Is it worth buying analogue in 2021

[Jon Warwick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

I see film as a way to capture "art", not "reality", and it's the other way 'round for digital.  In other words, to me, there IS a place for analog in today's world, but I already have what I need.

In terms of capturing “art”, if you’re not familiar with his work, take a look at Gregory Crewdson’s projects. Say “Beneath the Roses” (which I think was shot on 8x10 film) and either “Cathedral of the Pines” or “An Eclipse of Moths” (which I think were both shot on medium format digital).

I think what these projects show is how art can be captured equally well on either film or digital. Crewdson has done a remarkable job of seamlessly tying in a similar feel across his magical worlds using either capture.

[Advertisement]

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

[intermediatic]

Thread is TL;DR but here’s my take on it. It all depends on film and processing available to you. I used to shoot film all the time when I was in Los Angeles and could run down to get my Velvia E6 (RIP) developed at the Icon on Wilshire Boulevard for world class developing*. I moved to the NYC area and everyone said use Duggal. The results were terrible. Much more grain and questionable colors. I tried a few more times. I thought it was the film but I had a project to do so I went back to Los Angeles and used film and the Icon again. Nope, still 100%.  

That said, even with the highest quality scan, I can’t get the same resolution out of a 35mm film as I can with a Q2, Q2M, M10R, M10M, SL2, or Sigma DP-L (my cameras these days). It’s just that simple. The last time I used film was in 2016 when I was doing a photo shoot at Green Bank Radio Observatory where digital cameras are not allowed. I still had Canon kit then and bought a film EOS body for the project. The quality was ok, but it definitely showed the limits of the resolution in the gallery. So that’s the end of that. 

 

*Once I was hosting a photographer/publisher from Barcelona who had spent 3 weeks photographing with large format in the desert for a book and he asked me for a top level photo lab so he wouldn’t have to take his film through the X-Ray at the airport. I said, oh down the street for me, sure, it’ll be ready in three hours. He was deeply suspicious. We went there. The place looks pro, of course, it’s no CVS. He gave them a tray full of film as if he was giving something to be blessed by the priest. He asked how long it would take, the guy at the counter said, well let’s see, it’s 330pm so 630 no problem. He was still suspicious. Then a guy came in with a completely full tray of film, clearly had done some massive project for Hollywood. “Oh, hi Henry” they said and he plopped down his film, spun around and left. That’s a top lab at Los Angeles.

Edited August 25, 2021 by intermediatic

[MikeMyers]

Hmm, what is "TL:DR" ??

I'm in Miami.  I found a very professional film processing lab, that also makes huge color prints.  All I need them to do is develop my negatives, which are all B&W, and based on my previous processing, I thought they did at least as I used to do, and probably better.   For color film I used to take it to CVS or the equivalent - I never got serious about color, as my one attempt at it was a disaster.  I didn't have the right equipment.  Cibachrome?  Maybe.  Way too long ago.

I'm confused as you wrote:

2 hours ago, intermediatic said:

I can’t get the same resolution out of a 35mm film as I can with a Q2, Q2M, M10R, M10M, SL2, or Sigma DP-L

Can I ask the following - what number of pixels on a sensor would be the equivalent as fine-grain film, if both were shot with the same lens.  I remember reading that digital was always trying to catch up with film.  Let's say the film camera had 100,000 pixels.  At some point, wouldn't the lens be the limiting factor?  Suppose we're using ordinary lenses, and not the very latest Leica lenses for many thousands of dollars (which I'll probably never own).  My lenses are old Leica lenses from the 1960's, and much newer Voigtlander lenses.  

Then too, I'll use me as an example, how much resolution do I need?  I'm usually posting my photos electronically, and how much resolution can the people seeing my images on their IBM, Apple, and other computers, actually see?   If I were making huge enlargements, maybe I'd be using something other than 24 x 36mm image size (film or digital).  Maybe instead of shooting with a Leica M-A, I should switch to a larger format film?

 

I probably need to drop out of this discussion.  I'm not wanting to shoot film because it is better or worse than digital, and the fact that it's now 2021 is irrelevant.  I grew up shooting film, and enjoyed it immensely.  With a lot of effort, I could get what I thought were beautiful 8x10 and 11x14 prints out of my enlarger.  The "feeling" of shooting film is just so overwhelmingly different than shooting digital - maybe because I only take one image, and I better get it right.  With digital, I would take an image, review it in the camera, and often change something to improve the image.  With film that was never an option.  So I put more of "me" into every photo I take, and when I get the negatives back, I remember each individual photo.  Not so with digital.  Either despite what most of you have to say, or because of what you have to say, it mostly reinforces my desire to shoot film, even if it killed any desire I had to buy a new M-A.  Even for the M cameras - Leica keeps coming out with newer and better, but what is newer and better - the electronics, not the "camera".   Sorry for blabbering on and on, but it's very difficult to express my thoughts in words.   

Meanwhile, I now have both my M3 and M2 ready to go, the new film I ordered (all B&W) arrived, and my new "OpticFilm 8200i Ai" should arrive tomorrow.  I'll get my negatives back this coming Monday.  I'll post some of them here, and probably get some feedback as to how well I'm (not?) doing.

[MikeMyers]

3 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

In terms of capturing “art”, if you’re not familiar with his work, take a look at Gregory Crewdson’s projects. Say “Beneath the Roses” (which I think was shot on 8x10 film) and either “Cathedral of the Pines” or “An Eclipse of Moths” (which I think were both shot on medium format digital).

I think what these projects show is how art can be captured equally well on either film or digital. Crewdson has done a remarkable job of seamlessly tying in a similar feel across his magical worlds using either capture.

I did a search, and found this, with a sampling of thumbnails:  https://gagosian.com/exhibitions/2005/gregory-crewdson-beneath-the-roses/

Stunning!!!!!!!

Thanks for the suggestion - I will look around for more of his work, perhaps with an explanation for each image.....

[harmen]

I do sense some concerns about missing opportunities.  The opportunity to share results immediately.  The opportunity to capture every detail with sufficient pixels.  I sometimes feel the same.  However, one of the things I came to understand slowly is that the photos I print out and hang on the wall are mostly those I took with film (and then scanned).  I still use digital sometimes (primarily underwater), but don’t worry much anymore about what I may miss, trusting myself that when I’m out shooting film, then someday in the future one of those shots might be hanging on my wall.  I’m keen to hear what you will discover about your likes.

 

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!

Edited August 26, 2021 by harmen

[MikeMyers]

1 hour ago, harmen said:

I’m keen to hear what you will discover about your likes.

You guys remember what the Cunard line used to say in their advertisements for travel by Ocean Liner?

     (......hmm, do you even remember "Ocean Liners"????)

 

Anyway, it was "Getting there is half the fun!"

      ......which is certainly true about my photography.  I love taking photographs at least as much as I enjoy seeing them later, if not more.    

(For a hunter, what is more enjoyable, tracking down his prey with gun or camera, or seeing it on his wall later?)

 

[JonPB]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This discussion has triggered many of my pet peeves. I suspect this is typical, which is why this sort of discussion is difficult to manage productively. So, that said, I think it might be productive to add:

Having film negatives is categorically different -- for me -- from having digital files. I feel a sense of responsibility to make the most of film negatives; I feel a sense of responsibility to prevent the loss of even my poorest digital files. Awareness of this affects my shooting, which affects my methods, which affects the quality of my shots. I don't shoot film these days, but having shot film as a primary tool after having shot digital as a primary tool has affected how I shoot digital as an exclusive tool.

If you're not sure of whether the analog workflow matters, but you're still curious, it costs less than a modest M lens to buy a Leica film camera, lens, a handful of rolls of film, their development from a professional service, and reasonable scanner to find out. Even less if you go with a still-excellent kit from a more mainstream brand. And, like the M lens, most of that can be recovered in resale with little loss.

Film surpasses digital in terms of resolution. Full stop. I'll be willing to reconsider this opinion when 24x36mm sensors reach 60-80 megapixels. Regardless, the point is not how much detail a medium resolves but how much information it conveys to the viewer. In that case, contrast is king. Photographic engineers have known this since the 1950's, as far as I can tell. And digital files can make contrast arbitrarily large. And film can make resolution almost arbitrarily high. Match made in heaven? Well, no, but perhaps one of the higher purgatories where the engineers who haven't considered existential matters go.

Output is ultimate. I love digital printing. Was it Avedon who said something like, "nothing interesting ever happens in the shadows"? Nonsense: it is just prohibitively difficult to make interesting things happen in the shadows when making optical prints from a negative. When I can digitally manipulate an image and create a print that can visually discern a luminance value of 0 from 10 as I can from 124 to 134 or from 245 to 255, I can definitely make interesting things happen in the shadows. I adore Piezography, even if mainstream inkjet systems might have caught up over the last few years. Yet, without an appreciation for film prints, I'd always be wanting to make interesting things happen in the shadows: film printing taught me to cultivate the glory of shapes made from nothing but black and very, very dark gray.

Process is dispositive, in technical terms. Going from digital camera to digital software to digital printing is extremely predictable, both by the nature of digital technology and by the popularity of its use, meaning you and I can have meaningful discussions about digital methodology even if we've never actually met. Inserting anything "analog" into the process adds too many variables to track: a few seconds here or there in development add up, as do a few degrees of temperature, as do a few months of chemical age, as does a minor attitude difference in exposure metering or choice of lens or printing paper. Reciprocity failure is real; physical variance is real. Yet, at the same time, tangible is real: a physical print, to me, is even more different from an electronic image as an analog negative is to a digital one. Your ability to make a superior print from an analog origin is in no way invalidated by someone else's ability to make a relatively superior print from a digital origin; in fact, the latter origin story is more typical because it requires less skill.

Process is dispositive, in personal terms. Was is Weston who said something like, "I go into the darkroom in the morning with a handful of strips of negatives, a ream of unexposed photo paper, and a bottle of scotch; and I come out in the afternoon with one or two prints and a grin"? That, I can relate to. There is absolutely no profit in treating art as business. A thing can be both, but not simultaneously. If you are doing it for art, you are doing it for what works for you: the internet be damned. If you are doing it for business, you are doing it for the nickels and dimes: the internet be blessed. If you're in the latter category, you should never pay me any attention. If you're in the former, you should only mind your soul.

Sometimes process means everything: slowly capture images on a  low speed, black and white film, make high quality straight prints of modest magnification therefrom; perhaps scan and digitally adjust that print, print to a digital negative, and make a final contact print therefrom. Sometimes process means nothing: casually snap shots and send the out-of-camera JPEG straight to the internet. Both approaches are perfectly valid, as is every method in between.

A 600 square foot apartment is tiny? Bah. That's huge compared to where I live (though, admittedly, I haven't made optical prints here). Expensive? Bah. My daily kit cost me more than a year's worth of housing, utilities, and commuting expenses. If you think whatever reason is enough to rule something in or out, that's fine, but that applies to your life, not mine; more importantly, the inverse is equally true.

Find your priorities. Own them. There has never, ever been a more favorable time to pick your own path, no matter your ambition or where you're starting from.

[MikeMyers]

 

31 minutes ago, JonPB said:

"I go into the darkroom in the morning with a handful of strips of negatives, a ream of unexposed photo paper, and a bottle of scotch; and I come out in the afternoon with one or two prints and a grin"?

I enjoyed reading everything you wrote.  I especially appreciated this quote, which I modified slightly as I've now got a computer and a scanner, not a darkroom.  If I finish only one or two photos, and I'm pleased, that makes all the effort worthwhile.   

[Giguchan]

I'll tell you after i get it  for Christmas.

[Vlad Soare]

11 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

Thanks for taking the time to write that.  After reading it, I don't see much of a need to order an M-A, and I realize that much of what I do needs to be done with digital.  I still feel that as an artist, there is a place for film in my photography, and I already have two of the best Leica cameras to accomplish that.  I see film as a way to capture "art", not "reality", and it's the other way 'round for digital.  In other words, to me, there IS a place for analog in today's world, but I already have what I need.

I used to have a full darkroom, with everything I needed, including trays for making 16" x 20" prints.  Now I live in a tiny 600 square foot condo in South Beach, with barely enough room to turn around.  I expect at some point I will be able to develop my own B&W film, and I already have everything I need except the chemicals, but I have no way of ever setting up a darkroom again.

Regardless of what camera I use, to post an image here so you can view it, I have to do "digital".  There's no way around it.  

Without converting my condo to a photo studio, a lot of my work will be the result of my skill WITH a computer chip and especially WITH a piece of software.

.....or, to put it another way, I need to compromise.

For now though, what I need is to start doing my photography with film, especially black&white film, and learn how to do it well.  If that happens, I can add "color" to the process.  This will all be in addition to my digital photography, not instead of.  

Sure, as long as you live in a digital world, 100% is never achievable, unless you build the scanner yourself and write the software for it yourself. But we're not talking about extremes.
I have some prints on my walls where I think I could claim the 100%. I took the photos with a Mamiya RB67, which is completely mechanical and doesn't even have a light meter. I used an external incident/flash meter. Then I developed the films myself, using solutions that I mixed myself from raw chemicals. Then I printed them myself in the darkroom, on fiber based paper. Then I toned them in a sepia toner that I mixed myself from raw components. I guess one could argue that even in this case the 100% wasn't achieved, because I didn't mix the silver gelatin solution myself and didn't coat the film and paper base myself. And I didn't frame the photos myself; I had that done by a local frame shop.
OK, how much of that 100% is really achievable is debatable, but the closer I get, the higher my satisfaction level will be.

With a fully digital workload that percentage is zero. Not being able to reach 100% doesn't mean you should give up. Even 40% is better than 0%. The colour pictures I posted in the other thread, yes, they were scanned, and posted on the forum using a piece of software. That's true. But I'm still proud that I managed to develop C-41 at home, which until a month ago I used to think was impossible. So it's all a matter of perspective.

 

Edited August 26, 2021 by Vlad Soare

[Vlad Soare]

1 hour ago, Vlad Soare said:

With a fully digital workload

Sorry, I meant a digital workflow. It's too late to edit now.

Edited August 26, 2021 by Vlad Soare

[Jon Warwick]

8 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

 Meanwhile, I now have both my M3 and M2 ready to go, the new film I ordered (all B&W) arrived, and my new "OpticFilm 8200i Ai" should arrive tomorrow.  I'll get my negatives back this coming Monday.  I'll post some of them here, and probably get some feedback as to how well I'm (not?) doing.

Sounds like a nice set-up for B&W. The reason I say that is because I started home scanning only recently, with an OpticFilm scanner. I am satisfied with the output I achieve with it from B&W film (in my case, mainly Acros or Delta 100). I have generally always had my B&Ws hand printed in a traditional lab, or had the negatives drum-scanned before printing - but found I am getting pleasing results from B&W in the Plustek. And if I take a gem of an image and want the best scan, I can still send it out for drum-scanning anyhow.

I have used analogue Ms for years (M4-P, M7), then moved to digital initially with an M240, then to SL2, and now to medium format GFX100S. For color, there’s a lot I like about using digital (especially now that I find the Fuji camera Raw profiles can help get me to some filmic color curves that I much prefer in ACR). Whereas for B&W, I’m pleased with what I can now simply do at home on the Plustek …..just a roll of B&W film, send out for processing, and I do the scanning.

Personally, I think I’ve finally found the right balance for me ….ie, color via digital, B&W via film. Both clearly defined for me, and no debate anymore for me between “digital or film”. I do both, for separate outputs …..

Other reasons I’ve landed with this approach is (1) compared to the simple task of scanning B&W on the Plustek, I’ve been relatively less satisfied with my attempt at home scanning from E6 (the challenge i personally find is the higher contrast and color casts) and from C41 (color casts again). My poor effort in color film scanning means I stick to digital, or would want to still send out the color film for drum scanning. And in any case, I now really like the color profiles via digital from my medium format Fuji; (2) B&W film is among the cheaper options per roll compared to E6 (especially …..Ektachrome or Provia aren’t as cheap as they used to be!) or C41.

 

Edited August 26, 2021 by Jon Warwick

[south64]

Digital photography is a dead end  - sell your digital soon to be obsolete stuff and get something decent like the MP

Fujifilm makes most profits with instant cameras and film

Canon survives on everything but film cameras

Nikon is desperately looking for a way to get other business going like Canon has

Olympus is on its last leg 

Leica survives on extraordinary high prices from mostly old well off collectors, show offs and a few people actually shooting pictures

Smartphones killed the point and shoot camera business 

The amateur buyers of digital DSLR and system cameras are boomers who will die out 

The professional market is minute in comparison 

Digital pushes more and more people crazy (hours in post and deleting anyone?) and away from any creative personal input in the picture making process

Manufacturers becoming desperate like introducing analog looking cameras, soft classic lenses and digital film simulations - really sad

Like in the theatre of personal music consumption streaming 90 % and vinyl  10 % will be left, so it will be Smartphone photography 95 % and film 5 % eventually 

If you disagree let's bet on a nice big fat pizza anyone?

 

[MikeMyers]

6 minutes ago, south64 said:

Leica survives on extraordinary high prices from mostly old well off collectors, show offs and a few people actually shooting pictures

Not sure how I feel about everything you've written.  To me, the camera is a tool, and allows me to create an image to show to others.  The image is what counts, not the tool that helped create it.  Even if I accept what you've written, that has a minimal effect on me, and my own photography.  That I'm now also using cameras from the 1950's and 1960's says something too.  Cameras back then were built to last.  Maybe not so for most of the mass-produced stuff people buy nowadays, which is often obsolete the next year or so.   🙂

[bags27]

On 8/7/2021 at 8:46 AM, Jon Warwick said:

Fortunately I kept my M7 from 2002 ….I think the new M7 and new 50mm Summicron v5 together totalled approx £2.7k at the time! Used for both together is now more.

I did sell my M4-P though. That was a mistake, in hindsight it would have been nice to have CLA’d it and had an all-manual camera like the M-A.

I also sold 5x4 gear after Fuji Quickloads disappeared, including an Ebony RSW45, and then later decided to get back into large format.  That’s the biggest regret, Ebony stopped making their cameras thereafter, and the opportunity for a new one was gone for good ….

Edit: And for good measure, I should add that I also sold a Mamiya 7 and 80mm lens for c £900 at the time …..hmmm, those seem like gold dust now ….
 

In the last 2 years, I bought a 4-P and Mamiya 7 and 80mm lens. Maybe I bought yours? 😊

[MikeMyers]

I'm re-evaluating part of what I wrote in my above post from August 28.

This part I still agree with:  "To me, the camera is a tool, and allows me to create an image to show to others.  The image is what counts, not the tool that helped create it.  "

I've been struggling with my scanner and PhotoLab4 to get the best result out of my old and new B&W negatives.  They were getting better as I learned more about the technique.

But I got out my M10 this morning, and had PhotoLab 4 edit the file using DxO FilmPack, to get it to "look like" Fuji Neon ACROS-100 II film.  The people who have been helping me learn PhotoLab told me the image was perfect, just like the best I could get from the film, and I think with more detail than I've ever gotten out of a 35mm film negative.

 

To repeat, "The image is what counts, not the tool that helped create it."

So, what do I do if a digital image made to look like film, looks better than the same image actually taken on film?

Maybe this is because my whole process (other than developing the negative) is done on the computer?

Maybe a print made from that negative in a real darkroom would be better than what I can do with a computer?

I'm glad I'm getting my M3 brought back to like-new condition, and I'll probably do the same with my M2, but I've lost interest in buying a "M-A", at least for now.

[rk-d]

Haven’t been on this forum in awhile. I’ve been shooting my M6 again and recently bought an MP which should be arriving this week. 

The smartphone is the MP3 of the camera world. I suspect film may have a similar resurgence as vinyl. Lots of similarities to that world.

If film hadn’t died yet, I don’t think it’s going to die now.

[Vlad Soare]

4 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

So, what do I do if a digital image made to look like film, looks better than the same image actually taken on film?

Nothing. You just continue shooting digital and call it a day. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
If you want the utmost image quality, then digital cannot, and will not, be beaten. Don't force the film to work for you if it doesn't.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[LocalHero1953]

6 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

To repeat, "The image is what counts, not the tool that helped create it."

So, what do I do if a digital image made to look like film, looks better than the same image actually taken on film?

Maybe this is because my whole process (other than developing the negative) is done on the computer?

Maybe a print made from that negative in a real darkroom would be better than what I can do with a computer?

I'm glad I'm getting my M3 brought back to like-new condition, and I'll probably do the same with my M2, but I've lost interest in buying a "M-A", at least for now.

Forget about trying to make a digital image look like a film - that is just a remnant obsession with the tool (film). Think about what you want your image to look like, and do your best to achieve that with whatever does it best: film or digital.  

[Giguchan]

Anybody know of a reputable  Leica dealer that Might have a brand new MP?  US based or European?

  Asking  for a friend.