Jeff Fillmore Posted November 3, 2009 Share #141 Posted November 3, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I grew up shooting film on an old Argus C4 and then a Canon AE-1 and developing film and prints in our home darkroom. Went digital as it came around and moved to dslr's about three years ago- ending up with a Nikon D700. I got the bug to try film again a couple years ago so I picked up a Nikon F100 and I hated it- I shots some rolls of color and some of BW400CN and paid to have it developed and scanned and it just did nothing for me. I sold the F100 and never gave it another thought. Then early this year I got the bug again after reading something and picked up an old Nikon FE. I already had a couple old manual focus lenses to use with it- and it just clicked. I think my problem with the F100 was that is just did not feel like I remembered- sound like I remembered. The FE was much more of a vintage animal and just seemed right to me. About then I started developing my own film and really enjoying using the camera. Then came Medium Format- that started with a plastic Holga- which progressed very quickly to a Hasselblad 500cm- and a Yashica 124G- and lusting for a Rollieflex 2.8F. The FE has seen less and less use since these things came around. But not wanting to give up on the 35mm format I am finding myself quite enamored with Leica Rangefinders- so here I am. Not going 100% film yet but getting there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 Hi Jeff Fillmore, Take a look here Anyone "gone film?" Let's hear your story.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Mike Rawcs Posted November 5, 2009 Share #142 Posted November 5, 2009 Having "gone film" (see previous post here for my workflow) I'm just scanning my second roll of film: this time Fujicolour Pro 400H. The scans look really good! Although I had decided to produce my next essay in b&w the scans thus-far from the Pro 400H are making me reconsider! I had the film processed at my local Boots the Chemist store and I am really pleased with the results - much better than the first roll of Fujii CN400 that I had processed at my local Jessops store. I can also get 1 hour processing. So far, no regrets at leaving digital - in fact just the opposite: I'm really enjoying myself! Mike. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EyeLeica Posted November 6, 2009 Share #143 Posted November 6, 2009 I moved from P&S to dslr in July of '07 in order to take better concert photos. I began with a Nikon D40x (not knowing any better) and quickly moved to a D50 then last year to a Fuji s5Pro chasing the gear in search of "better photos". I began to realize that it wasn't the gear that was important, it was the knowledge of the photographer that was. I noticed that the people who knew so much about light/exposure, composition etc. had shot film. I also realized that photojournalism/street photography, especially film, was the style to which I was drawn . I started to think I'd missed out on a crucial step in the photography journey. I began toying with the thought of learning to shoot film but was discouraged by others who felt I would not be able to handle the lack of instant feedback inherent with shooting film. It continued to niggle at me for the next 6 months until one day I happened upon a blog entry on theonlinephotographer.com entitled "The Leica as Teacher". After considerable thought I pulled the trigger and bought an M3 from a member here. Much to the contrary, I've found that the anticipation of waiting to have a roll developed is like waiting for Christmas morning to see what presents you've received. So far my gifts haven't been of the highest quality but with each Christmas morning surprise I see that quality improving. The ultimate gift will be developing my own. Shooting film, especially with my M3 has forced me to slow down and really think about light, exposure and composition, more so because the finder is a bit faded on my M3 which adds to the challenge. I've learned to use a light meter and continue to learn to evaluate the light with each photo taken. Now I shoot more film than digital. I don't know that I'll ever step totally away from digital (it has its uses) but for the foreseeable future, film is #1 on my list. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPJMP Posted November 6, 2009 Author Share #144 Posted November 6, 2009 Deciding to shoot film or digital can be like a musician deciding between an acoustic or electric guitar. While both are capable of playing the same music, the two evoke vastly different feelings and textures. Some will use both equally, while others will find they are drawn specifically to one or the other. If you imagine film as the acoustic guitar and digital as the electric, then deciding to go back to film is like the "unplugged" trend in modern rock music-- a time to slow down, focus on the basics, and make some beautiful art in the process. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dk_samurai Posted November 6, 2009 Share #145 Posted November 6, 2009 Deciding to shoot film or digital can be like a musician deciding between an acoustic or electric guitar. While both are capable of playing the same music, the two evoke vastly different feelings and textures. Some will use both equally, while others will find they are drawn specifically to one or the other. If you imagine film as the acoustic guitar and digital as the electric, then deciding to go back to film is like the "unplugged" trend in modern rock music-- a time to slow down, focus on the basics, and make some beautiful art in the process. Nicely stated! /David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted November 8, 2009 Share #146 Posted November 8, 2009 Deciding to shoot film or digital can be like a musician deciding between an acoustic or electric guitar. While both are capable of playing the same music, the two evoke vastly different feelings and textures. Some will use both equally, while others will find they are drawn specifically to one or the other. If you imagine film as the acoustic guitar and digital as the electric, then deciding to go back to film is like the "unplugged" trend in modern rock music-- a time to slow down, focus on the basics, and make some beautiful art in the process. Very Well Said. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrington Posted November 11, 2009 Share #147 Posted November 11, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Phew! I am so glad I am not the only one.I have tried a few digital cameras and I just don't think they cut it at all,pictorially speaking.Not only that,many digtal photographers spend even more time fannying around with their shots in Photoshop and making them look just like an excercise in special effects.If I want to get some shots into my computer then I use an Epson F3200 scanner which handily does all negative sizes all the way up from APS,via 35mm and up to 5x4.Seeing as I also use medium format I have all the bases covered.Also,working with digital just doesn't inspire me to take great shots.Put it this way,if film suddenly became totally unavailable tomorrow,I would give up photography all together.Give me an M anyday over a plastic box covered in buttons! I don't even own a digital P&S either.If I want to carry less gear but still get great results I have a perfectly good Rollei 35 for that! Barrington Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted November 11, 2009 Share #148 Posted November 11, 2009 ..hello,i owned 2 MP ,72, and after trying the ttl`s with the bigger dial, perhaps i pesronally dont like the more fiddly and notchy operation..in the wrong direction.. the bigger wheel also works with another gear-element, so it principally has another "leverage" inside.. all a matter of subjective perspective, isnt it.. i just wanted to amke a statement versus the MP hype, which for me is a collectors item: the old Leica iulness... regards, tom Tom, It is a matter of subjective perspective and I'm entitled to my own view. I've met a lot of Leica M shooters and each operate their own in a different way and many appreciate knowing how others work and some adjust as they see others. I have an M7 + M8 + MP. I much prefer the simplistic approach of the MP to the body design, but I do like the Auto exposure setting on the other two. The viewfinder and sound and body thickness of the MP and the M7 make them exceptional cameras in comparison to the M8. The noises produced by the M8 I hate with a passion. The body selected for use depends on the application. Re the shutter speed dial on the MP. Superbly simple and goes in the right direction. I like it especially because I place the joint of my index finger over the shutter release and the tip of my finger falls naturally against the knurled periphery of the dial (they designed the Formula 1 steering wheel gear change after the MP !! ). I can adjust the speed, which is a much more frequent requirement without auto, without lifting the finger off the shutter button. The positive click stops ensure the dial stays where I put it, unlike the M8, and it has a stop. I often use a Softie, so selection and execution have a nice feel. All three dials go in the direction of the VF exposure arrows. Just have to be able to recall whether you're working off the front, or the back, of the dial. Not confused me yet. :confused: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kivis Posted November 12, 2009 Share #149 Posted November 12, 2009 I have wasted more money than I can admit on DSLR's. They just do not satisfy. Started out with a nice Bessa R3A, then a Zeiss Ikon, finally the M7. So quiet and smooth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorreCaminos Posted November 13, 2009 Share #150 Posted November 13, 2009 I started shooting in the mid-70's as a teenager but it was in the mid80s that I got serious about photography. I continued to use my Nikon FE2 for nearly twenty years until I got bored with it. It was still working just fine when I dropped it off at the Goodwill. In 2005, after a couple years without shooting much of anything, I decided to give a dSLR a try in 2005. That was a disaster; I just didn't get along with the autofocus, the digital capture and the constant need to keep batteries recharged. This wasn't photography like I remembered it. After about 1 1/2 years of trying to make it work, I sold the dSLR and went 100% back to film. Much happier now with a 'blad 501, a Leica M4 and a Nikon F3HP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted January 3, 2010 Share #151 Posted January 3, 2010 After shooting film (most of the time with an M4-P) for about 15 years, I bought my first digital camera in the summer of 2008. I had tried digital cameras before, but none of them had really convinced me enough to buy it. On the other hand, I realized that I was shooting less and less with my M4-P, for various reasons. My first digital camera was a Ricoh GX200. It was what I expected and it taught me a couple of things about digital photography, but there was hardly anything like a love affair between me and this camera. A bit later, the M8.2 was announced and after a few weeks of hesitation I went out and got it. In 2009, I also bought a used Panasonic G1 for almost nothing and a used Sigma DP-1 pretty much "by accident" (don't ask). Of these four digital cameras, only the M8.2 was really fun to use for me. Still, I was never fully happy in the digital world. But the whole detour was probably necessary as it rekindled my interest in photography in general and by mid-2009 I was already back to shooting with the M4-P. In the meantime, I've even started to do my own development again. The DP-1 has since been sold and the GX200 is broken. I'll probably keep the G1 for the rare cases when I "need" a digital camera as it was so cheap. The last step happened today when I exchanged my M8.2 for an M7 to accompany my M4-P. I consider "my digital year" to be an important development step for me, but I'm happy that I'm back to film now. And, yes, right now I'm also going the "hybrid" way of shooting (and developing) film which is then scanned and printed digitally. But I'll always have the negatives if I decide to do wet printing later. In case you're interested, the M7 is one that was used by the Leica Akademie. After they decommissioned it, they added the "MP finder" and the optical DX reader and did their regular CLA job. It came with one full year of Leica warranty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtownby Posted January 5, 2010 Share #152 Posted January 5, 2010 Riccis - I took a look at your site. Stunning wedding photography. You've obviously found a way to be different than most photographers in the field. I not only commend you, but perhaps even more, your clients. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorgen83 Posted January 5, 2010 Share #153 Posted January 5, 2010 Not yet. I'm going on an extended holiday to New Zealand next month, so a few months ago I started looking at a nice camera to take along. I bought a Nikon D60 for it's size and convenience, never even having considered film. But I've spent a considerable time since then reading about photography and looking at a lot of photo's which made me realize I love film. I should have known earlier, since I prefer analog to digital in most applications (such as synthesizers, record players and tube amps). So now, after I'm back from a no doubt quite expensive trip, I plan on saving up and buying a nice Leica M. Not sure which one, but I'd like an M6 if it's possible. I might get a contax g1/2, instead, or a CL/CLE for starters unlike many people here, or so it seems, I'm not rich. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted January 5, 2010 Share #154 Posted January 5, 2010 I might get a contax g1/2, instead, or a CL/CLE for starters unlike many people here, or so it seems, I'm not rich. Not sure if you're going to save so much if you get a Contax or a CL/CLE instead. Chances are, the M6 will last longer. Try to find a battered (but still working) one which collectors aren't interested in and maybe have it CLA'd. If you can live with an external light meter (just bought an old Gossen Sixtino for 4 Euros), go for an M4-P. Don't get too irritated by the variants between different M models. If you just want to take photos, they should all be fine. Especially if you're not rich, a (not too new) used analog M is a good buy as you can be pretty sure that you'll be able to sell it for almost the same price later in case you don't like it. (Probably the same for the Contax and the CL/CLE again, but see what I said above. I also think the market for Ms is simply bigger.) As this seems to fit with what you're thinking about, I'll once again post these two links: The Online Photographer: The Leica as Teacher The Online Photographer: Why It Has To Be a Leica Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorgen83 Posted January 5, 2010 Share #155 Posted January 5, 2010 As this seems to fit with what you're thinking about, I'll once again post these two links: The Online Photographer: The Leica as Teacher The Online Photographer: Why It Has To Be a Leica Thanks for the advice! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPJMP Posted January 5, 2010 Author Share #156 Posted January 5, 2010 I might get a contax g1/2, instead, or a CL/CLE for starters The Contax G system is a lot of fun and the lenses are works of art, but the whole experience of the camera and the way it can influence your photography is different from the Leica M system. I used a G1 for several years and made some great shots with it, several of which were published. In 2003, I traded the entire kit for a used M6 and a 50mm lens. My very first roll of film out of the Leica had a special look to it that I was never able to achieve with the Contax. I'm not sure if it was the character of the lens, or the way that the view through the rangefinder influenced my composition, or if the fully manual operation made me slow down and make better choices (or a combination all of these things), but I never regretted the trade. If you do decide to start with a Contax, I personally preferred the G1 over the G2, even though the G2 had faster autofocus. The G1 was a little smaller and made for a more compact package that fit well in the hand. The 28mm and 45mm lenses were my favorites and most frequently used (and I owned all of the primes at one point). -Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted January 5, 2010 Share #157 Posted January 5, 2010 I used a G1 for several years and made some great shots with it, several of which were published. And not only you, but also William Eggleston. It can't be that bad... (Of course, Eggleston also uses Leicas. One article in a German newspaper some time ago said that he had several suitcases filled with them.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
too old to care Posted January 5, 2010 Share #158 Posted January 5, 2010 A few years ago I put aside my M6 TTL and my Rollei 35SE and purchased a Pentax DSLR so I could use my old lenses from my long gone Spotmatic. I was not impressed with the quality of photos so I sold the camera blaming my problems on the small sensor and the full frame lens. I had read that a film lens design is different than a digital lens, thus my impression was I needed a digital camera with a lens designed for it. I them bought a Panasonic DMC-L1 because it had a real shutter speed dial and f-stop ring and none of those silly scene modes. It even looked like my M6, but on steroids and has a Leica/Panasonic lens. The pictures are not bad, but the camera is gigantic when compared to my M6. In the past few months I have reintroduced the M6 to almost daily use and I love it, while the digital cameras (I also have an Olympus DSLR and a Panasonic LX3) sit on the shelf. However, I am considering getting an M9 now and returning to digital. But, after reading this thread I may put that idea on the back burner for awhile. I may even dump the LX3 for the Rollie again. Thanks everyone for a most interesting thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPJMP Posted January 5, 2010 Author Share #159 Posted January 5, 2010 And not only you, but also William Eggleston. It can't be that bad... One advantage of the Contax G is that you can shoot it with one hand. The autofocus and auto-film advance can definitely come in handy at times. As cheap as the G1s are right now on eBay I've been tempted to grab another as a back-up to my MP. I'd be curious to see if I shoot differently with it now that I've had some time to grow accustomed to the Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
taildraggin Posted January 5, 2010 Share #160 Posted January 5, 2010 My wife wanted a digital SLR and I bought a D90 for her birthday last month to replace her old N80. About the same time, I found Dad's boxes of kodachrome from 1950-1970, the period he owned a IIIf 5cm/f3.5 Elmar. The D90 takes amazing pictures and is a fascinating object, but it is hampered by a profusion of unnecessary features. "Single Servo with Closest Subject Priority Dynamic Auto Focus" pretty much says it all. Out of curiosity, I've looked at the new Leica X1 for its (digital) simplicity - it's headed in the right direction. The M9 is probably the most perfect solution that $9k can buy. But, looking at Dad's old slides blew me away. He took thousands of great shots with that silly, slow, squinty, archaic Leica. They are, simply, right. So, I just bought a IIIf 5cm/f3.5 and have added a 9cm Elmarit. Just finishing the first roll of TriX. (Looking for a good Summaron 35mm and I'll have all I need.) I'm tickled. - Charlie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.