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

[madNbad]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, Huss said:

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?  

I have had poor vision my entire life and age has brought it's own problems. I can't see past the end of my elbow without glasses, add in the astigmatism, age related macular degeneration and posterior vitreous detachment as a bonus. I use a Leica rangefinder because it ensures my photos will be in focus. I'll keep using rangefinder cameras for as long as the patch is visible and I have the ability to align it.

[rmueller]

I never really gave up on film but was shooting film on the Hassi 203FE and SWC mostly. Returned to 35mm film in 2021 with the purchase of the M-A and it feels liberating. I have a 28mm and 50mm cron and this is all I really need. My film of choice is SilberSalz35 which I can send to them and get a high quality digital negative back a week later or so. I'm seriously considering selling some analog Nikon gear I still own and get a second M-A so that I can have one loaded with daylight and the other with tungsten film. The M-A has become my every day camera. As I send film to the lab in batches of four, it sometimes takes weeks or even months for the results to come back which makes me look at the images quite differently than at the moment of sensation. 

Regards, Ralf

[Advertisement]

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

[Ouroboros]

Never left film, despite using digital cameras since 2000 for 99% of my paid work.

Some reasons why I still use film for personal work:

1. I enjoy using my Leicas, Hasselblads, Fuji MF and Ondu pinhole cameras far more than I enjoy using my dslrs or even my M10-R. 

2. There is a multitude of film and developer combinations to experiment and explore my creative potential with, this has held my interest for over 50 years as a photographer.  The interest does not diminish and despite the high cost of film, I see no reason to leave the practical knowledge and the skills that I have built up during that time whilst I am still driven to expand them further. 

3. I prefer the aesthetic qualities of film images in both digital and wet prints and if you don't make prints, what is the point of owning a camera?

 

 

   

  

 

 

[Mikep996]

 When I shoot film it is for black and white images only, sometimes using my old (1984) M6 but more often with a 6x6 Bronica SQAi. I develop and process the film myself, including dark room printing. I don't scan film.  IMO, for 'keeper,' hang-on-the-wall shots, a darkroom-printed BW image on fibre paper cannot be matched by digital printing whether it's a scanned film image or a digital camera image.  Film is either Ilford FP4, or HP5.  Developer is Rodinal.   I tried Cinestill DF96 one shot developer for a while.  I liked its convenience but prefer the look of Rodinal (and the fact that it keeps forever).  But if you are getting into film for the first time or after a long absence, DF96 is a great way to start out and avoid immediately wading into the morass of developers!  

The cost of film is, TBH, a non issue, maybe because of the way I shoot.  With the Bronica, I typically go out with ONE roll of film - 12 shots.  If I'm out with the M6, it's one roll of 24.  When I return home, I immediately develop the film.  I find that I enjoy that sort of shooting far more than the typical digital spray and pray method.  I don't have the patience or interest in sorting through hundreds of (mostly bad) pics. I can't figure out how anybody does that! 

I use digital (M10R/Q2) for all color and some conversions to BW.   FWIW, last year I tested a Q2M against my Q2 and couldn't see any difference in the BW images at the relatively low ISOs that I use.  Heck I was perfectly happy with ISO 800 film/fast lenses so ISO 50k is beyond my comprehension.  

 

[Topsy]

Although I never completely left film I came back to it about 5 years ago. For 35mm I use an MP and for 120 I use a Bronica SQ-Ai. TBH I don't shoot 35mm much because I like the immediacy of Digital (M9s) my main film use is 120 and mosly colour (Provia 100F and Portra) and I shoot these mainly for project work landscape exclusively.

With the smaller format photography I like to be able to see my shots when I get home so digital works best if I take the MP I have to finish the roll asap (often wasting frames just to finish it) then get it processed and scanned which takes time, however, if I have a particular theme for a day's photography film can work fine.

On another "general photography" Forum I am a member of I am doing 2 challenges side by side, one film and one digital, both have a monthly theme (which is the same) so I am doing them side by side film with the MP digital with the M9 using 35mm lenses. I shoot a subject from the same position with both cameras then post one to each thread, this month was "Urban" these are the shots;-

MP 35mm Summaron, Portra 160

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!

 

M9 35mm Summicron at 160 ISO

Whilst there is a difference in the images resolution wise I like both, the tonal range is similar and although I can see the grain on the Portra shot I don't dislike it. If I had shot on Provia the grain would be less obvious but for some of the themes Provia would be a bit too contrasty.

[250swb]

12 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.

I think that is what a digital camera can be used for isn't it? The OP @lencaphas an SL-2, an ideal camera for copying negatives, very little else is needed, a light pad, a macro lens (a cheap and plentiful Nikon 55mm is perfect), some sort of copy stand, and a negative holder. With that the OP can not only send an analogue photo to the web but even print them out avoiding the darkroom altogether. 

I've migrated over time from darkroom to digital and from digital back to film and scanning with dedicated film scanner for many years. Modern digital cameras now have sufficient resolution that they exceed what can be achieved with the latest dedicated scanners. There are differences in workflow however and some people may prefer one method of working  more than the other. But one great thing the digital camera does is copy the grain of the film directly, not an amalgamation of grain and noise that you get with a scanner. And a practical digitising set-up with a camera also allows for other film formats with little extra work, I use 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12 and 4x5 and the only change is the height of the copy stand and the film holder.

[Anbaric]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Mikep996 said:

The cost of film is, TBH, a non issue, maybe because of the way I shoot.  With the Bronica, I typically go out with ONE roll of film - 12 shots.  If I'm out with the M6, it's one roll of 24.  When I return home, I immediately develop the film.  I find that I enjoy that sort of shooting far more than the typical digital spray and pray method.  I don't have the patience or interest in sorting through hundreds of (mostly bad) pics. I can't figure out how anybody does that!

How we shoot is the key thing here. My standard colour film, Superia 400, now costs about 4x what I paid pre-Covid, if I can find it at all. Once I might have shot 10 rolls at some big event. Today, buying that film and having it processed and scanned (but not printed) would cost me around £250. At that rate, a nice digital camera will soon pay for itself, so most of us would really have to like the results or enjoy the process to justify a cost per frame of 70p and up.

Recently, I've heard it claimed that some of the young photographers who had been discovering the mechanics and unique look of film photography for the first time are now turning to early digitals when they want something affordably different - the hardware is still cheap (but intriguing), the running costs are low (if you can find the batteries and media), and maybe all that chroma noise and the other quirks of the older (especially CCD) sensors are interesting to the Lomography crowd. Others are snapping up cameras like the Fuji X100 series, attracted by their analogue-style controls and film simulations (without the expense of film).

Meanwhile, I suppose a lot of us use both film and digital, reserving film for more deliberate, low volume photography, and given the current price and availability of colour film, increasingly turning to B&W. In this world, a camera like the Nikon F5, built to burn an entire roll in 5 seconds, looks like a bit of a dinosaur, while a manual or medium format camera comes into its own (strangely, it can be easier to find some films in 120 than in 35mm).

[Mikep996]

Re "the film look"      In my film days (or now), if any of my images had the "film look" of today I would have been thinking that I must have failed to focus accurately OR somehow scratched the film while processing and/or I screwed up the development timing or used a completely wrong developer.   Most of the film images I see posted on the internet by folks raving about their "unique look" would have been tossed in the trash back in the film days.  

[Anbaric]

49 minutes ago, Mikep996 said:

Re "the film look"      In my film days (or now), if any of my images had the "film look" of today I would have been thinking that I must have failed to focus accurately OR somehow scratched the film while processing and/or I screwed up the development timing or used a completely wrong developer.   Most of the film images I see posted on the internet by folks raving about their "unique look" would have been tossed in the trash back in the film days.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law

[lencap]

I’ve read each post, several of which drove me to really identify why I’m interested in revisiting film shooting.   It seems that part of my desire is to return to a simpler way of creating images.

My SL2-S is a wonderful tool, filled with options about how to shoot, but to take advantage of what the camera offers I have to invest the time to learn every feature.  That seems to be the crux of the matter.  I haven’t taken the time to learn the tool I own, and, apparently, I find the almost limitless choices overwhelming.  That lead me to have a lack of confidence in the outcome, wondering if I could have improved the image with different settings (ISO, exposure, etc).

The flexibility inherent in digital cameras is leading me to “paralysis” when it’s time to shoot.  I recall my Nikon Z6, and now realize that my frustration with that camera was the choices the camera offered, and my frustration about how to select the best ones.  I often put the camera in “green mode”, automatic, and let the camera figure it out.

Sadly it seems as if I’ve been doing the same with the SL2-S - obsessing over settings instead of image composition.  Thanks for helping me clarify why I’m frustrated.  It wasn’t obvious to me until reading everyone’s comments.

[spydrxx]

I remember being overwhelmed with my first digital camera. As a matter of fact, I was overwhelmed when I bought my Nikon F5 and F100, same with the Contax RX...just too many functions, menus and choices when I just wanted to take pictures. It was easy getting drawn back to the much simpler Leica film bodies. But with time, a little patience, and encouragement from friends, I began to embrace digital functionality...it lost the "gee-whiz" factor and I got much better at it. It appears as if you're coming around to getting past the paralysis and enjoying the benefits of your SL-2.

Edited May 28 by spydrxx
Damned autofill

[davidmknoble]

I've been dual-shooting film and digital since digital took hold.  I think there is a place for both.  The great part about BnW negatives is that it's a backup after it's scanned.  If you lose it, you rescan it.  The downside is, well, time.

What I did do differently more recently was spend time calibrating some film.  I shot it at package ISO and developed it standard, but then used a densimeter to see what film speed my technique used.  (Yes, I know, nerdy to 10th power).  Then I shot a second roll and expanded the development time to get the whole range.  There is something about looking at a negative that has a full contrast range, it is just exhilarating.  I worked on Ilford FP4+ and Pan F and my ISO is 80 and 25 respectively.

It was more a third reading in 2 decades of Ansel Adams 'Negative' and I've probably matured in a little more patience and technique.

Not for everyone, and not suggesting it, but if you want to dive in, it can be rewarding.

[250swb]

6 hours ago, lencap said:

 

Sadly it seems as if I’ve been doing the same with the SL2-S - obsessing over settings instead of image composition. 

Settings on a digital camera are one of the least important things because as a backup you have ACR when you process the images. My two main digital cameras (that rarely get used) are a Leica M10 and a Nikon Z7 and other than choosing ISO and aperture priority or shutter priority they have not deviated from the default menu. So yes digital is simple, it’s only reviewers that can make a mountain out of a molehill. But as I said with my response about scanning a negative, film can be made simple as well, I have no desire to make it complicated either. You can have an adventure in both directions by keeping it simple, and if you want to dip your toe in the film water maybe try a cheap SLR that has or takes a split image screen before deciding on a Leica rangefinder.

Edited May 28 by 250swb

[Huss]

16 hours ago, Topsy said:

Although I never completely left film I came back to it about 5 years ago. For 35mm I use an MP and for 120 I use a Bronica SQ-Ai. TBH I don't shoot 35mm much because I like the immediacy of Digital (M9s) my main film use is 120 and mosly colour (Provia 100F and Portra) and I shoot these mainly for project work landscape exclusively.

With the smaller format photography I like to be able to see my shots when I get home so digital works best if I take the MP I have to finish the roll asap (often wasting frames just to finish it) then get it processed and scanned which takes time, however, if I have a particular theme for a day's photography film can work fine.

On another "general photography" Forum I am a member of I am doing 2 challenges side by side, one film and one digital, both have a monthly theme (which is the same) so I am doing them side by side film with the MP digital with the M9 using 35mm lenses. I shoot a subject from the same position with both cameras then post one to each thread, this month was "Urban" these are the shots;-

MP 35mm Summaron, Portra 160

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!

 

M9 35mm Summicron at 160 ISO

Whilst there is a difference in the images resolution wise I like both, the tonal range is similar and although I can see the grain on the Portra shot I don't dislike it. If I had shot on Provia the grain would be less obvious but for some of the themes Provia would be a bit too contrasty.

Lovely, what town is that?

[Huss]

17 hours ago, Ouroboros said:

Never left film, despite using digital cameras since 2000 for 99% of my paid work.

Some reasons why I still use film for personal work:

1. I enjoy using my Leicas, Hasselblads, Fuji MF and Ondu pinhole cameras far more than I enjoy using my dslrs or even my M10-R. 

2. There is a multitude of film and developer combinations to experiment and explore my creative potential with, this has held my interest for over 50 years as a photographer.  The interest does not diminish and despite the high cost of film, I see no reason to leave the practical knowledge and the skills that I have built up during that time whilst I am still driven to expand them further. 

3. I prefer the aesthetic qualities of film images in both digital and wet prints and if you don't make prints, what is the point of owning a camera?

 

 

   

  

 

 

Very interesting.  I too own an M10r but also far prefer using a film M.  But sometimes I wonder why, because they are so similar minus the medium. Even if I ignore the medium, the film Ms are still more satisfying.

[Topsy]

5 hours ago, Huss said:

Lovely, what town is that?

Thanks it is Tavistock in Devon.

[Ouroboros]

28 minutes ago, Topsy said:

Thanks it is Tavistock in Devon.

My aunt and uncle lived by the river down the road behind where you stood to take that photograph!

[Topsy]

10 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

My aunt and uncle lived by the river down the road behind where you stood to take that photograph!

That would be the River Tavy then. I took the shots standing on the walls of the church grounds to get a bit of elevation.

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!

[hansvons]

19 hours ago, lencap said:

My SL2-S is a wonderful tool, filled with options about how to shoot, but to take advantage of what the camera offers I have to invest the time to learn every feature.  That seems to be the crux of the matter.

You are not alone with that issue. At some point in my career as a filmmaker, I bought an Olympus digital camera because there was that project that needed stills and I thought that, maybe, my family photos would benefit too. I found the menu overwhelming and that counts for the SL2-S as well, even more so for Sony, Nikon etc. But I managed because I can relate to tech stuff. However, I always preferred and still prefer the simple menus of digital cine cameras like the Alexa, which is only about shutter angle, fps, ISO and colour temperature, essentially what you think about when shooting film. If you look at it from that perspective, Leica did a superb job on the SL-S menus, as you can boil it down easily to these essentials.

Because with Raw there’s a plethora of intimidating options on the postproduction side, I created my own, film-based camera setup for C1 that is limiting me to that particular look (thinking of shooting only Portra 400) but freeing me of endless dabbling in C1. I also did that with the negative conversion.

I started my career with Kodak Vision on S16mm and later 35mm until we mere film mortals lost film to the digital revolution around 2009. Now, only Spielberg and the likes have the privilege to shoot on film. 

Last year, I found my way back to B&W film and now do shoot analogue colour as well. I learned that developing the negatives is an essential part of the process, definitely with B&W. But I also home-develop colour, as it's cheaper, and with some attentiveness easily as good as a pro lab. 

I bought a couple of rolls filled with Kodak Vision stock that is half the price of Portra, with even better resolution but has that rem-jet layer that must be removed before and after development. The results are super rewarding, rendering my SL2-S mostly to a digitising device.

Has film a future? If you ask me and millions of young people, we would say yes because the process is much more observant and thus the results are on another level because as any art form photography is not about camera specs, resolution etc... A fact deliberately overlooked by the camera industry urging us to buy the latest and greatest stuff to improve our photographic work. That's bollocks of course. What's not bollocks is how much you can relate to your gear because it's the medium for your storytelling. I can relate much better to Kodak and manual Leica than to any high-resolving sensor and super fast AF. YMMV.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Smudgerer]

3 hours ago, hansvons said:

You are not alone with that issue. At some point in my career as a filmmaker, I bought an Olympus digital camera because there was that project that needed stills and I thought that, maybe, my family photos would benefit too. I found the menu overwhelming and that counts for the SL2-S as well, even more so for Sony, Nikon etc. But I managed because I can relate to tech stuff. However, I always preferred and still prefer the simple menus of digital cine cameras like the Alexa, which is only about shutter angle, fps, ISO and colour temperature, essentially what you think about when shooting film. If you look at it from that perspective, Leica did a superb job on the SL-S menus, as you can boil it down easily to these essentials.

Because with Raw there’s a plethora of intimidating options on the postproduction side, I created my own, film-based camera setup for C1 that is limiting me to that particular look (thinking of shooting only Portra 400) but freeing me of endless dabbling in C1. I also did that with the negative conversion.

I started my career with Kodak Vision on S16mm and later 35mm until we mere film mortals lost film to the digital revolution around 2009. Now, only Spielberg and the likes have the privilege to shoot on film. 

Last year, I found my way back to B&W film and now do shoot analogue colour as well. I learned that developing the negatives is an essential part of the process, definitely with B&W. But I also home-develop colour, as it's cheaper, and with some attentiveness easily as good as a pro lab. 

I bought a couple of rolls filled with Kodak Vision stock that is half the price of Portra, with even better resolution but has that rem-jet layer that must be removed before and after development. The results are super rewarding, rendering my SL2-S mostly to a digitising device.

Has film a future? If you ask me and millions of young people, we would say yes because the process is much more observant and thus the results are on another level because as any art form photography is not about camera specs, resolution etc... A fact deliberately overlooked by the camera industry urging us to buy the latest and greatest stuff to improve our photographic work. That's bollocks of course. What's not bollocks is how much you can relate to your gear because it's the medium for your storytelling. I can relate much better to Kodak and manual Leica than to any high-resolving sensor and super fast AF. YMMV.

I relate to pretty much everything you say here and I've traveled pretty much the same path too as far as filming is concerned. As a DP in the US for many years I disliked and resisted the transition to digital acquisition in the early to mid-2000's whilst understanding the reasons why that new medium was eventually to all-but eclipse film use, even so it took me until last year to screw up the sense to sell off my beloved Aaton kits, ( S16 and 35mm ), they just were not being used much at all so reason eventually overruled the heart. I disliked the change in workflow and even mindset that digital film-making has made to the industry I loved being a part of.

Anyway, has film a future on this the still photography side of things? Yes I do believe it has and in fact even though I do have digital M's my film M's now are the most used for what I want to do in my own, personal, work.

Sure it's more expensive to use, ( not that digital M's are cheap to acquire and not forgetting their comparative / relatively short lifespan before the temptation to upgrade to the newest bling endowed model becomes hard to resist ), and one has to learn or pay for processing before you can even see what you've shot, "chimping free" photography, so that means a darkroom set-up of some sort probably sooner or later at least for the processing of the B&W negative or the colour film you use.

Then there's printing. I come from the school of believing that any photograph that's worth keeping is worth printing, in fact the process of printing a chosen image is the culmination of the whole process, shutter-click to the print in hand. Images stored and viewed solely digitally on a computer, 'phone, tablet or web' have no meaning or value to me at all other than perhaps the ease of review and edit, the print is the thing.......And yet again that's costly too whether you farm out that work out to a lab' or do it yourself either as "wet" prints or inkjet. I process my films then print with an Epson inkjet up to 24"/61cm, 85% in B&W. I just don't have the room to make a darkroom big enough to do both even though I do still miss the "zen" of the "wet print" side of darkroom work.

Nothing comes cheap in terms of time and money invested in doing any of this in any worthwhile way when using film rather than digital, so is it really worth it? For me the answer is simple, if one is serious about one's photography and if you can embrace the whole process, the answer is yes.

Edited May 29 by Smudgerer