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

Bill Pierce - Leica M photog and author

 

ďOur autobiography is written in our contact sheets,  and our opinion of the world in our selectsĒ  

"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 07-09-2017   #41
teddy
Jose Morales
 
teddy's Avatar
 
teddy is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Australia
Age: 37
Posts: 267
Film is REAL photography. I don't mean to be philosophical.
__________________
View my Flickr space
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joseantoniomorales/
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2017   #42
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
 
nukecoke's Avatar
 
nukecoke is offline
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Sweden/China
Posts: 677
I like shooting rangefinder cameras, and film cameras are in general more fun to shoot with.
__________________
tumblr

flickr

About Film Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2017   #43
kumotaki
Registered User
 
kumotaki is offline
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 37
In no particular order:

a) because the dynamic range of b/w film seems far greater to me than anything digital. I know you can "bracket and HDR" with digital, but b)
b) I hate to spend time on the computer
c) because a camera with any more settings than speed, aperture and focus is too complicated, or boring, or both, for me. I understand that there are digital Leicas that come close to that but d)
d) I favour cameras (or anything else) thought and made to last for decades
e) because I hate things with batteries

Well, mostly, because I hate to spend time on the computer.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2017   #44
johnf04
Registered User
 
johnf04 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand
Age: 66
Posts: 277
I like to use the older cameras I buy for my collection. It can sometimes be a challenge to get them into working condition, but it is very satisfying to put a film through a machine you have resurrected.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2017   #45
Spanik
Registered User
 
Spanik is offline
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,391
Mostly besause of the cameras. They are simple to operate, even if you switch to another one/brand they are identical. A shutter speed dial, an iso dial and a diafragm ring on the lens. No menu, no exp com that gets chaged each time you take the camera out of the bag, no mode dials, no film button to accidently bump, just no gimmicks. No finders that show so much stuff you cannot see through them.

I put in a battery once a year and that's it. I don't come home with so much images I will never have the courage to look at all of them. And a camera lasts as long as it works. There is no need to get the latest shiny because it will work just as good, not better, than what I already have. And lastly I don't have to spend days in front of a pc. I already have to sit in front of that 8h or more a day that I don't want to add to that.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2017   #46
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,010
Film is more beautiful.

Leica M2, Color-Skopar 50mm f/2.5, 400-2TMY.

Erik.

  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2017   #47
Per Bostrom
Registered User
 
Per Bostrom is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 11
1. Working at a computer every day it is releiving to spend some time in the darkroom.
2. When digital photography started to come to life my dream cameras started to fall in price. I got the ones cheeply that I had been wanting but not been able to buy, Leicas, Hasselblads, high end 135 SLRs...
3. I think the slower process with film suits me well.

I am an analogue person. Usinga wristwatch (remember them?), vinyl records etc. etc.)
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2017   #48
Axel100
Registered User
 
Axel100's Avatar
 
Axel100 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Germany, north
Posts: 230
There is no logical reason why it should be impossible to go slow, to enjoy the process, to produce "ratty looks" with a digital camera also.
I do this since years.
Look, think, take one picture is a behaviour thats independant from the tool you are working with.
And there are very nice kids in both familys

If you have panic to lose your pics in the virtual nirwana - print them.
Or save them to different mediums. In the same time it takes to develop or
carry and fetch a film to and from the developer you have got a handful of
copies of the whole digipics you have ever made.

Money... hmm

Iīve read the whole thread with much interest to here and most of the reasons others use film are very common.
When I shoot film I do this because of I am familiar with it and I like it.
Since more than 50 years now. And I can afford it because I have or take the time to do and enjoy it.
The circle closes here to photography in general and independant from material and tool.
__________________
Fuji X10 always in my bag
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #49
KM-25
Registered User
 
KM-25's Avatar
 
KM-25 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Pierce View Post
Two of the folks who helped me when I first started out were Gene Smith and David Vestal. As different as their personal styles were, they both felt that interpretive printing was part of the process. And it is. All of us worked as hard on our printing as on other facets of our photography. Today, much of my printing is inkjet as was Davidís at the end of his life. Had Gene lived long enough, Iím sure he would have beaten all of us in the digital darkroom.

Once a picture is framed and behind glass, it is difficult to examine the paper surface and tell whether the print is silver or inkjet. I routinely ask folks to tell me whether my framed prints are silver or inkjet. They can be either, but so far, folks havenít been able to tell which. Thatís not because Iím a good inkjet printer. Itís because Iím an inkjet printer who grew up with silver and knows what a silver print looks like. You can make digital look like almost anything you want, if you know what you want. (But, your probably going to have to throw a little of the shadow detail away if you want a digital print to look like a silver print - and thatís understandably hard for most folks.)
Then why even ask the question Bill? You have people here of all walks of life, all ages and most of them have given you not technical but personal reasons as to why they use film.

I mentor young photographers in person, as in face to face and even though I give them decades of expert insight as to how to best tame or master the ever changing technology of digital imaging, nearly all of them want to truly learn how to arrive at a photograph in the darkroom having used film.

And their reasons are not because it is hip or cool but simply that they don't like giving the credit in life to the likes of Steve Jobs, Thomas Knoll or Mark Zuckerberg. I'm really both inspired and thankful young people feel this way Bill, that they want to build, paint, sculpt and even hand print with their own minds, hearts and hands and claim full authorship to that.

I also teach my students to take control of their future and not let it be ran by the so called giants in the business of technology. Don't wait around or try to second guess what is next...BE what is next.

We as photographers are truly if not unexpectedly blessed to be able to enjoy the choice in tools and mediums we now have. At age 50 I am in what I hope is my mid life and like others on this thread, I can only follow my heart and that is film and the fine silver gel print is what I do my best work with.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #50
Ko.Fe.
Me. Write ESL. Ko.
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Age: 51
Posts: 4,878
Do you keep paintings behind the glass as well?
"Once it is framed and behind the glass" it is something which happen rarely for many of us. Not because we don't print, but because we print more than frame. Where is no way you can't feel the difference if you hold it.
I'm not pathetic, I'm conservative. My family keeps photos in the boxes. Sometimes in the albums. Classic albums without sticky plastic to hold pictures.
I prefer picture not behind the glass. Winogrand pictures I have seen in the gallery were exhibited this way.

Some of us take it on film if is worth of the wet print . It is not about "slowing down" it is about keeping dross away differently from chimping.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #51
sjones
Registered User
 
sjones is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axel100 View Post
There is no logical reason why it should be impossible to go slow, to enjoy the process, to produce "ratty looks" with a digital camera also...
Iíve heard this counterargument before, and it doesnít take into account the simple fact that people are different. A tool can most certainly affect how one learns about or approaches a subject, but this will depend on the person.

Many people have no problem arguing that digital is great for learning because of the histogram, the ability to take multiple photos without increasing costs, the LCD screen, the instant feedback, and so on.

And all of these are legitimate points. But of course, if a digital tool can be beneficial, then there is no logical reason why a film tool cannot also have benefits.

Or look at it this way, the photos I would take with a rangefinder are, in various cases, going to be different than the photos I would take with a large format camera; the influence of the tool would be prominent in how I would look and think about taking a photograph.

In any event, the inarguable fact is that switching to film slowed me down, possibly because it wasnít a planned reaction, and thus not something I really thought about when shooting digital.

Does this mean that my experience applies to everyone else; absolutely not.

Does this mean I have a weak and undisciplined mind that needed an external factor to facilitate greater concentration and pre-visualizationÖmaybe, but it doesnít change the reality that switching to film prompted a different approach.
__________________
Smugmug Site
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #52
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,687
As you can see from the number of posts, I was an active form member for many years -- over the last few yesrs not s' much. This is because it was at this point that I switched over to digital. In the early to mid-2000's digital was an emerging tech and it was also relatively expensive. Simply, imo, the quality of digital did not yet match that of 35mm film. No way. Film cameras and lenses were available cheap on the used market and film was still able to be purchased and developed locally at many, many locations.

However, digital tech has matured since I'd say about the 2010's. It is comparable to film -- better, actually, in low light. Prices have dropped. My primary shooters are a Nikon 5300 that has a great 24 MP sensor without an AA filter. $389 shipped refurbed. And my "rangefinder" is an Olympus ZX-2 -- used $150. I print at home from an Epson inkjet. The quality of both these cameras exceeds (Nikon) or comes close to (Olympus) any of the 35mm cameras I've ever used. Meanwhile, the places I can purchase and have color film developed have dried up nearly completely.

Since effectively "going digital" I don't feel as though it's "proper" to post (sometimes troll) here these days. I was a film die hard. But there comes a point....
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #53
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,687
That said, if you want to still shoot film for anything other than sentimental reasons, medium (or large) format, develop your own black and white negs, and invest in an enlarger and a darkroom. That is a different animal entirely from digital -- a true hand craft, and there's something truly magical about the output that digital simply can't rival.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #54
ColSebastianMoran
Registered User
 
ColSebastianMoran's Avatar
 
ColSebastianMoran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,768
I started a similar thread few years back, "Why are we using medium-format film?"

Like here, lots of comments. Reading them all, it seemed the common thread was, "Because I love my camera."
__________________
Col. Sebastian Moran, ret. (not really)

In Classifieds Now: Nothing, more soon.
Photos, descriptions of for sale items previously listed here: this Flickr album
Use this link to leave feedback for me.

Named "Best heavy-game shooter in the Eastern Empire." Clubs: Anglo-Indian, Tankerville, and Bagatelle Card Club.
Sony E/FE, Nikon dSLR, and iPhone digital. Misc film.
Birds, portraits, events, family. Mindfulness, reflection, creativity, and stance.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #55
KM-25
Registered User
 
KM-25's Avatar
 
KM-25 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
As you can see from the number of posts, I was an active form member for many years -- over the last few yesrs not s' much. This is because it was at this point that I switched over to digital. In the early to mid-2000's digital was an emerging tech and it was also relatively expensive. Simply, imo, the quality of digital did not yet match that of 35mm film. No way. Film cameras and lenses were available cheap on the used market and film was still able to be purchased and developed locally at many, many locations.

However, digital tech has matured since I'd say about the 2010's. It is comparable to film -- better, actually, in low light. Prices have dropped. My primary shooters are a Nikon 5300 that has a great 24 MP sensor without an AA filter. $389 shipped refurbed. And my "rangefinder" is an Olympus ZX-2 -- used $150. I print at home from an Epson inkjet. The quality of both these cameras exceeds (Nikon) or comes close to (Olympus) any of the 35mm cameras I've ever used. Meanwhile, the places I can purchase and have color film developed have dried up nearly completely.

Since effectively "going digital" I don't feel as though it's "proper" to post (sometimes troll) here these days. I was a film die hard. But there comes a point....
You made a technological choice, not an artistic one it would seem, which is fine.

But answer me this then: Why did I, a full time professional of 30 years who started using digital in my work in not 2000 but 1994 never stop using film? And why, even as I buy cameras like a Nikon D750, D810, Leica M240 and even a $10,000 Hasselblad digital back, also invest well north of $100,000 into film cameras, film, paper, chemistry, darkroom equipment and even property to have a state of the art darkroom?

I'll spare you the thinking. For me, digital will *never* replace the experience, the journey, the love, the result and quite honestly the income earning potential that a real darkroom print provides for me.

I''m not alone in this and that is why film use has now risen to this wonderful niche. By the way, you can still post here, plenty of us see the value in using digital and are on this site....so I am not sure what that is all about...

Edit, I saw your second post, I would have perhaps skipped this post had I seen that...:-)
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #56
DominikDUK
Registered User
 
DominikDUK's Avatar
 
DominikDUK is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 938
Because it is another tool in the toolbox. It's neither better nor worse than digital they are different brushes for some things the look and feel of digital is better suited and for some things the look of film is better suited. The Film vs Digital thing is the wrong approach they should be used alongside each other. Film+Digital.

Some of the best photographs I've seen were made with lo-fi cameras (both digital and analogue) it's not the medium that matters but how it is applied and used and not to Forget the most important part of the Picture making process the photographers Vision.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #57
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,285
I simply prefer film.
I can hold it, touch it, view it.
Very nice waking up, seeing a dry roll.
No PC/Laptop/cloud run by "HAL" that hates me!
No drives collapsed and ALL is gone..
Sure a spare drive and it too, is suddenly has zero images..
i use digital for parties and social stuff that gets uploaded.
I make prints.
I have lasting memories, that i too can share.
If one doesn't print, sell your gear use the camera phone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #58
unixrevolution
Registered User
 
unixrevolution's Avatar
 
unixrevolution is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 34
Posts: 874
Digital is, in every measureable, testable way, technically superior to film.

But photographs are technically superior to painting, people still paint.

I like the look of a film image. I like the feel of a film camera, all mechanical and wonderful. I have film cameras I can't even hope to think about affording the digital versions of (Medium and large format, Leica, etc)

I also like that it slows me down, and makes me think. And I love the fact that, sometimes, shooting film is an icebreaker with strangers, which is a very good thing if you're a shy extrovert like me
__________________
Please, call me Erik.
Find me on: Flickr | PentaxForums | Large Format Photography Forum

"I decided to stop collecting cameras and become a photographer."
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #59
Axel100
Registered User
 
Axel100's Avatar
 
Axel100 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Germany, north
Posts: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by unixrevolution View Post
Digital is, in every measureable, testable way, technically superior to film...
Nope.
Such statements are the begin of discussions nobody needs anymore.
Iīd say digital is more popular and faster.
__________________
Fuji X10 always in my bag
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #60
KM-25
Registered User
 
KM-25's Avatar
 
KM-25 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axel100 View Post
Nope.
Such statements are the begin of discussions nobody needs anymore.
Iīd say digital is more popular and faster.

Yep, and we have all bought into one of these yet again, highly trivial opening posts. I think this site is much better than most, the excellent imagery made by members is evidence of that. So I really have to sometimes question the value of what almost seems like "Staff" trolling.....
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #61
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColSebastianMoran View Post
I started a similar thread few years back, "Why are we using medium-format film?"

Like here, lots of comments. Reading them all, it seemed the common thread was, "Because I love my camera."
I noticed that too. Pretty interesting.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #62
Ko.Fe.
Me. Write ESL. Ko.
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Age: 51
Posts: 4,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
As you can see from the number of posts, I was an active form member for many years -- over the last few yesrs not s' much. This is because it was at this point that I switched over to digital. In the early to mid-2000's digital was an emerging tech and it was also relatively expensive. Simply, imo, the quality of digital did not yet match that of 35mm film. No way. Film cameras and lenses were available cheap on the used market and film was still able to be purchased and developed locally at many, many locations.

However, digital tech has matured since I'd say about the 2010's. It is comparable to film -- better, actually, in low light. Prices have dropped. My primary shooters are a Nikon 5300 that has a great 24 MP sensor without an AA filter. $389 shipped refurbed. And my "rangefinder" is an Olympus ZX-2 -- used $150. I print at home from an Epson inkjet. The quality of both these cameras exceeds (Nikon) or comes close to (Olympus) any of the 35mm cameras I've ever used. Meanwhile, the places I can purchase and have color film developed have dried up nearly completely.

Since effectively "going digital" I don't feel as though it's "proper" to post (sometimes troll) here these days. I was a film die hard. But there comes a point....
Canon 5D. Introduced in 2005. Made up to 2008. I purchased it in 2010 (2008 made), used it a lot until 2016.



It beats color film and M8/M9 under low light and it renders better comparing to MKII and after. To me it is the best digital camera made so far. No useless, over twenty, MPs. Very clean rendering. Minimum menus, close to M9, not typical load of menus in 2010 and after camera.
Canon 5D spare parts are cheap and available. Canon DSLR cameras are DIY for parts exchange. Like changing shutter assembly or screen unit.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #63
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 66
Posts: 3,517
I shoot both although for most of my stuff (action/low indoor light) film doesn`t touch the sides.
When I do use film its for a different look.
I certainly don`t regard it as "better" or preferable, just different

Manual unmetered film cameras or digital with buttons .... all the same .
Whatever gets the job done .

My only dislike with film is the process ... I`ve never taken to that in forty odd years for some reason.

That`s a lovely shot Ko .... you`re right my 5D2 files aren`t as nice.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #64
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 66
Posts: 3,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by KM-25 View Post
Yep, and we have all bought into one of these yet again, highly trivial opening posts. I think this site is much better than most, the excellent imagery made by members is evidence of that. So I really have to sometimes question the value of what almost seems like "Staff" trolling.....

Agreed ..........
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #65
Rob-F
It's Only a Hobby
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Posts: 5,004
I like film for projecting slides on my big screen. I shoot both 35mm and MF for this. And I like to use film for black and white. I tried digital printing and found it frustrating and expensive. My Canon printer had to be thrown out when the overflow got overflown. And the expensive ink cartridges would run out of ink even when wasn't using it. I've never had to thrown out my enlarger or my darkroom sink when it got too full.

I do like digital for shooting color. I have M9, X100, X10, X20, D-lux 4, D-lux 6, D-700, D-300. The X20, D-700, and X100 get used a lot! And it's good to see color shots on my iMac. And Aperture makes it easy to store and file the shots--easier than with film.

But with all that said, I seem to want a Rolleiflex just now, even though I have 3 Hasselblads. There is an emotional component to these things!
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #66
michaelbialecki
Registered User
 
michaelbialecki's Avatar
 
michaelbialecki is offline
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bangkok
Age: 44
Posts: 1,960
I just prefer the look and results that I get when I shoot film.

cheers, michael

edit: I should mention that buying, developing and scanning film is relatively easy to do here in Bangkok, but if I were to move somewhere in the remote countryside of Myanmar then I would switch to digital just out of necessity.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #67
Arbitrarium
Registered User
 
Arbitrarium's Avatar
 
Arbitrarium is offline
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 174
1- I prefer the aesthetic of film images, the variation in films available and the unpredictability of expired film.

2- I like knowing that I'm in control of everything with knobs and levers. There's no electronics telling me how to do things.

3- I love the feel of a heavy old metal camera. I barely use plastic cameras even though they might provide better usability or image quality. If it feels cheap and fragile in my hand then it ruins the experience.
__________________
Arbitrarium on Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #68
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 44
Posts: 18,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juan Valdenebro View Post
About digital gear having improved, who really cares? I mean, I wouldn’t enjoy more Frank’s book The Americans if it were done with an M9 and an aspherical lens… I wouldn’t enjoy it more in any way, at all, because what’s enjoyable in photography has no relation with sharpness or with any other technical part of the image, but only with heart and mind, and any cheap lens or camera can produce the most wonderful photograph…
Agreed. But conversely there are a lot of people who think that a photo is better simply because it was made with film. History has shown us that great photos can be made with many different processes. Ultimately, I guess I'm a framing and content nerd first and then the process comes secondly. I understand why people choose to use film completely. I had used it for many many years and had printed in styles from Van Dyke Brown to Cibachromes, to C-Prints, to B&W. However, it does seem weird that so many equate digital with being uncreative, lazy, etc. Sure, it can be efficient. So can film. I actually prefer digital because I like the clarity of it, the clinical-ness of it. I like that I can see all of the information in a scene. I would imagine that is certainly the reason some people moved from 35mm to large format too (i.e. more information). Sometimes less information works too.

What really matters is what you said here... "but only with heart and mind" ... this is the crux for me no matter what the medium.

For me, I'll admit it... anytime I get the urge to use film, it would be me being nostalgic for a particular camera. Secondly, it would be because I had a particular project that I think film would be best for.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #69
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by KM-25 View Post
You made a technological choice, not an artistic one it would seem, which is fine.

But answer me this then: Why did I, a full time professional of 30 years who started using digital in my work in not 2000 but 1994 never stop using film? And why, even as I buy cameras like a Nikon D750, D810, Leica M240 and even a $10,000 Hasselblad digital back, also invest well north of $100,000 into film cameras, film, paper, chemistry, darkroom equipment and even property to have a state of the art darkroom?

I'll spare you the thinking. For me, digital will *never* replace the experience, the journey, the love, the result and quite honestly the income earning potential that a real darkroom print provides for me.

I''m not alone in this and that is why film use has now risen to this wonderful niche. By the way, you can still post here, plenty of us see the value in using digital and are on this site....so I am not sure what that is all about...

Edit, I saw your second post, I would have perhaps skipped this post had I seen that...:-)
No worries -- second post more of an afterthought. If I put more pre-thought into my post instead of just rambling (as I typically do), I'd have said (basically) Digital has reached the point where it has effectively replaced "small format". Still can't touch the large negative and prints made from such negatives, however. Nor is it nearly as much hand craft fun. But for the purposes most use small format for, it's hard to justify still using film in amateur circles (pro is another matter).
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #70
slm_
Registered User
 
slm_ is offline
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
That said, if you want to still shoot film for anything other than sentimental reasons, medium (or large) format, develop your own black and white negs, and invest in an enlarger and a darkroom. That is a different animal entirely from digital -- a true hand craft, and there's something truly magical about the output that digital simply can't rival.
That's basically it - the process of shooting/developing film is just more fun to me.

BTW, my posts count don't reflect because I changed my nickname, but I remember you from a few years ago posting about the Yashica Electro (I had just gotten one myself). You should pick one up again and re-discover that film magic !
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #71
Emile de Leon
Registered User
 
Emile de Leon is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 601
The eye is the same.. as in..whatever format you shoot..its still you shooting..you cant get away from your self...lol..
But that said..I just started back w/film 2 days ago after a decade off...
and I have to say..there is something to it..
I ran some old 8x10 film thru the box..and it's just a very different reality there with the cam on the pod just sittin....very Zen indeed..sumthin about it..more about that 1 image..not just happy snappin..happy wishin..
Which is the flaw of digital..as it is even 1 more step removed from reality than film....as well as just plain to fast...and easy..
Like an e-book...vs paper bound..
But that said..processing in the bathroom sux...the fumes..jeeze..
So for color..I will never go back to film..don't want to be breathin that stuff in any more..but B&W aint that much better..
Pick your poison..lol..
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #72
zuiko85
Registered User
 
zuiko85 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,455
Digital cameras are mostly ugly plasto-blobs (the few that are not are way way too expensive for me). They can have mysterious failures in their hardware or software that are not always apparent and can be devilishly hard to trace.
On the other hand my OM-1 is a mechanical work of art, a simple basic 35mm SLR that has all the essentials. So, the main reason I still use film is that is what the cameras I like use.

My ideal foray into digital. I unclip the removeable film back from my OM-1, clip on a digital back. Take pictures with the digital back.
Since there will never be a digital back for my OM-1 (Olympus having abandoned the OM mount/system) guess I'll stick to film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #73
zuiko85
Registered User
 
zuiko85 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,455
Wow!
The digital / film discussion still ignites a lot of passion. A lot of comments in a short time.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #74
sjones
Registered User
 
sjones is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Agreed. But conversely there are a lot of people who think that a photo is better simply because it was made with film...
Right, but it also seems that some folks on the digital side are arguing that thereís no reason for using film anymore. Film is dead, time marches on, get over itÖ

Moreover, if Iím asked why I shoot film, Iím not necessarily arguing against digital, and Iím certainly not trying to dissuade other folks from using digital.

But yes, I hope that most of agree that a good photo is a good photo irrespective of the methodology used to create it.

Use what you want, use what you need, and thank god for choice.
__________________
Smugmug Site
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #75
tbhv55
Registered User
 
tbhv55 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Devon, UK
Age: 61
Posts: 485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioneer View Post
The delay also results in a bit of separation and I seem to be able to be a little more objective when I view the results.
I agree - this is very much part of it, IMO.

I shoot both film and digital (though digital is a much higher percentage of my shooting, because it wins hands-down for convenience). However, I find the same "separation" principle applies with digital - if I don't get around to viewing images for, say, a few weeks after shooting, it seems easier to sort the wheat from the chaff. All in the mind, I suppose...
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #76
tbhv55
Registered User
 
tbhv55 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Devon, UK
Age: 61
Posts: 485
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjones View Post
Really though, the film advance alone is a tactile delight.
Yes - I entirely agree!
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #77
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,034
Grew up in the late 1950's and early 1960's and spent my youth pouring over LIFE magazine and dreaming of making images like the B&W ones I saw in the photo essays. Still have the same dream. Still love the whole process of making images with my old film equipment. There is such a tactile sense of it that I don't find with my digital equipment. Only thing that has changed is that I no longer have a B&W wet darkroom set up. Still bulk load my film, still use a hand held incident meter, still process my rolls, just now I scan the negs and print digitally.

For color, I'll use digital. And for work and other clients, where everything is needed yesterday, I use digital. But for "my projects", when I can, I prefer shooting B&W film.

Shooting film gives me JOY, makes me feel young again. Those are good things.

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

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

Old 07-10-2017   #78
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
Canon 5D. Introduced in 2005. Made up to 2008. I purchased it in 2010 (2008 made), used it a lot until 2016.



It beats color film and M8/M9 under low light and it renders better comparing to MKII and after. To me it is the best digital camera made so far. No useless, over twenty, MPs. Very clean rendering. Minimum menus, close to M9, not typical load of menus in 2010 and after camera.
Canon 5D spare parts are cheap and available. Canon DSLR cameras are DIY for parts exchange. Like changing shutter assembly or screen unit.
I'm sure it's a fine camera. Similar has been said of the Nikon D40's, D70's etc. I wouldn't say MP are "useless" necessarily. Wanted to have a sensor that can keep up with lens resolution lens can resolve to its full capabilities. Also, no practical limitation on print size. It does become a case of diminishing returns at a point. However, if I'm getting them (MPs), not really paying a premium for them (not at this stage), and not paying a noise penalty at higher ISOs (not with larger sensors), I'll take the resolution.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #79
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 59
Posts: 7,754
Bill,

I shoot both film and digital, but I love film more. The cameras are simpler and that is good for me. My digital cameras I dumb down and basically use like manual film cameras, and the more manual film like the better.

I also like the process, having gone to art school in the 70's, and because it is so familiar and I have done analog so long it is always like coming home. I still have a free download of LR for my SL, and I'm still using LR5.1 that came with my MM. Not sure I like upgrading and updating that is part of the digital culture.

I do think that I enjoy the basic simple skills that being good in analog demands, whether in dealing with the mediums advantages, disadvantages and limitations. Somehow I like the challenge and difficulties more in analog. Digital surely is fast and convenient, but for artistic struggle film somehow offers a bonus for me that pays dividends.

Somehow I am more proud of my film images... For me there is a great romance with film, especially because it is old school, and it goes back and returns to my beginnings.

Currently I'm without a darkroom, but I have all these negatives waiting. I have digital for speed and convenience, and my wet printing can wait. Also understand I kept digital-digital and analog-analog as two separate mediums.

I think one of the best photographic experiences is holding a large print in one's hands.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2017   #80
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 44
Posts: 18,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjones View Post
Right, but it also seems that some folks on the digital side are arguing that there’s no reason for using film anymore. Film is dead, time marches on, get over it…
Yes, equally annoying ...

Quote:
Moreover, if I’m asked why I shoot film, I’m not necessarily arguing against digital, and I’m certainly not trying to dissuade other folks from using digital.
Agreed. I even thought it might be a better option not to post, but then I liked what Juan had to say and then gave my opinion. Film is photography's history and present. Who knows what the future will be for film and / OR digital. We can only imagine.

Quote:
But yes, I hope that most of agree that a good photo is a good photo irrespective of the methodology used to create it.

Use what you want, use what you need, and thank god for choice.
Agreed.
  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 13:34.


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.