the digital cameras, he saved $35,000 a year in processing fees. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent10D Posted July 13, 2007 Share #14 Posted July 13, 2007 He said that after switching to the digital cameras, he saved $35,000 a year in processing fees. That's exactly why I got into the M8. It is, as we all know, an expensive camera, but after doing some simple arithmetic it was clear that if I were to attempt to do the same type of shooting with film I would easily spend the cost of the M8 and a decent lens on film and processing in less than six months. An active pro would do it in much less than that. So although I do like the look of film, and am tempted everytime I see a great film shot, I just go back and review the arithmetic and am un-tempted in pretty short order. Besides, the possbilities of digital are only just beginning to be explored, and it's kind of fun to be on the bleeding edge (if a little scary at times). Maybe one day, when I have more time than I do now, I'll do film again just for the heck of it. Cheers, Kent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted July 13, 2007 Share #15 Posted July 13, 2007 With art based photography and there are some of us who actually make a living from it, financially there is very little difference, as the costs are in the printing, framing, gallery fees etc Sorta lucky in that there is the luxury of using, from large format, digital to pinhole 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/28857-what-would-drive-you-back-to-film/?do=findComment&comment=305313'>More sharing options...
rivi1969 Posted July 14, 2007 Share #16 Posted July 14, 2007 In my case there is nothing actually that could make me even think in going back to film... I love the look and feel of my pictures and I like them because I am not trying to emulate any format. The important thing the moment I am able to capture, the camera is secondary. (Even though I am very happy with my L1) 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/28857-what-would-drive-you-back-to-film/?do=findComment&comment=305348'>More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted July 14, 2007 Share #17 Posted July 14, 2007 ...Do you have a preference for the GR-D or the D-lux? I seem to remember a post in which you described the problems of using them in tandem, due to the differing user interface...I think the GR-D produces somewhat better RAW files and the prime lens has better quality than the zoom of the D-Lux 3, but of course the latter cab give me the equivalent of 40-50mm. —Mitch/Potomac, M Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted July 14, 2007 Share #18 Posted July 14, 2007 Mitch - The pic made with the D-Lux 3 looks uncannily like Medan in North Sumatra, although I could be wrong...It's in Huahin, Thailand. —Mitch/Potomac, MD Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted July 14, 2007 Share #19 Posted July 14, 2007 I have not shot a piece of film in at least 8 years, so going back would take a serious amount of reasoning to do so and it is just not there for me anymore. I have no clients that ever even ask for it and they all want digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham_mitchell Posted July 14, 2007 Share #20 Posted July 14, 2007 Even if the film were free, plus free processing, scanning, delivery, etc I still couldn't be persuaded to use it. Only exception is if it is 4x5 or larger. Then there is still a resolution benefit to compensate for all the inconvenience. No matter what examples people show in defence of film, I can't help thinking every time that I could achieve the same look with a DSLR after 5 mins in Photoshop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.