For Those Who Recently Returned to Shooting Film - Are you Happy with the Switch?

[lencap]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Greetings -

I own the SL2-S with the bundled 50mm Summicron lens, and find it a good match for my shooting style.  I typically shoot single subject candid people shots, not street photos, but mostly family/friends.  Sometimes there will be two or more people in the shot, but the 50mm focal length is my preferred option.

Despite my full size digital Leica I still think back to my M7/M-A/MP film cameras and wonder if I'd enjoy going back to shooting film.  What holds me back is the reason I originally left - expense of film purchasing/developing/printing, especially color film.  I used to develop my black/white negatives, but don't want to do that any longer.

I also wonder if the underlying reason for reconsidering the M film cameras (I'd likely buy the new 2022 M6) is really a desire to return to the M body - lighter, full manual adjustments, etc.  My eyesight is far worse now, cataracts and age, and the SL autofocus options are helpful and capture images effortlessly.

So, I wonder, for those who recently returned to shooting film - are you happy with that decision, and what do you see as the main benefits of the switch?  Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

[Tom R]

Could not be happier because much of what I'm doing is about (1) the photograph as a physical artifact, or using light to make marks on film, and (2) the differences between art and photography. "Simulating" film by using software to manipulate images that are essentially matrices of discrete data (ones and zeros) has proven extremely useful and profitable to photo companies, but, again doesn't interest me very much ... other than in a utilitarian context. 

I use Leica M cameras because that is all that I have had since the late 1970's. I already had old Leitz glass and older M bodies (pre M6). I did purchase a second hand M8.2 about six years ago ... again, in order to provide quick, color images that could easily be post processed and distributed via various media and to use my existing lenses (although the 1.3 crop factor and their IR/UV filters, etc., dampen my mood considerably). 

I certainly do NOT intend any of this as a judgement about the value of images made with digital technology. This is just in response to the OP's question. Perhaps a little biographical detour will clarify my motivations here: I spent over thirty years of my life as a working/teaching Computer Scientist, starting back in the mid 1990's at the AI Lab in Cambridge, MA. I am somewhat conversant in current technologies. During those years, I constantly used my old M cameras, and my two Summicron lenses to make, process, and print images made on film; this endeavor, I believe, kept me creative and energized in a very remote and abstract space. This said, I am NOT adverse to computing, etc., but I am not interested in creating anything in that space at this time of my life. 

In summary: if it happened that film and the associated cameras, etc., vanished, I'd take up painting or some other media rather than spend lots of time with "virtual" images. 

Edited May 27, 2023 by Tom R

[Advertisement]

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

[madNbad]

Some of us never really left film. I tried digital, found it convenient but disliked the size and weight of the cameras. If you do want to try the switch, find a less expensive body before going all in on a new M6. Next is processing. Consider the average cost of processing a roll of color negative film is averaging twenty dollars or more, plus the twelve to fifteen for the film itself. 

I was disappointed with the results I was getting from a local lab and made the decision to only use B&W film, process and scan at home. In the nearly four years since the change, I've learned a lot and both my developing as well as scanning methods have improved. 

There are always the scanning debates. Flatbed, dedicated scanner or camera scan. Darkroom work is a whole different area. Each has advantages and drawbacks. I use camera scanning but for an occasional user a dedicated scanner like the Plustek 8200 is a good way to start.

There are a lot of film camera on the market. The older ones all need work but it would be beneficial to buy something inexpensive to start and see if it's aprocess you want to stay with. 

See you in the "I Like Film" sub-forum.

[CSG123]

Return to film?  No, it's simply not worth the time and effort unless you send the exposed rolls out for developing, scans, and prints.  I grew up in middle of the last century and film was the only option.  Into the 90's I was still shooting film exclusively.  In the early 2000's, we bought a succession of tiny digital P&S cameras for family vacations and snapshots.  I also bought my M4 in 2000.  But I also, over the next years, bought a couple DSLRs and by 2019 had gotten into the Fuji old school design cameras (XP1, XT1, XE3) and the latter three are my primary cameras.  I shoot just a few rolls of film a year these days (have about 30 rolls of B&W in the freezer).  Starting fresh with a new/used film Leica is a very expensive way to get back into film.  Film is expensive, processing is expensive, and to post anything online, you still have to digitize the image anyway.

Like records (LPs), film is harder all around and you don't get as good images, IMO, than what I see coming from my Fujis.

You've already outline the shortcomings of film photography in the 21st century.  It's a labor of love and willingness to pay silly money for film and processing.  Add in your eyesight and age and I'd say, if you want to go M, find a digital version.  Again, my opinion only.  If you have loads of discretionary funds, be like Prince sang - "Let's go crazy!"

Bottom line (again, just my opinion) is that film is for us old guys who grew up with it and never completely left and the younger hipster doofus class who also are buying vinyl records and mid-century furniture...

Edited May 27, 2023 by CSGreene

[LocalHero1953]

I returned to film early in the pandemic, initially through large format, and now with a couple of Ms and three Barnacks. I develop my own B&W at home, and send colour to a professional lab. I turn both sets of negatives to digital images with my SL2-S (I have no wish to go back to darkroom printing). I still do a lot of digital photography, especially portrait and theatre photography for others. My health is good, and my eyesight is good enough for manual focusing with the rangefinders (though the Leica Standard, with no r/f, has to make do with guesstimates and zone focusing).

I enjoy both media, and I have no hang-ups about digital post processing. I consider myself still a learner with film, trying to understand how different emulsions respond to the light, especially highlights, how that makes film images different from those from a digital sensor, and so how I can make images from either play to their strengths. I could say much the same about understanding what B&W is good for, compared to colour, or 35mm vs 4x5. It's all a learning process!

[TomB_tx]

I started back with film some 15 years ago, getting my old cameras cleaned and tuned. I still use my M9 & 10, but I find more joy in using film.

My cataracts were getting worse and affecting my focus (mainly on SLRs) so a year ago had surgery to replace the cataracts with Toric lenses that are multifocal (near, mid, far) and also correct my bad astigmatism. The laser surgery was painless and fast. My vision now checks borderline 20/20, although in dim light for very close work I sometimes add cheap reading glasses. Life seems like a high-def TV now. Focusing any camera is now easy again. I wore glasses full-time for over 60 years - quite a change now.

I also returned to developing my own B&W again - mostly to scan in, but still have my darkroom set to enlarge when I want.

As age and arthritis limit me more and more regaining the joys I can still do is very worthwhile.

[spydrxx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not a return...just a sharing. AND yes, it feels great. I only do B&W, which I develop myself, with film, saving color for digital. Been thru the cataracts issue too, and old cameras aren't as easy to focus with glasses, especially if they don't have a diopter adjustment. Merely obstacles to overcome before I'm pushing up grass from below😁. Seriously, if you hae the gear, give it a workout, you may find it draws you back.

[Anthony Miller]

I was just having a conversation like this with a young fellow in his 20s yesterday (I'm 67). Expense is a tough argument (when talking about Leica M systems at least). We both had concerns over buying something which may have a limited life and is not repairable but also with the ongoing cost of shooting film. A decent M2 - M4 can still be had less than $2k and then buying film, mailing to get processed, processing, scanning, maybe mailing back negatives can add up. While digital eliminates the ongoing expense of film and processing the entry into the digital world is much higher. A used M8 is close to $2k, an M9 is $3k and the M10 and M11 are considerably more expensive even used. At what point in time does the extra film expense equal or surpass the cost of having gone digital instead vs. the total loss when a digital finally stops working?  Things to consider.

I was always hesitant to buy anything not repairable so stuck with all manual film cameras (M2, m3 & M4) but at 67 but tired of developing my own film and am balking at the weekly or monthly costs of having it done.  I decided to go Leica digital and got an M9. Yes, it could fail tomorrow but I will say the ease of use and near instant results as soon as I get home has given me much more pleasure and I go out shooting twice a week now rather than just once a month so it seems worth the risk right now. Not sure I will still be smiling if it dies next week but for now I am happy I went this route. Still love the M3 and M4 I kept and will still shoot them for a while but it was time to be honest with myself and find what really gave me pleasure.

[250swb]

2 hours ago, CSGreene said:

Return to film?  No, it's simply not worth the time and effort unless you send the exposed rolls out for developing, scans, and prints. Starting fresh with a new/used film Leica is a very expensive way to get back into film.  Film is expensive, processing is expensive, and to post anything online, you still have to digitize the image 

Bottom line (again, just my opinion) is that film is for us old guys who grew up with it and never completely left and the younger hipster doofus class

I guess like many people here we were shooting film in the 1990’s, those that weren’t were way ahead of their time.
 

But I think everything could look difficult or expensive if you’ve never processed film yourself. You put yourself into the hands of labs and you pay their rates, and you learn nothing much about the film you are using and how it can change with different developers and ISO ratings. I’m pretty sure I’ve spent more and lost more money on the upgrade path with digital than if I’d just stuck with film over the years, and even today ‘upgrading’ to a new digital camera can be balanced with how many rolls of film you could buy instead.

So for people who are still happy to enjoy using film for its aesthetic qualities and are happy developing it at the kitchen sink or in a darkroom it doesn’t seem so expensive, considering the other option is a new digital camera and a never ending race to ‘keep up with the Joneses’.  

Edited May 27, 2023 by 250swb

[lencap]

Thanks for the replies.  A bit more about me for perspective.  I'm a senior, been retired several years.  Shot film back in the day with my dad, and he even developed B/W film at home.  Grew up with Nikons of all types - F series, Nikkormat primarily.  I'm more of a 50mm focal length as a primary kit.  My Leica journey includes the M7/M-A/MP, M9, Q, SL 601, SL2-S (which is my current camera).  My "carry camera" is an iPhone 14 Pro, a very capable camera that blends into the Apple ecosystem seamlessly, storing images/video in the cloud, and easily transferred to various Apple editing products.  It's hard to ignore the ease and flexibility of that system, along with the entry price starting at $999 for a 48MP camera complete with downward resolution or RAW file capability.  Still, it's an appliance, not a creative tool.

I am also an aged audiophile, having enjoyed vinyl records and turntable along with tubed electronics for many years before switching to digital.  Most of the switch was convenience and the vast amount of digital music easily streamed for very little cost, but also the limited selection of new vinyl artists made further collecting less flexible.

My cataracts, dry eye, astigmatism issues are fairly common for my age, but are increasingly evident.  I've resisted surgery largely because of my wife's bad experience with cataract surgery - leaving her with permanent issues that we've had trouble correcting.

My interest in film is part nostalgia, part a retreat from greater emphasis on technical specs instead of photo composition, and the steep learning curve of any digital camera or image processing tool.  I remember days past when we finally got the printed pictures back (Kodak mailers/dedicated photography store) and we all enjoyed the pictures.  There was no talking specs/tech/composition, just a smile on the face seeing family members enjoying themselves in various ways.  

I realize that nostalgia is part of my potential purchase decision, but I also realize that the megapixel race is absurd, chasing spec sheet improvements is a waste of time, and I'll never be a professional Photoshop/Lightroom/Capture 1 expert.   I resent the implied requirement that no matter how well I compose/image/capture a digital image it still needs to be post processed to get the most out of it.  And even then, you're never really done processing the image - the tweaks continue and photography becomes another tech exercise.

Thanks for the comments/perspectives/suggestions.  I appreciate all of them.  And you're saving me a fortune in psychiatric consultations!

 

Edited May 27, 2023 by lencap

[logan2z]

My path to film photography is probably different than many here. 

I grew up in the film era but had no real interest in photography at that time.  My father was an avid photographer, we had a darkroom at home, but it never really rubbed off on me.  Fast forward to my 40s and I started to get interested in photography as a hobby.  By this time, digital was the dominant format and I had started to become aware of the Leica brand.  I decided to pick up a Leica D-Lux as my first 'real' camera.  I used the camera for a while but quickly grew tired of the digital workflow - batteries, cables, software updates, hours tweaking my photos in Lightroom/Photoshop.  As a software engineer by trade, more hours in front of the computer screen was not what I was looking for.

I had always had an interest in analog things - turntables, LPs, classic cars, and so my thoughts quickly turned to buying a film camera and ditching digital photography completely.  Since I was still largely a photography neophyte, I did a lot of research to learn the differences between SLRs, rangefinders, and different film formats, and it soon became clear that the M system was a good fit for me. 

I'll admit that the thought of dropping nearly $5K on a new Leica film camera (plus an '"entry level" lens like a Summarit 35/2.4) seemed a bit crazy to me at the time, but I decided that I didn't want to start off with an older used camera that might have mechanical problems that I'd need to deal with.  So I decided to suck it up and buy a new M-A.  

Six years on and I can honestly say it's the best decision I ever made.  I absolutely love everything about the camera - the way it feels, the way it sounds, its completely mechanical operation. 

Soon after buying the camera, I joined a local community darkroom and learned how to make wet prints, which I love doing.  I subsequently set up a home darkroom so I could have more control over the process and make prints without driving a long distance to the shared darkroom.  I was still having my film developed by a local lab and decided that I'd focus on learning to print well before learning how to develop my own film at home. 

After a few bad experiences with labs, I finally decided it was time to learn how to develop my own film and have been doing that for the past year or so.  I thought I'd find it boring, but I actually enjoy the process a lot.  Learning about different development techniques, developers, film testing, etc. has given me a much deeper understanding of the photographic process, and now I finally have control over my entire workflow and have substantially reduced the cost of shooting film (I should probably mention that I only shoot B&W film so I haven't had to deal with color development or printing).

All of this is to say that I absolutely think you should give film photography another shot.  But I would encourage you to consider developing your own film and, possibly, trying your hand at wet printing.  I know that hybrid shooting has become popular given the difficulties of creating a darkroom space at home, but I think following the analog process from shooting, to film developing, to wet printing is incredibly rewarding and will let you experience all of the joys (and some of the frustrations ) of analog photography.   At the very least develop your B&W film yourself so that you'll have control over your negatives and save a bundle on lab/shipping costs.

Although I took a different path,  if I had to do it over again I would probably take the advice given above and pick up an inexpensive mechanical film camera like a Nikon F, Nikkormat FT2/3, Pentax KX, or something similar.  For $150-$200 you'll have a high-quality camera that you can use to shoot a few rolls of film and see if you like the process.  If you decide to stick with it then pick up an M film camera like the new M6/M-A/MP or a nice used M2/M3/M4 and keep the SLR as a cheap backup or for when traveling to places that you might not want to take your Leica.

Best of luck whatever you decide.

[Sandokan]

3 hours ago, lencap said:

...  My eyesight is far worse now, cataracts and age, and the SL autofocus options are helpful and capture images effortlessly.

...

Failing eyes, don't want to develop your own films?

Stick with digital.

For the smaller camera, manual film type experience - get a M10 or M11 or monochrome which have digital viewfinders. The whole enjoyment of film for me is the non-instant feedback, chemistry, manual handling of the films, the darkroom etc. 

[CSG123]

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

I guess like many people here we were shooting film in the 1990’s, those that weren’t were way ahead of their time.
 

But I think everything could look difficult or expensive if you’ve never processed film yourself. You put yourself into the hands of labs and you pay their rates, and you learn nothing much about the film you are using and how it can change with different developers and ISO ratings. I’m pretty sure I’ve spent more and lost more money on the upgrade path with digital than if I’d just stuck with film over the years, and even today ‘upgrading’ to a new digital camera can be balanced with how many rolls of film you could buy instead.

So for people who are still happy to enjoy using film for its aesthetic qualities and are happy developing it at the kitchen sink or in a darkroom it doesn’t seem so expensive, considering the other option is a new digital camera and a never ending race to ‘keep up with the Joneses’.  

I should have added to my earlier post that I develop my B&W film at home.  I also can scan them and print anything print-worthy.  Like another poster said, I save color for digital.  The thing I keep thinking about though is you might be shooting an analog image but to share it online, it needs to be digitized anyway.

[250swb]

If you can still imagine and yearn for using film do it, it maybe a last chance, but if your eyesight problems are so bad don't try to overcome them with a newer Leica digital camera because higher resolution can now be a curse, you have to judge it far more closely before an image looks sharp and it's a learning curve to deal with. So maybe stick with 24mp and get an M240.

[250swb]

10 minutes ago, CSGreene said:

I should have added to my earlier post that I develop my B&W film at home.  I also can scan them and print anything print-worthy.  Like another poster said, I save color for digital.  The thing I keep thinking about though is you might be shooting an analog image but to share it online, it needs to be digitized anyway.

Nice to know but I still disagree with you regarding cost and the general workload you think is so onerous, I mean, why go to the trouble to look at a photograph if somebody thinks it's a chore to make a photograph for you to look at? Let's all just say 'if you can't be bothered I can't be bothered'.

Edited May 27, 2023 by 250swb

[Al Brown]

I keep jumping film-to-digital-to-film-to-digital (repeat X times).
Almost seems bipolar.

[CSG123]

2 hours ago, 250swb said:

Nice to know but I still disagree with you regarding cost and the general workload you think is so onerous, I mean, why go to the trouble to look at a photograph if somebody thinks it's a chore to make a photograph for you to look at? Let's all just say 'if you can't be bothered I can't be bothered'.

Huh?  I guess we agree to disagree.  I never said "so onerous", that's you putting words into my mouth and choosing to not consider what I was trying to get at.  OK...

[Anbaric]

2 hours ago, CSGreene said:

The thing I keep thinking about though is you might be shooting an analog image but to share it online, it needs to be digitized anyway.

Looks different though. You still see the grain and the texture, which may or may not be what you want. At the zenith of the film era, this was exactly what some photographers wanted to minimise. Now it's often welcomed. HD digital versions of movies shot on film are praised because the film grain is much clearer than it was on lower resolution formats. If you shot Velvia back in the day, maybe the pure digital look was what you were trying to achieve all along. If you shot Tri-X, maybe not so much.

[Huss]

8 hours ago, lencap said:

Greetings -

……

Despite my full size digital Leica I still think back to my M7/M-A/MP film cameras and wonder if I'd enjoy going back to shooting film.  What holds me back is the reason I originally left - expense of film purchasing/developing/printing, especially color film.  I used to develop my black/white negatives, but don't want to do that any longer.

I also wonder if the underlying reason for reconsidering the M film cameras (I'd likely buy the new 2022 M6) is really a desire to return to the M body - lighter, full manual adjustments, etc.  My eyesight is far worse now, cataracts and age, and the SL autofocus options are helpful and capture images effortlessly.

…

If the reason you originally left film was expense, it is much worse now.

But, there’s a contradiction when film is expensive to you, but you are considering buying a $5500 M6!
 

You also mention your eyesight is much worse now, so the first thing I would consider is will you even be able to focus an M camera?  You don’t have to use a film M to test this - borrow a digital M to see.  Exact same focus process.  Perhaps rent one or at least visit a dealer that carries them and give it a shot so to speak.  Bring your won memory card to so you examine your pics at home and see how well you did.

I love film.  Just shot two rolls today, shot four yesterday. I love everything about it - from that tactile sensation of operating a mechanical camera - winding on the film - to working around its ‘limitations’ - to the way a film image looks.  But if I was undecided as whether I wanted to get back into film, a new M6 would not be my choice.  Something used that is a fraction of the cost would be better.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[CSG123]

4 hours ago, Anbaric said:

Looks different though. You still see the grain and the texture, which may or may not be what you want. At the zenith of the film era, this was exactly what some photographers wanted to minimise. Now it's often welcomed. HD digital versions of movies shot on film are praised because the film grain is much clearer than it was on lower resolution formats. If you shot Velvia back in the day, maybe the pure digital look was what you were trying to achieve all along. If you shot Tri-X, maybe not so much.

I'm 72 so my time with film was back in those days (as well as today still) and I recall almost never shooting anything but Plus X and Pan X when it was what, 25 ASA?  Grain was the enemy if I recall my high school photo classes correctly.  Now, I mostly shoot 400 ISO B&W film but the grain seems better than it did in the mid-late 60's.  I might be completely wrong about that, however!