Any film shooters getting the itch to shoot digital?

[Anthony MD]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

31 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

For some of us M-D 262 is just that tool,

with some "acceptable flaws", but these flaws are NOT acceptable for many.

Individual thinkings like repair, price, etc. are not debatable.

 

32 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

For some of us M-D 262 is just that tool,

with some "acceptable flaws", but these flaws are NOT acceptable for many.

Individual thinkings like repair, price, etc. are not debatable.

I bough the M-D because it doesn’t have a LCD screen.  If it did I wouldn't have bought it…!

[a.noctilux]

I must say that film has something else ( I don't know what though ) so "cracking" or "analog", just life

that sometimes in digital pictures I can not find = nostalgia ?

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!

 

M6, 35mm, Kodachrome, long ago

...

more here ...

Edited November 21, 2023 by a.noctilux

[Anthony MD]

20 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

For me not true.

In my use, many lenses are symetrical and nothing smearing in M-D like taking with same lenses on Sony 7R.

 

Anyway, so many faults are only visible by using for a while.

Believing reviewers can help, but in real use, only the user can tell.

I use a Carl Zeiss Planer f/2 with the MD and it works incredibly good…!

[a.noctilux]

MD is film M

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!

 

we are talking about digital M-D 262

subtle naming from Leica (-)

 

[Anthony MD]

13 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

I must say that film has something else ( I don't know what though ) so "cracking" or "analog", just life

that sometimes in digital pictures I can not find = nostalgia ?

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!

 

M6, 35mm, Kodachrome, long ago

Digital images, for me, are more realistic but clinical and need some sharpness toned down…!

[Anthony MD]

7 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

MD is film M

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!

 

we are talking about digital M-D 262

subtle naming from Leica (-)

 

The M-D 262 is a film digital…!

[Mr.Prime]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There you go, what we all need is a 'film-digital' camera. I think you've started a new catch phrase.

[a.noctilux]

Film Digital ...

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!

 

for more than three decades

[Anthony MD]

2 hours ago, Anthony MD said:

The M-D 262 is a film digital…!

 

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!

[a.noctilux]

Of course, for me M-D is far much smarter (24x36 and available sh at Leica price though) than those film-like-sensor ( as the one above "I'm Back Film") with small sensor.

Something wrong with the hot-shoe-cap ?

Edited November 21, 2023 by a.noctilux

[Anthony MD]

7 hours ago, Anthony MD said:

Don’t get me wrong.

I like the look of film but love the free images of digital even more…!

My film camera and lenses…!

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!

[burchyk]

Sometimes I get in the mood to shoot a few frames on digital. Then I look back at the pictures on my computer screen and remember why. With film even mundane and boring pictures bring me something that digital does not. Emotion? Enjoyment of the process? Dunno. It is not logical.

[Anthony MD]

1 hour ago, Anthony MD said:

My film camera and lenses…!

 

1 hour ago, burchyk said:

Sometimes I get in the mood to shoot a few frames on digital. Then I look back at the pictures on my computer screen and remember why. With film even mundane and boring pictures bring me something that digital does not. Emotion? Enjoyment of the process? Dunno. It is not logical.

Digital could sometimes look too clinical or perfect whilst film with its limitations may look more natural…!

 

Edited November 21, 2023 by Anthony MD

[johnwolf]

On 9/15/2023 at 9:45 PM, johnwolf said:

I just went all digital, but not because of an itch. I’ve been a lifelong vegetarian/vegan and always overlooked the gelatin issue as minor, but recently decided to no longer do that. Replaced my M6 with an M10 and gave my Rollei 3.5f to a relative. 

I miss the camera, the BW film aesthetic, and the whole workflow. Digital has many benefits, but for me it’s missing the feeling of craft. Still, I’m not going back. 

John

Just an update on my own journey; I’ve returned to film. Going digital pretty much ruined photography for me.

So much for my principles, right? But there it is.

John

[Anthony MD]

15 minutes ago, johnwolf said:

Just an update on my own journey; I’ve returned to film. Going digital pretty much ruined photography for me.

So much for my principles, right? But there it is.

John

I guess I’m one of the lucky ones.

I’m still shooting both film and digital which to me make excellent photos and images.

Sometimes I prefer digital over film then film over digital…!

Edited November 21, 2023 by Anthony MD

[burchyk]

Quote

Digital could sometimes look too clinical or perfect whilst film with its imperfections may look more natural…!

Something like that, yeah.

The aim of digital cameras is to be able to represent reality in a most truthful manner. Linear, colour-correct, noise free. At least the unprocessed output. This is probably why there are fans of certain older models with pleasant "imperfections".

With film there is arguably more of an interpretation going on. "A painter in a hurry"?

That Winogrand quote "I photograph to see what the world looks like in photographs".
Film adds an additional layer of mystery and excitement to that process for me.

Genuinely looking forward to when the film emulation plugins will get better at this and the camera manufacturers will be able to put them into the firmware. I might be psychosomatic on this one

[Anthony MD]

57 minutes ago, burchyk said:

Something like that, yeah.

The aim of digital cameras is to be able to represent reality in a most truthful manner. Linear, colour-correct, noise free. At least the unprocessed output. This is probably why there are fans of certain older models with pleasant "imperfections".

With film there is arguably more of an interpretation going on. "A painter in a hurry"?

That Winogrand quote "I photograph to see what the world looks like in photographs".
Film adds an additional layer of mystery and excitement to that process for me.

Genuinely looking forward to when the film emulation plugins will get better at this and the camera manufacturers will be able to put them into the firmware. I might be psychosomatic on this one

I do get more accurate colors with more definition with the MD 262 still film is more pleasing to my eyes quite often…!

[hansvons]

11 hours ago, Anthony MD said:

I do get more accurate colors with more definition with the MD 262 still film is more pleasing to my eyes quite often…!

Can't corroborate that. On the contrary, I find colour separation better with Kodak's cine stocks than what any digital camera produces by default. Only when you black and white-balance the raw images properly, you'll be close to film. But you will never reach the tenderness of cine stock in skin tones. That is the reason why there are still artists out there (and numbers are increasing) shooting their projects on film, Spielberg, Tarantino, Anderson, Gursky and many, many more. And don't get me started with B&W. No monochrome Leica is remotely close to the real thing. It only excels in resolution but that's to me the least interesting aspect of an image. Your mileage may vary, of course, as this is personal. 

[Anthony MD]

20 minutes ago, hansvons said:

Can't corroborate that. On the contrary, I find colour separation better with Kodak's cine stocks than what any digital camera produces by default. Only when you black and white-balance the raw images properly, you'll be close to film. But you will never reach the tenderness of cine stock in skin tones. That is the reason why there are still artists out there (and numbers are increasing) shooting their projects on film, Spielberg, Tarantino, Anderson, Gursky and many, many more. And don't get me started with B&W. No monochrome Leica is remotely close to the real thing. It only excels in resolution but that's to me the least interesting aspect of an image. Your mileage may vary, of course, as this is personal. 

For landscape photography, my main focus, tends to have more realistic colors from the MD than my film camera.  Yes there is no way to adjust white balance on the MD…!

Edited November 22, 2023 by Anthony MD

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[colint544]

I shoot both film and digital. I generally prefer the look of the  images I shoot on film. Digital images are objective, and film images are subjective. Digital is great for sport, or news, or astrophotography - where you want as detailed and accurate an interpretation of the scene as possible.

But film somehow captures an air of noststalgia, an emotion, a warmth and depth that digital can't yet seem to match up to. I'm sure, as @burchyk mentions above, plug-ins and software will better emulate film in the future, but it's still a good way off.

Here's a photo I snapped last month, on the Olympus MJU2 I bought in 1998. If I'd shot it this on my M11, it just wouldn't have the same feel to it. 

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!