Film M vs. M9

[tomasis7]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

well said!

[tomasis7]

What would be my point of me trying to prove to the world that the things you find important enough to start threads on are completely pointless- besides my own pretentious arrogance?

 

If you avoid using links to Rockwell site, I might take your posts more seriously :D

 

To add one thing, MONO films are UNIQUE. there is no word "better"

[Advertisement]

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

[adan]

Actually, I don't buy the idea that it is "easier" to get very good results from film as opposed to digital.

 

It took hard work and several years practice to learn how to be a good wetroom photographer - and it took hard work and several years practice to learn how to be a good digital photographer.

 

I'd say learning digital was actually easier - but that was because I already knew a lot of the principles that overlapped with my film experience.

 

It hasn't been faster - but that is because the goal posts are still moving in digital, while wet-film photography today or in 1974 when I was learning it is/was not that much different than in 1954 or 1940.

[Xmas]

Actually, I don't buy the idea that it is "easier" to get very good results from film as opposed to digital.

 

It took hard work and several years practice to learn how to be a good wetroom photographer - and it took hard work and several years practice to learn how to be a good digital photographer.

 

I'd say learning digital was actually easier - but that was because I already knew a lot of the principles that overlapped with my film experience.

 

It hasn't been faster - but that is because the goal posts are still moving in digital, while wet-film photography today or in 1974 when I was learning it is/was not that much different than in 1954 or 1940.

Hi Andy

 

But some people push the button and dispatch the film or send the email of the files to the home office, they are nor as 'rounded' as you are. Some editors may not want a processed file just in case a 'ball has been moved'.

 

3G cam phones are used for hot news here, cause the phone owner was in the right place.

 

Noel

[NZDavid]

Unfortunately editors don't accept film very much at all now. I used film for my book on houses a few years ago, and was very pleased with the results, but things are changing. Some editors now are young bods who have absolutely no experience with film. Just about everything is emailed and then viewed initially using Irfanview or some such program which makes the image look lousy. It won't print like that but they don't realize that. Some them will say, it's not very sharp, when what they really mean is they think it's grainy. And it isn't actually very grainy at all-- it's just the software. Stealth's scanned pics above actually look very good viewed on this display, but there are so many variable factors, most important of which is the quality of the scan. My feeling now is that film, especially slide film, looks its best when viewed onscreen with a projector.

[biglouis]

I'm late to this thread and probably not going to add much but here is my two cents.

 

There is obviously a role for either digital or film. Personally, if I was going back to 35mm film (again) I would choose a M7 - the AE mode is marvellous and to my mind it is the zenith of Leica metering cameras. I owned both a MP and M7 and I was not upset to sell the MP but I did mist up on selling the M7 (well, that is a bit of an exaggeration but you get the point).

 

You cannot compare the two mediums. If you can afford it, I would shoot both (and indeed since acquiring a MF film camera recently I have done so).

 

Comparing the results in a purely scientific way it is hard to achieve the same sharpness with film unless you have a really good scanner, in the £000's range, which somewhat diminishes the financial benefit of a film M versus a M9.

 

If however you like your pictures on the more creative side (and don't spend your time pixel peeping) then <sigh> film emulsion is just wonderful compared to digital.

 

I shoot a lot of the same subjects again and again and again. I've shot them with my M6, M7, M8, DLUX2, LX3, GF-1 and GH-2.

 

My M8 and GH-2 in particular can capture the most fantastic detail which is maintained sometimes even if I crop 100%

 

On the other hand I have never been able to capture the subtle colouration of brass, brick, stone or enamel the way I have with film. Or the subtle gradation in colours of brass, brick, stone, enamel etc. Or the lovely grainy feel of an early winter morning as the sun weakly pokes through the overcast...

 

But bottom line, when making a case for either a film M+scanner or an M9, it is very much horses for courses if you take one teeny-weeny factor out of the equation: price.

 

Is the M9 at nigh on five grand worth it compared to a M6 and Plustek scanner at (say) a quarter of the price.

 

My opinion?

 

No.

 

LouisB

[NZDavid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Cost of film is huge. Not only scanning but purchase price of film and processing. For me that's about $50 now per roll of slide film. Scanning on top of that. It certainly adds up very fast.

[wattsy]

purchase price of film and processing. For me that's about $50 now per roll of slide film. Scanning on top of that.

 

Yes, that is expensive (either US or NZ dollars). Even paying top dollar here - say buying a roll of Provia from and have it processed at Metro - will be significantly cheaper than the prices you are paying. Buying and processing via mail order can reduce the cost to almost a third of what you are having to pay.

Edited May 15, 2011 by wattsy

[SteveYork]

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.

 

Most would claim the opposite.

[SteveYork]

Cost of film is huge. Not only scanning but purchase price of film and processing. For me that's about $50 now per roll of slide film. Scanning on top of that. It certainly adds up very fast.

 

So true. Film is fun, but it you're shooting a lot of it, it's a heavy investment of time and money.

[SteveYork]

Actually, I don't buy the idea that it is "easier" to get very good results from film as opposed to digital.

 

It took hard work and several years practice to learn how to be a good wetroom photographer - and it took hard work and several years practice to learn how to be a good digital photographer.

 

I'd say learning digital was actually easier - but that was because I already knew a lot of the principles that overlapped with my film experience.

 

It hasn't been faster - but that is because the goal posts are still moving in digital, while wet-film photography today or in 1974 when I was learning it is/was not that much different than in 1954 or 1940.

 

Most would agree.

[Termik]

The reason I have converted from digital to film is that I like the process..

I like to think long and hard before taking a picture, not just spraying away because

it is digital and cost nothing per picture. My keeper rate has soared since I started

to use film. Also, carrying my black MP with a 35mm lens, loaded with b/w

film, moving around in the city, stealthy taking thoughtful pictures....well it gives

me a joy of taking pictures I do not get photographing with digital equipment..

 

A tactile feeling, if you will..

 

I agree that digital pictures have better quality, but I find my film pictures having

an absolutely OK quality, and sometimes more so.. a very special feeling to them..

 

To summarize, using film for me, is more of liking the tactile thoughtful process.

Not so much comparing the result to the best digital. Film gives me a very

acceptable result.

[colin_d]

Cost of film is huge. Not only scanning but purchase price of film and processing. For me that's about $50 now per roll of slide film. Scanning on top of that. It certainly adds up very fast.

 

Wow, $50 a roll is outrageous. Do you buy film off the net, it is much cheaper, $6 for 36 exposure posted. It costs about $5 for negs and $10 for slides processing. That's in Melbourne Australia.

[NZDavid]

Wow, $50 a roll is outrageous. Do you buy film off the net, it is much cheaper, $6 for 36 exposure posted. It costs about $5 for negs and $10 for slides processing. That's in Melbourne Australia.

 

That's NZD 50 = USD 39 = AUD 37 = GBP 24 = EUR 28. And it's conservative: approx. NZD 20-25 per roll of slide film plus NZD 30 for processing. Yes, bulk buying from B&H in NYC was a cost saver, even factoring in shipping. Works out at about NZD 15 per roll. AUD 10 for processing in Melbourne is a lot cheaper, more like to used to be here.

 

Our cost of living keeps going up and up; sadly, salaries and wages don't!

[sblitz]

well david it seems to me you are down to three choices -- get fabulously wealthy, stay in nz and switch to digital m9, or move ... seriously though, the prices you are paying for slide film is outrageous, can't you order from b and h in nyc and dramatically lower the cost?

 

steve

[NZDavid]

I fear so! The M9 is tempting if I can be convinced by the reliability survey. I still like film, it has a unique look. B&H is a good option for buying film; processing and scanning are the tough part.

[robert blu]

Interesting to compare the costs. In my country (Italy) as example Provia 100 cost between 8.00 and 10.00 EUR (11,50-14,25 US$), depending if you buy at least 10 in the net or only one/two in a shop. Development cost about 4,5/8.00 EUR (6,40- 11,40 US$ and is no more made locally but in a lab in central italy (which means it takes a week before seeing the results) .

The m9 is tempting if you trust the digital process (what I'm personally trying to understand with my x1, actually on the learning curve).

For B&W the only difficulty is to find the chemicals. The choice is always less and less and if you look for any specific developer you need to be patient, maybe shops are out of stock.

As for the original question (M film/ m9) I reported my experience (m7-x1) here.

robert

Edited May 21, 2011 by robert blu

[colin_d]

If you avoid using links to Rockwell site, I might take your posts more seriously

 

I have some time for KRockwell, most here seem to dismiss him. Probably people dismiss him because he seems brash, cashed up, takes great shots, is successful, tells it as it is and is politically incorrect. I say good on him, I wish I could be in that position too. Most of all I like the fact he proves that film rocks and can back it up.

[Archiver]

Wow, $50 a roll is outrageous. Do you buy film off the net, it is much cheaper, $6 for 36 exposure posted. It costs about $5 for negs and $10 for slides processing. That's in Melbourne Australia.

 

Where on earth do you get slide film processed for $10? I'm in Melbourne, and any slide film I get processed is sent off to Vanbar. Total cost for a roll of slide film to buy, dev, scan and print is about $50-60. Or about $5 for a roll of XTRA 400, then another $20 to for dev/scan/print.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[colin_d]

Where on earth do you get slide film processed for $10? I'm in Melbourne, and any slide film I get processed is sent off to Vanbar. Total cost for a roll of slide film to buy, dev, scan and print is about $50-60. Or about $5 for a roll of XTRA 400, then another $20 to for dev/scan/print.

 

Fortunately for me I work near their outlet. I take the film directly to them, processing, no mounting, costs $10 for 36 transparencies with one day turn around. I buy my film on e-bay for about $7. Scanning and printing is where the additional cost happens. I scan my own and if need be print later.

Edited May 22, 2011 by colin_d