Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Coffee With Mentors > Bill Pierce - Leica M photog and author

Bill Pierce - Leica M photog and author

 

“Our autobiography is written in our contact sheets,  and our opinion of the world in our selects”  

"Never ever confuse sharp with good, or you will end up shaving with an ice cream cone and licking a razor blade."  

 

Bill Pierce is one of the most successful Leica photographers and authors ever. I initially "met" Bill in the wonderful 1973 15th edition Leica Manual (the one with the M5 on the cover). I kept reading and re-reading his four chapters, continually amazed at his knoweldge and ability, thinking "if I only knew a small part of what this guy knows... wow."  I looked foward to his monthly columns in Camera 35 and devoured them like a starving man.  Bill has worked as a photojournalist  for 25 years, keyword: WORK.  Many photogs dream of the professional photographer's  life that Bill has earned and enjoyed.  Probably Bill's most famous pic is Nixon departing the White House for the last time, victory signs still waving. 

 

Bill  has been published in many major magazines, including  Time, Life, Newsweek, U.S. News, The New York Times Sunday Magazine, New York Magazine, Stern, L'Express and Paris Match.  :His published books include  The Leica Manual,  War Torn, Survivors and Victims in the Late 20th Century, Homeless in America,  Human Rights in China,  Children of War.  Add to that numerous exhibitions at major galleries and museums.  Magazine contributions include  Popular Photography,  Camera 35, Leica Manual,  Photo District News, the Encyclopedia of Brittanica, the Digital Journalist, and now RFF.  Major awards include Leica Medal of Excellence, Overseas Press Club's Oliver Rebbot Award for Best Photojournalism from Abroad,  and the World Press Photo's Budapest Award. Perhaps an ever bigger award is Tom Abrahamsson's comment: "If you want to know Rodinal, ask Bill."

 

I met Bill in person through our mutual friend Tom Abrahamsson.  In person his insight and comments are every bit as interesting and engaging as his writing.  He is a great guy who really KNOWS photography.  I am happy to say he has generously agreed to host this forum at RFF  From time to time Bill will bring up topics, but you are also invited to ask questions.  Sit down and enjoy the ride!

 


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 1 Week Ago   #81
Dogman
Registered User
 
Dogman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 691
Seems like we're moving to the old film vs digital debate, as expected.

Personally, I use digital. But that shouldn't make any difference. It's still photography and there's only two kinds of photography: good photography and crap photography. I see a lot of crap photography these days done with digital cameras and phone cameras. But I've seen a lot of crap photography done with film in the past. I'm of the opinion that you can do crap work just as easily with a Leica M3 or a Canon 5D.

So, I use digital. Big deal. Who cares? I'm just tryin' to sidestep the crap.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #82
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 43
Posts: 18,227
It's been a pretty civil discussion. People do care.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #83
Charlie Lemay
Registered User
 
Charlie Lemay is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 310
Instant feedback only confirms all of our preconceptions and gets in the way of actually seeing what we are looking at, making unique personal vision that much more difficult to achieve. With film, the feedback is not immediate. and when we finally see what we made. we are removed from the immediacy of our preconceptions and open to seeing what we photographed differently. This is especially true with B&W film photography, which looks nothing at all like what we saw. This difference forces us to rethink what we are doing to get different results the next time. Bringing this experience to digital capture only enhances it. Without it, we can remain stuck in what we already know. This is the main reason I still begin the teaching of photography with film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #84
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 254
Why film?

Why oils? Why acrylics? Why watercolors? Why pastels? Why charcoals? Why pen and ink? Why ask the question? Photography is a big tent and has a place for all means, methods and formats. Embrace them all. It is not an either or decision.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #85
CMur12
Registered User
 
CMur12 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Moses Lake, Washington, USA
Age: 65
Posts: 662
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
It's been a pretty civil discussion. People do care.
I agree and this is important.

This is an old and oft-repeated discussion, but we have yet to exhaust it. It is still very much on our minds and I enjoy reading through each new thread that broaches the topic.

This thread has remained amazingly respectful of both film and digital, and there are some really good posts here. I shoot film, but I can see clear advantages to digital also. I'm just not there at this point. Perhaps someday I'll shoot both.

- Murray
__________________
Still shooting film: Medium Format with assorted TLRs; 35mm with manual-focus Minolta SLRs and a Canonet.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #86
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,744
I take pictures for a living. Many of my friends are pro photographers, with a couple of arts photographers in the mix. I'm the only one who uses film. My work images are digital. My personal work is primary done on film. I have never been criticized by any of them over my film use. I've never been asked more than if I have anything new to show. These are people who use all brands of cameras..Canon, Nikon, Phase One, Leaf. There is never any argument or even much discussion of brands. We talk about photography a lot; all kinds of photography.

The arguments going on here are among "camera people", who's egos seem tied up in their camera and media choices. Much on this forum has little to do with photography, and much more to do with camera hardware.

Threads like this one, on this forum, always end up in the camps arguing over gear.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #87
Contarama
Registered User
 
Contarama is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 835
Like many I used to seperate and differentiate between film and digital. I no longer do that and feel it is a mistake to do so. I use both, always have really, so in my case it was all the noise in the camps pulling me here or there. I make the noise when the subject is broached around me. Love it all!
__________________
Art is the ability to make something...even if it is a big mess...
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #88
slm_
Registered User
 
slm_ is offline
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 4
Sometimes, I'll come across some "work" (images, music, etc.) that I'll really like. There's a few photographers here that have really left me wondering why I even bother trying

I find it just as interesting in hearing the choices made to produce that work and why, as seeing it. It gives additional insight on the person producing the work. In the end, it might not really matter, but it's still of interest to some and can make for good conversation. The why use film question falls under that interest (at least for me), even when we get down into the nitty gritty gear choice selections.

I have noticed that many people that use film usually stick to the same film choice so that gear choice does matter; it's an important part of how they go about producing their work.

(Just for the record, I have and use digital equipment. Its fine. Film is more fun for me, so I reach for that more often)

Cheers
Steven
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #89
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,983
There are images we make for other people, or for pay, but I see those as different from the images I make for myself. And for the images I make for myself, I choose the process of shooting film. That's the process I enjoy using to produce photographic images.

You wouldn't tell a painter (or maybe you would, but you shouldn't) that they shouldn't use paint and canvas and brushes, because a "better" picture could be made on a computer with Photoshop or Illustrator. You wouldn't tell a musician that they shouldn't use a guitar to compose and perform a song, because a "better" song could be make on a computer with a Midi keyboard and synthesizer.

As an "artist", or just someone who aspires to create art, we should be allowed to use the tools that best help us express what we're trying to express. And for some of us, I think that's the tools of film photography.

Best,
-Tim
__________________
http://www.timcarrollphotography.com

New Photo Books
Sturgis Stories & Scenes From Sturgis
now available
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #90
johnwolf
Registered User
 
johnwolf's Avatar
 
johnwolf is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,312
Although there's nothing really new in this thread, from time to time we may personally revisit our opinion on this matter. It sounds like that's what Bill is doing. I've recently done the opposite and started shooting film after many years.

So what may appear to us to be stale arguments may to others be relevant and timely. As always in forum life, it's best to accept differing views and be respectful.

John
__________________
tumblr
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #91
hendriphile
Registered User
 
hendriphile's Avatar
 
hendriphile is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Lai View Post
I guess there are two types of people in the world.
The first type are those who just want the end results in the most efficient way.

The second type are those who want the experience of the journey, with all of the uncertainties, and mystery of whether or not the end result will turn out.
An analogy with amateur astronomy: Some people are only satisfied with a "go-to" telescope where you press a button and the target object appears in the eyepiece.

Others (a minority today, I'd wager) prefer using a finely crafted (read: "old-fashioned") scope with which you locate the object by means of star-hopping or setting circles. More time consuming, but rewarding in its own way (remember "Getting there is half the fun"?).
__________________
"It's so heavy! And it's full of numbers!" --- teenaged niece upon meeting my M3.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #92
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuiko85 View Post
Wow!
The digital / film discussion still ignites a lot of passion. A lot of comments in a short time.
You are right about that.

I like film and film cameras and will used them as long as film is available, but I guess not everyone feels that way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIrFD-TU7Zc
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #93
zuiko85
Registered User
 
zuiko85 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by xayraa33 View Post
You are right about that.

I like film and film cameras and will used them as long as film is available, but I guess not everyone feels that way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIrFD-TU7Zc
I would be very depressed if everyone feels the same or has the same opinions and preferences I do. What a dull hobby this would be.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #94
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,403
I don't use it and haven't done for several years but as a medium I want it's availability to continue indefinitely because diversity and choice in photography is healthy.
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #95
shimokita
白黒
 
shimokita's Avatar
 
shimokita is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Japan, Tokyo
Posts: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pierce View Post
I want to know from the folks who are still shooting film why they are doing it.
As a film user, I have recently received negative comments from an unexpected group of individuals... owners of high end analog watches... the guys with unlimited budgets who are wearing the auto or manual wind AP, Chopard, GP, Glashütte, Hublot JLC, Montblanc, PP, Richard Mille, TAG, Zeinth, etc. (and I own both analog and battery driven watches)...

The analog vs. digital question doesn't seem to cross over... maybe it's a life style choice...
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #96
Robert Lai
Registered User
 
Robert Lai is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,338
Mechanical watch snobs looking down on mechanical film cameras?
Oh, the hypocrisy!
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #97
Mackinaw
Think Different
 
Mackinaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
Posts: 2,834
I don’t consider myself a professional, but I do take on paying jobs every now and then. Basically, I shoot what the client wants, which, in most cases, is color, so I shoot digital RAW, which I find easier to process in PS than color film.

But, this past weekend, there were several musical acts performing all over my small town. I grabbed by Leica MP with a Canon 50/0.95, my Canon L-1 with a 50/2.0 Nikkor, and several rolls of Tri-X, and Eastman 5222-XX. I also grabbed a roll of the new Ferrania P-30 B&W film (which looks to be superb). I had the time of my life shooting nothing but film, and even a better time in my darkroom processing the stuff.

So, for work I use digital, for fun I use film. I’ll continue to use both as long as I can.

Jim B.
__________________
My fancy-schmancy gallery:

http://snowcountryphotography.com

My RFF Gallery:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...user=1453&sl=m
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #98
seany65
Registered User
 
seany65 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 367
I suppose:

1) The limited No. of frames makes me think more about whether to take the pic or not, instead of just rattling off half a dozen.

2) The 'worry'/wondering if the pics will 'come out'.

3) The prints are a thing we can touch and we don't have to faff about with a pc to look at them.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #99
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 43
Posts: 18,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by hendriphile View Post
An analogy with amateur astronomy: Some people are only satisfied with a "go-to" telescope where you press a button and the target object appears in the eyepiece.

Others (a minority today, I'd wager) prefer using a finely crafted (read: "old-fashioned") scope with which you locate the object by means of star-hopping or setting circles. More time consuming, but rewarding in its own way (remember "Getting there is half the fun"?).
So wait, which is which? I'd like that camera that makes the composition for me...
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #100
gnuyork
Registered User
 
gnuyork is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 485
Well for starters, I have a TON of film in a chest freezer (all now expired) that was given to me - b&W, color, slide film - several formats - 35mm, 120, 220, 4x5.

I also concur with several of the reasons posted above - the slowing down and not shooting 36 shots of the same thing without worry, the anticipation of what you shot (did I nail it?), the hands on process, the craft, etc.

But I shoot both digital and film - film more so from my college days and digital since 2001 with my first Elph point and shoot. I occasionally would shoot a roll of film or a few sheets with my 4x5, but mainly digital...until this year, when I decided I wanted to get a jump on that film in the freezer, and won an auction for a Rolleiflex (I needed something to shoot all that 120, right ).

With film (for better or worse) I do shoot less, and I often now place a value on and weigh a potential shot, because film is expensive and much more time consuming to process vs offloading files from an SD card. This actually can be a drawback. Sometimes with digital I get an interesting image in post that I didn't think would be all that great as I shot it.

Just two weeks ago I processed two rolls of HP5 Plus - my first time using that film and it came out great. I can't describe it in words, but it's not necessarily a look I can replicate with digital. Even in my RAW processing, I strive my best for more film like tones, and on it's own can look great, but then I scan some real film and its more organic, not perfect in a good way - less harsh.

One last thing, I have many cameras, film and digital. Some of the older manual mechanical shutter cameras are just more pleasurable to hold and operate than the modern digital wonders. My M6 and Rolleiflex are just solid and feel good in the hands.

Lastly, film is more of a personal project type of medium for me. For commercial work (and I do an occasional shoot) I would be all about the digital cameras and RAW processing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #101
roscoetuff
Registered User
 
roscoetuff is offline
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Washington DC
Age: 60
Posts: 265
I have a Sony A7RII... one of the best digitals, and yet since returning to film, I'm using it mostly for DSLR scanning. Can I do a lot more with a Sony? If high speed shooting is your standard and it seems to be from the OP's note, maybe it works. But if the client only wants one image... all you do is trade one problem for another in post processing and editing.

Similar reasons to Barry Thornton's decision for monochrome outlined in "Edge of Darkness": Because it involves and demands more of the photographer and viewer. Film is like watercolor, and unlike digital, you can effectively change the sensor by changing the film or developer without having to buy a new camera. Digital does do well in low light without demanding a time exposure. I'd wager though that film requires the photographer to become more aware of the light, while digital allows the photographer to ignore it, amplify it, bend it, change it. Which one is more of an artist's tool for the creative and which is more of a tool for the factory production line? Different tools offer different solutions and one will suit where the other doesn't.

Listen to an interview with Brian Greenberg of Richard's Photo Lab, and you'll hear how the spray and pray digital process is killing a lot of photographers while film still has a niche for the photographer where the budget forces curtail of that milieu. He does a lot of digital... it's just that shooting fast and delivering 900 shots to your client or spending 60 hours in post for a 3 to 10 hour shoot isn't going to make you successful.

I'm not in that racket but pursue this for fun as a hobby. Digital's overly smooth images have their place, but suffer the same problem of overly refined grain where the resolution can actually fail to look less realistic to the eye than a less resolved image. Thornton details this rather nicely. In fact, I'd say that the smoothness of the image can smother the life of the image the way icing smothers the top of a cake.

Digital post processing of a film image? Yeah. I like that. I print with an Epson SC P800.
__________________
"Go out looking for one thing, and that's all you'll ever find." Robert J. Flaherty, Cinematographer
"If a day goes by without my doing something related to photography, it's as though I've neglected something essential to my existence, as though I had forgotten to wake up." Richard Avedon, Photographer
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #102
DwF
Registered User
 
DwF's Avatar
 
DwF is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Washington State
Posts: 685
The experience especially with silver film, where you connect to the image as you process the chemistry is special for some of us......a hassle in some ways but so is waking for church or schlepping to a concert hall for some people. The experience and connection to something spiritual makes that effort worthwhile.

Couple that to the experience of using a camera assembled (in some cases) by someone who punched a mechanical clock at work. This creates for me a connection to a timeless sense of past, and an appreciation for a camera that was designed to be a companion that would last. There are some digital cameras that feel like they are also built by hand and to last, provided they receive new sensors

Currently I am really enjoying the XA, a camera I overlooked when I got started to get into photography. There is nothing in the digital world quite like an XA. And it makes me slow down and work with it's limitations.
__________________
DwF DwF’s Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #103
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 66
Posts: 3,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKR View Post
I take pictures for a living. Many of my friends are pro photographers, with a couple of arts photographers in the mix. I'm the only one who uses film. My work images are digital. My personal work is primary done on film. I have never been criticized by any of them over my film use. I've never been asked more than if I have anything new to show. These are people who use all brands of cameras..Canon, Nikon, Phase One, Leaf. There is never any argument or even much discussion of brands. We talk about photography a lot; all kinds of photography.

The arguments going on here are among "camera people", who's egos seem tied up in their camera and media choices. Much on this forum has little to do with photography, and much more to do with camera hardware.

Threads like this one, on this forum, always end up in the camps arguing over gear.

This ......
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #104
coogee
Registered User
 
coogee is offline
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by teddy View Post
... ... I said film is REAL!... ... Helloooooo. Any one home? ... Any one? Like my comment. Film is real.... Yeah. Real photography, film, light etchingly real. Not freaky. Anyone?

I like film for the fact it is a real thing, a negative (mainly) and then a print that I made from the negative.

I could make a photograph thing in other ways but I like this way.

That's my "why film?" It doesn't stand against/at odds with any other why (or why not), it is what it is.

I like the combination of craft and art, it gives me 'the good feelings.'

I definitely don't feel like I answer to anyone about all of this, or that anyone else needs to share my POV. Whatever floats your boat, enjoy.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #105
DwF
Registered User
 
DwF's Avatar
 
DwF is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Washington State
Posts: 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Markey View Post
This ......
I assume you are sharing Mr PKR's quote in response to my post. I certainly didn't intend my first point to reveal my "ego tied up in gear". Rodinol maybe, with all I've inhaled, although I didn't feel a need to be specific. The notion that film is a material that records and holds the image "hard copy" and it is something we physically manipulate with chemistry makes for a completely different experience than digital. The film has its initial exposure to light in the camera and this business of negating that vessel "it could be any camera", while true for some, if not tied up in ego, may be tied to martyrdom, depending on how it is expressed.

I did go on and include gear in my discussion because no one I saw mentioned anything about a love/longing and or sentimentality for older film cameras as a reason to use film. For me, older film cameras have significance in the larger discussion for those who have an appreciation for the many cameras that have been made and even traditions or practices that developed through their use. Not to mention they have an objet d'art aspect, and can be fun toys (we aren't all pros here) for those who appreciate them.

As for talk of "camera hardware" the title of this forum RFF points to a particular type of camera!

Cheers,
David
__________________
DwF DwF’s Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #106
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 66
Posts: 3,426
Dear David

Apologies .... I was merely agreeing with the sentiment PKR expressed , no direct connection intended.

I too have an affection for older film cameras .
I sit here with three film RF`S ,two Pentax slr , Mju and my fathers Hawkette No2 .

The trouble with these discussions for me though is that they often ignore the subject matter.
Most of my shooting is of horses ,often competing in indoor arenas where the lighting is less than ideal.

High iso of typically 6k or more is required to maintain an adequate shutter speed.

Film no matter how much you love the process or the cameras simply can`t cut it in those circumstances.
Its not a matter of what "looks best" its a matter of choosing something which will work.

I guess what I`m saying is that so often in these discussions film is presented as the only way.
It isn`t ... its an alternative and in certain circumstances it isn`t a working solution at all.

I freely admit though that I have no love for the film after process , never have done.
I don`t understand the crafted or the slowing down part of the analysis but that`s just me .

For what its worth I don`t care for cooking either

Best

Michael

Ps When I go to my weekly Photographic Society meetings I`m regarded as the film odd ball.

The reason being that non of the "governing bodies " in the UK will now accept film for their competitions and the Royal Society has stopped considering film entries for its merit awards.
Despite the fact that we have one or two photographers in the club with both national and international distinctions for their darkroom work they`ve all had to change to digital .
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #107
PunkFunkDunk
Registered User
 
PunkFunkDunk's Avatar
 
PunkFunkDunk is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 48
I suspect Travis Bickle has something to do with it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #108
Bendj
Registered User
 
Bendj is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Markey View Post
Ps When I go to my weekly Photographic Society meetings I`m regarded as the film odd ball.

The reason being that non of the "governing bodies " in the UK will now accept film for their competitions and the Royal Society has stopped considering film entries for its merit awards.
Despite the fact that we have one or two photographers in the club with both national and international distinctions for their darkroom work they`ve all had to change to digital .
Is this just for photos of horses as the following is taken from the Royal Photographic Society website:

Competitions

Whether you are working digitally, using film or experimenting with more traditional processes, all subjects, genres and styles of photography can be entered into many of our competitions, grants and bursary opportunities.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #109
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 66
Posts: 3,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bendj View Post
Is this just for photos of horses as the following is taken from the Royal Photographic Society website:

Competitions

Whether you are working digitally, using film or experimenting with more traditional processes, all subjects, genres and styles of photography can be entered into many of our competitions, grants and bursary opportunities.

Oh I wouldn`t know ...
I don`t take part in these things myself.

I attend the weekly meetings and hear that they aren`t taking film entries ... now whether that`s a decision taken at regional level or further up in the organisation ...

That`s my understanding of the situation certainly at club and county level.

Also with the Royal Society but your quote casts that in doubt.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #110
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,709
As I have read by others, clients also pushed me to digital also and it was in late 2005. I love film. Something about going into the darkroom and shutting the door and escaping the world outside the DR. No phones, no emails, just myself and the process.

I also love digital. I don't think it should be about film vs digital but what is right for each individual and the way they prefer to work. Film is not going anywhere. And digital is in it's infancy.

KM 25 sweet space for a DR. I am jealous. A divorce some years back forced a huge down size. I had access to a darkroom at a clients but lost it a few years back. I would still be shooting film in some capacity if I had a darkroom now.

I really miss my 500 C/Ms. I miss shooting large format. I also miss the darkroom. Maybe when I retire in a few years I will pick up and old Deardorff and build a darkroom again (I love the smell of stop bath in the morning...)Do all the tests (if I can find a densitometer) and shoot large format zone system landscapes. Also might pick up an M3 for street work. But until then I will do both my work for clients and my personal work on my digital Leica Ms.

MM is back to NJ for sensor replacement and I am on the list for an M 10. Still rock'n the M-E and M 262.

Like sjones mentioned they are really just tools. Find one that works for you whether it's digital or film or both. They both can be very satisfying especially if you find what truly works for you. Then go out and make some photographs and enjoy it whether it's one or the other or both.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #111
FujiLove
Registered User
 
FujiLove is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by nukecoke View Post
All the people I shot on C-41 films look like orange coloured freaks.
Stop holding those negatives up to the light. Problem solved.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #112
JoeLopez
Registered User
 
JoeLopez's Avatar
 
JoeLopez is offline
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by kshapero View Post
Why I shoot film.
1. I like Going slow
2. I like the ratty look compared to digital (because digital is just so good).
P.S. I was the guy in high school that was told I had so much potential but was wasting it on goofing off.
I concur, my feelings exactly.
I got back into 35mm film in 2015 by dusting off my old XG1. I've enjoyed shooting it personally since.
__________________
Yashica Electro 35 GSN - acquired March 2015


Other gear: Nikon FE2, F3/T & D7100, Fuji X100

My Flickr | My ebay
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #113
maddoc
... likes film.
 
maddoc's Avatar
 
maddoc is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 三鷹市
Age: 51
Posts: 7,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pierce View Post
Therefore I want to know from the folks who are still shooting film why they are doing it.
1) Not enough disposable income to buy a digital Leica M plus back-up body.

2) How to store digital files for long terms at affordable prices?

3) No interest in fiddling with software for a long time to get the proper result

4) Enjoying the time when looking at a strip of properly exposed Tri-X on the light table

5) Even more enjoying the time when looking at a print developing in a tray.
__________________
- Gabor

flickr
pBase
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #114
Ko.Fe.
Me. Write ESL. Ko.
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Age: 50
Posts: 4,605
Thumbs up for Gabor!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Markey View Post
Dear David

Apologies .... I was merely agreeing with the sentiment PKR expressed , no direct connection intended.

I too have an affection for older film cameras .
I sit here with three film RF`S ,two Pentax slr , Mju and my fathers Hawkette No2 .

The trouble with these discussions for me though is that they often ignore the subject matter.
Most of my shooting is of horses ,often competing in indoor arenas where the lighting is less than ideal.

High iso of typically 6k or more is required to maintain an adequate shutter speed.

Film no matter how much you love the process or the cameras simply can`t cut it in those circumstances.
Its not a matter of what "looks best" its a matter of choosing something which will work.

I guess what I`m saying is that so often in these discussions film is presented as the only way.
It isn`t ... its an alternative and in certain circumstances it isn`t a working solution at all.

I freely admit though that I have no love for the film after process , never have done.
I don`t understand the crafted or the slowing down part of the analysis but that`s just me .

For what its worth I don`t care for cooking either

Best

Michael

Ps When I go to my weekly Photographic Society meetings I`m regarded as the film odd ball.

The reason being that non of the "governing bodies " in the UK will now accept film for their competitions and the Royal Society has stopped considering film entries for its merit awards.
Despite the fact that we have one or two photographers in the club with both national and international distinctions for their darkroom work they`ve all had to change to digital .

I have seen Winogrand indoor work related to horses. Taken on film. Beautifully as they say in America now.
I also don't think what digital ISO (6K color) is related to film (pushed bw).
In my time with DSLRs for street photography I often used 6K ISO. But film ISO400 is enough for same location, light.

Now. About so called "friends" talking about pictures. Bunch of folks living on selling of pictures. Of course they are going to talk about pictures. How good or not they are. They need their pictures to be sold. Not cameras. What's all.

Lets be honest, if you have "friends" who are related to your income it is networking or whatever it is called. Real friends are not for profit.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #115
DwF
Registered User
 
DwF's Avatar
 
DwF is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Washington State
Posts: 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Markey View Post
Dear David

Apologies .... I was merely agreeing with the sentiment PKR expressed , no direct connection intended.

I too have an affection for older film cameras .
I sit here with three film RF`S ,two Pentax slr , Mju and my fathers Hawkette No2 .

The trouble with these discussions for me though is that they often ignore the subject matter.
Most of my shooting is of horses ,often competing in indoor arenas where the lighting is less than ideal.

High iso of typically 6k or more is required to maintain an adequate shutter speed.

Film no matter how much you love the process or the cameras simply can`t cut it in those circumstances.
Its not a matter of what "looks best" its a matter of choosing something which will work.

I guess what I`m saying is that so often in these discussions film is presented as the only way.
It isn`t ... its an alternative and in certain circumstances it isn`t a working solution at all.

I freely admit though that I have no love for the film after process , never have done.
I don`t understand the crafted or the slowing down part of the analysis but that`s just me .

For what its worth I don`t care for cooking either

Best

Michael

Ps When I go to my weekly Photographic Society meetings I`m regarded as the film odd ball.

The reason being that non of the "governing bodies " in the UK will now accept film for their competitions and the Royal Society has stopped considering film entries for its merit awards.
Despite the fact that we have one or two photographers in the club with both national and international distinctions for their darkroom work they`ve all had to change to digital .
Michael,

I read your post late and got easily cranked so no worries and thank you for following up. I think we are in agreement on all of these issues, including how these discussions often go

FWIW, I only process the film anymore (in the bathroom) and can't imagine spending time in a darkroom so my process is hybrid at best. I do love to cook though because while doing it I feel free to have a glass of something going and still feel productive!

All the best,
David
__________________
DwF DwF’s Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #116
MaxElmar
Registered User
 
MaxElmar's Avatar
 
MaxElmar is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pierce View Post
I'm not sure film looks better, but you sure are right about those damn buttons.
I, too, am not sure film looks better. But I am pretty sure it looks different. And that's enough to keep me in that game.

And, yes, the darn buttons and batteries are distractions. Mirrorless has only made that aspect of digital photography worse.
__________________
Chris L.

Still Photographically Uncool
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #117
KM-25
Registered User
 
KM-25's Avatar
 
KM-25 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
I do not think the OP is trolling. He has his own section at RFF for a reason and he always makes a topic every so often (AND its in his section). He has an opinion and was asking a question. Most of us are having a civilized discussion about it.
Then why does he never cite any of the people who now use more film than ever who are in his former industry? Why not also add to the mix that our mutual friend on Facebook who is a well known shooter, still shoots film?

He just tosses these propaganda bombs of waxing poetic quasi-wisdom in the ring like a chew toy for a pack of neurotic dogs and hardly chimes in again.

If you are going to ask a question like why use film, maybe first do the research outside of here that reveals why that answer has changed, who is using it and then put some more thought into it rather than just asking the question in a way that seems to only want to generate small talk at best.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #118
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 43
Posts: 18,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by KM-25 View Post
Then why does he never cite any of the people who now use more film than ever who are in his former industry? Why not also add to the mix that our mutual friend on Facebook who is a well known shooter, still shoots film?

He just tosses these propaganda bombs of waxing poetic quasi-wisdom in the ring like a chew toy for a pack of neurotic dogs and hardly chimes in again.

If you are going to ask a question like why use film, maybe first do the research outside of here that reveals why that answer has changed, who is using it and then put some more thought into it rather than just asking the question in a way that seems to only want to generate small talk at best.
I can understand your points, but this is a pretty simple forum and a lot of it is opinion based. It doesn't mean it is right... but I just didn't see his post as propaganda. I don't think the film vs. digital debate is that serious.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #119
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
 
Juan Valdenebro's Avatar
 
Juan Valdenebro is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Barcelona and Colombia
Age: 45
Posts: 4,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by KM-25 View Post
Then why does he never cite any of the people who now use more film than ever who are in his former industry? Why not also add to the mix that our mutual friend on Facebook who is a well known shooter, still shoots film?

He just tosses these propaganda bombs of waxing poetic quasi-wisdom in the ring like a chew toy for a pack of neurotic dogs and hardly chimes in again.

If you are going to ask a question like why use film, maybe first do the research outside of here that reveals why that answer has changed, who is using it and then put some more thought into it rather than just asking the question in a way that seems to only want to generate small talk at best.
I get what you say... And I think Mr. Pierce is simply interested in others' opinions: in how this keeps evolving, as he has himself loved film for decades, and then he has been using digital cameras trying to continue his serious work... He's also talked about this previously...
And he had a very valid point in his recent first post here: can't we, after using film for long, think well before shooting a digitital camera, and basically get the same results? I think we can, he's right... I tried, and I got the images, but I wasn't really enjoying it, and got bored...
With all respect, to imagine he starts a thread with hidden interests is a bit speculative...
__________________
F i l m means fun!
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #120
KM-25
Registered User
 
KM-25's Avatar
 
KM-25 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,597
That may be all well and fine, but there is just something odd I can't seem to put my finger in how he goes about participating on this site. Like there is a disconnect somewhere....not sure what it is.

Either way, he got plenty of answers that I am willing to bet will not change all that much in the next 5-10 years.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:57.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.