Shooting with digital

Rangefinder 35

Rangefinder 35

Well-known
Local time
12:47 PM
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
491
Now, that you have switched from film to digital, how has your shooting changed?
I don't bracket anymore .as I used to with Velvia film. Also; I'm not so discriminating of what to shoot, as I can always erase it. Another thing is that i don't use a tripod that much, as the increased sensitivity still holds the detail pretty well.
 
I prefer the look of black and white film and would like to continue shooting with a Leica rangefinder but the M10M made me a convert. I tried to go digital for the past 20 years buying using and selling an array of cameras from Olympus to Canon to Nikon to Sony. Early digital were slow and noisy. Early Canon gave plastic skin. Nikons were always great but I never liked the inherent high contrast hard edges look. Sony was very close with the A7RII but I ultimately went back to digital M for the optical view finder. The M9M was a nice camera but it didn’t do what an M7 could do with TMY except for clean iso3200 files. I didn’t even shoot 135 film much and preferred Rolleiflex and Hasselblad SWC for street photography. Scanned 120 is outstanding if exposed and developed correctly.

The M10M with 1/4000 shutter speed and seemingly unlimited iso let me shoot street and stop action without the need for fill flash. This opens up opportunities I cannot get with film. I do prefer the look of film. Digital is still too clean but I should compare because they are different. I leave it at max shutter speed, open up the lens and set the camera to auto iso.
 
Last edited:
Digital M feels more fragile and slower than M4-2. Definitely not something which gives confidence for freezing, snow, rain and +40C, like M4-2 is.
I have to keep in mind it needs wake up time and if sleep is not disabled it just eats battery charge.
Film M is ready at any time.
But film is so much more time and space consuming, not to mention ridiculous costs of film and paper. I haven't touched film for entire year now. Every time I think how much time film is required to get images from it, I skip.
 
johnf04 said:
I use digital for colour, and film for monochrome - it keeps my stable of antique cameras exercised.
Click to expand...
Same here. I shoot B&W film and digital color. Digital color is due to lack of E-6 processing now and the insane cost of film. I have a freezer of B&W film up to 8x10 that I bought when prices were low and probably have 10 years stock left. B&W digital is just different, not bad and not better, but I prefer the look of film.
 
I'm less careful with digital, even when I try to bring the same level of consideration. Or maybe it's partly that a B&W film shot which I developed and scanned myself feels more hard-won, and so I value it a little more.
 
Digital only for color. I‘m less hesitant to take a shot but don‘t spray either. My shots on film are better, I guess film price motivates me to perform at my highest level 😁
 
Digital shooting means to me that much, much more is possible to do.
It is a long time now that I used a film. But I remember the limits of using one film
in one camera until it was fully exposed. For example.
No such limit in digital.
Often when I come home I have one or two pictures from my tour.
So I shoot less. No need for more photos.
And especially black & white is such a big world digitally I never had
with film.

Sure it was a fine time with the films and analog equipment. And it was hard to
sell especially the leicas. But it was time to do.

Just my 5ct.
 
I no longer shoot color film and haven't for some years now but I do still shoot B&W film as I have a nice M4 w/ a DR 5cm Summicron (as well as a few more film cameras from my past. That said, I also shoot B&W white digitally. While I will still shoot a few rolls of film annually, I much prefer using my Fuji XP1, XT1, and XE3 with Fuji's excellent lenses as well as on manual with my many manual focus lenses. I love the concept of the XT cameras as they mimic shooting like we did in the old days with shutter and ISO dials as well as aperture rings on the lenses. I'd love to convince myself to spend $15-20k on a modern M with two or three Leica prime lenses but I simply can't do it.
 
Unlike some here, I never shot much film. Couldn't really afford it raising a family on a single relatively meager income. I really enjoyed my first digital camera (Nikon CoolPix 995) which was a pretty big stretch for us at the time. I used it a lot and my passion for photography was allowed to blossom since it didn't 'cost' anything to get pictures.
Now that I'm retired I find I've 'spent' my money more on cameras than other things.
As far as shooting differently, I find that I put manual lenses on my cameras to slow myself down so I 'think' more about the picture I'm taking.
When I think about how 'limiting' film was/is with respect to ISO and having to use up a whole roll of film to change it (I know you can change film rolls mid-roll, but that's for pro's or really good amateur's), it really is amazing what a good digital camera allows one to do. Just today I was taking a picture out in the garage for my wife and she said 'Don't you need a flash? It's too dark in here.'
Nope, I have a magic camera that can take pictures in the dark.

Life is good, even if I'm not shooting Nikon's anymore.
 
Even though I have tons of film cameras and lots of film in the fridge, I find myself shooting with my iPhone 99% of the time and am happy with that for now; mostly to record special personal moments and for occasional snaps to post on RFF.

I have someone very special in my life now and less time available to dedicate to analog endeavors, but I may pick that up again once I retire and have a bit more leisure time.
 
Last edited:
Whitten said:
The only thing I've changed is I don't get nervous about the cost of shooting any more.
I still don't spray like a machine gun. I more or less shoot the same as with film, except I don't pay for my mistakes.
Click to expand...
I am somewhat the same. I always used to take care about how many shots I took with film for the same reason but even now that habit is so ingrained that I still always shoot a single shot for each image. Sometimes I regret this of course as I do a lot of street shooting where the scene is constantly in flux so it is not unusual to miss shots when shooting so selectively. But I must say it still benefits me in another way - it allows me to go "shooting" more often without having to think about the marginal cost of each shot (even if as I said, by habit, each shoot is a single one not a spray and pray fest.) And of course there is one further benefit now that I think about it. I cannot tell how many times I took shots and left them in the roll ultimately never to be developed. At least now that never happens.
 
My gripes with analog are not primarily cost. Instead, it's the time I have to spend to get from taking the shot to actually seeing it. I have to drop the film at a lab in Saigon -which entails a manic scooter ride; then I have to haggle about the cost of developing and scanning -everything in Saigon is negotiable, and then I have to go back there to pick up the developed film. It's a hassle. This said, I"m retired and every day is a weekend. Also, I've just loaded my ancient Canon EOS 5 with film and I'm using the FM3A again and it's a blast. Let's hope the pictures turn out ok. Cheers, OtL
 
Rangefinder 35 said:
Now, that you have switched from film to digital, how has your shooting changed?
I don't bracket anymore .as I used to with Velvia film. Also; I'm not so discriminating of what to shoot, as I can always erase it. Another thing is that i don't use a tripod that much, as the increased sensitivity still holds the detail pretty well.
Click to expand...
Dear Rangefinder,

As someone who shoots mostly birds and wildlife photos digital has been a game changer for me. In body or in lens stabilization, and the ability to shoot at higher ISO levels makes all the difference in the world. Add in the fact that even mid-range consumer telephoto lenses for digital cameras produce high quality images across a broad range of focal lengths like the Nikon 200-500mm or Sigma 150-600 C make the choice even easier.

I routinely use my D7200 with the ISO set at 1600 to 3200 when light conditions require it, and I get excellent images that probably couldn't even be made with a film camera. My OM-D-EMll and 100 to 400mm is even smaller and lighter if I want to walk around for a couple of hours.

The only downside to digital in my mind is that the process is almost entirely automated. Sometimes I want to actually have to work to get a picture and film allows me to do that, I just don't use it for anything but scenic and static subjects.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg PA :)
 
Thinking about it, a lot of changes have happened for me. No tripods. No worry about dim light conditions. Crop as necessary. No bracketing. Instant feedback. Less gear to carry around. I've also come to actually enjoy working with my photos in computer software. Darkroom work had become drudgery for me by the time I moved to digital and the photos suffered as a result.

Despite my preferences, I still love seeing B&W film photos and I frequently go to websites that feature film photography and film gear. If I dug through my closets and the attic I would find several film cameras I used to use but it's more the idea of film photography that appeals to me, not the actuality. I like the freer nature of shooting photos with digital without films limitations. But I try to emulate a film look most of the time.
 
I end up taking far more shots. Not bracketing, but more for the comfort of getting a good one. Often with different angles and zooms.

When I shoot with the phone, I always take several shots to be sure!
 
I give each digital image the same attention as I would film. It’s just another type of film to me. Shooting raw is like having a negative that I process and print or view on the screen. I never did machine gun with film and don’t with digital. Why should it be any different than film.

When I was working I had clients as if digital was easier and my response was no. I would tell them that digital takes exactly the same care to produce a fine image as film. The only difference is silicon based film vs a silver based film and digital doesn’t bypass the need for good lighting and attention to details.
 
I have not totally switched from film to digital. I use digital when I want to see results and share photographs immediately, or when I am experimenting with lenses or lighting and trying something I haven't done before and want to know right away if what I am doing turns out okay. In that sense, I use digital like one could use a Polaroid camera. I use film mainly when the creative urge strikes, and use it as an enjoyable pastime and as recreation. There's so much more to know about film photography than there is about digital: such as how to get the correct exposure depending on the film and its age, what filter works with which film, whether the camera's shutter speed is accurate, did I remember to wind the film, or did I remember to rewind it before opening the back door? There are all sorts of mental gymnastics that go on with film photography that do not exist with digital. Both have their place.
 
The mental gymnastics of trying to remember if I took the SD card out of the computer and put it in the camera last time I down loaded pictures and remembering to charge the battery before going out shooting, assuming of course I've remembered to put the battery IN the camera, are more than challenging enough for me these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top