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

[TheBestSLIsALeicaflex]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Never went digital.  Always preferred the B&W look on film.  Color different story I suppose.

[logan2z]

2 hours ago, Smudgerer said:

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

Probably obvious to many here, but it's worth noting that one doesn't need a darkroom to process film.  A changing bag and a daylight processing tank is all that's required.

[Advertisement]

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

[lencap]

I appreciate the continuing comments.  Back in the day I shot B&W 35mm and 2 1/4 Hasselbad.  The feeling of holding large negatives and seeing them on a light table is a very fond memory, and the driving force in my reconsideration of film.  The problem is not only eyesight - it's the whole developing process.  Year ago I took a class at a local college in B&W photography and had access to their darkroom.  It was well furnished, could handle 35mm, 2 1/4 or even larger 4x5 film stock.  They had enlargers and all the gear you'd need to develop and print up to about 11x17.  Sadly that option doesn't exist any longer, and I don't have a home location to develop film properly.  And the precision needed with correct timing and temperature isn't available either.  That essentially leaves me at the mercy of local labs.  Only one of any quality exists near me, and in addition to high prices the wait time is fairly long.

As many have mentioned if I do venture back into film the most likely camera will be an older Nikon/Nikkormat - relatively plentiful and modestly priced on a relative basis.  Still, the effort needed, along with assembling another camera kit, makes me wonder if it's worth the effort.  The SL2-S isn't as simple to use as old line film cameras, but neither are any of the digital cameras from other manufacturers.  The results though are very good - even with my limited Photoshop skills.  The SL2-S's viewfinder, even though it's electronic, gives me a very clear bright image and returns the ability to shoot pure manual focus when I prefer it.  That's at least one important aspect of image making from days past that still gives me a lot of pleasure.  And of course I can adapt M mount lenses to the SL2-S and again enjoy zone focus and hypercritical focus with real markings on the lens.  I miss that as much as developing film.  

That's why I bought the Q - it covers a lot of bases: manual/automatic focusing, macro capability, a "traditional" lens with distance markings, wonderful in hand feel, lightweight and flexible.  If only it had a more useful focal length than 28mm it would be my ideal solution.  The 28mm focal length limits bokeh and the wide open look on a 50mm lens is far more "artful" than the wide view of the 28.  Who knows, maybe someday Leica will release a Q with a longer focal length, and if they do, that will be the end of my camera search.

Thanks again for the comments.

Edited May 29, 2023 by lencap

[hansvons]

2 hours ago, Smudgerer said:

to sell off my beloved Aaton kits, ( S16 and 35mm ),

I once was on the fence to supplement my SR2 with an Aaton 35. Never did that, unfortunately. But shot tons of stuff on all Arri models from BL2 onwards. Good times!!

[Smudgerer]

1 hour ago, logan2z said:

Probably obvious to many here, but it's worth noting that one doesn't need a darkroom to process film.  A changing bag and a daylight processing tank is all that's required.

You're dead right of course, just my aversion to using changing bags in hot weather makes me scrub that usage from the memory bank!

[Smudgerer]

20 minutes ago, hansvons said:

I once was on the fence to supplement my SR2 with an Aaton 35. Never did that, unfortunately. But shot tons of stuff on all Arri models from BL2 onwards. Good times!!

My 35 was a Penelope set up as 2 or 3 perf'.

The last S16 was a Xtera with a A-Minima back-up B-Cam

JF masterpieces.

It was hard to let them go but with JF gone and Aaton not servicing cameras anymore / parts drying up sense ruled.

Anyway..........Off subject here.

 

[Topsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, Smudgerer said:

 As a DP in the US for many years

Sorry, what is a DP please?

[Smudgerer]

Just now, Topsy said:

Sorry, what is a DP please?

A Director of Photography, "DP" in the US....."DoP" in the UK and Europe

[Topsy]

1 minute ago, Smudgerer said:

A Director of Photography, "DP" in the US....."DoP" in the UK and Europe

Thanks. 👍

[Huss]

7 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.

My most used camera is my Nikon Z7.  And my most used lens is my Nikon 60mm G Macro.

Because that is used 100% of the time to “scan” my film from whatever camera/lens combo was used to shoot film with. I don’t think that z7 has left my house..

[Huss]

38 minutes ago, Smudgerer said:

A Director of Photography, "DP" in the US....."DoP" in the UK and Europe

I was waaay off.  Gotta stop surfin the web late at night.

[hepcat]

1 hour ago, lencap said:

I appreciate the continuing comments.  Back in the day I shot B&W 35mm and 2 1/4 Hasselbad.  The feeling of holding large negatives and seeing them on a light table is a very fond memory, and the driving force in my reconsideration of film.  The problem is not only eyesight - it's the whole developing process.  Year ago I took a class at a local college in B&W photography and had access to their darkroom.  It was well furnished, could handle 35mm, 2 1/4 or even larger 4x5 film stock.  They had enlargers and all the gear you'd need to develop and print up to about 11x17.  Sadly that option doesn't exist any longer, and I don't have a home location to develop film properly.  And the precision needed with correct timing and temperature isn't available either.  That essentially leaves me at the mercy of local labs.  Only one of any quality exists near me, and in addition to high prices the wait time is fairly long.

As many have mentioned if I do venture back into film the most likely camera will be an older Nikon/Nikkormat - relatively plentiful and modestly priced on a relative basis.  Still, the effort needed, along with assembling another camera kit, makes me wonder if it's worth the effort.  The SL2-S isn't as simple to use as old line film cameras, but neither are any of the digital cameras from other manufacturers.  The results though are very good - even with my limited Photoshop skills.  The SL2-S's viewfinder, even though it's electronic, gives me a very clear bright image and returns the ability to shoot pure manual focus when I prefer it.  That's at least one important aspect of image making from days past that still gives me a lot of pleasure.  And of course I can adapt M mount lenses to the SL2-S and again enjoy zone focus and hypercritical focus with real markings on the lens.  I miss that as much as developing film.  

 

Your experience follows mine closely, although (at least mentally) I've never truly left film.  I still have my darkroom, and all the accoutrements.  I did sell all of my film cameras a few years ago.  I actually sold my digital Leicas as well as my last M4-P as it was really difficult to see the focusing patch with my eyeglass prescription.  I had no film cameras for two or three years, but in 2018 I bought a Nikkormat and a 35mm f/2 Nikkor just intending to burn some of the flim I still had lying around.  All film cameras were cheaper than dirt, and I bought a  Then I bought a Nikon Df to have both digital and film and be able to use all of the Nikkors available.   I suffered with Nikon for about three years even though everything is "backwards" and counter-intuitive if you've used pretty much ANY other system extensively.    when I picked up an estate kit of a couple of Leicaflex bodies and a half-dozen R lenses, to which I've added an R5 and R6.2 as well as a US Navy veteran Leicaflex SL2.   I recently found an estate M3DS I just couldn't pass up, and to my surprise the higher magnification finder is quite easy to see through and focus.   And THEN a deal came up for an M5 I just couldn't resist, so now I'm lightly invested in both M and R Leica cameras and lenses.  Fortunately, I have a phalanx of Canon Serenars that work quite nicely adapted to the M bodies with LTM to M adapters.
 

I looked heavily into the digital SL2 and SL2-S, and decided that the Lumix versions were quite sufficient for my needs.  Actually I have the S1 and S5, a much smaller form-factor camera. I bought the S1 with an 24-105 for $1400 a couple of years ago, and the S5 with the 85mm f/1.8 on the Panny clearance for $1800; a savings of some 75% over buying the Leica versions.   Yes, there are differences in the Lumix and Leica versions, but not enough to get me to spend an additional nearly $10k for them.   I agree with you completely about the menus, and I shoot RAW with mine pretty much as supplied by the factory with just a couple of convenience mods in the menus. 

I'm pretty good at post-processing, but there's still something about the look of film that I like... it's ability to render more of a 3D look.   I still shoot a lot more digital than I do film, but it's kind of nice to do the old rituals, take some time to slow down, relax and enjoy the ride again.   I haven't made a silver-gelatin print in twenty years, but the trays are still sitting there waiting for me when I decide I want to do it.  I find that there's something comforting just knowing I can if I really want to.

[lencap]

Thanks for the "old guy" comment - it fits me too!  I didn't want to spend the Leica entry fee, but found that I wasn't enjoying shooting other camera brands.  The SL2-S reminds me of the days of Nikon F cameras and autowinders.  The SL2-S isn't that heavy, but it feels like a tool in hand, not an anchor.

I reentered Leica when the recent new SL2-S 50mm bundle became available at a combined price price of $5,895.  That's not inexpensive, but it was "only" $700 more than the SL2-S alone to add the lens, which is a very nice match for the camera in size/weight and image quality.  When Leica added an extra $1,300 voucher discount the total cost was just under $4,600 for a brand new camera with lens, including full Leica warranty.  That's quite a discount from the nearly $7,200 list price for the items individually. 

I thought then, and still do now, that the 24MP sensor was likely the last one of that resolution that Leica would produce, and for my needs it's ideal.  I can print without issue to 11x17 or so, and the processing and storage needs are still reasonable.  More importantly, for me, having the ability to add other L mount lenses (like the Pansonic Lumix S 20-60) at a reasonable price (I bought mine for $350 brand new as part of a kit - the owner just wanted the camera body) gives me lots of flexibility.  

The EVF is terrific, has diopter adjustment for my glasses, it's usable in light rain, and as a bonus has surprisingly good video options - even if I will rarely use them.  

The trend to ever larger sensor MP sizing seems silly to me.  Just where am I supposed to view 60MP in full resolution?  No video display has that capability, including 8K.  And I wonder about low light performance with such small pixel sizing.  The SL2-S has far better low light capability than the SL2 - largely related to pixel size and light gathering.  And when you add a Visoflex to an M camera, is it still an M camera?  Seems to me the lines between the M11 and the SL2 are blurring.  I fully expect Leica to have a EVF viewfinder hybrid in an updated M body in the not too distant future.

So, I'm content with the SL2-S quality, feel and capabilities given my age/eyesight.  I may play with film, but I doubt it will replace the SL2-S.  Now if the Q ever moves to a 50mm or so lens, then I'll reconsider.  But for now, at the discounted price of the kit I bought I don't see too many options that I'd rather own.  I also think "resale risk" isn't too severe, especially with the original SL601 at $2K or so.  

[pixie]

I never left film. When almost everybody went to colour, c-41 and slide, i still shot and did my own BW.I seldom sold equipment.

My Digital was reqd. for pro work. Everything became the need for yesterday. I quit pro work. I love Digital, it's fun. My gear is all old.

I don't care! My M3, 56 years doing most of my BW. Nikon-F and lenses. Rolleiflex 1954. Lots of Spotmatics, Canon A-series, Minoltas, all gifts or so inexpensive!

Digital, quite a few cameras, all small dating 2005. I do own a DSLR Nikon D60.

It makes great JPEG. Only 7 MP. Needs a one GB, SD card!

I like digital  as well as film. The Phone becoming main camera for media....

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!

[Martin B]

Film is an up and down curve for me: Started out with film and fully moved digital in 2005 until 2015. In 2015, I was gifted a large Beseler enlarger and became curious about making my own silver gelatin prints from negatives in the darkroom in parallel to my digital photography. Early on in the process I started hybrid work by scanning negatives and also creating digital negatives from digital files but printing them in my darkroom. To this day I enjoy the analog process, purchased film cameras including my first Leica M camera (which was the M6), expanded my darkroom, also tested the RA-4 color printing process from color negatives which I found in the end too cumbersome for its practical outcome. The move back to film increased significantly my knowledge about photography, and I will continue doing it for many years to come. 

But price for film is concerning, and this year I made the decision to give up on buying new color film. There is a difference between color film and digital - especially with slide film! - but I can get in general fairly close in PP of color digital files with a similar outcome. B&W film is IMO more different from digital and can be tweaked more with using different kind of developers, development conditions etc. Hard to resemble the outcome in digital. In the future my focus with film will be B&W film - potentially even using cheaper brands like Kentmere if  for example Ilford prices get too crazy. I will continue to roll my own 35 mm films from 100' rolls which I purchase which lowers the cost significantly and provides me with better flexibility for the length of film I need. 

Just a few weeks ago I made the pragmatic decision to explore the Leica monochrome sensor as potential addition to B&W film by finding a decent deal for a used M246 camera. This means that I am now getting more back into digital with B&W, too. So far I really enjoy this camera and its sensor - not the same as with film which is always a different medium, but I can capture B&W photos in a similar way as I do with my M6 for example. If potentially film prices get further overboard, or more film stocks stop to be manufactured, I already have a decent alternative now. 

I went back to film in 2015 at a good time before especially rangefinder based film cameras became hyper expensive and cost for film and film gear increased significantly during and after the pandemic to this date. I would be hard pressed starting out now with film as I did 8 years ago with no existing film equipment handy. If I am curious about film processing and had a analog film camera in good condition ready to use, I would likely just do a more minimalistic approach now and use what I already have, running a few films through the camera and having the films developed instead of doing it all on my own. If the photos are convincing, I might explore further and vest into the film hobby. But if not, I likely would stay all digital at this point. Glad I am set with great analog cameras for small, medium, and large format plus having the tools to develop and print. I consider myself very lucky here!

Edited May 30, 2023 by Martin B

[atournas]

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!

[250swb]

On 5/29/2023 at 4:39 PM, lencap said:

Sadly that option doesn't exist any longer, and I don't have a home location to develop film properly.  And the precision needed with correct timing and temperature isn't available either.  That essentially leaves me at the mercy of local labs.

I develop everything from 4x5 to 35mm at my kitchen sink. Do you have a kitchen sink?

[Martin B]

8 hours ago, atournas said:

 

Since your comment #56 seems the only one in this thread, I am not sure how it is meant - sounds like it implies that digital is the cheaper way and film is the superior way to enjoy photography. Granted that all is subjective how photography is performed, I don't see digital as cheaper per se. Many factors involve the cost here - what kind of digital camera is used or maybe just a cellphone camera. But none of the options - omitting cheapest older DSLR cameras including P&S - is really cheap. Since this is a Leica-based forum, focus is on Leica cameras which certainly cannot be considered cheap - at minimum paying $2000-3000 for a used digital M or SL. Is film more enjoyable? This is a point where I can sometimes agree with even I also enjoy digital depending on the situation when and what I want to photograph. I believe that both film and digital can be very enjoyable in their own way. I simply wouldn't see it as black and white as the comment earlier makes it appear. 

[atournas]

21 minutes ago, Martin B said:

Since your comment #56 seems the only one in this thread, I am not sure how it is meant - sounds like it implies that digital is the cheaper way and film is the superior way to enjoy photography. Granted that all is subjective how photography is performed, I don't see digital as cheaper per se. Many factors involve the cost here - what kind of digital camera is used or maybe just a cellphone camera. But none of the options - omitting cheapest older DSLR cameras including P&S - is really cheap. Since this is a Leica-based forum, focus is on Leica cameras which certainly cannot be considered cheap - at minimum paying $2000-3000 for a used digital M or SL. Is film more enjoyable? This is a point where I can sometimes agree with even I also enjoy digital depending on the situation when and what I want to photograph. I believe that both film and digital can be very enjoyable in their own way. I simply wouldn't see it as black and white as the comment earlier makes it appear. 

Sorry, I don't get why my post is the only comment here, but that's not much important. Even as the only comment, it definitely expresses a personal opinion (its presentation can't be more personal!) I enjoy shooting film more, but when my bank account balance hurts, I reluctantly turn to digital, at least for some time. And that happens in a kind of circle. 

I didn't mean to confuse anyone by "circling around".

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[250swb]

5 hours ago, atournas said:

Sorry, I don't get why my post is the only comment here, but that's not much important. Even as the only comment, it definitely expresses a personal opinion (its presentation can't be more personal!) I enjoy shooting film more, but when my bank account balance hurts, I reluctantly turn to digital, at least for some time. And that happens in a kind of circle. 

I didn't mean to confuse anyone by "circling around".

A good way to look at things, but people will buy a new Q3 without blinking an eye about the hit they take on their old Q2, plus buying an even more expensive replacement. And they'll still trot out the same justification that digital is cheaper. What do people need to upgrade with a film camera, only the gradual rise in the price of film, and a lot of film isn't all that pricey anyway. There is obviously an element of reality in that film has become more expensive, but it will still take a lot to catch up with the spending in the average upgrade cycle of digital cameras. But unfortunately the expense of film has been caught up in what people are willing to do for themselves, and the scarcity of labs means the message comes out that film has become too expensive adding to a false negative attitude. For the people still in the darkroom and enjoying their photography it is the same as it's always been throughout history, a cost to suck up.