Being a film photographer has a certain feel to it. You feel like touched by a higher power, as if you have seen the light.
Being a digital photographer is somewhat being the riffraff.
But then I noticed that 16 of the 20 portraits were in deed taken not only digital, but with the simplest digital equipment available.
So I thought I might better come clean…
I’ve said to myself and people that I would go digital as soon as I could create the same style in digital as with Fuji Astia slide film.
The above is Fuji Astia 100 ISO as 800 ISO, Leica SL mot with 80mm Summilux
Then again, working with picture agencies and news media, they want the files here and now. Really no point in sending an awesome film scan to a picture agency a week after the actual event.
So you got to compromise. And I did.
I went ahead and shot film for my archive and (more importantly) personal pride. And riffraff files for the hungry media that they could get here and now.
At some point I stopped shooting the pride files on film. Really no point in having them, and also the lab closed down so the turnaround on getting a slide film developed changed from 1 hour to 72 hours.
Digital workflow is kind of interesting, especially if you realize that not all photo assignments are a matter if pride. Some things just need to get shot, delivered and the remains buried in the hard drives.
It’s not that I shoot stuff that “If I didn’t do it somebody else would have” (or whatever you say when you pick up somebody else's wallet from the street and keep it). I have the luxury that when I photograph and write, I only do the stuff I want to. I don’t have editors telling me what to do. They may suggest, but mainly I’m the one who suggest things for them to buy.
Because my photography and my writing is my communication.
It’s a matter of integrity. Have a look in the newspaper and see what’s there. As I usually say to those who want to have their company in the newspaper, “Have you looked at the actual stories in the newspaper? Which story would you like to be?”
Because the majority of stories in media is about injuries, loss of status, treats, possible chaos and actual chaos.
Most stories are sensational. Few are factual. And horrifying few are about creating a better tomorrow.
Some people will do anything for a byline.
Back to photography. Thing is I'm addicted to Leica and Leica didn’t offer that riffraff-files-that-look-like-Fuji-Astia look. So I thought, what the hell. I’ll just get the Panasonic DMC LC1 digital with Leica lensand shoot the hell out of it. Nice stealth camera, black and all.
Odd feeling attending an event where 90% of you shoot film and 10% is shooting digital.
But 100% of what will be used will be riffraff files from the digital camera.
My film bag is 20 kilos. The digital is 0,5 kilo. Yet I dragged the film equipment with me again and again.
Fortunately I had to do a shoot outside in London, standing on a ladder for an hour, while it was truly raining (even for London standards). Ruined a nice suit and the digital camera though. Lucky me. No more digital, sorry.
The Leica R and Leica M I also used didn’t notice the rain. Those just shot the hell out of it and made nice files
Hard rain in London (shot with Leica M4)
So I got a bit of film revival as the digital had to return to Tokyo or somewhere to get fixed.
But heaven must wait. The picture agency was even like “There was some of the files that had dirt in them so we removed those files.”
By dirt they meant film corn.
So I realized I couldn’t do much longer in my pleasant time capsule made of Fuli Astia slide film. I bought the Leica Digilux 2 which is the real Digilux. Same camera as said Panasonic, but the Leica edition is in Leica's design and with slightly changed placement of the buttons. Not so stealth as the black Panasonic.
Yet a camera that doesn’t say a sound when making a photo, and easily used 100% full metal manual, easy to go unnoticed over your shoulder: Big enough to show that you are for real, small enough to go unnoticed when you don’t want to look like a Canon jerk.
My Leica Digilux 2 just turned 100,000 exposures and now has a twin sister that looks exactly the same.
I don’t know, but at some point in time I started realizing that all I needed to carry was my digital camera. Only film cameras for special events, features or stuff where you want to “start a production.”
By production I mean … hmm … some stars can walk right out of bed and they are camera-ready. One guy I really really really wanted to shoot some months ago was the kind where he had to get convinced by a trusted publicist who had worked with him for 15 years, then briefed properly by only the most competent people on the subject we were to cover, then finally – if he would still like the idea – prepared for cameras by professional skin-, hair- and fashion-people. The works. Not to mention transportation, security and special catering.
So his publicist said these golden words. “No, forget [name], we’re talking a full production,” by which he meant all the above said things and three days of hard work for the publicist just to make that person consider it. So we sent on with another one who could be made camera-ready in just two hours.
Same story with cameras. My film cameras need respect and time to do their job, their ‘files’ need tender baths and special chemicals and exact temperatures to appear in their glory, and those in turn has to be treated with the outmost respect and dignity only by the best scanners available. Then they will show their true stardom amongst pictures.
Ooh, my precious!
But that’s a production. You see.
The Leica Digilux 2 just hangs over the shoulder or lies in the floor of the car. Ready in a split second. And the files can be fixed and sent to the other side of the world within 60 minutes. And by then you have FTP’ed the shots that need to be available for some media, archived the full event, backed it up, and deleted the camera files. And you are ready for more of it.
Hans Blix sho with Leica Digilux 2
I think around shooting this one of Hans Blix, which I shot both as slide and as digital, I realized I actually liked the digital file better than the slide film file.
I mean, I could doctor that, because I know what digital can do easily and nice, but also how slide film can do wonders if time and circumstances are set up to do slide film.
But the above was set up as a fast digital shoot.
And it worked.
Which made me realize that shooting digital files as a dedicated digital shooter will bring about nice pictures – instead of doing the digital files not whole hearthed, but more like a bad excuse for being in a rush for the sake of deadline.
“Hey, wait till you see the slide film scans in a week. It’s magic! and you can tell I’m a true artist!!! And hey, don’t mind all the digital files all over in the media meanwhile.”
Hmm? Thing is nobody gives a shit about the perfect files sitting in an archive or shared by me and the subject. It’s the digital files done here and now and used in meda that counts. Those are the ones the public gets to see.
So somehow I found a way to make them look the way I wanted. Which I’ll get back towhen this blog continues in a few days…
film still has a place in my heart always will,Its what i was taught first .i want one of those little 5mp buggers now 100000 frames and no problems seriously?
No, the sensor can die on you, which is a known issue because of an error in the sensor delivered from the factory. So many Digilux 2 cameras has gotten that replaced at Leica for no charge, and if one encounter it, it will be repaired for free by Leica. It's a heat/humidity error that was not supposed to be there. Besides that, only problems if you drop it on concrete or into water ;-)
Frankly, film or digital. I think it's a matter of deciding what one is shooting with and utilize the possibilities. Just like choosing to shoot b&w film, or slide film or any brand/type of film. One develop a style both in the way it look, but also in the workflow and rhythm. So go get one ;-)
Great blog! I understand completely. I always swore I wasn't going to get into digital photography. I love film, and I love working with it in the darkroom. But when I became a (poor) college student, and wasn't taking many photos anymore because I didn't have access to a darkroom nor the money to buy film/supplies, I quickly decided that a digital slr camera could have a place in my life. And while I still largely prefer film, my digital Pentax is getting me through.
Thorsten, If you want a small and discreet camera consider Pentax K20D or K200D with some nice pancakes. Or Olympus which has the most compact DSLR's and zooms with the same aspect ratio as your Digilux 2. I had the LC-1 while back and it sure was a very funny camera and something magical about it..
I resisted digital for a long time. Now that's all I shoot. Making the transition helped free me of my gear and process obsessions. Film or digital? Who cares, I'm watching the light.
"Somebody let the rabble in." -Lewis Carrol commenting on roll film replacing collodion process.
Thanks! I enjoyed reading this. I haven't been on the scene very long, but I have been around long enough to know what it was like "before digital" and often find myself being drawn back to it - sometimes for the simple romanticism associated with it. Love to see those that share the same thoughts! :)
You have some good point. I read with sadness that you are "digitizing" yourself more and more. I get your points. The worst thing is maybe the adversion to grain. With my own agency I discovered though that grain is fine and that I need to inspect slides for dust/spots. FARE/ICE don't work really that well, especially if the image gets sharpened or otherwise even slightly manipulated.
But you have another point... why luggage around 20kg instead of 0.5? Actually it is an attitude. Sometimes I can choose just to go around with one lens. Fixed. I also analyzed why a digicam was handy: a zoom after all is nice when you need to be quick and aren't "passionate". The same goes for autoexposure, autofocus. SO sometimes you might find me around with a little eos and a sigma zoom. Works. Fine. But already when I shoot with that camera I feel less passion and when I have an interesting subject amidst a reportage, I find myself setting the zoom (pretyt much precisely!!) at 50m... so what?
Of course, this can't do anything for speed. I still get negatives processed fast, but slides are a pain.
If I needed to be more serious about photography, especially with time constraints, I'd need a digital too and this is sad. For now I enjoy without.
Hey thorsten. my first comment on ur blog. While i dont have a lot to say, i do have to say that i agree about stories being sensational. as i just told chris the catch 22 is that u can change or cut the context completely in an image and therefore with a camera, comes responsibility. with an eye, comes greater responsibility. u're lucky u can shoot without people having to tell you what to do u know like the "bosses" but very few have that privilege. so kudos to you brother.
@ Treamus: I get what you're saying about the passion. I've had the same but somehow I can see how digital can be fun too. I guess that is what this little blog series will be about.
I want to freeze the world around 2004 and shoot film forever, but on the other hand it might also be rewarding moving with the flow.
A very well written blog, I agree with what your saying as regards picture editors who don't care about the look or feel of the photo, they just want it on there desk. I just can't get passionate about digital, although I have to shoot digital for a living.
@Desyn: I never took any education for any of the things I've worked professionally in (I've done advertising, graphic design, internet and today I mainly write and photograph). We were 4-5 kids in school who had quite fancy cameras for our age and shot a lot, and I shot like 100 meter film of b&w a year till I was 20, then had a long break and took up photography again few years ago.
I think in the field of art there's no right way or wrong way, so if you do it your own way and become real good at that, it will work.
Having said that, getting an education will get you a network as well as a lot of history, seeing ways of doing things, which I sometimes miss to have had. For example I have no idea what exist of types of studio light because I never worked in one. So I have to sneak around and see what others are doing, then apply my own style to it ;-)
thanks for the blog on digitial vs film - r u self taught in photography or did you do the school route: i.e. degree in fine arts/photography - etc - just curious, x's V.
@Chris: Nikon and Canon is definitely under consideration and has been for a while. I'll get back to that later in the posts, as well as why Digilux - surprisingly - is enough of a camera to most assignments. So hold on to your hat and your 22 Megapixel beast.
@Philip: I'll go more over the Digilux 2 and in a later post in a few days, as well as telling how and where to get it for a fair price (because you can't buy it from new anymore).
my danish brother ... you just need to accept that leica will never make a "suitable" digital solution for professionals. ;) go with the riff-raff ... buy a canon or a nikon. ;) the glass is pretty nice, brother. i promise.
that little digilux does make some nice files, though.
definitely not film .. but ... even in los angeles ... one of the world's capitals of photographic production ... film processing labs are closing on a monthly basis.
i think you just like firing up the imacon scanner, right? ;)
Interesting post... I too love working with film. But, as I slowly go through the images I want to add to my Uber website am finding that most of them were taken digitally. With the recent death of my digital camera I find myself stuck right back in the middle of my personal film/digital debate. I have been looking at various point and shoots as an alternative and will have to keep the Digilux 2 in mind. I really liked your point about dedication. Film/Digital, whatever, in the end it is about being dedicated to the images you are producing.
Thank you so much for the very kind words, Thorsten. Getting that from a working photojournalist is always a real compliment. :) I started shooting in 2005, and the oldest photo in my uber portfolio is just from 2006. Definitely hoping to be even better in years to come! Thanks once again, and cheers from Indonesia!
Well, you're simply the most talented guy I've seen in a long time ... or longer. You're basically at a level where the only thing you should aim at developing is the message. What do you want to tell with your pictures. And I hope you don't go the "World Press" way with hopelessness but go for a the message of life, spirit and hope.
Hi, I have been watching your photography work for a bit and I really like them because it is rare from a professional photographer to shot real people with real emotions especially from famous people.
Hey Thorsten. I bought myself a used Leica R4. Now I'm in the R gang too. Part of this is because of your influence. The camera isn't in perfect condition, but it was affortable. I'll run a test roll thourgh it and probably use it for a reportage on Sunday.
Feels nice. Summicron 50/2 looks good and I hope it comes up to expectation. Should be pretty similar to M.
So well, now I am even more a red-dot elitist. But I don't care, I use other cameras too, Leicas are just good. Form a first glance I think that R is largerly underrated.
Chris will be green of envy ;-) and that's his own damn fault ;-)
The R4 is actually a nice camera and a nice size and sound. And it's easy to get one as many were produced and it is said to have a "faulty electronics." (Which mean that some R4 go dead, but I've never had any problems with mine).
You can probably find an inexpensive winder or motor to go with it. Gives an even better hold on it and balance.
The 50mm f/2.0 is reputed to be one of the best 50mm lenses in the world. And still is. I find 50mm a bit dull as I prefer 80mm mostly - but I must admit I'm blown by the quality of the Summicron 50mm f/2 when I use it.
Yes, sure. Electronics. A photographer I know, which has anything from Leicaflex to R8..., told me: look my brand new R4 went dead pretty soon. If you buy an R4 now, it most probably has survived. A visual check shows that mine works, a couple of films will tell.
As much as I love M... this R is nice. Leicaflexes are very expensive and in any case, having an electronic SLR with good exposure is pretty nice. Working with flash is easier too.
The R4 is the smallest of the series, this is also why I have chosen it. The only thing I miss is the 1/2000", which would allow me to open my lens more. The camera fits well in the hand.
80mm is nice for reportage, concert photos. I like the 50, but sometimes you can't get near enough or you need the tele-effect.
I pretty much like the 90/2 with its fancy retractable lens-hood. Probably if I find myself using the camera, I'll look for one.
I'll blog about the camera probably!
So when you come to Italy or I go to Denemark, we will have even more material for a chat, hah!
PS: I so much wished Leica would introduce a new digital back: it would keep the R system alive (no, I don't want a full digital R camera). Imagine a full-frame module! Slap it in for some newspaper work and put your slide or b&w film in when you can have more time for your images.
thanks for the comment. My M8 is MOSTLY a camera for personal work, so no backup unfortunately. I use Canon's for work...the minute either Leica or Mamiya release a digital rangefinder with 16-22mp, I'll ditch my Canon setup....
Besides that, only problems if you drop it on concrete or into water ;-)
Frankly, film or digital. I think it's a matter of deciding what one is shooting with and utilize the possibilities. Just like choosing to shoot b&w film, or slide film or any brand/type of film. One develop a style both in the way it look, but also in the workflow and rhythm. So go get one ;-)