Shooting both film and digital

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

38 minutes ago, Steve Ricoh said:

I’ve thought about this some more. The most important consideration is making photographs that appeal, and it splits us broadly into two groups: those who like cameras but struggle making anything but boring images, apart from the odd accidental gem. The other group can make ‘art’ with any camera, analogue, digital, 35mm, 120, large format...

I openly admit that I’m in the first group. 

But even for the second group, success isn’t a given.  Ansel sucked at color.  Best to find one’s style and strength.

Jeff

[Advertisement]

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

[gabrielaszalos]

41 minutes ago, Steve Ricoh said:

I’ve thought about this some more. The most important consideration is making photographs that appeal, and it splits us broadly into two groups: those who like cameras but struggle making anything but boring images, apart from the odd accidental gem. The other group can make ‘art’ with any camera, analogue, digital, 35mm, 120, large format...

I openly admit that I’m in the first group. 

I think you're in the right group Steve. And I think that's true for most people. Nobody makes 100% art all the time. There are bound to be some bad ones, and as @Mr.Prime wisely said, you'll soon have sufficient of them and perseverance pays off. Enjoying the process is a good (if not the best) step towards that. I'm also in the first group FWIW  

[andrew01]

1 hour ago, Steve Ricoh said:

I’ve thought about this some more. The most important consideration is making photographs that appeal, and it splits us broadly into two groups: those who like cameras but struggle making anything but boring images, apart from the odd accidental gem. The other group can make ‘art’ with any camera, analogue, digital, 35mm, 120, large format...

I openly admit that I’m in the first group. 

I am in the first group too. I have 19 film cameras and I enjoy shooting them all.  Occasionally I get some images I am happy with, but often these images would of been captured thousands of times by others before.  I enjoy the technical challenge of trying to get good results on film, and have learned to appreciate that the imperfections of film adds to the appeal of the images.  

[Steve Ricoh]

40 minutes ago, andrew01 said:

I am in the first group too. I have 19 film cameras and I enjoy shooting them all.  Occasionally I get some images I am happy with, but often these images would of been captured thousands of times by others before.  I enjoy the technical challenge of trying to get good results on film, and have learned to appreciate that the imperfections of film adds to the appeal of the images.  

I have been known to ‘hide’ behind the grain, I must admit. 😊

I’ve been looking at my last 7 years of photography. I started off quite mediocre, then peaked about 3 or 4 years ago, now I’m going down hill. Part of it I’m sure is my brain saying you’ve done that shot before, don’t repeat, don’t copy yourself. As a consequence I struggle making fresh ideas into images. Covid hasn’t helped of course.

Can anyone else relate to this, Covid is obvious so leave to one side?

[gabrielaszalos]

Interesting. I can relate a little bit. What I notice online when looking at Youtube clips of some film photographers, I notice that they don't mind taking the same photo many times. If the light is different the photo will be different too. I'm looking forward to see some other answers as this is definitely an interesting question 

[Jon Warwick]

4 hours ago, gabrielaszalos said:

Interesting. I can relate a little bit. What I notice online when looking at Youtube clips of some film photographers, I notice that they don't mind taking the same photo many times. If the light is different the photo will be different too. I'm looking forward to see some other answers as this is definitely an interesting question 

There are examples of some photographers being pretty focused on the same geographical areas (Gregory Crewdson comes to mind there), and i've seen a clip where i seem to recall another photographer (Mitch Epstein) discuss going back several times to photograph the same scene in different light until he got what he wanted.

I actually think Jeff's comment above is 100% perfect .... "Best to find one’s style and strength".  

I've been guilty of trying to do far too much color film (then color digital) over recent years .....indeed, it's recently become clear to me that the favourite images I've taken, and what i register when i photograph, are shapes / light / shadows that are inherent to B&W.  When i photograph, I seem to "see" everything BUT colour, and for me it's B&W that i've decided is now clearly my strength and style that i need to focus on.

Edited December 11, 2020 by Jon Warwick

[RayD28]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 12/6/2020 at 1:16 PM, gabrielaszalos said:

For those of you out there who own both film and digital Leicas - when do you choose digital over film? I know one obvious answer is commercial work for those who do that but I am more curious about other answers. 

Sorry to repeat some of the things others have listed.

1. Color.  I have not shot color film in many years since my only option is mailing the film off.  Plus the cost of color film and processing.  I believe a roll of color film and development and scanning for tiffs is about $30 per roll.  

2.  Fast shutter speed, either for fast action or shallower DOF in bright scenes.  

3.  Histogram when the action is fast and light is tricky.  

4.  I need to chimp to make sure I'm getting the shot, especially focus when it's fast moving action in lower light.  Also, camera shake is getting to be more common for me.

5.  Ability to change ISO.  

I often have a film and digital M in my bag, usually with different focal lengths.  It gives me options.  My results might suffer because of not not having a single purpose.  Also, I enjoy developing B&W film.  I only wish I had a film dryer.  

[Danner]

I like to carry the M6 with HP5+ loaded, and my Nikon Df, both with the same focal length lens.  I use the Df for color shots, and run in Df in B&W mode to chimp images (and histograms) for references in shooting the M6.  Not that I need the Df to shoot with the M6, but it does come in handy quite often.

 

My 2¢

[erniethemilk]

Like shooting both, but end up shooting more digital than film. If I have a specific project I want work on and I know it would look good on film, I’ll shoot with my M6. For more everyday shooting I choose my M10-P. 
 

In truth I much prefer the colour of film over digital in spite of many hours sitting looking at my computer screen I still come away never 100% satisfied with digital.  Conversely I love Tri-X but can find a happy place with black and white digital editing with a couple of presets I have. 

[Jon Warwick]

41 minutes ago, erniethemilk said:

In truth I much prefer the colour of film over digital in spite of many hours sitting looking at my computer screen I still come away never 100% satisfied with digital.  Conversely I love Tri-X but can find a happy place with black and white digital editing with a couple of presets I have. 

I have the same thoughts, ie, there is something I inherently like about the look from films such as Provia 100 or the newer Ektachrome 100.

I’m not entirely sure what causes that response, ie, whether it’s purely the colour science, or contrast differences, or both.

Funnily enough I was just playing with one specific image off my SL2 and trying to compare (and match) it to a drum scan off 5x4 Provia. I’m still confused what the differences are but maybe Provia inherently seemed to have less saturation in the yellow channel, and its greens are perhaps more saturated compared to the SL2.

I fiddled around with the file in Photoshop, and then also tried processing an untouched version of it in Color Efex. I thought Color Efex did a pretty good job via its Provia 100 preset in making a pleasing image.

If anything, it’s probably the case that the SL2 records colours more accurately than film - but I’m perhaps looking finding that accurate isn’t always the most interesting or pleasing.

It’s a broad question indeed, but if anyone has thoughts on what post-processing factors can help match digital to film’s colours / tonality it’d be good to hear.

Edited December 12, 2020 by Jon Warwick

[RayD28]

In my comment in Post 67, I was wrong about color film cost and processing.  Dwayne's photos will process color film for $6.  So cost of color photos is about $10 per roll + $6 processing + $1 for mailing to lab + $5 return shipping = $22.  Dwayne's offers high res jpeg scans for $9 but can just scan at home since I prefer tiff files.  

[mikeamosau]

I was shooting 100% digital on my Leica M, but in the last two years, I’ve bought three film cameras. I’d say I now shoot about 70% film and 30% digital. 

Main reasons are I love the look of both color and black and white film and the differences I get from the other cameras, like an XPAN for panoramic and Hasselblad 503cw for 6x6 medium format. 
 

When traveling I like shooting a lot of digital and editing at night or on the flight home, but I love the process of developing and scanning film at home. 

[Ouroboros]

All my personal photography is with film, both C-41 and black and white in several formats and has been from the early 70's, throughout the "Film is Dead" years of the early 2000's to date.  I can't understand why some people would use film for black and white and a digital camera for colour.  It is just as easy to home process colour film as it is  black and white film and is a much cheaper option than commercial film processing.

[gabrielaszalos]

11 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

All my personal photography is with film, both C-41 and black and white in several formats and has been from the early 70's, throughout the "Film is Dead" years of the early 2000's to date.  I can't understand why some people would use film for black and white and a digital camera for colour.  It is just as easy to home process colour film as it is  black and white film and is a much cheaper option than commercial film processing.

For me personally one put off from color film is digital post-processing since I like to scan my negatives at home. It’s fairly hard and complicated to get the colors right. Granted, I have to admit that I have not yet tried this and am judging solely on online communities. 

Edited December 14, 2020 by gabrielaszalos

[Ouroboros]

6 minutes ago, gabrielaszalos said:

For me personally one put off from color film is digital post-processing since I like to scan my negatives at home. It’s fairly hard and complicated to get the colors right. Granted, I have to admit that I have not yet tried this and am judging solely on online communities. 

If you've never tried processing colour film, and scanning it yourself how could you know? You might want to take a look through I Like Film. 

[ktmrider2]

I am presently on a trip through the Southwestern US visiting national parks in Arizona and Utah (Grand Canyon, Zion, Canyonlands, etc).  I am traveling by car so decided to bring just about everything (Leica M film, Leica M digital, 3f, and Rollieflex for MF).  At Horseshoe Bend yesterday, I tried to work with both digital and film M's.  I think I can safely say working with both is a pain.

I like both and enjoy the technology a modern digital body represents but since I have been using film since 1966, I much prefer film.  To make a long story short, I have decided using both digital and film simultaneously does not work for me.  I have decided to simplify my life and just shoot film during long hikes for the rest of the trip.  Currently, the M4 has Ektar 100 while the M2 is loaded with HP5.  To simplify even further, the M4 has a 35 while the M2 has a 50 mounted.  I will be leaving the M2 in the car and simply carrying the M4. 

I learned the KISS principle in the Marines years ago.  KISS is "Keep It Simple, Stupid."  and wiser words were never spoken.

[Mr.Prime]

I’ve also found that carrying both digital and film cameras to be less enjoyable than simply picking one or the other. I think they each require their own aesthetic and my old brain doesn’t like to flip back and forth. I’m happy with either, one at a time, not both together. I won’t sell or give up either option, each has it’s place. There is that fear of missing out when you decide to take only one with you, but it's been that way with film for years, having to pick your film type and lens selection for a trip when you can’t take it all. It’s also why I prefer primes, as a zoom is for me an attempt to postpone the decision til the last minute, an attempt to side step any fear of missing out because you don’t have the best suited focal length lens with you. However, in reality the consequence is that you end up crowding the decisive moment with too much choice about how to optimize the results and that is often ruinous. So your post reminds me how important it is to make those simplifying decisions when loading up on gear well before before setting out.

Edited December 21, 2020 by Mr.Prime

[gabrielaszalos]

FWIW to bring closure to the thread (since I have started it), I have myself discovered that I do not like shooting a digital Leica, regardless of how big of an advantage is to reuse my lenses, so I have returned my M10-D. To me, Leica is the mechanical film camera, and that experience does not compare to any other camera. I feel joy every time I press the shutter and hear that clack. I have a 35 and a 50, which are my two favourite focal lengths and I shoot a lot of HP5 at 800 which allows me to pretty much shoot in most conditions, from daylight to indoors in the evening (my lenses are 1.4). 

In the future I may buy another mechanical camera, either a Leica, or perhaps a medium format Rolleiflex or Hasselblad. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[LeicaS2]

I am no longer shooting for dollars, just fun.

I went digital when shooting for dollars and needed the largest resolution and sharpest lenses ten years ago with the S system. I left the M system. I had had two M6's an M8 and for a moment an M9.

As I shot more B&W I rationalized an M10M. And I started with a 12mm lens for architecture. I found returning to the RF was fun and satisfying. But as much as I liked using the 12mm lens, I also wanted color with the 12mm.  What to do?  I could get an SL2, a M10R, or go film and get a MP.  I watched the Red  Dot Forum on YouTube discussing analog M's and decided that I would give film a try. I placed an order with Leica Store Miami and Josh said he had no idea when an MP would be available. The cost of used MP's was almost the cost of a new MP, so I rationalized that if I didn't like the results I could flip it. No I'm not going to sell it now.

Back to the question, How do I choose which to choose, film or digital? My plan was to use the MP for color film with the 12mm. Digital for B&W. Now I realize I will chose film for when I am really relaxed and shoot film for fun and deferred gratification.  I send my film to DaleLabs.com for developing and scanning. So it's a long time to see the results. Which turns out to be fine, and actually enjoyable.  When I need to be sure of the shot, or immediate gratification, I shoot digital.  It's the act of shooting that makes me decide, no longer color or B&W.

For anyone who is trying to decide if they even want to shoot film, I have recommended looking at the images shared on this site. They are to me clearly film. If you like the look, then fine. It is a different effect. But my decision to shoot on ore the other is the action of shooting, not necessarily the result.

Jack

[edstock]

I started with film and will end with film. Digital to me, for me, is an easy out for making good images. If your don’t like the image shoot another and another till you get home, studio, and sit with Photo Shop to enhance your favorite image even more. Film means you have to be a photographer and not a pixel counter. Sorry if I offend anyone. I shot editorial and stock photography professionally for over twenty years. Digital was used only if the client requested it.