Leopold Lysloff

As a amateur photographer I find great pleasure in still being involved with film cameras. These old machines do require some thought and sometimes bring about frustrations but at the same time bring out ones creative visions and senses. Any mechanism can be conquered. It might be an older camera or a brand new digital monster that does everything except bring you breakfast. Honestly, both can drive you crazy.
My reason for shooting film (I do shoot a substantial amount in digital) is that I happen to love and collect some older but very wonderful lenses. There is a romance and look that only film can reproduce. Easier to see than to explain. Leitz and Zeiss were and may still be the worlds best producers of the finest lenses. The older ones were record breakers and extremely fine and expensive when they came out. Today you can find some of these at very reasonable prices (sometime as little as 10 cents on the dollar). I have some exquisite Leica (and Zeiss) lenses that have become legends that I purchased for 20 to 35% of their original cost. And you should see the pictures. Amazing. (I will post some in the near future).
You can even purchase one or two of these gems and find adapters that can work with a digital slr camera )Cannons Nikon, Olympus,etc). I treat my lenses as my paintbrushes. They are my eyes and my film cameras allow me to have greater creative control. If you have your film scanned onto a dvd, you will find this to be very cost effective and your rare lenses resolve exactly what you want in your picture.
If we recall, the greatest photographers in the world used pretty simple cameras with very good lenses. It was their vision and their creative timing that produced those fabulous pictures. Using a good film camera is like learning how to use a sewing machine. Once you master them, then things just come and happen like second nature.

sinatraman Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant

I am not a technowennie but I am afraid to tell you Digital surpassed the quality of film several years ago according to testing by the good people of popular photography magazine. Not just in the top end professional expensive dslrs either. The quality of todays computer designed computer manufactured lenses with the newest matireal componets can not be touched by older lens made by men using 1920's techno;logy to hand grind lenses. I am glad you are happy with youf film cameras. I have a nikon n-90 and a n-75 gathering dust because it is getting harder and harder to find a place that will do a good job developing them. Price of film has stayed the same but development threw the roof. Walgreens and cvs both raised their prices to $10.99 a 24 exp roll single prints. Call me a tightwad but i'll bbe d####d if i will pay over double what i paid for the roll to get it developed. :-( If you still have a darkroom and do your own prints film is still viable. But it wont be long before you can take your film cameras and put them in the attic next to your 8 tracks, betamax players, black and white television and rotary dial phone . Haveing a film camera is becoming like owning a mint condition rifle from the 1890's in a caliber that the ammo isn't manufactured anymore, what you really have is a long wooden club.8-)

TygerRRT

I use mostly digital, but I do like to use my old film SLR sometimes. The graininess in the pics give the subject some nostalgic flair and create a different kind of depth to the photograph. jmho. :)

Leopold Lysloff

It's always great to use "dads" old camera. Especially if it is among the better ones. Graininess has nothing to do with the camera. As a matter of fact before the world went digital, film was so well refined that even 400 ASA film would show hardly any grain (unless you blew up the negative to a very large size.
I have used a 50 ASA Fuji slide film and cropped areas at 40X magnifications with incredible details. If you went head to head with a 100 ASA film next to 100 ISO on your digital camera, Im' willing to bet the digital will break down in equal mags more so than the film will.
There are some films that still have that old grainy look for those who like it.
Kodak's old Tri-X was known for that.
Try different things with any decent old Leica or camera that can use Leitz or Zeiss lenses and you might be in for a surprise.
I was in NYC a while ago and shot a roll of B&W around the Plaza Hotel area and the b&w effect was beautiful and as detailed as anything could be.
You will almost always know a film result from a digital one. Both would be great but both would be unique in their own way.

sinatraman Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant

excuse me but you are shooting with a LEICA. Im sure if I used a hassenblad i would get better resultss than with a cannon rebel. but the price for leicas and especially their lenses is pretty much all your money the shirt off your back and your imortal soul. also it doesnt adress the growing problem of decreasing places to get film developed. Unless you want to pay a professional lab price. Compareing leicas to basic digital is like comparing ferraris to a ford mustang. when was the last time a new film camera was introduced? the last one i rember was the F-6 and that was 5 years ago. Sorry but using film to record images has gone the way of coating glass plates like matthew brady. It is obsolete technology. Film isn't dead but it is in a coma and on life support.

Leopold Lysloff

You must have missed the beginning of this thread where I encourage anyone to check the market place for used finer quality cameras like the Leica or to be more precise, the lenses made by Leitz or Zeiss. New Leicas are not in most people sights, but smart shoppers who choose to do a little homework and learn what they are shopping for can find some awesome deals, as I have numerous times. BTW, I don't think I was comparing Leica's to basic digital. (some basic digitals are awfully good i must admit)
I don't fully comprehend the attitude of so many when it comes to Leica cameras. Leica is great. But many other brads are also great. So what gives?
I have paid less for some of my well functioning Leicas (and Leica lenses) than most people spend on a decent digital slr. So What can we compare here?
I advocate film because it does reward and can be a fine way to learn photography. Matthew Brady was a genius among photographers, considering what he had to work with. If you take an interest in doing some research, you will find that film does have more life than one may think. I have no problems in processing and it's cheap enough. It's even very cost effective for me as I have my film scanned onto a cd or dvd for a few dollars.
My intention to bring attention to film is to get some people interested in something they may know little about or have wondered if it may be fun to get into.
You seem a bit negged out on the subject but that's OK, you're not alone. But let those who may have an interest learn something that may inspire them.
I know many living super artists who use film in their projects and do very well. I also know several digital guys who have equal success. There is always room for everyone.
So film is very far from a coma and it is receiving more support than one may think. There is a very strong used Leica movement growing.(as well as Nikons, Canon, Zeiss and yes the larger format Hasseblad can be had for less than a decent, but not the better digitals of similar grade or quality.

laith

I have used Praktica (an old East Germany made) with Carl Zeiss Jana (DDR) lenses in nineties and i still like my old camera lenses and the IQ . Even they were so cheap but they made v.good results. I can not make a comparison between this manual camera and the new digital but i can say that even old technology of Carl Zeiss Jana from eighties can do now very good results and compete with new big names like Nikon or Sony Canon and others.

photocat Loc: Atlanta, Ga

Well, Fuji recently introduce a new film camera.

Film use is up, but it will never be "king" again. Many professional still use film including commerical folks, shooting both and giving the client what they feel is the best image.

Younger folks are moving in that direction as they are bored with the digital world, (as that is what they have grown up with).

Film has become a niche, and in fact for many of us it fits into the alternative process fields these days, along with vandyke and platnium printing.

I use both film and digital and in fact teach both and classes are full

djfkeefe

I am a middling amateur, many years of experience, had my own darkroom, rolled my own film, etc. About 5 years ago I went over to digital. Here's what I've found:

While digital is definitely more convenient than film, the results leave something to be desired. To my eye, pictures taken with film have a "softness" to them that digital ones don't. And the gradations of light, the continuum of light to dark or vice versa - film beats digital there too. (That may be a product of camera quality?). And - enlarging to poster size? A middling film camera will beat any but the most expensive and sophisticated DSLR all the time.

And using: I've found that I now make only a cursory effort to compose a photo before I take it; I just shoot-shoot-shoot, and hope I capture what I see in one of the shots. But - with film it was plan-plan-plan, compose, harbor those few remaining exposures etc.

Am I the only person who's felt the same way, film vs digital?

Leopold Lysloff

It is so great to read about film using and the feelings some get from film. I agree whole heartedly with some of these comments. There is no denying that digital is the way of the times and produces some very high quality pictures. Most wedding pros use digital and get fantastic results (especially after putting their work through photoshop). We are surely in a digital world and growing better and stronger with each blink of the eye. But as mentioned before, there is something about analog that retains its charm and true feeling. That niche is also having a big surge. Not because they feel film is better but because they do still have a choice. Film photography is a wonderful hobby and good teacher to those who want to know what real photography is about. Results tell the true story and somehow give a greater feeling of accomplishment when you relive those moments.
I find that shooting digital is an easy exercise compared to using a film camera. But not by much. I can shoot a couple or three frames a second, frame my shots fast and accurately with film. But you do run out of film fast, cannot see your results until processed. In either case you will probably only get a few shots at most that really stand out as your best work.
I always travel with both types. Film for my fun and more deliberate shots and digital for anything in between, like snapshots.
The bottom line is capturing the moment and when getting home from a trip you have the best you were able to do because in many cases you may not be back there again. Film can capture the romance of your travels.

Leopold Lysloff

I can't disagree more with your take on film and digital. We don't have to be rocket scientists to know how advanced digital is and where it has taken us. There is no debate here at all. We also are not really talking about lenses of the 20's. Most of the finest lenses were produced after WWII. But even later is when true glass technology bloomed. Coatings and designs are still done in the older and standard ways. Aspherical lenses and fancy and special glass formulations are still happening. It is the process of the taken image that goes through its stages of digital advancement. Hollywood movies, while processed with ultra modern technology, still use the good old fashioned lenses that bring pleasure to your eyes.
If you check out some older movies (50's on up) when shown in HD, you can marvel at how beautiful film was and still is.
There will always be nay sayers and advocates in so many things but that's the magic of opinions and freedoms to choose what we all thin k is good or bad.

PhotoArtsLA Loc: Boynton Beach

Yes, film is not dead, especially when you examine images in medium format or large format and see the difference. This does not ignore the fact you can get amazing, ultra high resolution scanning backs for 4x5 which are up to many a task, but what many do not appreciate is the tonal difference between high resolution 35mm and the massive film of 6x6cm, 4x5 inches, 5x7 inches, 8x10 inches, and beyond.

This argument existed in the film community long before their was a digicam. Even then, we yearned for certain looks.

I do shoot Hasselblad, and I have a drum scanner. I used to have a full, smelly, commercial photo lab. I have shot all things high end digital from Nikon and Canon in 35mm with great modern lenses. My 6x6cm black and whites, shot on black and white film and processed also in my own lab with specific chemistry and exposure to create a tonal look, when printed large, at least 24x36 or 30x40 inches (yes, cropped,) wipes the floor with 35mm digital camera prints in ways, yes, you have to see to understand.

In 35mm film, there are emulsions which created looks that are likely impossible to do digitally. TMAX 3200 developed in things OTHER than TMAX developer, delivered sensitivity, sharpness, and a tight, granular effect which is nothing short of "wow" when printed 24x36. The precise, organic look of that grain is difficult to impossible to recreate digitally, particularly given non-standard development. I have seen cute plugins which try to offer the effect of film X in developer Y, but still, it's not the same.

Also, various films supported six stops of overexposure still useable for printing. Digital does not support that, and no, long 13-stop tonal ranges do not look the same.

As film, and sensors, get larger, the benefits become one not so much of how sharp the lens can be, though a great lens is a nice thing, but of the rendering and detail of tone. The exact same shot, moving from small, to medium, to large format, looks ever better as the size increases in ways that are slap-in-your-face obvious. BUT, you cannot post it, because it can never be seen on a tiny computer screen at 72 or 96 or even 150dpi. You can post technique, which is fine, but not actual quality.

I also shoot large format, and when you are printing 20 FEET wide, or doing life size reproductions of people, 35mm digicams are simply not up to the task. Medium format digicams (and Hasselblads) would be stretching a bit past their purpose as well, but large format film can handle it with aplomb. A film view camera is a LOT cheaper than its digital counterpart. It's just all those pesky film holders. The good thing: all view cameras ALSO shoot state of the art digital, given the money. The best of both worlds.

And that brings up another issue. In the cost free, no penalty to shoot a zillion images digital world, there is less of an emphasis on learning photographic technique, and more of a hold down the button and hope for a happy accident mentality. When we shot film, even 35mm slide film, it was $20 for every 36 exposures. And a trip to the lab for most. In the film days, a photographer had to learn to "see," a combination of technique, composition, direction, and prediction. It saved money and promoted better photographers.

A telling story: in our modern, all digital age, I was a photo editor on a modeling TV show pilot, where three photographers shot six models for a week, all in digital. (I also provided the photo challenges.)

So, under just about the best possible photographic circumstances, hey, we're trying to make a show, after all, three photographers and six models shot for six days.

After that week, there were some 35,000 frames to process, which is to say, one thing promised the models was a new zed card, one picture on the front, four on the back.

So, I had to find five good images of six models out of 35,000 frames. "Good" as in, looking like a professional photo and not like an amateur snapshot. That's 30 frames out of 35,000, over a 1,000:1 shooting ratio. I have been a photo editor for decades, so weeding through the photos was not the problem. The problem was, 30 good shots did not exist. I had to remedy it with Photoshop, photomanipulating to create the missing but needed "good" images.

The point is, no matter the format you shoot, being able to "see" and caring to develop your craft generally trumps equipment.

I'm reminded of a famous story about a man and his son happening across Alfred Eisenstadt, asking how he takes such amazing photos. "With a Leica, mostly," as I recollect, was the reply. The man tells his son he will buy him a Leica so he can take pictures just like Mr. Eisenstadt.

Leopold Lysloff

Thank you so much for that great input on what real photography is about. As an amateur this information is truly informative and good to digest. Yesterdays standards are very good and produced the cream of what we know today as classic imaging.
I commend you on what sounded like a very interesting career in photo work.

I think that while that world is fast fading the photos live on and those who can appreciate just enough to support a good hobby with very rewarding results.
I love my little old mechanicals and especially some of those incredible lenses that are part of creating very wonderful pictures.
Thank you for that great information.

Ray Bullock Loc: Redding, CA

I applaud your support of film, but I feel digital far surpasses not only in quality of photos but in ease of editing. I too have many photos I have taken in 35mm format. To my surprise many are remarkable and I did have to take the time to be selective in my shots due to cost constraints. But digital opens up new possibilities for many of us amateurs. It is like the argument when CDs came out, many liked the "warm" sound of vinyl. I was one of the first to have a CD player in my area....cost was $795 for my home unit!! But I immediately noticed the clarity, depth ot sound and lack of noise in the CD format.

I think this applies in a lesser way to Digital Photography. I for one love it and the freedom it gives me. I have my Canon DSLR that I take on my purposeful outings and I also keep one of my point and shoot digitals in my glove box for unexpected shots.

Looking forward to seeing some of your film/slide shots. I will post some of mine from years ago.

What ever way any of you go have fun!!! That is the name of the game!!

llfost

Oh Sinatra man, I can only liken your position on film to digital photography to one of todays digitally enhanced wanna be's sounding better than The man, Mr. Frank Sinatra. You go for it Leo do it YOUR WAY!