Shooting both film and digital

[BradS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

27 minutes ago, gabrielaszalos said:

But you surely don't need a Leica M10 for that A phone should do!

 

Yeah.  iPhone, M10...whatever. It doesn't matter. Most people looking at digital images don't care and can't tell the difference.

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

10 minutes ago, BradS said:

 

Yeah.  iPhone, M10...whatever. It doesn't matter. Most people looking at digital images don't care and can't tell the difference.

I’ve exhibited silver prints and digital prints together, and viewers can’t determine gear, and don’t care (except for some gear oriented photographers). The picture and print either resonates with the viewer or not.

Some people create marvelous work with meager tools, while others create mediocre work with the latest and greatest gear.... film or digital.

Jeff

[Ko.Fe.]

I know one person who does use digital M and only for paid work and for street photography. He is probably next to one who does it with good results I'm aware of. Big names like Bruce Gulden are using anything else, from Q to some DSLRS. Or just mobile phone, like Pinkhassov.

I came to film M after getting into film for real in 2012. I have tried all possible film formats and dozens of all kind of cameras, but M4-2 is the winner for awesomeness. 

Been getting more busy and more tired by routine of developing, DR printing, I was lucky to get new M-E 220 as BDP(G). Purchased used M8 after it, just for curiosity and sold it quick.

I like M-E 220 for its retro look and true M feel. Just like any Leica, nothing is close to how camera feels.

Results... It is camera with sharp sensor for sure. One of the sharpest. MPs amount has nothing to do with it. I also like how it could take very old lenses and handle them well. Newer digital Ms... colors are OK, but not in Olympus, FujiFilm awesomeness. 

 

I still accumulated too much of non M film gear and it has to go. 

From one PoV I would like to get M 246 by selling next to all gear, including M-E 220, M4-2. I don't mind to keep just my family FED-2 and freshly serviced IIIc I purchased this year. Just to get BW DR prints once in a while. Color is just waste of time and money now on film, IMO.

The problem is, I'm not sure if I would be able to be satisfied with digital M (Monochrome) results. 90% of what I have seen so far are not in the BW film, darkroom prints league for BW tonality. About 50% of what I have seen from Monochrome cameras is next to awful, IMHO.

So, I might just keep M-E 220 for its awesomeness and M4-2 and Summarit 35 2.5 as cute tool for good quality BW DR prints.

Any M to me is more like feel good, nice to handle and wear cameras. More as fashion and passion statement now.

If I need no hustle, guaranteed results, I rely on Canon digital gear. Not as sharp as I could get with digital M, but the rest is much more easier to get. Focus, white balance, correct exposures and so on...

But even for sharpness and MPs, I know professional who switched to FujiFilm digital medium format recently...

 

[Ko.Fe.]

8 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

I’ve exhibited silver prints and digital prints together, and viewers can’t determine gear, and don’t care (except for some gear oriented photographers). The picture and print either resonates with the viewer or not.

Some people create marvelous work with meager tools, while others create mediocre work with the latest and greatest gear.... film or digital.

Jeff

I prefer to take pictures of trees with non RF gear. But I have seen only few decent photogs with SLR on the street. LF cameras will beat Leica for portraits. But, personally, if it would be silver prints of trees and portraits, I won't even bother to see such exhibit.

Over the years I went for street photography exhibitions and next to all were taken with film Leica RF.

Victor Kolar, GW, George S. Zimbel. I liked VM's Leica photography more than her TLR photos. I was at Meyerowitz prints sale and honestly results from Leica were much more alive than his LF exercise.    

[Jeff S]

6 minutes ago, Ko.Fe. said:

Over the years I went for street photography exhibitions and next to all were taken with film Leica RF.

 

Vivian Maier.   And many others. You need to get out more.

Anyway, that wasn’t my point.

Jeff

[gabrielaszalos]

I really love this forum and the community. Such good and insightful answers. This thread grew much more than I expected and didn’t escalate to a film vs digital scandal  

The actual hidden reason behind my original post was figuring out why I actually even need two cameras (both film and digital) because it’s not clear to me. I’m not even sure I need a digital camera, but I do like Leica and the experience. 

[Narsuitus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, plasticman said:

Funnily enough I do the exact opposite.

That is funny but totally understandable. I, too, am very satisfied emulating black&white film on my digital cameras. However, I enjoy developing film.

Before the digital age, I enjoyed developing my own b&w film and color slide film. When it became too difficult for me to find a reliable source for 1-gallon E6 chemistry and a good supply of color slide film, I found it much easier to use a digital camera for all my color work.

On the other hand, since I still shoot medium format and large format black & white film, it is easy for me to also shoot 35mm b&w film and develop all the film myself.

If I ever find a medium format digital camera that I like, I will probably stop shooting black & white film.

Edited December 7, 2020 by Narsuitus

[Knipsknecht]

vor einer Stunde schrieb gabrielaszalos:

... but I do like Leica and the experience. 

... that‘s a pretty good reason!

[Ko.Fe.]

1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

Vivian Maier.   And many others. You need to get out more.

Anyway, that wasn’t my point.

Jeff

Did you read my post with some attention? VM is Vivian Maier. I have been at two of her prints shows, BTW. Both had Leica prints which I liked for more interesting photos. 

Your point is well taken. Some prints with some content are irrelevant to the camera they were taken.    

[Jeff S]

30 minutes ago, Ko.Fe. said:

Did you read my post with some attention? VM is Vivian Maier. I have been at two of her prints shows, BTW. Both had Leica prints which I liked for more interesting photos. 

Your point is well taken. Some prints with some content are irrelevant to the camera they were taken.    

Missed the VM reference; most viewers have a different reaction. 
 

One of my favorite photographers of all time, Andre Kertesz, proved that one could produce consistently wonderful work, including street, regardless of camera brand, type or format, using gear ranging from glass plate to Leica to SLR/telephoto to Polaroid.  He had the best tools between his ears.  

Atget worked the streets of Paris pretty well with his large format camera. 🙂

Jeff

[logan2z]

2 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Missed the VM reference; most viewers have a different reaction. 
 

One of my favorite photographers of all time, Andre Kertesz, proved that one could produce consistently wonderful work, including street, regardless of camera brand, type or format, using gear ranging from glass plate to Leica to SLR/telephoto to Polaroid.  He had the best tools between his ears.  

Atget worked the streets of Paris pretty well with his large format camera. 🙂

Jeff

Although Lee Friedlander used a Leica for much of his work, he did shoot some of his street photography using a Hasselblad SWC.  Other street/documentary photographers used SLRs, like Tish Murtha, Don McCullin, etc..  I'm sure there are many more examples.

[Jeff S]

58 minutes ago, logan2z said:

Although Lee Friedlander used a Leica for much of his work, he did shoot some of his street photography using a Hasselblad SWC.  Other street/documentary photographers used SLRs, like Tish Murtha, Don McCullin, etc..  I'm sure there are many more examples.

Indeed.  Robert Frank used various cameras, including Rollei, Mamiya and others. Many well respected photographers worked ‘on the street’, using many different cameras. Paul Strand, Brassai, Weegee, Berenice Abbott, Walker Evans, etc, etc.

Jeff

[sblitz]

Sometimes a digital camera is more convenient to use, depending on subject, light, etc. I will often take my Leica CL (digital version) with me to take snaps of the grandchildren -- running about, inside, outside, etc. There is plenty of reason to carry both on a trip, causes me no problem or angst. Also, when you get back you understand how all the dollar outlay for a digital camera is upfront and with a film camera that trip can become very expensive when paying for the development, scanning of many rolls of film (I have taken to scan more on my own these days).

 

[Mr.Prime]

For me, as with many others who enjoy photography as a hobby, it's the process of taking photos that is just as important as any results. Using film with a mechanical camera is a very different experience. You can't see the image you've captured at the time of capture and there's often a lag of several days for me to get a processed film roll returned with eager anticipation (I have a roll of HP5+ to pick up today). The cameras and lenses are a joy to use, no worries about 'did I charge the battery' and the constraints of having a limited qty of exposures, a fixed ISO, a fixed B&W vs Colour, no AF - these things force me to engage fully with the taking of the photo. I scan my film at home, where I like to have the control over the process and results. I used to process my own film but I no longer have the gear so I use a local store who works with a lab. I may venture into doing my own development for B&W as this seems to provide another layer of enjoyment and opportunity to control outcomes. I'm looking forward to exploring colour film again, never used Portra and that's an exciting prospect of new things to explore. 

 

I have a digital CL too. I don't get the same joy from using it as my film cameras and since I no longer use MF or LF film I would use this camera for shots on those occasions where it is important to me to have a higher level of detail or more immediate results than I can achieve from 35mm film.  I don't sell photos, it's just a hobby. What I have realized for ME, for my needs, is that the fun part is in the creating of the images, but once that process is finished and perhaps the results have been shared with friends and family, that's the end of it. I don't need to optimize my flow for commercial purposes - if I did, I'd certainly be using a DSLR as from my experience they readily kill RF's for productivity. However, I've not had a digital M, perhaps I might change my tune a little if I had an M10D to use, it might give me the best of both worlds but unfortunately, they're almost unavailable and hence also traded at silly prices.

Edited December 8, 2020 by Mr.Prime

[edstock]

When I shoot film it’s either color or B&W. Digital is always color. Digital B&W always leaves me feeling flat. Since I don’t work professionally any more I find that the digitals sit on the shelf and I grab one of my numerous film makers.

[oldwino]

On 12/7/2020 at 9:18 AM, gabrielaszalos said:

The actual hidden reason behind my original post was figuring out why I actually even need two cameras (both film and digital) because it’s not clear to me. I’m not even sure I need a digital camera, but I do like Leica and the experience. 

Most of use don't "need" two (or more) cameras at all. But for many, myself included, part of the appeal to photography is in using the gear, and most of the pleasure of using the gear, for me, is found with mechanical, film-eating cameras. I have a few digital cameras, too, and they are amazingly easy and consistent to use. 

The other day, my wife and I went for a walk in the woods, and I decided to take my trusty M2 and 35 'cron and a roll of Delta 400. It was wonderfully liberating, snapping away (just 36 times!), not expecting or caring about anything "great". I developed the film the next day, and scanned them later in the evening. So nice!  Nothing looks like film...(and again I think about reactivating my darkroom)...

[Pyrogallol]

On 12/7/2020 at 4:28 PM, Jeff S said:

I’ve exhibited silver prints and digital prints together, and viewers can’t determine gear, and don’t care (except for some gear oriented photographers). The picture and print either resonates with the viewer or not.

Some people create marvelous work with meager tools, while others create mediocre work with the latest and greatest gear.... film or digital.

Jeff

Digital prints have perfect black borders, darkroom prints have human black borders with little imperfections, depending on how good you are at printing them on by whichever method you use.

[Jeff S]

10 minutes ago, Pyrogallol said:

Digital prints have perfect black borders, darkroom prints have human black borders with little imperfections, depending on how good you are at printing them on by whichever method you use.

Neither my digital prints nor my silver prints have black borders.  
 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[gabrielaszalos]

40 minutes ago, oldwino said:

Most of use don't "need" two (or more) cameras at all. But for many, myself included, part of the appeal to photography is in using the gear, and most of the pleasure of using the gear, for me, is found with mechanical, film-eating cameras. I have a few digital cameras, too, and they are amazingly easy and consistent to use. 

The other day, my wife and I went for a walk in the woods, and I decided to take my trusty M2 and 35 'cron and a roll of Delta 400. It was wonderfully liberating, snapping away (just 36 times!), not expecting or caring about anything "great". I developed the film the next day, and scanned them later in the evening. So nice!  Nothing looks like film...(and again I think about reactivating my darkroom)...

Thank you for this answer. I do share the sentiment. 

[bilbrown]

On 12/7/2020 at 8:37 AM, Ko.Fe. said:

I know one person who does use digital M and only for paid work and for street photography. He is probably next to one who does it with good results I'm aware of. Big names like Bruce Gulden are using anything else, from Q to some DSLRS. Or just mobile phone, like Pinkhassov.

 

Bruce told me once that when he was using the S that he could get images that he couldn't get with the limitations of the M and film. Now he is using and M10 as well as the S for his portrait and commercial work. Recently he did one of the covers for my friend Olivier Zahm's Purple Fashion magazine. Looks like he used the S, as when he shot for GUCCI.

 

 

On 12/7/2020 at 8:37 AM, Ko.Fe. said:

But even for sharpness and MPs, I know professional who switched to FujiFilm digital medium format recently...

 

Yes, and a lot of those people have let that camera go. Most people I know went to the Fuji GFX loved it for the fact they could adapt their old MF lenses, but weren't completely happy with the sensor – even at the 100MP of the flagship GFX. They will get a Hasselblad or a Leica, or if they are really in the dough a Phase One. I recently dropped my Pentax 645Z, but kept my Leica S typ 007. I don't know if I ever will get the S3, but even though my M10R has the equivalent MP or more, and if I really wanted or needed more I could go to scanning slide film at 80MP or higher or rent/borrow and SL2 it just doesn't have the same rendering as that 16bit sensor of the S typ 007 and the 14bit of the M10R. I am looking for depth more than anything.

 

I will agree with you about the Monochrom cameras. I have owned the CCD M9 Mono and the M typ 246, I loved them but no they didn't have the same depth as film. There is something about the WET process of film that the DRY process of instant digital just can't replicate. Can't quite put my finger on it... but even in color.... Araki once said, "Red is biological, its wet like menstrul blood (ha, Araki...). Color shouldn't be dry like digital." Maybe he's right.