How many of us also shoot digital...and what/why?

[bags27]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Lots of obvious reasons to shoot digital also: price of film and difficulty in getting it through airports, instant gratification, and just the convenience and different aesthetics of digital. 

I have a used Panasonic S1R only for scanning film, and a Sigma DP-2 Merrill that I just can't seem to part with. Otherwise, I long ago sold off my digital cameras.

However, I'm doing a long term scholarly project that is partly photographic and involves travel. Until now, I've used my Mamiya 7, but it's a lot of work. Thinking about a digital for general travel and for that book.

Almost bought the Blad x2d, but just can't see the images as "filmic" enough. Many photos from the Leica M11 are surprisingly pleasing to me, but, with my aging eyes, I'm not investing so much in another rangefinder. 

I was holding out for the Foveon L mount camera, but Sigma's CEO recently treaded water about it, and I'm giving up hope that it'll ever happen or at least soon enough.

So, thinking about a Leica S, which produces, for me, the best digital image quality. S2 and 006 produce my very favorite images, but have extremely low ISO. Maybe an 007? What's holding me back on any S is its weight. The body and lens weigh nearly 2x as much as my Blad 500 c/m, which seems to be about the limit of what I like walking long distances with.

What do other film photographers think about digital?

[Advertisement]

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

[250swb]

I shoot digital on a regular basis, maybe two or three times a year, just to remind myself why I don’t like it as much as film. I’m not saying I could exist without digital but I’d miss all the variety and excitement film offers. I feel I’ve made something by using film, but I’m old school and art is supposed to be work so I don’t begrudge the effort.

[JoshuaR]

I have an M10 and an MP. I use the M10 a lot. It's not really the convenience that draws me in, but the look of the images. Sometimes I just want that digital detail, vividness, and clarity. After a while spent with film, I find myself wishing for that digital look. I've shot film exclusively for the past month and a half, and now will probably shoot digital for the rest of the summer. Then in the fall, maybe back to film. In general, I rotate between digital, 35mm, and 120, just to keep things interesting. I also have a Pentax 67ii with a few lenses; I'll take it to the beach with my family and shoot two rolls. It's a beautiful camera and the images are unique—and I find something fun about using a giant camera like the Pentax for casual photography.

I don't find the M10 images too digital; I love the way they look. (I do find the pictures from my Q2 a little too digital for my taste, and in the past have used a diffusion filter.) I tend to think of digital almost like a film stock. It has a look, and sometimes I want that look. I used to use vintage lenses on my digital M, to try to soften the edges of the pictures. But in the past year or so I've shifted around. Now I use newer lenses on the digital camera. The pictures look great and "modern."

I think I'm happy letting digital be digital and letting film be film. In general, I've been trying not to over-think my photography!

Edited July 31, 2023 by JoshuaRothman

[John McMaster]

S(007) with S lenses is a good choice, all I use these days...

john

[spydrxx]

I use both film and digital, film for B&W and digital for mostly color. Since I don't shoot professionally, I really don't care which media I use...whichever is most convenient at the time or if I have a preference for a particular lens/camera combo. As far as the output, again I really don't care...to me both are appealing. If I'm planning a large print say 3x4 ft, I've had good success with both, but usually since that's often done in B&W, I'll choose film, although I'm sure I'd get equally good results with digital. Purists and pros seem drawn one way or another and endlessly debate and defend the niggling fine points of whichever they have chosen....I'm not part of that crowd. 

[TomB_tx]

Both film and digital here. I didn't like the process of shooting digital (tried a few dslrs) due to afterthought manual focus, small VF images, & too much computer. (I'm an aging programmer.) Then the M9 came out, and I could use it exactly like my film Ms. Now the process of shooting with the M10 is very comfortable. After cataract replacement focusing is easy. I'll travel with both an M9 or 10 and M6, and use them interchangeably. I prefer shooting slide film, and hate post-processing on computer, so I use my M10 like it had slide film - even using the OOC jpg results often. I enjoy the process of capturing memories, be it film or digital. The M11 has no advantage for me.

[Topsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I shoot both, in the Leica World I use M9s and a D-Lux Typ109 for digital and an MP for film (I do also have an M2 and M4-P) but tbh I very rarely use 35mm film anymore I prefer the output of my M9s for that size format. My main film usage these days is 120 6x6 in Bronica SQ-Ais.

[dpitt]

1 hour ago, TomB_tx said:

Both film and digital here. I didn't like the process of shooting digital (tried a few dslrs) due to afterthought manual focus, small VF images, & too much computer. (I'm an aging programmer.) Then the M9 came out, and I could use it exactly like my film Ms. Now the process of shooting with the M10 is very comfortable. After cataract replacement focusing is easy. I'll travel with both an M9 or 10 and M6, and use them interchangeably. I prefer shooting slide film, and hate post-processing on computer, so I use my M10 like it had slide film - even using the OOC jpg results often. I enjoy the process of capturing memories, be it film or digital. The M11 has no advantage for me.

Almost no film anymore, although lots of options for film camera's from IIIF to M5. I generally love to shoot B&W film and the results I get when everything works as it should. But unfortunately, it gets harder and harder to make it work:

1. Film takes a lot of time (and energy) and I get less of both of these assets as I get older.
2. I loved it when I could go to my local photo lab and get a one hour service for B&W development and small scans/prints at very reasonable prices.
   10 years ago, all these labs either stopped, or started producing crappy results, ruining my film by scratching it or develpement errors producing crappy results.
   One hour service became 24h and then 2 times a week.
   Last year the last one I trusted with my precious memories closed shop.
3. I would love to develop my own film again, but that would even take more of my precious little time. I'd rather go out shouting than play with my patterson tank and scanning material.
4. Shooting with M8 and M9 is very similar to using film. It is limited to "normal" ISO values. Most of the time, they are set on ISO 160 base value and I can push the shadows by 1-3 stops. I love using them as much as using my Leica M2.

Even with digital I love shooting and hate processing. It takes sometimes weeks before my RAW files get properly developed although it only takes a few minutes per keeper.
I rarely print, but I love to see and share the results on screen with family and friends.

Compactness and weight are important for me. For now, I stay with FF, because digital MF gets very large and heavy (+ expensive). Maybe one day, I would consider something like a X2D.

The M is still the best compromise between weight, size and output quality for me. I hate carrying bulky combo's like the Leica SL + zoom for more than a few hundred meters. So the SL (and R gear) mostly gets use around the house or the close to where I parked my car. And one or 2 M's go with me on the longer walks.

 

Edited July 31, 2023 by dpitt

[Erato]

Guess what? I've just purchased another vintage camera from Japan recently. I enjoy photography across the film and digital approach simultaneously, and that's how it matters to me.

This sophisticated camera costs about 10 Euros only. It took me a while to restore the outlook to a neat and clean level. I felt it heals my soul during the overhaul clean up process indeed.

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 August 1, 2023 by Erato

[Bart D]

Both digital and film.

I used film exclusively up to 2007.
The following years, I used digital exclusively. Until rather recently, I picked up analog again but just a few rolls per year: definitely no more than 10.

There is little difference for me between using analog and digital, meaning I use the digital camera's pretty much as an analog camera. I have no issue with mixing anything on an outing. No more than two cameras though. I do take care to have some complementary focal lengths with me and when I have a B&W film loaded, I won't take my monochrome or vice versa.
In digital, I use rangefinder, mirrorless and SLR. In analog only rangefinder and SLR obviously. All of them 35mm format.

Why: because I enjoy the process of photographing with each of those methods.
More digital than analog images because of the extra cost of analog.

 

[Doug A]

I started shooting film with a Kodak 127 Brownie at age eight. I continued with film for fifty years until (in 2002) I abruptly switched to using a SONY FDMAVICA and put away my father's Leica IIIf and my Nikon F. About eight years later (2010 I think) I saw some prints made from BW400CN negatives. I was intrigued enough to get out the IIIf and try a couple of rolls for myself. Since then, every year I find I have taken more pictures with my film cameras and fewer digital pictures. The count for 2023 so far is 17 rolls of film and just 23 digital images shot with my iPhone. 

I have three Barnack Leica RF's, a Nikon F6 and two Nikon F's. I can no longer accurately focus the F's and the F6 is too big and heavy to be fun, so the Leicas are my everyday cameras. I have two Fujifilm digital cameras. One is in regular use scanning my film negatives. The other is in the queue to be sold. 

I enjoy using my Barnacks. I enjoy developing my negatives. And I have simplified my scanning and inkjet printing to the point that I can't imaging getting back into a darkroom. In contrast, I have tried very hard to get on with shooting digital but I have no more than half a dozen prints from digital files that I really like. 

 

[williamj]

Digital for macro and for wildlife when using a long lens, especially when I'm planning to take a very large number of exposures. I guess I would use digital for astrophotography if I did that sort of thing. iPhone for candid family snaps. Otherwise, I use film.

[Xícara de Café]

To digitise negatives and because I can't bring myself to spend so much money now on colour film. So all my colour photos are now digital. And also when I need an image quickly, digital is irresistible. 🙂

[Tom R]

Personal/portfolio work: film. Anything else, digital.

[bags27]

I'm now toying with getting a HB CFV II 50C back for my HB 500 c/m. I really love the camera and its Zeiss glass, and having a digital option by just swapping out the back might be the easiest way to avoid a new system. Just that they're so expensive and the temptation to rely on it might make me a lazy film photographer.

[Jeff S]

I transitioned fully to digital in 2009 after choosing not to build another (5th) darkroom following a house move. But I continue to find the process and results rewarding by shooting about the same quantity of pics and, more importantly, by continuing to invest the time and effort in printing select worthy ones and, when further warranted, cutting my own custom mats and doing the framing.  Once under glass and displayed, viewers aren’t aware or concerned with materials or processes.  They do, however, like handling and viewing real prints.
 

Creating and sequencing portfolios (and eventually books) similarly serves to maintain the creative spirit.  
 

Digital needn’t be a quick and dirty substitute for film, nor any less rewarding. As always, user goals, processes and results vary.

Jeff
 

 

[adan]

Jeff's answer works fairly well for me also. But in addition:

To be up front about it, I have very little interest in "process" - it is just a means to an end. Same for "the experience" - photography isn't an occasional vacation from other things, it is my life's work. And hard work, at that, if done right.

Same for gear - I'm in the McCullin camp of "I use a camera the way I use a toothbrush. It does the job."

Same for "grain" - I don't find it to be attractive or interesting, just an artifact that gets in the way of the subject. To be dealt with when unavoidable (available darkness), as gracefully as possible (which I did for 30+ years).

I did have an interest in all of those - 50 years ago when I was a newbie. Then I grew up and out of that phase.

From the instant I took my first Digilux 2 pix in 2004, that was pretty much the end of "small-negative" photography for me. I kept one M6 body as a "break glass in case of emergency" device - and all my M lenses, in certain faith that Leica would produce a digital M fairly soon.

HOWEVER - in 2014 I added back a Hasselblad 500C/M to my M digital tools. And an SWC.

Main reason - Authenticity. The Hasselblad's slightly-undersize "6x6" negs (55 x 55mm) allowed me to overscan slightly with my Epson's film holder, for black borders** and the square format, that were inherent in and authentic to the process, not just glued on or cropped for in Photoshop. As a working photojournalist, that was a necessity to comply with professional (and my own) standards.

Secondary reason - keeping my film processing skills current. And yeah, OK, there are the quiet, peaceful pauses for meditation between film-tank agitations.  

And also as Jeff says, my customers and audience really don't care which I used.

________________________

** including the signature Hassy notches  

Hassy SWC

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 August 8, 2023 by adan

[hansvons]

On 8/8/2023 at 8:32 PM, adan said:

To be up front about it, I have very little interest in "process" - it is just a means to an end. Same for "the experience" - photography isn't an occasional vacation from other things, it is my life's work. And hard work, at that, if done right.

Same for gear - I'm in the McCullin camp of "I use a camera the way I use a toothbrush. It does the job."

Same for "grain" - I don't find it to be attractive or interesting, just an artifact that gets in the way of the subject. To be dealt with when unavoidable (available darkness), as gracefully as possible (which I did for 30+ years).

I can very much relate to that. Process is much overrated, similar to the way is the goal. However, I find the toothbrush metaphor not fitting because cleaning one's teeth is a mundane necessity of 3 min and making images is work. 

I shoot both digital and film, but I prefer film; I even find digital B&W a complete non-starter. 

It does, however, depend very much on what my intentions are. When I do journalistic work with short turnaround times, I shoot digitally. I even don't need a Leica for that. I bought a 300 EUR Fuji X-E1 recently with a Chinese 23mm lens because I needed a camera with a small footprint, and it does all I need for online publications (it actually looks so good I could easily post pictures here with an M9 Steel Rim story without raising questions).

But when I do stuff that is supposed to have a longer life span than a few weeks, I use my film Ms. For something in between, I have an SL2-S.

Nice picture, BTW.

Edited August 9, 2023 by hansvons

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Anthony MD]

I do!

To scratch my itch…!
 

Seriously, total film development of optical printing including premium scans and film plus shipping costs me over $100…!

🤓

Edited November 23, 2023 by Anthony MD
Add more

[Anthony MD]

6 hours ago, Anthony MD said:

I do!

To scratch my itch…!
 

Seriously, total film development of optical printing including premium scans and film plus shipping costs me over $100…!

🤓

Love the free images from the MD…!