Help with making a decision

[hirohhhh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I always shoot digital, but I love the look of the film. I'm following the film image thread on this forum for a long time, even though I don't shoot film. I did some with my old Rolleiflex in the past, but I shoot not more than 20 rolls in my entire life. I always used Tri-x 400 and I developed it myself. Technically they were fine, but I'd say they were "easy shots", because I don't have a film experience and I wasn't able to quickly catch moments as I can do with digital camera. I like the form of the Rolleiflex camera and medium format, but it was always a) kinda unpractical for me to carry this camera (versus my M10-R), b) I always struggled with quick film shoots on the street and kids (especially in low light situations, inside the house), so there were a lot of wasted film whenever I tried to shoot something quick. It's probably because I don't have enough experience in shooting film, but I always found digital more practical, and I can nail more and better shots than with film. But anyway, the final result is what matters and that I still prefer the film over the digital look. I can mimic the look of the film in the post pretty successfully, but still it's not that same feeling as if I know it's is an actual film. Plus, I'd finally love to learn to shoot film equally successfully as I can with digital camera.

I'd like to hear opinions from the people who shoot digital, but also take film cameras out often. Did you found it easy to switch and take photos successfully. How long was the learning curve? In what situations would you pick film over digital camera?

I know there are people who shoot film for 30-40 years and those who would never accept digital, but we're not the same group. I bought my first camera ever less than 6 yeas ago and it was digital, and since then I always shoot digital, so I can't compare with someone who has my lifetime of film experience.

[Advertisement]

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

[stefanusj]

My story is pretty similar with you...

i've used film in the 90's, and after digital camera era arrived, i always use digital. It's because the practicality and cost, and i've never look back (and i regret that decisions until today, because i skip several GREAT analogue camera like Xpan, M6, Contax and others).

but around 7-8 years ago, i always try to imitate the result of the analogue camera. everytime i see it, i always found it as a nice results but in my heart i know it's a fake.

And then i bought M7 and after i shot with it for around 3 rolls, i just give up. the results is always bad (the exposures) for my standard. and i sold the M7, and try Nikon 28ti. And my first love with analogue is with that camera, and i learn that to get a better results i have to overexposed in camera for at least 1/2 to 1 stops. 

After that i decide to try again M cameras (such as M2 and MP), and found out that it is not that hard, and founds that shooting film for me is easier to get the moment's mood/memory and film is more forgiving in several areas (such as focus and shake).

[Helge]

I was shooting film for about 50 years using later mainly Rolleiflex, R3 and R9.

Some years ago I got my first serious digital, the M10. I‘m still using all the others, however a little less. Digital gives me more freedom for low light and allows easier sharing and post processing. Recently I acquired an MP just because I like taking photos using an M.

Digital gives me freedom, film gives me craftsmanship….

[frame-it]

3 hours ago, hirohhhh said:

I'd like to hear opinions from the people who shoot digital, but also take film cameras out often. Did you found it easy to switch and take photos successfully

yes.

[hirohhhh]

Thanks all so far for the responses.

One more thing that I found as a potential issue with film over digital is scanning. Do you scan all your negatives? I scanned (or actually captured) over 60 rolls of my father's old negatives and I found it extremely tedious. I used Negative Supply system for capturing with my SL2 in multi-shot mode and macro lens, and still, it took me couple days of constant work to get it done right.

[LocalHero1953]

I am a child of the film age, switched to digital as soon as it made sense to do so, but I'm now returning part time to film, with no intention of leaving digital behind. So what you propose makes good sense to me.

In my 'film era' I rarely developed my own, although it became a process I was comfortable with - the practicalities of setting up a darkroom and storing an enlarger etc were too difficult when I was travelling for work a lot. I wasn't a particularly good photographer, but at times I had good opportunities (the travel) and as I concentrated on it (travel to places where film and processing were dirt cheap) I improved. When I switched to digital, and especially when I bought a M9, my standard of work improved dramatically because I enjoyed using the kit and I could see the results immediately and could feedback changes to my technique. Digital is also great when you have small children around (g/children in my case) because you can show them the results immediately.

Like many others I have dipped my toe back in the analogue world in lockdown, first with a large format camera I have had for a number of years without touching, and in the last six months with Leica film cameras. In most cases I take B&W, develop it myself and scan it, so a dark room is not needed.

I use film and digital differently. I do quite a bit of theatre, portrait, music and event photography, and for these practical purposes I find digital both helpful and enjoyable: I get quick results to pass on to those who want them, and I am thinking more about the subject matter than the process - especially with Leicas, I can forget about the camera - it just gets out of the way. I still photograph our grandchildren but as they grow up they are becoming more aware of photography and sensitive to it, so I am becoming less intrusive with it - taking fewer shots, and being more careful of the circumstances.

At the moment I am using large format film (colour & B&W) for landscapes on holiday (a 10kg backpack!) and for portraits with studio lighting. I am using 35mm B&W film for street and (some) travel - and I still use my CL for travel.

I don't have a problem shooting film and digital together. With digital I am thinking less about the equipment and more about the subjects and composition. With film, I am still getting my technique in place: manual exposure and focus, loading/unloading film, developing and scanning. I still find it too easy to make mistakes (especially with large format) that ruin a shoot. On the other hand, I can now apply the real improvement in my photography from the digital era to my film photography. I admit I am also finding old Leicas addictive (I'm now back to 1932).

Edited February 14, 2022 by LocalHero1953

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

19 minutes ago, hirohhhh said:

Thanks all so far for the responses.

One more thing that I found as a potential issue with film over digital is scanning. Do you scan all your negatives? I scanned (or actually captured) over 60 rolls of my father's old negatives and I found it extremely tedious. I used Negative Supply system for capturing with my SL2 in multi-shot mode and macro lens, and still, it took me couple days of constant work to get it done right.

Some years ago I scanned all the film and prints I could find from our family collections - it took me two years with a Minolta scanner and flatbed. Two days sounds pretty quick to me! I now scan with my SL2-S and lenses that can frame and focus on 35mm and 4x5. I use a Kaiser negative holder for a strip of six - about 15 minutes for a roll. I have an Essential Film Holder on order, and I hope to use that quickly for a whole roll at a time. I scan the lot, invert in Lightroom with a preset, convert to tiff and then process as normal. My only colour is in 4x5 - they take longer to invert, but then I don't have more than about 10 at a time.

[MikeN]

Hi Hiroh, I think it’s like learning a musical instrument. It’s hard in the beginning, but then, it may be joy. Let the film cam be your teacher. With each exposed film, you’ll learn. In the end, it will improve your digital shooting as well. Film requires better assessment of light. Not only the actual exposure, it needs to be more precise, but also the entire scene. In low light, your film cam cannot compete with your digital one; that’s just like so. But in normal light conditions, your film cam would be as flexible as your digital one. I don’t scan every negative; only the ones that make sense.

It’s like fast food vs slow food. The last one gives you more satisfaction.

[Helge]

vor einer Stunde schrieb hirohhhh:

Thanks all so far for the responses.

One more thing that I found as a potential issue with film over digital is scanning. Do you scan all your negatives? I scanned (or actually captured) over 60 rolls of my father's old negatives and I found it extremely tedious. I used Negative Supply system for capturing with my SL2 in multi-shot mode and macro lens, and still, it took me couple days of constant work to get it done right.

What is the purpose of scanning all your negatives?

I do that only occasionally, if someone abroad asks for a copy or I‘m using this specific picture in different (digital) context.

I think, a digital inventory (tagging) of all analog pictures (negative and slides) makes sense, but scanning everything without a specific purpose seems to me pretty wasteful…

[giannis]

4 hours ago, hirohhhh said:

I like the form of the Rolleiflex camera and medium format, but it was always a) kinda unpractical for me to carry this camera (versus my M10-R), b) I always struggled with quick film shoots on the street and kids (especially in low light situations, inside the house), so there were a lot of wasted film whenever I tried to shoot something quick. It's probably because I don't have enough experience in shooting film, but I always found digital more practical, and I can nail more and better shots than with film.[...]

You were using a wildly different camera for film, with some important limitations in ergonomics (no lightmeter, 12shots/roll, no bright focusing screen, etc.) plus all the bulk of a medium format camera. The experience obviously was much more different compared to digital, but film was not the culprit, it was the camera (and format!).

You need to compare similar things. For instance, if you get an M7, you'll barely notice the difference from the digital Ms in shooting, other than that you have to cock the shutter and change rolls every 36-38 shots.

[hirohhhh]

@LocalHero1953 Thanks for sharing your story. I appreciate when someone who was shooting film for the entire life embraces digital for the practical reasons.

@MikeN I can't agree more. The main reason, other than the look of the film, is that I really want to learn to shoot with film.

@Helge I see your point, and there's probably no reasonable answer to why would I want to have all my negatives in my Lightroom library, but being only a digital shooter, it comes natural to me. If it's not in the library, it doesn't exist

@giannis Exactly my thought, and the reason why I want to buy an M film camera. Rollieflex is a completely different experience just holding it.

[Hans-Dieter Gülicher]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Helge:

I was shooting film for about 50 years using later mainly Rolleiflex, R3 and R9.

Some years ago I got my first serious digital, the M10. I‘m still using all the others, however a little less. Digital gives me more freedom for low light and allows easier sharing and post processing. Recently I acquired an MP just because I like taking photos using an M.

Digital gives me freedom, film gives me craftsmanship….

Nearly my life of photography. I started in 1952 with my fathers old Agfa plate-camera (1927). Than Leica M 3, Rolleiflex, Robot, photographic time out 1966-1988, after that new start in 1989 with Leica R 6.2 , Leica R9 + DMR in 2005, Fuji xPro 1 in 2012 (DMR brake down and Leica black out), Leica Q2 in 2019, Leica S3 in 2020 and Leica M 10-R in 2021.

Actually my light and handy Leica M 10+R plus Apo-Summicron 35 mm plus Visoflex is my preferred combo. But at the moment I think of a revival of my Rolleiflex and (!!!) Nizo Heliomatic double eight. Back to the roots or not that`s my question now (???).

Regards Hans

[spydrxx]

I was a film shooter for almost 40 years before getting into digital. I like both equally, each having their strengths and weaknesses. IMHO digital is wonderful for instant feedback and learning basics. Film, because of the time and expense of development, at least for me, is more contemplative, plus I really love using classic old rangefinder and SLR bodies. I don't find switching between film and digital difficult, but you as a newcomer to film, might find it challenging at first, but eventually you can easily get comfortable with it. As far as scanning film, I've found it is a time consuming task, and I limit it to only those shots I really want to preserve or have an immediate use for. Not being a professional photographer makes that less of a burden. So my advice is to not fret over the transition to incorporating film into your life, but treat it as an exciting challenge. As you become increasingly accomplished, you may find that experimenting with different developers and techniques enhances your end product and stimulates your cerebral cortex just as post processing can with digital.

[Helge]

vor einer Stunde schrieb spydrxx:

I was a film shooter for almost 40 years before getting into digital. I like both equally, each having their strengths and weaknesses. IMHO digital is wonderful for instant feedback and learning basics. Film, because of the time and expense of development, at least for me, is more contemplative, plus I really love using classic old rangefinder and SLR bodies. I don't find switching between film and digital difficult, but you as a newcomer to film, might find it challenging at first, but eventually you can easily get comfortable with it. As far as scanning film, I've found it is a time consuming task, and I limit it to only those shots I really want to preserve or have an immediate use for. Not being a professional photographer makes that less of a burden. So my advice is to not fret over the transition to incorporating film into your life, but treat it as an exciting challenge. As you become increasingly accomplished, you may find that experimenting with different developers and techniques enhances your end product and stimulates your cerebral cortex just as post processing can with digital.

I can agree with you, however Best preservation would be the original negative…

[Helge]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb Hans-Dieter Gülicher:

….

Actually my light and handy Leica M 10+R plus Apo-Summicron 35 mm plus Visoflex is my preferred combo. But at the moment I think of a revival of my Rolleiflex and (!!!) Nizo Heliomatic double eight. Back to the roots or not that`s my question now (???).

 

Do you really need the Visoflex for a 35mm lens?

About revival: I‘m using mainly 24x36 (MO, R9), however a bunch of other formats is still in use as well. 8x11mm, 24x24, 40x40 and 60x60 as well as analogue movies on Super8 and double eight.

So just do it..😎

[LocalHero1953]

As digital cameras go, the CL is an attractive and interesting design, the Bauhaus edition is by no means the worst of the special editions (Paul Smith, looking at you), and I could see it gaining some cult status among those collecting digital cameras 20+ years in the future. But nevertheless it would take quite a lot of unexpected interest in future to reach the price you paid for it plus the lost opportunity cost. In your shoes I would either use it or sell it, but not keep it in hope.

[Hans-Dieter Gülicher]

Yes, I need the Visoflex and have just ordered the new one. It`s a must because the 35 mm lense accept distances up to 30 mm.

Regards Hans

[Helge]

Ok, there are 2 Visoflex‘s

So yours is the analogue one 😉

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[malligator]

You have to love--I mean really love--film photography to shoot it as anything more than a fun experiment. Unfortunately you have to shoot it much more than that to get good at it. I've been 100% film with my M-A for about a year and a half now. I still learn a ton with every roll. Modern digital cameras can get you the exposure you want in just about any condition. Film, on the other hand, is a game of compromise. It takes a lot of practice to know what the compromises are in each shooting situation and how to mange them.

Then there's the lack of instant feedback as others have mentioned. I'm not exaggerating when I say the rolls from my first year are woefully underexposed. I was doing it wrong, but since I couldn't see what was happening in real time I could not figure out what it was. Turns out my method of metering in EV then transferring it to camera was off and I was consistently underexposing by 2 stops--over and over again. It was driving me insane. I almost gave up. Then I got a easy to use digital meter for Christmas and it showed me I was wrong. I had to convince myself that I had been doing it wrong for a year, but in the end there was no denying it.

For your second question about scanning...I absolutely hate it. If there is anything that's going to make me give up film it will be scanning. I'm taking a darkroom class next month so I can wet print my B&W images which is what I wanted to do since I picked up film. I will probably start sending my color film to a lab so they can scan it. I started shooting film to get away from the computer. Scanning has turned out to be much more tedious than post-processing digital images. I'm doing my best to get away from it.

I still think about adding a digital back to my workflow, but I enjoy film so much more as I get better with the M-A. There were times that I stopped shooting because the results were so bad, but I kept at it. I'm now at the point that I very rarely miss exposure or focus. That has made it so much funner to work on the stuff that really matters--composition, story, mood, etc.

 

[Aryel]

Hello,

My experience is pretty similar, was shooting 100% digital but was always in love with the ‘film look’. Always on the lookout for plug-in to simulate it and so on until I realise I should give it a spin. I use film 100% now and sometimes wonder the opposite: whether to add a digital camera. 

Just a couple of things, your decision is not necessarily final. You probably already have some glass, so all you’d need really is to find a film body and there are plenty to choose from. I’d suggest to pick up a camera in good working condition, shoot a few rolls, send them to a lab.

Once you have your photos back, you can decide whether to carry on or simply stop it there and sell the body back. 

If you give it a go, please consider sharing your photos and your thoughts. 

Edited February 15, 2022 by Aryel