Is shooting film still worth it in 2022 ?

[Steven]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

43 minutes ago, charles tay said:

I started my Leica journey in July 2021 first Leica Q2 and subsequently .... got into the rabbit hole> Leica M10 > Leica M10 Monochrom and multiple vintage leica lens. In Nov i while visitng Leica Factory in Wetzlar ... i came across Leica M6 Classic in Frankfurt Leica store... decided to order it. 

Since i started shooting film with M6... i really enjoy the rewind sound and click and the wait for the film used up and send for development and process and scan and email to me. While in the film development store... uncle told me the film pricing going to shoot up in 2022... ended up i bought in bulk film rolls in dozens... expiry date June 2023.... yes i will be expecting the film pricing to go up and would that deter me from shooting film.... the answer will be no. 

I starting to enjoy the use of manual cameras and i was born in the 1970s and recall in the past i did shoot on film when i was young but the memory is faint. Right now i have the most advanced smartphones like iPhone 13 Pro Max and Leica Q2 (47MP), Leica M10 Monochrom modern sensor... somehow i feel something is missing and the instant technology (especial in work like MS teams and zoom and emails) does adds up more stress. 

Using film camera stop me from checking every shot i make and somehow i wont know the results till i get it develop... makes me wait and anticipate. Plus i wont be editing it on mobile phone Adobe lightroom since i got to wait for it. 

With 14 M Film bodies... its a wow... i just started my film journey and guess i am heading your direction of more film bodies... i just got a Olympus OM 1 followed by Canon AE 1 Program. Now i am thinking of getting Pentax K1000 SE and maybe Yashica FX 3.... so going back to Leica film body... maybe the next is Leica M6 TTL model or maybe Leica M-P. Leica M-P is about $7500 SGD. With $7500 SGD i can get 2 Leica M6 in the local second hand shop (roughly M6 TTL was $3600-$4000 SGD)

Whether i will shoot film in 2022... definately i will shoot film. 

next question is.... which film bodies i would like to get and shoot and have a different experience... Second hand brands like Pentax and Yashica ranges about 300-400 SGD which is affordable vs second hand Leica m6 going for 10 times more in cost but Leica Film m6 will appreciate in value over time based on historical data.

Now i am wonder... would i want to trade in my Leica Q2 for a Leica MP 0.72 brand new for 7500 SGD but the wait time is like 6 weeks or longer. 

As for photo results between Leica Digital and Leica Film and Iphone Digital.... smartphone is always the backup i use when shooting with Film in case my film miss the shot... Leica Film via Kodak 200 and 400... it gives a different feel. I moved from Canon and Sony Digital to Q2 for the digital output (unprocessed photos, direct from camera SD card) 

The fun part about film is the wait plus getting to try film bodies at affordable pricing and every film body of various brands does the same thing...but gives a different feel in operation...from the old film bodies i get to read up and learnt about the different battery types it needs for the light meter.

Getting to buy affordable, try and shoot and read up... helps me relax from the stress of worklife (pandemic world) 

I hope i can learn how to travel with my Leica Film camera via airports ... my recent trip to Germany in Nov 2021 i brought along my Leica Q2 but with Film it seems abit more complicated. Thanks to the comments on forum i saw tips on how to travel with film and those tips are much appreciated. 

 

 

 

 

I'm not alone. You're not alone. 

 

[Mute-on]

Just ordered 15 rolls of Kodak - a mix of Ektar and Portra 160. Even on a 3 week overseas trip I do not shoot more than 10 rolls. I might shoot up to an additional 500 digital photos on the same trip. Having grown up on film, even that seems like a lot. 
 

For me, a trip is not a holiday unless I shoot film.  It’s actually more about the physical experience than the output. A film Leica M creates connection and relaxation in a way a digital camera just doesn’t.  So yes, film is worth it, even as prices continue to increase. 

Edited December 5, 2021 by Mute-on

[Advertisement]

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

[hiphopopotamus]

Interesting thread. I'm coming from a position where I'm now debating only shooting film from this point forward.

I came to Leica from Canon (5DSR) and Sony (A7, various) a few years ago - ultimately I was looking for simplification of my photographic process, and a camera that would feel like an extension of me, rather than me being an extension of the camera. I originally went for an M8 and loved it, but felt a little constrained/disrupted by the crop factor. So moved to the M240 - didn't like it at all - it was far too much like the overly digital world I was trying to get away from. Settled on an M9 Monochrom and loved it again. I still have the M9M - for now...

But in the past year or so I have also picked up a Mamiya RZ67 and a Voigtlander Bessa T 101. My first instinct now, whenever I go to shoot seriously anywhere, is grab the Bessa T. It's beautiful, light, and the 101st anniversary I have is built like a brick (in the good sense). Further, if I know I will have time and space to think about my shooting, and also not have much distance to physically carry the thing, I pick up the RZ67. It is interesting because, while I have shot film with Barnack Leicas and Contax RTS cameras in the past, I wasn't attached to them like I am my Bessa and RZ.

I haven't picked up the M9M in months now. As a result, I decided to purchase an M3 recently, which is currently off getting CLA'd and reskinned. The idea being that my Bessa T (without in-built viewfinder) would serve as my wide-angle/specialist lens camera, and the M3 my 50/90 "people-lens" camera. But this decision has left me with a dilemma. I'm now think it's exceedingly rare that I'm ever going to reach for my M9M again in serious situations (I don't do photography professionally, for the most part, so have few of those pressures). And having that store of money there that could go toward another beautiful lens, or even another film M, is making me re-think its presence in my bag.

So I recently picked up a cheap Olympus OM-D for the moments that I absolutely need good digital output. I'll use it with my Leica lenses via an adapter. And in most situations, modern phones do a decent enough job of digital output for me anyway - I'll never be looking to print from digital any more, and I'm not an instagrammer/online photo sharing platform user (outside of the odd picture here).

Which leads to the logical conclusion - I think I'll let go of the M9M.

Never thought I'd find myself doing this so soon after falling hard for the M9M, but the reality for me is that - as with many here - having found the right type(s) of film camera for me, I love the process associated with film much more than digital. And having recently done hand printing workshops, I now look forward to the whole image-making process from start to finish. I don't think digital will ever give me that type of pleasure...

So I'm happy to eat the cost of film. It's an entirely different type of joy.

...

......

but ask me again in 3 months when I'll no doubt have convinced myself to buy an M11.

Edited December 7, 2021 by hiphopopotamus

[Jeff S]

[Responding to above post]. We each follow our own path. I loved shooting with film (from the early 70’s until 2009), but the things that eased my transition to digital were continuing to use a disciplined and judicious shooting approach, and continuing to  process and print (and mat/frame) my work.  I would never have bought my M8.2 or M9M, or subsequent models, if the intent was to just view on screen.  And I would never shoot film if I didn’t still do my own darkroom processing and printing. When I decided to not build my 5th darkroom following another house relocation, the rest was history.  Whatever path suits your own goals and preferences; do what makes you happy.

Jeff

Edited December 7, 2021 by Jeff S

[kivis]

I have an M-A (shot mostly with Ilford XP-2) and a beautiful M-P 240. That being said I use the M-A at least 80% of the time. Nuff said.

[Steven]

There's no doubt that the entire process of shooting film is something that can't be replicated, and that most of the times, is incredibly satisfying, and can't be beat by digital. 

But some days, film just sucks. Yesterday was one of these days for me. I went out at nigh with some Portra 800, but the scenario just got too dark for film, and I could not record the evening, like I could have with digital. I also had a 600 dollars bill at the lab. So naturally, I went home, and as every time I'm doubt, I picked up my M10R, an MP, mounted the same lens on both cameras, and took uninteresting side by side shot, with the exact same settings on both cameras. 

Then I tried to match the mood... I always get pretty close in colours, but there's always something missing in the digital shots. Film makes me feel so much more. 

[Steven]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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!

[Steven]

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!

[Steven]

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!

[Steven]

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!

[Steven]

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!

[Steven]

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!

[Steven]

There is not one example where I prefer the digital shot 

[Jon Warwick]

1 minute ago, Steven said:

There is not one example where I prefer the digital shot 

I have historically often preferred my film images over digital, but I’m constantly trying to improve capture and post processing of digital to get closer to what I like about film.

I’ve certainly got much closer compared to even a few months ago, albeit still generally find it easier to like a film image. 

Can you define what aspects you prefer about film to see if it will help you get closer to a look you prefer with digital?

For me I know that I like …..

(1) some grain …..often nothing dramatic at all, but something to take the edge off the unnatural-looking plastic smoothness of low ISO digital. I add grain in post for every shot, even if it’s so subtle it’s barely visible in print.

(2) color depth (ie, recording subtle differences in the shades of any given color). For me, I do find medium format digital helps, with its higher megapixels and a larger sensor - for whatever technical reason.

(3) gentleness of the rendering. Tougher to define here. Possible helps here = older non-APO Mandler lenses?; use of filters? (eg, Pro Mists etc to raise the blacks and also give halation in the highlights?); shooting in shade and lower contrast scenes where the less flattering highlight shoulder of digital compared to film is less apparent; taking down contrast in post processing? (digital + modern lenses can really drive in deeper blacks than I’d expect to typically see in film, so I’m forever lifting them up in digital post processing to lower macro contrast).

 

[Steven]

1 minute ago, Jon Warwick said:

I have historically often preferred my film images over digital, but I’m constantly trying to improve capture and post processing of digital to get closer to what I like about film.

I’ve certainly got much closer compared to even a few months ago, albeit still generally find it easier to like a film image. 

Can you define what aspects you prefer about film to see if it will help you get closer to a look you prefer with digital?

For me I know that I like …..

(1) some grain …..often nothing dramatic at all, but something to take the edge off the unnatural-looking plastic smoothness of low ISO digital. I add grain in post for every shot, even if it’s so subtle it’s barely visible in print.

(2) color depth (ie, recording subtle differences in the shades of any given color). For me, I do find medium format digital helps, with its higher megapixels and a larger sensor - for whatever technical reason.

(3) gentleness of the rendering. Tougher to define here. Possible helps here = older non-APO Mandler lenses?; use of filters? (eg, Pro Mists etc to raise the blacks and also give halation in the highlights?); shooting in shade and lower contrast scenes where the less flattering highlight shoulder of digital compared to film is less apparent; taking down contrast in post processing? (digital + modern lenses can really drive in deeper blacks than I’d expect to typically see in film, so I’m forever lifting them up in digital post processing to lower macro contrast).

 

Thank you for your message. 

I just can't explain it. 

1, 2 and 3, are correct. To your point three, I would add that film (35mm) is less detailed than digital. This helps with the smoother rendering. I've tried to to downsize digital files to lose detail, but it was not helpful at all. 

But even then, there is something more to film. Something I can't explain. I like digital images. I just always prefer film. 

[junix]

5 hours ago, Steven said:

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!

Your daughter looks much happier on film..

[Steven]

50 minutes ago, junix said:

Your daughter looks much happier on film..

Wait, did you just think the film was the digi, and the digi the film ? Cause she looks happier to me on digi! 

Mind games ! 

Edited December 11, 2021 by Steven

[junix]

1 hour ago, Steven said:

Wait, did you just think the film was the digi, and the digi the film ? Cause she looks happier to me on digi! 

Mind games ! 

Well, your son is unimpressed on both so at least you know how will inherit your Leica.. 

Edited December 11, 2021 by junix
typo

[Jon Warwick]

9 hours ago, Steven said:

Thank you for your message. 

I just can't explain it. 

1, 2 and 3, are correct. To your point three, I would add that film (35mm) is less detailed than digital. This helps with the smoother rendering. I've tried to to downsize digital files to lose detail, but it was not helpful at all. 

But even then, there is something more to film. Something I can't explain. I like digital images. I just always prefer film. 

Yes, 35mm film is less detailed than (say) a 40mp sensor.

But I also shoot 5x4 film …. where a modest print size of 20”x16” has TONS of detail and yet it would still look smoother than digital. So I’m not sure it’s just the capture of film details in terms of “amount” but rather the “way” they’re recorded.

I often wonder if film records things more like our eyes record? Film images certainly feel more natural to my eyes! For a portrait, I wonder if my eyes and film would record in such a way that I first see the largest outlines of the subject (head, shoulders), and only after that do I obviously see smaller features like the eyes and nose. And very last — if at all —my eyes and film might detect fine lines / wrinkles.

….but with digital, given high acutance, I wonder if it records all of those elements with a similar level of contrast? ….ie, fine lines under an eye become as prominent (etched out due to the digital acutance) as the head and shoulders? If so, IMHO, it’s  not a natural rendering, which is why I probably prefer film for portraits because it mimics how my eyes record detail?

Edited December 11, 2021 by Jon Warwick

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[LocalHero1953]

I have recently returned to film in the last 18 months, first with large format and more recently with a M4.

After using large format, I don't think grain is a deciding factor: Tri-X at 5x4 effectively has no grain; at 35mm the grain is in your face.

The difference between negative and positive recording is relevant: negatives struggle with shadows (low tonal contrast and detail, easily blocked), positives/transparencies struggle with highlights (low tonal contrast and detail, easily blown). Digital has some of the characteristics of positives/transparencies; since highlights are more likely to draw the eye than shadows, the way that negative film handles highlights is more attractive to me. I have recently shot 20 sheets of Provia 100F to see if that makes a difference (waiting for them to return from the lab).

Digital sensors are said to respond more strongly to the red end of the spectrum, while film (B&W at least) is said to respond more strongly to the blue end. I haven't tried to investigate this yet e.g. shoot a red brick building with a blue sky using both B&W film and a digital camera.

I don't think I can say I prefer film over digital, though my ideas on this change as I re-explore film after a 20+ year digital gap. However I am taking a different kind of photo - less interest in the exact reproduction of a scene and more in the atmosphere and feelings I can record.