Will I ever be a digital guy?

P

paulfish4570

Mentor
Local time
11:20 PM
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
9,817
I just went through my X100 gallery, and deleted a few shots to keep it slim and trim. The effort left me with 61 photos. Out of those 61, only eight benefited from color, and two of the eight are of the Sunkist orange bottle. The other shots I kept were either shot in color and then converted to black and white before posting, or were originally shot in black and white. In my film gallery, of course, there are even fewer color shots, proportionately.
This tells me something: I am not a color guy; color - with very rare exceptions - just does not fit the way I see. This removes - for me - one of the four basic reasons for a digital camera. I just plain like film black and white film better because it fits the way I see.
Now, the other basic/key reasons for a digital, in my experience of eight months with the X100, are convenience of oh-so-quick processing, zero film expense, and extreme flexibility of ISO. With one of the four basic reasons for me to own a digital - the only aesthetic reason at that - knocked out, will I ever be a digital guy?
 
"...and who you are to tell His ways are clear to you?" - never say never!

Very recently I thought digital is full of evil, not so anymore.
 
As many have said here in other threads, no reason to be exclusive to one medium or another. Enjoy both. When you want speed/convenience, use digital. When you want to slow down and enjoy the process, use film. It's all fun for folks like us.
 
Pretty likely. About three years after I started shooting digital, a friend of mine reminded me I had once said that I'd never give up film for digital. But hey, times change, and ya gotta change with 'em...
 
bt, i no longer think digital evil. it is just different. and of film and digital for BW, i like what i get with film far, far more. that may be a silly prejudice based on so many years of "seeing" that way.

so, i ask this corollary question: if someone were to examine my x100 and film galleries here, would he or she see any fundamental aesthetic difference between the sets?
 
Paul,

You are not alone. Recently I shot some color slide film at the Mermaid Parade, but I quickly was reminded that I'm a much better B&W shooter.

Recently I became more involved with medium format and I started to explore the possibility of perhaps getting a Pentax 645D as my first digital camera. I figured that if I'm going to have to learn a steep, almost vertical, learning curve that I might as well do something crazy. Anyways seeing how I'm really a monochrome kinda guy, now only the M9M makes sense.

My situation is that I have enough gear to sell that getting a M9M would require a cull down of some gear, but in the meantime I still love shooting film.

What makes the M9M so attractive is that you get that medium format resolution in a M-bodied package. Also because I'm a slacker scanning is way too much work.

If you need an area of growth consider a larger format and sticking with film, but also consider that maybe a M9M could be your dream camera.

Cal
 
I like your film work, Paul. I also liked your X100 low light wedding shots - the high ISO stuff seems to come natural for you. Then again, you'll soon be able to do similar shots at reasonable ISO on film :)
 
Converting digital color shots to monochrome means you don't have to mess around with filters. All of those you can do in post. I even convert shots i took using color film to B&W to get the same advantage. Not saying that shooting straight bw is bad but there is a level of control that color (digital or film) shots give you if your using a hybrid workflow.
 
paulfish4570 said:
I just went through my X100 gallery, and deleted a few shots to keep it slim and trim. The effort left me with 61 photos. Out of those 61, only eight benefited from color, and two of the eight are of the Sunkist orange bottle. The other shots I kept were either shot in color and then converted to black and white before posting, or were originally shot in black and white. In my film gallery, of course, there are even fewer color shots, proportionately.
This tells me something: I am not a color guy; color - with very rare exceptions - just does not fit the way I see. This removes - for me - one of the four basic reasons for a digital camera. I just plain like film black and white film better because it fits the way I see.
Now, the other basic/key reasons for a digital, in my experience of eight months with the X100, are convenience of oh-so-quick processing, zero film expense, and extreme flexibility of ISO. With one of the four basic reasons for me to own a digital - the only aesthetic reason at that - knocked out, will I ever be a digital guy?
Click to expand...

Paul, I sure hope not!

The only reason film is scarce is because of our fellow photographers who have abandoned film, whatever the reason. Nothing yet beats film for black and white. Forget the costs, it is worth it at any price unless, of course, all you do is post on the forum or such. Nothing wrong with doing both, but IMO, there is and never has been a reason to castigate film and abandon it as has happened. The M9M is a no-brainer for me to lust after, but it ain't gonna happen, ever. The price is too dear and the upgrade to a huge, expensive computer and new software is pure BS.

I have used digital for the last 13 years for magazine work but still go back to and am completely committed to film for black and white. My best work is with film. My small clientele prefers my black and white film images because nobody here even does it!

I do a lot of color work, always have...but I prefer to do most in black and white, so, yeah, I am still a film guy who happens to work with digital a lot for color.:rolleyes:
 
Paul, your work is excellent in both mediums. On the other hand, if digital doesn't float your boat, then use it for those quick family snapshots and focus your real creative juices on film, which we can all tell is, from the quality of your results alone, your first photographic love.

The more film I buy, shoot and develop, the less attention my M8 gets. I have no plans to get rid of or upgrade it and it's really handy for situations where working fast (esp. using the AE) is crucial. For everything else, film is what works for my soul. So, just follow your heart. Digital will still be there if you change your mind. Meanwhile, we all need to keep supporting our favorite film mfrs so they don't accelerate weeding out their product portfolios.
 
There is a reason why Casablanca is so great in black and white, while the colorized version fell flat.:D And both were with film. Now it would be a digital colorized version if it were to be produced all over again, rather than colorized.

Romantic? Yep! I am hopeless...
 
Paul,

Last week developed 57 rolls of film over a two day period to clean out my refrigerator. Went shooting over the weekend and already have 14 rolls to develop.

I figure digital photography has enabled me to acquire many analog cameras that normally I couldn't experience or afford. Especially if you shoot almost always B&W like me, now is the time to shoot as much film as you can.

The M9M offers me the resolution of MF in a small camera, but at a great cost, meanwhile film remains cheap.

Cal
 
If you have a 'seeing eye' you are really into making pictures.
If that is your main objective you start from there, and then decide the best tool for the job. If film does the job, use film: if digital does the job, use digital.
So I guess the question for you is - what is your interest - picture making or cameras?

jesse
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top