Those that added digital...did it take over?

[malligator]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't currently own a digital camera (other than my phone). I don't necessarily feel I need one, but I'm interested in having one that can use my M lenses. For those that added a digital camera to your workflow with the expectation of continuing to primarily shoot film...did the digital camera take over?

My concerns:

1. As stated above, just worried about the general ease of use, high iso, and fast SS seducing me into grabbing it more often.

2. I'd hate to have a photo I really love not captured on a physical negative. I'd prefer to print my best shots in a trad wet darkroom.

On the opposite side of the fence, did anyone buy an expensive digital camera and have it end up sitting on a shelf collecting dust?

[spydrxx]

As a late adopter of technology I found that once I got the hang of digital bodies using my M lenses, in spite of my best efforts at resistance, yes, digital took over the vast preponderance of my shooting. These days I really need to steel myself down to use those wonderful film bodies I've treasured for so many years, but it became a special treat when I did so. Having said that, I generally prefer the look of the (post production) digital output over the film, both for prints and for use on the web. I'm sure everybody will have a different perspective on this though.

[Advertisement]

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

[250swb]

Back in the day my M9 took over, also my MM, but the M240 less so and my M10 collects dust. The more clinical digital images become the less I like them. At least my Z7 is like a Swiss Army knife (compared to an M or even an SL) and has many uses especially for work, but I never use it in preference to film.

[LocalHero1953]

I don't think I'm a case study that matches what you are looking for. I went digital with a Nikon P&S as soon as 2Mp were available, and my film shooting (M2, Pentax MX) dried up over the next few years. I have returned to film since covid struck, with large format and a M4. It's too early to say what the future balance will be.

IMO my photography improved out of all recognition as a direct result of going digital: the ability to get near instant feedback by viewing the results on my PC meant that I could remember what I had done with each shot and make immediate changes to my technique, often with the same subject. The delay of days or weeks between shooting and seeing the results from film precluded the same education, stimulus. or opportunity for repetition/correction.

Edited January 20, 2022 by LocalHero1953

[a.noctilux]

I see the two types as complementary of each other very well.

1 - not really easier with digital with hassles not seen in film M like batteries, too many "frames" to work on later

2 - if you want you can print, not in wet darkroom though, even if searching you can find way to do wet darkroom

I use the two types along,

🙃 even now I scan my old films of past decades with digital Ms (color or monochrom) not previously think of that.

 

The nice thing is my film Leica M saved me many times of "no-pic" when the digital M failed without notice (when I travel)

[malligator]

21 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I don't think I'm a case study that matches what you are looking for. I went digital with a Nikon P&S as soon as 2Mp were available, and my film shooting (M2, Pentax MX) dried up over the next few years. I have returned to film since covid struck, with large format and a M4. It's too early to say what the future balance will be.

IMO my photography improved out of all recognition as a direct result of going digital: the ability to get near instant feedback by viewing the results on my PC meant that I could remember what I had done with each shot and make immediate changes to my technique, often with the same subject. The delay of days or weeks between shooting and seeing the results from film precluded the same education, stimulus. or opportunity for repetition/correction.

I could definitely see digital being instrumental to improving composition, because you get to shoot so much and see the results immediately. I had no idea how to really read light and set my exposure until I got my M-A. For that, it has been a massive improvement.

[a.noctilux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If this has some importance 😉

- in film day, we keep the camera and use different film B&W or color

- in M digital we can feel the never-seen in film question M color or B&W 😵

- question is monochrom M or color sensor M ❔ ( I have the two as I can NOT choose )

...

- they even offer no-screen digital M with relative success x-D varieties

[malligator]

7 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

If this has some importance 😉

- in film day, we keep the camera and use different film B&W or color

- in M digital we can feel the never-seen in film question M color or B&W 😵

- question is monochrom M or color sensor M ❔ ( I have the two as I can NOT choose )

...

- they even offer no-screen digital M with relative success x-D varieties

I'm adding an MP to my collection so I have a color and B&W film camera anytime I want to switch.

[bdolzani]

3 hours ago, malligator said:

I don't currently own a digital camera (other than my phone). I don't necessarily feel I need one, but I'm interested in having one that can use my M lenses. For those that added a digital camera to your workflow with the expectation of continuing to primarily shoot film...did the digital camera take over?

My concerns:

1. As stated above, just worried about the general ease of use, high iso, and fast SS seducing me into grabbing it more often.

2. I'd hate to have a photo I really love not captured on a physical negative. I'd prefer to print my best shots in a trad wet darkroom.

On the opposite side of the fence, did anyone buy an expensive digital camera and have it end up sitting on a shelf collecting dust?

Hey @malligator, this is a thread/question I relate to. I started photography shooting travel on film about 5 years ago. I bought a used Fuji X-Pro1 in 2017 which was a nice addition, and I used my Leica lenses with it sometimes. I definitely still shot mostly film, yet about 2 years later I was craving a Leica digital to use my Leica lenses on, 'properly'. 

I got an M240 a little over a year ago and Yes it did pull me away from shooting film. I was probably at 90/10 film, then had moved into about 50/50. I'm currently rekindling my passion for film by having a digital scanning setup and trying to resist the convenience of digital and keep up the experience of self-dev and scanning. It's very satisfying. Yet the digital convenience, like the convenience store on the next block over, will always be there if and when you want/need it. Sometimes it's annoying that it's there, sometimes it's great.

I'm also currently in the pangs of wanting to either get a 246, or upgrade the 240 to an M10 or M10-p. I think my craving for an M10M is starting to fizzle from a few days ago. I just like my photos on film so much better. And yes, I do often think 'I wish I shot that on film' if it was a digital photo that I liked. In fact, film has such an atmosphere which digital does not, so for me the digital photo bar is set even higher. It must be an outstanding photo or subject for me to really love it on digital. For instance, certain shots of my family on digital are great just because it's them.

My difficulty comes because I often shoot music, in which a high ISO digital can come in handy. Though I've shot well with both the X-Pro1 and the 240.

Hope this helps in any way. Just saying yes I relate and yes it probably will change your dynamic, at least for a while. If you get one you're going to want to use it. Try it in your familiar (or new) situations. Though a Leica digital is not a bad thing to have (also)...

I have a lot of cameras, and many sit on the shelf. Yet the comfort/compulsion is that they are there if I need/want them. You can't use all at once. 

What would you be looking to get?

Edited January 20, 2022 by bdolzani

[Bmoze]

I recently faced the same question.  I’ve shot film forever, own medium format (Hasselblad V, Bronica 645) and 35mm cameras (Leica iiif, M4), and had never owned a digital camera.  I have a nice darkroom at home and enjoy printing.  I have a current Mac computer but not a photo quality printer.  Last year I decided to try a Leica CL, using both L mount lenses and adapted M glass, with a Leica M to L adapter.  I chose the CL for its  small size and weight, lower cost,  and because I wasn’t sure digital would stick with me.  I like the CL.  My wife really likes it (she doesn’t shoot film).  I find I still shoot mostly film - probably 75%.   I like the analog gear and the darkroom experience.  I don’t love sitting at a computer.  Unless you’re a professional, I think it’s all about the print. - whether your making them, or not.  My digital experiment won’t be complete until I get a printer (Epson P900?) and learn that process.  I think I’ll do that this year.  It’s been fun learning the digital workflow.  I really like being able to dodge and burn an image digitally with much more finesse than is possible in the darkroom (at least by me).  Now I’ll see if I can learn to print digitally, without too much headache, and if the added computer time is worth it.  Meanwhile, I continue to shoot film, primarily, print in my darkroom every week, and enjoy it.

Edited January 20, 2022 by Bmoze
Correct typo

[bdolzani]

7 minutes ago, Bmoze said:

I recently faced the same question.  I’ve shot film forever, own medium format (Hassleblad V, Bronica 645) and 35mm cameras (Leica iiif, M4), and had never owned a digital camera.  I have a nice darkroom at home and enjoy printing.  I have a current Mac computer but not a photo quality printer.  Last year I decided to try a Leica CL, using both L mount lenses and adapted M glass, with a Leica M to L adapter.  I chose the CL for its  small size and weight, lower cost,  and because I wasn’t sure digital would stick with me.  I like the CL.  My wife really likes it (she doesn’t shoot film).  I find I still shoot mostly film - probably 75%.   I like the analog gear and the darkroom experience.  I don’t love sitting at a computer.  Unless you’re a professional, I think it’s all about the print. - whether your making them, or not.  My digital experiment won’t be complete until I get a printer (Epson P900?) and learn that process.  I think I’ll do that this year.  It’s been fun learning the digital workflow.  I really like being able to dodge and burn an image digitally with much more finesse than is possible in the darkroom (at least by me).  Now I’ll see if I can learn to print digitally, with too much headache, and if the added computer time is worth it.  Meanwhile, I continue to shoot film, primarily, print in my darkroom every week, and enjoy it.

Just to remark on the printer topic, I just bought a Canon Pixma Pro 200, my first printer. So far I love it. And yes it pushes the digital shot onto paper which makes it feel much better. It took a little getting used to printer profiles in Photoshop, not something I was used to. 

[oldwino]

When I first used a digital camera, of course it "took over". What's not to like? Quicker, easier (autofocus!), insanely good quality, no more worries over film speed, etc. But...

I still enjoy using my film Leicas. I never get the same feeling using a digital camera as the enjoyment I get from using that little mechanical film device.  Not to mention the wonder of opening my development tank and discovering that, yes, it worked again! I have images! This, after 40+ years of photography. It's still fun. A sense of wonder makes life much more tolerable. 

Also, when I look at my film shots, the "quality" is 98% there compared to digital. Of course digital has better resolution, and more flexibility. But there is something "extra" in my film shots that I miss when using a digital camera. The way film can render the "atmosphere" of a scene...

Anyway, I still shoot a lot of film, probably 90% right now. I will continue until there is no more film to shoot, I suppose. Digital is always there, as an alternative way of image making for me. 

[haikos]

I take more photos on digital M but as soon as I use my film M, I realize the feeling (and mechanics) of the film M is so far beyond what the digital can ever be. Things like actuating the advance lever, the release lever, the sound they make and the smooth, precise feel. I would never not have a film M even if film would no longer be produced (God forbid).

[plaidshirts]

12 hours ago, malligator said:

I don't currently own a digital camera (other than my phone). I don't necessarily feel I need one, but I'm interested in having one that can use my M lenses. For those that added a digital camera to your workflow with the expectation of continuing to primarily shoot film...did the digital camera take over?

My concerns:

1. As stated above, just worried about the general ease of use, high iso, and fast SS seducing me into grabbing it more often.

2. I'd hate to have a photo I really love not captured on a physical negative. I'd prefer to print my best shots in a trad wet darkroom.

On the opposite side of the fence, did anyone buy an expensive digital camera and have it end up sitting on a shelf collecting dust?

I prefer Leica film cameras over digital and didn’t have any interest in getting one until an M-D 262 came along. It’s a digital camera with an analog soul and a solid compliment to my film bodies. 

[Aryel]

22 hours ago, malligator said:

On the opposite side of the fence, did anyone buy an expensive digital camera and have it end up sitting on a shelf collecting dust?

Yep… I started digital (Fuji x100), moved to film on Minolta slr, moved back to digital(Nikon d810). It initially killed my film usage completely. Until I started to miss film, it slowly stayed more and more on the shelf until I sold it. Years later, I shoot 100% analogue. Once in a while I feel the itch to try digital but I kind of know I won’t use it in the long run… I want to wet print.  I’d still be happy to try a digital Leica one day but I much prefer buying lenses and film bodies. 

Edited January 21, 2022 by Aryel

[Ko.Fe.]

22 hours ago, malligator said:

I don't currently own a digital camera (other than my phone). I don't necessarily feel I need one, but I'm interested in having one that can use my M lenses. For those that added a digital camera to your workflow with the expectation of continuing to primarily shoot film...did the digital camera take over?

My concerns:

1. As stated above, just worried about the general ease of use, high iso, and fast SS seducing me into grabbing it more often.

2. I'd hate to have a photo I really love not captured on a physical negative. I'd prefer to print my best shots in a trad wet darkroom.

On the opposite side of the fence, did anyone buy an expensive digital camera and have it end up sitting on a shelf collecting dust?

I switched from digital to film in 2012. BW film and darkroom printing. I had a lot of free time to kill back then until 2019.

Also film, digital, if are intend to use rangefinder M lenses for what they meant to be for, you need to take exposures regularly and a lot. 

This is what I did back then. Thousands of exposures, hundreds of prints per year after year. 

I got M-E 220 as BD present in 2016, but it was not in use as much as M4-2. 

In 2019 it all changed. Film and paper price reached the point it became not reasonable if you want to stay productive. 

I switched to digital and M4-2 had one roll of film espoused and few dozens of prints.

 

Sorry, but the physical copy on film vs digital copy is not real argument to me as active photographer.   

With thousands of exposures on film per year, it became huge waste of time to find something couple of years later. And it was "too much monkey business" to make sure my negs are all described and filed properly.  

With digital I have files saved on redundant drives and I have well established, not expensive cloud storages. If I want to have hard copy of BW image worth of the print, I could print it as digital negative as well. Media asset management is superior with digital if you have to deal with thousands of exposures per year.

 

But, if I would be how I started with film still at these days, few rolls per year, I would not switch to digital. 

Edited January 21, 2022 by Ko.Fe.

[Jeff S]

20 hours ago, Bmoze said:

I recently faced the same question.  I’ve shot film forever, own medium format (Hasselblad V, Bronica 645) and 35mm cameras (Leica iiif, M4), and had never owned a digital camera.  I have a nice darkroom at home and enjoy printing.  I have a current Mac computer but not a photo quality printer.  Last year I decided to try a Leica CL, using both L mount lenses and adapted M glass, with a Leica M to L adapter.  I chose the CL for its  small size and weight, lower cost,  and because I wasn’t sure digital would stick with me.  I like the CL.  My wife really likes it (she doesn’t shoot film).  I find I still shoot mostly film - probably 75%.   I like the analog gear and the darkroom experience.  I don’t love sitting at a computer.  Unless you’re a professional, I think it’s all about the print. - whether your making them, or not.  My digital experiment won’t be complete until I get a printer (Epson P900?) and learn that process.  I think I’ll do that this year.  It’s been fun learning the digital workflow.  I really like being able to dodge and burn an image digitally with much more finesse than is possible in the darkroom (at least by me).  Now I’ll see if I can learn to print digitally, without too much headache, and if the added computer time is worth it.  Meanwhile, I continue to shoot film, primarily, print in my darkroom every week, and enjoy it.

P900 and P700 discounted $200 in US until end of month.  These come up occasionally, so be sure to check before purchase.

https://epson.com/estore-rebate

As for original post, I shot film since the 70’s, processing b/w and printing in my own darkroom(s) until 2008. At that point I didn’t want to build a fifth darkroom due to relocation, so I transitioned fully to digital.  But I still print (and mat/frame) on my own, so the delight that comes from making a worthy pic, and finalizing the print/display, has not gone away.  The tools and process have changed, but the end goal remains intact. Paper choices and inks for inkjet are now superb; so, too, is software support for processing and printing. I don’t like computers, but the trade off has been far greater flexibility and convenience than my darkroom days, without the environmental/health issues (other than maybe eye strain and sitting too much).

Jeff

[adan]

On 1/20/2022 at 10:04 AM, malligator said:

I don't currently own a digital camera (other than my phone). I don't necessarily feel I need one, but I'm interested in having one that can use my M lenses. For those that added a digital camera to your workflow with the expectation of continuing to primarily shoot film...did the digital camera take over?

My concerns:

1. As stated above, just worried about the general ease of use, high iso, and fast SS seducing me into grabbing it more often.

2. I'd hate to have a photo I really love not captured on a physical negative. I'd prefer to print my best shots in a trad wet darkroom.

On the opposite side of the fence, did anyone buy an expensive digital camera and have it end up sitting on a shelf collecting dust?

Key point: really, it is all about will-power.

Neither a digital nor a film camera need sit on the shelf if you make yourself use it. I currently have digial M, and film 6x6 cameras. Neither really sit on the shelf much, although the digital M gets used more. But I just produced a book with the 6x6 film cameras.

1) My story is mixed, having been in the newspaper industry and thus closer to the evolving technology. I  gave up a wet darkroom for printing long before there were digital cameras to worry about. First personal scans from 35mm film in 1994 or so (Nikon Coolscan LS-3500).

Mostly due to color - much, much better workflow than trying to run a color printing darkroom.

Now - for smaller cameras (e.g. ~35mm-film sized) - digital did take over in the early 2000s. Again, color was a driving force - digital color was far less "grainy" than color negs, and had better dynamic range than scanned color slides (unless one got a $80,000 laser-drum scanner!).

http://www.marginalsoftware.com/Scanner/S3900.htm

Even before Leica made the M8 (2006) I had already transitioned mostly to digital via the Leica Digilux 2, the Epson R-D1 (briefly) and a Sony R1 (a 10-Mpixel "placeholder" for the last year before the 10-Mp M8 arrived). My film M's (and SLRs) then did sit on the shelf a lot.

ISO was not much of a factor back then - the M8/M9 topped out at ISO 2500, which B&W film can still match. Nor were fast shutters. But "ease of use/convenience/workflow" obviously figured highly in my choice to go digital. As did per-picture costs for film (if one counts gas to get/from to color labs, as well as the materials) - at the rate I shoot on assignments, even the very pricey digital Ms pay for themselves in a year or two in reduced supply costs, and it is "free photography" thereafter.

....................

2) I do share your concern about not having a "hard-copy" negative, being a documentary photographer who hopes my images will outlive me. There are workarounds for that (keeping a file of "archival master prints" of the best digital  images, at a good archival size (A3/11x16 at a minimum).

If one wants the "feel" of printing in the darkroom, there are ways to darkroom-print digital images oneself.

Enlarged-to-size ink-jet negatives on transparent plastic, that can be contact-printed to silver paper (and dodged and burned by waving one's hands or tools around, just like a projected image of a regular neg.) Requires a separate "negative" for each print size one will want to make. And there will be a learning curve to "printing" a negative that produces the right tonality once printed onto paper.

https://www.amazon.com/Waterproof-Inkjet-Transparency-Film-Screen/dp/B01H7OZOWK/ref=sr_1_12?keywords=Inkjet+Transparency+Film&qid=1642794315&sr=8-12

For a while there were also "print to photographic film" digital laser printers, to produce a neg or slide from a digital image. Mostly available now only as a service:

https://www.slidesfromdigital.com/

Or even LCD panels that can be inserted into a large-format enlarger's film plane and display a transparent negative version of a digital file, to be printed by transmitted light through a regular enlarging lens. More or less a similar idea to digital image projectors used for lectures or really large home entertainment rooms, and so on.

De Vere apparently still offers their all-in-one 504DS digital enlarger - 17-Megapixel "negative area." Same principle. Probably has a better lens (or allows you to choose your own).

http://odyssey-sales.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/devere-504ds.pdf

Edited January 21, 2022 by adan

[RayD28]

+ 1 to what Andy said about willpower.  In 2021 I intentionally avoided the digital and grabbed a film camera.  I recall two outings when I took both but most times I took only the film camera.  I would not have taken the digital at all if not for needing images immediately.  Nothing against the digital (M-P240), I just need more practice shooting film and developing at home.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[TomB_tx]

I've shot and processed film since the 1960s, mostly on Leica M since 1968. Through that time there were "lean stretches" where family life took over and cameras' sat on the shelf except for special occasions and vacations. Once I retired I started collecting and repairing old cameras and shot film daily trying out the various acquisitions. Remodeled to have a convenient darkroom again. Didn't find a digital camera I enjoyed using until I got an M9 about 2011. I used it as if it were a film camera, and split my usage with M6 & M9. Added an M10 and continue to use it like a film camera - taking the shot I want and off-loading and clearing the card after the session. I take about the same number of shots whether using film or digital.

Lately other projects and a pick-up in consulting work leave the cameras on the shelf a lot again, but I currently have an M6 and Contax IIa loaded with film and ready. Whether I grab film or digital depends on the mood and occasion.