Sometimes I'm reluctant to put up a new post because the comments to an existing one are still so lively...I hate to interrupt the conversation. But with any post that gets a lot of comments days after the post was published, later additions to the Featured Comments tend to get lost—people who have already read the post don't keep returning to it indefinitely.
So here are a few more good sample comments to the "Of Old Days and New Ways" post. Just don't want you to miss 'em.
I know this is a little irregular for us. Maybe you'd call these comments "Featured2." :-)
Also, don't miss Sarge's updated scatterplot with 257 readers listed, just added to the second of these posts, the "Film Years / Digital Years" one.
Bernard: "I'm one of those people who switched to digital, and then back to film, and you're the one to blame. I did your 'Year with a Leica,' and the Leica M3 is just perfect for how I like to shoot. (I even set up a darkroom, something I didn't have before I went digital).
The M3, the camera that made Leica famous
"I still use digital for those times when I need to get a quick picture, or when the advantages of digital are important, but for my private 'hobby and vacation' shooting, it's my Leica bodies (two M3's loaded with B&W and colour film, and a CL as a compact snapshot camera). This also means that for those times I want/need digital, my now 13-year-old Canon 400D still serves me perfectly well (still have all my good glass, as my wife shoots Canon as well and didn't go back to film, so it still sees use)."
C.R. Marshall: "[The original] post perfectly describes most of where I am at. Unlike Mike, I was never very good in the darkroom and much worse, I never enjoyed it. Mike’s description of parts of it as 'scut work' captures my feelings and memory of almost everything in the darkroom. For me, the darkroom was also a huge time-sink. My PS/LR skills are mostly adequate for my needs and I actually enjoy being able to see the changes being made as I go. I held on to a Leica and a handful of Nikons (including an F100 and an FM2n) for a long time because I liked the idea of eventually going back to sometimes using film. I finally realized that it was never going to happen. I am keeping my:
- EVF preview of film effects
- occasional use of auto-ISO in changing light conditions
- not having to change film if I saw something that needed color instead of B&W
- availability of four-digit ISO speeds with adequate quality
- image stabilization
- being able to check to see of someone in the picture blinked
- zero marginal cost of taking another shot
- near zero marginal cost of an afternoon out with a camera
- low cost of sharing photos (both online and on a thumb drive)."
John Camp: "The 'scut work' process of film had a mediative quality. It could become tedious, but even so, you had to pay attention and move slowly from one thing to the next. Even the darkroom added to the meditative quality, simply because it was dark, and limited what you could see. And it was usually quiet, at least for me—I like ZZ Top and AC/DC but I couldn't imagine playing 'Thunderstruck' when I was printing. I didn't really want to talk to anyone, either; you're going through a step-by-step process where a missed step or bad timing or unwanted distraction could lead to disaster. No wives, girlfriends, cats, dogs...and I wasn't even that much of a printer....
"Digital, on the other hand, has a jangly, fractured quality, like all digital/video stuff, cellphones and laptops and Facebook and all the stuff that constantly cuts up your day. Even when I'm working in Lightroom, I can feel it. I zip from one adjustment to the next, and there, I'm done, and I save it, and might never look at it again, because it has no physical presence, it's just a fading memory. If somebody walks through, or the dog shows up, that's okay, because I don't care if I get dog hair on the video screen, and the step-by-step of Lightroom process can be delayed at any point for a conversation. Digital photography encourages the taking of many, many photos, and the selection and printing of none. Why should you select, when you can simply save all of them and look at any of them in an instant, in full color, twenty-six inches wide?"
Jimmy Reina: "Re 'High ISOs became a reality just as I was getting really interested in low-light photography.' Even with too many menu options, I still prefer digital for personal work. I knew that Nikkormat like the back of my hand, but for low-light situations, the ƒ/1.4 lens was heavy, and camera shake was was always a threat. Thinking I still needed that extra light gathering, when I went digital, I replaced the variable aperture kit zoom with the pro version which had constant ƒ/2.8. Superior image quality was trumped by the extra size and weight, and it was easy enough to squeeze in some extra light rays with increased ISO, so I sold the pro lens. Film based photography still grabs me, but I never was good at the darkroom, and still don't waste my time (and resources) printing. I believe Henri Cartier-Bresson said, 'The hunter is not the cook.' It's the 21st Century for me."
T. Edwards: "It's interesting to read about your appreciation of—and need for—autofocus. I started shooting at the tail end of the film era and quickly moved to digital so I always relied on autofocus. Sure, I would sometimes tweak focus in tricky situations, but usually that little glowing red or green box told me all I needed to know.
"But in the past couple of years I have moved to shooting manual focus lenses and relying on the enlargement feature in the EVF to really nail focus. (Using Zeiss Loxia lenses with the Sony A7R III). It has really improved my shooting. I can't tell you how many hundreds or thousands of images I would capture and quickly review in the field, only to be a bit disappointed when I got them up on a big monitor back home to discover the focus wasn't exactly where I wanted it, or some other niggling issue. (Yes, a big part of this is probably due to me being rushed/lazy in the field.)
"I know that stepping away from autofocus has made me a better photographer, so I can really appreciate how people who came up shooting manually sort of miss the time when they had to do that."
Tom Burke: "I agree that these days it’s the idea of film cameras that appeals, and not the reality. I used film cameras as an amateur for nearly 20 years. During this time I was able to do some developing and printing, but it was always hard work. First, of course, were the time pressures: my wife and I were raising our children, my wife was getting established in her own job, and towards the end of this period I made some serious career changes that took me away from home for a goodly amount of time. Secondly, there were the practicalities. I used to set up my enlarger on Sunday under the stairs. This was actually our broom cupboard, so it had to be broken down at the end of the day. Print washing was done in the kitchen sink, and of course on some Sundays I would be competing for sink-space with my wife who was trying to concoct a few meals, to eat and to go in the freezer. And I could never get the hang of colour-balancing Cibachromes. So what little printing work I did was always just mono [monochrome, a common term in the UK for B&W —Ed.].
"I’d always been an avid user of IT so when digital imaging became reasonably affordable and of 'good enough' quality, I jumped in. My first proper digital camera was a Canon D60, the 6MP successor to the D30, and I’ve never looked back since.
"I did have a ‘second Leica’ phase—I bought a secondhandhand M6TTL later and a trio of not-too-expensive lenses, but after not very long at all I found myself enjoying having it more than using it.
"It went to eBay and I bought a better DSLR with the proceeds."
Mike
(Thanks to all these commenters)
Original contents copyright 2019 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Amazon.com • Amazon UK • Amazon Canada
Amazon Germany • B&H Photo • Adorama
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Mike Ferron: "Since TOP has very little influence I would like to say I did not purchase a one-owner F100 from the auction site for $179 and it will not be arriving this Monday. I promise I will not load T-Max films into the camera or use my very cool Tamron 35mm ƒ/1.8 VC on this camera I did not buy."
Ned: "I agree with Bernard. Mike's post about a Bronica SQ-Ai being the best deal in medium format was the push I needed to get back to film. He said, 'wait until you process a thousand negatives and see if you still like it.' Way, way past that Mike."
After I conceive the shot (develope in my mind), everything else is scut work. I'm no control-freak, scut work is best done by the hired help.
Posted by: c.d.embrey | Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 12:47 PM
Not often sometimes and I feel nostagic I change my settings from my Mirrorless digital camera. Monochrome (or sometimes color), single frame, manual focus, etc. I set the priority speed to iso 400 I use an old Nikon prime lens with an aperature ring. I even will limit my shots to less than 24 shots. I try to not chimp the images, but now that is instinctive. Like when I shoot a roll of film I forget to forward the frame. Nobody even seems to know what I'm doing. Of course my darkroom experience is via a cable connected to my computer.
Posted by: David Zivic | Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 01:18 PM
When quality film scanner became available I was elated. Finally, I could do away with darkroom printing. But after a while, constant negative spots, dust and scratch removal in Photoshop became tedious. I finally broke down and bought my first digital camera, a Canon S80 with an 8mp ccd sensor. Then I bought my first printer, an Epson 1160 and started using piezography. I've never regretted it.
Posted by: Andre Moreau | Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 02:15 PM
I'm in John Camp's camp on his first paragraph.
There's just a certain something to darkroom work, even if my results suck. Regardless, I'm selling off my film cameras and old lenses, and not going back. Signed up for a Scott Kelby seminar in Philly at the end of August, partly induced by getting a copy of ON1 Photo Raw included in the price, since I would love to get out of the Adobe LR/PS madness.
Posted by: MikeR | Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 04:47 PM
It is said that if one holds a bar of gold, it can change a personality and turn men into monsters. The effect cannot be explained by logic.
Of all my Leica M bodies, the M3 is the most dangerous to hold, because the next thing that happens is to play with it, fondle it, look at it, think about it and then shoot with it.
The M2 and M4 don't seem to have that effect on me.
Posted by: Dan Khong | Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 05:23 PM
The moral, I guess, is "different strokes for different folks," or if one is using that M3, perhaps double strokes.
Posted by: Bill Poole | Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 05:40 PM
My transition from film to digital was neither abrupt nor trivial after I decided to digitize my precious collection of 35mm color transparencies in 2007, well into my DSLR era that started with the affordable Nikon D70. I had accumulated enough slides to fill 80 carousel trays. Most were Kodachrome II, then Kodachrome 64, Fujichrome and Agfachrome, followed by a smattering of Perutz, Ferrania Color and AnscoChrome.
Kodachromes were still holding up well after 40 years, but the lesser brands exhibited fading, fungus and color shifts that convinced me it was high time for conversion to digital files to achieve image preservation, restoration and enhancement. Then I could conveniently sort, duplicate and share files, not to mention save closet space after discarding bulky carousel trays that held mostly air, anyway. Finally, it had become an unwelcome chore to set up projector and screen for family members to sit still in one place long enough for a slide show, especially after most soon found the event tedious.
A good computer was essential, and I couldn’t improve much then on my Apple PowerMac G5 running 10.4.3 Tiger OS. I connected this by Firewire to a Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400, fortunately before Minolta quietly discontinued this nice unit a few years later. Digital imaging was displacing analog film so rapidly slide scanners for amateur home use were rapidly becoming obsolete, except for leftover curios on eBay, or lower quality flat bed versions.
I had unloaded all carousels and placed their slides into Logan metal filing boxes as the downsized reservoir. Next, the slides were sampled in roughly chronological order and edited on a light box for scanning, as it was impractical to digitize every one. The yield of worthy images was not so bad at around 30%, but even after this curation my task appeared daunting.
I needed a minimum 2-hour block of uninterrupted time for efficient work flow with parallel processing of tasks. It turned out the optimum number for scanning in one unbroken session was around 45 for encouraging progress, before fatigue and errors set in. For example, after editing and staging slides, I would boot up the G5 and initialize the scanner. Each scan job was restricted to a batch of four by the slide holder insert, so I’d load this up, blow off loose dust and engage the holder to feed automatically through the scanner. The Minolta Dimage had the very nice digital ICE feature that removed dust by subtracting an infrared image, but this doubled scan time.
I organized the images by year, then month and slide number. Typical JPEG image size was set at around 2.6 MB to balance quality against time. Eventually I processed a total of 2,275 JPEG files for posterity. This number may seem modest for an enthusiastic hobbyist, but it reflects the frugality imposed by shooting Kodachromes on a limited budget. The exercise of paying strict attention to exposure, composition, focus and lighting became good training for shot discipline.
Digital files were then burned onto CD-RW discs (remember those?) for physically distributing to family members, given the limitations of dial-up connections and bandwidth. Later I made several albums from the digital archive in printed book form as final admission this was the best medium for intimate sharing after all. The wheel had turned full circle.
Posted by: Ted Cais | Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 05:41 PM
The beat goes on... My 15 year old has just come back from a geography field trip to The Azores. He left his A7iii behind, taking my father's Nikon F301 and my old Nikon 35mm f2. He's now into 'film photography'. "Do you get the same grain in the prints as the scans Dad? Wow!" What goes around, comes around...
Posted by: Chris Grover | Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 05:59 PM
Re the “Return to Film” group
A. It makes me happy
B. It makes me wonder if it is a phenomenon primarily of those of us ‘of a certain age’, who grew up with film, or if there might be a corollary younger group who came to film after growing up with Digital?
It would be fun to know.
I recently got a promotional email for a new version of a consumer photo editing package, and it’s marquee feature is
“Instant sky replacement” it sounded like a library of stock sky photos that you can appropriate and call your own.
Now, you no longer even have to BE where your “photograph” was taken.
Sigh.
Perhaps next years feature will be a selection of faces that you can use to make your family more attractive?
Maybe stuff like this will be the thing that drives people back to film??
Posted by: Michael Perini | Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 06:22 PM
Photographers are not the only and artists who sometimes prefer the older slower ways of practicing their art.
Neil Gaiman, Joyce Carol Oats, Tom Wolfe, Joe Haldeman, Andre Dubus III, and Joshua Ferris are well known and successful writers who prefer pen, pencil and paper to word processor.
Although Wolfe prefers using typewriters for his novels, he decided to write his fourth book, Back to Blood, completely in longhand. When asked why he wrote the 704-page novel with a pencil, he simply replied that it was easier to erase.
https://manybooks.net/articles/6-authors-who-prefer-writing-their-books-longhand
Posted by: Speed | Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 07:27 PM
4 Nikons (1 Nikon Z, I think), 6 Canons, 1 Sony (I think), 1 Leica M10, and 11 cell phones (one person has 2).
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/former-special-counsel-robert-mueller-arrives-before-news-photo/1157481740?adppopup=true
Posted by: Animesh Ray | Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 08:09 PM
My B&W film days shooting Leica M rangefinders were the best time I ever had as an amateur photographer. My first and only enlarger was a Focomat V35 Autofocus and soon after I added a Heiland Splitgrade controller. I used to spend a lot of time in my darkroom. Even though I was, and still am, an average photographer, I became a very good printer and framer. I had an amazing friend who was my darkroom teacher, and then I read everything about printing. I am very proud of my framed prints. Now I need to learn to properly print with my digital files. Easier said than done.
Posted by: David Lee | Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 09:07 PM
Bernard, that Elmar in the back is an amazing lens. It looks funny but if you hit her sweetspot is just incredible. ( lens hood is a must )
Posted by: David Lee | Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 09:19 PM
did anyone here get any of that $94.50 Sony and other cameras on Amazon prime day?
Posted by: Nicholas R. Von Staden | Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 11:55 PM
After all these years with analogue photography, Minor-White-type pre-visualisation has become a bone in my body (hm!) and I perform it almost subconsciously.
With digital photography, post-visualisation has become much more important - and time consuming. When my computer screen fills up with thumbnails of unprocessed RAW images, the post-visualisation of what these files may yield when properly treated in Capture One is just as decisive for the end result as pre-visualisation. It takes a lot of imagination, dedication, time and work. But it pays off.
Posted by: Christer | Friday, 26 July 2019 at 06:33 AM
I’ve been following along with interest. At present, I still shoot color using digital cameras. However, for the last year and a half I’ve been shooting BW using film which I develop myself and then scan into the digital world for adjustment and printing—a “hybrid” approach. I decided to try this approach because I just love using film cameras, especially the older ones. I have a cabinet full of them and I was getting ready to put them on eBay, but then thought better of it. Most of them are mechanical marvels like Swiss watches. They are fun to use and it is fun to learn about their history. I also like the process involved in using them which I find more “in the moment” than DI. I’ve enjoyed researching and learning about film and film development, and like the “craft” part of it. But I don’t have the desire to set up a full darkroom and do all the work associated with wet printing. I also find that shooting with a camera like a Rollei TLR on the street has some advantages...it has provoked great interest instead of hostility in potential subjects when I wish to engage with people, or allows discrete shooting when I do not.
The “scut” work associated with film scanning nearly ended this renewed foray back into film for me, but digital camera based scanning and a Lightroom plugin called Negative Lab Pro may save the day. Much faster and easier. I see no advantage to shooting color film in this way, I think that DI has that nailed and I find the options and processes with BW film more appealing than C41.
Posted by: Steve Rosenblum | Friday, 26 July 2019 at 07:52 AM
All this conversation has resulted in my M6 sitting on my desk loaded with p3200 ready to go, so good work?
[Not till you actually shoot it! :-) --Mike]
Posted by: Rob L. | Friday, 26 July 2019 at 12:38 PM