Why did I move from digital back to film?

[StepheKoontz]

I shot with film for decades before digital was even a thing. I never used auto focus film gear and the most automated film camera I ever owned was an OM-2n. I mostly shot medium format and 4X5, and enjoy working in my B&W darkroom. I didn't even try digital until it was at the 5-8mp sensor time frame and got an olympus E1. When olympus dropped 4/3 I switched to Nikon. I tried several different systems and while I got good results with my FX Nikon gear, I just didn't really enjoy using it. There just wasn't the intimacy that a manual focus camera has.

One of the other things I have enjoyed is collecting vintage gear, mostly focused on the mid to late 50's stuff. I feel this was really the pinnacle of the fully mechanical cameras and the simplicity of a camera that used no battery. But I kinda lost interest in collecting when I switched to digital.

Fast forward to earlier this year, when I took out my vintage Rolleicord V, loaded it with some T-max 400 that had been sitting in my fridge for 20 years, and went out shooting. THAT was the joy I was missing in my photography. Something about using an early film camera, using a hand held meter and really thinking my way through each shot really has brought joy back into shooting.

I'm actually enjoying photography again, not being able to chimp the shot immediately and having to wait to develop the film to see the results. Knowing I only have a limited number of frames and trying to make use of each one. Since then I've picked up a Leica IIIc and a Nikon S2, and been shooting with old 35mm rangefinder gear. I can clearly see the difference in these prints I'm making in my darkroom, and anything I ever got from Digital as far as really good B&W photography. I'm hooked on going out shooting almost every day now.

I will still totally still use digital for the event photography work I do, but I just felt I was missing the fun I used to have shooting film. I missed the time I spent in the darkroom trying to get the most I could from a negative. The pure analog process is just so different and refreshing to me.

 

[jtk]

IMO chimping is rarely useful. Leica agrees, that's why their firstist bestist digital rangefinder didn't allow it.

 

[PGillin]

For me it was the viewfinder. I came back to film because a good MF camera (F2 or F3 for me, though and F1n, T90, LX, ETRS, etc etc are all quite nice. As is an F4...)
To be honest if there was a digital camera made with such a nice, clear, viewfinder that shows the true DoF and allowed for good manual focus I'd probably almost drop my film shooting. The prints are nice, but then so are good Ra4 prints from digital...


It's true, though, that B&W just isn't the same on dig. Fuji files are probably the best in that regard, but not as good as a wet print from a decent negative.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Leica Monochrome files are giving most potential for digital bw, but only few are able to use it to full potential.
Bw film is much more easy.
I returned to film after realizing it might be gone some day.
So, finally learned how to print, including lith, how to develop bw, c-41, e6, ecn2.
I was able to do it while prices were still close to film only era. And I met some great people from those era. I was able to buy film gear at normal price as well.
I only care for film photography in the books and museums, galleries, exhibitions.
So I'm glad i was able to do it at reasonable cost, back then.
Oh, I remember one of the last film only sites, I was able to join and do film photography. Apug...

 

[Down Under]

Oh, I remember one of the last film only sites, I was able to join and do film photography. Apug...

APUG. Ah yes, APUG. May the gods bless its memory.

Whatever happened to it (yes, I'm having a 'senior' moment here)?

I believe it was replaced by something that, for me, has never quite lived up to the potential of what it left behind. And gave us the full force of 21st century five-second attention span posts.

(I say this entirely Without Prejudice.).

So we hang in. And live in hope.

We also change. In another (recent) thread, I go on about having to make a choice between the Nikon Z6 and the Df. A First World, 2019 existential crisis. I too have offered up my soul to the big auction site where everything in the entire world ends up, one day.

Excellent post, Ko.Fe. You say it so well. All of it resonated with me. Especially when you wrote, "I returned to film after realizing it might be gone some day."

That really hit home.

 

[wiltw]

I would dearly love to move back to film (in lieu of digital) for my creative photographic efforts, but my favorite emulsions are gone, it is difficult to find quality and consistent E-6 processing due to the fact that processing volumes at most labs are down which makes it inherently difficult to keep machines in proper calibration (if one could find lab personnel who know how and who CARE!), and my favorite color print technology (Cibachrome/Ilfochrome) for display prints is no longer produced. I still have my 135, my 645 and my 4x5 gear, both cameras and lenses and darkroom!

 

[faberryman]

APUG. Ah yes, APUG. May the gods bless its memory. Whatever happened to it (yes, I'm having a 'senior' moment here)? I believe it was replaced by something that, for me, has never quite lived up to the potential of what it left behind. And gave us the full force of 21st century five-second attention span posts.

Just check only the Analog box and APUG is just like it use to be. And you won't be distracted by the two or three digital posts a day. Because we know how sensitive film users are.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Like many of you other photographers here, I started taking pictures in the 1960s and continued over the decades. I bought my first digital camera in 2005 and proceeded to buy replacements at regular intervals, but also continued to take medium format frames with my big Fuji GW690II (you know, the Texas Leica) and my Leica M2. I tried DxO filmpack to convert digital files to monochrome, but I do not like to emulate things. And about three years ago, I concluded that I prefer the way that real black and white film depicts the scenes that I photograph. Sure, film is clumsy, has to be developed, often has lint or chemical blobs, but I do not care, I prefer the look. There are some other factors:

1. I like the tactile feel of beautiful mechanical mid-20th century cameras.
2. Film equipment is reasonable price.
3. Everybody with a huge DSLR and penile zoom lens thinks he is a "photographer" today. OK, I'd rather go a different path.
4. I could not keep up with labeling and organizing digital files, but with film, I am much more selective and take far fewer pictures.
5. Maybe (maybe) my descendants will find some value in my photographs. I have no confidence that my digital files will be readable in decades out. But film will be there unless the house burns down. (We have had this debate before about future access to digital files - but old people like me are skeptical by nature because we have seen too much technology come and go).
6. Chemical-based imaging is a fantastic culmination of a century of experiments and research and development. It definitely is not "primitive." Why let this amazing technology languish or get relegated to the dust bin?

Some more thoughts: https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2018/12/some-thoughts-on-film-versus-digital.html

A quicky comparison of my ancient IIIC with the Monochrom: https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2018/11/test-of-leica-monochrom-versus-69-year.html

 

[1kgcoffee]

I wanted to be a photographer, so bought a nice canon camera with some modern glass.

It was not giving the classic look that I associated with photographers and photography, even with tons of editing. In fact, despite it's sharpness and accuracy it looked.. almost.. boring? Clinical. Sterile. A copy of reality. I experimented with editing, but decided it must have something to do with the glass. This resulted in a nice collection of old mostly soviet glass. But I was still only halfway there.

I wanted photos like Salgado, McCurry, Adams and so on.

Eventually I came to the realization that digital sensors, despite their resolution lacked real character and tonality. What would require tons of editing for a kitschy look in the end, or VSCO filters that felt like cheating and never gave the real tonality of a negative, film had what I was hungering for. Then I came across APUG, now Photrio. The rest is history. Certain sensors, like the Sigma one are approaching what film can do, but the uniformity and computer aided statistical guessing to spit out a raw file is not satisfying.

 

[jvo]

"all things must pass..." i never felt the pull towards digital, and always swallowed hard when i saw the prices and recurring "upgrades" - thank god!

but film will disappear, probably not in my lifetime, but it will. so i'll enjoy it now, and heed the wisdom of those who have dallied in the digital world!

 

[36cm2]

Film will not disappear. It will simply become another historical process with wonderfully Luddite (and I use that in the best way possible) adherents. Like those who pine for APUG. Like me.

OP, wonderful post.

 

[1kgcoffee]

When it does I will simply move to wet plate and consider it an upgrade.

 

[NB23]

Because my photography was appaling and it gained something with the film look. Went from sheety to acceptable-baddish.

 

[mshchem]

I've never abandoned either. If you want to make nice black and white prints, for me film is so much easier. I have nice equipment, I have absolutely no interest in mirrorless, unless it a Leica with a real rangefinder . I would not spend the money for a digital Leica, I have Leica M6ttl analog . I shoot Medium format for film and a D5 for digital. I love both.

 

[jtk]

I wanted to be a photographer, so bought a nice canon camera with some modern glass.

It was not giving the classic look that I associated with photographers and photography, even with tons of editing. In fact, despite it's sharpness and accuracy it looked.. almost.. boring? Clinical. Sterile. A copy of reality. I experimented with editing, but decided it must have something to do with the glass. This resulted in a nice collection of old mostly soviet glass. But I was still only halfway there.

I wanted photos like Salgado, McCurry, Adams and so on.

Eventually I came to the realization that digital sensors, despite their resolution lacked real character and tonality. What would require tons of editing for a kitschy look in the end, or VSCO filters that felt like cheating and never gave the real tonality of a negative, film had what I was hungering for. Then I came across APUG, now Photrio. The rest is history. Certain sensors, like the Sigma one are approaching what film can do, but the uniformity and computer aided statistical guessing to spit out a raw file is not satisfying.

I think your notion that digital sensors "lacked real character and tonality" reflects an attitude rather than anything about the technology. Personally, I don't want "photos like Salgado...and so on." I make my own photos.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

All forms of image making have their place. From watercolor to digital, it's all good.

90% of my photography is film because I enjoy the personal involvement required in making an image with film and film cameras. On the digital side, I'm fairly good at crafting an image - but I've grown weary of displays and sitting down at keyboards and large screens (especially after 40+ years in computer engineering).

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Easy. It's more challenging and more fun. I think digital is great. It's just another way.

But after all but abandoning my film stuff for about ten years, I realized I wasn't having as much fun. I bought a Pentax DSLR three years ago, used it for one, hardly at all in two years.

My first camera was a Kodak Brownie Box, ca 1952. Developed the film, OK, I'm sure my professional Dad may have helped...... It's been a long and wonderful road.