Film or Digital


To digress, whether be it M7 or M8, i think the digital way has ironically provided a platform for many people, who otherwise would not have ventured into photography, to return to film! :cool:
 

To digress, whether be it M7 or M8, i think the digital way has ironically provided a platform for many people, who otherwise would not have ventured into photography, to return to film! :cool:

Yes very true. I got back to shooting film after using M8 and M9. Now I even started developing colour film 135 and 120 because I cant wait. Its like double whammy. I am sliding down the slippery slopes of film and digital at the same time.
 

Yes very true. I got back to shooting film after using M8 and M9. Now I even started developing colour film 135 and 120 because I cant wait. Its like double whammy. I am sliding down the slippery slopes of film and digital at the same time.

Haha...you are not alone in this slippery slopes...:devil:...:rbounce:
 

Yes very true. I got back to shooting film after using M8 and M9. Now I even started developing colour film 135 and 120 because I cant wait. Its like double whammy. I am sliding down the slippery slopes of film and digital at the same time.

is there a good reason?
 

is there a good reason?

Yes a few:

First is AWB - I hate it in the digital Ms. WB is not an issue for film. One thing leads to another and I want to try and see how film renders colour. Tried a few different rolls and feel I really like Ektar. I find the saturation amazing. I would not be able to think of PPing the digital files this way, but I think you can.

Negative size. As I got into colour developing, I thought I could try 120. The details all came out. The rest is history.

I notice film renders out of focus regions a little bit different after I tried film. I find film a bit shallower. Digital is sharper in a different way. I compare them side by side all the time. Digital has a flat type of sharpness like across the entire field. Different tools for different purposes. I like both so use both digital and film.
 

The one thing that I love about film is how it makes me go at a relaxed pace. Knowing that I only have a few shots at hand, I take my time to appreciate what's happening and enjoy the scenery/experience and occasionally take picture-worthy moments/sights.

Not being able to immediately review your photos is also good for me since it doesn't give me a chance to keep fiddling with my camera for "optimal" settings. It's shoot and forget with film :) In a way it's also bad cos if you didn't get it right, then there's no going back and you won't know till the negatives come out.

Bottom line for me I guess is it made me enjoy taking photos more and forced me to be more critical in the shots I take :)
 

Yes a few:

First is AWB - I hate it in the digital Ms. WB is not an issue for film. One thing leads to another and I want to try and see how film renders colour. Tried a few different rolls and feel I really like Ektar. I find the saturation amazing. I would not be able to think of PPing the digital files this way, but I think you can.

Negative size. As I got into colour developing, I thought I could try 120. The details all came out. The rest is history.

I notice film renders out of focus regions a little bit different after I tried film. I find film a bit shallower. Digital is sharper in a different way. I compare them side by side all the time. Digital has a flat type of sharpness like across the entire field. Different tools for different purposes. I like both so use both digital and film.

I have a slight difference point of view, WB not a problem, as usually I use a gray reference card. High key (white/highlight/light tone) area is a problem with me, It never render as smooth as analog way. You need PP a lot.
Digital is more true in converting light signal, it is linear, but our sense is not, is logarithms.
so do film, retard in highlight, more sensitive in shadow, gradation expand in mid tone (increase in contrast), and it has more dimensional feeling. Look at our friends shoot at street, those pic tone is drastic difference from the real scene, and the larger format you go the richer tone you may have. If it were recorded in linear way, DR 10 stop, as with std digital capture, it will look flat.
Digital sharpness is an artificial operation, what you see does not exist, just illusions. or artificial enhancing, optical or digitally generated fringe between 2 tone.
Yes different tools for different purposes, 80% of my own photography in film. No upgrade of camera/software/computer/OS is require. (except more lens) ;)
 

I have a slight difference point of view, WB not a problem, as usually I use a gray reference card. High key (white/highlight/light tone) area is a problem with me, It never render as smooth as analog way. You need PP a lot.
Digital is more true in converting light signal, it is linear, but our sense is not, is logarithms.
so do film, retard in highlight, more sensitive in shadow, gradation expand in mid tone (increase in contrast), and it has more dimensional feeling. Look at our friends shoot at street, those pic tone is drastic difference from the real scene, and the larger format you go the richer tone you may have. If it were recorded in linear way, DR 10 stop, as with std digital capture, it will look flat.
Digital sharpness is an artificial operation, what you see does not exist, just illusions. or artificial enhancing, optical or digitally generated fringe between 2 tone.
Yes different tools for different purposes, 80% of my own photography in film. No upgrade of camera/software/computer/OS is require. (except more lens) ;)

Master spoke again, I think I can hear you talk whole day. We need to meet, still have to buy you beer.
 

Look like I kena tricked by master to speak and actually master wants to tell us things.
 

Last edited:
The one thing that I love about film is how it makes me go at a relaxed pace. Knowing that I only have a few shots at hand, I take my time to appreciate what's happening and enjoy the scenery/experience and occasionally take picture-worthy moments/sights.

Bottom line for me I guess is it made me enjoy taking photos more and forced me to be more critical in the shots I take :)

I totally agree with u. I got a chance to loan an m8 from a friend and i must say the 'feel' is very different. For film, i tend to visualise what i want to capture. Digital, however, i felt i was kinda 'trigger happy', not giving more thought on how the image is going to turn out.

Personally, it's the whole process of photo taking. And nothing beats the film experience. :D

Haha i sound like a simpleton compared to all the other posts. Hehe.
 

Master spoke again, I think I can hear you talk whole day. We need to meet, still have to buy you beer.

master? No. Buy me Beer? Yes. hee hee
 

Look like I kena tricked by master to speak and actually master wants to tell us things.

Not really, without your answer I have no idea of how you visual/feel with the photo. How to tell story?
 

I totally agree with u. I got a chance to loan an m8 from a friend and i must say the 'feel' is very different. For film, i tend to visualise what i want to capture. Digital, however, i felt i was kinda 'trigger happy', not giving more thought on how the image is going to turn out.

Personally, it's the whole process of photo taking. And nothing beats the film experience. :D

Haha i sound like a simpleton compared to all the other posts. Hehe.

You should do more digital image capture together with analog photo, and find a route that you like most. I believe most of friends here understand how good is digital, I just share some fun to all what about analog.:)
 

5029613189_416ffff07f_z.jpg


Met this cute little boy at Changi Airport, Singapore.

Was taking pictures of the runway then, when this little boy ran across searching for his daddy, with his mummy taking snapshots of him laughing.

Couldn't manage to change my settings and bring in the focus, but I like that moment.

This photo is technically "FLAWED". If it were taken digitally, I would have deleted it right on the spot and try to capture another one with proper technical settings. However, the moment would have been lost.

It was fortunate enough that the picture was taken with film, hence the opportunity to appreciate the emotion captured in this picture. :)
 

Last edited:
Sorry to bring this thread back. From the last outing... I guess I am "poisoned" and more certain to get a RF...I am not a professional photographer/collector/super rich. I love photography because I love taking pictures of my family, the people around me, the moments, expressions, happenings, etc. The question now is should I go film or digital. I cannot afford both so its going to be either one of them.

As i started with a DSLR so i'm not really familiar with this whole film thing until lately i borrowed a SLR realising how difficult yet interesting film can be. Here are my dilemmas:
- Film makes me plan my shots and the settings forcing me to learn photography from understanding light and stuffs but digital lets me know if I screwed up or not and should I take the picture again.
- Is film going to be more expensive in long run? Is it more affordable to get a flatbed scanner to convert the pictures to softcopies?
- Can the m-mount lenses be used on both digital and film? (I'm pretty sure I might get a drf in future :D)
- Digital and film RFs. Which one is more problematic?
- Say if i'm going film and I can't live without a meter, which one should a beginner like me go for? Where can I get one?

Appreciate any inputs... :)
 


- Is film going to be more expensive in long run?

I cant answer for you. But for me, I use 50 rolls of film per year (average figure from 120 rolls / 4x5 sheet / 35mm rolls) cost about $800 - $1,200. However, my camera is 20-30 years old. Lens is between 8 to 30 years old too. I spend few hundreds to service once about 5 years time.


Is it more affordable to get a flatbed scanner to convert the pictures to softcopies?

Yes

- Can the m-mount lenses be used on both digital and film? (I'm pretty sure I might get a drf in future

I use my nikon old lens on D70. And so as our friends with their Leica or Paika.


- Digital and film RFs. Which one is more problematic?

Simple tools and equipment give less problem.

- Say if i'm going film and I can't live without a meter, which one should a beginner like me go for? Where can I get one?

Sekonic/minolta/Gosen and many others. Where to buy? may be others can give you better idea.
 

Hey zk-diq,

Thanks for your input. Like to know if i'm going film which RF would u recommend for a beginner like me? Or i should just drop the idea and save up for the m9?


- Is film going to be more expensive in long run?

I cant answer for you. But for me, I use 50 rolls of film per year (average figure from 120 rolls / 4x5 sheet / 35mm rolls) cost about $800 - $1,200. However, my camera is 20-30 years old. Lens is between 8 to 30 years old too. I spend few hundreds to service once about 5 years time.


Is it more affordable to get a flatbed scanner to convert the pictures to softcopies?

Yes

- Can the m-mount lenses be used on both digital and film? (I'm pretty sure I might get a drf in future

I use my nikon old lens on D70. And so as our friends with their Leica or Paika.


- Digital and film RFs. Which one is more problematic?

Simple tools and equipment give less problem.

- Say if i'm going film and I can't live without a meter, which one should a beginner like me go for? Where can I get one?

Sekonic/minolta/Gosen and many others. Where to buy? may be others can give you better idea.
 

Hey zk-diq,

Thanks for your input. Like to know if i'm going film which RF would u recommend for a beginner like me? Or i should just drop the idea and save up for the m9?

Haha. I like leica from MIII f to M7. SL -SL2, R6. Never like the German electronic product. No M8 or M9 for me. Save your money to take photo.
 

Back
Top