When do you take out the Analog camera versus the Digital?

[Ko.Fe.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

With 400  BW film you could push most of it to 3200. With TMAX 3200 and corresponding Ilford up to 12800.

 

In not too distant from now past time, we used to have forum called APUG. I remember how someone where took shots with different ISO ratings on same roll.

It worked. I tried the same with film from the past Polypan 50 and it worked too. Film is very forgiving on exposure.

 

The only big reason to use film left for now is because you want image on film.

 

Bringing film and digital Leica M never worked for me. After getting of digital M in 2016, I continued to use mostly film M and never mixed with digital.

Every time I needed digital M image I used it as well, but much less.

In 2022 I have quit from film and not using film M at all, but digital one. 

 

Oh, I really used film M everywhere and at any time including night time. Not a problem. 

 

M4-2 with ISO 400 film and goggled Summaron 35 3.5.

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!

 

 

Edited June 21, 2023 by Ko.Fe.

[rmueller]

Hi,

strange, for me it's quite the opposite of what others seem to do. For B&W I use the M Monochrom and for color I have the M-A loaded with SilberSalz35 250D (daylight) or 500T (Tungsten) as I can't seem to reproduce this cinematic look of SilberSalz35 stock with digital. The M-A is really liberating, seriously consider a second M-A body so that I can have one loaded with daylight and the other with tungsten film stock. 

I never take both digital and film out in the field, always pick one over the other depending on what the 'project' of the day is. 

Regards,

Ralf

[oldwino]

22 hours ago, Ko.Fe. said:

The only big reason to use film left for now is because you want image on film.

 

I agree with this. Digital sensors (and onboard processing) are so good now, that many of the old arguments against digital are moot. And, so much of what makes film unique (tonal graduations, latitude, etc) is lost when it is scanned. Scanner tech is seriously lacking…I find I am less and less enamored with 35mm film, unless there is a specific look I am going after. I much prefer shooting 120 formats, as they still do things that digital cannot (yet) do, especially in the spatial realm because of that big negative. 

[Topsy]

2 hours ago, oldwino said:

I agree with this. Digital sensors (and onboard processing) are so good now, that many of the old arguments against digital are moot. And, so much of what makes film unique (tonal graduations, latitude, etc) is lost when it is scanned. Scanner tech is seriously lacking…I find I am less and less enamored with 35mm film, unless there is a specific look I am going after. I much prefer shooting 120 formats, as they still do things that digital cannot (yet) do, especially in the spatial realm because of that big negative. 

I agree. 👍 As I said before I prefer results with my M9 fersus any 35mm film stock and I love the flexibility and immediacy of digital but for my project and landscape I prefer 120 film to my M9s.

[Ko.Fe.]

5 hours ago, oldwino said:

I agree with this. Digital sensors (and onboard processing) are so good now, that many of the old arguments against digital are moot. And, so much of what makes film unique (tonal graduations, latitude, etc) is lost when it is scanned. Scanner tech is seriously lacking…I find I am less and less enamored with 35mm film, unless there is a specific look I am going after. I much prefer shooting 120 formats, as they still do things that digital cannot (yet) do, especially in the spatial realm because of that big negative. 

The reasons I quit from C-41 - by now it is only theoretically possible to make darkroom print in color. I look at old, optical or how it was called prints, before it was switched to scans in the lab. They are still not surpassed by inkjets. But inkjets are real deal for home.

My bw darkroom prints were not much different from bw ink jet printed scans. 120/135 doesn't matter. If everything is done correct, darkroom prints and inkjet prints from scans are not much different. I have mix of 13/120 scan prints and dakroom prints framed and under the glass at home's walls. No big difference.

The only big difference is with paper if hold in hands. For darkroom prints I used fifty+ years old heavy weight single grade fiber paper. Like AGFA Brovira. I'm not sure if here is any similar for inkjets. Nor any alternative for lith printing. 

But in reality, I preferred darkroom prints so much, I was not scanning bw film most of the time. And because it is so time consuming, I quit for now.   

[Leica Filmmatic]

Day to day I grab whichever one I feel like in the morning.  If it’s night time I am taking the M11 and when I travel I take the M11, MP and the Hassy x2d100.

[fsprow]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I can achieve anything I want on my M11 or Hasselblad H6D. The reason I use film is that I love developing and scanning film and handling film cameras.  

[mikeamosau]

I’ve found the opposite since getting an MP, the digital M stay home more and more. But I also tend to take a Hasselblad 503 with me too for medium format. I bought a bigger bag, took both and found after shooting more and more film, it’s where I end up going most of the time now. 

[poli]

My m10-d is catching dust since I got my M-A's. Only taking the M10-d when I am flying. But I prefer the train for travelling so the digital is feeling left out...

[Jimmyp82]

I went on holiday recently, took my MP and a Canon R5, I found I used the MP for all holiday snaps documentation, a few nice sunsets, lots of pics of the wife. The R5 was used when I wanted to photograph and specific landscape, in an aquarium, images of sand dunes, mostly because I was using a 100-500mm lens. 

In general the R5 gets used for personal project work, where I really want the flexibility of digital, resolution and the ability to use a long lens. 

The MP is all life documentation, walks out and about etc, it gets used more than the R5.

[Huss]

Last year as an experiment I shot a roll of Kentmere 400 at 1600 and push processed with Cinestill DF96 Monobath.  This developer would not be the ideal choice for push processing, but it was what I had and I was curious.

Anyway, all these pics are from the same roll @ 1600 in conditions from blazing sunshine to dim indoors/garage light.  I did not use an ND filter.  Just my M7 and CV 40 1.2 to maximize exposure potential.  In the blazing sunshine the camera was at 1/1000 and f22.  I was surprised as to how little the grain changed, and how flexible the film is.

Obviously in daylight there is no bokeh/subject separation but if your intention is to use film in all conditions - it is not an issue.  It seems that Kentmere could easily be used at 3200 w the appropriate developer, but at that point you would need an ND filter for daylight use.  Or use a different film camera like a Nikon N80 (1/4000 shutter for $20!), F6, Zeiss Ikon ZM (1/2000) etc.  I think the Konica Hexar RF (Leica M mount) has a 1/4000 shutter so it would be perfect, and I always wanted one but was scared away by all the failures I have seen w no chance for repair.

Anyway - all these using an M7, CV 40 1.2, Kentmere 400 at 1600 same roll.  To see how flexible this film is.

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!

[Life By Stills]

I'm a freelance photojournalist, so most of the time I will be using digital (Q3 for wide shots, Sony A7R IV with a more telephoto lens). But I always find myself either bringing along my Holga 120N or M3 as well. I had an M246 and an M10 Mono but have since realised that, despite how lovely Leica's Monochrom cameras are, BW feels a lot more natural on film - granted this is a very subjective feeling, but it's what I get out of it.

I tend to use my digital for professional editorial work. But having said that, I am using the Holga 120N for a specific photobook project. I call the M3 my fun / relaxation camera.

If I'm going out and about to places where I have been before, I sometimes just take my M3 because I find the whole process shooting with an analogue so much more enjoyable / relaxing than reading off sensor readouts in an EVF / on the back LCD.

But of course this is just my very subjective feeling on digital vs film.

[hansvons]

11 hours ago, Life By Stills said:

… despite how lovely Leica's Monochrom cameras are, BW feels a lot more natural on film - granted this is a very subjective feeling, but it's what I get out of it.

Precisely my sentiment. I went so far that I dropped digital for B&W for good, got a pair of analogue Ms and use them for my editorial work (mostly reports and essays, and social media campaigns). I do the development myself and found out that my workflow is reliable enough for proper assignments (as it has been before digital took over).
 

Readers appreciate the difference, as feedback indicates. My subjects interact a magnitude more comfortable with me when they realise that I photograph them the old way. We often have a chat about the Leicas, the idea of taking things seriously, not taking shortcuts. All of that has a visible impact of my work‘s authenticity and quality, not least on my motivation as film photography is much more rewarding.

Colour, on the other hand, is a different story. I home-dev colour film as well, which isn't more time-consuming than B&W, but the editing after the scanning takes 5 times more time than B&W.

The results look fabulous at times but communicate to parts of the audience a possible irritating message, as film images lack that vibrancy and learned "completeness" of digital imagery that even phone images are able to present today. In an editorial context that can be the opposite of authenticity, too artsy, even unprofessional for the untrained eye. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by hansvons

[rtai]

I take an MP with 35mm loaded with TX as a second camera to whichever Leica digital I am shooting. Sometimes I only shoot with it and sometimes it never leaves the camera bag depending on the light.

[ktmrider2]

Last November and December, I spent 30 days in Vietnam.  I carried my M4 and an iPhone.  In thirty days I could not justify finishing one roll of film because the weather and lighting were terrible.  The phone worked great for snapshots which I could send to friends but with the lousy lighting I knew the subjects were not worth the cost of film.

[LocalHero1953]

I’m in Arles for the Rencontre de La Photographie, and I thought hard about what to bring, given that I’d have to get it here in a backpack by train, and carry it around on foot in temperatures approaching 35C. 

I brought the Q2 and MP with the Summilux 75 and Elmarit 28 - and my iPhone. There has been a very clear division of labour, which evolved without prior planning. The phone has been used as a visual notebook for exhibitions, not least because it has a hyper wide setting which can take in a whole room, or a large display from close up in a cramped space. The Q2 has been used for general views and street where I want quality images, including for social media. The MP and 75 have been used for portraits and people groups - I have taken quite a number of portraits of exhibitor-photographers. The Elmarit 28 has been ignored, and eventually left behind to cut weight in my day bag. 

Two people have recognised my Leica: one guy in a restaurant who was carrying a M7; and an English girl graduate from the RCA exhibition who lusted after my body: sadly just the MP. 

[otto.f]

I’m going to a blues concert next week, BuddyGuy. I’ll take my M7 with the APO35 and the 75lux, with two Portra 800’s. I’ll leave my M10-R at home, because this concert smells much more like film.  
I don’t get it; in the 60’s to 90’s we also did everything like these concerts and theatre on film. OP isn’t that young anymore so I take it his routine with film camera’s must have been there once. Digital photography is like navigation app’s: we can’t do without because we unlearned to do it in the analogue way. It’s not so good for our brains I’m afraid. 

Edited July 8, 2023 by otto.f

[edstock]

I pull out one of my analog camera's whenever I want to do "real" photography. I use my digital when I just want to grab shots without having to do much, if any, thinking. I'll create an image using photoshop to tweak, tweak and retweak.

[CSG123]

I've got about 30 rolls of assorted b&w film in the freezer, all bought new.  I have more film cameras than digital (all from the old days) but I almost never use any of them anymore save for my M4 and it's quite rare I use it.  Some of my film (all stored since fresh in the freezer) has 2012 expiration dates on them).  I used to be a film snob but digital, in my years of experience with them, is so much better and easier to use.  I think digital photos almost always have better image quality than film.  Honestly, almost all of the film images that are posted in that topic are terrible to mediocre, at best.  Only MY opinion, others will disagree.

I should add that my only reason to shoot film anymore is for b&w but I was surprised bigtime when I first used my Fuji XE-3 set on monochrome at how great the images were both online and printed.  It's largely what's drien me away from using my M4 like I once did.  While I wouldn't buy a digital monochrome Leica M over their standard version, I see their appeal for serious b&w photographers.

Edited July 13, 2023 by CSG123

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M