Anyone "Stayed loyal to film?" Let's hear your story.

[jhild]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

there isn´t much of a story behind my decision to stay with film. I started in 1973 with my father´s Kodak

Retina, changed to several Pentax MX and LX bodies I still own and use occasionally.Bought my first

Barnack about 10 yeras ago and ended up with several M3, M4-P, M6 TTL and MP bodies plus a lot

of Leica glass. Using mechanical cameras ever since I just can´t think about to trust electronic shutters

or any electronic apart from a lightmeter. My mechanics have never let me down and as long as I have a

brain to think about exposure I will use them. Besides this film is still cheaper and much easier to use,

I have no lab problem. It would cost me a fortune to change so I better spend that money on taking

pics on film. And in the end I´m just to lazy to learn all about that PP computer thing.

 

Just my two cents

 

Jo

[kenneth]

That frees up funds for another M lens, doesn't it?

 

I still shoot with my Nikon F3hp - it is without question one of the greatest 35mm film SLRs ever made (IMHO). I think we could say the same for the FM2n too.

 

There's just something about those cameras...

I too had a Nikon F3HP and an FM2n but not at the same time. I agree, iconic camera bodies and very well built. I would say that if I had to choose Nikon instead of Leica it would have to be a Nikon FM2n with a 50 mm 1.4 Nikkor or a 55 mm Macro lens

[markos4]

Yep, I've stayed loyal, though I have been tempted a few times toward digital. For me it's especially about the process, not just the final result. The black and white process is truly fascinating, reminds me a little bit of cooking: "recipes", "mixing from scratch".

 

I don't even own an auto-focus camera because I want complete control. Only one of my cameras has a built-in lightmeter (that works). I love all-manual operation, so how could I possibly put up with digital cameras?!

 

Besides, I spend enough time sitting at computers already without dealing with digital "photo" files and folders, photoshop, etc. That's boring. The hands-on experience of film is far more rewarding...the zen of film?

 

-Mark.

[alun]

I have remained loyal to film. In fact, apart from doing photo duty for visitors and the occasional tourist, I have never shot a digital camera in anger.... I grew up with film and after a long absence from photography simply returned to film -- oddly (I now see) it never even occurred to me to 'start again' with a digital camera.

 

I will also admit that too much of what I read about digital photography (on this forum and elsewhere) simply turns me off. It probably shouldn't (and I probably shouldn't read it) but it does. It simply isn't about photography as I recognise it -- it rather reminds me of the kind of debate that used to dominate hi-fi circles forty years ago: nothing really to do with music, and all to do with gadgets, the medium and not the message. Life is too short.

 

As others have said, as an amateur I also have no reason to invest in a medium that is primarily about speed of delivery. Who cares about my speed? Not even me....so why bother.

 

I even hate the way that digital photography has become "capture". In fact, I can't think of a single thing I like about digital photography -- which probably (as you will nowhave guessed) says more about my prejudices than it does anything else....

[tobey bilek]

I have an open marriage. Lots of Nikon digital mixed with Ilford or Kodak. I just spent $400 on a bench winder, ABLON trimmer, and 50 brass cassettes.

[Guest AgXlove]

I too had a Nikon F3HP and an FM2n but not at the same time. I agree, iconic camera bodies and very well built. I would say that if I had to choose Nikon instead of Leica it would have to be a Nikon FM2n with a 50 mm 1.4 Nikkor or a 55 mm Macro lens

 

I have Nikon's manual focus 55 macro lens - I got it new in the box for $100 U.S. years ago (someone had traded it in so it was priced as a "used" lens).

 

When I shot my first roll of E6 thru it, I was astounded at how sharp & contrasty the chromes it produced were (this was in my pre-Leica days).

 

The 55 macro has got to be one of the best lenses Nikon has ever produced.

[Guest AgXlove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I can not think of a reason as a hobbyist.

 

 

 

You will get quality and low cost if you process your own: so you can have both ;P

 

It seems that the main attractions of digital cameras are convenience and speed ("not that there's anything wrong with that," as Jerry Seinfeld said regarding another issue).

 

With the advent of the M9, there seems to be precious little in the way of compromises/tradeoffs/shortcomings that digital cameras have forced us to live with up to this point ($7000 U.S. price tag notwithstanding, of course).

 

One major bonus that I immediately thought of is not being forced to have several hundred dollars worth of film repeatedly subjected to airport X-rays when traveling, while hoping/praying for the best.

 

Still, $7000 U.S. is alot of money; it is pretty much my only reservation about the M9.

 

Regarding home development, Thomas is correct - I have my Data bottles, distilled water, D76, stop bath, fixer and photo flo waiting in the wings to be mixed tonight...

[sgoetzin]

As some of you already wrote, I also grew up with the film medium. My father had it's own darkroom where he processed it's films and prints. As my father I do also have my own darkroom, so I'm in charge of the whole process from exposure to printing and sometimes scanning. This "magic" to discover the just developped negatives as well as seeing the image appearing slowly in the the print developper was just a unique experience when I was a child. Moreover, as far as I'm concerned, a film with 36 exposures on 135 and 12 exposures on 6x6 just forces me to take my time before "pressing" the exposure button. I still use my first SLR, a canon AE-1. But that's just me.

I think however, everybody should just choose his way of getting a picture, either digital or on a film basis. When they see a good picture, most people don't ask if the picture has been shot with a digital or analog camera. The camera itself is just an interface that should help you to get the picture you want. As far as I'm concerned that is a film camera.

 

Serge,

[Michael Hiles]

I bought my M2 (slightly used) in my early 20s and my M3 in my late 20s. I still have them both and they are my cameras. Film has got better constantly over the years, and I see no reason to abandon either.

 

I am not loyal to film - but the advantages of digital are real but limited. I like knowing instantly whether the picture is technically acceptable. I like the cost per exposure. My wife's small Nikon is great and very useful for the family Christmas shots, etc. etc.

 

Otherwise I continue to like the look of silver gelatin prints properly mounted, matted and framed. To be sure, I have seen (and hadmade from my negatives) outstanding inkjet B&W prints. But I still like the silver gelatine prints best.

 

What I also like are my M2 and M3. I don't think they have been equalled. Nothing to do with film - just the best damned camera ever made. I have 6 lenses that are either old or old-ish, a visoflex II and III, and bellows unit, and this is IMHO the best system camera ever.

 

I am also not anxious to buy a camera that is nowhere near as trouble free as my M2 or M3. I am not anxious to put out $7k and have small but real expectation of problems and have the camera fail in one way or another. This forum is a witness to fabulous pictures made with Leica's various digital cameras. It is also witness to a not insignificant number of problems, frustrations and heartaches.

 

For the moment I will keep on keeping on with my beloved M2 and M3.

[lieberdavid]

Hi Everyone,

 

I am sticking with film for now and probably for the forseeable future. The reasons are:

 

1. Cost. I have a significant amount of R and M film equipment. Changing to digital would cost a lot of money.

 

2. Obsolescence: My film cameras are always up to date. Anything I buy in digital will be quickly out of date.

 

3. Reliability: My film cameras are mechanical or primarily so and are more reliable than digital cameras.

 

4. Quality: Film still yields better photographs. According to Erwin Put's tests an M7 can resolve about 50% more line pairs per millimeter than an M9. An S2 probably is beginning to approach the quality of the best films, but the astronomical cost of switching to the S2 system is forbidding, especially when I've got as good or better quality in film already and long since paid for.

 

5. Handling: I don't like the way in which digital cameras need to be operated and handled. It seems to me that they are awkward and unnecessarily complicated to use. I don't like sitting in front of a computer doing the work that film labs do for me.

 

Cheers!

David

[kenneth]

David, I think you have hit many nails on the head and presented succinctly the views of many of us film photographers. Certainly as far as prices are concerned there is no justification at all in changing. You are right about the quality issue and the incredibly complicated approach need to change to digital processes when we already have a tried and tested means producing work that fulfills our needs. You mentioned photo labs. Have you considered home processing? It is so much fun, incredibly easy and so reasonably priced. You could start with very little out lay and process your own films and then at a later stage look at acquiring the necessary to make your own prints. The results will astound you if you do and this forum is full of people who can hand hold you through the basics. Nice to read your comments thank you for your contribution

[HouTexDavid]

I stay with film because I just take the shot, have it developed, and enjoy the result. No "post processing", no "workflow", no "manipulation", just photography. I enjoyed reading a post on another forum where a photographer was trying to get a shot of smoke coming from the muzzle of a handgun. Many of the posters advised him just to "add the smoke" with Photoshop. Is this photography? Why not just use an animation software product and produce whatever digital images you can imagine? Call it anything you please, but don't call it photography.

 

I enjoy film because I enjoy shooting pictures, not spending countless hours in front of a computer screen doing "post processing". I believe that it was HCB who said that he was a hunter, not a cook!

 

David

[Ludwig Gretch]

I've "stayed loyal to film" for over fifty years, and no doubt will as long as it ( and I! ) are still around!, I also have a very capable digital camera. The digi V. film debates roll on in various forms, and can get tiresome - and of course, this is a film forum, but why-I wonder does it usually have to be one OR the other?. I'm more interested in the job in hand than the tools, and will use whichever suits the purpose -or my fancy, on the day!. Regarding resolution, which is not the be-all end-all, I often zoom in to silly levels on a file from my 6mp camera, and am amazed at the detail revealed - that can't even be noticed on a big print!. But yes -for black and white, I'll definately use film 100% and for colour, when I want that certain 'look'......horses for courses!

Cheers, Dave.