Xherion
Member
me too.....this would be ideal.
ndnik
Established
Film M and a good scanner for me. I simply prefer the look of film images, especially in b&w.
I've gone digital for a couple of years and did find the workflow easier and faster and technical image quality higher, but now I'm back shooting film. What counts is aesthetics, not measurable pixel/image quality. To me that is.
I also found that film emulation software (Silver Efex was mentioned above) never gave me results I was happy with. There's more to an image than grain and some curve adjustment. Highlights look different, shadow noise and tonality are different. Not to speak of the exposure lattitude one has when shooting; and no clipping.
I've gone digital for a couple of years and did find the workflow easier and faster and technical image quality higher, but now I'm back shooting film. What counts is aesthetics, not measurable pixel/image quality. To me that is.
I also found that film emulation software (Silver Efex was mentioned above) never gave me results I was happy with. There's more to an image than grain and some curve adjustment. Highlights look different, shadow noise and tonality are different. Not to speak of the exposure lattitude one has when shooting; and no clipping.
Naumoski
Well-known
I guess you need to know what you want your pictures to look like.
Another thread is dedicated to pictures taken with a Minolta and it turned out that people would use their SRT 101 instead of a Nikon FM because the pictures produced look different. The same applies to digital and film. Digital cannot reproduce film, and it's not meant for that anyway!
Now what don't you buy both?
Just to add: the most of the difference is between the Rokkors and Nikkors, not between the bodies.
I was offered to buy a Nikon FM2 (body only) and Minolta srt 101 with 58mm 1.4 and 35mm 2.8 + original Minolta case and Braun flash for almost the same price for Nikon fm2 body.
Ofcourse, buying the Fm2 and lens could was clever for getting a DSLR and using the same lens, but I'm not ready to get in that mess now
v3cron
Well-known
The real question is for me is, do I want a physical photograph or a virtual one? All arguments in favor of digital capture fall apart for me right there.
My workflow right now is film-darkroom-flatbed (print scanning). I used to use a film plus Imacon, but it left me unsatisfied.
My workflow right now is film-darkroom-flatbed (print scanning). I used to use a film plus Imacon, but it left me unsatisfied.
MCTuomey
Mentor
Since funding is a practical factor for me, I'll share what I do rather than vote. M8 for most of my RF shooting. A film M for slower speed B&W and for the simple joy of shooting an M camera. I send the film out for processing, most recently a few trial rolls to North Coast. My best day at a scanner isn't comparable to what a specialty lab can do, so it makes sense given the modest volume of film I shoot to use one. If I had the funds I'd get an M9 in a heartbeat, but that wouldn't change my decision to farm out the film processing.
sanmich
Mentor
I am lazy as anyone else, but I have found a good workflow that allows me not to be too jealous of any digital camera that, even in my dreams, I can't afford:
Tri-x for the simplicity of it.
several 5 rolls Paterson tanks. I load them all at once, and get about 15 films processed with minimum hassle.
scanning full rolls with the CS 5000 is, alone, a reason not to go for any other scanner option, even with better quality.
So, by keeping the efforts to minimum, I keep on using film with no hard feelings...
That being said, I would choose...
The film M (for Tri-X), the CS 4000/5000 (for the full roll scanning), the V700 (for scanning MF and the speed of scanning my old films that are already cut in stripes), AND the drum scanner (for maximum quality).
Tri-x for the simplicity of it.
several 5 rolls Paterson tanks. I load them all at once, and get about 15 films processed with minimum hassle.
scanning full rolls with the CS 5000 is, alone, a reason not to go for any other scanner option, even with better quality.
So, by keeping the efforts to minimum, I keep on using film with no hard feelings...
That being said, I would choose...
The film M (for Tri-X), the CS 4000/5000 (for the full roll scanning), the V700 (for scanning MF and the speed of scanning my old films that are already cut in stripes), AND the drum scanner (for maximum quality).
robert blu
quiet photographer
A few month ago I voted m7 + scanner which is my actual solution, even if the m9 is tempting. Reading the thread I noticed many answer saying that for B&W film gives more pleasant results. I'm interested to know if this is valid only for the ones who wet print or is it the same if you have an hybrid workflow ? Just something I would like to consider because I do not wet print.
regards, robert
regards, robert
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I have more color images on paper since switching to digital for color than I did (besides the proofsheets) shooting film. And since my finished prints are 16x20, lab scans just can't cut it. I'm currently going back through the last few years of color films and scanning and printing- and getting far better prints with the Epson than I ever got from RA4. As to the tinkering around to get color right- it is endlessly easier in PS or LR than with a colorhead.
From here on I'm done with color film. The scanning is a drag.
For B&W I'm film and the wet darkroom all the way. One of my favorite things to do is B&W print.
Rui Morais de Sousa
Established
Interesting question for a very subjective and passionate answer:
my heart beats film, digital leaves me dead cold!
That said, I hate to scann! I also don't like digital files (will you be able to read them, say, 20 years from now? Even if they don't "dye" before?...).
Still believe that b&w wet darkroom gives you the most soul you can get, but you need loads of discipline and Ausdauer... I am very often too lazy for that, I must admit, although I keep promising to myself that I will change that next week...
My personal compromise: b&w Film and color digital (also because of cost; I would prefer Kodachrome, if I could, though...).
Most important: to make good photographs with commitment, whatever you think that is and whatever you think that it takes to achieve that!
Cheers,
Rui
AL-MOST-LY PHOTOGRAPHY
my heart beats film, digital leaves me dead cold!
That said, I hate to scann! I also don't like digital files (will you be able to read them, say, 20 years from now? Even if they don't "dye" before?...).
Still believe that b&w wet darkroom gives you the most soul you can get, but you need loads of discipline and Ausdauer... I am very often too lazy for that, I must admit, although I keep promising to myself that I will change that next week...
My personal compromise: b&w Film and color digital (also because of cost; I would prefer Kodachrome, if I could, though...).
Most important: to make good photographs with commitment, whatever you think that is and whatever you think that it takes to achieve that!
Cheers,
Rui
AL-MOST-LY PHOTOGRAPHY
JayGannon
Well-known
I'm pretty much at this too thinking about it.
All my B&W is film and wet printing and all my color (Except MF) is digi.
mpjmp
Member
I'd love to have an M9, but I still prefer the look of film over digital files. So in a "money no object" scenario I would shoot film on my MP and overnight the exposed rolls to a really good lab (there are none where I live) for high resolution scans posted to a website FTP for download.
Since money is an object, I will continue to scan my negatives on a Nikon V, which as others have commented, is a torturously slow workflow. In fact, it's so slow I don't shoot as much film as I would like, simply because I don't have the time to process and scan.
Maybe the poll should be "If time were no object.." For me, time is as valuable than money.
-Mike
Since money is an object, I will continue to scan my negatives on a Nikon V, which as others have commented, is a torturously slow workflow. In fact, it's so slow I don't shoot as much film as I would like, simply because I don't have the time to process and scan.
Maybe the poll should be "If time were no object.." For me, time is as valuable than money.
-Mike
Roger Hicks
Mentor
In some ways more -- there are plenty of billionaires, but no 200-year-olds -- and in other ways less: if I enjoy what I'm doing, I don't begrudge the time.
Then there are things like small jobs on the car. It's quicker (as well as cheaper) to do small jobs myself, rather than to take it in; check on progress; and pick it up again. Much the same for C41, actually.
Cheers,
R.
thegman
Mentor
Film for me, I simply don't enjoy using digital cameras. It's not logical, it's just how it is. It would be wonderful to prefer digital, the savings, no strange looks when I say my camera takes film, no hunting around the hotel gift shop for a decent film etc. But the fact is, I don't want to take up digital photography any more than I want to take up fly-fishing.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Of course, it's very hard to imagine truly regardless of cost. A staff of 200 dancing girls who are also trained chefs, accountants, darkroom technicians, scanner operators, motor mechanics, etc. This also requires imagining not being married, but I would guess that more of us have experience of not being married than we have of employing 200 dancing girls who are also trained chefs, accountants, darkroom technicians, motor mechanics, etc., so it's easier to imagine.
Some of the dancing girls would need to be VERY GOOD accountants if you were trying to persuade the tax authorities that ANY of them were accountants.
Cheers,
R.
Some of the dancing girls would need to be VERY GOOD accountants if you were trying to persuade the tax authorities that ANY of them were accountants.
Cheers,
R.
Peter Klein
Well-known
Roger: In the early days of Seattle, a large number of women who lived in the downtown area listed their occupation as "seamstress." The authorities "bought it" for some time. Or perhaps the authorities were bought. So perhaps some of the seamstresses were accountants. It's all very confusing.
--Peter
--Peter
Brian Puccio
Well-known
How is the photograph you take with a digital camera not real? Surely those electrons (though too small for you to see) are physically there, are they not?
kshapero
South Florida Man
Great answer
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Peter,
To quote Terry Pratchett (now Sir Terry Pratchett)
Seamstress. Hem, hem.
Cheers,
R.
v3cron
Well-known
It is not directly tangible like a negative. It only exists in the context of a computer file system. For me, photography is a very visceral, physical thing, and virtualizing it makes it not as real.
v3cron
Well-known
To each his own
I find that I get faster and better results from my bedroom RA-4 setup than I do with my Epson 2400 and all the profiling doodads and gizmos. The translation from the transmissive screen to the paper is really tough, no matter how well-calibrated, just due to the fundamental difference in how they render the image. Optical is very direct, and I can usually nail the exposure and color pretty quickly. Strangely, b/w takes me much, much longer!