bobtodrick Posted June 4, 2009 Share #1 Posted June 4, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well, just got rid of my Digilux 3 kit. As capable as digital is it just doesn't fit...me. After recently re-reading 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' I realized what I have against digital...it has no 'soul'. Maybe in 50 or 100 years it will, but at the moment digital is just a lot of plastic disposable junk and hours behind a monitor fixing and adjusting the things digital doesn't do well. Ya know that feeling you get when image on the 8x10 starts to come up in the developer?...well I've never had that feeling watching the printer head on by Epson zip back and forth as it lays down ink. (and no flaming please...I know different people have different feelings about digital). So, for the everyday family stuff I've purchased an LX-3...it is a great little camera. But, today my Barnack limited edition camera arrived. If you haven't seen it, it is an exact replica of the type 2 Barnack. It was the model just after the 'O' camera replica Leica brought out a few years back. The main difference is an optical viewfinder instead of the little wire frames the O camera came with. The shutter dial doesn't have speeds...it has numbers that tell the slit width of the shutter (from where you can figure out the speeds). You have to cover the lens when winding the film...no capping shutter in those days. For the first time in two years I'm really looking forward to getting out and doing some shooting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 4, 2009 Posted June 4, 2009 Hi bobtodrick, Take a look here My return to film. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
formernikon Posted June 5, 2009 Share #2 Posted June 5, 2009 I love my D-Lux 4 for carrying with me at all times. I like my dslr because I have to use one to make a living. But, for all of my artistic endeavors, film it is. I know what you mean about "soul." Film has definitely got it. You know film has something that digital doesn't when they're making software programs to make your digital look like film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMartin Posted June 5, 2009 Share #3 Posted June 5, 2009 For me the greatest thing about shooting film is the editing a few days...or weeks..after the film has been exposed. I see so many people edit from the back of the camera...looking at the screen as soon as the image was taken. I want to scream at them to edit from the "head" and the "heart" and not from the back of the 1 inch screen. When I return from a personal assignment with 80 or 100 rolls of film and start processing and editing...I get a huge thrill once I look at the film on the light table and start to "SEE" the images for a second time. I'm sorry...but that is something that those shooting digital will never enjoy...unless they start turning off that #$@#&*#^ screen on the back and start shooting from the soul. ____________________________ www.petermartinphotographer.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBA Posted June 5, 2009 Share #4 Posted June 5, 2009 Not for nothing have I opted to jump through all sorts of hoops to shoot Kodachrome in Tokyo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmk60 Posted June 5, 2009 Share #5 Posted June 5, 2009 For me the greatest thing about shooting film is the editing a few days...or weeks..after the film has been exposed. I see so many people edit from the back of the camera...looking at the screen as soon as the image was taken. I want to scream at them to edit from the "head" and the "heart" and not from the back of the 1 inch screen.When I return from a personal assignment with 80 or 100 rolls of film and start processing and editing...I get a huge thrill once I look at the film on the light table and start to "SEE" the images for a second time. I'm sorry...but that is something that those shooting digital will never enjoy...unless they start turning off that #$@#&*#^ screen on the back and start shooting from the soul. ____________________________ www.petermartinphotographer.com So true. I wish I had read this post before I sold my former films cameras. When I bought my M8, I was convinced at that time that I would never shoot with film cameras. I sold all my films cameras except for the M6 (decided to keep it for an emotional reason..). Two years later, I bought two film Ms - M6 and this week M3. I am shooting with films more and more. I am no pro but yes, I can see my soul in the analogue images. cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted June 5, 2009 Share #6 Posted June 5, 2009 No camera has a soul. It is the photographer that has the soul. Have fun, I'm sticking with digital M and soon a D-Lux 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtownby Posted June 5, 2009 Share #7 Posted June 5, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm sorry, my friends, but this thread continues a common theme when someone writes about "returning" to film: The emphasis on the camera, the process, and the nostalgia. But precious little on the results: The actual photographs. I really don't think photography is about the smell of the film coming out of the canister, the balancing act of loading the spindle, the tactile response of the wind lever, and the glorious "clunk" of that rangefinder shutter. (Much as I love all those things.) It is about the actual grain coming out of a roll of Tri-X. The wonderful look of true sloppy-edge silver prints. The special colors of your favorite film. Those are the reasons to choose film for a shoot over digital. I'm not going to say which I think is better, film or digital. Each for different reasons. But if some of us do want to assert one format's superiority, let's do it with photos, not stories. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted June 5, 2009 Share #8 Posted June 5, 2009 Well, agreed my friend, except for the simple fact then when you post photo based threads here and not gear based, they often get moved...and then lost in the shuffle: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/88117-portrait-fellow-leica-film-shooter.html I'm sorry, my friends, but this thread continues a common theme when someone writes about "returning" to film: The emphasis on the camera, the process, and the nostalgia. But precious little on the results: The actual photographs. I really don't think photography is about the smell of the film coming out of the canister, the balancing act of loading the spindle, the tactile response of the wind lever, and the glorious "clunk" of that rangefinder shutter. (Much as I love all those things.) It is about the actual grain coming out of a roll of Tri-X. The wonderful look of true sloppy-edge silver prints. The special colors of your favorite film. Those are the reasons to choose film for a shoot over digital. I'm not going to say which I think is better, film or digital. Each for different reasons. But if some of us do want to assert one format's superiority, let's do it with photos, not stories. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigibond Posted June 5, 2009 Share #9 Posted June 5, 2009 I am using film more often that digital now . I think the main reason is the better feel and the pleasure to use an M6. (and also an Oly OM-2) I always get great reults also with my digital E-3, especially with the Summilux 25mm. In the past I had a long experience with a Canon 20D. But something was missing... But I have to say one thing: every people looking at my photo, when they say "this is beautiful", is film!! Both with M6 and OM-2... Anyway it is a matter of taste. Now I use film for street photography, and digital only for particular work and tele shooting. It is more practical. Film will never die; but this does not mean that digital is not a good thing. ciao g. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted June 5, 2009 Author Share #10 Posted June 5, 2009 I disagree shootist. Digital cameras (apart from the M8) are put together on an assembly line, never touched by human hands for the most part and are designed to be replaced by new technology in a couple of years. My Barnack (as well as the M's) was touched by humans all along the assembly procedure. By humans for the most part who care about what they are making (I've toured the Leica factory a few years ago). The robot who made my Dlux didn't (because it can't) care one wit about what it was making. 'Soul' is different things to many people. The average digi-cam doesn't have it. Leica film camera's do. I know this is lost on all those who only care about the 'result', but to many who consider the journey just as important (and this can include those who like the digital workflo)...'soul' is something to consider. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted June 5, 2009 Author Share #11 Posted June 5, 2009 gtownby...so according to you someone such as b.b.King who often talks lovingly about Lucille, the guitar he's played for decades is....what? I never said film was better than digital. I specifically said digital didn't fit me. I love having words put in my mount...NOT. And I can guarantee that if something doesn't 'feel' right in your hands, or in your brain your pictures will suffer. That's why I stopped frequenting this forum for a couple of years...the naysayers that feel they MUST disagree with what others right. So on that note I'll say adios. And by the way...here's a link to the page of my work on one of Canada's premier artist societies...just so you know I have some of the authority you feel only comes from images. Artists & Their Work - Alberta Society of Artists Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted June 6, 2009 Share #12 Posted June 6, 2009 Feel is everything! Ask any great musician and his favorite instrument is usually the one that feels the best to play. If an instrument feels good to play then it can bring out the best in the musician's hands and he'll sound better. There's definitely validity to the way that a medium responds to an artist's hands....certain equipment is inspiring to use...other equipment is not. I also think that photographers learn to see the world through their use of gear....and some gear just doesn't match the photographer's vision of the world I have to totally agree that digital has no soul. The lack of grain makes texture look clinical and fake....it's a subtle thing that works on our subconscious. Also, the tiny transitions and gradations between tones that we see in real life can be captured on film but still aren't available in digital .These are the subtle things that make an image look tangible...like you can reach out and touch the subject. Digital is missing these elements. But I still like digital for certain things....It's great for the clinical soulless vibe...Perfect for shooting certain kinds of subjects. The OP is right though...I spent 10 years shooting digital and hate everything about it...I learned digital in and out so it's not a matter of education... I just can't vibe with digital..That was was my lost decade in photography but I think it was worth it if for no other reason than to give me a new appreciation for film. Sometimes, ya don't know whatcha got til it's gone Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted June 6, 2009 Share #13 Posted June 6, 2009 ...it has no 'soul'.Maybe in 50 or 100 years it will, but at the moment digital is just a lot of plastic disposable junk and hours behind a monitor fixing and adjusting the things digital doesn't do well. ...For the first time in two years I'm really looking forward to getting out and doing some shooting. Hi all , I agree with all of you "soul","feel" and i add "matter" and "consistency": the film has something that the digital does not have : the "feeling" and the "nuance"in black and white as in color that is why Solms continues producing M7 and MP and it is in Japan where these cameras are most bought Regards Henry http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/85264-m7-mp-continues-produced-2009-a.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atournas Posted June 6, 2009 Share #14 Posted June 6, 2009 No camera has a soul. It is the photographer that has the soul. Well, not quite sure if soul is a photographer's charisma only. Why, the D2, the MP, the R6.2, the 501CM...something must be happening with them, for shooting becomes sort of ritual, the results sheer joy to look at... Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wls.shanghai Posted June 6, 2009 Share #15 Posted June 6, 2009 Gentlemen - I agree with "Shootist" - also for me, no Camera has a soul, it is the photographer that has the soul. for me, all Cameras are tools only - and a LEICA is for me the finest & best tool wls btw: I can make with (almost) all Cameras fine images Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted June 6, 2009 Share #16 Posted June 6, 2009 Gentlemen -I agree with "Shootist" - also for me, no Camera has a soul, it is the photographer that has the soul. for me, all Cameras are tools only - and a LEICA is for me the finest & best tool wls btw: I can make with (almost) all Cameras fine images Wls, Yes of course the soul of a camera does not exist but it does exist when a photo of digital camera and film is compared ....because it returns better what we see in reality versus the digital who misses matter It is in this sense that includes expression of Gordon, Mmk,Peter,Bobto...... @ Formernikon, "Film has definitely got it. You know film has something that digital doesn't when they're making software programs to make your digital look like film. " I agree with you...the term "look like" is a good term Regards Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted June 6, 2009 Share #17 Posted June 6, 2009 Wls,Yes of course the soul of a camera does not exist but it does exist when a photo of digital camera and film is compared ....because it returns better what we see in reality versus the digital who misses matter It is in this sense that includes expression of Gordon, Mmk,Peter,Bobto...... @ Formernikon, "Film has definitely got it. You know film has something that digital doesn't when they're making software programs to make your digital look like film. " I agree with you...the term "look like" is a good term Regards Henry That is the most ridiculous statement I have very read. And it has not been the first time I have heard it. In twenty year people will say "Why did anybody ever use film once Digital came out". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted June 6, 2009 Share #18 Posted June 6, 2009 If they are most bought then they are also most sold, on the used market. Hi all ,I agree with all of you "soul","feel" and i add "matter" and "consistency": the film has something that the digital does not have : the "feeling" and the "nuance"in black and white as in color that is why Solms continues producing M7 and MP and it is in Japan where these cameras are most bought Regards Henry http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/85264-m7-mp-continues-produced-2009-a.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted June 6, 2009 Share #19 Posted June 6, 2009 That is the most ridiculous statement I have very read. And it has not been the first time I have heard it.In twenty year people will say "Why did anybody ever use film once Digital came out". Dear Shootist, In reality I have 2 types of cameras : 2 M8 versus M7, R8 and R4S I arrive at the same conclusion after 6 months of M8 use and I keep the film for the "emotional" side... I understand your reaction but it is finally the eye and the human mind that sees and that will gain the upper hand ... Best regards Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Posted June 8, 2009 Share #20 Posted June 8, 2009 Dear Shootist, In reality I have 2 types of cameras : 2 M8 versus M7, R8 and R4S I arrive at the same conclusion after 6 months of M8 use and I keep the film for the "emotional" side... I understand your reaction but it is finally the eye and the human mind that sees and that will gain the upper hand ... Best regards Henry I personally like film. Since I'm not a profeesional I'm not forced to use digital. One could always say " Why has anyone bothered to paint once photography was invented". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.