usccharles Posted October 14, 2007 Share #1 Posted October 14, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) been using my M8 for almost a year. i absolutely love it and love the fact that i could use my leica glass on instantaneous digital. but i picked up a used lomo over the summer and have been slowly getting back to film. film just has a texture to images that digital can't match without photoshopping. so last week i sold some other gear, added a few dollars and picked up a used R9 and 35/lux. took all day yesterday walking around the city, took 6 rolls, and i haven't even developed the films yet, but i have to say i haven't had such a satisfying day with my camera in a very long time. what is it about taking pictures on film that makes it so much more satisfying than digital? composition and exposure are thought out a little more before pressing the shutter because each film images feels more precious than digital to me. is it just me? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 14, 2007 Posted October 14, 2007 Hi usccharles, Take a look here why film feels better??. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest malland Posted October 14, 2007 Share #2 Posted October 14, 2007 Yes, it's just you — and some others. Shoot what you want: you don't need to agonize over it; nor do you have to prosyletize. It's only the results that matter — only the final picture matters. As for film having a "a texture to images that image can't match without photoshopping", you've set up a straw man: for B&W, for example, not doing any post-processing — I cringe at "photoshopping" as a verb — is like having the local drugstore do your develoing and printing: lousy results in both cases. I've posted this before: my "Bangkok Series" now has 150 photographs, of which 48 were taken with the M6 mainly on Tri-X and HP5+ while the rest are all digital, taken with the Ricoh GR-D and GX100, except for about a dozen taken with the Leica D-Lux 3 — except for some obvious cases, you'll be hard-pressed to judge which are film and which are digital: —Mitch/Bangkok http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron110n Posted October 14, 2007 Share #3 Posted October 14, 2007 Hey Mitch, we're waiting for your post at the "I Love My M6" thread! -Ron ________________ Caveman's Gallery Neolithic Artistry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
flavio Posted October 14, 2007 Share #4 Posted October 14, 2007 Agree. Slides appear to show details (especially) in the soft tone colours difference better than digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
usccharles Posted October 14, 2007 Author Share #5 Posted October 14, 2007 As for film having a "a texture to images that image can't match without photoshopping", you've set up a straw man: for B&W, for example, not doing any post-processing — I cringe at "photoshopping" as a verb — is like having the local drugstore do your develoing and printing: lousy results in both cases. Mitch Alland's slideshow on Flickr —Mitch/Bangkok Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland i totally agree with you. i don't hate photoshop. but i only mainly touch Levels and Color Balance. and once you scan film, its a digital image like any other digital image taken from a digi-cam (albeit its not RAW), and you have to photoshop, get the blacks where you want it, whites, color, etc, until yo come up with the image you intended. but photoshop cant make grain the way a ilford 3200 can make it or even a 800 porta on my lomo. grain looks nasty on digital images IMHO, but with film they add a nice texture. thats what i meant. i don't agonize over anything. i shoot with both digi and film and love them both. film just feels good at the moment and who knows maybe tomorrow i'll be a all out digi again Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted October 14, 2007 Share #6 Posted October 14, 2007 Charles - I totally agree with you - and I didn't feel that you were proselytizing (or agonizing either, for that matter). People can (and do) argue about the relative merits of the finished product - we don't need to get into that again here - but as far as I'm concerned - and this is my own personal feeling that I don't need anyone telling me I'm 'wrong' about - there is a vast difference in shooting film and digital. I personally find the process of shooting film is far more meditative and concentrated: I find myself weighing compositional possibilities, looking at the world more thoroughly and stretching my imagination in a way that is simply replaced by pressing the shutter with digital. Also, there's a strange anxiety to 'get the picture' when I have a digital camera with me - I'm constantly striving to get the 'perfect' image at events with friends or family - so that I tend to experience those events from behind a camera body. Somehow with a film body with me, I relax and take the ocassional shot without the pressure of capturing 'everything'. As I said - it's all personal. Glad to hear that people are still enjoying digital - I feel I have an 'imitation' camera in my hands when I'm using it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted October 14, 2007 Share #7 Posted October 14, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...but photoshop cant make grain the way a ilford 3200 can make it or even a 800 porta on my lomo. grain looks nasty on digital images IMHO, but with film they add a nice texture. thats what i meant...This is where we disagree. On the one hand, the M8 produces files that look more like scanned medium format film than 35m Tri-X that has the "35mm aesthetic"; on the other hand, someone skilled in post-processing can simulate scanned film very well: look at some of the things Imants Krumins has done. But I don't like to simulate grain, and prefer to shoot with small sensor cameras like the GR-D and GX100, which, when you push the contrast in B&W, produce a look that is very much like the 35mm aesthetics, and do not creat nasty-looking grain, as you can see from some of my pictures. Between the latter types of digtital pictures and scanned 35mm film there is not that much difference, particulalrly if you handle the highlights well. —Mitch/Paris Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpsloco Posted October 14, 2007 Share #8 Posted October 14, 2007 I totally understand what you mean. I have spent my youth in my father's B&W "kitchen", did a lot of of this chemical work myself (this is 30 years ago). When I started to to be interested in Photography again, about 12 years ago, I went off for digital. Had the early Nikon Coolpixes fist, switched to Fuji's S1 pro and later S2 pro, the latter is still in use occasionally, especialy panorama work. But early this year I decided to buy my first (and only, so far) Leica, an M4-P, I use it with a 40mm Minolta/Leitz, an 135 from Leitz and a 50mm Nokton from Voigtländer (all the lower price Range as you know). I get my films developped by my father, in return I help him with his mac (which is a very nice father-son cooperation, btw) I scan the negatives with a reflecta 7200 slide scanner and only do tonal changes and some cropping in Apple Aperture. I even can imagine buying an M8 (when a new one comes out and the exisiting drops its way over my budget price) because I don't have a general problem with digital at all. Thinking, shooting, scanning forces me to spend a lot more time with each of my shots and this just "feels" good. I love many of the M8 pictures for their perfection, but the imperfection, the grain, the general look of the non digitals is what gives the images their special athmosphere. This is why I would wish that more people here would actually put notes on their photos about the processes how they have been done (camera, lens, film, type of developer, scanner, etc.) Tilman some randomly picked recent B&W done with my Leica M4-P and Adox CHM 125 Film: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted October 14, 2007 Share #9 Posted October 14, 2007 ...I love many of the M8 pictures for their perfection, but the imperfection, the grain, the general look of the non digitals is what gives the images their special athmosphere...I think comparing M8 pictures to 35mm film is not a good comparison because, as Sean Reid has written many times, the M8 produces pictures that are similar to medium format scanend film, which means that they do not have the "35mm aesthetic" which is typified by 35mm Tri-X film. That is the reason that I shoot with small-sensor camreas, currently the Ricoh GR-D and GX100, which do have some of the feel of the 35mm aesthetic, the results of which can be seen in comparison to my M6 pictures in the link I provided in my posting above, and which is now below my signature below. —Mitch/Paris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
usccharles Posted October 15, 2007 Author Share #10 Posted October 15, 2007 I get my films developped by my father, in return I help him with his mac (which is a very nice father-son cooperation, btw) some randomly picked recent B&W done with my Leica M4-P and Adox CHM 125 Film: t1mbuk2's slideshow on Flickr i just yelled at my dad at why we don't have such a dope father-son cooperation and he says, you have a camera?? ... i'm very jealous Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted October 15, 2007 Share #11 Posted October 15, 2007 I think comparing M8 pictures to 35mm film is not a good comparison because, as Sean Reid has written many times, the M8 produces pictures that are similar to medium format scanend film, which means that they do not have the "35mm aesthetic" which is typified by 35mm Tri-X film.] I'm a great admirer of Sean's thorough reviews, and I've seen this statement repeated many, many times on this forum. But as someone who deals with a steady flow of medium format images in my work (though almost always digital MF and not scanned film MF these days), constant repetition does not make the statement true. Possibly the on-screen files can look like this because of the very fine 'grain' of the image in color and at low ISOs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hofrench Posted October 15, 2007 Share #12 Posted October 15, 2007 As someone who mostly alternates these days between a Rolleiflex and an M8, I also have never particularly felt that the M8 produces files that look like medium format. I get Sean's point, but I don't think the analogy works very well. They still look quite different to me. In fact, I'm having a show in December in which I'll be mixing the two for the first time, and the only way I felt I could pull this off was to exhibit the images from the two different formats in separate rooms. I should also say that I think that it is possible to achieve very nice looking grain in post processing with the M8, and I assume with many other good digital cameras. There are limits to how well this comes across on screen, but these files all print with lovely grain that reminds me a lot of HP5. Ray-Ban on Flickr - Photo Sharing! Dirty Work on Flickr - Photo Sharing! Casino on Flickr - Photo Sharing! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddp Posted October 15, 2007 Share #13 Posted October 15, 2007 There's still something about film...especially combined with some of the Leica glass. It's truly a texture thing....and I like getting that look without Photoshop. After shooting with D2X's all week, it's nice to go old school when I can. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted October 16, 2007 Share #14 Posted October 16, 2007 I also think it's because film is an actual physical creation that we make. It can be held, and then when filed and then later retrieved it is a physical solid manifestation of that moment in time. We spend so much of our lives at computers any more that digital images have just never really seemed real to me. As if they never really existed in the first place. I know this is kind of silly, but it's the feeling I get, though that feeling is getting less over time as I learn to work more and appreciate digital over time. Any one else have this feeling? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
symmetron Posted October 16, 2007 Share #15 Posted October 16, 2007 I shoot both Leica R8s and Nikon D200s (mostly shooting in RAW). The digital technology and workflow are wonderfully convenient and the results especially for action are without comparison with digital. However, I simply cannot get the flesh tones/colors from digital or the dynamic range (especially in the shadows). I dont' want to have to buy DxO or Alienskin to get a decent skin tone. The biggest gripe about digital is that after investing quite a bit of money in a significant DSLR outfit, that outfit's technology is being surpassed by newer models. I'm not referring to gadgets on the camera, but rather the basic imaging capabilities of the DSLR. With film, when a new emulsion hits the market (rarely these days), your imaging capability scales with the new emulsion without a significant investment. I won't be switching back to film and away from digital, but I feel film still has the edge even though the workflow is harder (and more expensive) than digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted October 16, 2007 Share #16 Posted October 16, 2007 Some kinks prefer the feel of leather some latex. Its just...ohh..hang on... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted October 16, 2007 Share #17 Posted October 16, 2007 Joseph, are your R8 on film or DMR? "Superseded" or not the DMR seems to deliver a file that always stacks up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddp Posted October 16, 2007 Share #18 Posted October 16, 2007 Joseph, are your R8 on film or DMR?"Superseded" or not the DMR seems to deliver a file that always stacks up. Indeed....what I've seen from the DMR continues to impress. As stated before, methinks it's Leica's halo prodcut in the digital realm.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
symmetron Posted October 16, 2007 Share #19 Posted October 16, 2007 My R8s are film; I don't have the DMR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dspeltz Posted October 16, 2007 Share #20 Posted October 16, 2007 Film well scanned still has the analog look I love. I also own 10,000 LPs and do not listen to CDs much because of the sound difference. I probably shoot 50% film on view cameras, medium format and my M, and the other 50% on the M8 and a digital medium format back. There is a difference, but both are really really nice when well done. To me it is the care I take when using film (because I can only take 4 pictures a roll on my Linhof, 1 on my 4x5 or 8x10 and 36 on my MP that is appealing about film). The process of composing and thinking in film is more significant than the differences in the look of the photo in my view, although I still love the Tri-X look on street photography. David PS I could take more time to compose and expose on digital but I don't. I suspect that is true of many of us. In fact, I seem to spend alot of time, too much maybe reading the histogram and pushing the curve to its limits. Just a different way of shooting. No right or wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.