Jump to content

Moving to film or not?


beckzito

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi people,

 

I´m new at the forum and just enjoying myself with my first leica lens, the new summarit 35mm f/2.4.

I have it on a A7 body and planning later in the year to get a M body.So, just recently i came across with this analog part of the forum and the also new M-A camera body.

As far as i understand moving to film again, main things to consider may be:

 

-shooting with no exposure, may rely only on lightmeters or follow the so called f/16 rule

-quality and purpose of the film is critical to the scene captured(problem may be having a iso 50 on it and willing to shoot indoors with low light)

-no post processing and a revelation kit is needed(in my case i should go to a photo store to process the film)

-trial/error kind of learning

 

I have the fear of leaving lightroom and also of failing focus on most of my pictures and spending money developing them just to know afterwards.

On the other hand, i love the look and romantic feel of some kodak shots...

 

Am i being picky? Or film photography is just about this?

 

Thank you.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Film photography with manual cameras always required practice to learn proper techniques to handle different situations. We all shot a lot of film "learning the ropes" so manual focusing, exposure control, and steady hand-held shots became "automatic." Like riding a bicycle you practice enough for these things to become habits. Today's automatic cameras made good results possible without learning all the old disciplines.

Most find that jumping from full-auto digital to full manual film can give such a low success rate that they get discouraged. Using the Summarit on your A7 is good practice to develop manual focus skills. Learn to judge sharpness of the image without resorting to magnify or peaking every time, and it will help prepare you for film cameras. (Yes, a rangefinder is different, but the skills overlap.) Once manual focus becomes second nature, switch to manual exposure mode and add that skill training. The A7 shows you the results of exposure changes in the EVF, and film won't, but you will learn to handle both focus and exposure at the same time. I also use the A7 in spot meter mode where you learn to pick which area of a scene to meter from.

Develop these skills with the camera you have, and then switching to a manual film camera won't be as frustrating.

Also, doing our own processing and printing really helped our shooting with film, as every print also required exposure evaluation, cropping and framing, and made us consider how we could have done the shot better. B&W processing is still easy and rewarding, so consider that for the future also.

Edited by TomB_tx
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

[... excellent summary ...]

Am i being picky? Or film photography is just about this?

 

Film is just like that. I will not get into the how-to stuff. There is a ton of advice and information out there.

 

You might consider getting an M7 or M6. I find the M7's meter to be better, more consistent than my own hand metering and I've been doing it for forty years. (I cannot comments specifically on the M6 because I've never used one.)

 

As you can read under M-A topic posts, for the price you can get two excellent M cameras including a CLA if necessary. I favor the M4 and in particular the M4-P because it has 75mm frame lines.

 

Welcome and best of luck.

Edited by pico
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving to film can be really rewarding but also frustrating. I started with film photography, moving to digital, then back and forth before settling mainly with digital.

 

In my opinion the cause of frustrations for you are less likely to be around photographic technique, which can be learnt and developed, but around the quality of processing and printing available today unless you are prepared to do this yourself. I suspect most end up also in a "hybrid" workflow, with traditional film development and then computer based scanning and post-processing, printing etc.

 

My advice would be to purchase a good second hand film body - you are unlikely to loose money if you don't get on with it, get some Ilford HP5+ or similar film which will tolerate a reasonable level of exposure error and see how you get on.

 

To answer your specific concerns,:

 

Sunny 16 is a good starting point and you can't go too far wrong with B&W film - colour a bit more tricky, slide film needs accurate exposure

 

Most film available today is of good quality, of course you cannot change ASA mid roll as you can with digital, but a mid speed film will suit a variety of purposes

 

Post processing, as above may still apply

 

Trial and error - still applies with all photography, in fact I find post processing the hardest learning curve of all.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with pico: A used M7, in good condition, would be a place to start. The meter is very good, the shutter speeds are accurate, and the viewfinder (.72) permits very good focusing and composition.

 

IMO, the driving factor for shooting color, especially transparencies, is that when you press the shutter release, in effect, you've already "post processed" that picture.

 

Using film makes you think about what you really want to preserve. You learn a new set of skills., and it's booth rewarding and fun.

 

As one member of the Forum posted a while back:

 

If you're shooting digital, you know immediately that you're not a very good photographer.

 

If you're shooting film, You'll think you're a good photographer - - until you get the film back from the processor.

 

Cheers,

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

35mm film is a completely mature technology. This means you have available 90 years' worth of experience on every aspect of its use, from shooting, to developing, to printing. Compare that to the relatively limited time that digital photography has been around.

 

My advice is not to put the question as "moving to film or not". Try both, then YOU decide which to use, or indeed whether you use both.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Pico has a good point about the M7, as it also offers automatic exposure mode (aperture preferred) so you can concentrate on focus and framing. I tried to help a young friend move from dSLR to film, and a manual-metered camera on top of manual-focus was too much all at once. I gave her a Pentax ME (auto exposure) and she did much better.

I also find the Zeiss Ikon ZM a good alternative to the M7.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I recommend the M6 which has a meter. Ms 2,3, & 4 do not. Download app on Iphone for light meter. I found it as accurate as the meter in my M6. If you go with an M odds are if you keep the camera in the same condition that you purchased it and don't like it you will get most of your money back. Kodak Ektar 100 fantastic film. Tri-X is still available. I have found that if you have a good lab to work with is the hardest problem is solved. Labs are becoming extinct.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

M7´s are quoted around 1.800€ depending on condition and with a new M-A at 3.900€... i hesitate myself on saving (only)50% in a 13 years diference(although i know if they were digital cameras this gap was really more relevant).

Link to post
Share on other sites

For most people the best labs are now mostly mail order anyway, so once accepted it's not a problem. That said it is easy to process colour or B&W at home.

 

But for the OP don't make it harder than necessary, buy a camera with a meter, say an M6 or M7, from a dealer (if you Insist on a non-metered camera an M4-P). So don't spend too much, and just try it and hopefully enjoy it. What you save over an M-A you can buy a scanner and then use Lightroom for post processing.

 

Steve

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it were the ancient Greeks, who passed a rather dualistic way of thinking on to us westeners. Starting to use film does not mean one has to abandon digital. I would rather see it as an additional tool in the box, which can become the main tool.

 

It should be possible to sell an used Leica film body back without any or only little loss, if film does not live up to the expectations. Alternatively, excellent film bodies by other makers are available for very little money now, if fully automatic exposure or autofocus are preferred.

 

Using a prime lens and a modern film, quality should not be an issue, I get the quality I need both from digital cameras or even higher speed films like Delta 3200. I mostly use Portra 400 for colour, which covers almost all situations. Choosing a film means also choosing a look. TX400, aka Tri-X is very popular for it's unique look and might just give the old-fashioned Kodak look.

 

If Lightroom is missed, there is the option to have the film scanned or scan it yourself, although scans from film images need significantly less post processing, compared to digital raw files, but this might be subjective.

 

Stefan

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Beck, I let now my 2 M digital cameras in my bag and I use only my 2 M film

(2 M7 one with color Portra and one with TX400 or Ilford) . Pico is right

I am glad to take the time to photograph and to compose with a real rangefinder :)

Look at this thread :

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/286747-i-like-film-open-thread.html

"Each new film brand is a new sensor" as said a famous photographer

Best

Henry

Edited by Doc Henry
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

[... snip most excellent advice ...]TX400, aka Tri-X is very popular for it's unique look and might just give the old-fashioned Kodak look.

 

Stefan

 

Permit me to put a shadow over that observation. Tri-X has changed over the years. I cannot cite the changes, but in my modest (40 years) experience I do not find today's Tri-X the same. Certainly this is no help to a beginner in film, but over time with comparisons it may help to foster some enlightenment. Regardless, it is still good! (Not T-Max which I hate.)

 

Thanks for the post, Stefan.

 

In college I was taught to scrupulously expose Tri-X at 320 ASA (ISO). What bullshit that was. If we test our meters and actual shutter speeds we find they are all over the place.

Edited by pico
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you should try film. There's nothing to lose.

 

-quality and purpose of the film is critical to the scene captured(problem may be having a iso 50 on it and willing to shoot indoors with low light)

Of the four points that you raise only the second one - having a lower ISO film in-camera when higher ISO is necessary - is a concern so let's start with that. Note that this isn't a big concern at all. It is easy to rewind film mid-roll (with the leader out; one learns to feel when the film comes off the takeup spool and it is time to stop rewinding) and then forward it at a later point in time by exposing the required number of frames with the lens cap on. I do this frequently and find it no hassle at all.

 

Then there is the extreme flexibility of certain films. Portra 400 - which is a great daylight film too - can be shot from EI100 to EI1600 and developed at box speed to get useable results. There are tests on Flickr of Ektar 100 exposed in the same way with perfectly OK results.

 

There are also ways to develop black and white films to use a roll in a similar way as described above. Diafine, for instance, uses the same development time for all sensitivities of film. This means it is possible not only to develop different ISO films simultaneously in the same tank, but that it is possible to expose each roll at different EI. So you can pull and push a roll all at once (just like in the Portra example above). Then there's stand development of course.

 

-shooting with no exposure, may rely only on lightmeters or follow the so called f/16 rule

About exposure - there's a widespread perception that those of us who rely on film do so completely whimsically and without accuracy or control. I suspect the lomography movement, as cool as that is, to an extent is to "blame" for this. A century+ of usually well-exposed film images is seemingly easily forgotten.

 

I rely on lightmeters and have done so for as long as I have photographed. True, I own meterless cameras and enjoy using them but I won't fire them without an exposure assessment of some form, be by using my own eyes, sunny 16 and experience, or a lightmeter (app or physical equipment). I'm fairly sure those who use digital cameras also rely on exposure assessments of some form.

 

-no post processing and a revelation kit is needed(in my case i should go to a photo store to process the film)

I have shot, and sometimes still shoot, digital (I shot this conference the other weekend, for instance using a 5D2). I have a pretty good grasp of post-processing, at least for my own purposes, and have both taken courses and done home-studies on Photoshop, ACR etc. All this to say that I believe that whether a photograph is in need of post-processing has - in the vast number of cases - nothing to do with whether it was shot on a sensor or film. Each system is equally capable of registering images. Film images, when scanned, are perfectly capable of digital post-processing. Whether one wants to edit them is another matter but, personally, I am of the view that most images can benefit from a bit of help, be it regarding contrast, sharpness etc. Of course if you will only have your photos printed on 10x15 by the lab then your options to affect the image are very limited. A hybrid workflowis the best option in most cases. And don't forget that you can get a macro lens and digitize your photos with the A7 if you don't want to buy a scanner.

 

-trial/error kind of learning

 

I think this point applies to everything, from learning to ride a bicycle to becoming an astronaut.

 

Are all your digital shots always in focus? Sure, there's a money aspect to film photography but if one is even just a little bit serious about one's hobby and feels doubt about whether the image just shot was in focus, more or less well exposed etc, then one takes another one, brackets or whatever. I am quite sure that your fear of having wasted time and money will dissipate quite quickly when you see the results on your first rolls.

 

Let's not forget that film exists to be used. And the more we use the longer the manufacturers will be able to remain in business.

 

Perhaps just a last point regarding the M-A. I certainly encourage those who can to buy it because it is really great that Leica, today in the midst of the digital despair, is actively supporting film-based photography. But I would never buy one since there are so many used bodies out there which take exactly the same photo, ceteris paribus, as the M-A. And I think it is probably not the best option if one is interested to just try film out for a while.

 

Good luck

Philip

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need to spend Leica money to try film! You can buy any number of perfectly good cameras for around £50-£100 which will allow you to try the medium out, and if you find you like the process of using film, which I'm sure you will, you can jump in and buy a film M body.

 

Something like a Pentax Spotmatic or K1000 with 50mm lens (but there's hundreds of others to consider too!).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi people,

 

I´m new at the forum and just enjoying myself with my first leica lens, the new summarit 35mm f/2.4.

I have it on a A7 body and planning later in the year to get a M body.So, just recently i came across with this analog part of the forum and the also new M-A camera body.

As far as i understand moving to film again, main things to consider may be:

 

-shooting with no exposure, may rely only on lightmeters or follow the so called f/16 rule

-quality and purpose of the film is critical to the scene captured(problem may be having a iso 50 on it and willing to shoot indoors with low light)

-no post processing and a revelation kit is needed(in my case i should go to a photo store to process the film)

-trial/error kind of learning

 

I have the fear of leaving lightroom and also of failing focus on most of my pictures and spending money developing them just to know afterwards.

On the other hand, i love the look and romantic feel of some kodak shots...

 

Am i being picky? Or film photography is just about this?

 

Thank you.

 

IMHO you are better off with a meter, and the M7 is the best implementation. Going direct from an AF auto camera like the A7 to a total manual M-A would be too great a gulf

 

RF focus is great, takes a few weeks to master

 

Film is messier at the pixel level (hey hey) but more organic. Its a different feel. Definitely not as precise but a better aesthetic.

 

Low ISO is very difficult to master. I find the DR of colour film limited after its been scanned. Some tricks can be performed in the developing but since I don't develop myself this doesn't help. This means getting the exposure right can be light and day, to coin a phrase. This is why the M7 will help. Guessing on the M-A would be very difficult and have a few lost ones IMHO.

 

I still use lightroom, as I get my films developed to CD and edit them on my computer ;)

Edited by colonel
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to all, i am amazed how helpfull and interested you are on my case :cool:

Of course i know this hobbie is a great pleasure within this forum an that helps on sharing this matters.

 

Im still processing all this info but on this last post, i did not understand why M7 would be easier than an M-A. M7 was the first leica film camera to introduce automatic exposure, correct? But M-A still has it, if this was the main advantage...

 

Please note i am using more and more the leica summarit on MF than the former zeiss on AF i had previous(still have on the shelf by the way).And that is giving me some missed shots, for sure but at the same time, feeling much more pleasure when i get it spot on.

That´s why i tried leica on the first place and thats why now i am guessing shooting film will lead me on my correct path.

 

 

edit: can i post ebay link to a M7 im a trying to negotiate or is it against forum rules?seems a good deal if the price reduces 20% as it seems it can.

Edited by beckzito
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

i get my photos (negatives to be accurate) scanned at the lab that processes them to 25mb TIFF files and then load them into Capture One. There is about as latitude to get funky and improved results as my M9 DNG. BUT, and this is my taste, I find I do far far less with the film than the DNG files. AND, if it is a shot I really like, I have the negative to give to the lab to make a silver print or whatever I want. So the hybrid work is, if I choose to be, really an intermediate step.

 

As to the original question, I still have my M9 and really do enjoy the camera. Have both and spend less on the M analog if money is an issue until you decide what to do next. Remember, when it comes to film, it is the lens and the type of film you are using that matters much much more than the box holding both -- of course there is your vision as well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to all, i am amazed how helpfull and interested you are on my case :cool:

Of course i know this hobbie is a great pleasure within this forum an that helps on sharing this matters.

 

Im still processing all this info but on this last post, i did not understand why M7 would be easier than an M-A. M7 was the first leica film camera to introduce automatic exposure, correct? But M-A still has it, if this was the main advantage.

 

 

No

 

The m-a has no light meter at all. You set everything manually

The mp has a light meter. You still set everything manually but icons in the OVF say whether your exposure is correct.

The m7 has an electronic shutter and thus can additionally accommodate a aperture priority mode as well manual with a meter or fully manual.

 

The m-a is a real experienced purists camera. The mp is the pinnacle of mechanical M with a light meter for those that like to use something with a mechanical shutter.

 

The m7 has more accurate shutter speeds, a quieter shutter and aperture priority mode. However mechanical purists prefer the mp for ideological reasons :D

 

I can see why, it's why some people like automatic watches. If I was rich enough I would have an mp and an m7, but I am not and I find I need aperture priority mode for the "decisive moment" in my style of shooting.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

[... snip heartening post ...]

 

Im still processing all this info but on this last post, i did not understand why M7 would be easier than an M-A. M7 was the first leica film camera to introduce automatic exposure, correct? But M-A still has it, if this was the main advantage...

 

The M-A has no auto exposure. It is a design for those who want a classic simple mechanical Leica with its original reputation for reliability. It is priced beyond reason. Unfortunately, Leica is not making reliability as it once did. With a new CEO change, perhaps that will be behind us.

 

The M-A is more like the Leica M4 which has no computer help. Having used early Leicas for forty years I appreciate the non-electric M cameras quality and reliability.

 

BUT, the M7 is real and has astounding 'A' exposure performance for the most part. It is truly successful. (Naturally, no electronic facility will go unchallenged, so take the verbose objections for what they are - egoist expressions.)

 

As I wrote earlier, if you wish total responsibility and no electronics, consider M4, M4-P and earlier. The M-A offers nothing worthwhile.

.

Edited by pico
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...