raid
Dad Photographer
I went from film to "digital plus film", but I bought two film scanners, but in the end, I never had the film developed, so I stuck with digital.
One day, I may (or may not) return to film.
One day, I may (or may not) return to film.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
This sums up where I am almost perfectly. I have a couple of digital point and shoots that are very handy, and for which I've paid very little, but I've not made any sort of major digital purchase as yet. The Fuji X30 is very intriguing, however.
barnwulf
Well-known
I love film and I love my film Leicas. I have been shooting film since the late 1950s and film is where my heart is. Over the last couple of years I have grown from just tolerating digital to liking it since it fits better with the volume of work that I can do now. With the A7r I like the way my files look and I like the quality of the prints that I make from them. I still have my M3 ready to go with me someday soon. I guess I shoot about 95% digital and 5% film where it used to be just the other way around. - jim
olakiril
Well-known
2004 was my permanent transfer to digital.
Lack of time & space mostly.
Lack of time & space mostly.
kxl
Social Documentary
This has been a very good mix so far, and I'm always interested in reading about people's experiences as they go through different phases in their photography and especially as they relate to changing life circumstances. Keep the comments coming.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Poll doesn't reflect my case, which isn't rare at all.
I migrated from film to digital, completely.
And few years later I moved back to film at completely different level.
All kinds of cameras and formats, learned wet printing.
One of the reasons is because it is more affordable now.
Just yesterday, I get for free Canon FTb, lens and flash.
I also can't say if even, more, less. It is absutly different.
Film mostly for myself, digital mostly for others.
I migrated from film to digital, completely.
And few years later I moved back to film at completely different level.
All kinds of cameras and formats, learned wet printing.
One of the reasons is because it is more affordable now.
Just yesterday, I get for free Canon FTb, lens and flash.
I also can't say if even, more, less. It is absutly different.
Film mostly for myself, digital mostly for others.
thegman
Mentor
Started off on digital, but moved to film. Then tried digital again, but again returned to film. Digital would be so easy and convenient, but it just does not work out for me. It's so easy to prefer the game of Pool to Snooker, cheaper and easy to find a big enough room for a Pool table, but in the end, I want to play Snooker more than I do Pool.
AlwaysOnAuto
Well-known
When I was young(er) I shot film because that’s all there was.
When I got older and married and had kids, I shot film because that’s all there was.
I didn’t shoot as much as I would have liked because paying for kids took precedence over paying for film.
I really enjoy a fine mechanical device such as a good film camera. I can’t say any of the digitals I’ve had so far have given me that same feeling, yet, ‘cause you see deep down inside I’m a hardware guy.
I’m about to start a new adventure tomorrow when my new old digital camera arrives that will let me mix some of the old mechanical lenses in my possession with the new(er) digital format. At this time in my life I find digital is the answer for me. Things may, or may not, have been different if I’d taken a class in school and learned all the in’s ‘n outs of photography using film. I marvel at the simple complexity of my M3, made before the advent of computer aided machines, while at the same time I’m impressed with the amount of technology that is in my D7000. It probably has more processing power than the Apollo space capsule that went to the moon.
So yes, I’m a film guy living in a digital world. It is easier for me to justify having a new(er) computer than it is to wish for a darkroom set up. I can make pretty good use of the former, but frankly, would be lost in the dark in the later.
When I got older and married and had kids, I shot film because that’s all there was.
I didn’t shoot as much as I would have liked because paying for kids took precedence over paying for film.
I really enjoy a fine mechanical device such as a good film camera. I can’t say any of the digitals I’ve had so far have given me that same feeling, yet, ‘cause you see deep down inside I’m a hardware guy.
I’m about to start a new adventure tomorrow when my new old digital camera arrives that will let me mix some of the old mechanical lenses in my possession with the new(er) digital format. At this time in my life I find digital is the answer for me. Things may, or may not, have been different if I’d taken a class in school and learned all the in’s ‘n outs of photography using film. I marvel at the simple complexity of my M3, made before the advent of computer aided machines, while at the same time I’m impressed with the amount of technology that is in my D7000. It probably has more processing power than the Apollo space capsule that went to the moon.
So yes, I’m a film guy living in a digital world. It is easier for me to justify having a new(er) computer than it is to wish for a darkroom set up. I can make pretty good use of the former, but frankly, would be lost in the dark in the later.
f16sunshine
Moderator
I'm strictly Film... love to scan but am getting frustrated with my developing
for years it just worked ...like magic
now i am increasingly getting too much grain, or water stains etc
have dabbled with digital but am never quite Satisfied
really want to Embrace digital and create an interesting workflow
small pocket digi cameras don't work well with me.... i need a solid body in the hands
hence I am considering an M9
I Vacillate between throwing myself into digi
or the fear factor of will I Get bored or sensor dust , both are similar phenomena
All of this I have experienced at some point or another.
Including the M9 desire. If you were not happy with the M8.... well, the M9 is not really much of a difference.
Possible Dust on sensor, Suspect reliablity, Need to charge batteries, strange exploding clock noise everytime you push the shutter button
Cheers!
Chris Bail
Regular Guy
Grew up when there was nothing but film, but didn't get serious until I bought my first DSLR. Gave that up a few years ago for the RF experience and bought a CL, then M8, then RD1, etc, etc ad nauseum. I've recently moved more toward film. Perhaps I'm becoming something of a luddite as I mature, but I prefer to have a physical negative. I've come to appreciate not having the instant gratification of digital (though I do still have my M8 for lens testing and occasional snapshots that can't wait a week or two to develop.) Now I carry my MP and an extra lens with me just about every day, and most of the pictures I make are only seen by friends and family.
JChrome
Street Worker
In high school I got my first point and shoot (canon digital elph). I had a blast with it but never care about getting serious. I bought a Canon 20d in college to get serious but I never caught the shutter bug. Then, after college I bought the 5d Mkii and started shooting on the streets of NYC. I liked it but never cared that much.
A trip to Honduras for scuba diving changed it all. I rented an Olympus point and shoot with an underwater housing and became hooked. I then traded my 5d for the canon 7d and bought a housing, ports, lenses, strobes, control arms... I fell in love with underwater photography. I did the majority of it In Southeast Asia in 2011 on a trip of a lifetime.
Back in NYC I sold all the underwater gear and started shooting in the streets with a voigtlander R and 15mm CV. I was hooked on film and on street.
I've now gone almost exclusively 120mm film. I'll shoot BnW or color, color usually for traveling. And that brings us to now.
I totally transitioned from digital to film. I don't like the burden of developing and scanning but I love the quality of the photos. And it's impossible to shoot 6x9 in digital
A trip to Honduras for scuba diving changed it all. I rented an Olympus point and shoot with an underwater housing and became hooked. I then traded my 5d for the canon 7d and bought a housing, ports, lenses, strobes, control arms... I fell in love with underwater photography. I did the majority of it In Southeast Asia in 2011 on a trip of a lifetime.
Back in NYC I sold all the underwater gear and started shooting in the streets with a voigtlander R and 15mm CV. I was hooked on film and on street.
I've now gone almost exclusively 120mm film. I'll shoot BnW or color, color usually for traveling. And that brings us to now.
I totally transitioned from digital to film. I don't like the burden of developing and scanning but I love the quality of the photos. And it's impossible to shoot 6x9 in digital
Bingley
Mentor
I assume the poll is refering to digital capture and analog capture of images, rather than what happens afterward. All of my film images are digitized from negative scans, but I don't consider them to be digital images in the same sense as the images captured with my digital camera.
That said, I'm about 98% film for black and white and likely to remain there, b/c I love using cameras from the 1950s and '60s and enjoy the process of developing my own b&w film. And I'm shooting much more b&w these days than color, so that makes me a "mostly film" person.
With color, however, I'm making the transition to digital. Getting C-41 color film processed and properly scanned locally is getting increasingly difficult and costly, and the image quality from current digital cameras has pretty much closed the gap with color film. I may yet try my hand at home development of C-41 color film, but I'm not ready to jump in yet.
That said, I'm about 98% film for black and white and likely to remain there, b/c I love using cameras from the 1950s and '60s and enjoy the process of developing my own b&w film. And I'm shooting much more b&w these days than color, so that makes me a "mostly film" person.
With color, however, I'm making the transition to digital. Getting C-41 color film processed and properly scanned locally is getting increasingly difficult and costly, and the image quality from current digital cameras has pretty much closed the gap with color film. I may yet try my hand at home development of C-41 color film, but I'm not ready to jump in yet.
The transition from 100% film to 100% digital was very quick. Convenience, and then quality improvements confirmed it. Gave away my darkroom gear, no room for it in the current house anyway.
Kwesi
Well-known
All of this I have experienced at some point or another.
Including the M9 desire. If you were not happy with the M8.... well, the M9 is not really much of a difference.
Possible Dust on sensor, Suspect reliablity, Need to charge batteries, strange exploding clock noise everytime you push the shutter button
Cheers!
oh, I dont know Andy, there is a real continuity from the film M to the M9.
Went from M7 to M9 pretty seamlessly. From an M4 could be a little bumpy at first, but the main difference between the M8 and M9 is that with the M9 your frame lines and lenses dont change so your relationship with the camera kind of stays the same. Anyway I know you know all this but ...
To answer the poll. Currently all digital. I absolutely loved the M7 but just dont have the time to process and scan.
cz23
-
In the last year I've made two good efforts to go back to film, at least partially. I find M film cameras such a pleasure. But with a very busy life I prefer the ease and consistency of digital. I'd rather spend my time and energy making pictures and portfolios than dealing with all the variables in processing and scanning. And the GR and X-Pro1 produce b&w output that, while not exactly like film, are really pleasing to my eye.
John
John
f16sunshine
Moderator
kwesi
^^^
I can't argue with any of that but... the M9 as good as it can be was/is still not what I was wanting it to be. Subjective for sure!
^^^
I can't argue with any of that but... the M9 as good as it can be was/is still not what I was wanting it to be. Subjective for sure!
craygc
Well-known
I currently find myself in a situation where the only way I can shoot for at least the next 12 months (if I want to be able to see the results) is to use digital. However, having said that, I would still describe myself as a film shooter - have way too many film cameras and even more film in the freezer.
Being only really interested in B&W and currently shooting digital has forced me to work on processing files to achieve the look I want (I want digital B&W to look like film B&W). Some images I've reworked 20+x because I'm just not happy with it [As a caveat, for the last few months Ive only been working on a notebook monitor so I have no idea of how recent images look to everyone else :bang:]. I'm now learning which lighting situations don't lend themselves to what I consider good conversions; but being aware of this and, given comparative results like below, I'm actually surprising myself as to what can be achieved in digital B&W - don't believe I'm saying that.
These two images were taken at the exact same time. The first is HP5 @640 in DDX with a Pentax 645N. The second is a Sony Nex 5N with a Leica 21mm Elmarit Asph.
No special effort actually went into the Nex conversion and no attempt at the time was made to make one look like the other. In fact the digital was processed 3 weeks before the film version. Just using DxO Labs FilmPack as a starting point and local tonality adjustment as I would even with film.
Being only really interested in B&W and currently shooting digital has forced me to work on processing files to achieve the look I want (I want digital B&W to look like film B&W). Some images I've reworked 20+x because I'm just not happy with it [As a caveat, for the last few months Ive only been working on a notebook monitor so I have no idea of how recent images look to everyone else :bang:]. I'm now learning which lighting situations don't lend themselves to what I consider good conversions; but being aware of this and, given comparative results like below, I'm actually surprising myself as to what can be achieved in digital B&W - don't believe I'm saying that.
These two images were taken at the exact same time. The first is HP5 @640 in DDX with a Pentax 645N. The second is a Sony Nex 5N with a Leica 21mm Elmarit Asph.
No special effort actually went into the Nex conversion and no attempt at the time was made to make one look like the other. In fact the digital was processed 3 weeks before the film version. Just using DxO Labs FilmPack as a starting point and local tonality adjustment as I would even with film.
cz23
-
Craig, they look great on my iPad, and they make a strong case for either or. The giveaway for me is usually in the lighter tones and rolloff into whites. Some digital cameras handle that better than others. But these look pretty much the same to me.
John
John
craygc
Well-known
John,
I completely agree with the give away (or issues) usually being how the highlights are presented. I use DxO Labs Filmpack to get my initial position for the conversion, and prefer it to all other major B&W conversion software I've tried. Something I learnt from how they often do a conversion is that not to set the white point at 255. I find with digital B&W that pulling the white point a little, removes the appearance of the image being dominated by the highlights. YMMV
BTW, the images posted were processed on a calibrated monitor; its these ones I'm concerned about...
cz23
-
FYI, those also look great on my iPad. - John