Going back to film

[terrycioni]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have two M8s one is currently away.

 

I recently purchased a Zeiss Ikon ZM film body (I do have an M4). Film is film I like to shoot it - I don't like buying it or paying for processing, I do shoot a lot less and I am far more discerning when shooting film. I don't think film precludes digital or digital precludes film, but that is just me. Hell, I still have a couple of film SLRs.

 

Best to all.

 

Terry

[stunsworth]

I know you like arguing just for the sake of it, but also I know you know an obvious film-v-digital troll as well as the next guy.

 

I'm being very serious, a forum is a place for discussion not just questions and answers.

[Advertisement]

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

[terrycioni]

My film Leicas were (and are) just 35mm cameras. With the limitations in the matters of grain and resolution that this entails. With the M8 I get image quality of a kind that I was used to with medium format cameras. Big ones!

 

If you want to find out what is hiding in your classical Leica lenses, try them out on an M8.

 

The old man from the Age of Roll Film

 

Lars,

 

Excellent points. I find a lot of complaining about the M8 high ISO are coming from folks who although well intentioned have not shot a lot of film.

 

Thank you. Terry

[stunsworth]

Terry, I think a lot of the problems are caused by the fact that while an M8 at ISO 2500 is 'better' than Delta 3200, the raw output suffers in comparison to some dSLRs, especially if underexposed.

 

Personally I can live with this. When I was shooting film I very rarely used anything faster than Tri-X.

[terrycioni]

Terry, I think a lot of the problems are caused by the fact that while an M8 at ISO 2500 is 'better' than Delta 3200, the raw output suffers in comparison to some dSLRs, especially if underexposed.

 

Personally I can live with this. When I was shooting film I very rarely used anything faster than Tri-X.

 

Exactly the point. I can count the number of times on one hand the number of rolls of film I have shot with an ISO higher than 400.

 

It is that comparison with the M8 and various DSLRs that I find interesting - the point being the 'digital' look and feel (some refer to it as a plastic look I am less critical) of the output of these same DSLRs that has now become accepted as the standard. I think the M8 tends to look and feel and respond more like film and in many instances I prefer it. But this all personal of course.

 

Best Regards. Terry.

[Guest jimmy pro]

I'm being very serious, a forum is a place for discussion not just questions and answers.

 

And I would certainly never disagree with that. But you've now changed the subject. The subject was, that this thread was an obvious troll for a digital-vs-film flamefest. Kudos to all the people who refused to take the bait, and instead used it for, as you said, discussion.

[thompsonkirk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm not inclined to enter into a general film-digital debate, but I am interested in matching the mode of capture to the intended output. The original post said:

 

"And my Fuji slides look soooo beautiful on the light table..."

 

OK, but the light table isn't an end product, & what to start with depends on what the end product is supposed to be. For color printing, it's hard to make a case for slides.

 

If the issue were BW printing, many prefer to start with film & end with gelatin-silver printing, & I wouldn't want to quaarrel with that.

 

But here the issue is presumably color quality. And what glows on the light table will make a nice slide show, but are slides still a well-chosen medium for a fine color print?

 

Dye transfer printing is history, because the process involved too much contamination.

 

Cibachrome/Ilfochrome labs have mostly shut down, & many photographers/artists couldn't abide by the high contrast, reflective surface, & lack of shadow detail in such prints anyway.

 

The choices for fine-art color printing have narrowed to Type C or inkjet. And the choices for capture have narrowed to (1) scanning slides for laser or inkjet printing; (2) shifting to negative film; or (3) digital capture.

 

With these options for color printing, slides aren't an obvious choice as the starting-point. For my own work as a print-maker, they'd be the 3d choice.

 

Kirk

[Rolo]

"And my Fuji slides look soooo beautiful on the light table..."

 

OK, but the light table isn't an end product, & what to start with depends on what the end product is supposed to be. For color printing, it's hard to make a case for slides.

 

If the issue were BW printing, many prefer to start with film & end with gelatin-silver printing, & I wouldn't want to quaarrel with that.

With these options for color printing, slides aren't an obvious choice as the starting-point. For my own work as a print-maker, they'd be the 3d choice.

 

Kirk

 

Kirk, what if the end product was ......

 

Primary - slides on a light table

+

Secondary - images on the screen, + colour prints to 20x24" + the option to turn into black and white.

 

What would be the preferred capture then ?

 

Rolo

[pklein]

I think this thread--minus the catcalls--is quite valuable.

 

"Onepic," the original poster, is decidedly not a troll. He's a dedicated photographer who has shot a lot of both film and digital. More than many people here. And it was some of his early M8/Noctilux pictures that convinced me that the M8 was a viable available-light camera with fast lenses, despite the howls of the naysayers. Now he's at a different place. He is just sharing that. It's useful information. Your conclusion may be different. Vive la difference.

 

I love my M8, in many ways buying it has been the best equipment-related thing I've done for my photography in years. I get something from it that I never got out of a DSLR. There are times when I miss film's dynamic range and look. If I were retired, I'd probably shoot more film, particularly B&W. But things being how they are, my time is limited, and the only roll of film I've shot with my M6 since I got the M8 was at a classical concert where I thought the M8 would be too (accoustically) noisy.

 

By buying a roll of film, you have already done the equivalent of choosing most of the menu settings on an M8 or DSLR. So it's just you, the camera, and focus, shutter, aperture, shoot. Simplicity.

 

That said, the M8 has a look all its own, not like film, but wonderful in its own way. I can have both grainy high-ISO images and almost medium-format-like ISO 160 images. All in the same camera. And I can shoot all my beloved Leica and CV lenses with the convenience of digital. Right now, I'm finding the M8's pluses outweigh its minuses.

 

I'm not selling my M6, though. Ya never know. Why sell it at a loss now, only to want it back later? If the M8 ever needs an extended vacation in New Jersey or Solms, I'll still be shooting with an RF. And when I feel like I want to shoot Tri-X, I can.

 

--Peter

[Shootist]

I think this thread--minus the catcalls--is quite valuable.

 

"Onepic," the original poster, is decidedly not a troll.

--Peter

 

Then why did he post in the M8 forum??? This is not the film forum or the I dislike digital and love film forum.

His original post would of been better suited in the film forum, where someone might care.

Not sure which posts you are calling catcalls but my original post in this thread is the way I looked at it when making the dicision to sell all film cameras and not shoot film anymore.

In fact I also gave away all the unused rolls of B&W I had around.

[Guest stnami]

I'm not trying to knock film but just look at what you are spending. Each roll of film, 36 exposures, cost $4.00 or more. Then the developing cost for each roll, even IF you do it yourself.

I have taken well over 30,000 images with digital cameras and about 12,000-14,000 of them have been with a M8.

Just the cost of the film, 30,000/36 = 834 rolls @ $4.00 = $3336.00 not to mention the developing cost.

12,000 -14,000 shots with the M8, or any other digital camera I've used, = $0.00 in film and developing cost.

Yes do the math.

It is each persons choice which medium they choose to use and to shoulder the expense for it. If you really like film then there is no reason to ever go digital, until there is no more film. Which will happen in the future.

,,,, aaahaar a left brain troll

[stunsworth]

Then why did he post in the M8 forum???

 

I assume because he's an M8 user who's currently stopped using that and returned to shooting film.

 

To be honest it could have gone in the customer, film or digital forums IMHO, but he chose this one.

 

At the end of the day (horrible cliche) he's only expressing his own preference. He's not saying "digital is rubbish, you should be using film", so I don't see it at all as someone trolling.

[thompsonkirk]

Rollo,

 

A bit hard to tell: a game, or a serious question? I'll give credit to the latter, though your first option must be a spoof, since a light table is only a means of sorting: "Primary" in the sense of coming first, but no more likely to be "primary" in the sense of intended output than if you'd said "contact sheet."

 

The photographers I know work on projects or portfolios with some preferred output in mind: gallery show, portrait, specific commercial application; or just a personal undertaking related to some sort of photo group or web-sharing.

 

I can imagine working for an art director who wants images for use in multiple modes, but would have to query him/her about what use is most critical, or whether the goal is only a common denominator.

 

I tried to say that the photographer has to figure out what he or she most wants to end up with, & then chose equipment & processes accordingly; so it's hard for anyone to make recommendations to anyone else.

 

But let's say the inquiry is mostly serious: Tossing aside the light-table option, if one needed to work terms of medium-large color prints & also BW conversion, slides would still have low priority, because their latitude is even narrower than digital in relation to BW materials. Any mode would work for web display.

 

I'd probably give some thought to the grain patterns of negative films, vs. digital smoothness, with a decision depending on what sort of portfolio or project I was undertaking/completing. I've been able to mix film & digital work, & files from different ages & qualities of digital cameras, only in small prints (max12x18"). But when I print larger, there's a noticeable difference in surgace appearance. So new work would have to be consistent with what I was trying to complete.

 

As for the screen/monitor option, it doesn't matter much. For example, on my website

Kirk Thompson Photgraphs

there's a silly portfolio called "Several Messy Gardens." There's no consistency of equipment or process there: some were made with a pocket camera, 8 to 12 MP DSLRs, & 1 Leica. IMO they look OK together on tghe web, but the prints wouldn't look consistent enough to be exhibited as a group.

 

As I tried to say, no obvious 'right' choices; it's just what you want to end up with.

 

K

[SJP]

After using the M8 daily for 19 months, I have decided to go back to film, I bought an MP one week ago and haven't touched the M8 since.

 

The difference is substantial and I feel like I've come home. I will probably sell the M8. Just doesn't give me the feeling I have when photographing with the MP.

 

And my Fuji slides look soooo beautiful on the light table...

 

Good news, as you will not need one of your 2 Noctiluxes anymore! Please send PM with price info. thnks S

[markgay]

I welcome a film vs digital debate, within the confines of a sensible discussion of equipment and technique.

 

I was shooting in the town of Suzdal, the Golden Ring outside Moscow, and with all the white-painted kremlin walls, I started thinking about dynamic range. “I’m sure I could have done this with film,” I thought to myself.

 

Instead of film vs digital, think “when would I pick up my M6 or M7 as opposed to my M8 and how would I use it differently?.

 

Hell, I hate to sound so moderate and diplomatic. There are people out there who’ve NEVER shot film and will tell you that digital is better. I want a film vs digital debate – wherever it is relevant - because I never want to stop hearing from people who can bring their film experience to help me get more from digital.

 

If such a debate gets people hot under the collar, too bad!

 

How digital renders colour IS important. Take a Canon G9. Go shoot a collection of flowers. See how the red poppies GLARE and dominate the image. See how little detail there is in that plasticised, software-smoothed image. Thank God the M8 doesn’t do that. But it is part of the digital family and the tendency is there!

 

Look at the current issue of Amateur Photographer and the recently published book of 1960’s photographs of London’s Covent Garden vegetable market by Clive Boursnell. Colour transparency. Hasselblad. Then ask, how can we strive to get such gorgeous balanced colour in our images?

 

Any photographer should care about such things. If we think such questions upsetting, something’s going badly wrong.

[jaapv]

I beg your pardon, but where in digital is resolution, and precision? All you get is a resolution of ca. 55 Lpm (film ca. 150 Lpm) an exaggerated , unnatural sharpness that

prevents any hint of depth and very rarely a colour that only halfway matches the original.

In most cases there is a pink or brown undertone, that leads to a quite funny tone of skin.

And I do not mention the ecological side of the affair.

You always hear "now we are nearly as good as analog", but if you are invited to buy a

multi thousand euro camera from whatever brand, shouldn´t it be far beyond "nearly as good" and shouldn´t it be something completely new in regard of what it is able to do, e.g

3 D (now who wants this) or playing music/recording the sound when the shutter was pressed or making coffee or prints up to 40 x 60 cm? As long as there is no completely new ( and desirable) photo at the end of the line I see no reason why one should spend the money.

 

Sorry, I'm not rising to this one. That train has long since departed the station. Please refer to about 1000 threads on the subject in all forums.

[stunsworth]

How digital renders colour IS important. Take a Canon G9. Go shoot a collection of flowers. See how the red poppies GLARE and dominate the image

 

It's funny you should mention that. Red - pure red as in poppies - seems to be a very difficult colour to capture either in digital or film. I was trying to convert a raw file from the M8 the other day and I couldn't get it right. This was with ACR, I must set try it with Capture 1 some day.

 

Mind you it was better than I remember Velvia being with a similar subject.

[andybarton]

I eat beef. And enjoy it.

 

I eat chicken. And enjoy it.

 

Goodness me... this evening, I even ate lamb, and I enjoyed it.

 

Tomorrow, I may eat venison. If I do, I most certainly will enjoy it.

 

I also enjoy macaroni cheese. And tofu. And ratatouille.

 

There is space enough for us all to enjoy all things.

 

Film AND digital. It's not a big thing. It's not something that prevents me sleeping, or has me in cold sweats at sunset.

 

I have a DMR. And I have an M2 and and M7. AND a R4 too.

 

All of them will be coming to Scotland with me next week, as they all have their place in the world and my life.

 

As do beef and tofu.

[jaapv]

Enjoy your meal, Andy

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[andybarton]

It's funny you should mention that. Red - pure red as in poppies - seems to be a very difficult colour to capture either in digital or film.

 

These are pretty close, IMHO...

 

Probably Velvia or Provia.

 

 

http://www.andybarton.com/2005/mediafiles/l3.jpg

 

http://www.andybarton.com/2006/mediafiles/l131.jpg

 

http://www.andybarton.com/2006/mediafiles/l78.jpg