TriX or DNG

[rick the click]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

First time post. I've been hanging around awhile. Have learned a great deal. Somewhat intimidated at the level of expertise I read on this site.

 

Thought I would share my current struggle and solicit some feedback.

 

A few years ago I returned to photography from a long absence.

 

I bought an m9p then an M240p, MM1, 6ttl, Nikon 810, and Mamiya 7ii (not in this order) with a good assortment of lenses for all.  

 

The only time I use the Nikon is when taking photos of my grandchildren as they are too fast to catch (at my level of expertise) with the Leicas.

 

For my personal and serious photography, about a year ago, I decided film was the way to go and I also found I liked BW more than color. I develop, scan (Epson v800) and print (Epson SC P800) my own negatives and have spent a lot time learning about developers, fixers, etc. Even so, I'm definitely still a newbie when it comes to film. I don't have a darkroom and except for a class I took recently have never printed with an enlarger.  I like the old-school vibe and the look of film, however.....

 

I'm finding that I'm spending a lot of time and energy developing and scanning negatives (and printing a few) from film. I went to downtown Denver today as usual for some "street" shooting and with both the M6ttl and MM1 (with 35mm sum and 50mm ..lux respectively). As I encountered opportunities, I found I was always choosing the MM1. Why? I think for me it is just coming down to ease of use (pre and post click); e.g., the ability to verify with histogram correct exposure.

 

See s://www.flickr.com/photos/127447591@N02/ The first 3 pics on my flickr page are pics taken today with MM1. I think I attached one of these pics to this post but couldn't do the rest and gave up trying.

 

I'm thinking right now that I might end up purely digital MM1(maybe add the MM2) except for some special portraits and/or landscapes when I will use the 120 Mamiya just so I still have a connection to film and that film look (I do think the look of film is unique) without the bulk of my photos being film.

 

Anyone here also have this same struggle?  How did you resolve it (or did you)?

 

Thanks for reading and for your advice.

 

Rick

[250swb]

 

Anyone here also have this same struggle?  How did you resolve it (or did you)?

 

 

 

You resolve it by looking at the results and deciding which you like best.

 

As for film being 'old school' I don't buy into this contrived nostalgia, film is a medium like any other, and if you made a pencil drawing yesterday would that be called 'old school' just because the pencil has been around longer than the Biro? So don't do it with film!

 

 

Steve

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[AceVentura1986]

Are you sure your choice wasn't between the two different lenses? 

[philipus]

Film isn't old school. If anything, film is today more capable than it has ever been due to high-performing lenses, modern emulsions and amazing possibilities to digitize (in addition to the classic darkroom which is as it has always been). So while film keeps becoming better in a technical sense (though the number of available emulsions drops and it becomes - in some parts of the world - more and more difficult/expensive to have it developed), digital in some way keeps becoming worse unless one has the financial ability to keep buying new every few years. Then again, it's not about the equipment and one can be perfectly happy with non-current digital equipment, or even quite old digital cameras as the rather amazing Digilux 2 thread shows.

 

If you're saying that you're having trouble choosing between film and digital, well then it's just a matter of deciding - if you feel you need to. Many photographers happily use both.

 

Initially upon reading your post I had the feeling you didn't so much return to photography as create a gear addiction, which is certainly not wrong provided one knows why one accumulates gear. Re-reading it, I see you're more on a 'journey' to (re-)discover where you want to go photographically speaking. It seems to me as if you like the (imho purported) convenience of digital. If so, stick with a digital camera, or two or three depending on what you feel you need and can afford/justify. If you want to keep film a part of your workflow, it's likely never been easier or cheaper to do so.

 

But if you're on the fence, keep both and use them as you feel.

 

Br

Philip

 

 

[wattsy]

Anyone here also have this same struggle?  How did you resolve it (or did you)?

 

 

 

I think the only way to resolve your dilemma is to decide whether your apparent preference for the look of your film photographs trumps the undoubted convenience (if you are not wedded to darkroom printing) of using the Monochrom. I know full well the attraction of the latter and used one almost exclusively for a couple of years. Initially I found the Monochrom, with it's incredible clean resolution, a revelation. I used to think it was a camera (especially combined with the post processing power of SilverEfex) that could almost be used in any light to produce good results but I've now come full circle. I still think it is a powerful tool and capable of incredible photographs but I now find it very dependent on the right kind of good light, far more so than film. In most cases, the tonality simply seems all wrong to me and no amount of post processing is going to fix that (if anything it just makes it worse). For me, film is far less convenient and, as I already have a Monochrom, using film is a significantly more expensive way of doing things. However, I much prefer the tonality obtained with a film neg (and no longer care much about the resolution of a photograph) so the decision of which to use has become a "no-brainer" (as they say nowadays). The Monochrom stays in the cupboard. 

[ramosa]

In my eyes, there's nothing like or better than film. But both of my recent returns to film (i.e., an M6 three years ago and an M7 a year ago) resulted in joy, some cool images, but then resale. Developing film at home with young kids around wasn't going to fly. There's not a nearby business that develops B&W, and while I did mail my film off for development and scanning to two different businesses, I never got comfortable with the need to post film in the mail. I just didn't like the vibe of it (I guess) and feared it would--at some point--get lost in the mail.

 

So--for the first time in 10 years, I'm without a "main" camera. I have been intrigued by the MM for years and actually purchased one once off eBay (one listed as "mint condition" that arrived with literal dents and scratches). eBay forcefully handled the return, and I'm thankful for that. 

 

Anyway, I'm back to pondering an MM. I love the rendering and find it to be the best B&W rendering this side of film. Prices have come down quite a bit since I last looked, as well, so we'll see ... By the way, in another thread, I read that Leica is now replacing faulty MM sensors with their newly developed sensor, so that's a plus, too.

[A miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

film vs digital is a personal choice.  I had an MM and also shot film.  Then I concluded that I liked the look of film more and was frustrated to no end with the blown highlights of the MM and the sensitivity to rangefinder misalignments - and sensor spots.  So I sold my MM and now shoot only film.  It is more work but infinity more rewarding.  My personal choice was to focus solely on film and ignore the digital camera world.  I couldn't be happier and my photography couldn't be better.  Just me...

[rick the click]

You resolve it by looking at the results and deciding which you like best.

 

As for film being 'old school' I don't buy into this contrived nostalgia, film is a medium like any other, and if you made a pencil drawing yesterday would that be called 'old school' just because the pencil has been around longer than the Biro? So don't do it with film!

 

 

Steve

 

In my eyes, there's nothing like or better than film. But both of my recent returns to film (i.e., an M6 three years ago and an M7 a year ago) resulted in joy, some cool images, but then resale. Developing film at home with young kids around wasn't going to fly. There's not a nearby business that develops B&W, and while I did mail my film off for development and scanning to two different businesses, I never got comfortable with the need to post film in the mail. I just didn't like the vibe of it (I guess) and feared it would--at some point--get lost in the mail.

 

So--for the first time in 10 years, I'm without a "main" camera. I have been intrigued by the MM for years and actually purchased one once off eBay (one listed as "mint condition" that arrived with literal dents and scratches). eBay forcefully handled the return, and I'm thankful for that. 

 

Anyway, I'm back to pondering an MM. I love the rendering and find it to be the best B&W rendering this side of film. Prices have come down quite a bit since I last looked, as well, so we'll see ... By the way, in another thread, I read that Leica is now replacing faulty MM sensors with their newly developed sensor, so that's a plus, too.

 

First time post. I've been hanging around awhile. Have learned a great deal. Somewhat intimidated at the level of expertise I read on this site.

 

Thought I would share my current struggle and solicit some feedback.

 

A few years ago I returned to photography from a long absence.

 

I bought an m9p then an M240p, MM1, 6ttl, Nikon 810, and Mamiya 7ii (not in this order) with a good assortment of lenses for all.  

 

The only time I use the Nikon is when taking photos of my grandchildren as they are too fast to catch (at my level of expertise) with the Leicas.

 

For my personal and serious photography, about a year ago, I decided film was the way to go and I also found I liked BW more than color. I develop, scan (Epson v800) and print (Epson SC P800) my own negatives and have spent a lot time learning about developers, fixers, etc. Even so, I'm definitely still a newbie when it comes to film. I don't have a darkroom and except for a class I took recently have never printed with an enlarger.  I like the old-school vibe and the look of film, however.....

 

I'm finding that I'm spending a lot of time and energy developing and scanning negatives (and printing a few) from film. I went to downtown Denver today as usual for some "street" shooting and with both the M6ttl and MM1 (with 35mm sum and 50mm ..lux respectively). As I encountered opportunities, I found I was always choosing the MM1. Why? I think for me it is just coming down to ease of use (pre and post click); e.g., the ability to verify with histogram correct exposure.

 

See s://www.flickr.com/photos/127447591@N02/ The first 3 pics on my flickr page are pics taken today with MM1. I think I attached one of these pics to this post but couldn't do the rest and gave up trying.

 

I'm thinking right now that I might end up purely digital MM1(maybe add the MM2) except for some special portraits and/or landscapes when I will use the 120 Mamiya just so I still have a connection to film and that film look (I do think the look of film is unique) without the bulk of my photos being film.

 

Anyone here also have this same struggle?  How did you resolve it (or did you)?

 

Thanks for reading and for your advice.

 

Rick

 

You resolve it by looking at the results and deciding which you like best.

 

As for film being 'old school' I don't buy into this contrived nostalgia, film is a medium like any other, and if you made a pencil drawing yesterday would that be called 'old school' just because the pencil has been around longer than the Biro? So don't do it with film!

 

 

Steve

Thanks for your comments. Your images are wonderful.

 

Apparently, I don't give the phrase "old-school" the same pejorative meaning you do. I can understand your response if you would think that anyone would look at your flickr page and say, "Oh, those are nice but so old!" What I meant is not that film photography is old-fashioned or passé, but that it connects me via the same medium (certainly not the same artistic quality) with many historical great photographers. The connection I feel when I read the Magnum contact sheets or when I read (not long ago) "The Americans" for the first time or laughed out loud at Elliott Erwitt's "lost area" photo and then leave my wife in the living room and go to my bathroom to develop some film.

I agree with you that my dilemma is fairly straightforward: simply decide which I like better.

[rick the click]

Film isn't old school. If anything, film is today more capable than it has ever been due to high-performing lenses, modern emulsions and amazing possibilities to digitize (in addition to the classic darkroom which is as it has always been). So while film keeps becoming better in a technical sense (though the number of available emulsions drops and it becomes - in some parts of the world - more and more difficult/expensive to have it developed), digital in some way keeps becoming worse unless one has the financial ability to keep buying new every few years. Then again, it's not about the equipment and one can be perfectly happy with non-current digital equipment, or even quite old digital cameras as the rather amazing Digilux 2 thread shows.

 

If you're saying that you're having trouble choosing between film and digital, well then it's just a matter of deciding - if you feel you need to. Many photographers happily use both.

 

Initially upon reading your post I had the feeling you didn't so much return to photography as create a gear addiction, which is certainly not wrong provided one knows why one accumulates gear. Re-reading it, I see you're more on a 'journey' to (re-)discover where you want to go photographically speaking. It seems to me as if you like the (imho purported) convenience of digital. If so, stick with a digital camera, or two or three depending on what you feel you need and can afford/justify. If you want to keep film a part of your workflow, it's likely never been easier or cheaper to do so.

 

But if you're on the fence, keep both and use them as you feel.

 

Br

Philip

You are right about the gear addiction up until maybe a year ago. I admit it (which, I believe, is the first step to healing) as I was a good consumer of the photographic industry's lie that gear makes good photos. Lately, I often think I should sell it all but one camera.  What initially motivated my post was that I had just returned from a photo outing with both film and digital (for the past year I've left the digital at home mainly) and found the convenience of digital compelling. I know that only I can resolve my dilemma. I appreciate you taking the time to thoughtfully respond.

[rick the click]

I think the only way to resolve your dilemma is to decide whether your apparent preference for the look of your film photographs trumps the undoubted convenience (if you are not wedded to darkroom printing) of using the Monochrom. I know full well the attraction of the latter and used one almost exclusively for a couple of years. Initially I found the Monochrom, with it's incredible clean resolution, a revelation. I used to think it was a camera (especially combined with the post processing power of SilverEfex) that could almost be used in any light to produce good results but I've now come full circle. I still think it is a powerful tool and capable of incredible photographs but I now find it very dependent on the right kind of good light, far more so than film. In most cases, the tonality simply seems all wrong to me and no amount of post processing is going to fix that (if anything it just makes it worse). For me, film is far less convenient and, as I already have a Monochrom, using film is a significantly more expensive way of doing things. However, I much prefer the tonality obtained with a film neg (and no longer care much about the resolution of a photograph) so the decision of which to use has become a "no-brainer" (as they say nowadays). The Monochrom stays in the cupboard. 

Thank so much for your comments. I seem to be in the early stages of what you have already gone through. Not sure where I will end up, but I do love film tonality too.

[rick the click]

Are you sure your choice wasn't between the two different lenses? 

Nice insight. Thanks.

[rick the click]

In my eyes, there's nothing like or better than film. But both of my recent returns to film (i.e., an M6 three years ago and an M7 a year ago) resulted in joy, some cool images, but then resale. Developing film at home with young kids around wasn't going to fly. There's not a nearby business that develops B&W, and while I did mail my film off for development and scanning to two different businesses, I never got comfortable with the need to post film in the mail. I just didn't like the vibe of it (I guess) and feared it would--at some point--get lost in the mail.

 

So--for the first time in 10 years, I'm without a "main" camera. I have been intrigued by the MM for years and actually purchased one once off eBay (one listed as "mint condition" that arrived with literal dents and scratches). eBay forcefully handled the return, and I'm thankful for that. 

 

Anyway, I'm back to pondering an MM. I love the rendering and find it to be the best B&W rendering this side of film. Prices have come down quite a bit since I last looked, as well, so we'll see ... By the way, in another thread, I read that Leica is now replacing faulty MM sensors with their newly developed sensor, so that's a plus, too.

thanks for your comments about your own experiences. I found the "spots" on my photos that were supposed to be the tell-tale signs of a faulty sensor but after I wet cleaned the sensor they disappeared. The store I purchased my MM1 new from said it was probably caused by lubrication in the new camera's internals that gradually wears away and causes some spots on the sensor especially when fairly new. I really don't know and I know there are others on this site that are experts on Leica gear which I certainly am not. For me, a good cleaning solved the problem.

 

The film images vs. the MM1 images are certainly different. Resolution is, of course, much better with the MM1, but I'm learning that the impact of a photo does not come from looking at a 100% blow up. Convenience and ease of use is of course better with MM1. It's the look of film that's making my decision difficult. I know it is my decision and I can't ask anyone else to make it for me. I just find it difficult to finally decide which I like better.

[rick the click]

film vs digital is a personal choice.  I had an MM and also shot film.  Then I concluded that I liked the look of film more and was frustrated to no end with the blown highlights of the MM and the sensitivity to rangefinder misalignments - and sensor spots.  So I sold my MM and now shoot only film.  It is more work but infinity more rewarding.  My personal choice was to focus solely on film and ignore the digital camera world.  I couldn't be happier and my photography couldn't be better.  Just me...

thanks for your response. I'm envious of how resolute you are in your decision.  Congratulations.

[becker]

At the end of the day You make the pic not the cam. But film is a highly developed tool and works very well. Sensor has hackles and has advantages, but if You pref. magic and quality in detail and overall, no question for me ;-)  

Edited February 11, 2016 by becker

[BerndReini]

 

 

 Lately, I often think I should sell it all but one camera.  What initially motivated my post was that I had just returned from a photo outing with both film and digital (for the past year I've left the digital at home mainly) and found the convenience of digital compelling.

I think it would be a good idea to sell everything except the MM. I think it would improve your photography. I have been taking photographs since the late 90s, but I became a photographer with the Leica M8. When that camera was released, I went out and took countless photographs. I started working with a mentor, who gave me feedback, and I started developing my voice as a photographer. I think you should commit to the camera and lens you are naturally drawn to and get rid of all the distractions. Go out and shoot that MM.

[patrick parker]

Any normal slow to normal speed 35mm B&W film will give you a bigger tonal range than any digital camera out there, given that the fiim is exposed and developed correctly. Especially in the thinner (light to highlight) range. You will also make much bigger prints. Anyone who uses tri-x will prefer an MM1 or MM2 only for the practicality of a digital camera. Higher IS0's is another story.

[EoinC]

I have a M246, and a M6 TTL (along with other non-Leica cameras). I like them both. For straight pleasure, I prefer film. For convenience, and for specific applications, I prefer digital. For the most part, pleasure trumps convenience. When I carry both cameras, it's generally the M6 that I'll reach for, unless the light is challenging the film that I've loaded.

 

In agreement with Adam, highlights are an issue for the M246 - Most of the time they aren't a show stopper, but their seems to be little tonality ramping at the top end, so I find myself underexposing to back away from this. Shadows do lift quite well, though.

[Guest]

I think the only way to resolve your dilemma is to decide whether your apparent preference for the look of your film photographs trumps the undoubted convenience (if you are not wedded to darkroom printing) of using the Monochrom. I know full well the attraction of the latter and used one almost exclusively for a couple of years. Initially I found the Monochrom, with it's incredible clean resolution, a revelation. I used to think it was a camera (especially combined with the post processing power of SilverEfex) that could almost be used in any light to produce good results but I've now come full circle. I still think it is a powerful tool and capable of incredible photographs but I now find it very dependent on the right kind of good light, far more so than film. In most cases, the tonality simply seems all wrong to me and no amount of post processing is going to fix that (if anything it just makes it worse). For me, film is far less convenient and, as I already have a Monochrom, using film is a significantly more expensive way of doing things. However, I much prefer the tonality obtained with a film neg (and no longer care much about the resolution of a photograph) so the decision of which to use has become a "no-brainer" (as they say nowadays). The Monochrom stays in the cupboard. 

 

 

film vs digital is a personal choice.  I had an MM and also shot film.  Then I concluded that I liked the look of film more and was frustrated to no end with the blown highlights of the MM and the sensitivity to rangefinder misalignments - and sensor spots.  So I sold my MM and now shoot only film.  It is more work but infinity more rewarding.  My personal choice was to focus solely on film and ignore the digital camera world.  I couldn't be happier and my photography couldn't be better.  Just me...

 

 

Thanks for these statements, as I seem to be going down this route now. I shoot with an M9-P and an MM I argue with myself that, for the dark, high-contrast look that I often like, the M-Monochrom is ideal — but then I see the luminosity of the highlights like in the shot below of the two young women in black and realize that the MM, no matter how carefully I post-process, produces something duller in the highlights. That makes me want to sell my M9-P and MM and limit myself to film, although it's much more work. The lower resolution, or acuity if you will, doesn't bother me. I'll agonize over this for few more weeks and then decide.

 

There are a lot of better examples of the highlight luminosity attainable with Tri-X, but this is what I happen to have right now. Taken with the M6 and Summilux-35 FLE with Tri-X @ISO 400 stand developed for 1 hour in Rodinal 1:100, gentle inversion after 30 minutes.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited March 11, 2016 by not_a_hero

[ldhrads]

Rick,

I too "returned" to photography several years ago.  I remember vividly when my daughter was born (22 years ago) realizing that all the gear that I had just couldn't capture with the speed I wanted the amazing energy of a newborn. I had been deep into it for a while with my own darkroom etc.  I sold all of my gear and got my first PhD camera. (push here dummy). And for many years that's what I used.  I "returned" to photography with an Olympus 4/3 system. I had always loved Oly's and was pleased with the ability to get into an SLR system that had quality optics that was not Nikanon.  Then the idea of RF photography and getting back to film bit.  I started out using my dad's Retina IIIc which I had learned on many years prior.  Then I bought an M6 thinking that Leica was where I wanted to be.  I had gotten to a point financially where I could afford that leap.  The M6 came with a 35 lux that in retrospect I did not appreciate fully, not really at all.  I found film to be limiting.  I had gotten used to some feedback that was immediate, not so much chimping the pics, but the histogram etc.  I also found that if I really wanted to use film again I would have to get a lot more labor intensive in the process and I just didn't have time for that.  I moved on to an M8.2 and have been with digital Leica's since.  Today I have an M9P and an MM1.  I'm not a CCD vs CMOS sensor fighter, I just don't feel like changing bodies again and I have a nice stable of really good lenses.  I did go back for a while and bought an M7 which I loved but again, the process was just to labor intensive for me.  I don't have the time today to work with film so I do the best that I can with digital and I am happy with the workflow and the outcomes.  I don't think for me that film would enhance my experience or output today.

 

I agree with you that ease of use makes digital photography much more accessible today.  I'm traveling next week and I am only taking one body/one lens.  I'm looking forward to the simplicity.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[EoinC]

News Flash! - M246 shoots M6 TTL!

a001 by Eoin Christie, on Flickr