Jump to content

Film M vs. M9


ChiILX1

Recommended Posts

Hi

 

ILFORD PHOTO - Processing a Black & White film

 

Has a brief on home processing.

 

An M2 and CV lens is quire cheap, a can of 5222 cine film, changing bag and dayligt loader, dozen IXMOO reduces film costs, to low, negativve files large element of cost...

 

Processing and filing the negatives is simple and easy, even oldsters can do it, or ankle biters.

 

If you are using mono film you have the option of wet printing with an enlarger. You would only scan for web publishing or comment. You could wet print color but more difficult... not sure about paper supply, I have not done this (color) for 30 years

 

Wet printing produces a print most people detect as different.

 

Digital is easy and immediate, film to wet printng is harder and slower but does not require a PC, photoshop and high prade printer, a medium quality enlarger is free, normally, i.e. council tip or good home...

 

Mono film is just nice.

 

If you wand to e-mail hot news pics then digital is better...

 

Noel

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, but, the Plustek and V700 are under five hundred bucks. The M9 is seven thousand (no lens).

 

The real question is: do you get images from your machinery that prints well and is suitable for art itself... and more importantly, that can be sold?

 

Yes.

 

So, that's kind of the end of the conversation.

 

I guess if you are just a casual photographer and really don't bother to think through the entire subject, it would end the conversation. But there is considerably more to it than you have accepted as the premise.

 

What is your time worth? How accurate do your results need to be? Do your clients require on-site or quick review of images? Do you need to transmit images quickly? Does it help in other ways to be able to review images immediately? E.g. for you to adjust and fine tune lighting, to get precisely the depth of field you want, to show the model in order to elicit different expressions or poses?

 

How much time do you have to spend inventorying your film, ordering film, picking it up, putting it in the fridge, packing it for the job, shooting Polaroids, over shooting for test and hold rolls - just in case, labeling exposed film for clip tests or push/pull processing, marking and holding some exposed film from each set-up in reserve in case the lab messes up, taking it to the lab, picking it up from the lab (or messenger costs) and then scanning it, labeling it, and filing it? When shooting film, it was common for me to use several cameras or different film backs on each setup as back-up in case there was something wrong with a camera or there was a hair caught in a film back. With digital, you can verify that you are happy with the images before moving on to the next set-up. And if the client is on-site, you can make sure he/she is pleased. With film, sometimes there is considerable anxiety while awaiting the results.

 

When I shot film I had to bring a lot of different emulsions in case I needed to shoot high speed, tungsten, etc. Some clients used to also require me to shoot with color neg or b/w too. And I wanted to test emulsions in advance and shoot entire jobs on one emulsion. I shot 35mm, 120 and 4x5 so this led to stocking a lot of film and considerable wastage of film that I ended up never using.

 

For me the efficiency of digital capture and the precision of shooting digitally (instant review - especially tethered) do not have an equivalent in the film + scanning workflow that I did for years. This adds up to huge savings for me in time and money and I feel that I produce a better product for my clients. A lot of other working photographers seem to have reached similar conclusions.

Edited by AlanG
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest MikeN
The real question is: do you get images from your machinery that prints well and is suitable for art itself... and more importantly, that can be sold?

The real artist will get it from whatever device :)

 

Not to be understood wrong: I love film and use it quite often. But the listed arguments by the thread starter sound a bit, let's say 10 years old (as someone mentioned before).

 

However, if you start using film you should stay with the analogue workflow. If you like to print film, use an enlarger. Such a cheap scanner? And a Leica? ...can't be serious.

 

So long...

Link to post
Share on other sites

@AlanG

 

I was very lucky. The lease upon my art gallery ran out just as the recession hit. I didn't re sign. I got out, 4 thousand in the hole. Peanuts, by any standard.

 

All I care about is continuing to add to my portfolio until I "do" decide to sign another lease (for tens of thousands of dollars).

 

So, no... I'm not exactly "cavalier" about my work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@AlanG

 

I was very lucky. The lease upon my art gallery ran out just as the recession hit. I didn't re sign. I got out, 4 thousand in the hole. Peanuts, by any standard.

 

All I care about is continuing to add to my portfolio until I "do" decide to sign another lease (for tens of thousands of dollars).

 

So, no... I'm not exactly "cavalier" about my work.

 

I didn't say or mean to imply that you or anyone is "cavalier" about their work. But I am saying that your perspective cannot be projected onto the needs of others. And you did not seem to consider those needs in your post. I think that only a casual photographer would be unaware of those needs in others so maybe you are aware of those needs then.

 

I don't know if you ever shoot commissioned assignments for others or work at a high volume or ever need a fast turn around. But many do.

 

I'm assuming that those using film and scanning are satisfied with their results. I was when I did it. There just are a variety of reasons why people choose to shoot digitally and many of these may not matter to you and be a factor in your choice. But just because you get what you need from film and your scanner, it does not end the conversation or become immaterial for anyone but you.

Edited by AlanG
Link to post
Share on other sites

My take - most people that prefer film can't be bothered to do decent postprocessing on digital files. And why should they? it is not their preferred medium after all. It is quite possible to get very good results in digital photography, but it is easier to get them on film. It took me ten years of hard work to learn enough about postprocessing to be able to say: in my hands the M9 produces better results than film - for me. Other photographers - other opinions - and more power to them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a Leica film camera -- most all Leica cameras going back to 1969 -- until I sold my MP and bought an M9 a year ago. I was a scanner, too, with a Nikon. It was a pain in the butt. I could not be happier with my M9. And the more I learn in CS5, that helps, too. I would not touch film again. It's just too much trouble, for me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought a nikon scanner 9000 about two years ago and haven't used it for lack of time. I've planned on comparing some shots from an M9 I had and sold, and provia 135 and 6x7 from a mamiya 7. In the meantime, I've shot and printed thousands with my d700 and M8 and hundreds of C41 with my film cameras-- but for those, I get an index print and have the lab enlarge the ones I like.

I've got about 40 rolls of tmax 400 to develop.

For me, in practical terms, a pure digital workflow is the way to go.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, my color work in prints is slightly better to my eye on the M9 than with my M7 or M3. And I find B&W (Tri X) substantially better from the film cameras, unless I do a lot of post processing.

 

Film I have processed and scanned at a pro lab (BWC in Dallas), then I work over in Aperture (as I do the M9 images) and print.

 

And when traveling, I'm never without the M7 body since I believe it has an edge in reliability and works with batteries that can be easily kept in a pocket. And no charger, cards etc.

 

Frank

Link to post
Share on other sites

The M9 records more information than any 135 format film (by a *large* margin). I used my M9 and M6 side by side before selling the M6. I have no idea where the comparison shots are sorry. I scanned on a Minolta dimage elite 5400 (one of the best 35mm scanners with a true 5400dpi resolution).

Film has a distinctive look which is very hard to emulate in digital.

If you shoot a lot and don't dev yourself, the cost equalises over 2-3 years. Then you have the advantage of instant feedback - which, depending on your work, can be invaluable.

 

Ken Rockwell writes a lot of his articles to incite controversy. His testing methodology is highly emotional and he very rarely shows evidence of his findings or skews them by handicapping one party. Don't take his word as sage advice.

Edited by thrice
Link to post
Share on other sites

All these comparisons are, of course, digital: scanned film versus M9 files.

 

I love film but it is indeed becoming very expensive, hence I am veering towards the M9. I can still use those wonderful lenses! In fact, I believe a lot of the final image quality is down to the lenses (oh, and maybe a little to the photog, too). ;)

 

Much depends on your final use. Publishers want digital files, large and grain free. For prints, I can get very pleasing results up to a large size from both film and digital. For viewing onscreen or email, either is fine. You can view on a large display or TV screen, but projected slides are always excellent.

 

Build quality and reliability: never a problem with the M6!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello ChilLX1,

 

This is an interesting time in the development of photography. If we had had this discussion 10 years ago people would have said digital had a future but film was better except for things like the S1 which had then already been around for a while. If we have this same discussion 10 years from now most likely the situation will be the reverse w/ digital, or whatever replaces digital clearly outperforming & replacing film.

 

Today is different. It is a time when the finished image quality of hi-end digital & hi-end film are ballpark + or - the same in their ability to provide a desired image for all intents & purposes. Costs & mastering of differing technologies to the side.

 

There is a myth that technological progress is driven by consumer demand. Historically that is often not the case. In the instance of photography 2 of the things driving change are:

 

Camera, lens & sensor capturing, processing & interface costs will most likely be significantly reduced by developments within digital. Digital has the potential in the not too distant future of producing better quality images of higher ISO's on smaller surfaces which can more easily interface w/ the rest of the computerized World which is to come & do it more cheaply. This will most likely lead to smaller cameras & lenses w/ smaller F stops & shorter focal lengths. A penny saved.

 

Ecologically over half of all of the trash thrown away by people throughout their history Worldwide has been thrown away by the Industrialized World since the middle of the 20th Century.

 

This rubble, much of which is toxic & life threataning, is @ the point where people no longer have the luxury of simply leaving it for their grandchildren. It is beginning to effect the World as a whole. Photographic examples being Cibachrome & Kodachrome. In both instances the cost of proper disposal of what is left after processing has become uneconomic.

 

Right now its pretty much your choice based on the parameters you consider important. But it probably won't be that way for that much longer.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow!

 

My M8 (no M9) produces stunning images.

 

However, it is surpassed by a little panasonic digital (close ups and good enough for web work) and by my non-Leica film cameras. (I'm no longer a "professional", although am still registered with a stock agency)

 

For me, film is fun. A pain in the butt at times, but, fun.

 

(reason: too much computer time; photography is just a hobby, and for me, I like the fact that it is not tied to a computer, other than reading this board!) ;-)

 

What is better? both.

 

 

JohnS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Digital images from anM9 are certainly different from film.

 

Having been an M user for over forty years, and having an M9 for a few months, here are my impressions. Film has characteristic grain that I appreciate, and to contrast that, the M9 produces a much more clear image without grain (unless pushed to amplify ISO and then it is not grain bit noise - gain is black, noise is white).

 

So under ordinary, everyday situations the M9 produces remarkable results for prints up to 8x10" and a bit larger. Film enlargers degrade resolution but still resolves grain In a proper condenser enlarger. . Grain is my friend in many cases because 35mm film produces acutance ith grain that digital does not. (So does larger format film). i can demonstrates that if you like.

 

There be differences. Grain and acutance is one. One likes it or does not. Digital cannot (or has not yet) properly simulated grain.

 

If you shoot film, and then scan t to make prints then you have broken the film chain. You have introduced digital into the process.

Do not even consider a conversation to compare them. Film looses fidelity during the enlarging process (with a condenser enlarger)

that enhances the look. Digital does, too, but it's different as noted above. It is never the same.

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

Having been a M user for more than forty years I still like to use my M6. I like developing films and I am happy in my darkroom. And using Tri-X and Agfapan 100 I get enjoyable results, by enlarging or scanning either.

 

But: The use of M9 is easier, is faster, and the (my) printed results are better. I bear the grain of Tri-X, but I prefer pictures without grain. When you are getting older, time becomes more valuable. Regarding this the M9 will be partner for my shortened future.

 

Klaush

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my take on the film vs digital debate.

 

If you are an amateur then film makes a lot of sense. There is no time pressure and if you have the space then get a darkroom. Personally I have been hanging onto my 4x5 because I plan to set up a little film only developing area one day, again, and then scan the negs on my adequate for medium format and 4x5 epson 4990 scanner. But once you look at any neg at 100% you realize you are going to spend some time cleaning up all the dust and scratches. On a good day I would maybe use 10 darkslides, two sheets per image. At the end of the day I have only 20 sheets to process and maybe 10 to scan. Thats manageable... Same with medium format, maybe two rolls on a good day. The minute you have to put a camera on a tripod its amazing how much less exposures one makes! If you use the zone system then you can also process and expose each sheet for the best neg -to scan- on limited density range scanners.

 

You are also comparing a film leica to a m9 (one of the most expensive camera one can buy). There are many much cheaper cameras with the same quality, at least up to A3+. And if you want to do the 'leica' thing then buy a used R lens and put it on any digital camera.... because its about the quality and special rendering of the Leica lenses, you know..... It will also give you the manual focus experience ala 'M' cameras...

 

I have also looked at a lot of film images on this forum, and taking into account the jpeg conversion etc etc most of the images just plain look 'bad' from a technical point of view, imo, too grainy too contrasty & incorrectly exposed and processed etc etc. Developing film is an exact craft. There are many many variables, and unless one does it often I don't know if an occasional user could master it.

 

Personally I used the xp1 films because I found the latitude to be excellent, one can process it at a good lab and then scan at home. That will eliminate all the variables and exposure errors to some extend. But do the math, how many rolls are you going to shoot per day plus processing and cost of scanner, say over a year or two, and then compare against the cost of a digital camera... And then there is the smell, dermatitus on the fingers if you are unlucky, chemicals down the drain and liters of water to wash the negs with...!

 

Regarding 35mm, I just don't know if affordable scanners are good enough. One just cant capture all the detail in the highlights and shadows, and a drum scanner probably is the way to go...but then one might as well go high end digital.

 

My X1 gives superb quality, much better than I ever got out of 35mm film, is cleaner and although the resolution might not be 'quite' there the whole process is faster and easier and on A3+ looks very very good!

 

For professionals its a no brainer, just the time savings alone makes the whole film vs digital debate quite meaningless ....

 

Now if I can just get a box of 4x5 film somewhere.....

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...