Why do photographers want to make their digital images look like film anyway…?

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 minutes ago, NigelG said:

[...] Discussions re using old lenses on digital Ms often boils down to using them as a way of taming the “digitalness” of the image into something “less” [...]

Or something more. More character especially and digital is no slouch at showing this. I have never been inspired by legacy lenses like Summicron 35/2 v1 or 50/2 v1 in the film days for instance. Digital has made be discover them and their unique character i would have missed otherwise. YMMV.

[Ko.Fe.]

On 12/30/2024 at 4:06 AM, Anthony MD said:

I shot film for many years.  The cost of film, development and waiting made it a burden. Then acquiring the MD 262 changed everything!  
The images taken with the MD 262 look much better to me than what I previously took with film. 
Why would I try to make the digital images look inferior…?

For me color film pictures looks like digital. 

I mean, I started photogaphy for real on digital, went to film for decade and back to digital now.

On BW digital is often too sterile. At least to me, I never liked granless films.  

And if I would still have time and money to kill, I'll still use meterless film M for my own photogaphy. Mine weren't inferior. 

Because to me (after long practice and getting right lens) it was quicker, much confident and more predictable than digital M.

I could live with unpredictable batteries live. but cluttered shutter dial of digital Ms have killed any chance to do same fiddling as with film M. 

And I'm not impressed by digital Ms auto-exposures outcome... Always have to check it. Even if in full manual. Not sure if digital Ms ISO has real and constant value as it is on film.

[Anthony MD]

59 minutes ago, Ko.Fe. said:

For me color film pictures looks like digital. 

I mean, I started photogaphy for real on digital, went to film for decade and back to digital now.

On BW digital is often too sterile. At least to me, I never liked granless films.  

And if I would still have time and money to kill, I'll still use meterless film M for my own photogaphy. Mine weren't inferior. 

Because to me (after long practice and getting right lens) it was quicker, much confident and more predictable than digital M.

I could live with unpredictable batteries live. but cluttered shutter dial of digital Ms have killed any chance to do same fiddling as with film M. 

And I'm not impressed by digital Ms auto-exposures outcome... Always have to check it. Even if in full manual. Not sure if digital Ms ISO has real and constant value as it is on film.

I always use manual settings shooting the MD 262…📷

[Anthony MD]

1 hour ago, lct said:

Or something more. More character especially and digital is no slouch at showing this. I have never been inspired by legacy lenses like Summicron 35/2 v1 or 50/2 v1 in the film days for instance. Digital has made be discover them and their unique character i would have missed otherwise. YMMV.

The only lens attached to the MD 262 is the vintage Summicron Rigid.  Perfect combo for me…📷

[Dazzajl]

3 hours ago, Vanillasludge said:
 

Couldn’t we ask a similar question:  “Why do photographers want to use old inferior lenses when new ones are so much better?” 😎

Terms like inferior and better are completely vague and wooly in this context aren't they? We're talking about realising a personal vision and expression, the 'best' lens is the one that gets you closest to where you're going. That is not always the lens that performs best in bench tests.

The other point that doesn't seem to have come up yet in this discussion is that if you're not wet printing from negatives, it's still a digital image. If you scan negs then it's no longer a question or film or digital but at what point in the process you become 1's and 0's. I'm not convinced that actually makes the difference that many like to believe it is??

[sometimesmaybe]

On 12/30/2024 at 8:06 PM, Anthony MD said:

The images taken with the MD 262 look much better to me than what I previously took with film. 

i remb spending around a year trying to replicate the 'film look', because wanted a more 'nostalgic feel' to my images. 

i finally took the plunge and starting shooting film around 1.5 years ago. after much experimentation, this is where ive landed - replicating colour film is not worth the effort for me (as opposed to actually shooting colour film), while i can get the look and feel that im after with my m246 (so i dont really shoot BNW film for that reason). i take both cameras on all shoots now. 

ColorPlus 200 (standard lab scan) strobe lighting / softbox

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!

 

m246 in natural light

[Anthony MD]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

26 minutes ago, Dazzajl said:

Terms like inferior and better are completely vague and wooly in this context aren't they? We're talking about realising a personal vision and expression, the 'best' lens is the one that gets you closest to where you're going. That is not always the lens that performs best in bench tests.

The other point that doesn't seem to have come up yet in this discussion is that if you're not wet printing from negatives, it's still a digital image. If you scan negs then it's no longer a question or film or digital but at what point in the process you become 1's and 0's. I'm not convinced that actually makes the difference that many like to believe it is??

The reason for using the Summicron Rigid with the MD 262 is a more pleasant rendering. Not so sharp but with plenty of detail.  I guess this pleasant look is reminiscent of my film days…🎞️

[Anthony MD]

17 minutes ago, sometimesmaybe said:

i remb spending around a year trying to replicate the 'film look', because wanted a more 'nostalgic feel' to my images. 

i finally took the plunge and starting shooting film around 1.5 years ago. after much experimentation, this is where ive landed - replicating colour film is not worth the effort for me (as opposed to actually shooting colour film), while i can get the look and feel that im after with my m246 (so i dont really shoot BNW film for that reason). i take both cameras on all shoots now. 

ColorPlus 200 (standard lab scan) strobe lighting / softbox

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!

 

m246 in natural light

I totally agree…📷

[pippy]

5 hours ago, Vanillasludge said:

...Couldn’t we ask a similar question:  “Why do photographers want to use old inferior lenses when new ones are so much better?” 😎

Couldn't we ask some similar questions?

"Why do motoring enthusiasts want to drive old Ferraris / Maseratis / Porsches / Lamborghinis / Aston-Martins / Bentleys when new ones.....".....

"Why do some guitarists want to play old Gibson / Martin / Fender / Gretsch instruments when new ones......"......

And so on.

Just a thought.

Philip.

Edited January 6 by pippy

[Fred B]

44 minutes ago, pippy said:

Couldn't we ask some similar questions?

"Why do motoring enthusiasts want to drive old Ferraris / Maseratis / Porsches / Lamborghinis / Aston-Martins / Bentleys when new ones.....".....

"Why do some guitarists want to play old Gibson / Martin / Fender / Gretsch instruments when new ones......"......

And so on.

Just a thought.

Philip.

And why do film enthusiasts dont use Film?

Evoking the old “film look” with digital cameras is like a current 911 Porsche with wooden wheels. Using old glass – or even current glass with a special flair – is something completely different.

[Anthony MD]

2 hours ago, sometimesmaybe said:

i remb spending around a year trying to replicate the 'film look', because wanted a more 'nostalgic feel' to my images. 

i finally took the plunge and starting shooting film around 1.5 years ago. after much experimentation, this is where ive landed - replicating colour film is not worth the effort for me (as opposed to actually shooting colour film), while i can get the look and feel that im after with my m246 (so i dont really shoot BNW film for that reason). i take both cameras on all shoots now. 

ColorPlus 200 (standard lab scan) strobe lighting / softbox

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!

 

m246 in natural light

Actually, she will look great with film or digital…🎞️📷🥸

[dkCambridgeshire]

46 minutes ago, pippy said:

Couldn't we ask some similar questions?

"Why do motoring enthusiasts want to drive old Ferraris / Maseratis / Porsches / Lamborghinis / Aston-Martins / Bentleys when new ones.....".....

"Why do some guitarists want to play old Gibson / Martin / Fender / Gretsch instruments when new ones......"......

And so on.

Just a thought.

Philip.

Similar applies to hi-fi .... especially the favoured types of refurbished vintage valve amplifiers, refurbished vintage turntables, and refurbished electrostatic speakers.

All scarce items thus in demand and 'box office' amongst the aficionados.   

[pippy]

26 minutes ago, dkCambridgeshire said:

Similar applies to hi-fi .... especially the favoured types of refurbished vintage valve amplifiers, refurbished vintage turntables, and refurbished electrostatic speakers.

All scarce items thus in demand and 'box office' amongst the aficionados.   

Crikey!

Since the early '80s I have had a pair of Spendor BC-1s controlled / driven by Quad 33 / 303 amps (with an FM3 in the background). Does that qualify me as an afficionado or does Solid State still not cut the mustard with the cognoscienti?......😸......

Sadly I could never have justified the price for a pair of ESL-57s but, then again, I have never had a room big enough to have done them credit!

Philip.

Edited January 7 by pippy

[Anthony MD]

On 1/5/2025 at 7:40 AM, Homo Faber said:

I agree with everything but one:

This is maybe true today, but probably won't be tomorrow . Or the day after tomorrow.  Digital simulations are constantly evolving and I am sure that one day in the not too distant future they will deliver results whose differences to real film will be so small that they will exceed the limits of our perception.

I’m glad that digital won’t achieve an exact replication of film, that’s what keeps digital apart from film in the first place…📷🎞️

[hasenvater]

Am 6.1.2025 um 22:32 schrieb sometimesmaybe:

i remb spending around a year trying to replicate the 'film look', because wanted a more 'nostalgic feel' to my images. 

i finally took the plunge and starting shooting film around 1.5 years ago. after much experimentation, this is where ive landed - replicating colour film is not worth the effort for me (as opposed to actually shooting colour film), while i can get the look and feel that im after with my m246 (so i dont really shoot BNW film for that reason). i take both cameras on all shoots now. 

ColorPlus 200 (standard lab scan) strobe lighting / softbox

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!

 

m246 in natural light

A beautiful series with great colors and light. The real film is simply more beautiful than digital color profiles.

[Deeetona]

I think someone said it in a very to-the-point way. In the old days, both film and lenses where the "weak links". Today, you can have one "perfect" variable and "soften" it with an "imperfect", e.g. a film M combined with a state of the art lens, or a digital body combined with a softer vintage lens.

[Deeetona]

A bit melodramatic, but we never had it so good. Digital tech has really matured, and most analog tech can be picked up for nothing. And the hi end analog cameras have appreciated nicely but more or less in line with inflation and general increase of cost/quality of living.

There is a niche for everyone, be it low budget or hi end.

The sweet spot for Leica seems to be 3-4000 EUR for a pre-owned body, either a 240 (without sensor issues - M9, and full frame -unlike m8, and freeze / colour issued M10/11), or a late model M6/MP. 

If you want "better" specs, or a new camera, you have to pay more. If you want to spend less, it is either going to be an older model (M7 backwards) or a non-rangefinder one, or a "lesser" digital one.

As for lenses, the V4 and V5 Summicrons 50mm range between 1000 and 2000 EUR. They probably cover a lot of use cases and styles.

So lets say 6000 EUR is the "entrance fee" into the "proper" Leica world. That money will never be lost. The equipment can easily be sold, and it seems that it is likely that the pre-owned prices will slowly increase over time. When buying that "sweet spot" kit, it will go a long way until the user has exceeded its capabilities (if ever).

Compare this to a motorcycle, a PPL, a small home recording studio, a small vintage car, a wine cellar. If you keep using said kit over ten years, the lens will likely have increased in market value. The body might have kept a good part of its value (we have yet to see the triple-digit M8 price).

And with that kit, you can "play ye olde film days" or create super-sharp iphone-like photos, just as you like.

What a great hobby.

Edited January 10 by Deeetona

[Paulus]

Am 30.12.2024 um 11:02 schrieb satijntje:

Maybe it’s also a matter of taste?
Why do some music lovers prefer vinyl over hight quality sound?
Do analogue images have more character? Maybe…..
 

I’m so glad to see this discussion. I haven’t visited the forum for years and now I see a similar discussion like I started I think somewhere around the birth of the M8 and M9 . The discussion was also if an M6 or M6ttl / MP was still worth while. Digital was the future. People sold their recordcollection and their analoge Leica's/ Nikons for bottom prices…

and now it’s all back!:

A new MP still is “1 month salary” just like in the 1950’s and we think the sound of vinyl records is just great. 
“ what a wonderfull word this will be, what a glorious time to be free” Donald Fagen was singing! 
 

and analoge pictures are not expensive now! No they always  were, IMHO . What changed was the capability to shoot 1000 pictures on one card, but is this really inexpensive? 

I have used 12 analoge M’s an 5 digital ones. The analogue I alway could sell with a profit after five years. The digital… ? You loose money on them after five years? With the M11p it will be less… 

but hey … didn’t I say the same either about the M9 in those days? Who needs and M240 ? , M10, M11 the discussion would be. 

and the last question: Why did Erwin Puts disagree with Leica on how they thought about the digital developement in his last years? 

[pippy]

1 hour ago, Paulus said:

...I haven’t visited the forum for years...

I am getting the impression that you are a "Glass Half-Empty" chap?

Such a loss.

Philip.

Edited January 12 by pippy

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[adan]

2 hours ago, Paulus said:

the last question: Why did Erwin Puts disagree with Leica on how they thought about the digital developement in his last years? 

He never said specifically, that I know of.

But he was always a purist regarding optical design, and no doubt was disturbed by Leica's creeping adoption of built-in, non-optional in-camera/non-optical/computational corrections of lens distortion and similar, in the Q and SL (and maybe CL) lines. He probably thought that was "cheating."

The 28mm f/1.7 Summilux-Q intentionally has significant native fish-eye distortion, thus can only be used on a Q camera, which corrects it electronically and automatically. (Not sure about the new 43mm Q lens.)

As compared to the M lenses - which have to be fully corrected optically, since they have to be useable on completely non-digital, non-computational, film MPs. M-As, and the "new M6" revival.