[tuco]

Unlike yesterday, when there were plenty of places to develop your film and give you some nice prints, today they are getting few and far between. And the associated expense both to buy film and have it developed (prices keep going up) will indeed make every shot count!

It's easy and rewarding to develop BW film (techniques/methods you can do to improve your vision in the developing process). But the more ridged C-41 and E-6 processes are not as fun, IMHO. And if you want to share your pictures online, the expense of good scannng is only going up in price too. The smaller the negative (and frame from 135 canister film is a very small area) the more expensive the scanner needs to be to get a quality scan. You can scan medium format film with a much cheaper scanner and get better results by comparison.

---

Last edited by tuco; 03-28-2021 at 10:38 AM. Reason: Update

[ZombieArmy]

It's easy and rewarding to develop BW film (techniques/methods you can do to improve your vision in the developing process). But the more ridged C-41 and E-6 processes are not as fun, IMHO. And if you want to share your pictures online, the expense of good scannng is only going up in price too. The smaller the negative (and frame from 135 canister film is a very small area) the more expensive the scanner needs to be to get a quality scan. You can scan medium format film with a much cheaper scanner and get better results by comparison.

I think buying a dedicated film scanner is just the way to do things. I bought a used Nikon Coolscan 4000 my unit has already paid for itself easily while also having substantially better quality than the lab with more control.



None of that over sharpening and none of that weird flatbed scanner "noise".


For medium format I'd just use my DSLR to scan.

[niels hansen]

For me things are quite simple, digital is better for color than film, and post processiong is good if you dont exaggerate. I still mis to see a digital black and white with the richness of tones that film gives. There are many good b/w films on the market, the best is the one you know the best I use Rollei 25 and 400 infrared- For special occasions I still have Agfapan 25 in the freezer. The dangerous thing in digital is that there are no economical consequenses of making mistakes, therefore the risk og not concentrating every single shot. With film I ask myself: is this situation good enough to risk to miss ½ - 3 dollars-depending on formate- if you make a fault???
Speed is a good freind and bad enemy
My film cameras are spotmatic, Mamiya 330, and 4X5" with rather good lenses. The enlarger is a Beseler 4X5 with Rodenstock lenses. I got the enlarger and the Mamiya from a retired professional for free. It was on the way to destruction

[stevebrot]

That's an interesting and intriguing comment, Dave. Is this a personal subjective feeling, and/or is it something that you are able to explain?

Philip

Steve here (not Dave)...such sentiment is common from those who have have suspended their film photography in favor of digital, only to bring it back into the mix after a few years. I well remember the relative purity of the moment when I shot my first frame of Ektar 100 after a ten year hiatus from shooting film. Despite the sophistication of the film itself and that of the camera, the tech required for the capture is thin enough to almost be transparent to the moment of capture.

My comments at the time...

Sandhill Cranes fly over the lower Columbia River at Frenchman's Bar. It was the experience of making this shot that resulted in my adding film back into the mix. The process was so simple...hear birds coming from behind overhead, raise camera to eye, track flock while snapping focus, and shoot. The whole process took less time and work than to wake camera and acquire focus with my K10D.

Ricoh XR7, Tamron 28/2.5 (02B), Ektar 100

Steve

[redrockcoulee]

I still use my K5iis however the MX is the latest camera I have purchased. I don't use it that much as I prefer medium format square images (Hasselblad, Rolleichord and Holga plus pinhole cameras)

Digital and analog are so different, especially if you have a darkroom and shoot mostly black and white but then I ride both a road bike and a hardtail. I don't think I would want to have to choice to use only one medium for all my photography. A couple of years ago we went to the Hebrides (second time) and I took my Hasselblad, pinhole and the WGIII. That is all I need for travelling as long as one can still take film on flights.

There is just something about just knowing you got your image and then having to wait until you hand the negs to make sure you didn't screw up in the developing.

[tuco]

For medium format I'd just use my DSLR to scan.

Yeah, DSLR scanning might be the way when scanners like the Coolscan 9000ED that are no longer made start breaking down. But taking a picture with a DSLR of a C-41 negative is a lot of work to produce a viewable image, IMHO.

You posted that boat picture a couple years ago now, I think. How much film have you shot since then?

[ZombieArmy]

You posted that boat picture a couple years ago now, I think. How much film have you shot since then?

Quite a bit. Just with covid and tight funds I haven't had it developed quite yet


Plus I don't post everything on here.

[hjoseph7]

I'm not sure of the drastic choice unless you are on a budget ? I shoot both film and digital and have no problem going back and forth between the two mediums.

[Viking42]

After 5 years and a lot of trying to get it, I have given the trusty K5 and lenses to my daughter who is just getting into photography, showing more talent than I. Out from darkness comes the tried and true, world traveled MX circa 1979 model. Just unable to appreciate the complexity of the digital realm and all the wonder it brings.
Will be expensive going back to film. Won't have instant results available, either, but it is all good with me as I started in film and will end with film. Life repeats itself.

Pichur,

Your post resonated with me in some ways. I feel much the same as you, at least when it comes to creating black and white images. I'm OK with the output from my K5ii for colour, and I find the better the lens the better the image quality becomes. But mostly I like shooting black and white, and after two years I have not been able to get satisfactory results out of this camera, no matter what or how hard I've tried. When I look at my film scans, I am struck by their clarity, subtle tonal gradations, and depth of tones. The b&w images from the K5ii, OTOH, are lacking all those things and look unsophisticated and crude by comparison. Even the cheap flatbed scanner (Canon 9950F) I use for 120 negs gives way better results than the raw files I get from the K5ii. I'll keep trying...for a little while longer...one final attempt to up my b&w processing game. But I am on the verge of chucking all efforts at b&w digital and going back to 120 and 35mm film. Even in colour, although I like the K5ii images, I find they are missing fine detail and clarity -- my little digital compacts give better clarity. I'm not convinced a camera upgrade (to a KP or K1, for example) would fix that dissatisfaction.

BTW, I also have an MX, which I've had since about 1982. It's one camera I will never sell. So simple and intuitive. Makes all the faffing about with a dslr seem like such a headache.

[pichur]

Viking42, the K5 I had was fine with image quality in color and B&W, however my brain was unable to meld with the highly functional digital features. Not sure why as I worked in tech for the past 10 years as a liaison between programmers and end users. Like you, when I pick up the MX it is very intuitive. This may come from having used it for decades in my travels, or that it is super simple. The K5 ended up being a point and shoot for me, which is a shame as it is so much more.
My daughter has had it for a week and is taking great images with it. Her composition is good and she likes the control features and in-camera processing. I am envious she got my dad's genes for intelligence. Wish I had!

[niels hansen]

Digital vs analouge
The following is strictly subjective and is not related to mirrorless
SPORT digital wins framerate and af
LANDSCAPE and ARCHITECTURE equal
PORTRAITS analouge wins better sharpness controle- pin sharp eyes
COLOR Digital wins- pp and better controle
BLAck AND white analouge wins due to better tones and brillians
LOW LIGHT digital is superieur
ECONOMY hard to say, how many films , developer etc could be bought for the investment in sometimes shortlived digital cameras?
EASYNESS OF USE digital wins
PLEASURE OF USE ?????????????

[Viking42]

Pichur -- I can relate to your experience. It took me the better part of a year, using only my K5ii and no film cameras, to really come to terms with the basic functions of the camera. It's like I am interacting with a computer, which feels antithetical to creative image making. When I'm taking a picture I think more about how to work the camera than what I am seeing and composing.

One of the biggest struggles for me is understanding how the sensor responds to exposure, and trying to relate that to my past experience and understanding of how different films and developers respond to exposure. I still have a lot to learn there, but I'm getting it slowly. Thank goodness Pentax put a sensor in that camera with such a wide dynamic range -- fantastic.

As I said, I like the K5ii for colour images, but for black and white it just doesn't cut it....at least not yet. Maybe my editing needs major improvement, as I see some good work done by others with the same or similar cameras, but I'm just not twigging it. Then again, maybe nothing can beat PanF or FP4 in a good camera and sharp lens


Niels -- hard to argue most of your points ... I could disagree with a few, but that would be pointless. Don't get me wrong - I do really like digital, and can see so many benefits and plusses in the format. But strictly speaking for finer black and white work there really is nothing like the look of film....at least for me at this point. Perhaps I will get better with some learning about the post-processing part. But there's also the intangible part of shooting b&w film -- it's the feeling of active engagement in the craft and creative process of making images for printing and display. That part is completely lost for me in digital, and I miss it.

Fun discussion...

All the best,
Svend

[Arjay Bee]

My last roll of film was blank as reported by the commercial development company. I had carried the film internationally in my checked luggage so possibly it had been xrayed and wiped - who knows. I acan barely remember the subjects of the 36 frames - only the very last couple before I sent it off for processing.

No product from all the effort over a few weeks of taking the camera out and about ,but I do remember the enjoyment of the process very well, more so than using the digital body. So maybe I should just do the whole hobby thing without loading film. Would be a whole lot cheaper.

So, ever the optimist, I have loaded MaXi with T-Max 100 and i'll see if i get any product in the coming weeks...

[niels hansen]

Pichur -- I can relate to your experience. It took me the better part of a year, using only my K5ii and no film cameras, to really come to terms with the basic functions of the camera. It's like I am interacting with a computer, which feels antithetical to creative image making. When I'm taking a picture I think more about how to work the camera than what I am seeing and composing.

One of the biggest struggles for me is understanding how the sensor responds to exposure, and trying to relate that to my past experience and understanding of how different films and developers respond to exposure. I still have a lot to learn there, but I'm getting it slowly. Thank goodness Pentax put a sensor in that camera with such a wide dynamic range -- fantastic.

As I said, I like the K5ii for colour images, but for black and white it just doesn't cut it....at least not yet. Maybe my editing needs major improvement, as I see some good work done by others with the same or similar cameras, but I'm just not twigging it. Then again, maybe nothing can beat PanF or FP4 in a good camera and sharp lens


Niels -- hard to argue most of your points ... I could disagree with a few, but that would be pointless. Don't get me wrong - I do really like digital, and can see so many benefits and plusses in the format. But strictly speaking for finer black and white work there really is nothing like the look of film....at least for me at this point. Perhaps I will get better with some learning about the post-processing part. But there's also the intangible part of shooting b&w film -- it's the feeling of active engagement in the craft and creative process of making images for printing and display. That part is completely lost for me in digital, and I miss it.

Fun discussion...

All the best,
Svend

In Analouge black and white the problems are in expiosure and choice of development, the fun is in the darkroom

In the comparison I forgot to mention the functionality in cold. Pentax is probably market leading, going down to minus 10 celcius. Mecanical cameras do much better, especially if they are cleaned and then lubricated with molybdaendisulfide fine grained POWDER. My ricoh singlex did well (not by me) in minus 30 celcius.
Finally: How many digital cameras will still work in 100 years. I have 120 year old cameras that are 100% functional. If they break they can be repaired

[ZombieArmy]

Finally: How many digital cameras will still work in 100 years. I have 120 year old cameras that are 100% functional. If they break they can be repaired

Digital camera lives are cut short because they don't make it easy to get replacement parts.