Noob needs help - choosing film

[armanius]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you for the info on the light meter.

 

Just made a noob mistake today and hoping that someone can enlighten me. I finished my first roll of film today on the M6. I rewound the film but wasn't quite sure how to determine if I had completely rewound the film or not. So I didn't open the M6 right then. I got home, turned all the lights off, and just had my alarm clock on, which has red LED lights. I opened the M6, and lo and behold, I failed to completely rewind the film.

 

Can someone tell me if I exposed the film? Or is everything ok given that it was just red light? I never developed film before so I know jack squat about this situation.

 

Thanks!

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

Thanks the advice. Any recommendations on light meter?

 

This one is small and easy to use, from a well known brand...sekonic l308s You're more likely to use one if it's small enough to stick in a pocket, which this is.

 

Jeff

[Jeff S]

Can someone tell me if I exposed the film? Or is everything ok given that it was just red light? I never developed film before so I know jack squat about this situation.

 

Only way to know is to develop it. Having room lights off doesn't mean no light as in a well sealed darkroom (including doors). If you let your eyes adjust to the dark for 10 minutes, you'd be surprised how much light there may be to fog film. But, even if some light, part of the roll may still be ok, depending how much you left unwound.

 

In the future, you should be able to easily tell when tension lets up on rewound roll. Practice on a cheap roll first, and you'll get the hang quickly.

 

Jeff

[NZDavid]

When loading, make sure the film is engaged in the sprockets, close the back, then fire a few dummy shots until the counter shows the figure 1. To tell if the film is winding properly though the camera look at the rewind button as you wind the film on -- it should rotate.

 

When rewinding, there is a definite loss of tension once the film is rewound completely into the cassette.

 

I would try several films to give you a taste, including 100 ISO fine grain to get the best out of Leica lenses, and 400 ISO for low light (800 if you must). I would definitely try at least one roll of slide (transparency) film, such as Kodak Elite 100 or Fuji Provia 100S. Slides are magic -- you get glorious saturated colors. Also, they are the original film itself.

 

You can always get films scanned onto a CD or DVD.

[wstotler]

Two quick adds: 1. I've shot and really like Fuji 1600 speed color film. It's grainy, but very acceptable. Love the stuff with f/2. 2. Have a look at the Gossen DigiSix light meter. I use this habitually with my M6 and M8. Small, easy to use incident light meter that works great. I like the dial, which lets me quickly see aperture/speed pairings at a glance. Good luck! Cheers, Will

[armanius]

Thank you so much everyone! I started my second roll of film today. It's an Ilford XP2 this time. Still need to take the Porta VC400 to get developed. I hope I didn't mess it up too badly!

[Guest ccmsosse]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would definitely try at least one roll of slide (transparency) film, such as Kodak Elite 100 or Fuji Provia 100S. Slides are magic -- you get glorious saturated colors. Also, they are the original film itself.

 

You can always get films scanned onto a CD or DVD.

 

Hi

Allow me to ask you - do you still project slides or do you scan them onto disk?

Film I can get developed and printed, but slides?

I have recently added film back to my digital outfit but have not (yet) gone back to slides.

I have shot and scanned B+W and Color (ie Kodak Ektar etc) - do you recommend to try slide films and then scan them?

 

Cheers

[NZDavid]

Yes, I still project slides from time to time and it's great -- like stepping into the picture.

 

I then choose my favorites and have them scanned onto a CD (24MB JPEGs). Don't do it myself, no time, but as you have a scanner, no problem.

 

There are lots of places that process E6 (for slide film), either locally of via mail order.

 

Absolutely try slides, you'll be rapt!

[Guest ccmsosse]

Absolutely try slides, you'll be rapt!

 

Thanks for the reply - I will do so once I am again more comfortable with film.

Why do I even bother - hey I don't even know - It's just fun ...

 

Cheers

[madNbad]

As you become more comfortable with the mechanics of loading and exposing film, the fun will continue to increase. Next find a couple of filters like a yellow, orange and maybe a red for black & white and have some fun experimenting. Your M6 will meter properly with the filter in place so don't worry about exposure compensation. Have fun!

[armanius]

Hey guys and gals! Here's an update on my noob film usage ... and unfortunately, it's not good.

 

First roll of film - Kodak Portra VC400.

 

Had it developed by Walgreens (local pharmacy) and scanned into a CD. Photos looked undexposed, extremely soft, and out of focus. Re-scanned them myself in the Epson V500, and it improved dramatically as far as exposure is concerned. However, I'm still a little concerned about the softness and the number of out of focus shots that resulted. I'm not sure if the cause was: (1) user error via improper focus; (2) slow shutter speeds resulting in camera shake; (3) slow shutter speeds with moving subjects; (4) bad developing by Walgreens; and/or (5) something wrong with the rangefinder on my M6 (circa 1985 per the serial number).

 

I really don't think I messed up the focus. The shutter speeds were slow at times, maybe sometimes as low as 1/8 - 1/30. But on the M9, I didn't seem to have any problems keeping the shakes away, particularly at anything 1/15 and up. Most of my subjects were not moving or moving very minimally. Can developing of negatives affect softness/sharpness and/or making something out of focus?

 

So, I am left with the feeling that it might be something off in the rangefinder. At least that's how I felt after the first roll of film.

 

Second roll of film - Ilford XP2 400

 

Took it to a professional photo place this time. They developed the negatives, put them in nice sleeves, and I paid twice the amount I paid Walgreens. I scanned them myself in the Epson V500. Photos seemed to be more in focus, but still much softer than the photos from the M9. I still had some out of soft and/or focus shots but not as bad.

 

I guess my questions are:

 

(1) Can cheapo developing of even basic C41 film lead to softness?

 

(2) Are film photos (which have been scanned) generally softer than digital images (i.e. M6 v. M9)?

 

(3) Is it more difficult to hold the M6 steady than the M9? On the M6, it does seem like I have to press the shutter release much further down before the button is triggered. So I find myself anticipating and wondering when the shutter is actually going to get triggered ...

 

(4) Does the type of film that I use dictate how soft or sharp a photo is going to be? I suppose the grainer or higher ISO then softer the photo, right?

 

Ok, so I am shooting a roll of Portra VC160 over the next couple of days. Maybe the photos will look sharper. I hope. I hope that there's nothing wrong with the rangefinder because I really want to keep the camera.

 

Maybe my expectations about film are misplaced? Perhaps I should be embracing the quirkiness of film rather than expecting crisp images like the ones from the M9?

 

Thanks for the help. It's really appreciated.

 

-Armando

[Tim B]

Armando,

 

I use film and digital (M6, MP and M8). I think that if you are used to your M9 images popping on the computer screen with their incredible sharpness, your expectations may be somewhat out of line with film reality.

 

I can't really tell what you consider soft without seeing your actual results - can you post something so we can see?

 

It's the grain. Even on 100 ISO film that makes a scanned 35mm neg appear "soft" if viewed at 100% on screen compared to an M9 file. The real test is to print at say 5x7 or 10x8. Does the picture still look unsharp?

 

If you get sharp results on your M9 then it is unlikely that your taking technique is at fault. I think that it is also unlikely that your M6 is at fault, but it is easy to test. Use a low ISO film, use a tripod, use good light and carefully focus on a detailed scene, preferably without too wide a depth. Meter your exposure carefully. Take shots at different apertures. Try bracketing exposures. Use a pro lab for processing and get them to do some medium resolution scans to CD.

 

Check out the results and make adjustments in PS if necessary. Add a touch of sharpening, but be careful not to overdo it. Make sure that the visible grain is crisp across the image.

 

Then make some prints. When I used a wet darkroom I would rarely consider 35mm adequate for any print larger than 20x16 and 10x8 was the norm. The M9 makes much larger prints possible.

 

Keep at it and I'm sure it will happen for you. Film gets its character from what you might find to be its limitations, but that is what we like about it!

 

Show us some results for comment if you can.

 

Good luck,

 

Tim

[madNbad]

Armando,

Just a reminder, the M6 is not equipped with anti-vibration software. When using film, any hand held exposures at 1/30th or below will most likely show the effects of vibration. Mount the camera on a tripod and make a few test exposures at a sheet of newspaper. When the film is developed you should be able to read the print clearly. You have a very good scanner for converting the film to a digital image but continue to use a professional lab and not Walgreens. Check the meter in the M6 against the meter in the M9 or a hand held and see if the meter in the M6 is accurate. I hope the suggestions help and don't get too frustrated. Just remember, the M6 real is a full frame camera!

[pico]

Armando - just a couple tips. You do not really have to adjust the meter to a push or pull film speed, nor even move the camera from your eye when 'changing ISO'. Let's say you walk from a bright day to a dim interior. You have ISO 400 film in the camera. When inside, let the camera do a reading, then overridde it - close the f-stop one stop, or increase the shutter speed by one stop. That's the effect of metering at ISO 800. Two stops would be ISO 1600. When you walk outside again, let Auto do the work.

 

With more experience you might eventually find that you can guess (or know) the proper exposure without a meter, and even when to be smarter than the meter.

 

IMHO, shooting at less than 1/125th of a second with a normal lens will risk camera shake and soft outcomes. If you have a heart-beat, you will have camera movement at low speeds.

 

An outstanding book on the B&W negative is _Way Beyond Monochrome_ see: Way Beyond Monochrome is a book for advanced amateur and semiprofessional photographers ...

 

Finally, when scanning film, especially small format (35mm) it is easy to get some rather poor results by oversampling (specifying a higher resolution than the scanner actually produces). There are exceptions, depending upon the scanning software and scanner.

[armanius]

Thank you very much for all the help. I REALLY appreciate it.

 

I'm attaching a couple of the images that Walgreens scanned. I don't have the more recent versions that I scanned on the Epson V700. These Walgreen scanned photos are straight out of the CD. It looks like the Leica Forum automatically reduces the size of the photos.

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!

[tgray]

(1) Can cheapo developing of even basic C41 film lead to softness?

 

(2) Are film photos (which have been scanned) generally softer than digital images (i.e. M6 v. M9)?

 

(3) Is it more difficult to hold the M6 steady than the M9? On the M6, it does seem like I have to press the shutter release much further down before the button is triggered. So I find myself anticipating and wondering when the shutter is actually going to get triggered ...

 

(4) Does the type of film that I use dictate how soft or sharp a photo is going to be? I suppose the grainer or higher ISO then softer the photo, right?

 

1 - Theoretically, maybe, but practically, no. Unless the scanning was horrible, if you have soft shots, then it's you or the camera.

 

2 - Yes. Especially if the scanning is on a crummy scanner. Ignoring the scanner variable, which can almost never be ignored unless you're using a drum scanner, 35mm film is going to have a hard time competing with an 18mp digital camera in terms of resolution, especially comparing ISO 400 film with base ISO on the digital camera. I still love film though - just don't expect ISO 400 film to look like 18mp digital shots. Throw in the fact that sharpening is often done several times on digital cameras, and the results on film can look way softer. Learning to intelligently sharpen scans is a definite skill and something that should be looked into. Especially when scanning a consumer flatbed.

 

3 - I can't see why this would be true. If you're using shutter speeds of 1/8-1/15 of a second, don't expect super sharp shots. If you want to remove this variable, use a tripod for a test shot or even just set your camera on a table for a test photo.

 

4 - Yes, ISO does have an impact. Generally speaking, slower films are less grain, resolve more, but can appear less sharp. Resolution and sharpness are two different things - contrast comes to play as well. Grain can accent sharpness. Higher speed film is grainier, has less resolution, but can appear sharper. Moving between brands and types of films can throw off this general trend though. I wouldn't be surprised if T-Max 400 resolves more and is less grainy than some older style 100 speed films, like Plus-X, etc. But if staying in one family of film, like Portra, 160 will have less grain than 400.

 

If you want to see how Kodak ranks the Portra films, take a look at this page. Notice how the graininess is mostly a function of speed, but how sharpness is a function of speed (graininess) AND contrast.

[NZDavid]

I'm sorry your film results weren't all you expected. Digital isn't actually the quantum leap in quality you might expect. Convenient, cheaper, yes -- but not necessarily better. So keep at it!

 

Just a few points following on from previous posts:

 

* Don't change ISOs mid roll. Not worth it.

 

* When testing, try a consistent approach or there are too many variables.

 

* Use pro scans (for consistency).

 

* Try slide film (you are looking at the film itself, not a second generation print or scan). I know I mentioned this earlier.

 

* For a meter, I would recommend the Sekonic 308.

[Nikkor AIS]

 

 

 

Taken with 50 1.0 Noctilux and Voigtlander 28 1.9 ASAP and Leica M6/M7 on XP2/Ektar.

 

I would suggest checking your negatives. If there sharp than it's the lab scans if there not than look in the mirror:p.

 

Gregory

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Xmas]

Ignore Gregory, he can walk on water, and his pics are uniformly good, pretty depressing really.

 

Don't use slower than 1/125 unless you are braced against a pillar, or have elbows on a solid table, etc. With practice you should be able to get down to 1/8 but you need a pillar or lamp post, and four or five shots, - pick the one least blurred, 1/30 risks subject movement being apparent, even if the camera is rock solid.

 

The second release point of M6 or M7 needs practice, you need to know where it is exactly, it seems to be easier with M3, M2, & M4 etc. which don't enable meters.

 

Wait until the camera is empty, practice like you are aiming for Carnegie Hall...

 

Noel