Returning to Photography

I do all my processing in a Jobo processor: 35mm, 120, 4"x5".

JWMster said:

Wit: Fuji? Been there, done that and for my money... they ain't bad. Enough positives I bought one for my daughter when she got out of nursing school. Not a fan of Fuji glass per se and gravitated to adapted OM glass and Contax CY lenses. Sent my daughter all the old OM primes when I dumped the Fuji system... and she's loving the size of those old, small guys. They were pretty doggone good if I don't say so myself... and inexpensive.

Fuji cameras can be had inexpensively, and do a decent job. Unfortunately... it ignited a love affair which drew my wallet into the game. And then I got ideas... like that lenses should all have the same filter size or something, or at least have a family "system" based on something like that. And Fuji seems to be one camera company that definitely doesn't care a fig about this. Most give it a single, half knee bend and today, only with a time machine to pick up the older (and better pre-EPA glass). Zeiss, Rollei and Nikon seem to work harder on this than some others. But with much digital, folks don't care, and they do make such things as adapter rings. I'm a big fan of Fuji's protective glass filters, polarizers, etc. and combining polarizers with yellow filters for B&W film. FWIW, I came kicking and screaming into the Nikon tent from everywhere else to have one set of lenses for film AND digital in the 35mm/"Full Frame" size.

Click to expand...

I was specifically referring to digital Fuji X100 (I have the T, newest is the F), so a fixed lens rangefinder that not only looks like a dream, but shoots like one too. So for that alone it is a joy in my hands and love using it in full manual and I dare to say Fuji nearly made it a perfect hybrid, a not just a hybrid finder, but a great transitional camera from analog to digital shooting (and back for that matter). This is not the place to discuss digital, but had Fuji engineers not drink too much towards the end of design stages, it would have been as perfect as I would ever want a digital to be. Sadly stupid lens front ring just killed any progress I had tried in me fully loving it and the 2 auxiliary lenses are just a marketing scheme (they do work, but the the double the bulk, have (again) stupid screw on arrangement, menu change so firmware knows it shoots through whichever lens for in camera distortion adjustments on the fly (the F I believe has auto recognition). I still like Fuji analog gear, but this post was not about them.

TMcG1959 said:

I have read all of the replies above and am intrigued by the various thoughts out there for and against. I really don't want to spend my days playing around with Photoshop or Light Room tweaking till the early hours with RAW files. A local amateur who seems to have lost his mind in the local camera club recently returned from a club shoot with over 600 shots taken on his Nikon DSLR. On my last adventure with the Rollei, I took 7 shots out of a roll of 12.

At the moment I am not ruling out developing the film myself at home and scanning the negs? Or am I just kidding myself?

Click to expand...

Digital photography and post processing will have soon become the leading factor in developing obesity, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure and fast brain cell deterioration. Just saying.

Spent more than an hour in Jessops Belfast handling the DSLRs, left and went back an hour later. Pondered over the wide range of goods on display and am no further forward. I went out for the day Sunday and took some pictures with my Samsung J6 mobile phone and the pictures were fab. So why do I need a digital camera? I don't think I do, I have one......

I define this hobby as both a collector and a user. I have a "full set" of digital nikon pro gear I use when I know I am going to be shooting hundreds of images (I do a lot of event/sports photography). I'm not even going to pretend there is an analog replacement for my D4/70-200 f2.8 VRII for shooting sports. 10 FPS with tracking AF and VR brings in more usable images, along with the ability to post process them. I wouldn't be able to afford to donate shooting 250-300 portraits at a local school festival if I was shooting film. This is what digital was made for.

But I do have a real love for mechanical cameras made in the 1950's. All of my vintage collection is from before a camera had any sort of internal metering or batteries. I love the early screw mount Leicas, Nikon S2, Contax and Canon rangefinders, especially my L1. I also have a growing collection of Sears branded "Tower" cameras from the 1950's. The Rollei TLR's are also a joy to use. Even the folding medium format cameras are fun to shoot with. Shooting with film is just more passionate/deliberate in the process. Not being able to "chimp" and having to wait to see what you got when you pull the wet film out of the tank is still special. Watching the image come up on the paper in a darkroom tray is still magical. The trial and error of analog photography is a big part of the fun. If it was easy, like IMHO digital photography is, it wouldn't provide the enjoyment it does.

To get back to the OP's question, I left film photography behind a decade ago and it got to where my photography just felt stale. I tried the Fuji and other "retro" models, it felt the same. I even tried using a Sony A7 with only adapted vintage lenses, it still wasn't satisfying to use and I lost my passion for photography. I recently went back to shooting film and collecting vintage gear and it renewed my enthusiasm. For me it's more about the process than the end result, and IMHO the look I get from vintage gear, especially on B&W film, can't be replicated with digital. Plus the craftsmanship those vintage cameras have, is totally void in any of the polycarbonate digital cameras I own. I missed that part and glad I am shooting film again.

My confidence in Rolleiflex has increased with the purchase last night of a pristine prism finder in case with original box for £90 on eBay.

I started with film at age 9 or 10 and a Kodak Brownie and I think 620 film? At 76 I still shoot film, both 35 mm and medium format. In between I also did digital. The only non film work is done with my iPhone.