The more you shoot Film...

...the less you want to go ever back to digital, seriously. I mean, what's all this about?

More MP, more DR, faster AF, i was joking years ago here on DPR, about literally car, plane, squirrel and animals AF...and what do we do have now, 2023? Exactly that, well plus "insect AF" into some gear....crazy.

No offense, but....it's like a never ending spiral, i don't want, nor need >24 MP, even 12 are totally sufficent for my needs, i almost never print >DIN A3 format, rarely on request, 120x80cm canvas prints, and that's it.

I mean, setting your iso (once per roll), and only care about your compostion, -aperture & -shutterspeed is quite enough. I guess that's why rangefinders nowdays, especially Leica, for those who can afford it (no social insecurities for sure) are being so much being appreciated - it's the basic design, it's the less features, -knobs, -dials, and of course simplicity into that term.

I am tired of the gear industry, always more features, better this & that, who cares...who needs it anyway...? I prefer the film look. A picture ending as alu dibond or canvas print onto the wall is being so much more - than having (just) a RAW file, floating on one's harddisks, and mostly being shown, being watched only on monitors...but not onto a physical medium...even Leica Rangefinders nowadays have 60 MP....crazy, way over the top. For the hipster crowd, who needs to crop the s...t out of an image, perhaps interesting...but not ordinary shooters & -photographers.

Yes, film prices have been raised, and also color film is especially expensive nowadays...but into the end, it's always fun - to shoot film, with digital...i haven't had a smile after hitting the shutter, it's just a RAW file onto the memory card...well, photons to photographs - not pixels to RAW files. It's great to have choices. YMMV.

And then, there's the special look of Film, depending which kind of "Sensor" you do insert as roll or sheets into your camera...and being exchanged all 12, 24 or 36 exposures, usually.

A fine week for all you guys here.

Good light.

--
"The Best Camera is the One That's with You" ~ Chase Jarvis

I understand where you're coming from. I own many film and digital cameras but the one thing I told myself is not to keep going down the rabbit hole of buying and selling. I only buy a camera that satisfies only a particular need, that my other cameras don't possess. My last purchase is medium format but after 50mp, it is all I need. If I need more resolution then I switch to film.

I think both have their place -- but I love the fact that, for less than the cost of a digital body, I've amassed an armada of cameras and lenses for just about any purpose.

There are some times when I feel like shooting digital; I like it better for colors and one doesn't have to deal with by biggest nemesis, dust on the negatives.

But I do love the process of film and the connection I feel to it. I certainly do use my digital camera a lot less lately, but I do still use it.

Aaron

marc petzold said:

...the less you want to go ever back to digital, seriously. I mean, what's all this about?

More MP, more DR, faster AF, i was joking years ago here on DPR, about literally car, plane, squirrel and animals AF...and what do we do have now, 2023? Exactly that, well plus "insect AF" into some gear....crazy.

No offense, but....it's like a never ending spiral, i don't want, nor need >24 MP, even 12 are totally sufficent for my needs, i almost never print >DIN A3 format, rarely on request, 120x80cm canvas prints, and that's it.

I mean, setting your iso (once per roll), and only care about your compostion, -aperture & -shutterspeed is quite enough. I guess that's why rangefinders nowdays, especially Leica, for those who can afford it (no social insecurities for sure) are being so much being appreciated - it's the basic design, it's the less features, -knobs, -dials, and of course simplicity into that term.

I am tired of the gear industry, always more features, better this & that, who cares...who needs it anyway...? I prefer the film look. A picture ending as alu dibond or canvas print onto the wall is being so much more - than having (just) a RAW file, floating on one's harddisks, and mostly being shown, being watched only on monitors...but not onto a physical medium...even Leica Rangefinders nowadays have 60 MP....crazy, way over the top. For the hipster crowd, who needs to crop the s...t out of an image, perhaps interesting...but not ordinary shooters & -photographers.

Yes, film prices have been raised, and also color film is especially expensive nowadays...but into the end, it's always fun - to shoot film, with digital...i haven't had a smile after hitting the shutter, it's just a RAW file onto the memory card...well, photons to photographs - not pixels to RAW files. It's great to have choices. YMMV.

And then, there's the special look of Film, depending which kind of "Sensor" you do insert as roll or sheets into your camera...and being exchanged all 12, 24 or 36 exposures, usually.

A fine week for all you guys here.

Good light.

Click to expand...

I have felt the same way a long time A few years before deciding to go into film again i was having a lot of frustration with the direction the digital cameras were going. And even then stayed behind with cameras like the D700 and in the end Df and D4 which i still have and sold my newer cameras.

For me they developped things i cared nothing about feeling like i became a worse photographer having more and more "crutches" and less creativity the way things were going .

I have found a few digital cameras i DO care about enough to shoot with them in between shooting film, especially when i have to do something work related or more demanding, and then its my Leica M240 and my Nikon Df, i also got myself the only Fuji i got along with, and that was the X-T1.

I like those digital cameras enough to want to shoot with them, and also the character more than other cameras. But when i shoot with film its a totally different feeling anyways. So for me now it scratch two different itches and can coexist in that way .

But for a few years now nothing new have caught my eye, even my beloved leica Q has becoem more piels and bigger camera body in the Q2 and now even worse most likely in the Q3 etc...

So, i really hope film will be around for a long while, or a part of me will die when it comes to the photography side of things ...

solamnus said:

marc petzold said:

...the less you want to go ever back to digital, seriously. I mean, what's all this about?

More MP, more DR, faster AF, i was joking years ago here on DPR, about literally car, plane, squirrel and animals AF...and what do we do have now, 2023? Exactly that, well plus "insect AF" into some gear....crazy.

No offense, but....it's like a never ending spiral, i don't want, nor need >24 MP, even 12 are totally sufficent for my needs, i almost never print >DIN A3 format, rarely on request, 120x80cm canvas prints, and that's it.

I mean, setting your iso (once per roll), and only care about your compostion, -aperture & -shutterspeed is quite enough. I guess that's why rangefinders nowdays, especially Leica, for those who can afford it (no social insecurities for sure) are being so much being appreciated - it's the basic design, it's the less features, -knobs, -dials, and of course simplicity into that term.

I am tired of the gear industry, always more features, better this & that, who cares...who needs it anyway...? I prefer the film look. A picture ending as alu dibond or canvas print onto the wall is being so much more - than having (just) a RAW file, floating on one's harddisks, and mostly being shown, being watched only on monitors...but not onto a physical medium...even Leica Rangefinders nowadays have 60 MP....crazy, way over the top. For the hipster crowd, who needs to crop the s...t out of an image, perhaps interesting...but not ordinary shooters & -photographers.

Yes, film prices have been raised, and also color film is especially expensive nowadays...but into the end, it's always fun - to shoot film, with digital...i haven't had a smile after hitting the shutter, it's just a RAW file onto the memory card...well, photons to photographs - not pixels to RAW files. It's great to have choices. YMMV.

And then, there's the special look of Film, depending which kind of "Sensor" you do insert as roll or sheets into your camera...and being exchanged all 12, 24 or 36 exposures, usually.

A fine week for all you guys here.

Good light.

Click to expand...

I have felt the same way a long time A few years before deciding to go into film again i was having a lot of frustration with the direction the digital cameras were going. And even then stayed behind with cameras like the D700 and in the end Df and D4 which i still have and sold my newer cameras.

For me they developped things i cared nothing about feeling like i became a worse photographer having more and more "crutches" and less creativity the way things were going .

I have found a few digital cameras i DO care about enough to shoot with them in between shooting film, especially when i have to do something work related or more demanding, and then its my Leica M240 and my Nikon Df, i also got myself the only Fuji i got along with, and that was the X-T1.

I like those digital cameras enough to want to shoot with them, and also the character more than other cameras. But when i shoot with film its a totally different feeling anyways. So for me now it scratch two different itches and can coexist in that way .

But for a few years now nothing new have caught my eye, even my beloved leica Q has becoem more piels and bigger camera body in the Q2 and now even worse most likely in the Q3 etc...

So, i really hope film will be around for a long while, or a part of me will die when it comes to the photography side of things ...

Click to expand...

I feel that way, since digital cameras have been competitive to 35mm Film, it's somewhat okay to shoot my X-T1, X-E1/E2...or X100. I don't like the LCD onto the back. I don't like EVFs. I'd love to have a Leica M 60, M-D, or M10-D for instance. That's how a perfect Rangefinder camera, albeit digital is for my taste....besides the real deal, 35mm Rangefinders. Nowadays, i am fiddling along with a LTM Rangefinder, and i do really like it. I've never given up Film...funny though, today i was after a hell long time at a special cemetery...and put 3 rolls into my camera bag...guess what, even after >2h, i had barely shot 14 frames, which is quite a lot for myself...and thought to myself..mhmm...the material isn't good enough...in terms of statues, which i do love....cute angels...not "kitsch".

But since today i've had a Nikon with me, i couldn't take my F80, since it didn't fit into my camera bag with the attached grip, and without, i don't want to use it...so i've had a smaller Nikon with me, which fit into the gear bag, and one underrated Tamron lens...and figured out, that lens would sooner or later brake up...

I got off the digital upgrade train when I started using film again. My last new digital camera is the a7rii (although I have bought vintage digital since). But I can still really appreciate the tech that goes into the latest models. I remain impressed, rather than disappointed. I love medium and large format film because of the "sensor size" and the information volume, and why not the same for digital? The automation of the Maxxum 7 makes photographing my puppy so much easiser, so why wouldn't I love animal eye focus tracking? But I love the message that we should love the process and results regardless of the photographic medium we choose to use.

BTW my latest creative favourites have been the Nons SL660 for instax square, one of the latest film camera releases, and the Sony Mavica floppy disk cameras, of the earliest digital camera releases, and would still pick those up first, even though I would still love a Leica digital Monochrom or an A7rV.

I hear you...I shoot film 90% of the time and prefer just about everything about it.... I simply find myself more motivated, having more fun....more concentrated at the same time while just loving the look....

My two cents plain:

After a lifetime of film and darkrooms when I got my first sub 10 megapixel dSLR back in neolithic times, had my first raw and Photoshop "aha" moment, and saw what I could almost effortlessly do with the first 8.5 x 11 inkjet photo printer (can't remember if that was an HP or Epson) I decided to phase out film forever.

I recently found some umpteen years old chemicals sitting on a shelf. I was hardcore. I had to find out how to safely dispose of them.

Feeling guilty about my closet full of still working 35mm and 6x6 cameras I shot a few rolls of film recently, images only usable if converted to digital files. So the more I shot film the less I ever wanted to ever again. A kind of expensive reminder.

I understand why someone might be a film devotee, particularly and especially B&W printing, but I've never understood the mentality of the film-digital hybrid world, except as a necessary transition from film to digital.

I'm more of a school of doing whatever the hell you want with your photography. Film and scan? Go for it. Digital and dark room printing? Why not? Phones and large format? Whatever turns you on. If the process brings your joy, and it creates the images you are looking for, it's ok by me.

Can't say I really agree. For a start, most of my conference shooting simply wouldn't be possible with film, as I'm generally shooting near the extremes of ISO. And for travel, I don't miss carrying lots of film, worrying about it in x-ray machines, and so on. I love digital, and wouldn't be without it.

I also live film. I have hundreds of film cameras that I enjoy shooting with. I love the look of film, including shooting with Holgas, Dianas etc, but also all sorts of formats.

I especially love shooting with Rollei TLRs. Huge fun.

But it's certainly not an either/or for me. Vive la difference.

EDIT: Meant to say "I also love film", but "live" isn't a bad typo.

I have several film camera’s, including the latest iterations from Minolta, Nikon and Canon and they are very feature rich as well. What is grounding me is my M7 and M10 which bot takes photography back to basics and it is a relief in many ways.

For me, too, it's not just whether the camera is film or digital, but whether it's automated or manual. I'm less likely to pick up the Maxxum 7 over the OM1 because of the fun I have with the tactile experience. I adapt manual lenses to my Sony. I don't think it makes for a better camera, but I have more fun.

I have to agree.

I am a digital native (starter with the Nikon D1, had a D1H, D2H,D3, D4, and D800), and only gotten to film last year. If cost is not a problem, film is definitely a more fun and intimate way to form a new relationship with photography.

I like the imperfections.

Look at the 2 photos below. One is from the Pixel 7 pro , arguably one of the better phone cameras and software out there. The other is using 35mm film stock (Cinestill 400D).

One is technically sharper, more accurate white balance, etc. The other feels like a memory to cherish.













--
...in matters of grave importance, style not sincerity is the vital thing - Oscar Wilde

doni said:

Look at the 2 photos below. One is from the Pixel 7 pro , arguably one of the better phone cameras and software out there. The other is using 35mm film stock (Cinestill 400D).

One is technically sharper, more accurate white balance, etc. The other feels like a memory to cherish.

Click to expand...

Ah, but how much of that difference is film as opposed to the lens?

This is why the "adapted lens" forum is so active here. You really can get the best of both worlds using modern digital sensors behind good old designed-for-film lenses. Some of that character is technically optical defects, but I think most of it is literally just a different selection of lens design tradeoffs than what you see with cell phone optics or even most modern DSLR/mirrorless lenses.

There are still some things film is good for, but I think there are a lot more things old lenses are good for... and using them with electronic sensors doesn't create toxic waste for my 10-acre property (which includes two half-acre ponds that would be particularly sensitive to pollution). Over the last decade, I've only used film when I need transparencies, which hasn't been very often. That said, I still have my trusty old 23CII with dichro head and lots of other darkroom equipment just in case... ;-)

The difference between these photos is 100% digital. You could have corrected the white balance or color balance on any of these images to make it identical to another during scanning or RAW conversion. You also can use the same lenses on digital and film bodies.

There is no such thing as "film look", except perhaps grain. But even that goes away at medium/large formats with small magnification.

Film is about having a different experience making an image. The "film look" people talk about is mostly color casts introduced during scanning and color inversion.

DrBormental said:

The difference between these photos is 100% digital. You could have corrected the white balance or color balance on any of these images to make it identical to another during scanning or RAW conversion. You also can use the same lenses on digital and film bodies.

There is no such thing as "film look", except perhaps grain. But even that goes away at medium/large formats with small magnification.

Film is about having a different experience making an image. The "film look" people talk about is mostly color casts introduced during scanning and color inversion.

Click to expand...

I dont agree with this totally, although i DO believe you can get close and make digital "look" like film or come close if you want to and which many seem to aspire to.

I believe the first part is to do with the things you mention, like color cast, how lenses render grain etc, those things you can add with some work but also knowledge if you put the same vintage lenses etc on a good digital camera.

But the huge variation you can get with all those variables makes it a lot of work to get close to a special look from an old camera, a really vintage lens with a special film in mind. And that factor alone makes it pretty special shooting on film and those older bodies/lenses and something that sets it apart or makes it different enough from the digital experience even if you do know your way around PS and can make it come close. Also add that tactile fun experience on those older bodies and lenses, something not many digital cameras can brag about( except leica and nikon Df or some other unique cameras )

Then there IS also that film look, with the imperfections and different tolerance to highlights and color casts plus an organic grain ( even if that is less noticable on medium/large format as you say too ), the randomness and special look makes it unique. And for me being a film shooter first, but then later shooting digital trying to imitate the analog look a lot of the times, then back to film again, i really see a difference and enough so to see it as two separate things.

So i still shoot digital when i want the control, and the simplicity with that, but when i want something more unique and a more fun experience, i shoot film

Maybe I wasn't clear, so you misunderstood my point. I wasn't advocating for equivalence between digital and film. I was simply stating that these particular images shared by the OP can be edited to look nearly identical, with grain being the only difference.

There's nothing to agree or disagree about. Give me the negative with "film look" and I'll get rid of it. All modern CN films are capable of life-like output.

The broader topic which I hinted at is that people don't have the skills to scan well, so they're staring at all kinds of color balance issues and convince themselves that's the "film look". It is not. Color negative film is meant to be manipulated into anything you want, and nothing is stopping you from matching the output of your digital camera when you're scanning. If you're not comfortable with channels/curves, make two (film+digital) images of a color target and build a LUT table.

Here's an example. I took this photo on Fuji C-200 and scanned to match a digital reference. Here's my cat pooping. Is it film or digital? Can you tell? And if film, which one? See? That's the film look.

DrBormental said:

Maybe I wasn't clear, so you misunderstood my point. I wasn't advocating for equivalence between digital and film. I was simply stating that these particular images shared by the OP can be edited to look nearly identical, with grain being the only difference.

There's nothing to agree or disagree about. Give me the negative with "film look" and I'll get rid of it. All modern CN films are capable of life-like output.

Click to expand...

Well, not quite. In addition to grain clumping patterns, film has far less DR than sensors and lower resolution, so it can't compete with electronic sensors on that. However, film also has narrower spectral properties (for example, this is why lots of film lenses show nasty purple fringing on sensors that didn't show on film), and sensors can't really match that. We are, however, talking about pretty minor effects for most scenes...

DrBormental said:

... Is it film or digital? Can you tell?

Click to expand...

No, one can't tell unless given side-by-side shots or some auxiliary information about the scene or details of the capture and processing methods to pick between. A modest-resolution, low dynamic range, image not only can't be distinguished as being from film vs. a sensor, but can't even be distinguished from a completely synthetic image created by either rendering a 3D model or hallucinating a scene using AI methods.

Welcome to the future. ;-)

ProfHankD said:

.. can't even be distinguished from a completely synthetic image created by either rendering a 3D model or hallucinating a scene using AI methods.

Click to expand...

That will be a good level playing field then because

ProfHankD said:

DrBormental said:

”[photography] is about having a different experience making an image”

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I must be getting rusty. I've tried to explain that CN colors are set during scanning, and can easily be matched to a digital camera so comparing film-vs-digital colors has no meaning. Yet two people missed the point completely, each in his own unique way.

Or maybe the era of online discussions is coming to a close. photo.net is dead, photrio.com is a club of 20-30 regulars posting the same pre-recorded material for many years... Once dpreview is gone, the final chapter will be closed.