iridium7777
Established
pardon this post, but it's not trolling, it's a real question.
i was fairly active (if mostly just reading) about 10 years ago when i had my beloved m6ttl, which was sold for an m8 that i had for maybe a year and didn't get anywhere near the use of the m6. eventually i went all digital and now have some nikon dslr or other.
i fondly remember the days when i would carry my m6 with me and a little notebook that i would jot down what film i'm currently using and some notes about shot settings, mastering the sunny 16 rule to the point when the batteries died in the m6 i would use it meterless and had successful results. i still think i have a bunch of slide and other films in the freezer - although i have no idea if it's still good and who would even process my fuji velvia these days.
long story short, i'm looking getting back into the leica range finder and was mostly concentrating on finding one of the digital bodies when i came across an m-a. which then prompted me to look on whether walgreen does develop & scan only (my preferred method back in the day, i think it was something like $6 per roll and if i needed anything better i'd have the negative professionally scanned).
considering i shot/will shoot color 99% of the time, what is really viability of getting into the film game in 2019? looking for development & scanning costs it's closer to $20 per roll, i think i used to run somewhere a roll a week, not including higher res scans if i need to get some. that also doesn't include the cost of film, or the availability. i used to be able to find anything from 50iso to 1600iso of fujifilm color for a couple bucks, now i don't even know?
am i getting myself into an expensive uphill battle/hassle if i'm starting literally with nothing today and i'm better off looking for a digital body instead?
your opinions are much appreciated.
i was fairly active (if mostly just reading) about 10 years ago when i had my beloved m6ttl, which was sold for an m8 that i had for maybe a year and didn't get anywhere near the use of the m6. eventually i went all digital and now have some nikon dslr or other.
i fondly remember the days when i would carry my m6 with me and a little notebook that i would jot down what film i'm currently using and some notes about shot settings, mastering the sunny 16 rule to the point when the batteries died in the m6 i would use it meterless and had successful results. i still think i have a bunch of slide and other films in the freezer - although i have no idea if it's still good and who would even process my fuji velvia these days.
long story short, i'm looking getting back into the leica range finder and was mostly concentrating on finding one of the digital bodies when i came across an m-a. which then prompted me to look on whether walgreen does develop & scan only (my preferred method back in the day, i think it was something like $6 per roll and if i needed anything better i'd have the negative professionally scanned).
considering i shot/will shoot color 99% of the time, what is really viability of getting into the film game in 2019? looking for development & scanning costs it's closer to $20 per roll, i think i used to run somewhere a roll a week, not including higher res scans if i need to get some. that also doesn't include the cost of film, or the availability. i used to be able to find anything from 50iso to 1600iso of fujifilm color for a couple bucks, now i don't even know?
am i getting myself into an expensive uphill battle/hassle if i'm starting literally with nothing today and i'm better off looking for a digital body instead?
your opinions are much appreciated.
Huss
Mentor
First off, welcome back!
If your film was stored in your freezer, it is still good. I pretty much shoot expired film all the time with excellent results. Labs still develop your Velvia (E6 process).
I see that you have a DSLR so I recommend getting you get it developed but scan it yourself with your digicam. There are threads on this site that discuss that.
Color film is really easy to convert now using www.negativelabpro.com
I use the Leica M-A, as well as others, and really you can't go wrong with any of them. I also just picked up a Nikon S2 rangefinder camera, and that too is really nice but much much cheaper!
If your film was stored in your freezer, it is still good. I pretty much shoot expired film all the time with excellent results. Labs still develop your Velvia (E6 process).
I see that you have a DSLR so I recommend getting you get it developed but scan it yourself with your digicam. There are threads on this site that discuss that.
Color film is really easy to convert now using www.negativelabpro.com
I use the Leica M-A, as well as others, and really you can't go wrong with any of them. I also just picked up a Nikon S2 rangefinder camera, and that too is really nice but much much cheaper!
Mcary
Well-known
If you don't mind mailing your film off for development and scanning one of the sponsors here Precision Camera offer free development of C41 film when pay for high res scan cost is $11.99 for 4181x6305 JPG scans plus shipping handling.
madNbad
Well-known
If you look through the threads, Huss and others have posted extensively about scanning film with a digital camera. In addition there are also reviews of labs. Welcome back.
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
or, shoot B&W and develop/scan yourself.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Here is no diffrence between bw and c-41/e6/ecn2. I do it all at home.
One L c-41 kit will easily give 20 film. I discard it after more than one year and 30+ films.
One L c-41 kit will easily give 20 film. I discard it after more than one year and 30+ films.
CharlesDAMorgan
Mentor
I do all my own Black and white (which I generally love doing) and all my colour (which I enjoy a lot less). By doing so I have more than paid for the cost of a scanner and now save myself about £5 a roll of colour developing cost and way more for black and white.
That's by the by though - film is still available, plenty of excellent emulsions from Kodak and Ilford and numerous others - I buy mail order and it's a lot cheaper than retail.
When I didn't develop I used an excellent mail order service. I am sure numerous people can advise you on US processors.
I think you will have no problem shooting with film again, just get any classic film Leica and a good meter (if you haven't one in the camera) and it will be second nature again. I returned to film and did take the trouble to learn to develop from an Ilford Artisan partner, and it has paid enormous dividends.
I doubt your film Leica and lenses will depreciate, so it's a riskless option really.
That's by the by though - film is still available, plenty of excellent emulsions from Kodak and Ilford and numerous others - I buy mail order and it's a lot cheaper than retail.
When I didn't develop I used an excellent mail order service. I am sure numerous people can advise you on US processors.
I think you will have no problem shooting with film again, just get any classic film Leica and a good meter (if you haven't one in the camera) and it will be second nature again. I returned to film and did take the trouble to learn to develop from an Ilford Artisan partner, and it has paid enormous dividends.
I doubt your film Leica and lenses will depreciate, so it's a riskless option really.
Bill Clark
Mentor
My opinion, look for a digital body instead.
Why make photographs with film then scan them? Why not just use a digital camera in the first place? Even second place!
If you ‘re making most of your photos in color then, my opinion, is go digital.
The only film I use anymore is black and white. Which is getting less and less now.
I use Photoshop and use ACR to process my RAW files.
At any rate, it’s what I do and thought I would share with you.
Huss
Mentor
Bill Clark
Mentor
That’s your opinion.
Corran
Well-known
Exactly. Film looks different. Why would it look the same, when there's drastic differences with how highlights are rendered / retained (for negative film)?
Scanning film doesn't change the information held on it, even if "scanned" with a digital camera. A DSLR doesn't revert the highlight retention of the film magically.
Scanning film doesn't change the information held on it, even if "scanned" with a digital camera. A DSLR doesn't revert the highlight retention of the film magically.
35photo
Well-known
I 100% agree here. I've done the scanning thing in the past for mostly color and scanned all my old B&W negs as well... Scanning is a pain frankly I've gotten good results....I've seen pro drum scanned negs as well really nice... Been doing photography for 30 some years now.... Digital once you understand it and know how to work it its in my opinion the best option especially for color... I can get every film "look" on digital I like... I'm not heavy handed with my processing...I know how I like certain colors to be and such... Not to say film is bad or anything there is something to be learned from it for sure...
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
I know up my way, they don't do any film processing anymore (nor CVS). Not sure if it has been eliminated nationally.
Huss
Mentor
No. It does not look the same. At all.
aizan
Mentor
they’re both great options these days with their own sets of conveniences and challenges. i would lean toward scanning film since people are (perhaps overly) pessimistic about digital preservation.
Corran
Well-known
Yeah nah I don't think so. They are so inherently different it's just impossible - not only in color and tonality but also the range of highlights captured (and for digital, the depth of shadow detail).
I have never seen any direct comparisons of the same image shot on various films and then digital, with the digital image then edited to look similar. I would bet there's a reason for that...
And all those "film presets" from various companies look horrible in my experience.
AAlfano
Well-known
I won't weigh in on the film vs. digital look. I like both and use both.
I will implore the OP however, that if you do get back into film, DO NOT use any local drug store for processing. I have had about 4–5 rolls processed at drug stores over the last few years (I'm a slow learner…) and they all came out terrible. I don't know if the poor results were do to old chemicals, poorly adjusted/maintained equipment, or just untrained people. Just DON'T DO IT.
I can highly recommend Dwayne's Photo for mail-in developing, scanning, and printing.
I will implore the OP however, that if you do get back into film, DO NOT use any local drug store for processing. I have had about 4–5 rolls processed at drug stores over the last few years (I'm a slow learner…) and they all came out terrible. I don't know if the poor results were do to old chemicals, poorly adjusted/maintained equipment, or just untrained people. Just DON'T DO IT.
I can highly recommend Dwayne's Photo for mail-in developing, scanning, and printing.
Huss
Mentor
This 100%
Many make the mistake of thinking because they used ‘cheap’ film it does not
need a quality shop to process it. It does if you want beautiful results!
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
I'd either go the digital or the MF film way before getting involved with small format shooting. And Leicas are nice but expensive.
If you want rangefinder and a smallish one, go for a Fujica 6x4.5 rangefinder and a busload of 120 film before you even hit the M6 price point.
The image quality of medium format surpasses any expensive Leica lens without too much effort.
If you want rangefinder and a smallish one, go for a Fujica 6x4.5 rangefinder and a busload of 120 film before you even hit the M6 price point.
The image quality of medium format surpasses any expensive Leica lens without too much effort.
Steve M.
Mentor
I have a few sort of simple observations, but they may be useful.
Anyone that can afford a Leica camera and lens can afford the film and processing.
Film shooting is about doing your own developing and printing B&W on an enlarger, so if that's not going to happen may as well go digital. Doing it yourself teaches you so much more about photography. It's inexpensive, learnable by just about anyone, and even in a tiny studio there's room to do it.
Color is probably for sending out, but plenty of people here do it at home. It's just more exacting. and you have to work in total darkness for a fair part of it. To me, film shooting is all of a piece: the shot, the developing, the printing.....and controlling it all yourself is the only way to get consistently professional results that will get the prints that you like, not that the lab likes.
I cannot believe that anyone on this forum thinks that film and digital look the same. They're two totally different mediums, not at all alike in terms of technology and work flow (until you digitize an analog image and edit it, and/or print it out of a darkroom), and the photos ain't the same either, although there are similarities. Scanned negs still retain their native look, and it isn't anything like digital. Some people like one medium, some like the other, and a lot use both.
Anyone that can afford a Leica camera and lens can afford the film and processing.
Film shooting is about doing your own developing and printing B&W on an enlarger, so if that's not going to happen may as well go digital. Doing it yourself teaches you so much more about photography. It's inexpensive, learnable by just about anyone, and even in a tiny studio there's room to do it.
Color is probably for sending out, but plenty of people here do it at home. It's just more exacting. and you have to work in total darkness for a fair part of it. To me, film shooting is all of a piece: the shot, the developing, the printing.....and controlling it all yourself is the only way to get consistently professional results that will get the prints that you like, not that the lab likes.
I cannot believe that anyone on this forum thinks that film and digital look the same. They're two totally different mediums, not at all alike in terms of technology and work flow (until you digitize an analog image and edit it, and/or print it out of a darkroom), and the photos ain't the same either, although there are similarities. Scanned negs still retain their native look, and it isn't anything like digital. Some people like one medium, some like the other, and a lot use both.