Going back to film

[Guest jimmy pro]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That would be their problem, not the photogrqapher's.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I said yesterday if you go back and read. The responses to a troll are the fault (or credit) of the responders. But it doesn't change the fact that the OP intended for this to be a flame-starting troll.

[stunsworth]

But it doesn't change the fact that the OP intended for this to be a flame-starting troll.

 

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one Jimmy.

[Advertisement]

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

[Douglasco]

Just to let you all know after reading all of your comments I will get an M8. one of the main things that helped me make my choice was looking at the photos on the web site of stunsworth if my photos turn out as good as those I will be very pleased. Thanks for all your help. I know the film v digital debate has been a bit of a pain to some of you but I thought forums where all about asking questions and learning as much as possible about photography.

[jevidon]

I just couldn't resist throwing my oar in the water on this one. There was a time, not too long ago, when it wa a truism that film was sharper and had a greater dynamic range than digital.

My new Nikon D300 gives the lie to that, and my M8 comes very close.

 

If you are working with film and your workflow is with the chemicals, that it one thing. But if you scan your negs and slides, then you are by definition working with digital, and everything you do from that point on IS digital.

 

The major differences are with grain and noise (the digital version of grain), as well as, to some extent, dynamic range. But dynamic range differences are minor when you are hand holding for those candid shots. If you are really serious about a full range photo of artistic merit, then you use a tripod. In that case, with digital, you either manually shoot HDR or, if your camera has the feature, automatic HDR. I assure you that the results with HDR after Photoshop workflow will equal anything you can get on film. In any case the dynamic range (aka the range of light as per Adams) is acceptable for most situations in most of today's digital cameras.

 

As for grain or noise, both are negligible at ISO levels below 400 or so in both mediums.

But even with film, you can't get away from grain. In digital, if you want the grain effect, there are excellent fairly inexpensive programs or plug ins such as DXO that will, not only mock accurately, the color characteristics of most films, but you can add grain effect with the touch of a button; either using the grain typical of a given film or even using the grain effect from an entirely different film. Some of my best black and whites in competition have done this resulting in high scores.

 

I have done work with 4x4 scanned negs and slides as well as a lot of work using my Contax G2 with it's excellent Zeiss lenses, and I have to tell you that the end result is consistently better if the original shot is digital. I am not putting down film as such. I still believe that the best film results are achieved in the darkroom the old fashioned way; and those results can be quite breathtaking. But if yor workflow is on yor computer, I have found no advantage to film, and, indeed , many disadvantages in terms of workflow and results.

 

I'm sure that a lot of you will, no doubt disagree with me, but I am basing my opinion only on my experience.

 

I am on the verge of selling off my film RF equipment in order to stick with my M8 and whatever successor the good people at Leica market in the future.

 

My advice: I you can afford it, don't sell the M8.

 

Jim Evidon

[Printmaker]

Every now and then, and with the best of intentions, I pull out my old M4 and shoot some film. Then the film sits on my desk waiting to be sent off for processing (my old SS reels and tanks are in a cobweb covered box in the basement). Then when I get the slides or negs back they wait on my desk again waiting for the a free moment to be scanned. A month may go by, maybe more before I have something ready to print.

On the other hand, I shot a friends play with my M8 on Friday night and gave him prints Saturday morning. And I'll shoot 5 paintings today and proof them all before I go home. Each one a match to the original and not to a memory of color and tone.

I have come to the conclusion that as much as I love the soft whisper of the M4's shutter, I'll probably only use it enough to keep the springs and gears in good shape.

I understand the alchemical desire to make images with metals but in my world, it is just not practical anymore. Oh well, perhaps when I retire I'll brush off those cobwebs, rinse those brown bottles, mix new chemicals and uncover that old Omega D2V. Hopefully, they will still be making HP5 and TriX.

 

Tom

[KM-25]

I think the M8 is a really good camera. And by Leica standards, not a *great* camera due to it's numerous faults, but still, a really good camera. But my M3, MP3 and M6TTL? Those are great cameras.

 

Now days, in my career and life as a photographer, if I don't *have* to shoot digital, I simply don't. I can't think of why people would get defensive on here except that they are insecure about something. Neither medium is better than the other for everyone and the cost thing is a REALLY lame numbers game...super lame actually.

 

I'll keep my M8 and use when I need to, but I really doubt I will ever buy another digital M, the film ones are the real thing for me and the difference thus far is night and day.

[hankg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think the M8 is a really good camera. And by Leica standards, not a *great* camera due to it's numerous faults, but still, a really good camera. But my M3, MP3 and M6TTL? Those are great cameras.

 

Now days, in my career and life as a photographer, if I don't *have* to shoot digital, I simply don't. I can't think of why people would get defensive on here except that they are insecure about something. Neither medium is better than the other for everyone and the cost thing is a REALLY lame numbers game...super lame actually.

 

I'll keep my M8 and use when I need to, but I really doubt I will ever buy another digital M, the film ones are the real thing for me and the difference thus far is night and day.

 

I wish the M8 was up to the ergonomics of the M3, large mag finder, shutter feel, frame line accuracy and simplicity. But as there is no way I'll be messing with film again I'll have to live with the B version M experience of the M8.

 

Forgetting about the electronic guts and it's issues it's within Leica's capability to improve the shutter feel, change the frame line focus point to something approaching the normal working distance for an RF, put the ISO and EV in external analogue controls, protect the rear buttons from accidental engagement and have different mag finders like the film M.

[ammitsboel]

For what it's worth I don't like film.

Even the jpg's coming from my 2 year old cellphone looks better than my friends Alpa 12 with film back and schneider lens;)

[ammitsboel]

For the sake of my bad english and the language barrier, it was a joke...

[SJP]

...................

 

Depressed

 

Wake up! It is NOT about the medium, film, digital, glass plates, gum bichromate, Daguerrotype, etc. It is about what you can convey with your pics.

[gfspencer]

Every now and then, and with the best of intentions, I pull out my old M4 and shoot some film. Then the film sits on my desk waiting to be sent off for processing (my old SS reels and tanks are in a cobweb covered box in the basement). Then when I get the slides or negs back they wait on my desk again waiting for the a free moment to be scanned. A month may go by, maybe more before I have something ready to print.

On the other hand, I shot a friends play with my M8 on Friday night and gave him prints Saturday morning. And I'll shoot 5 paintings today and proof them all before I go home. Each one a match to the original and not to a memory of color and tone.

I have come to the conclusion that as much as I love the soft whisper of the M4's shutter, I'll probably only use it enough to keep the springs and gears in good shape.

I understand the alchemical desire to make images with metals but in my world, it is just not practical anymore. Oh well, perhaps when I retire I'll brush off those cobwebs, rinse those brown bottles, mix new chemicals and uncover that old Omega D2V. Hopefully, they will still be making HP5 and TriX.

 

Tom

Thanks, Tom. You said what I was thinking. I would just substitute "M6TTL" for "M4". And I have retired and still can't find the time to drag out my developing equipment.

 

Most of you folks are Pros so I'm not even going to attempt to tell you how to do your job. I just know that the M8 appeals to me more than my M6TTL right now. Maybe that will change one day.