Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Is that an automatic reflex?

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

If I were you I would not do that. Film is expensive, development difficult to get and if you are not printing a technician is in control of your prints, not you.
If your main interest is b&w photography there are excellent editing programs to make conversions. If you plan on doing your own b&w film photography then first of all I would recommend that you test the film to determine its actual ISO speed, that it is not necessarily what the manufacturer recommends. You will have to do the same with the development you select to find the best exposure with the enlarger to render the highlights. I am sure you know that the exposure will get good details in the shadow areas while the highlights are controlled by development.
I do not know how easy it is finding film and development solutions because I have not done that in years. You will have to buy fiber base paper for the best images.
It is impossible to do in the optical darkroom what can be done with digital and a good editing software. The initial cost of digital is high but it is the media universally used and once you invest in a good computer and editing program you are on your way for years to come.
I was trained with film. When I began to work with b&w and the computer I immediately felt disappointed and this was around 2002. I lost my "touch" for b&w images because for a few years I did not want to work those images since I could not see the tonalities I was used to. When Topaz introduced its B&W Effects software I tried it and I liked it. I was not still seeing the tonalities I wanted but I knew I could after I was familiar with the program. Today I am very happy with my decision and I work in daylight.
Nothing wrong going to film if you are willing to go through the pains of getting a professional lab that will work with you but be aware that you will be at the mercy of a technician. Perhaps you will be very happy with the results but be ready for a disappointment if you have done b&w work in the darkroom before.

GGerard

Perhaps you could "dip your toe" into the waters with a Soviet rangefinder. Ebay is filled with sellers of Kievs and Feds from Ukraine and Russian Republic. Yes, they might not have the best reputation for being reliable but picking a seller with a good selling history might prevent getting a piece of junk out of the gate. I bought a beautiful black repaint of a Kiev (think Contax II copy) with a 50mm F2 lens for about $100. Aside of a stiff aperture ring (just set it prior to focus), it is a fine working camera. No, not as nice as my M2, but it cost less than 10% of what the Leica would cost to replace today. While it is true that Leicas are not losing their value, there are a lot of product for sale meaning you should not expect an instant return if you decide to resell.
I guess if I were thinking about getting a film rangefinder today, I would take a look at the Canon screw mount offerings. The prices are much more reasonable compared to Leica and they have a good reputation for quality of results and ruggedness.

photogreg Loc: Joplin, Missouri

i am happy that i'm an old guy because i lived the analog days and feel no need to go backwards to film again. If the instant gratification gets to you just put tape on the screen and shoot
without checking. And if your going back to film you really are missing the boat by scanning negs for print, as the analog BW prints are just so beautiful when done properly. In the end any
change in course brings out the creative side so enjoy your new direction.

seanot

In college in the late '70s-early '80s, I spent a year away from the scientists hanging out with the artists while deciding what I wanted to do. The artists pushed me to the extremes of the B&W world. Lot's of infrared, panchromatic and high ASA stuff pushed even higher. What I remember of it (it's long gone now) is the edginess that I've never reproduced in the digital world. You just cannot digitally reproduce things like the natural grain of Ilford 800 pushed to 1600 or more.

There is still a place in my heart for film but if I were to get back into it now, I'd go with medium format over 35mm.

JCam Loc: MD Eastern Shore

I think you are out of your "bleeping" mind; been there, done that! It must be something in the water you are drinking! Not only is film a lot more trouble and expensive, even if you do your own processing, but why regress and discard all the benefits of digital. Other than for the looks and comments you'd get, would you want to drive a Model A Ford exclusively?

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I agree for the most part - I spent most of my life in the darkroom doing B&W, and now I have switched to digital and do mostly color, where I feel digital has a definite advantage over film. But the one thing I don't think digital can equal is the look of a fine art exhibition B&W darkroom print done by a skilled printer.

edwdickinson Loc: Ardmore PA

Not sure why you would want too. Sounds a bit extreme just so you can return to the same shooting discipline you had in the past when you were shooting film.

JCam Loc: MD Eastern Shore

I guess I can agree somewhat with your last sentence, but not being into the "artsy" style of photography ...........

Good luck with your new passion, and please post some of your work for us "unenlightened" .

skyryder

Well said Lance. Bravo! :-)

Sadly, not too may like you here though...

Wacket

I shot many thousands of pictures before digital was available, and I always harbored a belief that the film way was somehow better. I shot thousands of digital photos, and then went back to film. After a while, I compared my film results with my digital results, and it was unmistakably clear to me that my digital shots were better than my film shots. I concluded that the digital technology is better than the film technology. The overwhelming factor in quality of the photos is the photographer, not the equipment.

The late Lowell Anson Kenyon, former Director of Photography for one of the Smithsonian museums, was my mentor. He would hold seminars for the best professional photographers, and on the first day he would have them put their equipment in a locked room (for "security" reasons). He would then give them Kodak Instamatics with no controls whatsoever, and take them on a field shoot. They complained greatly, but they all came back with great photos.

If you want to go back to film, do so, and enjoy it. In my case, digital was the way to go.

P.Beau Loc: EG.RI

One question is: do you want to shoot b/w film for it offers or just to shoot in b/w. If the latter then shooting digital b/w may be what you want. If Film then there are many options on finding old body/lens combos. I taught b/w for years and have canon units that today are not worth the shipping costs to sell. You can find them all around if film is your desire. good luck

photonutt1970

I don't think you are crazy at all except how do you plan on getting prints? Do you have your own darkroom?

thephotoman Loc: Rochester, NY

Hi BHC. I would suggest you keep your digital hear in case you find you do not like shooting film any more. Otherwise, I say go for it. It could be your muse.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

You don't absolutely need to have your own darkroom to get prints from processed film. You can either rent lab space and print from there, have a lab custom print for you, or use a film scanner and print from the digital files. Having your very own darkroom is fantastic, but there are other options.